- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

17 Dec '03

On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:12:19 -0800 > From: Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> > Reply-To: freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org > To: freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: Cypherpunks FAQ > > Toto wrote: > > ISP_Ratings wrote: > > > Yes--and given the role Dr. Vulis has played in this matter > > > it would be most appropriate for him to write an FAQ (although > > > I personally ignore most FAQs). > > >Perhaps it would be more appropriate for the good doctor to write a FUQs. > > Why not do it like the Declaration of Independence? A primary author > puts the basic document together, and other persons with expertise in > other important areas add to it, then it gets circulated on the list > for comments and suggestions. > > "Other areas" not normally addressed in these kinds of documents > should include subscribers' awareness that the crypto lists are > a prime target of attention from federal agencies, et al, and > that much of the material posted could be pure disinformation. > I do not think that any Federal Agency would be interested in any group so undisciplined as cypherpunks.

1 0

Re: Message-Id / mail2news gateways.
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 08:59 PM 2/17/97 -0800, Anil Das wrote: >1) Please preserver Message-Ids while resending messages. Yes, this is absolutely crucial if many different systems are going to cooperatively deal with messages. Message-ID changing is very bad. I sent a Perl script to Lance (copies to others on request) which can be easily used as the target of an /etc/aliases entry to gate a mailing list into inews (and thereby into INN) for processing as a netnews message. (The script preserves Message-ID.) If we preserve Message-ID's, many sites can have local mail-news gateways, and we won't (globally) see duplicates. >2) In response to Igor's query, I would very much like at least >on of the distributed lists to be set up such that messages sent >there will *not* be gatewayed to Usenet. I don't think this is practical - as I understand things, the corpus (bolus?) of messages will be available to all comers for their own projects, which may include mail-news gateways, archives, filtered lists, and so forth(*). People who send messages to the list shouldn't expect that they'll have any "privacy" in information sent there. (* Modulo copyright, but apparently the industry standards for copyright issues are: 1. Ignore them and hope they go away 2. Pretend to seize control over IP rights of everything posted neither of which works very well or makes any sense, legally speaking.) For what it's worth, the list has been gated to two public newsgroups - albeit not in the Big 7 or alt. - for quite some time. If you think your name isn't on Usenet, and you've been sending messages to the list, think again. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMwl1KP37pMWUJFlhAQHr+Qf+Jpo20Rl9RWAtsWFu7uJ2TYvIySYxrqCi A0Ac54oQSuuzYV6diH+pddilzTSjNS9DgVRC/lkC1C64cIZLp9fb1I3gX25Wfyns DnUvXPRLAD3A54imgkVxojr3ywD8YIn1QqQlVfh2yazJ6ysf0rFgQFcm3mMZxDqx 3MTl5x4sFo/CQPmYtGamZXEC59U2KW3iOaMiIESX3BjaK/92w9ptP44L0KqNcFqI tpNlUwmjXlqi1CTInVnVUHT79pF/OCYwxzbb0hPL4OcSlEZGPcj8cf/KGKL3cyBp hzIgjGPlfklXjCbvGBwi/9NUJEu9ARJVM+4Ie6ajDQWlzgPTO7w2zw== =wifQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. |

1 0

Re: Stop sending me your shit
by Alec 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:38 PM 2/18/97 +0200, you wrote: : :Get me off your list or else ..... . Get me out your fuckin list assholes. Certainly you learned on your mother's knee that you can get more of what you want from other people with kindness rather than anger and rudeness. What did she say about using foul words? Lets think about these things. You may be in for a long stay here. These folks can be downright nasty sometimes. You've got friends here. Let's be nice and keep it that way. Now what do we say?????? Alec

1 0

Any more like www.anonymizer.com ??
by edgarswank＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone have a list of web proxies for anonymous surfing? I already know about www.anonymizer.com, and there was a "canadianizer" that would alter text to make it more "Canadian", but that is now apparently defunct. Reason I need to know, a friend in a foreign country has to deal with a web proxy that blocks "objectionable" sites including www.anonymizer, so some alternates that might not be blocked would be welcome. Edgar W. Swank <EdgarSwank(a)Juno.com> (preferred) Edgar W. Swank <Edgar_W._Swank(a)ilanet.org> (for files/msgs >50K) Home Page: http://members.tripod.com/~EdgarS/index.html

