- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: A Libertine Question (fwd)
by Cerridwyn Llewyellyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:42 PM 8/2/96 -0500, you wrote: > >Forwarded message: > >> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 16:50:01 -0500 (CDT) >> From: snow <snow(a)smoke.suba.com> >> Subject: Re: A Libertine Question >> >> As long as you are enforcing it on everyone, I don't think you'd have a >> problem, but to force some one from cooking food for homeless people, and >> allow a family barbeque, is IMO wrong. > >Not at all. Businesses have no rights, individuals do. Businesses have a <snip> >Blueberries they bought at the local HEB). Individuals have a right to >privacy, that includes cooking themselves food without harrassment. Business >on the other hand are selling products of potentialy questionable quality. A I disagree with your sentiments about Business and rights, however, in this instance, even that wasn't the issue. Food Not Bombs is NOT a business, it's a not-for-profit organization that gives out (not sells) food. They are the same as, I think Tim May pointed out, a Boy Scout picnic, except for the homless, not the boy scouts. //cerridwyn//

2 1

TrustBucks
by TrustBuckFella 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- An alternative model of electronic money. Every model of electronic money I know of except one retains some degree of centralization. There is always a central "mint", usually a bank. If you can't find a bank that acts the way you want, you're SOL. And the only thing that enforces non-abuse (inflation, etc) by the bank is the equivalence of electronic money to some form of "real" money. The sole exception is Digicash. Unfortunately, Digicash has no restraint on infinite spending-into-debt. I want to present an alternative model I call "TrustBucks". TrustBucks is decentralized but zero-sum and needs no assistance from "real" currency. Its central idea is a "web of trust": Local, trusted contacts are linked in a web that at some remove can extend everywhere. I'm not going to try to develop the cryptographic protocols for TrustBucks. I haven't got the requisite paranoia and pickiness (compliments both) for that. TrustBucks also has nothing in the way of anonymity and restraint on double-spending right now. If you can see how it could be anonymous or restrain double-spending and still work, please feel free to add. The basic rules of TrustBucks: - ----------------------------------------------------------------- Each individual using TrustBucks has their own individual variety of currency, notated here as TrustBucks( <name> ). Each individual is considered to have an infinite supply of their own TrustBucks. Each individual accepts payment only in their own variety of TrustBucks. There are only two fundamental operations with TrustBucks: A and B swap TrustBucks, of any two varieties. A pays B in TrustBucks( B ) for something external to the system. - ----------------------------------------------------------------- Examples: Say Alice wants to pay Bob in TrustBucks, and Bob agreed to accept payment in this form. Alice has several options for paying him. * Alice already has some TrustBucks( Bob ). Alice pays Bob. * The amount is small enough that Bob trusts Alice directly. Alice and Bob swap TrustBucks( Alice ) for TrustBucks( Bob ) Alice pays Bob. I know this looks like an extra piece of complexity, but it's really not. By insisting that only TrustBucks( Bob ) are payment to Bob, we insure that Bob can't manipulate what currency he will accept to his advantage, which would otherwise be a problem. For instance, Bob cannot refuse to make good on his debts while accepting other people's money. * Alice doesn't have enough TrustBucks( Bob ), but does have TrustBucks( Carol ), and Bob trusts Carol directly for that amount. Alice and Bob swap TrustBucks( Carol ) for TrustBucks( Bob ) Alice pays Bob. * Alice doesn't have enough TrustBucks( Bob ), but does have TrustBucks( Carol ), and Carol has some TrustBucks( Bob ). Alice and Carol swap TrustBucks( Carol ) for TrustBucks( Bob ) Alice pays Bob. * Alice doesn't have enough TrustBucks( Bob ), and Carol has some TrustBucks( Bob ), and Carol trusts Alice directly. Alice and Carol swap TrustBucks( Alice ) for TrustBucks( Carol ) Alice and Carol swap TrustBucks( Carol ) for TrustBucks( Bob ) Alice pays Bob. Using some combination of the above methods, Alice can pay Bob as long as there are accessible parties in the system who, in total sum, trust Alice for the amount of the payment, and there are accessible parties in the system whom, in total sum, Bob is willing to trust for the amount of his credit. Which gives the scheme its name: TrustBucks. