- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Hash functions
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy May's father, an idiot, stumbled across Timmy May's mother, an imbecile, when she had no clothes on. Nine months later she had a little moron. /\ __/__\__ | 00 | Timmy May |: \ :| | \_/| \__/

2 1

TRUTHMONGER UNMASKED!!!
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate, realizing that he finally had solid evidence as to the true identity of the coward hiding behind the TruthMonger persona, forwarded to the list: > OPEN MICROPHONE CATCHES CHRETIEN'S CRITICISM OF CLINTON > From Senior White House Correspondent Wolf Blitzer > > Apparently unaware the microphone in front of him was on, Chretien > bragged that his country does not let the United States dictate its > policy, and suggested American politicians make decisions solely for > reasons of expediency. > > "In your country, in my country, all the politicians would be in > prison because they sell their votes," Chretien said. Spoken like a TruthMonger! I always had my suspicions that the main person using the TruthMonger multi-user persona on the CypherPunks list was acting out of some kind of obsessive, guilt-driven psychosis as a form of repentance for great evils being commited under his true identity. Chretien, as Prime Minister of Canada, has to live with the knowledge that in order for his country to survive he needs to kowtow to a gang of criminals in a neighboring country who have the firepower to smoke the Canadians' butts in a heartbeat. The TruthMonger posts are more sporadic when Chretien is involved in international conferences, and it is now obvious that the pressure of living a lie builds up and spills out at these times when he cannot relieve himself of his guilt using his TruthMonger posts. I suspect that Belgian Prime Minister Jean-Luc Dehaene is Rabid Wombat and Luxembourg's Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker is masquerading on the list as Dr. Dimitri Vulis, KOTM. The CypherPunks list is the one place where they can let their hair down and tell Big Brother Bill and the whole goddamn world what they really think. > He also said Clinton was in favor of inviting Poland, Hungary and > the Czech Republic to join NATO because it would woo voters. > > Speaking in French, the Canadian prime minister said: "It's not > reasons of state. It's all done for short-term political reasons, to > win elections. Take the quarrel over whether to admit the Baltic > states. That has noting to do with world security. It's because in > Chicago, Mayor (Richard M.) Daley controls lots of votes for the > nomination." Or, as Chretian would have put it, as TruthMonger, "Big Brother Bill is a lying, Nazi, sack of shit whose main concern in regard to world security is his ability to use it to suck Daley's big vote-cock." > The three leaders laughed as they waited for the Clinton and his > advisers to arrive for the meeting. True CypherPunks, they are laughing their asses off that "we the sheeple" let these charlatans and criminals rob and oppress us under the guise of democracy. > He (Chretien), he's used to not doing > what they want," Juncker said. > > "I make it my policy," Chretien said. "But it's popular. The Cuba > affair. I was the first to stand up" against it U.S. policy > tightening the economic embargo on Cuba. Unfortunately, he didn't have the political balls to testify for the defense in the Timothy McVeigh trial, so he had to express his support for McVeigh as TruthMonger. > The three leaders chuckled among themselves. What the fuck is wrong with the American people? Here are three world-leaders who openly acknowledge that the U.S. is in the hands of gangsters who would be imprisoned for crimes against the citizens and the country if justice truly prevailed in America. And a single conversation, accidentally(?) revealed such as this one, is no doubt just the smallest of samples of the stinking rot that lies at the heart of a gang of criminals who are actively working to subvert the constitution of the country in the interests of furthering their ever- tightening, fascist grip on the reins of power. The same government which trained Timothy McVeigh to kill (and then fucked over his Desert Storm compatriots when their service to their country cost them their health) used their trained, "it's all there in the press release" news dogs to turn their own penny-ante hired gun into a "monster" symbolizing patriotic paramilitarists whose concern lies with defending America at home rather than murdering foreigners for "votes." Slipping in the polls because you murdered and fucked over too many of your own citizens? Whack out a pile of worthless foreigners with high-tech weapons that allow us to slaughter them wholesale without losing any American lives. Watch your poll stats rise as Americans stand and cheer the murder of defeated, retreating troops by aircraft missles which weren't designed to take prisoners. Act surprised when 800 government law enforcement agents with the latest in technology claim to be unable to prevent men, women and children that were victims of a botched government assault from dying a horrible, burning death. Act outraged when the chickens come home to roost in Oklahoma City. > "In your country, in my country, all the politicians would be in > prison because they sell their votes," Chretien said. The reason they are not in prison here is because they are armed and dangerous and have managed to disarm and disenfranchise their citizens, making any resistance to government fascism a criminal offense. We get to vote for the criminal of our choice from among the group of criminals that the other criminals pre-select for us and whose campaigns they support with our stolen booty. If a "ringer" slips through, such as Kennedy, he is murdered and the criminals make a great show of patriotic mourning. If a no-name schill is foisted on the public as vice-president,like Agnew, and will take power because the "gang leader" is getting busted, remove him on the basis of what are "parking tickets" compared to the crimes of most of your cronies. World-leaders recognize that the American citizen is just a stupid 'mark' who is getting fucked in a sophisticated con by men who have no qualms about stealing senior citizen's life savings (Social Security) stealing votes and elections (bribery, sabotage and power mongering), and stealing the rights and freedoms of the citizens by lying about the need to stop illegal drugs (which remain freely available no matter how many of our rights and freedoms are stripped). I don't have a death-wish of any sort, but if I happen to get killed by someone striking back at the enemies of freedom who are usurping the constitution to tighten their criminal control over the citizens, then I can think of far worse reasons to die. We lose 169 people every time a bean-counter decides it's cheaper to pay off the families of the dead instead of spending an extra nickle on every seat-belt installation in an automobile. We lose 169 people every time some Senator decides we need a new weapons system instead of new hospitals or medical services. We lose 169 people every time the President decides to stomp on the citizen's rights instead of giving them enough freedom to feel like they can face life without numbing their senses to the stench around them with ever-increasing amounts of narcotics. Gambling is a government-regulated criminal enterprise, now, and Timothy McVeigh's ante was just to establish that the citizens are in the game. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see some heavy betting taking place from all the players who choose to "sit in." American sheeple may regard McVeigh as a "monster," but world-leaders make a strong case for viewing him as a "crime-fighter." A. Cretin

