- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Remailer Pricing
by Hal Finney 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: ph(a)netcom.com (Peter Hendrickson) > Right now the remailer network is a mess. There just aren't that many > remailers operating in a timely and reliable manner. I am not knocking > the remailer operators for this, it's just clear that "free" doesn't > make it worth their while to keep the remailers operating perfectly > at all times. I agree with this very much. For a long time we have had two contradictory notions floating around: nobody will pay for remailing services because free ones are available, and the remailer network can't be reliable because the operators don't have the resources to make them work better. Clearly if people understand that the choice is between free remailers that don't work well and for-pay ones which do, things look a little different. Peter's idea of having the remailers keep accounts for people receiving anonymous mail, possibly even sending them a monthly check, would completely change the spam equation. > Furthermore, many remailers don't use 2048-bit keys. Why not? Because > they don't want to spend money on the cycles. That's okay with me - > it's charity. But, if I pay a dollar for a remailer, I can expect > to be able to use a very strong key. Actually when I ran a remailer I had a small key because it was on a system which I did not control. The small key was meant as a signal to potential users that my system wasn't all that secure. The big problem that I always saw with the for-pay remailing model was the fear of greater liability when abusive mail goes through the remailer. I felt that operating a service for free would make it easier for me to argue that I was offering a public service, while running it for pay would mean that I would be profiting from the abuse. I don't know if this is really a valid argument, though. Hal

1 0

Output of your job "cypherpunks"
by L-Soft list server at CCI (1.8b) 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> ok Confirming: > SIGNOFF NEWSLETTER You have been removed from the NEWSLETTER list. Summary of resource utilization ------------------------------- CPU time: 0.200 sec Device I/O: 0 Overhead CPU: 0.000 sec Paging I/O: 0 CPU model: Pentium 90/100 (30M)

2 1

Re: Gilmore Sucks! and so does the EFF !!/Censorship on cypherpunks?
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Stephen Boursy <boursy(a)earthlink.net> writes: > aga wrote: > > > > On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > > > > > Cypher-Censored > > > By Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) > > > > The EFF is just a sham, and Gilmore is just another censor. > > Gilmore can now be known as the "plug-pulling punk." Very apt. > The EFF is owned and operated, heart, body and soul, by the > corporate interests of the net. They don't give a damn about > individual user rights at all--they are to my mind the opposition. That would be fine if they didn't pretend to be what they're not. They're welcome to support or oppose free speech for anyone they please, but they lie and pretend to support free speech not only for their corporate clients. Clearly, John Gilmore has no credibility. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: THAT is what makes John Gilmore an ASSHOLE!
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

aga <aga(a)dhp.com> writes: > > > > If you send mail to "cypherpunks(a)toad.com", either directly, OR > > in a "Cc:" which is a 'carbon copy', it will goto the the cypherpunks > > mailing list WETHER YOU ARE SUBSCRIBED OR NOT. It still goes. > > > > Well, that is really a fuck-up by John Gilmore, is it not? > Just when is the asshole going to learn how to run a mailing list? Never, but he might get some Cygnus support employee to do it for him. :-) John has the right to configure his private mailing list to reject submissions from non-subscribers or even sepecific people - but not the balls. > > In any case trying to reason with you is like trying to talk > > to a tree stump. It's giving me a headache. So I'm not going > > to accept any mail from you any more. Anything you send that > > get's to me via the cypherpunks mailing list, or via direct > > mail from yourself will be returned unread, to you. I'm not > > under any obligation to accept any traffic from you, so I won't. > > Good, just tell Gilmore what an asshole he is for letting > mail go to his mailing list that is not intended to go there. > And stop sending me your stupid e-mail. Send this shit to > usenet like Mr. Boursy told you to do. Again John Gilmore/EFF demonstrate their true agenda: they can filter out the e-mail they don't like, but they want to prevent others from reading it as well. Clearly their concern for free speech extends only to their corporate sponsors, such as net.pronography peddlers. > > You may have a right to a voice, but I have a right not to listen > > I'm not going to infringe on your right to rant, but damned if > > I have to listen to a single packet of it. The saw cuts both ways. > > time for the alt.asshole.john-gilmore newsgroup An excellent idea, Dr. Grubor! Shall we newgroup alt.flame.john-gilmore or alt.bonehead.john-gilmore or both? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

