- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Enlightened commentary on Netizen.
by Jerry Basham 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have no idea why I received the below message. I don't know any of the people in it, and I don't care about the issue. ---------- > From: Alan Olsen <alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com> > To: Anil Das <das(a)razor.engr.sgi.com> > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: Enlightened commentary on Netizen. > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 10:55 AM > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > At 08:41 PM 2/6/97 -0800, Anil Das wrote: > > > However, the question has to be asked, why the fuck should we non US > citizens go and buy > > cryptographic software that is deliberately coded to allow the US > government to read our mail? > > You shouldn't. > > Maybe someone should print up a batch of "Voyeur Enabled" stickers for all > the GAKed products (or should that be KRAP products, since it is the Key > Recovery Alliance, but that is redundant) we will be seeing at our local > software stores. > > Sometimes I think the reason for all this snake oil we have been seeing is > the Feds need it for extra lubricant so they don't chafe themselves while > getting off on reading our mail. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: 4.5 > > iQEVAwUBMvyv1+QCP3v30CeZAQEGigf+PA45Q2ySEZ6iLwc8+fRURvXJRinStWwy > oNGWKDnyYHFJ91L8Z+11oKvMov45CC4MOISy36/Oz2CY9qyq8l5L1wTU7J8CezsS > 3QezDreJtUXr/OCmxRngOQbeHuGDkXuIocfTV7sZU/j7ARWj9hKCd39xf6J/MmZ6 > zjKS7olJmzMMyJrAWaNo5zaW4g/ER8wJiI0zbakvrd/8Y+VJkiTN05znbIfLiOTV > 0Olt/OaX4seWWNwZb5FaPv2y8ST3j+xm4Uv6fdc4Qo8QGWnGpuBAKo0D+q39KNkY > Ps47vKyf2VwQM6Ci49/uuU8um/l9TmDsuHkYYmsoDfsGpcZImEWzZw== > =Prg6 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > --- > | "Mi Tio es infermo, pero la carretera es verde!" | > |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | > | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | > |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| > | http://www.ctrl-alt-del.com/~alan/ |alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com|

1 0

Re: anonymous remailers
by Jerry Basham 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I don't know what you're talking about. Who is "cypherpunks," and who are you? Please don't answer...I'm just trying to figure out how I started getting these wierd e-mails from people I never heard about discussing something I never cared about. I truly want you to have a great life...but please leave me out of it. ---------- > From: Mark M. <markm(a)voicenet.com> > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: anonymous remailers > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 11:11 AM > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > On Sat, 8 Feb 1997, Jeremiah A Blatz wrote: > > > Ummm, if you run your own remailer, and don't get lots of people to > > use it, then traffic analysis will reveal that you are the sender > > quite quickly. It will pretty much make everything in the chain before > > your remiler useless. If you send your message through remailers a, b, > > c, and d like this: > > > > you -> a -> b -> c -> d -> alt.drugs.and-other-various-horsemen > > > > and only you use c, then your effective chain is: > > > > someone who could only be you -> d -> alt.drugs.and-other-various-horsemen > > This is assuming that it is a reasonable assumption that all traffic going > through remailer c originated from the owner. If there is one non-corrupt > remailer in the chain before c, then this would not be a valid assumption > because traffic from the owner would be indistinguishable from traffic sent > by anyone else. If the remailer has low traffic, the solution is, of course, > to make it higher traffic. Chain a bunch of messages that get sent to > /dev/null through the remailers, being sure to include c somewhere in the > middle of the chain. If Mixmaster is used, then it would be virtually > impossible to differentiate between "real" messages and messages destined for > /dev/null. It would be a little easier with Type I since the size of the > ciphertext decreases after each hop. This all assumes that encryption is being > used, of course. > > > Mark > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: 2.6.3 > Charset: noconv > > iQEVAwUBMvyzcCzIPc7jvyFpAQHRpQf+LusfAS8dhDczpYTHGjgIRo38gPHeDdVn > +qmmikRNravoEiPD9GIrZ4OeYKOs6zykvhWuMoTtsVi/a7p1HZyWzl5A5KkxofUv > nLOUoPriQ9Ps8fzc3B31G5nwj5d6Es7nnfZbGk1dV5KS5bN7fyu9umBeFiW7jNcj > eTf8GmFH7Rxi5aoUc0uMMR/YffMNl0fHo+wooPNnTBMppLouTIr9iQdCxDOJ7eJc > QAFyEXYWtRP8AqrnB0/pVAXUtrnui+Ev1waOkMYKbWuiQ8tkHbLAvcmpAVnD67jX > 4f3ZQkhXG6C4VbYF3fTlL0ujZgRal0csG0X4u6x/5ID4Blle9hwtIQ== > =BqMW > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >

