- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Forwarded mail...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 21:14:19 +0200 > From: Anonymous <nobody(a)replay.com> > The post I made earlier went through without a problem, but as I mentioned in my original post I had made several anon posts through replay.com to cypherpunks(a)ssz.com and they never made it to the list. > > I also noticed that replay.com seems to be striping the subject from the posts as in my last post I *did* put a subject line on the message but it arrived to the list without one. > > In the messages I sent, a couple of them I used a chain of remailers but when they failed to appear I sent the remaining messages through replay.com only (using the https interface to send the messages). > > It may have just been a problem on replay's end but on all the posts I did get a conformation page that the messages had been accepted. > > Odd. > > I AM TOTOCUS!!! > Sounds to me like you need to be talking to replay. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Chancellor Group (symbol = CHAG) (spam)
by David Lesher 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

|Chancellor Group, Inc. (symbol CHAG) just reported big quarterly earnings. I hear tell "enforcement(a)sec.gov" is interested in hearing of such.... -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

1 0

Re: Word lists for passphrases
by Remo Pini 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:18 AM 7/6/96 -0500, you wrote: >At 12:09 AM 7/6/96 -0500, snow(a)smoke.suba.com wrote: >>On Fri, 5 Jul 1996, Erle Greer wrote: >> >>> Word-List Builder (this is not an ad) >Unix, you can do, but the recursive subdirs aren't a prob for me. A final dream >would be to convert it to VB4, use MS's WWW custom control, and unleash it as a >spider. If you send me the source, I'll give it a shot (port to vb4 with x-controls) ----------< fate favors the prepared mind >---------- Remo Pini Fon 1: +41 1 350 28 82 mailto:rp@rpini.com Fon 2: +41 1 465 31 90 http://www.rpini.com/remopini/ Fax: +41 1 350 28 84 --------< words are what reality is made of >--------

1 0

Re: Minitel "saved" by hackers?
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 12 Jul 96 at 5:51, Daniel Salber wrote: [..] > As Minow pointed out, this is not the only case of "hijacking". The > telephone was first intended as a way to listen to remote concerts. Then > users found out they could use it for one-to-one conversations. This is innacurate. No, methinks it's wrong. From every history of telephones I have read and heard, it was never that way. The original conception was of using the telephone for broadcasting. It's implementation in most countries was for point-to-point communication... it wasn't a matter of the users 'found they could use it' (at least not in the US). Rob. --- No-frills sig. Befriend my mail filter by sending a message with the subject "send help" Key-ID: 5D3F2E99 1996/04/22 wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com (root@magneto) AB1F4831 1993/05/10 Deranged Mutant <wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com> Send a message with the subject "send pgp-key" for a copy of my key.

2 1

Re: Can't block caller ID in Massachusetts?
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:54 AM 7/12/96 -0700, Eric Murray wrote: >When I called the Pac Bell customer service droids to get my "complete" >blocking I asked them why they won't block CID to 800 numbers. >Their answer: "that's just the way it works". Since they can't bill you for LD numbers you call without reporting the calls on your bill, they can't charge 800 (or pay 900) number owners without reporting which numbers called them. I suppose you could just trust them (like the UK) and not demand a list of numbers you called and then the 800/900 businesses might do the same. Likely? DCF

