- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

suppressing duplicates based on MD5 of body
by Alan Barrett 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It's been more than 30 hours since I sent the first copy of this message to cypherpunks(a)toad.com, and I still haven't seen it on either the moderated or the flames lists @toad.com. Suspecting that a particular naughty word was to blame, I inserted some hyphens and resent the message several hours later. That too has failed to reach me on either the moderated to the flames lists @toad.com. I am now kmtkujatwv to several other flavours of the list, and will be interested to see which (if any) get *this* message, in which the naughty word is encrypted using the well-known ROT-n algorithm, with a key that I will keep secret. Heres's a procmail recipe for suppressing duplicate messages based on the MD5 of a "normalised" version of the body of the messages. Folk who celcmbslo to more than one of the cypherpunks lists may find it useful. :0 * (Sender: |Return-Path: |Received:.*for.*)(owner-)?cypherpunks { # Detect duplicate messages based on MD5 of normalised body :0:.md5.lock * B ?? ? (m=`$HOME/bin/normalise-body | md5`; \ echo "Message-ID: <$m@MD5>" \ | formail -D 8192 .body-md5.cypherpunks.cache ) cypherpunks-duplicates :0: cypherpunks } The "* B ?? ?" means "send the body of the message as input to the following command, and test the command's exit status". $HOME/bin/normalise-body is a simple perl script (appended) that deletes trailing blanks on all lines and then deletes leading and trailing blank lines. --apb (Alan Barrett) # This is a shell archive. Save it in a file, remove anything before # this line, and then unpack it by entering "sh file". Note, it may # create directories; files and directories will be owned by you and # have default permissions. # # This archive contains: # # normalise-body # echo x - normalise-body sed 's/^X//' >normalise-body << 'END-of-normalise-body' X#!/usr/bin/perl X X# A very weak attempt at normalising the body of a mail message. X# Removes trailing white space on all lines, and removes leading X# and trailing blank lines. X# Does not attempt to normalise any MIME content-transfer-encoding. X X$total_nonblank_lines = 0; X$consecutive_blank_lines = 0; Xwhile (<>) { X s/\s+$//; X if (/^$/) { X $consecutive_blank_lines++; X } else { X print "\n" x $consecutive_blank_lines if $total_nonblank_lines; X print $_; X $consecutive_blank_lines = 0; X $total_nonblank_lines++; X } X} END-of-normalise-body exit

1 0

WTO_tap
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Three newspapers have pieces today on the new WTO telecom agreement. A Page 1 NYP report examines the administration's favoring of the once-moribund WTO over the UN as a principal means for "exporting US free-market values through global commercial agreements." The telecom agreement, for the first time, allows the WTO to go inside the signatory countries and check compliance, and if warranted, impose sanctions, a role once reserved to the UN. While encryption is not mentioned, it's worth watching the WTO globally unite its privacy-invasive predecessors: the national tele-tappers. The spin is that now all governments can have access to the global (wiretap) network under guise of enhanced commercial competition. (And that's why Commerce was given EI for CCL.) ----- WTO_tap ---------- For related background, there's informative discussion on the encryption switchover from State to Commerce in the Defense Trade News, archived at the Dept of State Web site. We've put the five issues in which the shift of encryption items from the USML to the CCL is formulated by the Technical Working Group at: January/April 1993: http://jya.com/dtn0193.htm (76K) January 1994: http://jya.com/dtn0194.htm (99K) April 1994: http://jya.com/dtn0494.htm (66K) July/October, 1994: http://jya.com/dtn0794.htm (67K) October 1995: http://jya.com/dtn1095.htm (35K)

1 0

Re: Moderation experiment and moderator liability
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> writes: > Adam Back wrote: > > [summary of events] > > I believe your summary is very accurate except: > > I would add after the paragraph about Dimitri posting the warning > about C2, that C2's lawyers sent an immediate threatening letter > to Dimitri. Agree, that should be added: 15a. Dimitri received a legal notice from C2Net's lawyers about Dimitri's allegations > I would change the paragraph about Tim May receiving a warning from > C2's lawyers to say that Tim May received a warning second-hand that > anything Tim would say to support or reiterate Dimitri's claims > would be actionable by C2 as well. Let's see I wrote: > 21. Tim received a warning from C2Net's lawyers that if he did not > desist from mentioning that Dimitri had posted an article criticising > a C2Net product that he would be sued! Tim explained the situation in fair detail in his recent post, explaining, after Sandy's "Absolutely false." retort to my above claim. Perhaps my wording could be more accurately changed in the light of the further explanation from Tim to: 21. Tim was told by a C2Net employee that if he did not desist from discussing Dimitri's claims about C2Net's StrongHold product, C2Net would take legal action against him! Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

