- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Is "alt.cypherpunks" the best choice?
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks) At 2:49 PM -0600 2/12/97, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >It is too late to stop alt.cypherpunks, but if I had to make a >prediction again, I would predict that soon posters will BEG to help >them create comp.*.cypherpunks, because of spam and alt.flamage. Perhaps some will, but I've been a reader of many alt groups for many years, and have not found them to be unusable. Alt.religion.scientology, for example, has been a robust forum for discussion (and argument, of course!) about Scientology. My fear about using a "well respected" name is that the usual calls for moderation may end up with it being moderated! And the well respected domains are often plagued with threats by various participants that _others_ are being "off topic," with threats to send letters to sysadmins advising them that one of their users is debating an off-topic subject. I have a fair amount of respect for Igor, so my comments here should not be taken the wrong way. To wit, I recall that shortly after the "moderation" thing began on Cypherpunks(a)toad.com, Igor called for Sandy to start blocking "libertarian rants" and "crypto anarchy" discussions, apparently feeling these are not proper Cypherpunks topics. It could be that a "sci.crypt.cypherpunks" group, for example, would result in pressures on sysadmins to discipline those who post "off topic" things. (Again, I'm not saying Igor himself would do this. But there would be a temptation for some to do so.) For me, I can easily scan even a high volume group like alt.religion.scientology for threads of interest (I use "NewsWatcher YA," a good Mac-based threaded newsreader, with even support for anonymous remailers built in). If I can read a.r.s., I can read a.cp without any trouble. It works for me. --Tim May -- Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we 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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks"
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> writes: > > At 1:20 PM -0600 2/11/97, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > >If the people decide for creation of a new USENET newsgroup, > > >we need to think very hard about actually moving it to a different > > >hierarchy from alt.*. I would propose comp.org.cypherpunks, > > >comp.cypherpunks, sci.crypt.cypherpunks or something like that. > > > > > >A comp.* or sci.* newsgroup, if created, has the following advantages > > >over an alt.* newsgroup: > > > > > >1) There is usually less spam in sci.* or comp.* > > >2) There are virtually no completely irrelevant flamewars > > >3) The propagation will be a lot better > > >4) More people will be able to read it because of the issue of providers > > > not carrying alt.*. > > > > > >I see nothing that would make a sci.* or comp.* newsgroup worse than > > >alt.* newsgroup. > > > > Sure, and this has come up in every past discussion of creating > > "alt.cypherpunks." > > > > But the creation of alt.cypherpunks is _easy_, and needs little permission > > or support, whereas the creation of "soc.culture.cypherpunks" or whatever > > takes work, requires a vote, blah blah blah. And so it never gets off the > > ground. > > > > (Nor is it clear to me, and perhaps not to others, that it belongs in the > > the various places Igor mentioned. Comp.org.cypherpunks probably is the > > best fit, but then many would cite the "comp" part to try to insist that > > only _computer_ topics be discussed. Likewise, the "soc" domain would skew > > discussion...etc. "Alt" has the nice advantage of explicitly not be part of > > sci, or comp, or soc, or even talk.) > > > (I apologize to everyone whose e-mail has gone unanswered this week - I've > had a bunch of other stuff to do, but I'll get to it eventually. Also, > I posted > the Anshel+Goldfield zeta function paten number - do check it out.) > > Random thoughts: > > 1. A newsgroup like comp.privacy.cypherpunks will be carried on a lot of > corprate news servers that don't carry alt.* (or even soc.*). Note that > soc.org.cypherpunks is inappropriate since cp is *not* an organization. :-) > Another possibility is sci.crypto.cypherpunks. (True, people whose corporate > newsservers don't carry soc.* and talk.* can use dejanews - provided their > firewall lets them.) > 2. It takes more work to create a comp.* newsgroup than an alt newsgroup. > It takes a vote. I'm willing to be one of the proponents and generally help > with the process. (Both I and Igor have been co-proponents of major Usenet > newsgroups - don't know about other people onthis list. :-) Not only it takes a vote. What is more important is what a vote gives: a good discussion of the newsgroup and the formal RFD/RFD/CFV process ensures that, on average, a good balance is found between various groups of readers. I am not concerned as to what the name of the group will be, it is not important. What is important is that it should be in a more or less flame-free zone. It is too late to stop alt.cypherpunks, but if I had to make a prediction again, I would predict that soon posters will BEG to help them create comp.*.cypherpunks, because of spam and alt.flamage. > 3. An unmoderated Usenet newsgroup would have even ore crap than this mailing > list. I've been thinking of how to deal with crap, and with the obvious desire > by some people to delegate their decision what to read and what not to read > to other people. It is alt.* and soc.* that has most crap, sci and comp are way better. > Most people don't have nocem-enabled newareaders yet... Which is where the > network of cypherpunks majordomos Igor's been busy creating comes in very > handy. > It is a very good idea to let NoCeM issuers and filterers work independently from list nodes. - Igor.