1 0

Re: DoD and IRS tax systems (fwd)
by Jeff Barber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm taking the liberty of forwarding this excellent RISKS posting. There are a couple of other related ones in the latest RISKS digest -- see comp.risks. -- Jeff oo -----------------------------cut /\ here------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 14:12:51 -0400 From: Carl Minie <CarlM(a)qsc1po.qstr.com> Subject: Re: DoD and IRS tax systems (Wexelblat, RISKS-18.23) As an ex-liberal and small-l libertarian, I submit that the true danger to privacy in the Republic is the practice of gathering detailed financial information from all (law-abiding) Americans under threat of asset confiscation and jail terms, and then giving tens of thousands of government employees access to this information in the course of their employment. I further submit that passing a few wimpy privacy laws and expecting them to prevent this information from being used for personal and political purposes is magical thinking. It doesn't take a genius to surmise that IRS data is used regularly for illegal purposes by everyone from the sitting President (of either party) down to grudge-bearing neighbors and ex-spouses. I believe the IRS attempted to assess the depth of the problem in their Southeastern Region (where my mother worked) at one time, and stopped at well over 300 violations. You or I would have ended up at Leavenworth, but all but a few of the most egregious violators were simply warned not to do it again. You can take voluntary action to keep yourself out of the TRW/ Equifax/TransUnion food chain and off junk mail lists...but Federal law requires you to remain in the IRS's gunsights for your entire productive lifespan. Neither party supports privacy when it means privacy from the government; it is a Democratic president who is enthusiastically supporting the FBI and NSA in their efforts to prevent American citizens from using encryption that they can't break, and to require that every phone, fax, and modem in the United States contain a chip that would allow government agencies to tap in at will. Do I need to add here that the very concept of economic privacy is anathema to those who believe that a portion of everything you earn, keep, spend, or invest belongs to them, and that not handing over the fraction they demand is stealing from them? > Is the Department of Star Wars and the $700 toilet seat > really so excellent a contracting agency that they are the > clear choice to handle IRS business? I don't expect the IRS to be abolished anytime soon...but letting the DoD design its computer systems would be an acceptable second choice. The DoD may be expensive, but they're not very good. My fondest hope is that with a spanking new Government Issue computer system, the IRS that the GSA says can't figure out where 60% of its own budget goes won't be able to find 60% of mine. I don't like paying for $700 toilet seats (or $320,000 spotted owls) any more than you do. The solution which provides the smallest RISK to privacy is not to gather the data in the first place. If tax compliance is truly voluntary, then the IRS should trust that we are reading 21,000 pages of IRS rules and case law and sending in the correct amount. Long Pig ------------------------------

1 0

Reasonable validation of a software package
by Anonymous User 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Fellow cpunks: I am working on various software packages for UNIX and Windows and since this is commercial work and prior NDA's are involved, I can't include the source code for absolute validation. What would assure one that a package has not been tampered with from the company to the user? (Currently, I am using PKZIP's rather anemic AV protection, as well as signing the archive with my PGP key. I am wondering if there are any other steps I need to take to assure that a package came from me, and wasn't damaged/altered/tampered with in transit.) Thanks in advance.

4 3

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: PGPfone Beta 7 Now Available for Download
by Arun Mehta 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 23:38 10/07/96 -0700, Will Price wrote: >ANNOUNCEMENT: PGPfone Beta 7 Now Available for Download Sorry if this has been discussed before (please point me in the right direction if that is the case), but VSNL, my government-owned ISP (which also has a monopoly on all international traffic) made me sign that I will not use my Internet connection for voice traffic. Is there any way they could find out if I were using PGPfone, or rather, could I prevent them from finding out? Arun Mehta Phone +91-11-6841172, 6849103 amehta(a)cpsr.org http://mahavir.doe.ernet.in/~pinaward/arun.htm The protestors of Tiananmen Square will be back. Next time, the battle will be fought in cyberspace, where the students have the more powerful tanks...