1 0

Re: Anonymous mail as spam?
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

snow wrote: > > At 10:49 PM -0800 3/25/97, snow wrote: > > > What would I do if I were a spammer? > > > Submit the _same_ coin to every mailing I sent out. It will pass > > >your coin filter, and so you see the message, but will fail when you try > > >to spend it, or clear it. What do I care, you've already seen the message. > > I should always try to clear your coin and if I like your message send you > > a new coin. If I can't clear your coin, then your message goes to > > /dev/null. > > This assumes a system where coins can be cleared in real time, and > that people read thier mail while online. At least the second is not an > assumption that can be bourn out. > > > I hope those public key operations are cheap. :-) > > Or at least less than 10 cents. I believe that the 'money-point' for UCE (unsolicited commercial email) spammers is somewhere around .02% for most of their offerings. In other words, they need to send out 10,000 emails and get a response just to break even. So, to make it unprofitable for them to spam god and everybody, it would only take a small surcharge. i.e. a penny or less. I don't actually object to the average Jane/Joe trying to use the 'new medium' to turn a buck, since I don't think that they should be denied the same opportunity as the mega-buck corporations. However, I would like to see the cost of operations for these types of activities be substantial enough that they will be forced to adopt a method of operations that will ensure that there is least a chance that I will be interested in what they have to offer. As things stand, I could buy some UCE/spamming software and send out my proverbial "How To Make $$$ Licking Your Own Dick" missives and probably make some money, since it would not cost me much to send my messages to a few million people. If it was actually costing me even a small sum to send each message, then I would no longer be able to afford indiscriminate spamming, but would still have the option to use hardwork and intelligence to narrow the field of recipients to only include those who might be interested in my offer, such as Bill Frantz, Jim Bell, and Bill Stewart. I truly believe that the InterNet should be left accessible to those without a lot of resources/cash, and that any effort to control abuse through cost should be so minimal as to not interfere with the ability of those who are currency-challenged to participate in its benefits. -- Toto "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix/xenbody.html

4 4

Re: Corrupted "From:" headers in my posts
by Alec 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 01:27 AM 3/26/97 -0600, Toto wrote: |I emailed John Gilmore, asking his advice, and he informed me that |he has run into this problem before, and would be happy to provide the |solution, on one condition. | | He wants one million monkeys to send 5737 messages to the list, saying |"John Gilmore is NOT a cocksucker." | Then, he will provide the solution, and not a moment before. OK, John, count me in. #1! "John Gilmore is NOT a cocksucker." Alec -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQCVAgUBMzkeTSKJGkNBIH7lAQHI3QP8DgE91P6O1jF00rBJkv0h2KiXwBf72sXo xrrwRg36PLnYK0+6se5Ldh3mro4J25a7pNdErOlMCEEnkuLz2HHDApgF+bikzEw4 WvZa/3OlSAd1o54/HbMuHnfmZBfsLiEiYIzGGDVJsqTzjiUdqvYJpH3Caq605qT5 5uN7A3fhACc= =Rh5N -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

