- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Keyserver Draft
by David K. Merriman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Wed Jan 08 08:39:12 1997 Having gotten the subject in the spotlight (!), I'd like to clarify a couple of points about my draft proposal: 1: it is aimed at supporting _automatic_ realtime - as in supporting crypto-aware email packages, so that if an unknown key turns up, the encryption program can go out and collect key data _without_ user intervention. 2: port "assignment" was arbitrary; if the protocol would work better with a single port for send/receive, then "make it so, Number One" :-) 3: I expected that data transfer would work best using ascii text (like ascii-fied keys); if something else would work better, so be it. 4: if checksums or other error-detection/correction isn't necessary, then by all means, leave it/them out. I offered the draft as a _proposal_, fully expecting that it would require modification, editing, revision, et al. I'm not sufficiently pompous/egotistical to believe that I am He Who Knows All. Too, I have a reasonable idea of my own limitations; I'm simply trying to establish *some* kind of common reference point toward a solution of something I see as a possible problem. Happily, I haven't received any _personal_ flames, the comments I've received have been professional/technical. If I get a brownie point or atta-boy out of this, cool. If not, that's fine, too, _as long as the problem is addressed_. I didn't dare propose anything so grand as a distributed system - it seemed that a variation of DNS would handle that. We return you now to FlameFest '97 :-) Dave Merriman -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMtMI1sVrTvyYOzAZAQH5fgP+M5kJntTNM+LWd67jt+WGoiGLq8SdRwCa 0MljMYuO0oMzgiTrMTchNaj+cxtVkyUrzz+cgj3XQdJF6cdRlDnSW9xGV9rJJC/B lPf6RD9Vp5Pih9KkqWc+DqKMynGzEm1WXvNZKHDtn3/1etkv0RsEeQejqdNG+5dI rfZhi4xp9mk= =1Pcn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

RE: Legality of requiring credit cards?
by Mike Topalovich 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>True. But when I was a wetback bank teller making $6.50 an hour, I didn't >fill out any forms I didn't have to. Come to think of it, you have to fill >out a CTR when you purchase a bank check or money order for only $3,000 or >more in cash. I forgot about that. > >Just a side note to show how effective these CTRs have to be...when I worked >at a bank many moons ago, we would receive calls from the IRS pertaining to >CTRs that we had filled out 8 or 9 months before...I would find that very >encouraging if I were laundering money on a temporary basis. You get the >money moved, skip town, and you still have a good 6 month head start before >the IRS even has a notion to catch on. > >Mike > >---------- >From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com[SMTP:dlv@bwalk.dm.com] >Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 1996 12:41 PM >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Subject: RE: Legality of requiring credit cards? > >Mike Topalovich <TOPALOVICH(a)terraglyph.com> writes: >> It's not necessarily because you are paying with $100 bills. The IRS >> requires banks and other businesses to report all cash transactions >> exceeding $10,000 by means of a Currency Transaction Report (CTR). This >> is a way for the IRS to track money laundering. There happens to be two >> lines on the form asking for the number of $50 and $100 bills, but those >> lines are optional. > >They're supposed to report "suspicious" cash transactions under 10K too. > >--- > >Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM >Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps > >

1 0

RE: Legality of requiring credit cards?
by Mike Topalovich 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >This isn't to start any arguments, it's just an FYI...I noticed that when I >worked for a bank, many banks would only allow other banks to call to verify >funds. What this meant was, I'd have customers calling me who in turn had >customers who were growing *very* impatient because they had written a >personal check, who had to wait for the clerk to call to verify funds, spend >10 minutes on hold for bookkeeping only to find that the bank they were >calling only allows other banks to verify funds, who then had to wait for the >clerk to call the company's bank to call the other bank to sit on hold >another 10 minutes for bookkeeping only to have the bookkeeper try to weasel >his/her way out of doing any work by disputing the fact that you worked for a >bank, blah, blah, blah. > >What's the point? Maybe some of us don't want to have to go into debt just >to buy groceries, and don't want to carry buttloads of cash on us all of the >time. With banks charging ridiculous fees to keep *your* money in a checking >account, where's the big incentive? > >I say we go back to a barter system > >Mike > > >---------- >From: gimonca@skypoint.com[SMTP:gimonca@skypoint.com] >Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 1996 12:57 AM >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Subject: Re: Legality of requiring credit cards? (fwd) > >People on the list could probably come up with much better ways to >authenticate a reputation. Until then, for personal checks, you can >call any bank in the U.S., ask for bookkeeping, and ask them if there >are funds in the bank to cover the check you're holding. Any bank >should give you a yes or no on this. Some banks, like the First Banks >here in Minnesota, will do this through their automated telephone >banking services, 24 hours. > > >

1 0

Re: Diffie-Hellman
by nobody＠replay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The only `culture' Timmy May possesses is that cultivated from his foreskin scrapings. )))) )) OO Timmy May 6 (_) `____c

1 0

FS- Sharks Tkts- Front Row (2nd Deck) Jan 13
by Howard Strachman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've got two seats in section 226, row 1 available for sale for Jan 13. Face value=$43 each. Howard Strachman Tel: 408-863-0801 Ultracom Communications, Inc. Fax: 408-863-0363 21580 Stevens Creek Blvd Email:howard@ultracominc.com Cupertino, CA 95014 Web: http://www.ultracominc.com

1 0

FS-Jan 7 Row 1 Sec 211
by Anne Greene 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subject: Time: 10:34 AM OFFICE MEMO FS:Jan 7 Row 1 Sec 211 Date: 12/26/96 I have two seats, on the rim, end that sharks shoot on twice for the Jan. 7th Buffalo game. Sec 211, Row 1, seats 1 & 2 $86 for the pair (face value) Email me at: anne.greene(a)xilinx.com or call 408-879-6716 Happy Boxing day, Anne

1 0

re: Papers Galore
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thanks to Harry and Kenneth for correcting the URL for the NISSC96 papers. We've converted the toc.pdf to HTML for easy scanning of the impressive list of papers and panels: http://jya.com/nissc96.htm Now who's going hyper-link the TOC to the files? Ease the scrooge download torture?

1 0

For Sale for 12/26!
by Reynolds, Cathy A (careyno) 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi All, A friend has a change in plans and can't make the game tonight. Sorry for the late notice. Section 116 Row 18& 19 (right behind the other) They are great seats! Please page Nick on 510-810-4835 if you are interested. Cathy

1 0

Game tonight
by Karmy T. Kays 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is the game against the Blues tonight going to be on tv or on real audio tonight? I would really like to see or hear it.

1 0

WHICH
by listproc＠plaidworks.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

cypherpunks(a)toad.com: You are subscribed to the following lists; if none appear, you are not subscribed to any: MINORS MINORS-SCORES IHL BAY-AREA-HOCKEY ROLLER-HOCKEY-INTL WOMEN-IN-HOCKEY GIANTS GIANTS-TICKETS BASEBALL-CHAT SHARKS SHARKS-TICKETS SHARKS-CHAT HOCKEY-CHAT DALLAS-STARS LA-KINGS ONLINE-DRIVE PIT-PENGUINS MAPLE-LEAFS OTT-SENATORS PHX-COYOTES BHAWKS-L COL-AVALANCHE HOCKEY-COACHES HOCKEY-REFEREES CAL-FLAMES OAK-ATHLETICS HOCKEY-PLAYERS

2 1