- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer
by Mark Krell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:22 EDT >From: "E. Allen Smith" <EALLENSMITH(a)ocelot.Rutgers.EDU> >To: ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com >Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com, list-managers(a)greatcircle.com >Subject: Re: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > >From: IN%"ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com" "Jim Choate" 12-FEB-1997 11:59:08.20 > >>> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 19:18:46 -0600 (CST) >>> From: ichudov(a)algebra.com >>> Subject: Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" > >>> John Gilmore wrote: >>> > A pentium is definitely up to this task. I've been running it the >>> > whole time on a slower 40MB SPARCstation-2 (that also runs netnews and >>> > general computing). Give it a big /var/spool partition (mine is 60MB) >>> > because every message will sit in the queue for days (*somebody* on >>> > the list will have an unreachable name server or MX server until the >>> > msg times out). Give it lots of RAM and paging space, since each >>> > sendmail process takes about 2MB virtual, 1.4MB physical, and you will >>> > have dozens running at the same time. > >>My approach to this problem has been to use a 1G drive and mount the entire >>file system on it. Swap and MS-Dos each get their own partitions. This >>allows the use of the entire drive as a buffer. I am in the process of >>adding another 1G in approx. two weeks with the intent of moving /home off >>the main drive. This not only gives the system more space but the users as >>well. I set swap to 4x main ram. I use Linux and have it as one giant >>partition even though suggested is blocks of 16M, works for me (YMMV). Would >>be minor to monitor df and alarm when it gets to 200M or something. > >>I must admit however that I am looking at a faster mbrd. and a bigger hard >>drive in the immediate future to make up for the extra load I expect. Had >>not really planned on the remailer project however... > >>> > You'll need a BIG mailbox for the bounce messages, and someone (or >>> > some unwritten software) to scan it every day or two and delete the >>> > lusers whose mailboxes are full or who dumped their account without >>> > unsubscribing. The bounce mailbox on toad gets between 1 and 4MB of >>> > email a day; more when the list is under attack. > >>How about dumping the bounces to /dev/null? I shure don't care if some >>bozo's (other than mine that is) mailbox goes away. > > Umm... because you'll eventually accumulate _lots_ of addresses >that don't work, which will slow things down tremendously in sending >mail out? > >>> > The real issue is how willing you are to put your own time into >>> > dealing with problems. Not only do things go wrong by themselves, but >>> > there are malicious assholes in the world who will deliberately make >>> > trouble for you just because they like to. Spending a day or two >>> > cleaning up the mess is just part of the job. Check your level of >>> > committment two or three times before taking on the task -- so you >>> > won't end up getting disgusted after a month or two and putting the >>> > list's existence into crisis again. It's not a "set it up and forget >>> > it" kind of operation. > >>I can verify this. If I was not already having to deal with these problem >>as a current mailing list operator I certainly would not take on the >>job. It is one of the reasons I STRONGLY suggest anyone serious about this >>should use the resources to make money as well. Anyone capable of setting up >>and operating such a remailer system is at least capable of basic skills. > > Well, loki(a)cyberpass.net has made the offer to host the entire >list... and Lance is certainly making money at it. While this would have >some problems in comparison with the distributed list idea (namely more of >a choke point), it would decidedly help. > >>> Another suggestion may be to set sendmail expire option to one day >>> instead of five so that messages that cannot be delivered would bounce >>> faster and not clog the queue. > >>I like this idea very much. Myself I would set it for like 4 hours or so and >>if it couldn't be delivered then bye bye. Another motivation for selective >>sites to operate as archives without themselves being remailers. > >>Another issue related to this is at what point to unsubscribe accounts. It >>seems to me that if the address times out some number of times it should be >>deleted. > >>Is anyone interested in acting as a mail-to-news gateway? > > >

