- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:22:28 -0800 > From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> > Subject: Re: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" > I was making the point that _any_ site distributing a list is likely to > face legal pressures not to carry certain items. Read between the lines (or > read the unedited list) the discussion by John Gilmore, Sandy Sandfort, and > the products of Sandy's company, and legal pressures applied, to see what I > mean. This is exactly the reason that my suggestion to anyone setting up a remailer with any sort of controversial content should do it as some sort of outreach of their business. It is too expensive in time, money, and hassles to do for grins and giggles. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Transmission of Crypto material and ITAR
by Benjamin Grosman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear All, I have a question regarding the impossible enforcement of ITAR/EAR: Naturally I cannot download crypto software from the US, but most of these sites have mirrors in other countries, such as the UK for PGP, and sweden and finland for lots of things. However, with the way that information is routed throughout the internet from these sites, whenever I, in Australia, request packets containing this data from the UK etc, it invariably passes through the US from coast to coast! Therefore, if ITAR/EAR tries to govern that, aren't they really trying to enforce something totally unenforcable? Surely they cannot expect all gateways operated by, say, Sprint and MCI to packet sniff 'n' search? Can anyone tell me what the ruling is with regards to this? Yours Sincerely, Benjamin Grosman ---------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Grosman - Programmer, Magna Data Internet Solutions Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. [Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.] ----------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Network of majordomos (fwd)
by Bryan Reece 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:33:03 -0800 From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles(a)netbox.com> Yes, I installed INN and ran a few hundred test messages through it last night. My machine will be on the net full-time Thursday or Friday. Will yours be ready then, too? We've got INN here. I created a cpunks.general group (as well as alt.cypherpunks) on taz.nceye.net and made both world-accessible. Our feed hasn't got alt.cypherpunks yet; is someone who has got it willing to feed it? (also, is there a consensus on what group names to use: new top-level hierarchy? cpunks or cypherpunks? or just the alt group, with the usual propagation and spam problems?)

1 0

Re: New group
by Jeremiah A Blatz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk writes: <snip> > > I pressed the URL alt.cypherpunks and my Netscape server said > > "no such thing" or words to that effect. > > The control message may take a few more hours to propogate, either > that or your newsadmin has rmgrouped it. The charter was clear and > concise and explained the issues so I don`t see why it should have > been rmgrouped. Can you mail me if it hasn`t been created by the time > you get this email and I`ll re-issue the cmsg. However, I`m sure it > was OK as Robert Hettinga (sp?) found it on his news server today... Yet another "me too," alt.cypherpunks is alive (dunno about well, time shall tell) on my news server. Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwKe2Mkz/YzIV3P5AQGQYQMAkwiuqAV/PsdcCscHVbsT6rxoKMv63UQh ebBIUh9QnXxVqjxcv3dvoanYGrP1Ldyvza9GXgLlTBIwtAuC+Od026mcV0NljUT/ 9WSg3iaHdUBReHpXbTsOVF+a9lQp4fzP =Hfgq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: NSA Rainbow Series.
by Moroni 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

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. On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Tobin Fricke wrote: > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:03:35 -0800 > From: Tobin Fricke <tobin(a)edm.net> > To: Moroni <moroni(a)scranton.com>, Genocide <gen2600(a)aracnet.com> > Cc: Cypherpunks Mailing List <cypherpunks(a)toad.com> > Subject: Re: NSA Rainbow Series. > > > 1-800-688-6115 press 0 or just wait for the operator. My second > > order consisting of posters and video has not arrived either. It has been > > about 6 weeks. The Rainbow order was only 2 weeks. Be prepared that when > > you order the Rainbow series you will be getting a large box.Their are > > something like 30+ booklets in the series. > > There is a set of security posters that include a Santa > > poster.And there is also a video with two films on it (Acess Ins and outs > > adb Acess Control). > > How much does all this stuff from the NSA cost? > > Tobin Fricke > (please reply privately, tobin(a)mail.edm.net) > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x No success can compensate for failure in the home. x x x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

