- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: MIME acceptance test--where's the break-even point?
by L. McCarthy 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- If you can't beat `em, join `em -- hence I wade into the fray.... Amanda Walker writes: >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Subject: MIME acceptance test--where's the break-even point? >Content-Disposition: Inline > > >This message contains 'text/enriched'-format data. >Do you want to view it using the 'cat' command (y/n) [y] ? Yeah, I'm sure that'll help a lot.... [...] > This message, for example, is formatted as <fixed>text/enriched</ > fixed> instead of <fixed>text/plain</fixed>. It's still readable on > 80-column <smaller>ASCII</smaller> terminals. It's got some extra > stuff, but so does every <smaller>PGP</smaller>-signed message, or > worse yet a <smaller>PEM</smaller>-signed message, and I would argue > that the <smaller>MIME</smaller> formatting itself is no more > objectionable than these, just as I would argue that <fixed>base64</ > fixed> encoding (the format that graphics generally appear in when > <smaller>MIME</smaller> encapsulated) BTW, is that what that piece of obscura from Peter Cassidy the other day was supposed to be ? > is no more objectionable than > other mechanisms that serve the same purpose, such as <smaller>PGP</ > smaller> "<smaller>ASCII</smaller> armor", uuencoding, etc. [...] > Do you find this message to be "out of bounds" the way you found > my (intentionally excessive) <smaller>GIF</smaller> signature from a > while back to be? Yes and no. The .GIF you sent before caused my copy of elm to dump core, which was disconcerting but easy to remedy. I doubted that the picture you'd sent was worth viewing, so I didn't bother trying to view it with xv on my own. This message didn't prompt any error messages from elm, but it was a nightmare to read, thanks to the plethora of angle-bracketed font instructions embedded throughout the text. > If so, where's the boundary between this message and > the innumerable <smaller>PGP</smaller> formatted messages we see come by > on this list? The PGP-formatted messages don't cause my mailer to dump core, and don't have any embedded command sequences in their bodies, so I don't go cross-eyed trying to read them. That's a pretty clear line for me. YMMV. > How far are we willing to inconvenience the least common denominator > in order to provide the services we want (whether those services > be authentication & encryption, multimedia content, or anything > else)? Where to the cost and benefit curves cross? Actually, I wish you'd send a full test suite of MIME messages to the list, so I could compile a comprehensive list of the things I have to ask the tech support people here to fix. My copy of elm proclaims itself to be MIME-aware but hasn't done very well in practice. Another GIF enclosure would be handy, because I didn't keep the previous one. - - -L. Futplex McCarthy - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.1 iQCVAwUBLvE9zGf7YYibNzjpAQHUHwP/UAyrTWjxiZDQBeSOL8cTCQ8xjM+lpsCN doALb8TtJCrypS0ihZzCZ6VpDi9E/JxKPF9lnLXqzCH0LVua3j0eiNXz7TCVfFP6 clziWY9RExiTRfREC8aphNw2XRVetjfhRIOsiBj7lSqNodKnN5GS2sUEDtIBNMdL EMfHAGIWTnU= =LxLk - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBLvE+8SoZzwIn1bdtAQErRQF+OLFnCDXeznWHQws8LkxatRgaf6+F1ZuK N5e9/i52pI1gNQ4MQL5kEyWzXdH0XmMM =LceU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Automated Witchhunt: I've been slandered by a script.
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On checking my mail early this morning I found this: > Received: from access4.digex.net by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA24362 > (5.67b8/IDA-1.5); Sun, 18 Dec 1994 02:10:05 -0500 > Received: from nfs2.digex.net by access4.digex.net with SMTP id AA23077 > (5.67b8/IDA-1.5); Sun, 18 Dec 1994 02:10:03 -0500 > Received: from netcom17.netcom.com by nfs2.digex.net with SMTP id AA06122 > (5.67b8/IDA-1.5); Sun, 18 Dec 1994 02:10:02 -0500 > Received: by netcom17.netcom.com (8.6.9/Netcom) > id XAA04015; Sat, 17 Dec 1994 23:09:54 -0800 > Date: Sat, 17 Dec 1994 23:09:54 -0800 > Message-Id: <199412180709.XAA04015(a)netcom17.netcom.com> > To: unicorn(a)access.digex.net, cert(a)cert.org, emmanuel(a)well.sf.ca.us, > postmaster(a)access.digex.net, postmaster(a)access.digex.net > Subject: Re: Police & BBS...Sundevil revisited in Florida > From: unicorn (Black Unicorn) > > If you are not aware of the nature of the group alt.2600, I will explain it. > It is a hacker/cracker newsgroup, containing many illegal messages. A great > deal of its posters ask questions about or give advice on compromising > system security, even that of the system they are on. Phone "phreaking" is > freely discussed, and