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Disadvantages: Lots of overhead. Third-party traders must be perpetually available. Not anonymous. Not clear how double-spending can be avoided. Not a true disadvantage: It could "stall"; that is, there could be catch-22 situations where if only some people trusted to begin with, the system could continue, but not enough people trust each other to get it started. I say this is not a true disadvantage because the same thing happens in other currency-schemes, to an equal or larger degree. If it's merely more visible with TrustBucks, that should not be called a disadvantage. In practice, I think the threshhold of trust neccessary to start the system would be considerably with TrustBucks than with other systems. Advantages: Decentralizable. It is not neccessarily decentraliz_ed_, but can become so as needed. Nobody controls the "mint". Few conceptual parts. When counting the parts in other schemes, don't forget to count the parts neccessary to fix or ameliorate problems that don't occur in TrustBucks, like deciding who "prints money", keeping them from abusing the role, stopping others (IE counterfeiters) from assuming the role, and so forth. I don't claim that the above neccessarily adds up to a positive rating, but it's worth hashing out, especially if it inspires more secure protocols along the same decentralized lines. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm not the first person to notice that decentralized ideas tend to take off more abruptly and firmly. For instance, PGP vs. Kerberos, or the internet vs. AOL, Prodigy, Compuserve. Especially Usenet and the WWW. That's why I thought a long time about bringing this idea out. Once it's out, it and its successors are beyond my control or anyone else's. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.1 iQCVAwUBMgLz8pi7GCxryNrZAQEfAAQApDzHN9PSpARe/MUZgDDk8F+eFLlKNAHZ 5H6KaX3SlWxL9itM8aFMoudpnBU2gAO7Kn9YHV+dFS1l/tE+NJDhSpTRL1EMKVw9 rGrL8lypX9bLsuw0+thMl1djJjQhc3To6qaLhJvZVji7TRXlKYuVMFW5D6Sm988a Zg8nRsCQrIo= =EOKl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: SOUP KITCHENS (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 20:12:04 -0700 > From: tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) > Subject: Re: SOUP KITCHENS (fwd) > > >True enough, but not the whole story. If a dog or cat is kept well and fed > >good quality food they live 10+ years. The average life of an animal on the > >street is between 2-5 years. As to people, we now live around 75-80 years, > >prior to all these rules and regulations on food and such the average was > >20-25. If we go back to what you propose you would be dead a long time ago. > > Hardly a proved correlation. A lot of other factors come into play. But > never mind. No point arguing. But it is. I suggest you take a look at any social health text and look at the comparisons between diets of our ancestors, ourselves, and various cultures around the planet now. In places like Africa the mean age in many places is still in the early 20's. It is pretty remarkable that places that at one time had poor or subsistance diets and now have more modern diets have the average life span growing (even in places like Samoa and the Pima Indians in Mexico and the S. US where the high-fat diets are causinga marked increase in coronary problems, interesting article in this months Sci-Am) by leaps and bounds. Look at the studies which have tracked the English population over the centuries (they kept good records) and compaired physical body characteristics with food intake. It has been clearly shown that as the food got better and more plentiful the lifespan got longer and the average height got larger. Pretty strong evidence of some correlation there. I certainly feel strongly enough about it that I would not willingly eat food except in emergency conditions that I was not shure of the quality or purity. Other factors such as what? Disease? If you have a good diet then diseases like colds and Influenza (for example) are survivable. Without good diets high in Vitamen C and such you get Rickets and can die from a simple cold in as little as 3 days. Certainly if you kill off the local fauna you will increse your lifespan simply because there isn't as much to eat you when you aren't looking. But this particular threat was most present for the older and more damaged individuals. During some recent studies (5-6 years) of Cromagnon Man it was discovered that these folks were covered in broken bones, arthritic joints, spongy bones, spinabifida, etc. because of the hard life they lived having to manualy chase down the dinner and kill up close with rocks and sticks. If you get a chance try to get a peek at some of the pictures. I remember one of a girl around 16 whose knees and back looked like they belonged to somebody 80 years old. If you feel there is no point in arguing (which I don't feel we are doing since it seems pretty civil, we have widely seperate views) why resond? That is like asking somebody a person question and then when getting the answer saying you don't care. Just for the record, I am enjoying the discourse. But since you are not I won't continue this thread any longer. > >I personaly find it reassuring that some bunch of knuckle-heads are unable > >to start a chip making facility like you support. The thought of finding > >flourine compounds in the local river (where I get my tap water) or simply > >dumped in the air is a little unsettling. Just because some group of bozo's > >want to start a business is not sufficient justification for that to be > >allowed. > > A straw man. There is is no evidence that these startup companies are > dumping stuff in rivers. Jeesh. The point is that large companies learn how > to keep large staffs employed filling out paperwork, and they actually have > come to see it is a good way to keep small companies from forming. A straw man is where one claims one situation is analgous to another different situation. This is not a straw man because we