2 1

Raph
by Alec 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I have found it convenient to retrieve Raph's list off c'punks, as opposed to fingering. I do hope this service to the community will continue on one forum or another. Thanks. Alec -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 Comment: Message PGP 2.6.2. signed/encrypted. Public key available on request or from keyservers. iQCVAgUBMwnJQCKJGkNBIH7lAQFRHgQAtLqCK9vtYgLVp0bU9wSjUoiZ7Wx3ade6 PcQQtOeNSxYy7n5i6qQuAaOTg1rvStOBEYpIDnWHo7p8In1fQE2v0QaOMbYm60QG Kc/CsoHAvq74PHN6/QdQ6JatyzSVsHL5r7hBEJZQGSFr2DWdW7xTclpqSUtviHHB X6HtqBfk5Pc= =cIv9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Drose / You're a fucking idiot!
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

drose(a)azstarnet.com wrote: > To Toto, Dimi, D.Thorn, whomever, etc.: while I may appreciate being > subscribed to a million and one lists that I never knew I needed (and so > quick!--appreciate the service, dude) this address, like c-punks(a)toad.com, > is going away *real * quick, so save your keystrokes. I generally try to be fairly civil in my postings, and refrain from personal insults, but I will make an exception, here. So listen up, shit-for-brains, and I will try to explain a few concepts that you seem to be too dim-witted to understand. I am a CypherPunk. I have a <Delete> key, and I know how to use it. When my personal account is subjected to spam-attacks and unwanted subscriptions to a multitude of lists, I deal with it. I don't make baseless accusations against others based on their perceived public reputation, or my own subjective perception of their reputation capital. I am not just a CypherPunk, I am also an adult. I take responsibility for my own actions, and I keep those actions within the bounds of what I perceive to be acceptable ethics and personal integrity. If you think that I am responsible for this-or-that action in regard to yourself, then all you have to do is ask me, and I will tell you. I don't make any bones about my beliefs and views, and I don't have any problem with others opposing my beliefs and views. When I launch an attack on someone, right or wrong, it is a frontal assault, not a hidden one. When I post anonymously to the list, or send anonymous email, I do not use remailers, in order that anyone with the will and wit to do so may easily discern my pseudonyms through the headers and use of the 'trace' command. If you think that I am the source of your problems, then you are a fucking idiot. I have no idea who you are, and can only vaguely recall the content or context of your past posts to the list. As such, I would certainly have little motivation for lifting even my little pinkie against you in a conspiratorial attack on you. I would suggest that the only 'fixations' involved between you and myself are coming from your end of the electromagnetic spectrum. I would also suggest that you get your head out of your electromagnetic rectum. Toto

1 0

Re: European crypto export policy
by Jeff A. Hale 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:39 AM 2/18/97 +0100, you (Ulf M=F6ller) wrote: >Swedish Datateknik 97-02 features an article about how COCOM/ Wassenaar >Arrangement effects Swedish crypto exports. > >I wonder if someone whose Swedish is better than mine could summarize >the article? It is at http://www.et.se/datateknik/arkiv/97-02/5.html > >Datateknik 97-01 reports about pressure for crypto regulations from >the US, but also from the EU and OECD [the OECD turned out not to >endorse key escrow shortly after the article was published]. The >Swedish government is currently collecting facts and opinions; so far >it remains an open question which standpoint it will take. England is >preparing a law similar to the French one, while there are policy >discussions similar to the Swedish going on in Germany and Denmark, >says G=F6ran Axelsson, Sweden's representative in the EU's IT security >body. The Japanese are not far behind. Using the emotional -- and often successful -- pretext of "anti-terrorism," (the subway gassing allegedly committed by the "Aum Cult"), the Japanese Ministry of Justice (JMOJ) is about to propose a sweeping new wiretapping/electronic eavesdropping statut= e -- which insiders predict will sail through the Diet (national legislature)=