4 5

Re: List for discussing many majordomos
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:46 PM -0800 2/11/97, Greg Broiles wrote: >At 06:59 PM 2/11/97 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > >>We can coordinate our efforts. Actually, we can even have a mini >>mailing list for people who want to participate in the distributed >>cypherpunks experiment. If there is any interest, I can create such >>a list. > >Yes, this is a good idea. One of the proponents of the "many majordomos" >project apparently has plans to impose his own ideas about intellectual >property on the project, and this seems like a pretty serious thing for a >setup that's allegedly going to prevent censorship. We need a place to >discuss this. I've noticed the same thing, and this is part of why I'm so skeptical of the "many majordomos" notion. Some of the proponents have their own notions of who is fit to be in their system, and which topics are appropriate. If alt.cypherpunks gets wide propagation, I expect that'll be where I post the bulk of my stuff. By the way, several people have stepped forward to offer to host "the list" (?) on their Linux boxes, or spare CPU cycles they have somewhere. It's important that such offers be weighed carefully in terms of how serious the commitment is, and how long the service might last. (For you old-timers, we wouldn't want to have a repeat of the situation where a remailer went down because "I took my laptop with me on vacation to Spain.") --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

Spamming the list
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Warning: if you fuck a Dr.Dainty Vaginal in the ass, a tapeworm might bite your penis. \ o/\_ Dr.Dainty Vaginal <\__,\ '\, |

1 0

CAPI 2.0 beta!
by anand abhyankar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

hi guys, anybody used the Microsoft CAPI 2.0? anand....

1 0

alt.cypherpunks created
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

According to DejaNews, Mike Duvos has also issued a newgroup for alt.cypherpunks: >Subject: cmsg newgroup alt.cypherpunks >From: mpd(a)netcom.com (Mike Duvos) >Date: 1997/02/11 >Message-Id: <mpdE5GMA8.ABH(a)netcom.com> >Sender: mpd(a)netcom12.netcom.com >Control: newgroup alt.cypherpunks >Organization: Netcom On-Line Services >Newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks > > > >alt.cypherpunks is an unmoderated newsgroup, needed as a replacement >for the high volume Cypherpunks mailing list, which is being evicted >from its longtime home at toad.com due to creative differences with >the site owner, John Gilmore. > >For your newsgroups file: > >alt.cypherpunks Technological defenses for privacy > >Some background on Cypherpunks, snipped from the mailing list welcome >message, follows... > >Cypherpunks assume privacy is a good thing and wish there were more of it. >Cypherpunks acknowledge that those who want privacy must create it for >themselves and not expect governments, corporations, or other large, >faceless organizations to grant them privacy out of beneficence. >Cypherpunks know that people have been creating their own privacy for >centuries with whispers, envelopes, closed doors, and couriers. >Cypherpunks do not seek to prevent other people from speaking about their >experiences or their opinions. > >The most important means to the defense of privacy is encryption. To >encrypt is to indicate the desire for privacy. But to encrypt with weak >cryptography is to indicate not too much desire for privacy. Cypherpunks >hope that all people desiring privacy will learn how best to defend it. > >Cypherpunks are therefore devoted to cryptography. Cypherpunks wish to >learn about it, to teach it, to implement it, and to make more of it. >Cypherpunks know that cryptographic protocols make social structures. >Cypherpunks know how to attack a system and how to defend it. Cypherpunks >know just how hard it is to make good cryptosystems. > >Cypherpunks love to practice. They love to play with public key >cryptography. They love to play with anonymous and pseudonymous mail >forwarding and delivery. They love to play with DC-nets. They love to >play with secure communications of all kinds. > >Cypherpunks write code. They know that someone has to write code to >defend privacy, and since it's their privacy, they're going to write it. >Cypherpunks publish their code so that their fellow cypherpunks may >practice and play with it. Cypherpunks realize that security is not built >in a day and are patient with incremental progress. > >Cypherpunks don't care if you don't like the software they write. >Cypherpunks know that software can't be destroyed. Cypherpunks know that >a widely dispersed system can't be shut down. > >Cypherpunks will make the networks safe for privacy. > >-- > Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ > mpd(a)netcom.com $ via Finger. $