1 0

Private property rights on cypherpunks (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:58:42 -0500 (EST) > From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)pathfinder.com> > Subject: Private property rights on cypherpunks > I forward articles to cypherpunks that are copyrighted by my employers, or > magazines like Playboy and Wired for which I write freelance pieces. > > I like to think these articles have some value. I will not forward any of > them, nor would I be able to, if they magically became "public domain." > > "De facto public domain" is an idea that deserves to die. Now. Really? Do you have a priori permission from your publisher, who owns those stories, to distribute them elsewhere? If not please explain why I or any other person should be a willing acomplice? You could also still post them anonymously. You could also simply include a 'fair use' proviso somewhere. In such a case it would be in your publishers best interest to require a copyright notice. In that case there is no confusion about who owns those rights. Especialy when you consider the traffic is global which means your 'implied copyright' here don't mean squat there. I suspect just about every place that recognizes a copyright recognizes an explicit one. Instead of "De facto public domain should die" how about, "Implied a priori contracts should die now" Lord a mighty, haven't you heard? Information wants to be free. Let the thing go. If you really think your words are something that will someday win a Nobel or make Mr. Bill look like a pauper note it explicitly. However, it would seem to me that implicit copyright works against the axiomatic crypto-icon. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

2 1

FIGHT THE INTERNET TAX
by Robalini＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subj: [Fwd: New Internet Tax--Can YOU Afford It?] Date: Wed, 12 Feb, 1997 05:00 PM EDT From: pentiumpower(a)internetx.net You have until tomorrow to protest the new Internet "tax" which the FCC will be entertaining. Here is the message which I sent out to everyone that I could. I suggest that you spread this message as QUICKLY as possible. It is extremely important the FCC be bombarded by messages and then maybe, just MAYBE, we'll beat this thing! This is a VERY SERIOUS ISSUE!!!! It is extremely important and will determine whether or not the Internet continues to be available to all of us or just those who can afford massive fees. Figure it out, $.10 per minute is $6.00 per hour and this doesn't include your present monthly fees! Are YOU going to be willing or able to pay it! The following is a message which I sent out a week ago. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is entertaining the possibility of permitting the telecommunications industry to impose a per minute charge on Internet Service Providers (ISPs). This charge will, obviously, be passed directly on to the user; US! Needless to say, this new "tax" will increase the cost of access to the Internet tremendously! I strongly believe that this will curtail the growth of the Internet dramatically. At a time when access to knowledge and learning is at an all time high, this additional "tax" will impose an incredible burden on the average user, to say nothing of very likely forcing many smaller ISPs out of business. In addition, this will cause an extremely adverse affect on the rural user who does not have toll free access to the larger ISPs, i.e., AOL, Prodigy and others. If you feel as I do, drop an Email message to the FCC who has requested comments. Their address is: mailto:isp@fcc.gov You may "click" directly on the address which will bring up an Email message box in most programs. Add your comments, pro or con, and send it off! Deadline for all comments is Thursday, February 13, 1997! My message follows. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Allowing the imposition of a per minute charge on Internet use will not only destroy the growth of the Internet, it flies in the face of improving the education of our children. Published figures indicate that--for the first time in decades--the television is being replaced by the computer. This growth, undoubtedly, will be wiped out by this proposed new "tax". In addition, to virtually eliminating access to sources of information over the entire world, no small Internet Service Provider (ISP) will be able to compete with the larger ones who will be able to negotiate lower rates. Another "kick in the pants" to small business! I summarily reject allowing the telecommunications industry to "reach into the pockets" of those of us who use the Internet (and rely on it) for our access to information! This single act--if permitted--will set back the "information age" decades! I IMPLORE YOU NOT PERMIT THE IMPOSITION OF THIS NEW TAX"!!!!!! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ | Put Forth: | | "Your Best Image" | | with | | Computer System Configuration & Assistance | | Business Consulting, Guidance & Management Services | | Employer/Employee Human Relations Counseling | | Technical & Business Writing & Graphic Arts | | REsumEs, Interview Training & Employment Counseling | | | | Professional Business Consultants with over 30 Years Experience! | | | | Post Office Box 1438 Telephone (406) 642-3900 | | Hamilton, Montana 59840-1438 Fax (406) 642-3993 | | | | Email World Wide Web | | mailto:info@yourbestimage.com http://www.yourbestimage.com | |______________________________________________________________________| | Because e-mail can be altered electronically, | | the integrity of this communication cannot be guaranteed. |