they explain to each other how to cheat the long > distance telephone carriers. Pirate ftp and fsp sites are often traded by > these people, and you should verify that one has not been set up on your > system, and that the user does not have pirated software in his directory. > Such could get your entire site shut down. Other verified topics that people > explain how to do and admit to doing are disrupting irc, spamming, > mailbombing, shoplifting, disrupting public transportation, and similar > dangerous and illegal mischief. > > This automated message is sent for two reasons: > > 1) To alert you of a potential threat to your system's security, in the > cases of users asking about or being told how to attempt to exploit security > vulnerabilities. Also, the poster may be using a stolen account. > > 2) To alert you that there are crackers on your machine. The account used to > post from may not be legitimate, or may be stolen (it is _extremely_ common > with alt.2600 posters to use fraudulently obtained accounts). Or, a post of > its nature may likely be a violation of terms of a membership agreement. > And, the user making this post may be preparing to break into yours or > another system, if they have not done so already. It is suggested that you > keep a close eye on users who have posted to alt.2600, and to inspect their > files and email if the posting warrants such and you can legally do so. > > All headers and complete text of original message follow: > *************************************************************************** > Xref: netcom.com comp.org.eff.talk:42937 alt.cyberpunk:43019 alt.cyberspace:8271 alt.wired:15428 alt.2600:40781 can.infohighway:2284 alt.pagan:82507 alt.bbs:37526 > Path: netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news1.digex.net!access4!unicorn > From: unicorn(a)access4.digex.net (Black Unicorn) > Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.cyberpunk,alt.cyberspace,alt.wired,alt.2600,can.infohighway,alt.pagan,alt.bbs > Subject: Re: Police & BBS...Sundevil revisited in Florida > Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.cyberpunk,alt.cyberspace,alt.wired,alt.2600,can.infohighway,alt.pagan,alt.bbs > Date: 12 Dec 1994 20:56:36 GMT > Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA > Lines: 42 > Distribution: inet > Message-ID: <3cide4$e5n(a)news1.digex.net> > References: <D0FFII.BM4(a)freenet.carleton.ca> <gradyD0G6xu.A13(a)netcom.com> <3c94ll$p9t(a)potogold.rmii.com> > NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net > X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] > > Tommy Watt - G.W. Technologies (gwtek(a)rmii.com) wrote: > : Damn.. . all this reminds me of the bust the local police department did > : on my BBS system.. > > : Under alligations of hacking, they took ALL my computer equipment, > : anything that looked like a computer, anything that couldda been turned > : into a computer, and misc. stuff.. > > : The warrant is pretty much invalid, on the blank where it says "things > : that if found may be seized" is "-- SEE ATTACHMENT 'B'" . . I didnt even > : SEE attachment B, and when I asked for it, they said they dont even have > : to show me this. > > > It's typical to seal this document. > > Unfortunately it's also a tool used for harassment, as you have to go to > a hearing to get the document opened, or looked at by a judge who will > make a determination as to the legitimacy of the sealed materials and > their seizure. > > Guess what the result in your case will be. > (Left as an exercise to the reader.) > > > : This bullshit pisses me off. . . And now they are saying that if > : anything is damaged I can't do shit because my computer equipment was > : "laying out unprotected".. > > Also typical of the type of computer seizures I have seen in past. > > The common practice is to keep the equipment long enough that it's > obsolete when you get it back. Easy to do now-a-days. > > > : Andy Goodwin > > -uni- (Dark) > > -- > 073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est > 6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa - wichtig! > ** end quotation. ** Obviously, I did not post the portion claiming to be an "automated message" and a warning to whomever will listen. Yet, the post claims to be from me. It seems then that someone is running a process which looks for posts to alt.2600, and then automates the above response, original post attached, to warn off system admins, fight crime, save the day, etc. etc. Either that or Lance is bored again. Does this disturb anyone besides me? Most obviously, the misattributation is concerning. Clearly the threat of misattributed automated posting is merely one more argument for digitally signing each and every message and post. Less