are talking about the same issue but discussing the effect of size on behaviour. Motorola, AMD, Sematech, etc. have all been fined over the last years for doing just this to the waters around Austin. When I was working at Austin Community College over the last 2 1/2 years (prior to going to work for Tivoli - IBM 4 months ago) my primary responsibility was building a wafer fab training facility at the Riverside campus from donations from these folks and many others localy (Applied Material, Varian, etc.) I got to spend a lot of time in site in areas that normaly are not open to outsiders. If these big plants have problems regulating their emissions with their budget and reams of paper just image what a startup hard for cash would do if they thought they could get away with it "just this one time". I think the way Crystal Semiconductor (ie fabless) does their design is the way to go for small startups, simply rent production facilities from these other companies. I know that, for example, each of the companies here in Austin are in the process of shutting down older fabs and don't have plans to upgrade them for at least a couple of years. For somebody like Crystal that is a god send. It means they can bring products to market for costs way below what it would have originaly cost, and the larger company gets to bring in income on equipment it had originaly written off. Sounds like a win-win to me. Sorry, but a simple reading of the Austin American Statesman (admittedly a shitty paper very highly biased) will provide numerous instances of such dumps over the last few years. > >It seems to me that many of the folks who recognize downsized workers pleas > >for their 'right to a job' as so much bunk are at the same time supporting a > >businesses right to start up. A pretty humorous double standard. > > Not at all comparable. But they are for the simple reason that we are talking about two entities which each claim a right to some behaviour. And in this case directly comparable because a person working is comparable to a business working. Each provides services and expects a return. Now the argument goes with persons that a person does not have a inherent right to income. In other words if a company shuts down and they are laid off w/o any other work forthcoming it is their fault for not seeking the appropriate training and such (ie resources) to get another job with a better future. Now with business the claim is that they should have some rights comparable to persons, however they should also be given the right to open their doors for business even if they can't demonstrate some level of competency and ability to survive in the market. This is carried to the point that they should be allowed to operate without regulation or other forms of checks and balances on their actions. Now if a real person does not have a right to income if they don't posses the requisite skills why should a business be allowed to do it without showing the same sort requisite skills? Why should the local community be forced to take on the burden of such a venture simply because the business is a 'virtual' person? It is becoming pretty clear with the change in welfare (which I support) that our society does not feel an obligation to support folks for more than 2-3 years on the social dole without some return on investment. Why should the city be required to provide utilities and other services without some assurance they will get the public funds (ie your money and mine) back? We as citizens in Austin certainly don't recieve stock or other benefit from this other than the jobs it creates for persons with the requisite skill. > >I have never heard of anyone being arrested for giving away food, only > >selling it without a license. I bet the Salvation Army soup kitchen would be > >worried if this claim were true (they aren't and it ain't). > > Then you weren't reading the thread, which in several posts described this > very situation. "Food Not Bombs" was giving away soup, chile, and other > such stuff at a park in Santa Cruz (and maybe elsewhere, e.g., San > Francisco). They were busted. > Now do you understand the situation? I understand that they were arrested for the noise and such and not for the food. The reason that the permit was refused (wrongly I agree) was that the HD did not want the people out on the street causing a disturbance. What they did should be protected if it is in the right place and at the right time. The right of the poeple to assemble has an important caveat. If I may, ARTICLE I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. If you will notice it says 'peaceably', I do not believe this should include standing on the corner with a bullhorn screaming at people. A more appropriate strategy would have been to walk over and give the government folks food also with little political pamphlets wrapped around their weenies. They would have most likely eaten their food, looked at the pamphlet, got a good chuckle and gone back to being good little prols. As the situation was at fist described is not quite how it was. This bozo apparently was on the corner with the direct intention of harrassing folks. This is uncalled for behaviour in such a situation. I agree with the conclusion that there was an alterior motive other than feeding the homeless. It sounds more like a podium for a personal tirade. Jim Choate