1 0

Re: Constitution and a Right to Privacy
by Vin McLellan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>(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 Whoa! This begs a thoughful response, but I don't have time right now. Might it suffice to suggest that a privacy claim -- a demand for control over what concerns her, her alone, or (on balance) her more than any other -- seems reasonable to extend to both contraception and early abortion? For many of us, by the same logic, and with the same moral comfort. (As the clock slips onward, and the potential viability of the fetus becomes more likely or certain, I personally believe the woman no longer exists alone, and the privacy argument becomes conflicted and more tenuous. But Tim's golem, Infanticide, is a creature of nightmare -- wholly beyond the pale!) To my mind, any attempt to control what is done to the woman's body (by her choice) while the prospective child is but a bit of enhanced potential, much much less than a viable child, is an unconstitutional and morally-invalid attempt by others (the state, the church, the country club) to pre-empt her will, and prescribe or dictate a wholly new value system for her. Any claim (by the father, the state, the church, etc.) to control what happens in the moments or days after conception (say, forbidding RU-whatever, the French drug,) has no more moral authority than any similar claim to Higher Authority -- to safeguard the potential within her -- which is used to forbid his or her the use of a contraceptive, or which requires him or her to take a drug which makes multiple pregnancies more likely. I always thought the Jesuits had the logical argument straight. If the woman has no inherent right to control her destiny in the languid aftermath of intercourse (just because she has within herself the potential of a new life) then she has no claim to self-possession which allows her to use a contraceptive just before intercourse. If it is the potential for new life that allows external authorities to overwhelm her judgment and violate her privacy, then the case for that Papal Judgement exists before, during, and after sex. Problem is: while logical, the Catholic argument seems silly, authoritarian, and hopelessly abstract in the face of what many of us experience as a less dogmatic and vastly more human context. A context in which the right to privacy or self-possession seems inherent in the people we are, the people we know, the world as we live it. (Jesuits have a certain disadvantage, from this POV;-) The fact that this claim of privacy or self-possession apparently has an echo in the US Constitution (that oh, so-prescient document!) -- and in the libertarian/liberal proclamations of numerous other nation states -- is a validation, a confirmation... but the Right of privacy, the Claim, is inherent in our sense of who we are, and our sense of what an individual is. If the philosophers had not considered it in their musings, we would have to fight harder; we would need to define it as well as defend it -- but it can only be denied if we denied ourselves, as the serfs of the Dark Ages were expected to... and did. Women as vessels. Men as vassals. Suerte, _Vin Vin McLellan + The Privacy Guild + <vin(a)shore.net> 53 Nichols St., Chelsea, MA 02150 USA <617> 884-5548

