- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

please
by Monica Fisher 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Please take mfisher(a)ash.nl off of your mailing list

1 0

Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
by chefren 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 11 Feb 97 at 3:54, John Gilmore wrote: > I've come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to host the > cypherpunks list any more. It's not the true assholes that brought me > to this decision; it's the reaction from the bulk of people on the > list: suspicion, flamage, and criticism with every attempt to improve > things. I noticed few people volunteering some of their own time, > money, or machines to help out. Almost all the suggestions were > advice for *other* people to implement: Hm... In the year 1513 or 1514 someone who could be an Honourable Member of this list (if one could be one...) wrote: > There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more > perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, > than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order > of things. <Niccolo Machiavelli, Il Principe> Please stop at looking too much on how people scream about your new ideas and continue this list the way you like it!!! I think it's Your Machine and we have to respect your decision to pull the plug, nobody should blame you for that, but please listen a little to the 1000+ people who don't scream and are obviously happy with the list and respected your right to do the "sandy filter experiment". +++chefren

1 0

New group
by Paul Bradley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all, Well despite the obvious problems of propogation I thought it was time someone actually did something to get us a new home, even if it`s only temporary. So I have created alt.cypherpunks... See you all over on usenet!... Best regards... Paul Bradley

1 0

Re: List! No Way: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks"
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy C. May wrote: > At 7:11 PM +0000 2/11/97, Attila T. Hun wrote: > > two points you make: > > 1. the propogation is slow... > > 2. some sites do not carry alt. groups > > are enough to kill an active discussion list. of course, it does > > slow down excessive volume. Good if all this is worked out in advance. I'd like to add a couple thoughts: The freedom from temptation to interfere (censor, etc.) outweighs the slowness. The nature of the list (crypto) creates more paranoia than most other lists, making the above even more important, with the advantage being that there *should* be less noise than other forums due to the technical nature of the discussion. Thanks to the last couple of months, c-punks has now provided nearly every example of what to look out for and plan for.

1 0

Re: whois cypherpunks.org ?
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:04 PM 2/11/97 -0500, John Young wrote: [Trying whois] Eric Hughes and John Gilmore are fouders of this list. Aleph1 is the moderator of the famous bugtraq mailing list. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi

1 0

Forgery detection
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy C[rook] Maya's police record is many times longer than his prick (well, that's not hard). /\ /\ + \______/ + / . . \ < / > \ \--/ / ------

1 0

Network of majordomos (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 13:09:22 -0800 > From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles(a)netbox.com> > Subject: Network of majordomos > > I still think you're just rediscovering Usenet technology. Instead of > installing Majordomo, why not install INN, pass traffic as newsgroup(s) (if > you don't like alt.cypherpunks, you could simply start your own top-level > cpunks group(s)), and leave your NNTP port(s) open (or read-only, if you're > an evil CIA brain-stealing censor) so that cpunks at large could connect with > newsreaders or their own servers and send/rcv newsgroup traffic? Many cpunks > could do this (instead of using Majordomo) locally, connecting to each other > to achieve wide propagation and low latency. > > And, if you must, run mail-to-news gateway(s) which send the newsgroup to > people who want it as E-mail. > > Usenet technology does exactly what you're describing: it's a distributed > database of messages designed to facilitate each server getting its own copy > of every message, and holding it locally for distribution to interested > readers. Other people have been kind enough to write, debug, and document the > software - all you have to do is install it. This could be running tonight. Did you get it running last nite Greg? When do you expect to be able to handle traffic? Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

2 1

Re: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 11:48:05 -0800 > From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> > Subject: Re: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" > Since posting my comments I've just seen the proposal that tivoli may host > a list. Fine with me. But I wonder how long Tivoli and its parent company, > IBM, will tolerate such things as postings of dumpster divings at Mykotronx > and RSADSI, of deliberate slams against Tivoli products (a la the case John > Gilmore referred to this morning), postings about assassination markets, > and so on. Whoah Nelly. Tivoli - IBM has NOTHING to do with either my actions or those of anyone else involved in this. Where exactly did you get this information? It certainly hasn't come across any cpunks postings that I have seen. Check your facts bud. Jim Choate CyberTects (not Tivoli -IBM) ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Network of majordomos (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 13:09:22 -0800 > From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles(a)netbox.com> > Subject: Network of majordomos > > I still think you're just rediscovering Usenet technology. Instead of > installing Majordomo, why not install INN, pass traffic as newsgroup(s) (if > you don't like alt.cypherpunks, you could simply start your own top-level > cpunks group(s)), and leave your NNTP port(s) open (or read-only, if you're > an evil CIA brain-stealing censor) so that cpunks at large could connect with > newsreaders or their own servers and send/rcv newsgroup traffic? Many cpunks > could do this (instead of using Majordomo) locally, connecting to each other > to achieve wide propagation and low latency. > > And, if you must, run mail-to-news gateway(s) which send the newsgroup to > people who want it as E-mail. > > Usenet technology does exactly what you're describing: it's a distributed > database of messages designed to facilitate each server getting its own copy > of every message, and holding it locally for distribution to interested > readers. Other people have been kind enough to write, debug, and document the > software - all you have to do is install it. This could be running tonight. Did you get it running last nite Greg? When do you expect to be able to handle traffic? Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: Germany Versus Scientology
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jeremiah A Blatz wrote: > Evil se7en <se7en(a)dis.org> writes: > > I have posted a rather lengthy story about Germany's war against the > > Scientologists. It was long enough to preclude mailing it directly to the > > lists, so I have put it on my web site. You may find it at: > Heh, the top German Gov't anti-$cientoligist: > "The state is obliged to protect its citizens from totalitarian > organizations." > I just love this whole thing. It's like two neighborhood bullies going > at it in the school yard. It doesn't matter who wins, as long as it's > long and bloody. If it were "just bullies", we could all sleep easier at night. Alas, this is the next-generation manifestation of the anti-anti- Holocaust laws that have been in place for 40-50 years in Germany. There must be other countries with strong legal traditions similar to this one. Makes the picture much more complex. And don't forget, the conditions of Scientology's new tax exempt status are still secret.

1 0