Acclivity - A global web of change management
by Marc Fourny 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

acclivity Apologies for cross-posting Excuse me if this message does not concern you. web site: http://www.acclivity-consultants.com email:acclivity@interweb.be Dear , I am pleased to announce the formation of Acclivity, an international network of independent management consulting practices in fourteen countries in Europe, North America and Africa, specialising in all aspects of corporate transformation. For corporate executives managing change in the transformation of their business is an increasingly complex task. How can they manage risk ? How are they to control change and still keep the initiative ? How much creativity should be involved in new projects ? Will their staff fully participate and cooperate in the changes envisaged ? Acclivity has been set up to assist clients, many of whom are international companies and are transforming across national boundaries, to answer these and other questions: and at the same help them master all aspects of the transformation process so leading them towards a more competitive position and profitable future. Acclivity differentiates itself from its competitors in that all the consultants in the network are senior experienced people whose role is to provide advice and guide the clientUs staff through the various stages of the transformation process. There are no junior consultants and analysts as we believe all the detailed work should be carried out by clientUs staff. All the consultants are used to working in different countries and carrying out cross border assignments. Together, the Acclivity consultants provide the full range of methodologies used in change management and transformation. From their different backgrounds, they bring the full value of their professional and cultural skills as well as their competencies and creativity to help the client: 7 determine new value proposition for his target markets 7 reengineer his business 7 develop cross-functional organisations 7 transform his strategic and operational processes 7 open his operations to external partners - clients, suppliers and contractors 7 renew his innovation processes, awaken hidden talents, and enhance his creativity and knowhow 7 reshape the culture and values within his business 7 strengthen his human capital 7 restructure his support functions: human resources management, finance and accounting, and information systems and technology. The distinctive added-value offered by our network lies not only in the mastery of these particular methodologies. An effective transformation also requires that the consultant provides assistance in all areas where the organisation has to be mobilised. In order to secure long-lasting sustainable results each Acclivity assignment is composed of three modules: 7 we lead the executive team through the transformation journey. The use of organisational prototypes, for instance, minimises the business risks. We help management modify its modus operandi so as to provide the opportunity of involving the whole organisation in the change process 7 our own research, observation, and analysis of best practice cases are used as guidelines for the companies change efforts, from strategy definition to detailed implementation of the new organisation 7 finally, we train the change team to innovate, install and implement new structures and systems. In addition we develop a new project management capability which is particularly key to success when radical change is involved. I would welcome the opportunity therefore of discussing with you your own tranformation programme to see how we might be able to add value to your own resources. Yours sincerely, Marc Fourny President web site: http://www.acclivity-consultants.com email:acclivity@interweb.be

1 0

Re: [Proposal:] Revolving Web Mirrors
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> writes: > At 9:00 AM -0600 3/26/97, William H. Geiger III wrote: > > >>How does this actually provide any benefit to anyone? Search engines ala > >>Altavista etc. are entirely too unreliable and too slow to pick up on > >>these magical mirrors, especially if they are as dynamic as they would > >>appear to be. And if there's a central "come here and get all the > >>mirrors!" page, the Bad Guys can simply block that page too. > ... > >Does Altavista, ...ect accept notification of new URL's and if so what is > >the average lag time between receiving notice and the URL making it into > >the search engine? > > > >The problem that I am trying to address is that a determined State could > >block all static mirrors over a period of time. By making these sites > >dynamic it makes the job much more difficult for them. > > Why not have e-mail notification about mirrors? To whom? > (Like Raph's remailer list, where an e-mail version is sent out in tandem > with the Web site update.) > > Sure, some Big Mommy filtering services will block the Web sites, but they > probably are completely unequipped to try to interfere with e-mail. It's a piece of cake to scan all incoming e-mail and to see who's getting notifications of the new locations of the "banned pages". It doesn't matter if the "authorities" are the local gubmint or a corporation... If the incoming e-mail is encrypted then the authorities can scrutinize all incoming encryped e-mail and ask the recipients what's in it, why it's encrypted, and whether it's solicited or not. If the notofications of the "banned pages" locations are unsolicited, they have good grounds for a complaint to your ISP. If they're solicited... the recipient's in trouble. But if the notifications are a small part of traffic on a large- volume mailing list, like this one, then the recipient can claim that they've subscribed to the mailing list for the other content (like the ASCII art :-). --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: improving public acceptance: "alt" mail domain
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Andy Dustman <andy(a)CCMSD.chem.uga.edu> writes: > FYI, anonymous.net is registered to John Gilmore. SHIT!!! Someone, quick, complain to the InterNIC. Who let the cocksucking NSA shill kidnap a domain name? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: New WinSock Remailer Available; Compatible with Win95
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Joey Grasty <jgrasty(a)gate.net> writes: > You can now download the latest version (version ALPHA1.3B) of the > WinSock Remailer from my webpage at: > > http://www.cyberpass.net/~winsock/ ... > The WinSock Remailer is the Windows version of a cypherpunk remailer. > This version, ALPHA1.3B, runs under Windows 3.1 and Windows 95. > A version for Windows NT will be released shortly. ... > I need to know if you have success with any of the following untested > configurations: > > a) Windows NT (now known not to work) What exactly is the problem with NT (if any)? You might want to take a look at the source code to the cancelbot I published last year - it has some winsock calls that work fine under NT. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