1 0

WTO_tap
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Three newspapers have pieces today on the new WTO telecom agreement. A Page 1 NYP report examines the administration's favoring of the once-moribund WTO over the UN as a principal means for "exporting US free-market values through global commercial agreements." The telecom agreement, for the first time, allows the WTO to go inside the signatory countries and check compliance, and if warranted, impose sanctions, a role once reserved to the UN. While encryption is not mentioned, it's worth watching the WTO globally unite its privacy-invasive predecessors: the national tele-tappers. The spin is that now all governments can have access to the global (wiretap) network under guise of enhanced commercial competition. (And that's why Commerce was given EI for CCL.) ----- WTO_tap ---------- For related background, there's informative discussion on the encryption switchover from State to Commerce in the Defense Trade News, archived at the Dept of State Web site. We've put the five issues in which the shift of encryption items from the USML to the CCL is formulated by the Technical Working Group at: January/April 1993: http://jya.com/dtn0193.htm (76K) January 1994: http://jya.com/dtn0194.htm (99K) April 1994: http://jya.com/dtn0494.htm (66K) July/October, 1994: http://jya.com/dtn0794.htm (67K) October 1995: http://jya.com/dtn1095.htm (35K)

1 0

Re: (fwd) DES challenge organisation
by Tim Newsome 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sat, 15 Feb 1997, Adam Back wrote: > > 5. The prize money will be split equally between Gutenberg and EFF. > > There is a possibility of using part of it for stickers or > > something similar, but don't count on it. > Not a good idea. > How can this be enforced? The RSADSI DES challenge is open to all Unless people modify the client, we will know about it before they do. Yes, people might cheat. Main point is we don't want to turn this into a race for money. (Also, that way we can't use university machines etc.) This topic has been discussed too often also. Read the archives for more debate. Tim Tim Newsome. Programmer for Megasoft. Student at CMU. Cynic in life. Intel sucks. Motorola forever! If it's not PGP signed, it didn't come from me. Always look on the bright side of life. I think I think therefore I think I am. drz(a)froody.bloke.com http://www.local.com/~tnewsom/ PGP key: 2048/C32F01A5 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv Comment: In God we trust. Everybody else we verify using PGP! iQEVAwUBMwh34PKkXTDDLwGlAQE/KggAmWk9rL86fknnXWy9ASPWQokH6J0vEzW+ qhrBklXwv0Lz5HGNV92OM0qh9KI+bqFct9aNY0B15g6APspSUNYr7RaXI2/LaSYb 0gG7YpPe2kHFdSWsodhYyu7DTzYvdDI1AJOmEnSUKHQPKiLwU/RgVZiLEttuvIcS GCjDEGEW7C0YIrQKTkLoYKkSHz6HHXQ+/hr66yCBMD7AIS1C/p9yN2ticmQ3hLnd DYSpVQb9NudLcU0bGZC1U31o70hSVmyETTt9VcuJCOXseiggWTZsZuNK/D+f5TfA WBEcIAWToBHfrWSokuF9nunAarmcddQyPu/93hzRkgODVTWgmnpOGA== =IuAs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives?
by Mark M. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Bill Campbell wrote: > However, I'm very confused on just what to do at this > point, my news server doesn't see alt.cypherpunks > yet and if it did would probably lose about 75% of > the posts if past performance is to be any indicator. > (Or more accurately, would never get them, we seem > to be a bottom feeder here in South Florida as far > as the newsgroups go.) > > Has anyone composed a concise summary of just > what the options are? Time is running out, I guess. Here's my understanding of the situation: - Newsgroups alt.cypherpunks, alt.cypherpunks.announce, alt.cypherpunks.social, alt.cypherpunks.technical have been created. - The distributed list is still forming and so far consists of cypherpunks(a)algebra.com, cypherpunks(a)ssz.com, and others of which I do not know the location. A mail<->news gateway is planned, but not yet in place, between the distributed list and the newsgroup(s). cypherpunks(a)algebra.com is receiving messages from cypherpunks-unedited. I assume this means that the other hosts part of the distributed list are also receiving cypherpunks-unedited messages. - Lance Cottrell is running another list (cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net) that is not yet part of the distributed list. It is also receiving feed from toad.com. If you don't want to miss any messages, then you should subscribe to both cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net and one of the distributed list nodes. Since both are receiving cypherpunks-unedited, you can safely unsubscribe from cypherpunks-unedited, -flames, or the "main" list. Since these lists have overlapping content, you should delete duplicates. Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMwif+CzIPc7jvyFpAQEBJwf/T3y22R0W30Sp26Ub4ntH3miJRUBlv9nO GLZqRzT5JI4Ux9Ml6by0aAKxKiOH/mTGuu5ELogsC6hv50F/GKtmQv9kdqTukoJq 19j7WuGCDflve2IPWo9/vSvcJpLBAcGwBnVIOiS8wBR9tz42GxpM/y+/eZgYfYWS OnQHqOA+fDWrKmdNj+3EHuMWXHLoGTILVpX2UGBpFDGZEgoZNM56Oj9CWU5NU3cn 4De/fS5M5L3AO/SGRNQ6CSTqYsixdniapamBdHWeURasvy2iD7Xyxq7li4DzL1VE LB+1qo6AHrmRlS3+4cv3xA+9hsNpFoW0FsicN8sVUP0pGl0ADEVXKA== =HKTe -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Bad Headers Added to John Young postings via owner-cypherpunks@sirius.infonex.com
