- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

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

17 Dec '03

At 10:12 AM 2/13/97 -0500, Pete Capelli wrote: >jim bell wrote: >> >> At 03:25 PM 2/12/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: > ><Some deleted> > >> 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. > > Yes, but why does monetary compensation make it then O.K.? What, exactly, is your definition of "O.K."? I didn't say that would make it "O.K." Rather, the inclusion of the money makes the spam somewhat more tolerable of an intrusion than it would otherwise be. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Good Bye Cypherpunks!
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> writes: > [...] > By the way, I can forward to those who are interested these four or five > posts which got "Meta-Censored." (Unless too many people request > them...I'll promise to forward them to the first five people who request > them...then some of you can repost them to the list and see if they make it > through.) I'd like to see them. In fact I'd like to collect the posts which slipped through the crack and didn't make it to either cp-flames or cp, on the assumption that these are the posts which tell the story. In particular I'd like to see the post that John Gilmore refered to as `Mr Nemesis' post, wherein someone allegedly slanders/libels C2, to the extent that Sandy dropped it from both lists, if anyone who was subscribed to cypherpunks-unedited at the time has it still. Unfortunately I was subscribed to only cypherpuks-flames and cypherpunks (the edited list) at the time, so didn't get to see it. I'm on Lance Cottrell's cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net now, which is subscribed to the cypherpunks-unedited list. At the moment Lance is setting Reply-To: to cypherpunks(a)toad.com, but I presume he'll drop that when John Gilmore drops cypherpunks(a)toad.com. The moderation decisions that I saw prior to moving to cypherpunks-unedited after Sandy's return, and change of policy, were even more arbitrary. I figured I wasn't even interested to see what they were any more, given that the cypherpunks(a)toad.com was shortly being closed anyway, so just subscribed to cypherpunks-unedited. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

1 0

A "Default Faggot"/ was:Dale disses gays.
by aga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Anonymous wrote: > Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:45:07 -0700 > From: Anonymous <nobody(a)wazoo.com> > Reply-To: freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org > To: freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: Dale disses gays. > > aga <aga(a)dhp.com> writes: > > > Now just who is thisa guy? -- who keeps posting under > > "nobody" at the cajones remailer? Anybody have him/her > > tagged yet for the real person? > > Probably multiple people. It's just an anonymous remailer. > > > ... > > I don't know. It has always been easy for me to spot a faggot. I > > mean, I can even tell by their voice if they are queer. > > Well, those of us who happen to know Gilmore is straight are not very > impressed with your accuracy. > Well, I never talked to Gilmore, but I will tell you this: I have never seen him come outright and say "I am straight and not gay." So until he says that, he is a default faggot. The default faggots are the worst kind. If a guy would just say "o.k., I am gay," I can respect him and drop the subject. It is the ones who refuse to admit they are gay that bug me the most.

2 1

Re: Fuck UseNet (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 14:39:41 -0800 (PST) > From: Kent Crispin <kent(a)songbird.com> > But the distributed mailing list is by far the most interesting > solution. Contrary to what some have claimed, it really isn't the > same as usenet -- it allows for distributed control. There is no > doubt that the operator of a mail list host should have the freedom > to set his or her policies as they see fit -- it is their machine, > and their responsibility. And contrariwise, subscribers should have > the freedom to chose list hosts with compatible philosophies. Perhaps in addition to the X-foo structures we have discussed already we might consider adding, X-distrib-policy: foo Where foo might be, Public Domain All rights reserved, contact author for redistribution Distribution for non-commercial uses permitted Refer to authors header Copyleft etc. or whatever the policy might be for a given remailer. This would significantly aid folks in their shopping around. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

At 02:05 AM 2/14/97 -0600, snow wrote: >Pete: >> Yes, but why does monetary compensation make it then O.K.? I'd rather >> pay for my Internet access, then be bombarded by spam, no matter what >> they paid me! I think the best soln. is the one that is currently in >> place for phone calls - they can call once, but if I tell them not to >> call me again and they do, I can then begin legal action against them. >> I pay more per month for my phone service than my Internet service ( >> although in NY, *everything* is more expensive. ), and junk phone calls >> are way more intrusive then spam. > > I figure if this scheme comes to fruition, I'll just set up a seperate >account (or procmail) to filter out the spam, deposit the coin, and go on >about my business. That's fine...that's EXACTLY the way the system would work! Intentionally so! The purpose of the payment is not because the sender feels some sort of legal obligation to pay; rather it's analogous to a tip to a waiter. The sender makes the payment based on however much he _wants_ you to pay attention to his message, but fully aware that there is no guarantee that you'll do so. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