1 0

Re: subscribe
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > > > Hi Igor, > > > I will not impact me negatively. I do, however, suggest very strongly > > that hosts should be subscribed to each other thgrough another mechanism > > and not majordomo, in order to prevent mail loops, header rewriting and such. > > Suggestions? What I had in mind was that any messages that get sent on > cpunks(a)ssz.com get sent over to algebra. One mechanism I would like to play > with is a 'linked list' of remailers. Remailer A sends only to B and > receives only from C... > > > A > ^ v > C < B > Then to stop loops B deletes all outgoing mail from B. Since email can be > forwarded from many sites the search must traverse the entire forward chain > killing the message if B appears as a source. I suspect a simple procmail sort > can accomplish this. My next step is to brush up on my procmail. I hope to > have something in a couple of days that will allow you to subscribe > cpunks@algebra to cpunks@ssz and both ends will be filtering. Here's how I do it (it is pretty close to your proposal): 1) I delete duplicate messages (by looking up the database of message-IDs) right away 2) I bounce all incoming messages to several other list servers 3) I pipe the article to majordomo for distribution. Note that majordomo changes headers and I wuold like to feed other servers with UNCHANGED articles. Here's the .procmailrc that takes care of this: (OTHER_HOSTS will be redefined to include, e.g., cypherpunks(a)ssz.com) # Please check if all the paths in PATH are reachable, remove the ones that # are not. # # NOTE: I use lockfiles extensively (and even excessively) because # I do not want to overburden the system. Since I am on a # PPP link that is not always on, sometimes large amounts of # submissions come in simultaneously and that may impair # performance of the overall system. You do not REALLY need # to use these lockfiles otherwise. ################################################################### PATH=/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin:$HOME/bin MAILDIR=$HOME/Mail # You'd better make sure it exists DEFAULT=$MAILDIR/mbox # VERBOSE=ON LOGFILE=$MAILDIR/from LOCKFILE=$HOME/.lockmail OTHER_HOSTS="cypherpunks(a)zzzz.com" :0 c $MAILDIR/allmail ############################################################ mailbombing ############################################################ end mailbombing :0 * ^TOcypherpunks * !^X-Loop: * !FROM_MAILER * !FROM_DAEMON { # # This recipe removes duplicates! # :0 Wh: msgid.lock | formail -D 128000 msgid.cache # send it to all other hosts :0 c !$OTHER_HOSTS # add X-Loop: :0 fhw | formail -I "X-Loop: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com" # send it to people :0 c | cypherpunks-send-subscribers # Accounting, logging :0 | cypherpunks-accounting } :0: * ^TOcypherpunks-request $DEFAULT # all the rest is trash :0 $DEFAULT # thats where it should be #/dev/null > Another nice advantage of this architecture is that 'rings' of remailers can > be interconnected by simply sending output to more than one site. Might even > be a good stability rule, "Never have a remailer send to more than 1 machine > in its 'own' ring". I see no limit other than resources that would limit the > number of rings an individual remailer might be in. A very good point. > The address is 'cypherpunks(a)ssz.com' but as alluded to above. I would like > to let it run 1 way for a day or so to get an idea of the stability of our > network link. You might consider creating a bogus username on your end. > Subscribe that user to the SSZ remailer and to your own mail list. Then use > procmail to filter all outgoing mail of that user since its incoming would > be from your list and its outgoing would go to mine, which then forwards > them to your list. We might want to call the bogus user 'gatekeeper'. Yes, we really should make darn sure that no loops are poissible before inviting people to subscribe to our lists. > If its agreeable lets get together on the cpunks-hosts list tomorrow and > discuss this a little more. > > If you don't mind, please forward this to the cpunks@toad list with your > responces. I would like to expose it to a little criticism. > - Igor.

1 0

Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, We have established the first link between cypherpunks(a)ssz.com and cypherpunks(a)algebra.com. Testing will continue for about 24 hours and we hope to have the link going two-way within a couple of days. If testing proceeds at the current pace we should be ready to go for a 3-way link if anyone will be ready this weekend. If we can get a 3-way going we should be ready for prime time. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: New group
by Rich Burroughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:38 AM 2/12/97 -0800, Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> wrote: >Paul Bradley wrote: >> Well despite the obvious problems of propogation I thought it was time >> someone actually did something to get us a new home, even if it`s only >> temporary. So I have created alt.cypherpunks... See you all over on >> usenet!... > >I pressed the URL alt.cypherpunks and my Netscape server said >"no such thing" or words to that effect. It has to be created on your local server, Dale. Wait a bit, and if doesn't show up speak to someone st your ISP. Rich ______________________________________________________________________ Rich Burroughs richieb(a)teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~richieb U.S. State Censorship Page at - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/state dec96 issue "cause for alarm" - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/cause