MSIE 128 Bit
by Steve Shelby 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: Sat Nov 16 11:56:26 1996 "WorkHorse's interface is pretty ugly and the rendition is buggy, but the SSL connection does work: I got through mbanx's "Sign in" link at http://www.mbanx.com/banxing/5welcome.html , whereas MSIE and NS3 were kicked out due to their 40-bit RC4 limit." - ---- Microsoft has a 128 bit version of their Explorer available. You have to jump through a few hoops, but they have it. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMo3yP0F1dOf86f8dAQHs1QQAwYuTk5Lqvb2vBgvOVef1ToFIUtG5JN70 dBmD8JM23N0ZROsF03+wFGUT71pMAuu3BjuJQBOm0r9idPBwdcq6CaVf8QoU5+/Q tbj6b9PFx9EbpE4bZqoGPf3ePRFg6ImMSdyKDeM5vIMKJO8BwQZugqP2CgblkzlG yvEgPyiUlek= =ZlSn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: Does John Gilmore...
by Rich Burroughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:37 AM 11/16/96 -0800, Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl.com> wrote: [snip] >I have a suggestion for "Aga" and others who believe this sort of >nonsense. Please do us all a favor and try to sue John. I'm sure >that among all jack-leg and wannabe lawyers on this list that they >can come up with a viable cause of action. And John has deep >pockets; you could (literally) make out like bandits AND rescue >"freedom of speech" on privately maintained mailing lists. Such a case would obviously fail. John has the right to ban anyone he wants from a list that he is hosting. I do question, though, whether or not it was the best way to handle the situation. As I have argued, the availability of end-user filtering made banning Dimitri from the list unnecessary, IMHO. And the list owner giving people the boot sure doesn't fit with the picture I have had of what cypherpunks was about. YMMV. I think that John is doing a lot of great things for crypto (his participation in the Bernstein case, S/WAN, etc.) and I agree with at least 90% of the things I see him doing. I think he made the wrong call with Dimitri, though. >You >could be heroes (or look ten times as foolish as you already do). Actually, if John was trying to cut down on the noise by banning the Kook, I think it's backfired. It seems like there is even more irrational chatter now... Rich -- Rich Burroughs richieb(a)teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/

3 2

HP does it
by mael＠umcc.umcc.umich.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9611/15/encryption.reut/index.html Hewlett-Packard to unveil encryption 'breakthrough' encryption links November 15, 1996 Web posted at: 9:00 p.m. EST PALO ALTO, California (Reuter) -- Hewlett-Packard Co. said Friday that it will unveil technology Monday that will provide a breakthrough in the long-deadlocked debate over use of software encoding for secure data traffic. If the encryption technology has won the backing of industry and the U.S. and other governments -- which Hewlett-Packard officials say is the case -- the development could eliminate a key obstacle to the growth of electronic commerce via the Internet. Hewlett-Packard Chairman Lewis Platt will provide details on the technology, which includes technology patented by the Palo Alto computer giant as well as other technologies, a company spokesman said. Technology from RSA Data Corp. the de facto standard-setter for Internet security, will be involved Hewlett-Packard officials said. Senior Microsoft Corp. and Intel Corp. executives were also scheduled to attend Monday's news briefing at the National Press Club in Washington, Hewlett-Packard officials said. The technology will make it possible to export products containing so-called "strong encryption," which have not been exportable under national security laws dating back to the Cold War. Under national security law, the U.S. government has allowed the export of software and other computer products containing only "weaker" data encryption technologies. Encryption has been classified as a munition because of its potential for use by terrorists, spies or other criminals to conceal messages. Encryption programs use mathematical formulae to scramble confidential information, such as electronic mail messages or credit card numbers, rendering them unreadable to computer users without a password or "software key" that can decode the coded material. For years the domestic computer industry has complained that such government restrictions have hampered its competitiveness in world markets, and that its customers did not necessarily want the government to be able to decode internal data. The industry says the laws have prevented it from offering some of the most recent Internet technologies, even within the United States, because it is impossible to prevent computer users outside U.S. borders from gaining access to technologies publicly available on the Internet. Companies and their customers want to use encryption to protect confidential communications and electronic commerce. Silicon Valley executives recently noted that consumer devices, such as WebTV Network's Web-browsing television device that hit store shelves this autumn, use the same levels of strong encryption as used in military systems. WebTV said it is using keys composed of 128 bits, or characters, of data to encode and decode its communications to its set-top boxes providing consumers with the best level of security available over the Internet. The government recently proposed that the constraint be eliminated by providing a key recovery system, in which authorities could recover keys to crack messages if they received a court warrant to do so. Industry has rebuffed this as difficult to manage. The solution being offered by Hewlett-Packard would be flexible, allowing customers to use the levels of encryption required by different governments, the company said. "This is going to allow very strong encryption," said a spokeswoman. Hewlett-Packard said its technology would provide a means of "solving the data security and integrity issues that have impaired and frightened users and companies from exploiting the full power of the Internet." Copyright 1996 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.