1 0

Transmission of Crypto material and ITAR
by Benjamin Grosman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear All, I have a question regarding the impossible enforcement of ITAR/EAR: Naturally I cannot download crypto software from the US, but most of these sites have mirrors in other countries, such as the UK for PGP, and sweden and finland for lots of things. However, with the way that information is routed throughout the internet from these sites, whenever I, in Australia, request packets containing this data from the UK etc, it invariably passes through the US from coast to coast! Therefore, if ITAR/EAR tries to govern that, aren't they really trying to enforce something totally unenforcable? Surely they cannot expect all gateways operated by, say, Sprint and MCI to packet sniff 'n' search? Can anyone tell me what the ruling is with regards to this? Yours Sincerely, Benjamin Grosman ---------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Grosman - Programmer, Magna Data Internet Solutions Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. [Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.] ----------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Procmail during the transition, anyone?
by Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At various stages in the transition, we will be getting multiple copies of the same messages as the are re- cross- whatever-posted to lists, newsgroups and anything else handy. Anyone have a procmail script that will show me just ONE copy of messages, even if the headers are not identical (e.g. one looped, another was forwarded, etc.)? I have yet to find a good guide to procmail coding. My file is long, and inefficient, and a pain to maintain...and I'm too busy to learn it right. == The above may have been dictated via Dragon Dictate 2.52 voice recognition. Please be alert for unintentional word substitutions. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin(a)law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here.

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Sean Roach wrote: > ... > Something to consider. If anyone of the distributed remailers is removed > from a ring, the messages that need to travel across that ring can no longer > do that. This makes the loop only as strong as its most at risk remailer. > The star approach has already been seen in action, the trouble here is a > single choke point. > Full interconnectability is only feasible in a small net, but I would advise > this at first. Check for the x-loop to see if another one got it first. If > none, add one and send it on down the line. > A disjointed mess, if the remailers are given first access to the list, > could work quite well as long as that x-loop remained to point to who sent > the message, and the x-loop contained an unalterable message number, and the > remailers could eliminate duplications, probably based on message number. > This should work as the net grows and would only be as weak as the strongest > two connected remailers. > Sounds like the internet. > I'd suggest a simplier solution: to connect each server with a couple, or maybe three, other servers. This scheme is rather robust, does not consume too much CPU time and bandwidth, and is easy to implement. - Igor.

1 0

Re: Private property rights on cypherpunks (fwd)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

While I'm not entirely unsympathetic with the notion that "information should be free," your statements below are rather incoherent. For purposes of analysis, let's talk about a story I report and write myself. Depending on the article and travel involved, I may have spent hundreds of dollars working on it. I am unwilling to donate those efforts to the "public domain" every time; I may later want to sell the article to recoup my costs. Think property rights. (Of course, I admit the need for broad fair use rights as well.) "De facto public domain" is an idea that deserves to die. Now. -Declan On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Jim Choate wrote: > > 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 > >

1 0

Security (Re: Encryption for DNS registration)
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Donald Eastlake posted this on the IAHC-discuss list. Cool stuff. >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:14:05 -0500 (EST) >From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee(a)cybercash.com> >To: iahc-discuss(a)iahc.org >Subject: Security (Re: Encryption for DNS registration) > >People may want to note that yesterday (Feb 11th) the IESG approved the DNS >dynamic update and DNS secure dynamic update (draft-ietf-dnssec-update-04.txt >and draft-ietf-dnsind-dynDNS-11.txt) as Proposed Standards. The base DNS >security protocol was approved some time ago and is now out as RFC 2065. TIS >is working on a government funded implementation which will be in the public >domain (http://www.tis.com/docs/research/network/dns.html) Their current >Beta implementation of the base DNS security has been approved for export. I >believe there is an independent implementation effort underway at Microsoft. > >While this was primarily motived by wanting to be able to securely do dynamic >updates of the DNS in connection with DHCP, it is a general facility and >could be one element of securely implenmeting a shared TLD. You would, >however, still need a way of sending general authenticated messages. PGP >seems like an excellent candidate for this as it is the de-facto standard >available world wide. > >Donald [ quotes from previous messages deleted -- Bill ] >===================================================================== >Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1 508-287-4877(tel) dee(a)cybercash.com > 318 Acton Street +1 508-371-7148(fax) dee(a)world.std.com >Carlisle, MA 01741 USA +1 703-620-4200(main office, Reston, VA) >http://www.cybercash.com http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html > > >

1 0