1 0

No Subject
by Mark Krell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--=====================_855820976==_ Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Content-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970212205911.8620J(a)crl8.crl.com> you are forwarding messages to me... stop it. remove markk(a)ra1.randomc.com from your mail list... all of a sudden I'm getting mail from bunches of people i don't know and who don't know me. help me out... go to the place where you got my email address and have them correct their links. Thank you. markk --=====================_855820976==_--

1 0

Re: NSA Rainbow Series.
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:53 PM -0500 2/12/97, Moroni wrote: > Zip,NAda,Nothing. And they have more too. They were backlogged so >some people haven't gotten their mail since I last posted about. I called >yesterday about my videos and posters and lo and behold I received my two >tech manuals today. > The people who answer the lines are friendly and usually pretty >industrious in getting things out or done. > By the way there is supposed to be a department split in the near >future so I don't know if manuals will be in one department and posters in >another or what. By the way, I say "FORGET IT" to the NSA Rainbow manuals. A worthless pile of crap. I subscribed to them several years ago, got the Big Box of Manuals, and then got new editions every few months for several years. None of them were ever useful to me in even the slightest way. They are written in "bureaucratese," so they're not even fun reading. If they're not on the Web by now it just shows what a sicko government agency the NSA and NCSA is, and if they _are_ on the Web, you'll see what I mean quickly enough. Even for "novelty value" ("Hey, Tim, the mail guy just delivered a package from the National Security Agency!") the books are worth very little. Do a tree a favor and just say No to the Rainbow series. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" 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: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Newgroup -- distributed mailing list on the way?
by Omegaman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted as well. It appears that the distributed mailing-list effort is well underway. Experiments by Igor Chudov and Jim Choate are progressing. The next few weeks should iron out the kinks.(over-optimism?) Lance Cottrell (mixmaster author) has also agreed to host the list, the entire list if need-be. Although his posts on the cypherpunks list indicate that he favors the distributed list approach. Lance is also in the unique position of having the computing resources to feed the list to and from alt.cypherpunks. Furthermore, Lance seems to be favorable to this idea as well. However, he needs help in getting up to speed on just how to create and run this news-to-mail/mail-to-news gateway. What this means is that the same list will be propagated through multiple sources, making the destruction or loss of any one source non-catastrophic. It is also the classic net approach of routing around censorship channels. Furthermore, users who cannot access the alt.* hierarchy or easily read newsgroups have the option of subscribing to mailing lists and receiving the same uncensored feed. This also means that users will have a maximum amount of resources at their disposal to better experience the list and eliminate the net's inevitable spam and noise. Users who have access to or prefer powerful newsreaders and NoCeM's can use them at will. Users who have procmail, Pegasus Mail, Eudora Mail and other email-filtering schemes can use those powerful tools. It is likely that the cypherpunks list/group will remain a target of spammers and disruptors. The controversial topics are bound to generate noise. The entrance of unitiated individuals via Usenet is bound to create some interesting and sometimes aggravating discussions as well as the inevitable re-hashing of some old issues. The unfiltered, uncensored, and multi-homed list/group leaves the responsibility where it belongs, in the lap of end-user. Ignore the noise and the noisemakers. Defeat the disruptors by avoiding them. Accept your responsiblity and contribute Signal whenever you can. "Arise! You have nothing to lose but your barbed-wire fences." git along 'lil doggies

1 0

Re: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:25 PM 2/12/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >Having said this, the flaw remains that "junk mail" is "free" to the >sender. This is a flaw in the ontology of e-mail, and needs to be fixed. >Digital postage is one approach. I decided long ago (okay, well, many months ago) that the "solution" is to invent a mechanism to allow spammers/advertisers to include a small amount of ecash as a gift with every spam. I figure that if USnail junk-mailers are willing to pay $0.32 for postage and probably $0.50 for production, printing, and labelling costs, all for no guarantees of results, they should even more happy to pay, say, 10 cents to each recipient. At that rate, an average person would probably receive enough "spam" to pay for his Internet account, quite analogous to the way advertiser-supported TV is presented to the public for no explicit charge. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0