- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Security technical list
by MacGyver 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[pgp sign clear] Anybody could help me to find a mail list of security,crypto,etc?? Regards

2 1

"Unwanted Mail"
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:48 PM 9/12/96, Rabid Wombat wrote: >> >> These people have invited the email, and the associated expense, by placing >> a public email-to: button on their public www page. > > >Most people put up an "email to:" button on a public page for >communications related to what's on the page. It's quite a stretch to >assume that this invites any and all email from anyone who cares to send >whatever they want. I can't say I've ever seen one that said "Please send >SPAM(tm) to:" ... But to attempt to define "SPAM" (unless you're Armour) is dangerous. This whole notion of "unwanted mail" is ill-defined and not something "the law" should get involved in, in my view. (And CP technologies certainly are consistent with this, e.g., placing the role of screening on those who set up gates, not on tracking down True Names for prosecution.) >However, since others may think like you, I guess I'll have to add a line >above my link stating that email not related to the purpose of my site >will be happily proof-read at the rate of $200 per hour, 1 hour per 60 >lines, minimum. Perhaps I'll get lucky. If I get a big enough chunk of >SPAM(tm), it might be worth the costs of breaking down the anonymity. As the legal eagles will tell you, the essence of a contract is a two-way agreed upon set of terms, not a one-way "if you send me mail I decide I don't want, you will have incurred a charge of $1000." Try enforcing your $200 an hour "proofreading charge" in any court in the land. (I've been saying this thing for several years. Who knows, maybe Rabit Wombat was the first to use it. Whatever, it's as unenforceable and meaningless now as it was several years ago.) >No, this b.s. is more like having someone put a dead skunk in my mailbox, >with no return address, trying to prevent me from sending them 100 dead >skunks as a return favor. And about as welcome. In the case of actual USPS mailboxes, there are laws which prevent others from using them (e.g., no UPS or FedEx deliveries). For sure, dead skunks can be placed in mailboxes, or under porches, or whatever. The law can't fix everything. --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

3 2

who can count?
by HipCrime 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> No, this b.s. is more like having someone put a dead skunk in my > mailbox, with no return address, trying to prevent me from sending > them 100 dead skunks as a return favor. And about as welcome. 100 dead skunks in exchange for ONE is exactly what this discussion is all about. You CypherWIMPS just love over-kill. EmailRobot sent ONE message to EACH address. Are you guys so unskilled in arithmetic to understand the difference between 1 and 100? One message is NOT spam, 100 messages to a single box IS spamming. -- HTTP://www.HIPCRIME.com

4 3

Reputation Systems in Action
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:41 PM 9/11/96, paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: >> tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) writes: >> > As to "tasteless and insulting," a matter of personal perspective. I find >> > it helpful to call a spade a spade, and others apparently do as well. >> > >> >> Of course, Tim gets very uncomfortable when others call a spade a spade. > > >This constant character assasination of Tim is getting rather boring, >as far as I can see, and I read all of the posts on the list, he has >done nothing more than ignore posts from these idiots, that is his >choice and nothing to do with anyone else. But this latest episode illustrates the role of reputations. Namely, my own reputation is not being harmed by bizarre commentaries from the Vulis-bot. As its reputation is (apparently) pretty low, and associated with Serdar Ardic-style rants about "sovoks," "the cabal," and "spit," such an entity can hardly "assassinate" my character. A few years ago Larry Detweiler, aka "vznuri" ("visionary"), aka "S.Boxx," aka "Pablo Escobar," aka several other alternate personalities, wrote dozens of screeds denouncing me, Eric Hughes, Nick Szabo, Hal Finney, etc. Did this have an effect on our reputations? Not to people I respected, of course. And if Detweiler's rants affected my reputation with his peers, including Dimitri Vulis, Ludwig Plutonium, Doctress Neutopia, Serdar Argic, well, this is to the good. In the mathematics of reputations, a negative reputation held by one whose own reputation is negative is a positive. --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: who can count?
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 12 Sep 96 at 17:57, HipCrime wrote: > > No, this b.s. is more like having someone put a dead skunk in my > > mailbox, with no return address, trying to prevent me from sending > > them 100 dead skunks as a return favor. And about as welcome. > > 100 dead skunks in exchange for ONE is exactly what this discussion > is all about. You CypherWIMPS just love over-kill. EmailRobot sent > ONE message to EACH address. Are you guys so unskilled in > arithmetic to understand the difference between 1 and 100? > > One message is NOT spam, 100 messages to a single box IS spamming. Dear HipCrime, My e-mail address is *paid for*, I subscribe to it for my own self-interest *only*. I do send requests for junk mail from various companies that falls into my fields of interest. But take note that since *I* pay for it, I consider it as my private territory. If you want to trespass, it is up to you and for the moment, there is nothing much I can do, unfortunately. I invite you to send me as much spam as you want, as long as you send me 0.1 gram of pure, 24k gold per kilobyte of spam (rounded to the superior Kb, i.e. 1.1Kb=.2g Au) you send me, payable in gold at the rate of the next day the spam was received by me, delivered at my local mailbox within 30 days (2% monthly fees applies). As long as you send payement, your spam will be welcome. (And don't send "spoofed-gold" I've got an eye for the genuine stuff :) Of course my rates are steep and non-negotiable, but there hey, what is morally objectionable in making profit when I don't *force* anybody to accept? Regards jfa p.s. e-mail me privately for my postbox address. - -- Jean-Francois Avon, Montreal QC Canada DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee Finest of Limoges porcelain and crystal JFA Technologies, R&D consultant physicists and engineers, LabView programing PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i iQEVAgUBMjh/3ciycyXFit0NAQE0eQgApAM5ESHO/rTv6CcpFCXizEI4+5WcCjWx Aq2IBAXhfHXCgfne5mo/K4U1PrlumxfxMA1NiQ0QQ7R1hgnzocF/NlnzMrX9vkVc w1NpAFr5hc2Jr5hOyBhr/tZsvYwcQXCdAqrA+Pj/qSDDPmeO8GGfoK09Xgrsvy16 zRQTGjOh/3ko4vTGuOMCiLSPJ4vLqFfAcvF6arJ2cEBXl7opoVFVGmvIugcosTN7 gZ97lWrJiEbc/HnHT5dkgTXpqDZQkC/PLz7EmXIYdf65zCJ1G3DRYgYpXQXd3V+a nXyc3i2TDW5/tlnk6SLZvwaApzwAMtn5ZHNgBlgCIQHootcIf+Zulw== =+bxp -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Email Robot draws fire from CypherPunkz
by peter＠baileynm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sneck. The points I get out of this: 1. Cypherpunks lives up to its name. Mainly, the second part. 2. Whether an email spam is business related or not, it's neither desirable or interesting. Two years ago having a robot like that might have been amusing. Now it's just another spam. 3. Y'all really oughta read Stand on Zanzibar again. I think you're missing the point.

