- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Phone Line Internet
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Inter@ctive WeekOctober 10, 1997 Nortel Unveils 1-Megabit Phone Line Ethernet By Peter Lambert 1:00 PM EDT Northern Telecom Inc. announced the Nortel 1-Meg Modem, a modem designed to extend Ethernet-equipped personal computer access across standard telephone lines. The company plans to deliver plug-in modules for its DMS phone company central office switches and its Internet Thruway voice switch bypass device in the first half of 1998. It will license the 1-Meg Modem technology to modem makers. The 1-Meg will deliver 1-megabit-per-second speeds downstream into homes or businesses and 120-kilobit-per-second speeds in the other direction, and like Ethernet-connected local area network (LAN) interfaces, the modem will always be on, requiring no dial-up connection. The technology will offer compatibility with both frame relay and Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) backbone networks. Separately, Nortel finalized a deal to gain an unspecified equity interest in NetSpeed Inc. and rights to integrate NetSpeed's Digital Subscriber Line technology into its own products. NetSpeed's ATM-based LoopRunner Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer is designed to terminate up to 560 users per central office system rack. Nortel can be found at www.nortel.com NetSpeed can be found at www.netspeed.com Email Peter Lambert

2 1

No Subject
by biz＠savoynet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Realizing that many of you do not wish to receive UCE, if you would please type REMOVE in the Subject Header, you will not hear from me again, you WILL be permanently removed. If you don't do this, and send me a nasty reply, there will be no way for me to REMOVE you. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////// We are looking for reseller for our Virtual Pets/Electronic Pets Tamagotchi Style Virtual Pets On sale 3 in 1 Electronic Pets ( We have 200,000 pcs in our Taiwan factory ready to ship ) Price: $3.5 FOB Taiwan at quantity 1000 UP Smaller quantity: price by request. This is most popular electronic toy. We can provide the "Virtualc Pets", Dinosaur, Puppy, Kitten 3 in 1 It can be re-set, so you can play with your pet for a long long time. If you are interested in these products. Please contact with us. mailto:biz@savoynet.com Long Well Electronic Corp. P.O Box 15211, Fremont, CA 94539

1 0

After All,-----It Is *YOUR* Life
by skoked＠mail2.c-flash.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

After all, It is *YOUR* Life-- I would like to let YOU in - on a small Gold Mine!! I have.... If you are like many other people who don't like going to work-This is for YOU!! Even if you love your job (especially if You don't) - This is for YOU!! What I'm about to say maybe UNBELIEVABLE at first, But read on... THIS IS NOT A SCAM--- I am an ordinary Joe just like YOU!! EVERYTHING YOU NEED----(except a small amount of dedication and time) Is being offered to *YOU* ---*RIGHT NOW*!!! The rest will follow !!! I'm going to share with You--- My *FREE* Software--- To get You started on Your way !!! ---WHAT HAVE YOU GOT TO LOSE?--- -Soon, from 9 to 5 , You will be doing all of the things You only dreamed of !!! ***RIGHT NOW*** To get YOUR *FREE* Software, Reply with the subject 'FREE' P.S.- Reply only with Subject 'FREE' (nothing else should be in this field) /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// This Message was Composed using Extractor Pro Bulk E- Mail Software. If you wish to be removed from this advertiser's future mailings, please reply with the subject "Remove" and this software will automatically block you from their future mailings.If you do not reply only with subject "Remove", there is no way for you to be "Removed"........So please do so if you want to be "Removed". ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

1 0

free market (was RE: GET OFF THE DIME: PGP 5.5)
by rishab＠dxm.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Attila wrote: would you rather have PGP, Inc. with its preeminent stature in the defense of freedom, freeware, and privacy as well as an established, TRUSTED product defining THE system which meets the need of the [etc] if i remember right, the idea behind PGP when it first came out was that you ought not trust ANYBODY. that's why you have the source code@! it's a free market. if PGP Inc wants to make money, and needs to meet the corporate demand for some sort of alternative-key mechanism to snoop on their employees (or keep backups of important correspondence when employees forget their keys) so be it. as an individual, it hardly matters to me if it's PGP or Microsoft that's selling this stuff - remember, crypto software doesn't read your mail, people do, and if my company wants to be able to read my mail it'll buy the tools from anyone who's selling. frankly i couldn't be bothered if the tools are from "TRUSTED" PGP or Evil Bill. for all i know, my employer is quite happy with GAK too. of course if i'm willing and able to work independently of any company, then i _do_ have control over the privacy software i use, and in that case, if i'm paranoid enough, i can always go through the source code. -rishab

1 0

Re: America as a Shake Down Extortion State
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Ryan Anderson wrote: >That's the point - you ignore the legislation until it becomes a problem >for you. Then you challenge it and get a legal precedent to stop it from >happening again. > >The judicial system is in *much* better shape than the legislative system >(even though they are strongly related) > >This, however, is not to say that the judicial system is in good shape. You're ignoring the fact that the legislative and the judicial are just two different horns on the same beast. "Please impale me with the kinder, gentler horn," is what you're saying. Let's face it. This "challenge it and get a legal precedent" approach has done absolutely nothing to stop America, formerly one of the freest countries on earth, from slowly devolving into a socialist police state. That's why I say fuck the lawyers, and fuck the legislators, too. If a roomful of morons are writing up ludicrous rules and you're gullible enough to listen to them, then who's the real moron? Ignore them. Set a precedent in life. I'm suggesting active civil disobedience by every thinking person in this country. I'm not saying blow up a federal building or any other such nonsense. Be responsible for your actions, but act! And act intelligently... [ Imastun ] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNEISTnC/ZQW0eQF1AQHZ2wP9GpVnZj7M8GErkJY9aKrpU9tSgLM99AKz CdLiDDpJGTLV1w09xhEpHFJWqgBx/Uq+6GdK/ih1Osrdu5vzYHh93eTGWGU1nmYD cbxl8TQOfVw9KbG3drrHx+Azvv6QzYJrrV4e2xPkoGuEeQUByFcemR9XIpcwmg8a 9r/7hyV3dTo= =xnIk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