2 2

Re: The Recent Trend in "Collective Contracts"
by Peter Swire 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:29 AM 7/10/97 -0700, Tim May wrote: >I'm not a lawyer, but I am interested in the various ramifications--and the >constitutionality--of recent "sweeping contracts" between vendors, >lawmakers, consumers, etc. > >Two recent example: > >1. The "tobacco agreement." Supposedly a deal involving the transfer of >$360 billion from some number of tobacco companies in exchange for dropping >of liability suits, immunity from future claims, voluntary restrictions (!) >on advertising, etc. (And the "etc." is especially complicated in this huge >case.) So far as I know, the agreement has no legal effect until and unless a bill is enacted in Congress. Once a bill is enacted, there can obviously be far-reaching ramifications. For instance, an individual's right to sue in tort can be cut off. Punitive damages can be abolished for the defined class of suits, etc. If such a bill is enacted, various groups would likely sue on the basis that it is unconstitutional. That's what happened with CDA -- the indecency provisions first became law, and then were overturned in the courts. > >2. The "voluntary ratings" agreement being announced today by Al Gore and >some of the television networks. (Earlier "voluntary agreements" were >implemented, but, according to supporters of censorship, "failed." Hence >the new push for newer voluntary restrictions.) The big legal fight on ratings is whether any "state action" takes place. The First Amendment governs efforts by a federal or state government to restrict speech. If private companies "voluntarily" agree to do something, the First Amendment simply does not apply. But if the coercive power of the state forces them to do the same thing, then the courts can get involved under the First Amendment. Here, if the government is too explicit that it will ban certain speech unless the networks ban it, then a court might find that the government in fact is involved in an impermissible way. >The issue, it seems to me, is that ordinary concepts of illegality and >civil liability are being swept aside in favor of these huge "deals" to >reduce liability in exchange for various actions. Well, who is bound by >these deals? > >If "Tim's Tobacco Company" starts up next year, after this deal is >"signed," is his company bound by this deal? If Tim the Smoker develops >lung cancer, is he blocked from suing? > The basic concepts are pretty clear. A contract among various parties binds that group of parties. A statute of general applicability can regulate everyone in the jurisdiction. The existing tobacco companies can't bind "Tim's Tobacco Company" in their contract. However, if they support a bill in Congress, and the statute is enacted, then their actions might indeed play a role in restricting your actions later on. Peter Prof. Peter Swire Ohio State University College of Law mailto:swire.1@osu.edu web: http://www.osu.edu/units/law/swire.htm (in early stages of construction)

9 14

New remailer
by Kevin McGowan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Features: cpunk pgp pgponly hash cut ksub Public key for remailer(a)neva.org -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCNAzL2F4AAAAEEAL2G5u427j6LBWgUi8S1OlCsnaPhoB6h4V0xS2FQfuIQQS9Q dtTL/p406sdGAKtQEm/BecIgY+MLNKNukuOU9ifgz7jAs3kmm7i4yS714ua4vwag Kg3fJIOiNxIk38ieKJE0s3vfPMZPeGNt8x8y7jfxZuMvuVyjNrYJG4a+gwxNAAUR tBoyTXVsZXMgPHJlbWFpbGVyQG5ldmEub3JnPg== =ta0J -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0