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970216:1241 Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> said: +Hi! The following headers are from a posting by John Young that looks +like it was sent to cypherpunks(a)toad.com, +forwarded to cypherpunks(a)sirius.infonex.com and/or +cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net, and has the Reply-To: header +set to reply to cypherpunks(a)toad.com instead of to John Young.... It +looks like the obvious implementation of cypherpunks-style mail header +patching, but isn't quite right..... Leads to people sending their +John Young mailbot requests to cypherpunks(a)toad.com instead, as some +well-known cypherpunks have mistakenly done recently :-) this is what Lance said he would do... until toad.com shuts down, you address all messages to cypherpunks(a)toad.com to avoid overlap. toad.com was never set up to show cypherpunks(a)road.com in the "Reply-To: " field, but it should have been. mailing lists then have the "From: " field from the original sender, and the "Reply-To: " to the list. Now, there are reasons some list operators do not change the reply field --usually in the hope any responders will not notice the list is not being copied....in just turns into private mail. for the almost 20 years I been playing with mail lists of various sorts starting with simple inbound scoop and explode to list, Lance's convention has been the norm. attila gone... ___________________________________________________________attila_____ "A man owns an ass; he can vote. The ass dies; he cannot vote. Who owns the vote?" --Benjamin Franklin _______________________________________________________________________ "attila" 1024/C20B6905/23 D0 FA 7F 6A 8F 60 66 BC AF AE 56 98 C0 D7 B0 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMwgLQb04kQrCC2kFAQGUuwP9HGqFFjxWRkTnkN9+Y2AnCErsRtTwYJpL RpKfsz3fJ89xr5qt18EXqt768ZvFclw2ipsdy50FIUSmHqPx+SkZykcTqn/yspX1 B9+HdKE3fYhZNPqwVftX+AEX6ZLYJNlZ1rfak1qaL1ROw164JZR86J4Ik7TiUJZV FBWxiJ85b6A= =gBiw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Constitution and a Right to Privacy
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:22 PM -0600 2/17/97, snow wrote: >Mr. May wrote: >> Some legal scholars are claiming that there is no provision in the >> Constitution guaranteeing anonymity of purchases, and, indeed, a growing >> number of purchases can no longer be anonymous--guns, explosives, chemicals >> of various sorts, etc. How long before _all_ transactions must be recorded, >> True Names revealed, etc.? > > This is where I often get a little confused. > > Correct me if I am wrong, but it was my understanding that the >constitutuion was _not_ a document that explicitly spelled out what writes >_I_ had, but rather spelled out fairly precisely what the _government_ was >allowed to do. > > In otherwords, the Constitution does not restrict _me_ rather it >restricts the _feds_ (and the Feds alone). > > My rights are WHATEVER ISN'T IN THE CONSTITUTION, and the government >can only, ONLY do what the constitution says it can. > > ??? But why do you not object that the "right to free speech," "the right to keep and bear arms," and so on, are specifically enumeratedin the Bill of Rights? The privacy issue is that there is no such enumeration of a right to privacy in the Bill of Rights, though many think it to be implicit in some of the other enumerated rights, e.g,, the Fourth, and even in the First. Constitutional issues are not easily discussed in short messages like this. Suffice it to say the issue of whether a "right to privacy" exists has been long discussed, most recently by Bork, Posner, and others (I skimmed the latest Posner book a while back, and liked his style). The issue hit when abortion advocates argued that a "woman's right to privacy" allowed abortions. However, none of the enumerated rights made this obvious. Bork has opined that no right to privacy can be inferred from the Constitution. (And I always thought the "woman's right to privacy" argument for abortion was flaky. Accepting such an argument, wouldn't infanticide be equally protected by a woman's right to privacy?) --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Re: The Science Generations, II
by snow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mr. May wrote: > Some legal scholars are claiming that there is no provision in the > Constitution guaranteeing anonymity of purchases, and, indeed, a growing > number of purchases can no longer be anonymous--guns, explosives, chemicals > of various sorts, etc. How long before _all_ transactions must be recorded, > True Names revealed, etc.? This is where I often get a little confused. Correct me if I am wrong, but it was my understanding that the constitutuion was _not_ a document that explicitly spelled out what writes _I_ had, but rather spelled out fairly precisely what the _government_ was allowed to do. In otherwords, the Constitution does not restrict _me_ rather it restricts the _feds_ (and the Feds alone). My rights are WHATEVER ISN'T IN THE CONSTITUTION, and the government can only, ONLY do what the constitution says it can. ???