3 2

Address -- Invalid (was Re: message to USSA Senate) (fwd)
by Alexandra Janssen - Raemaekers 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I really don't know what this is all about!!!! This is one of the messages that I seemed to have sent...... I can give you about Apparently-To: vice.president(a)whitehouse.gov, first.lady(a)whitehouse.gov, Bclinton(a)Washington.DC, feedback(a)www.whitehouse.gov, Senator_Stevens(a)stevens.senate.gov, email(a)murkowski.senate.gov, sessions(a)wrldnet.net, senator(a)shelby.senate.gov, senator(a)bumpers.senate.gov, info(a)kyl.senate.gov, Senator_McCain(a)mccain.senate.gov, senator(a)boxer.senate.gov, senator(a)feinstein.senate.gov, sen_dodd(a)dodd.senate.gov, senator_lieberman(a)lieberman.senate.gov, senator(a)biden.senate.gov, bob_graham(a)graham.senate.gov, connie(a)mack.senate.gov, senator_coverdell(a)coverdell.senate.gov, senator(a)inouye.senate.gov, tom_harkin(a)harkin.senate.gov, chuck_grassley(a)grassley.senate.gov, larry_craig(a)craig.senate.gov, dirk_kempthorne(a)kempthorne.senate.gov, senator(a)moseley-braun.senate.gov, lugar(a)iquest.net, wendell_ford(a)ford.senate.gov, senator(a)mcconnell.senate.gov, senator(a)breaux.senate.gov, senator(a)kennedy.senate.gov, john_kerry(a)kerry.senate.gov, senator(a)mikulski.senate.gov, senator(a)sarbanes.senate.gov, Olympia(a)snowe.senate.gov, senator(a)levin.senate.gov, michigan(a)abraham.senate.gov, mail_grams(a)grams.senate.gov, senator(a)wellstone.senate.gov, john_ashcroft(a)ashcroft.senate.gov, kit_bond(a)bond.senate.gov, senator(a)cochran.senate.gov, max(a)baucus.senate.gov, conrad_burns(a)burns.senate.gov, senator(a)faircloth.senate.gov, jesse_helms(a)helms.senate.gov, senator(a)conrad.senate.gov, senator(a)dorgan.senate.gov, email(a)hagel96.com, bob(a)kerrey.senate.gov, mailbox(a)gregg.senate.gov, opinion(a)smith.senate.gov, frank_lautenberg(a)lautenberg.senate.gov, torricel(a)torricelli.com, Senator_Bingaman(a)bingaman.senate.gov, senator_domenici(a)domenici.senate.gov, senator(a)bryan.senate.gov, senator_reid(a)reid.senate.gov, senator_al(a)damato.senate.gov, senator(a)dpm.senate.gov, senator_dewine(a)dewine.senate.gov, senator_glenn(a)glenn.senate.gov, senator(a)nickles.senate.gov, senator(a)wyden.senate.gov, senator(a)santorum.senate.gov, senator_specter(a)specter.senate.gov, senator_chafee(a)chafee.senate.gov, reed(a)collegehill.com, senator(a)thurmond.senate.gov, senator(a)hollings.senate.gov, tom_daschle(a)daschle.senate.gov, senator_thompson(a)thompson.senate.gov, senator_frist(a)frist.senate.gov, senator(a)hutchison.senate.gov, senator(a)bennett.senate.gov, senator_hatch(a)hatch.senate.gov, senator_robb(a)robb.senate.gov, senator(a)warner.senate.gov, senator_leahy(a)leahy.senate.gov, vermont(a)jeffords.senate.gov, senator_murray(a)murray.senate.gov, Senator_Gorton(a)gorton.senate.gov, russell_feingold(a)feingold.senate.gov, senator_kohl(a)kohl.senate.gov, senator_byrd(a)byrd.senate.gov, senator(a)rockefeller.senate.gov, mike(a)enzi.senate.gov, craig(a)thomas.senate.gov names who got this message from the gang of cypherpunks. What is this ???? Forwarded message: > From home(a)collegehill.com Tue Feb 18 15:05:24 1997 > Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970218100100.00731388(a)pop03.ca.us.ibm.net> > Precedence: bulk > X-Sender: chill03(a)pop03.ca.us.ibm.net > X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) > Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 10:03:05 -0500 > To: alexandr(a)win.tue.nl > From: College Hill Internet <home(a)collegehill.com> > Subject: Address -- Invalid (was Re: message to USSA Senate) > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > At 12:45 AM 2/18/97 PST, you wrote: > >All files on the Senate's computers will be deleted by our > >gang of cypherpunks dedicated to the eradication of your systems. > > > > I'm furious! Now I get about 10 messages every 15 minutes of mail delivered and lots of other trash. Who 's got the courage to admit this crime ?