1 0

Re: Minitel "saved" by hackers?
by Arun Mehta 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:51 12/07/96 +0200, Daniel Salber wrote: >At 2:37 AM +0500 on 7/11/96, Arun Mehta wrote: > >> I'd love to find out exactly what happened. > >"Hacking" is inaccurate: the users >were not necessarily computer-litterate but just found another way to use >the help feature of the server. Rheingold's Virtual Community has a pretty >accurate account of the facts (see chapter 8, also online as ><http://www.well.com/user/hlr/vcbook/vcbook8.html>). Thank you for the correction. I checked Andre Lemos' original, and he uses both terms. To quote, "Through thie detournement -- literally, a 'hijacking' was born the messagerie. By hacking and then making available the bulletin board software, a counter-current to the French technocratic approach produced a usage of the system which was never a planned objective." Slightly inaccurate. >In a previous post, you said: > >> So, shocked by this, what does the government do? Being unable to >> distinguish between different kinds of messageries, the government put a 30% >> tax in 1989 on all, and raised it to 50% in 1991! No wonder the Internet is >> gaining rapid popularity in France. > >I think this is wrong. These taxes were only for sex messageries and the >30% tax didn't actually stop most of them from making money. I think the >50% tax wasn't actually enforced and the tax rate remains at 30% (see >http://www.univ-paris8.fr/~babelweb/voltaire/v_no23.htm -- this is in >french, sorry). > >You must realize that the government has no interest in stopping all >messageries: France Telecom is (at least for the coming few months) a >government agency and makes a lot of money from the messageries. Once again going back to the original: "In 1986 the first roadside billboards for the messaggeries rose appeared (picturing, for example, a robust male or a woman with slogan '3515 BUSTY', the online address of a Mintel rose chat service). French traditionalists were outraged and Charles Pasqua, acting Minister of the Interior, attacked the gay messagerie Gay Pied. Worse, the French state gains 36% of the total charges paid. Taxes on all the messagerie services became the order of the day. France Telecom has no way of distinguishing between the messagerie rose and any other board or messagerie. In 1989 the government tax was 30% and in 1991 a 50% tax was imposed in the hope of eliminating all messageries." That's seriously innacurate, it seems to me: but I would appreciate some confirmation before I attack the guy in my review. Will check out the urls you suggested, problem is during the monsoons the phone connection to my ISP keeps dropping. > >The Minitel is no more "centralized and bureaucratic" than the Internet was >only a while ago (ie, when NSF was in charge of most of the core >infrastructure). >The Minitel may look centralized and bureaucratic because anyone who wishes >to open a server has to go through France Telecom (which delivers unique >names like Internic). Has FT ever denied permission (to hard-core sex servers or neo-Nazis, for example)? That, the tax they charge and the prohibition of encryption make it too centralized for my taste. And will ultimately kill it. The longer the French take to migrate to the Internet, the worse for them (IMHO). >There were even some experiments of a european Minitel system linking >several european videotex services a few years ago. I think they fell short >because the videotex technology has been so quickly outdated. Why not link up videotex in every country with the Internet? Let people surf the Web using their TVs and remotes (and maybe a keyboard with an infra-red link). That's what I'm trying to tell our utter failure of a videotex service in India. Arun Mehta Phone +91-11-6841172, 6849103 amehta(a)cpsr.org http://mahavir.doe.ernet.in/~pinaward/arun.htm The protestors of Tiananmen Square will be back. Next time, the battle will be fought in cyberspace, where the students have the more powerful tanks...

2 1

Returned mail: User unknown
by Mail Delivery Subsystem 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The original message was received at Tue, 31 Mar 1998 07:34:34 -0500 (EST) from camel7.mindspring.com [207.69.200.57] ** This is an automatic message to inform you that your email was not forwarded through iName's server. The iName email address that you tried to send mail to may not be active. Reasons for the failed delivery attempt could include: 1. The iName customer has selected a new personalized iName email address rendering their old iName email address inactive. 2. The iName customer may have signed up for one of iName's free offers and then not validated their forwarding address. 3 The address may simply be typed incorrectly. Please check that you typed the email address correctly. iName provides email users with a permanent, personalized and secure email address that is independent of how one accesses the Internet. iName acts as a global forwarding service. All email sent to a permanent iName address is automatically forwarded to a user specified destination email address. Please visit iName's Online Support Area at http://www.iname.com/info/intro/index.html for further information. ** ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- debtzapper(a)mailexcite.com (expanded from: <cheapdentalplan(a)writeme.com>) ----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to mta1.mailexcite.com.: >>> RCPT To:<debtzapper(a)mailexcite.com> <<< 550 [SMTPD]: This account has temporarily exceeded its incoming quota 550 debtzapper(a)mailexcite.com... User unknown Reporting-MTA: dns; mx02.globecomm.net Received-From-MTA: DNS; camel7.mindspring.com Arrival-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 07:34:34 -0500 (EST) Final-Recipient: RFC822; <cheapdentalplan(a)writeme.com> X-Actual-Recipient: RFC822; debtzapper(a)mailexcite.com Action: failed Status: 5.1.1 Remote-MTA: DNS; mta1.mailexcite.com Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 [SMTPD]: This account has temporarily exceeded its incoming quota Last-Attempt-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 07:34:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Some spam From: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 07:37:40 -0500 (EST) Here is the information on the $9 dental plan we talked about. I apologise for the delay in getting the information to you but I have been swamped for request. Please fax me if you want more information or wish to sign up. I don't know what you're talking about; thought I'd let you know. Your buddy

1 0