2 1

Re: The Offending Stronghold posts...
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:02 PM -0500 2/17/97, John Young wrote: >Return-Path: cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com >X-Sender: jya(a)pop.pipeline.com >Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 13:17:32 -0500 >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >From: John Young <jya(a)pipeline.com> >Subject: Who's Censoring Who? >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > >Sandy's e-mailed several of us who've sent messages about Vulis's >ploy to put Sandy in a conflict-of-interest bind -- a well-known attack >on moderators of all kinds, not just on the net. Interestingly, I don't recall getting any e-mail from Sandy telling me he was not passing on my messages to either the Main or the Flames list...my messages were simply dropped on the floor. (Others, including John, have said they sometimes got nice Sandygrams explaining why their items were deemed unsuitable for either of the lists. Sandy may have considered it pointless to send me an explanation....) >It's probably worth saving accusations of censorship for the real thing, >after trial usage here for what is truly nasty high-stakes global info-war >gaming. As John likes literary references, recall William Burroughs' warning about "the policeman inside." I can't share John's belief that we should ignore censorship on the CP list (especially messages going to neither of the two specified lists, without notice). Waiting "for the real thing" is not a clear-cut issue, as explicit censorship of political views is not likely to happen in our lifetimes in the U.S. However, "self-censorship," a la the V-chip, the mandatory voluntary labeling of CDs, etc., is becoming the favored route. And the use of the legal system, or threats to use the legal system (a la threats made to Vulis, Against Moderation, etc.) is part of the bullying pulpit (this pun inspired by John's flights of rhetorical fancy). >[Note: Thorn, "cuckoo" and TCM responded to this; none were forwarded >to the cp-edited list, AFIK.] One of the interesting, and utterly predictable, consequences of "silent suppression" of some messages is that those on the unedited list, who see all traffic (for the nonce), get to engage in conversations which are subsequently suppressed so that several of us are having a conversation the main list (and the flames list) are oblivious to! This has had the fascinating effect of having people outside the conversation (as an example, Blanc Weber) gradually figuring out from "approved" messages that something is going on behind the scenes...they they send us messages (as Blanc did) asking what the hell is going on, what we're obliquely referring to. When the excised material is forwarded to them (as I did with Blanc), the reaction is often "Wow! I didn't know." As conversational threads are often so tangled, and become so much more tangled with time, the job of the censor gets more difficult as time passes. Not only must he excise all mention of banned topics, he must also be alert to later discussions making mention of the act of banning, or of the topics. This is territory well-covered by Orwell, of course. The rewriting of history is a full-time job. --Winston Smith Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0