2 1

alt.cypherpunks created
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

According to DejaNews, Mike Duvos has also issued a newgroup for alt.cypherpunks: >Subject: cmsg newgroup alt.cypherpunks >From: mpd(a)netcom.com (Mike Duvos) >Date: 1997/02/11 >Message-Id: <mpdE5GMA8.ABH(a)netcom.com> >Sender: mpd(a)netcom12.netcom.com >Control: newgroup alt.cypherpunks >Organization: Netcom On-Line Services >Newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks > > > >alt.cypherpunks is an unmoderated newsgroup, needed as a replacement >for the high volume Cypherpunks mailing list, which is being evicted >from its longtime home at toad.com due to creative differences with >the site owner, John Gilmore. > >For your newsgroups file: > >alt.cypherpunks Technological defenses for privacy > >Some background on Cypherpunks, snipped from the mailing list welcome >message, follows... > >Cypherpunks assume privacy is a good thing and wish there were more of it. >Cypherpunks acknowledge that those who want privacy must create it for >themselves and not expect governments, corporations, or other large, >faceless organizations to grant them privacy out of beneficence. >Cypherpunks know that people have been creating their own privacy for >centuries with whispers, envelopes, closed doors, and couriers. >Cypherpunks do not seek to prevent other people from speaking about their >experiences or their opinions. > >The most important means to the defense of privacy is encryption. To >encrypt is to indicate the desire for privacy. But to encrypt with weak >cryptography is to indicate not too much desire for privacy. Cypherpunks >hope that all people desiring privacy will learn how best to defend it. > >Cypherpunks are therefore devoted to cryptography. Cypherpunks wish to >learn about it, to teach it, to implement it, and to make more of it. >Cypherpunks know that cryptographic protocols make social structures. >Cypherpunks know how to attack a system and how to defend it. Cypherpunks >know just how hard it is to make good cryptosystems. > >Cypherpunks love to practice. They love to play with public key >cryptography. They love to play with anonymous and pseudonymous mail >forwarding and delivery. They love to play with DC-nets. They love to >play with secure communications of all kinds. > >Cypherpunks write code. They know that someone has to write code to >defend privacy, and since it's their privacy, they're going to write it. >Cypherpunks publish their code so that their fellow cypherpunks may >practice and play with it. Cypherpunks realize that security is not built >in a day and are patient with incremental progress. > >Cypherpunks don't care if you don't like the software they write. >Cypherpunks know that software can't be destroyed. Cypherpunks know that >a widely dispersed system can't be shut down. > >Cypherpunks will make the networks safe for privacy. > >-- > Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ > mpd(a)netcom.com $ via Finger. $