4 5

Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Against Moderation writes: > If you want to fight censorship effectively, going around telling > people "You're a shit-eating faggot you fucking cock-sucking homo > censor" in public forums is not going to win you many points. On the contrary. John Grubor is Usenet's most effective probe as to the mindset of people who really want free speech. The precise litmus test of free speech is vehemently offensive things that are spoken. > Instead, it will quickly land you in many people's killfiles, and will > eventually lead some people with bad client software to wonder if it > wouldn't be worth giving up some freedom of speech for the benefit of > not having to see your rants any more. Then they don't want free speech. They want the illusion of free speech, "free speech as long as you don't say THOSE things". > Unfortunately, it sort of makes life harder for those who actually > fight the censorship when you pretend to be one of them. Your > argument seems to run something like, "To protect freedom of speech, > bad all faggots from the net, and especially don't let them run any > mailing lists." If this offensive and highly noticeable argument > eclipses many of the important, fundamental ones as the censors would > like it too (why do you think your articles make it to cypherpunks- > flames while mine only get as far as -unedited), you will end up not > only inducing censorship but also seriously hampering the efforts of > those who are legitimately fighting that censorship. Don't you get it? Real censorship issues do not arise until someone rocks the boat. It takes someone to rock the boat to make you aware of your own prejudices of that nature. If it takes attacking homosexuals and pissing them off enough to make them show their true colors and begin censorship...so be it. Why be civil when that civility serves to hide that which is ultimately against free speech? You'll find those of us who -truly- want free speech are extremely good at ignoring what we don't like. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Don't teach the blind until you have practiced living with closed eyes

5 5

Re: Letter Re: Kahn Supporting GAK
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:35 PM 2/5/97 +0000, Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl' wrote: >Good point: but I've seen a few refs from LEAs about "Drug Dealer X >who we can't talk about" or "Child Pornographer Y who we can't talk >about" (in lieu of cases being digested by the court system) so I >didn't harp on that point. > >A point I did leave out was that if they already knew these people >were criminals and were building cases against them, monitoring them >enough to know they used crypto, then do they really need to bother >with listening in to the exact message? I think it would be appropriate to insist that these guys (the LEAs) document their need for decryption, by providing "us" (the public) with an encrypted version of the data that they have accessed but cannot understand, as well as its source and what case it's associated with. The LEAs would encrypt it and publicize it (not openly identifying the details) but with the promise that the key to unlock the information would be released within, say, a year or even earlier once a case is brought. Included within the encrypted identification would be references sufficient to identify the case involved. If they have any doubts as to why they should do this, we should point out that we see no reason to believe their claims, but we want to give them the maximum opportunity to prove them without requiring that they spill the beans, completely, now. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

$10,000 in 45 days - not MLM!
by christensen＠usa.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello,^Morons, $10,000 in 45 days! When I first read that provocative headline I thought "Oh yeah!" Now, why do you think I'd be so skeptical? Well, if you've been involved in any other "opportunities" you'd know that the hype mostly exceeds the reality. No one could have been more surprised than me, when I actually proved the truth of that headline. Yes, I did make over $10,000 in 45 days! I'm not saying this to boast, but to tell you that it really is possible... If you'd like to know HOW, then just point your browser to: http://www.cyberius.com/CG/122/ or, simply call and listen to a short message at: 1-800-995-0796 x4347 And keep my ID for reference.... Regards, Kirt Christensen Investors International #CG122

1 0

Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Against Moderation <antimod(a)nym.alias.net> writes: > Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I never suggested Dr. Grubor's > views should be suppressed. Not only do I believe he has every right > to express them, I also believe (as I explained) that I think there is > value in inducing censorship as he has, so as to get people's > censorious tendencies out in the open where they can be fought. If you know this, then I fail to understand your arguments with him? > However, Dr. Grubor is no advocate of free speech (though I'm sure he > thinks he is). If Dr. Grubor had his way, he would severely restrict > the rights of gay people to express themselves on Usenet. Advocates > of free speech must truly tolerate all speech, even that which they > find strongly unpleasant or disturbing. I'm still not sure you are understanding as you claim you are. Look at what he says. Ask yourself if he supports freedom. If you think he does not, then for -you- he does not. If you want to know the real man, take him to dinner. > My point was therefore that Dr. Grubor would do better to say > "Exterminate all faggots" than "Exterminate all faggots in the name of > free speech," and that those of us who truly support freedom of speech > would do well to distance ourselves from Dr. Grubor, while still fully > supporting his right to express his opinions. Nonsense. I claim that those of us who truly support freedom of speech must -embrace- Dr. Grubor as a respected man of great skill, for he can show us just how free any mailing list or newsgroup truly is. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep

2 1

Switching to full traffic mode
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I would like to warn and ask subscribers of cypherpunks(a)algebra.com. We are going ot get full feel from Lance Cottrell and cypherpunks-unedited(a)toad.com. We will filter messages by Message-ID to get rid of duplicates. It means that there is no sense (unless you want to confirm my integrity as the list host) to be subscribed to any of the other lists, as you will be getting multiple copies of messages. If you are afraid of that and use Unix, the following procmail recipe gets rid of duplicates: # # This recipe removes duplicates! # :0 Wh: msgid.lock | formail -D 32768 msgid.cache I am somwehat concerned by the behavior of my majordomo which is very paranoid about incoming messages: it rejects all messages that it THINKS are attempts to suscribe and unsuscribe. In this rejection, it is sometimes too broad. I do not know how to solve this problem. ATTENTION: if you want to get a feed from me, PLEASE send me a note and do not simply subscribe your mailing list to cypherpunks(a)algebra.com. It is because I want to send you the messages before my majordomo rewrites headers. - Igor.

1 0