obvious, but perhaps more ominous is the concept itself of automated postings that amount to censorship chain letters. "System Administrator A didn't pay attention to this message and refused to snoop into his users directories and three weeks later his system was shut down. System Administrator B headed this letter's warning, and saved his access provider from certain doom!" Look carefully at what this letter says, what it urges system operators to do. 1> Because alt.2600 is occasionally used to trade pirate ftp sites, those who post to alt.2600 are probably pirates. ergo, System Admins. should check the directory of any users who post to alt.2600. If you don't snoop, your system will be shut down. 2> alt.2600 is used to promote shoplifting, and irc disruption. (No relevance is even attempted by the message on this point.) And the purpose of the letter? 1> To alert you that this user is probably posting from a stolen account. That the named user is probably a security risk, a troublemaker, a political dissident, or whatever else comes to mind. 2> "To alert you that there are crackers on your machine." Not that there MAY BE crackers, not that crackers are known to be on alt.2600, and therefore may be on your system, but that crackers ARE ON YOUR MACHINE. If the bald misrepresentation of this statement evades anyone who reads this, I simply give up all hope. 3> That the post may be a violation of the access provider's membership agreement. (As if the automated or manual sender of the message has any idea what the membership agreement of my particular provider might be) 4> The user making this post may be preparing to break into [your machine] or another system, if they have not done so already. 5> To suggest that system admins. "...keep a close eye on users who have posted to alt.2600, and to inspect their files and email [if it's legal]." For those recipients of this message that do not know me, I am an attorney, a member of the D.C. bar, and a law abiding person. The allegation that I, by replying to a message crossposted to alt.2600, am a hacker, a cracker, a shoplifter, a vandal, or whatever other villan of the week you might choose to insert is absurd. The above message constitutes slander, defamation of character, and is entirely untrue in any regard to me other than in so far as it indicates my words might have reached alt.2600 at some time or another. The content of my original quoted message alone should indicate to any reader how absurd the "automated posting"'s allegations are, and demonstrate the pure uselessness of such an approach as of means of accomplishing anything more than to annoy, accuse, threaten, and waste bandwidth. The fact that the automated posting proports to be sent from me almost makes whatever hacking I am supposed to have done seem tame. >From a legal standpoint, the automated posting is entirely lacking in any basis whatsoever for increased scrutiny of my, or any other account address which it slanders. Directing scrutiny to accounts posting at one time or another to "questionable" newsgroups should prompt one to ask one's self about the state of free speech in cyberspace, and increasingly, in this country. What has become of our system that discussion forums, be they on "questionable" topics or not, become probable cause for investigating system users, or rummaging through accounts. I hereby inform the system administrators on my provider, as well as others, that I would consider increased attention to my account, or any other based on this sham of an "automated posting," harassment, invasion without cause, a violation of several electronic privacy acts, and simple witch hunting. Should I come by any indication that such attention is directed to my account, I shall immediately terminate my account with Express Access, and pursue what legal action is available to me to the full extent possible. System administrators would do well to inform themselves of the requirements for intrusion into users accounts, the protections provided those accounts both by statute, and constitution. hile anonymous writings, political speech and literary products have a long and sacred history in the United States, baseless accusations leveled by anonymous finger pointers do not. I find the tactic and tone of this automated posting distasteful and offensive in the extreme. I urge system admins at my, and other providers, to discourage the use of such automated witchhunts, and expose the party/parties responsible for the distribution. I, for one, would be very interested in talking to the individual/s responsible. -uni- (Dark) [unicorn(a)access.digex.net] 073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est 6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa - wichtig!