1 0

List-Managers list info
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"Majordomo(a)GreatCircle.COM" 4-AUG-1996 00:00:26.72 To: IN%"EALLENSMITH(a)mbcl.rutgers.edu" CC: Subj: Welcome to list-managers Welcome to the list-managers mailing list! Please save this message for future reference. Thank you. If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list, you can send mail to <Majordomo(a)GreatCircle.COM> with the following command in the body of your email message: unsubscribe list-managers EALLENSMITH(a)mbcl.rutgers.edu Here's the general information for the list you've subscribed to, in case you don't already have it: Description =========== This list is for discussions of issues related to managing Internet mailing lists, including (but not limited to) methods, mechanisms, techniques, policies, and software (in general; questions about specific software packages should be directed to the mailing list dedicated to that particular package). Technical questions regarding particular software packages (for instance, Majordomo, LISTPROC, ListServ, etc.) are NOT appropriate for the List-Managers mailing list. They should be directed to the mailing list dedicated to that particular package (for instance, for Majordomo, that's Majordomo-Users(a)GreatCircle.COM) Check the documentation that came with the package to find out where the support list for that package is hosted. This list is an outgrowth of the "Mailing Lists" workshop session at the USENIX System Administration Conference (LISA VI) in Long Beach, CA, on October 22, 1992. This is the undigestified version of the list. All messages sent to this list are immediately forwarded to members of the list. The digestified version of the list is List-Managers-Digest(a)GreatCircle.COM. Policies ======== You can subscribe a local redistribution list or a gateway to a local newsgroup, as long as whatever you do is local to your site. This restriction makes it much easier for me to track down mailer problems. I'm very aggressive when it comes to bounced email. If email to you starts bouncing, I'll probably drop you from the list fairly quickly; you'll have to resubscribe when you get the problem fixed, and retrieve the archives to find out what you missed. Archives ======== All messages to the list are archived. The archives are available via Majordomo using the "get" command (send "help" in the body of a message to "Majordomo(a)GreatCircle.COM" for more info), or via anonymous FTP from host FTP.GreatCircle.COM in directory "pub/list-managers/archive". The archives are broken down by year and month, and are stored in files named "list-managers.YYMM". The copy of the archive available by anonymous FTP is updated every night at 2am local time (0900 GMT in the summer, 1000 GMT in the winter). For further information, contact: Michael C. Berch Postmaster and list manager, Great Circle Associates mcb(a)greatcircle.com

1 0

security
by zac speidel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

does any 1 here a hacker??? Title: Skinhead Oi Oi

1 0

Re: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd)
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"ravage(a)einstein.ssz.com" "Jim Choate" 12-FEB-1997 18:43:56.23 > From: "E. Allen Smith" <EALLENSMITH(a)ocelot.rutgers.edu> >> Umm... because you'll eventually accumulate _lots_ of addresses >> that don't work, which will slow things down tremendously in sending >> mail out? >The current subscription is between 1,000 and 2,000 I don't think that is >_lots_. All we need to do is count the number of bounces per address in >a given period, the SSZ end is trying to decide between weekly or >monthly cleanings, and then clear that address. At no point would I need >to archive the original bounce. Someone with more experience correct me if I'm wrong (I'm just starting to learn about mailing list management), but isn't saving at least the first bounce from a given address good in order to check what address is the one that's actually bouncing? Admittedly, this only applies to badly-formed bounces. The rest can just have the address noted. >> 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. >I certainly hope they get a cpunks address made available. I will certainly >subscribe cpunks@ssz so that the distributed remailer will benefit from >that input. However, one of the major realizations is that as long as one >anything is involved in the list it is capable of being shutdown at any >time with no warning. It also makes it much easier to compromise. I would >like to see servers in several countries myself. Agreed. >> >Is anyone interested in acting as a mail-to-news gateway? >Want to volunteer? Give me some idea of how much programming knowledge, time, etcetera is required, please, before I can answer. I'd be renting space on some other computer (e.g., an account on cyberpass.net) to do it in; the only higher-level programming language (i.e., beyond Applesoft Basic) that I know anything of is Perl (and I don't know that all that well); and I am somewhat busy with other stuff. In other words, it depends. -Allen

1 0