- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Spamming (Good or Bad?)
by Daniel Miskell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ross Wright writes: >On Or About 20 Aug 96, 18:09, Rich Graves wrote: > >> On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Vipul Ved Prakash wrote: >> >> > I don't know if there has been much discussion on the ethics of >> > spamming here? Is spamming free speech? >> >> Yes. >> >> So is mailbombing the motherfucker, or more productively, virtually >> picketing his ISP until they kick him off for net abuse > >That is the kind of self righteous crap that gives me the creeps!!! So civily dealing with a net abuser gives you the creeps? THAT gives ME the creeps, honestly. >> >> Ethically? We don't talk ethics much here, but I'd say it's highly >> unethical to abuse a service paid for by the pooled resources of >> many. > >I pay for my net access. I pay for my Sunday paper, it's full of ads >too!! Ethics??? Let's rat out on the EVIL spammers!! Let's turn >them into thier ISP!!! That's a load of CRAP!!!! We /all/ pay for our access. Most of us work, most of us pay for the paper, most of us put up with ads. Spam is the price of free speech. One must either, in minor cases, ignore it and move on, so as not to encourage; or, in case of extravagent abuse, send word to the isp, spread the word on the net that xxx.com is a spammer's haven (and otherwise discouraging further memberships), as well as filling the sysadmin's mailbox until the spammer is deleted and we can all move on again. It's not a load of crap, it's reality. Everything provided for civil use and enjoyment will be abused repeatedly, it's all in how we deal with it. Greetings from $hell, Daniel.

1 0

Re:PreRFD: comp.org.cypherpunks
by mccoy＠communities.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

qut(a)netcom.com (Skip) writes: > The Subject: line says it all. > > My suggestion number #1: > > No moderation. Suggestion 1 on how to diminish the feeble S/N ratio on cypherpunks: make it a newsgroup Suggestion 2: make it an unmoderated newsgroup I can think of nothing that would cause the remaining clue to flee faster than a CP newsgroup in wide distribution (if it were gatewayed to the list) jim

4 4

Re: Spamming (Good or Bad?)
by Daniel Miskell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ross Wright writes: >On Or About 20 Aug 96, 16:23, Jim Gillogly wrote: >> >> Vipul Ved Prakash <vipul(a)pobox.com> writes: >> >I don't know if there has been much discussion on the ethics of >> >spamming here? Is spamming free speech? >> > >> I oppose spamming because it's rude and inefficient, lowering the >> S/N everywhere it happens. Market droids > >Market Droids???? As a salesman I take offence at this slur. Well, look at it from the consumer point of view. We log on, and see what is eccentially a junk-email, written as a form letter, sitting in our box. It's gotten to the point were I have barely enough patience to skim my junk before I delete it, just to be fair. So, to most of it, it seems quite droidlike. If you want people referring to it in a more respectable manner, earn more respect. Do a more personalized canvass, or find better ways to advertise, other than junk email. You'll piss less people off, and get more respect. >> favor it because it's >> cheap, and no matter how many people they piss off bigtime, they >> make some sales. > >Even make sales to people who are pissed off at first... That doesn't make it right, in my opinion. It just makes it worse, because salesmen will not consider how annoying their canvass is to people before sending it out, and more and more people get pissed. Selling is no justification, the ends do not justify the means. People are still angered. After all, you are not counting how many pissed off people you do NOT sell to. Greetings from $hell, Daniel.

1 0

Re: [NOISE]CIA Contra Crack and LA Gangs (fwd)
by Jim Ray 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Wed Aug 21 08:35:15 1996 Rich Graves wrote: > On Tue, 20 Aug 1996, Jim Ray wrote: ... > Oh, I don't think it's impossible or even unlikely that at least > some of the > groups lumped together as "contras" were involved in drug > smuggling, and I > think it's reasonable to have different views regarding how much > money was > involved and who knew what when (my view is very little, and > medium). Anyone who says "very little" money is involved in any aspect of the cocaine importation trade definitely doesn't live in Miami. >What I > object to are conspiracy theories along the lines of: > > 1. The Reagan Administration used the Contras to smuggle crack > to the US in > a deliberate attempt at genocide against Black people. (I > heard this a > lot, though seldom in so many words, on KPFK in the mid-80's; > the SJ Merc > series certainly has this as a subtext.) I never said that, and I object to calling something a "conspiracy theory" just because it's politically inconvenient. People in power conspire to get rich and stay in power. Sometimes they use laws they write and sometimes they break laws they wrote. This is a fact of life, not a conspiracy theory. > 2. Clinton was a CIA agent involved in the Contra drug-smuggling > CaBaL. He was governor of Arkansas when Reagan was President of the United States. Do the search I already gave you, and read the articles. mena /p cocaine ... > > It is a major, bipartisan, Watergate-style but bigger > > scandal, and the strange bedfellows in the media who were > doing a > > halfway decent job of covering it [The Wall Street Journal and > > "High Times" magazine(!)] have fallen strangely silent on the > > subject as the election approaches. Hmmmmm. > > 4. Anything where vague unsupported asserions are thrown out, > followed by > a Hmmmmm (sorry). OK, looks like I have to say it again, and remember this is NOT me, it's those conspiracy theorists at CBS News, printed in that radical purveyor of vague unsupported asserions...The Wall Street Journal: "The FAA, FBI, Customs, CIA, Justice, DEA and the IRS were all involved in Mena. They won't say how they were involved, but they will tell you there is nothing there." -- Bill Plante, CBS News Correspondent, & Michael Singer, Producer, CBS News, New York. [In Tuesday, May 3, 1994's Wall Street Journal letters to the editor section.] Look it up. I am not a journalist, but it sometimes seems I have a better institutional memory than they do. This story was covered poorly, even though there was/is plenty there, because of politics and power masquerading as "national security." The story is there for journalists who want to risk covering it, but the trail is getting cold, and yes, some loons have latched onto it, due in part to the vacuum in "legitimate" media coverage. [This will be my final word on this subject in this forum.] <sound of Perry cheering> JMR Regards, Jim Ray -- DNRC Minister of Encryption Advocacy "'Filegate' is starting to make _Ed_ _Meese_ look ethical." -- me Defeat the Duopoly! Vote "NOTA," not Slick/Dull in November. Harry Browne for President. Jo Jorgensen for Vice-president. http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/ ___________________________________________________________________ PGP id.E9BD6D35 51 5D A2 C3 92 2C 56 BE 53 2D 9C A1 B3 50 C9 C8 <mailto:liberty@gate.net> http://www.shopmiami.com/prs/jimray Coming soon, the "Pennies For Perot" page. Keep billionaires off welfare! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMhsCim1lp8bpvW01AQHsYQP+JeN4t0Cd/d+Woy0eyvvVtCHy//RoSWJI K3gWOAHTMB71xZDKu7qbuUMRBs1nsFv2dlvYlKMIJLxn9Bl2H+13IpOsYTtPntg+ r+YOPazgwVVm8wNICEekdKjki9MaiTj1AFIX2P2LbVp7EZkmQIwxJfkYZituWNIy LNFZyOGhVaQ= =b3jZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: PreRFD: comp.org.cypherpunks
by droelke＠rdxsunhost.aud.alcatel.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