4 3

Re: Tim May the Luddite--His Last Message for A While
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim wrote: >It may be time for me to move on. More than 2 years on this list, >since the B.C. period, may be too long. > >I'm fed up with fighting these battles, and no doubt many of you are >fed up with seeing contentious pitched battles. Cypherpunks is >increasingly a forum of strutting and posturing about who has the most >powerful tools, who is spending more of their lives staying at the >bleeding edge of technology. Depressing. Nobody is posturing or bragging. Perhaps I should have learned more programming, to help advance the cause, but everybody has their talent and programming isn't mine. Nonetheless, even if you don't like the messagers, listen to the message with an open mind. This is not a flame war. No insults. No critisism of a person. >The consensus of the active posters in this latest thread (Perry, >Amanda, Lucky, Jim, others) is that I am a hopeless fuddy-duddy, >unwilling to begin posting in the latest modality. > >(Funny, Netnews is still 99.999983% plain ASCII, by message count, and >nobody advocating a more advanced scheme is actually _using_ such ne >plus ultra formats here on this list. If it's so easy, and so 'punkly >correct, why not?) If I thought that your were a hopless case and beyond learning, I wouldn't spend so much time posting on this topic. It would be uncalled for to post messages here in MIME. This list is about thought exchange and the type of thought exchange that we do here can be done just fine in ASCII. The same is true for most of netnews. That doesn't mean that a different newsreader wouldn't make it easier on you. Have you ever tried Newswatcher? Have you noticed that the latest software updates posted to USNET are just a mouse click away? Can you honestly say that you don't like Newswatcher better than tin? >Jim McCoy wrote: > >> If you are truly interested in making strong encryption easy and >> transparent to the vast majority of the users of future communications >> systems you should be leading the MIME charge, not holding everyone back... > >I don't care for this imputation that my views on communicating with >the list are somehow holding others back. Or that discussing these >issues is inconsistent with being "truly interested in making strong >encryption easy and transparent." Just different ways of trying to make you see the light. >Bluntly, I'm fucking sick and tired of these cheap shots and personal >innuendos. Maybe it's the "young guns" syndrome, with a codger like me >whose first Net account was in 1972 being a ripe target for the newest >pistoleros with their .486-caliber Linux boxes in their holsters. > >Whatever, I'm fed up. I don't see any cheap shots or personal inuendos. All I see are a lot of folks who like you and wish to help you as you helped them. You have said that you don't want any help. That is your right, but understand that unless you adopt some of the new tools the world will leave you behind. We all have learned a lot from you (at least I have) and we know that the sooner you start seriously using the new stuff the sooner you will help improving it by your _constructive_ criticism. Enjoy your vaccation <I mean it>. -- Lucky Green <shamrock(a)netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

1 0

Re: Remailers and Keyservers, active ones?
by lcottrell＠popmail.ucsd.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Is there a list of the currently active remailers and key servers? > > >-uni- (Dark) > While I do not remember the URL of the remailer list, it is on my home page. -------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell who does not speak for CASS/UCSD loki(a)nately.ucsd.edu PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server. Encrypted mail welcome. Home page http://nately.ucsd.edu/~loki/ Home of "chain" the remailer chaining script. For anon remailer info, mail remailer(a)nately.ucsd.edu Subject: remailer-help "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche

1 0

Re: "Any of the mailers that you can use on a shell are oxen"
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

L. Futplex McCarthy wrote: >Lucky Green writes: >> Any of the mailers that you can use on a shell are oxen. > >So after my dept. tosses all its DECstations in the dumpster tomorrow, >following your advice, what OS should the new machines support ? System 7 ? >AmigaDOS ? VMS ? Windows 95 ? What's the fabulous alternative to Unix about >which I've inexplicably missed hearing ? I was afraid of this... I _love_ UNIX. I do not want to see it replaced. What I claim is that 7bit terminals and terminal emulators are a piece of history. My message is that the use of non-ASCII displayable data on the net is growing and that character based terminals are unable to handle the way information will (is) be(ing) presented. UNIX can handle graphics just fine, just VT100 can't. There can be no other lasting solution but to abandon VTwhatever in favor of bitmaped output devices. Since running X over a dial-up connection is rather inefficient, and considering the significant computing power of the PC's that are now being underused as dumb terminals, processing the data locally seems to be a sensible solution. -- Lucky Green <shamrock(a)netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

2 1

procmail
by cort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just installed procmail (on my Linux system at work). The installation (readme, makefile, hand-holding along the way) was _very_ nice. It earns my hearty endorsement. Please advertise crypto enhancements to procmail to me (in email if not of general list interest). Who has the procmail integrated PGP (signing, etc.)? Cort.

1 0

HTML "printenv"
by iijon＠iiit.swan.ac.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all, A while back, there was mention of a WWW URL that gave back all the details passed between one's client and a server. Can anyone remember the URL? I remember it ended in "printenv" Thanks for the help. -- Jonathan H. Care, i^2it Ltd. -o- PGP public key available. Email: iijon(a)iiit.swan.ac.uk -o- Tel: +44 1792 295213 Fax:+44 1792 295811 http://www.linux.org.uk/Jon.html -o- My opinions are solely my own. VMS - OS software for the 70's.