1 0

"Remailers can't afford to be choosy"
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've picked the provocative title "Remailers can't afford to be choosy" so as to make an important point about remailers. First, a few responses to Rabid Wombat: At 3:26 AM 9/13/96, Rabid Wombat wrote: >Hormel, isn't it? Anyway, my point is that the law should not be involved >in it, but that it is going to be sucked in whether we like it or not if >social pressure is ineffective. What is, and is not "spam" has been Social pressure rarely works, of course. Canker and Sleazewell used the negative publicity about their spamming to sell more books. And the law rarely works, either. What _does_ work, throughout history, is technology. Locks on doors work where all the social pressure and all the legal measures fail. The SPAM situation has various parallels (and differences, of course). The point being argued in this latest thread, that "inappropriate" responses to a "mail me" button on a Web page have these parallels: * a contest operator announces a drawing based on forms filled out and deposited in a box, but neglects to check against multiple entries. One person "games against" the rules and submits 25,000 entries. The contest operator claims that this is fraud, or "contest SPAM," to coin a phrase. He splutters, "It's not fair! I assumed only one entry per person, even though I took no steps to ensure this. I want a law!" (Astute readers will recognize this situation from an early Heinlein novel.) * a radio station invites listeners to call in, then complains that one person is "calling too much." (A common situation with talk radio, and one best handled by screening callers. Even so, some of the same callers get through by using various disguised voices, etc. As with the contest situation, a problem best solved by the party involved, not the legal system.) * in general, any of several "over use of free or public resources." The bum who sits in a park, the kid who hangs out at the mall for several hours a day, the family who park themselves on the best fishing spot every weekend, etc. Again, these are not situations where I think either "social pressure" or "the law" works very well. Better solutions are to find ways to meter scarce resources. ... >We're therefore stuck - as a community, we cannot stop what many people >consider to be undesirable, as we cannot even define it, and the unwashed >masses will set governance upon us for our "own good." No, it is not hopeless. "Congestion pricing" is the operative phrase. Web sites that are too crowded can add capacity and increase advertising rates, or can charge admission, or the like. Remailers can (and will, sooner rather than later) charge "digital postage" for the service they are performing. (If nobody will pay, and the remailer network fizzles out, then clearly there was not an overall market, was there? I doubt that this is so, though at this early stage there is a lot of experimentation, subsidized sites, etc. Not an argument for laws, though.) >The ability to be anonymous on the 'net is generally a good >thing. It has allowed people access to information that might have >otherwise been denied them. It is an important freedom, and one that is >already in danger of being taken away through legislation (Georgia on my >mind ...). Abuse of this freedom by someone for purely commercial >purposes is certainly not going to help matters. _Lots_ of uses of remailers are "not going to help matters." So? Use of remailers to post the Homulka-Teale stuff was not well-received, use of remailers to post child porn is not well-received, use of remailers to bypass national security laws is not well-received. So? Remailer operators really, really, really have to get out of the business of looking at "what customers are using the remailers for" and then deciding to block senders, recipients, etc. based on what they see. I don't mean to minimize their concerns about illegal material being sent, about spamming, about insults and libelous stuff, etc., but it's important for all remailers to carefully think back to Chaumian mixes and what they mean. For one thing, there is no screening, no approval of content, etc. There might be digital postage, of course. And chaining, preferably. And encryption all the way through. Reread Chaum's original 1981 paper, the inspiration for our earliest thoughts about remailers. "Remailers can't afford to be choosy" >Note the earlier comment about someone being unhappy about their >"remailer-baby" being used for such a purpose - someone running a >remailer is generally doing so as a service, and is generally not >compensated for the equipment, time, energy, and aggravation. A lot of >remailers have shut down recently. Is this helping the cause of privacy >and free speech? Yes, actually. The shut-down of nonanonymous remailers is a good thing, ultimately. And the lessons of what happens when remailers become too well known (and hence nice fat targets for spammers, denial of service attackers, Churches, etc.) is also clear. By the way, today's remailers appear to be primarily _experiments_ or _casual services_, not altruistic services for some nebulous idea of "free speech." (Besides, if it's illegal for "spammers" to use remailers, so much for "free speech.") Digital postage is the ideal way to reduce the amount of "spam" flowing through a remailer site. The issue of "unwanted mail" is a more complicated issue, given our current "free to deliver" set up, and not one which directly involves the issue of remailers (except insofar as making it harder to track spammers down, but this is just the standard case with all crimes/etc. committed with remailers, and is a separable issue). >providor of web content as a courtesy to their readers. Why does it fall >to them to provide a completely off-topic forum for someone else's views? >How are they any different from members of a public mailing list? Must >the members of c'punks and toad.com accept all unpaid advertising in the >name of free speech? Absent rules or arrangements by the owners of the toad.com site, there is no legal recourse. And given the international nature of lists on the Internet, exactly which country's laws would be the operative ones? Would Poland request the extradition of a Brazilian who "spammed" via the Cypherpunks list, currently operating out of California? The mind boggles. Look to technoological/economic solutions as a first resort, not a last resort. --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