4 3

Re: A Libertine Question (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 23:36:37 -0700 (PDT) > From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl.com> > Subject: Re: A Libertine Question (fwd) > On Sat, 3 Aug 1996, Jim Choate's dog wrote: > > > Really? Then would you mind explaining why costs rise over time > > instead of going down? > > Gladly. Prices rise over time because of inflation of the money > supply. While it is possible for private actors to temporarily > inflate the money supply (e.g., extension of credit by banks), > only the government can increase the money supply indefinitely. > Inflation is the most insidious form of "taxation." It steals > silently and punishes the savings in favor of consumption. Then why didn't the costs rise at the same rate as the general inflation rate instead of tens of times faster? If the cost of airline tickets matched the rise in milk then my gallon of milk would cost over $10 instead of the $2 (this x5 factor I got from a news show the other nite, I have not verified it) it costs now (and it has remained pretty constant over the last 10 years or so arguing that something has been balancing that inflation rate). Since the inflation rate on a dollar is flat across the board in our economy simple inflation does not account for this rise in prices in a niche market. I guess it could be in the case of airlines because they have had to increase the fairs to pay for the increase in aircraft loss due to crashes and fatigue (airlines are not replacing their aircraft as fast now as they did in the regulation days, one of the reasons Beoing and other commercial companies are having such a hard time.) over the last few years as well as the rise in the price of their insurance premiums since deregulation to compensate for the increased payouts both due to increased frequency of crashes since deregulation and the increase in the payouts to the victims and their families. I would guess that insurance companies don't like paying for a multi-million dollar plane unless they have to. They are in the business of not paying off after all. > > Insurance has become involved in the medical industry, what > > happened? The cost has gone through the roof. The airplane > > industry was deregulated in the late 70's, what happened? The > > price of a ticket went up...yada yada yada. > > Technically, Jim's logical fallacy is called /post hoc, ergo > propter hoc/, after this, therefore on account of this. If it was a single case I would agree, the reason that I put several unconnected fields which share one thing, the loss of government regulation. What we are looking at is a inflation rate for unregulated commodities like milk (for example) and compare them to the difference in operating costs between a regulated versus a unregulated role. It is clear that with a increase of x5 in this area and something like < x2 in the commodities area that something is at play here other than pure inflation. > > If this is so then by your own argument, business are operated > > by people therefor they are people... > > Nope, that's not what I said. This fallacy is called a "straw > man." It is a weak or mistated opposing argument set up by a > politician or debator, etc., in order that he may attack it and > gain an easy, showy victory. A straw man is where I take one situation and compare it to another. I am taking your supposition and applying it to a economic model that fits both cases. Both businesses and individuals survive by trading their outgoing products for incoming products. The issue is whether the rules that apply to one should apply to another. If you look at the gross cash flow between a business and a individual they are identical. Since we are talking about gross cash flow in both cases it does not qualify for straw man status. > > Is your contention that because I own and > > operate a computer it should be given rights? > > Nope. Whatever gave you that idea? Your contention was that a business should enjoy some of the same rights that a person does because it was owned and operated by a person or persons. Since I own and operate my computer and it is an inanimate object like the system of rules and procedures used by a business they are comparable in this case, as is comparison to any other inanimate object. The key points here are that people have rights and your contention that because businesses are owned and operated by people they should have rights as well. My goal is to determine your litmus test (if you will) as to how you determine that a business is eligible for such right but a automobile is not. Simply saying they are different is not sufficient in this case. > > > > Businesses are a system of rules and procedures... > > > > > > Made and enforced by PEOPLE. Jim is begging the question. > > > > Which question would that be? "Should businesses be considered > > people with the same rights and priviliges?" > > Nope. You just don't get it, do you? I get it, it just doesn't make sense when looked at the way you are looking at because you have still failed to elucidate your litmus test. Obviously it is more complicated than simple ownership or else anything owned would qualify. I am simply requesting clarification of the remainder of the test. It is hard to evaluate a theory if you don't have access to the whole thing. Sorta similar to analyzing a crypto algorithm via public peer revue. Generaly considered a bad thing. Jim Choate