No and HELL no. I find that this list gets enough crap as it is, and gatewaying it to a generally available Usenet group would just add to the noise level. Now, if you want to gateway it to a local group because you like your newsreader better than your email reader, be my guest. Dan > Subject: PreRFD: comp.org.cypherpunks > > The Subject: line says it all. > > My suggestion number #1: > > No moderation. > > > -- > Skip, OBC > ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Oelke Alcatel Network Systems droelke(a)aud.alcatel.com Richardson, TX

2 1

The grey lady puts on some boots and rides a horseman or two...
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm listening to the BBC's World Service at the moment, and they're doing a feature on pedophiles on the internet, complete with much knashing of teeth about encryption and anonymity, along with some lurid stuff about private holding cells, and sexual tourism, and slavery. And Lions. And Tigers. And Bears. Oh My. They even had a quote from someone at Wired (a Brit, didn't catch the name), who sounded like he was wringing his hands about unbreakable encryption. Probably spliced out of a larger quote which had more sense in it. Be afraid, be very afraid. They're coming for your daughters. The BBC says so. Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "'Bart Bucks' are not legal tender." -- Punishment, 100 times on a chalkboard, for Bart Simpson The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/

4 3

Re: CIA Contra Crack and LA Gangs (fwd)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:33 AM 8/21/96 -0400, Chip Mefford wrote: > The DEA may not actually be the "Good" Guys, but there are some much worse >out there Whatever "worse guys" are out there, the vast majority of which would become de-fanged almost instantly on the legalization of currently-illegal drugs. Given a choice between wishing for the death of everyone in the DEA, or everyone the DEA claims to object to, I'd off the DEA is a second. It's an organization which guarantees the existence of its own opposition. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Anonymous password assignment failure (illegal password)
by daemon＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You have requested the assignment of a new password However, the password x-control is not legal. Passwords should only contain letters and numbers.

1 0

Re: Spamming
by James C. Sewell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:09 PM 8/20/96 -0700, Rich Graves wrote: >On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Vipul Ved Prakash wrote: > >> I don't know if there has been much discussion on the ethics of spamming >> here? Is spamming free speech? > >Yes. No. I think we can all (most) agree that spam-email is like junk-snailmail. In that case there are a few things to consider: 1. Junkmail requires the SENDER to pay for it, not the recipient. 2. Junkmail is under the full authority of the Postmaster. If they do anything illegal they have an authority to which they must answer and may face criminal charges for. 3. You can't legally stuff mailboxes by driving around the neighborhood. It is against the law for me to walk up to your mailbox and put something in it. Should the same be true of emailboxes? 4. Junkmail is usually at a lower priority than "real" mail and due to costs is usually easily identifiable. Email isn't. And one relating to only email: I don't want to have to spend 10 minutes letting Eudora sort through my mailbox because my filter rules are so numerous and complex due to me trying to block spam. We must remember that the First Amendment does not allow us to say any thing at any time via any medium we choose. There are limits to it, usually in the name of public safety and harassment. There should be similar limits in the Internet. I'm not saying we shouldn't let you tell others how get rich quick but that you should not be allowed to mail to *(a)*.* just to tell the world how great we are. Jim Jim Sewell - jims(a)tansoft.com Tantalus Incorporated - Key West, FL

3 2

Re: Husband/Wife jailed for saying Clinton Sucks
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:12 AM 8/21/96 -0700, Rich Graves wrote: >On Tue, 20 Aug 1996, Z.B. wrote: > >> Published in Washington, D.C. July 9, 1996 >> Insult to Clinton leads to 2 arrests >> By Ruth Larson >> THE WASHINGTON TIMES >> ------------------------------------------------------ > >I think you should try a more credible paper. Say, Scientology's Freedom >Magazine, rather than the Moonies'. You are of course free to believe >whatever you wish. At this point, I think the Washington Times has far more credibility than the Washington Post. While I'm, likewise, not particularly happy with the Times' ownership, I doubt whether stories like this ever appear in the Post. (You tell me: Did this story ever appear in the Post?) The Net public is getting less and less tolerant of obvious bias on the part of those who report the news. The Times has some potential (undisplayed) bias that we need to be on the lookout for, but the Post is actively engaging in bias in its news stories, NOW. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0