New Remailers?
by an401dws＠gold.ac.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

OK dont shoot me, im new to this list so please Bear with me: I recently secured an account with anon.penet and then a few days later got a post informing me that the servive was now terminated. Anybody out there know of any remailers where you dont have to have a Phd in computer science and a thorough working knowledge of PGP in order to operate? Also, are there any remailers which will accept binary attachments? doug

1 0

Re: UDP for cybernothing.org
by Animal Protection League 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:00 AM 4/21/98 -0700, J.D. Falk wrote: >Thanks for using NetForward! >http://www.netforward.com >v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v > >On 04/21/98, Eureka Eleven <eureka11(a)email.msn.com> wrote: > >> Please be advised that your domain has been >> issued a UDP for your censorous actions on Usenet. > > How interesting. Would you be willing to explain exactly when > (assuming it's within the past two years) these actions took > place, hopefully with copies of the offending messages? You must be dense to even ask. > Please also explain which type of UDP you have issued, and > who is participating, so that I'm not worried when those sites > don't get my messages. Your worries are nobody else's concern.

1 0

Re: Fed appellate judge remarks re anonymity, free speech on the net
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:40 PM 9/12/96 -0700, Greg Broiles wrote: > >The Daily Journal, a LA/SF legal newspaper had an article today (9/12) about >a lunchtime address given by Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski last Monday >at an Internet Law Symposium in Seattle. > >The article quotes Kozinski as saying "I have a severe problem with >anonymous E-mailers . . . You don't have a right to walk up to somebody's >door and knock with a bag over your head." The article says Kozinski likened >anonymous E-mail to menacing someone. I wish somebody would go up to these guys and point out that since the Internet is, more or less, a huge, worldwide, VOLUNTARY association of people, _we_ don't think these judges have any sort of "right" to regulate its content. Furthermore, it isn't clear that the proper regulators of the Internet shouldn't be an entirely different set of people selected by Internet users, RATHER than the same old government system that's managed to screw up the rest of the world so far. And if you're looking for "menacing," I'd say that describes the government's behavior towards the Internet over the last year or two. >Kozinski also suggested that computer-generated or morphed images of >children involved in sexual acts may not be protected under the Constitution >because of ongoing trauma to the child, Which child? Does he understand what "computer-generated" means? >while computer-generated or morphed images of adults would be protected. What about the "ongoing trauma" to the adults? I smell hypocrisy. >The article says that Kozinski was skeptical that he or other federal judges >necessarily agreed with the 3rd Circuit's ruling in _ACLU v. Reno_ (finding >the CDA unconstitutional). > >Kozinski is considered relatively conservative and relatively libertarian, >as 9th Circuit judges go. Which means that he'll last just a little longer "when the cyber-revolution comes." Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1