3 2

Re: List for crypto minus political rubbish
by Matts Kallioniemi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 15:25 1996-08-02 -0500, W.K. Woelbeling wrote: >I am looking for a source of info on crypto. While this list is of interest >to (many) people, I find that the amount of political ranting outweighs any >nuggets of information concerning cryptography. Pointers? > >Bill Just about everything on cryptography has already been said far too many times. Just read Applied Cryptography and be done with it. What remains to discuss is politics, psychology and marketing. How do you get people to use the cryptography that already exists and how will the authorities react when people do use it. Matts

1 0

Re: List for crypto minus political rubbish
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Aug 03, 1996 14:38:59, 'Matts Kallioniemi <matts(a)cyberpass.net>' wrote: >Just about everything on cryptography has already been said far too many times. >Just read Applied Cryptography and be done with it. What remains to discuss is >politics, psychology and marketing. How do you get people to use the >cryptography that already exists and how will the authorities react when people >do use it. An exemplary air-clearing for a smoke-filled agenda; and two challenging questions which may pose a High Noon amongst munitions-slingers. Bravo, Matts, for cryptic concision.

1 0

Re: Jewell is the Militia Bomber!!!!
by Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hey folks, relax eh? Its generally best when the police don't release every bit of information on their investigations as they progress. Far from criticising the police for having investigated Jewell on no or little evidence you should criticise them for telling us about the evidence they do have. Although prosecuting a security guard in order to rob the terrorists of publicity is a cute trick I don't think the US authorities are that smart. In the past USGov has been less than sparkling in its ability to keep a lid on secrets like that. Phill

1 0

problem
by Fallen Angel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I unsubscribed from your mailing list so why am I still receiving email from it. I No longer wish to receive any more mail, so please stop it. Fallen Angel fallenangel(a)multipro.com