1 0

Re: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives?
by Bryan Reece 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

E. Allen Smith writes: > From: IN%"reece(a)taz.nceye.net" "Bryan Reece" 17-FEB-1997 23:23:10.06 > > >> use. However, I do have one problem with this recipe: lack of > >> loop prevention if a news2mail gateway is going in the other direction. > > >All the mailing-list hosts are supposed to check for duplicates before > >forwarding anything, so this shouldn't do anything worse than have a > >few extra copies of each post get discarded, loading the network and > >the hosts a bit more. But posting the list to a widely-distributed > > Umm... IIRC, the only person who's announced how he's filtering > for duplicates is Igor, and he's just checking for messageIDs. Won't > those get chunked on going through a mail2news gateway, and thus > possibly come back through a news2mail gateway? My script preserves the Message-ID, assuming that the incoming message has one. Other gateways I've seen also appear to preserve Message-ID lines (or at least messages posted through them appear to have mail-like ID lines). > The filtering > mechanism could be improved via MD5 digests, etcetera (someone's > already given a recipe for such; thank you), but even so various > mungings could still set up a mailing loop. (Yes, I'm paranoid > about those; I may have been reading list-managers for too long and > seen too many stories on there.) The sensible place to keep > track of possible duplicates is at the gateway; it can > certainly filter based on that it (or, for that matter, another > known bidirectional gateway) sent a message out. Not immediately sending a message back to the host that it came from does look like a good idea (it came from foo.com, so foo.com obviously has it). Filtering out other gateways' messages will reduce load at the possible expense of delay (assuming a smallish network of news servers that feed each other the list; obviously the message will flood the majordomo net before it floods the real usenet unless something is seriously broken). > > >newsgroup seems wrong for noise (both to the list itself and to > >posters) and delay reasons. > > Delay reasons being that mail will go to Usenet, go > all over the place there, and then get replied to later than if > it were just on the mailing list(s)? A potential problem, yes. I didn't exactly say, but I was comparing a small network of news servers feeding each other cypherpunks.list to, say, alt.cypherpunks.list. > But (especially given the options I mentioned below), this > would appear to be a matter for individual users to decide > by which list they go with and any added control headers. I'm trying to come up with a way to provide NNTP access (and an experimental alternative to the net-of-majordomos) that won't offend anybody too much. I can filter out messages that the authors don't want sent out; I'd prefer to deal with what would make the authors want the messages filtered out instead. > Maximum individual sovreignty (sp?). > > >> In regards to your later query about whether people want their postings > >> going to Usenet, might I suggest that this be individual to the given > >> distributed mailing list? In other words, since the recipe is logically > >> going to have to not forward to a gateway messages from other mailing > >> lists (since it's not a good idea to have multiple copies of the same > >> message arriving at the gateway if it can be helped; better to filter > >> it out beforehand), > > >It doesn't seem an especially bad idea, since it > > Thank you. Were you cut off? Yes. Should have read: It doesn't seem an especially bad idea to send a gateway multiple copies of the same message, since theextra messages won't increase the load much but will increase the reliability and decrease the propagation time compared to a network where there are no duplicates. The only case where filtering duplicates is certain not to hurt delay or reliability is when the gateway in question is known to have a copy of the message already. Usenet uses the Path header for this; there doesn't seem to be such a thing in the majordomo net. > >> some of the mailing lists can forward and the > >> others cannot. (One could even determine this behavior on application > >> of the proper X-header, although I never trust various mailing systems > >> to forward such intact.) The same could also be done with gatewaying > >> _from_ Usenet - if the news2mail gateway feeds to whatever individual > >> lists sign up to it and they _don't_ forward such messages to others, > >> people can decide whether or not to receive Usenet postings on > >> alt.cypherpunks.* by which list they subscribe to. > > >The code currently running is a perl script that turns typical email > >messages into something INN is happy with. It is probably possible to > >get your message rejected by INN if you put obsolete or otherwise > >unusual and illegal headers in. This may be a bug. > > That would probably depend on: A. if any other circumstances > other than deliberately sabotaging your message's translation would > also disrupt its chances of getting through seriously, particularly > if they weren't something you'd spot; and The main way to get a message rejected seems to be using obsolete news headers on it. If you don't want your message posted, add a Posting-Version line to the header. > B. if sufficiently bad > messages would disrupt INN's operations too much. No more so than a sufficiently bad news posting that came in over NNTP (since the mails do turn into news postings over NNTP).

1 0