1 0

[NOISE] aga isn't on cypherpunks... (and I'm glad)
by Tim Scanlon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

all, "aga(a)dhp.com", that 'aga' guy, is NOT subscribed to cypherpunks. What has and is going on is that he was blindly Cc'ing cypherpunks on everything he wrote that had to do with this... I exchanged some mail with the guy, he didn't understand AT ALL that "cypherpunks(a)toad.com" was a mailing list address. He seemed to think that he had to be "subscribed" to the list in order for any traffic to goto it. When I pointed out to him that this was not the case, his attitude was that it was not his fault and that the list was "broken" etc. If you havn't figured it out, BELIVE ME, talking to this guy is a definative waste of packets. He's ranting with basicly no clue about how he's doing the ranting... And this stuff has now been cross-posted to about 6 newsgroups by him, in addtion to the 3 mailing lists he's been sending it to. I ended up asking him why he wasn't jsut cutting to the chase and posting "Make Money Fast" stuff instead. (he didn't seem to get it.) I'd suggest ignoring him & hoping he goes away. As it is it was a MAJOR mistake of mine to even attempt to interject sanity into the whole stupid thread on this... Why? Because there's better things to worry about in life. Like this H/P crypto announcment... Or anything crypto related for that matter. As it is the thread continues like some bad crack-addled version of the energizer bunny. Tim PS, I just realized my dog does better at staying focused on doing tricks that this list does on staying focused on crypto... That's a bit scary.

3 2

Re: THAT is what makes John Gilmore an ASSHOLE!
by Dr. Jai Maharaj 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> time for the alt.asshole.john-gilmore newsgroup > An excellent idea, Dr. Grubor! Shall we newgroup > alt.flame.john-gilmore or alt.bonehead.john-gilmore > or both? In that case, can Gilmore's inclusion in the NetScum site at http://www.mindspring.com/~netscum be far behind? Jai Maharaj %:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:% Om Shanti %:%:%

1 0

More Euro Key Escrow
by Ben Laurie 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've looked more closely at the "Royal Holloway" protocol, supposedly under consideration by the EC for key escrow in Europe, though I must say that anyone who deploys it will get what they deserve. I have discovered some further weaknesses in the protocol, documented at: http://www.algroup.co.uk/crypto/rh.html Comments are welcome. Cheers, Ben. -- Ben Laurie Phone: +44 (181) 994 6435 Email: ben(a)algroup.co.uk Freelance Consultant and Fax: +44 (181) 994 6472 Technical Director URL: http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL A.L. Digital Ltd, Apache Group member (http://www.apache.org) London, England. Apache-SSL author

2 1