1 0

Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation
by Jerry Basham 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry for you. Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your isp provider is next on my e-mail list. ---------- > From: Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> > To: freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org; cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Cc: Against Moderation <antimod(a)nym.alias.net>; InterNet Freedom Council <ifc(a)pgh.org> > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 10:54 AM > > ??? wrote: > > [some text deleted] > > > > Before I explain what has happened, I want to make one thing > > > absolutely clear. Though I've thought the moderation of cypherpunks > > > was a terrible idea from the start and am even more convinced of it > > > now, I don't assign any blame to Sandy. I believe he offered to > > > moderate the list with the best of intentions, and I sincerely > > > appreciate his efforts to try to revive what was once a fantastic > > > mailing list, even if in my opinion those efforts have backfired. > > This is the fatal mistake, assuming it's really a mistake. > I've worked under several corporations where, at a certain > point in time, things just "went crazy", and the owners/ > managers were scrambling desperately to plug as many holes > in the dike as they possibly could, to no avail. > > People don't understand why things just "go crazy" at a particular > point, and so they accept the coincidence theory ruse, lacking any > other evidence. Use your head, folks. This is not a list made up > of sewing-circle nannies, these are security people, NSA, CIA, and > all the ugly things you shut out of your conversations because you > don't want to admit the truth. "Paranoia is a way of knowing". > > Today I saw an old picture of Albert Einstein in full Indian regalia, > smoking a peace pipe with some Hopi people. I thought of the Capone > mob and the "kiss of death", or Judas and Jesus, you get the picture. > > So Einstein puts his name and reputation and personal seal of approval > on the creation of the Doomsday Device, the atom bomb, knowing full > well that it will be used to murder millions of people. What does he > do for an encore? Plants the "kiss of death" on the Hopis, whose > environment is co-opted by the mad bombers and their Nazi-infested > thug "scientist" cohorts, for the experimentation and storage of > nuclear and other hazardous materials. You know, Nevada, Arizona, > New Mexico, all those "useless, desert lands" occupied by the > Indians. >

2 1

Re: Internet Alert! Pay for local dial-up??
by Jerry Basham 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Take me off your list or I will complain to your isp. ---------- > From: Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> > To: freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org; cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Cc: E-Mail Communications <freedom(a)econopromo.com> > Subject: Re: Internet Alert! Pay for local dial-up?? > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 11:09 AM > > E-Mail Communications wrote: > > > See our "Patriotic Quotes That Make Sense" > > at the end of this publication. > > > "We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will > > always be prepared, so we may always be free." > > -- President Ronald W. Reagan June 6, 1984 - Normandy, France > > What Ronald Reagan didn't say (but what he really meant): > > "I come here to Bitburg to honor the fallen Nazis, because I am in > fact an honorary Nazi myself. Just ask my personal secretary Helen, > who used to work for Fritz Kraemer." >

1 0

Junk e-mails
by Jerry Basham 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm receiving a bunch of inane e-mails from your domain. Could you please put a stop to it? It's coming to all of my e-mail addresses, including the one below. 2ndSun(a)bigfoot.com------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------Learning to Remember the Future---http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/5335

1 0

Re: Enlightened commentary on Netizen.
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:41 PM 2/6/97 -0800, Anil Das wrote: >First, Rebecca Vesely has a special report, the main thrust >of which is that three firms being allowed to export 56 bit >encryption indicates flexibility on the part of the >government. >http://www.netizen.com/netizen/97/05/special2a.html >To top it off, here are two gems from the followup discussion. >http://www.netizen.com/cgi-bin/interact/replies_all?msg.37387 > >2. 56 ONLY A SLIGHTLY SMALLER JOKE > Ric Allan (ricrok) on Wed, 5 Feb 97 11:53 PST > > If it takes a college student four hours to break > a 40bit code it should take him/her about six > hours to do the same to 56bits. Then what excuses > are the government and its butt-kissing companies > going to give us for not allowing *real* coding? Ironically, we (the good guys) are going to be the beneficiaries of an ignorant public, for a change! We all know that difficulty is not linear with bit-size, but hearing that "40 bits is crackable in four hours!" will be interpreted by non-technical people as a strong level of suspicion directed at DES as well. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Cellular encryption
by nobody＠wazoo.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dimitri Vasectomy K`adaver'OTM is so full of shit that some of it bursts out on this mailing list. ^ ^ (o o) Dimitri Vasectomy K`adaver'OTM ( ) \___/ !_!