3 2

Re: FAA to require transponders on all aircraft passengers
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:56 8/3/96, David Lesher wrote: [Quoting Lucky] >> According to KCBS, a local radio station, the FAA has closed a long >> anticipated deal with a manufacturer of transponder devices. The goal of >> the system to be deployed nationwide is to match aircraft passengers to >> their luggage and thereby identify unaccompanied luggage on board an >> aircraft. > >I thinks they have mixed their marbles.... Nope. This from Micron's website: Editorial Contact: Julie Nash, Micron Technology, (208) 368-4400 Web Site URL http://www.micron.com Fax-on-demand: 800-239-0337 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MICRON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ANNOUNCES AGREEMENT WITH THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Boise, Idaho, August 2, 1996 - Micron Communications, Inc., today announced a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRDA) with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to develop a model Positive Passenger Baggage Matching (PPBM) system. The objective of this PPBM system is to automatically recognize when baggage has been placed on an aircraft without an associated passenger. Micron Communications intends to utilize remote intelligent communications (RIC) technology developed for its MicroStamp family of products to design a security system which will enhance current systems and provide efficient tracking of passengers and baggage. "Micron Communications is proud to be associated with products that are designed to help increase the safety of airline travel, while providing operational benefits to the industry and increasing the convenience to the traveler," said John R. Tuttle, Chairman and President of Micron Communications, Inc. "Our experience in microelectronics and systems design should enable us to develop systems that use tomorrow's technology in finding solutions to these important problems." "Once again, an Idaho company is breaking new ground," Senator Larry Craig said. "As chairman of the Congressional-White House Task Force on Terrorism, its exciting to see this kind of high-tech advancement in security being developed here at home by Micron Communications, Inc. The Positive Passenger Baggage Matching system is exactly the kind of common-sense answer we are looking for to improve airline safety and give us all greater comfort when we fly in the future, " Craig continued. Current MicroStamp-based products include the MicroStamp credit card-sized device and the MicroStamp Engine in a 20-pin, small-outline integrated circuit (SOIC) plastic package. Micron Communications believes that the MicroStamp integrated circuit is the first wireless communications technology to integrate a single-chip CMOS solution, which includes a direct sequence spread spectrum (DSSS) microwave-frequency radio operating at 2.45GHz, a microcontroller, and low-power static random access memory (SRAM). It also contains a synchronous serial port allowing additional memory expansion. RIC units are different from RFID tags because they have a central processing unit (CPU), memory and microwave on board. This combination allows RIC units to perform more applications than low-performance RFID tags that use older technology at lower frequencies. MicroStamp RIC units are more powerful and more flexible than RFID units. They are also smaller and cost less than other RIC units of comparable performance. Systems integrators, original equipment manufacturers or end users interested in the MicroStamp family of products should contact Micron Communications Customer Service department, 1-888-MSTAMP1, (888-678-2671). Micron Communications, Inc., is a subsidiary of Micron Technology, Inc., whose common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (NYSE) under the symbol MU. MicroStamp and MicroStamp Engine are trademarks of Micron Communications, Inc. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. Vote Harry Browne for President.

2 1

Future US Postal History -- Indicium to Replace Stamps (fwd)
by jonathon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anybody else think this makes mail snooping a whole lot simpler? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 11:28:54 -0500 From: "Philatelic.Com Email Service" <post(a)philatelic.com> Subject: Future US Postal History -- Indicium to Replace Stamps To: post(a)philatelic.com Subject: Future US Postal History -- Indicium to Replace Stamps from: dreggen(a)accessnv.com Reference: Federal Computing Week Volume 10, No.l 29; July 29, 1996 Federal Computing Week (FCW) is a publication of FCW Government Technology Group 3110 Fairview Park Drive -- Suite 1040 Falls Church, VA 22042-4599 USA Tel: 703 - 876 - 5100 Fax: 703 - 876 - 5126 Page 19 USPS Proposed specifications would improve mail security by Colleen O'Hara The following is quote of one topic paragraph from the article: "Defining a Postmark One specification defines what a postmark, or evidence of postage, must look like. USPS has proposed that the new postmark contain a unique digital signature carried in a 2-D bar code. A new indicium substitutes for a postage stamp or postage meter impreint as evidence that postage was paid. Because of the information the indicium will contain, the agency will be better able to deter amil fraud as well as provide additional services, such as mail tracking and tracing, according to Roy Gordon, program manager for the agency's Information Based Indicia Program. 'USPS' inidtial strategy is to sample [letters] in the mail stream and scan on a random basis,' Gordon said. 'In the long term, it will scan 100 percent of the mail to deter fraud. The key is that it provides the USPS [with] the ability to provide additional services to carry that data with mail pieces.' " This whole article is probably a must read for anyone who is following or who is interested in what the postal history of the future will be like. Dale Eggen dreggen(a)accessnv.com ***************************************************************** People who do not give specific references are cowards who are trying to have an influence on peoples opinion by the manipulation of information to suit their own will. William Shakespear ***************************************************************** _____________________ PHILATELIC.COM-E-MAIL-SERVICE ____________________ * To reply in PRIVATE to the sender, you MUST use their email address. * Selecting REPLY will distribute a PUBLIC message. * Currently reaching over 300 Dealers and Collectors with your email post! __________________________________________________________________________ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ http://www.philatelic.com _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/

2 1