1 0

Re: The Thread That Wouldn't Die (Was: Re: McCoy is Right!)
by L. McCarthy 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Jim McCoy writes: > L. McCarthy writes: > > Jim McCoy writes: > > > Actually this "dumb flamewar" has produced some good discussion regarding > > > actual implementation issues. > > I beg to differ. If you think that was a good discussion, I'd hate to see > > what you'd classify as a bad discussion. Crypto relevance was minimal, too. > A bad discussion contains very little signal. Right. We went through dozens of messages to establish that some people like MIME and others don't, just as we did several weeks ago. What a surprise that not much has changed since then. Bleeding wonderful. > The crypto relevance to the MIME discussion was quite apparent to me, > it is a shame you missed it. If it was "quite apparent", it's a shame you didn't make that clearer at the time, rather than claiming it now. I saw plenty of flaming about various people's mailers and net connections. If someone was making points about crypto there, they were doing a damn fine job of hiding it. > Every argument that was used against MIME will one day be > used to discourage the widespread use of cryptography. By this reasoning we should resurrect all the old firestorms about gun control and child pornography. Analogies can be drawn, perhaps, but I don't feel those discussions are appropriate here. > Additionally, MIME > is a necessary standard for encapsulating cryptographic messages in a > package that can get through some of the stranger transport mechanisms used > on the net, Good standards are good. There's a revelation. Yep, we sure needed dozens of messages to rehash that. Right. > > > Everything that has happened with MIME will happen again when people > > > try to add cryptography to the structure of the net. > > It seems to me that people are *already* trying to add cryptography to the > > structure of the net, and that would actually be worth discussing. > Yeah, like the PGP-MIME draft, which will open up the ability to > effectively use PGP to more people than anything the cypherpunks have ever > done :) So why not talk about that instead ? > Standards are important and instead of trying to tilt at > windmills to no purpose perhaps it is worthwhile to examine how existing > standards can be effectively marshaled towards cypherpunk goals. Exactly. - - -L. Futplex McCarthy - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.1 iQCVAwUBLvF4X2f7YYibNzjpAQHmKQQAj9Sn16yJw2p52wH5IDca45MR1LYHAt0b YHndPHHD9ktpOgc4aoOBBnduItNgj6Z0hkuMRIoSB/Zy7P+Q11nMIcZwAiiocqlO /DA8pZ6WNEoZ47dUGX7+PrfJLkecJaxaCeZihFqqUUegaqhLSTRa6oX3QCgtXRfW UD4NMJ/mQu0= =feNH - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBLvF5uioZzwIn1bdtAQHi4AGAy25SDZwylW/AWgX1YYPMOEb8BHrilE5V a8SlvxhpX0uEAy0HqfjSIlGfTO7+WpBY =Y17/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: HTML "printenv"
by danisch＠ira.uka.de 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> A while back, there was mention of a WWW URL that gave back all the > details passed between one's client and a server. > Can anyone remember the URL? I remember it ended in "printenv" Try these: http://www.mit.edu:8001/machine http://www.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/printenv Hadmut

1 0

Mr Anonymous' ignorance and 10 threads
by rishab＠dxm.ernet.in 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mr. Anonymous the Anti-Mime should be very embarassed indeed: > I think the point Tim is making is that at the current time, our lives > are not made easier or enriched by "MIME". If I want point and click > spreadsheet opening, I can use other systems that have worked for 5 > years or more, with apps that are already configured and easier to use. Mr. Anonymous seems to believe that MIME is a way to associate documents with apps so that they start up on double-click! :-D I don't really understand the need for such a huge 10% thread (SNR 1:10) on MIME of all things (with most of it concentrating on transmitting pictures and using dumb terminals). I have my own domain name and access the Net at 24+ kbps from multiple platforms all capable of running MIME, but I don't post in MIME. I agree with Tim that it's only rarely that MIME could add value to posts on this list. When MIME readers do PGP nicely, then it would be something for Cypherpunks to scream about. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rishab Aiyer Ghosh "In between the breaths is rishab(a)dxm.ernet.in the space where we live" rishab(a)arbornet.org - Lawrence Durrell Voice/Fax/Data +91 11 6853410 Voicemail +91 11 3760335 H 34C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA

1 0