1 0

Fw: Internet Alert! Pay for local dial-up??
by IconOfSin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- > From: E-Mail Communications <freedom(a)econopromo.com> > To: you(a)alberta.sallynet.com > Subject: Internet Alert! Pay for local dial-up?? > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:09 PM > > > ***************************************** > > INTERNET USERS ALERT!!! It has come to our attention that several > local telephone companies have petitioned the FCC for permission > to charge Internet Users by the minute for LOCAL dial-up telephone > service. This would affect every Internet User, including those > using AOL dial-up. > > For more information, see the FCC site: http://www.fcc.gov/isp.htm. > Please send an E-Mail to isp(a)fcc.gov > to express your outrage at the idea of allowing telephone companies > to charge by the minute for LOCAL dial-up service. E-Mail comments > must be sent by Feb. 13th, 1997. This affects every Internet user!! The question is.... "what can *WE* do. IconOfSin Fly DALnet! /server irc.dal.net 7000 Msg IconOfSin :)

1 0

[STEGO] PRNG
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy May sits at his terminal dressed in five-inch stiletto heels, fishnet stockings, a gold-lame mini-skirt, a purple halter with girdle underneath to keep in his flabby gut, a Fredericks of Hollywood padded bra also underneath the halter, a cheap Naomi Sims pink afro wig, waiting to yank his crank whenever a black man responds to one of his inane rants. < > < > V )_.._( V \\ <____> // ~ <______> ~ > /~\______/~\ // /~\_____/~\ /_\ /~\____/~\ /_\ /~\___/\~\ _/_\/ \___/\__/__\/ \___/__\/

1 0

Re: ISPs vs Bells - Email FCC
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:26 AM 2/7/97 -0500, Derrick Storren wrote: >By Michelle V. Rafter >LOS ANGELES - Regional phone companies and Internet service providers >are waging a war of words over Internet traffic on the nation's local >telephone network and who should pay for upgrades as the online boom >continues. [snip] >In one corner, Pacific Bell, Bell Atlantic and other regional phone >carriers say the growth of Internet traffic is pushing local telephone >networks to the breaking point. > >Pacific Bell, for example, says Internet surfers use its phone lines an >average of 45 minutes a day -- more than twice the amount the network >was built to handle. Heavy Internet use in Silicon Valley led to brief >service outages in that area earlier this year, the company said. This is an "excellent" example of lying with statistics. Contrary to the implication above, telephone switches aren't designed to handle a certain amount of telephone traffic per day; Rather, they are designed to handle a certain peak amount of traffic. This, and the knowledge about the typical usage patterns that communities generally see in their telephones allows a statistician to estimate how much traffic that switch will actually see per day, in the real world. However, change the pattern of usage, perhaps by adding usage to previously-underused time periods, and you could dramatically increase the daily traffic statistics for a given telephone switch. If, say, 2% of the population were to suddenly decide to make 6-hour phone calls daily between 12 midnight and 6am, a time of very low usage, you might increase the average daily usage by 50%, but with absolutely no increase in the peak usage during the daytime hours nor need for new switches. While that's a fanciful example, a similar effect occurs, I think. I've seen a set of graphs showing the typical usage level for the Teleport ISP, and it appears that while usage reaches a level of about 70% between about 8 am and 4 PM, it continues to increase after 4pm, solidly peaking between 8 pm and 11 pm at about 98% usage. This is long past the time that most humans make voice phone calls. The implication is that easily 3/5 of Teleport's traffic occurs after 4 pm and 6 am next morning, a time frame which is definitely post-peak hours. (Traditionally, pre-Internet, telephone usages peaks at about 11 am and 3 pm.) Since modern telephone switches don't wear out, unused call capacity is simply wasted. It makes no sense to charge people more for services which cost the supplier no more to provide. >If, for example, Internet providers passed through an access fee of 1 >cent a minute, a subscriber spending 10 hours online a month would pay >an extra $6 -- hardly a deterrent, said David Goodtree, an analyst with >Forrester Research in Cambridge, Mass. Even that is unacceptable. If an average ISP's phone line was busy 50% of the time, with "only" an extra charge of 1 cent per minute, that would be an average charge of $7.20 per day, or $216 per month, as compared to a typical business line which might cost, say, $40 per month. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0