ipnat problems continued
by Matthew Patton 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've tried varios purmutations of the map rules to no positive effect. map ppp0 192.168.1.0/24 -> 206.142.xx.yy/32 portmap tcp/udp 10000:20000 repeat except substitute ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ with 0.0.0.0 or ppp0. Neither works. I ran tcpdump on ppp0 on the gateway and sure enough, the box is sending down the modem link 192.168.1.10 (the particular LAN host trying to initiate an outside connection) as the source IP. Now if everything were correct shouldn't it be the IP addr of the local end of the PPP link as hosted on the gateway box? (ie 206.142.xx.yy) ipnat -l has never once shown any indication of active connections. Either nat is seriosly not working under stock v2.1 (anyone prove it does work?) or there are some undocumented and not exactly obvios dependencies with regard to kernel options. Can someone please mail me a kernel config that is guarenteed to work on a stock v2.1 box for i386 architecture? BTW, how come kernal option IPNAT isn't documented ANYWHERE? It's not even in the ALL file. -------- Windows95: noun. 32-bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16-bit patch to an 8-bit operating system originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor, written by a 2-bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition. (author unknown)

2 1

Telstra Australia admits it lied about net
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.australian.aust.com/computer/fulltext/c1014b.htm Telstra: We were wrong about Net By GEOFF LONG October 14: A Telstra official has admitted that the carrier overestimated the congestion problems associated with the Internet, one of the prime reasons given when it wanted to introduce timed local calls. Speaking at the launch of Telstra's Big Pond Business services, Big Pond general manager John Rolland said congestion caused by Internet users connecting for long periods was not as big an issue as they first thought. He added that the about-face was in line with similar findings from North American carriers and switch manufacturers Alcatel and Ericsson. Mr Rolland said that the main problem areas are where ISPs are situated, but that these were manageable: "What is clear is that in the medium term we will have hot spots, especially around ISPs." However, these could be addressed by working with the ISPs and managing connectivity better. The remarks came in response to Telstra promoting permanent modem connections as part of its Big Pond Business offering.

2 1

Collisions
by Daniel Colpi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Greetings and Salutations, Does anyone know of where I can get some sort of window to "catch" all of the system mess. while xdm is running? There are a lot of collisions that happen, and they mess up the screen with error mess. The people who use these computers assume the this is broke. Any ideas? Thanks, Daniel Colpi colpi(a)purdue.edu

3 3

Re: CVS: cvs.openbsd.org: ports
by uk1o＠rz.uni-karlsruhe.de 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello! [older mail] According to Warner Losh: > In message <199709160731.JAA11130(a)waldorf.appli.se> Niklas Hallqvist writes: > : To people with commit access: committing to ports won't work, it's a > : sup mirror where files will get overwritten. Instead discuss changes > : on ports@ and when good, mail to imp@ with explanations for > : consideration of including into FreeBSD. > This particular patch was committed to the FreeBSD tree last night. > I do think that there will come a time when OpenBSD needs to have its > own ports tree. 95% of this tree could be a mirror of the FreeBSD, > but there are some interesting issues that need to be resolved that > haven't been (like the libcrypt issues). How about suggesting a make variable HAS_LIBCRYPT to the FreeBSD people? We could set it in <bsd.own.mk> or something like this (to a value meaning "we don't have it and we don't need it either), and FreeBSD could do similar. Another way were patching the third party program's Makefile accordingly. We should introduce a patches-${OPSYS} directory having precedence before the patches directory of a port. Thus we could maintain our special patches for ports which need them while continuing to use the FreeBSD ports where they work out of the box. I see now that this is already implemented in <bsd.port.mk>, so we could just USE that. > Warner Regards, Felix.

3 2

Re: FCPUNX:PGP Key Escrow and Congress
by goddesshera＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, Oct 15, 1997 at 02:10:54PM -0400, Eli Brandt wrote: > Bruce Schneier wrote: > > From: "Barbara Simons" <simons(a)VNET.IBM.COM> > > > > Some of these are old arguments that we've been hearing for a while, > > but some are newer. In particular, points 4 and 6 are difficult to > > refute without getting into some technical details. Both points also > > undercut the argument that a key recovery infrastructure potentially > > weakens security. After all, the NSA thinks it's secure enough that it > > can be used by the government. > > Non-technical point: the NSA (reportedly) has no intention of using > GAK for classified information. They know that it weakens security. You have this wrong. In fact, NSA *supplies* keys for classified encryption equipment. They never told me whether they "escrowed" copies of the keys they supply -- what do you think? > Do the privacy of the nation's data and the security of its > information infrastructure deserve the same consideration as the > Pentagon's "Confidential" memos? When you're planning to build in a > single point of failure, this is a question you have to ask. In fact, it's much more complex. People with real classified data don't trust encryption at all, and they only use it if they absolutely have to. They, unlike many cypherpunks, remember well that there are other ways to get information besides running big computers, and if you have protections against those in place already, crypto doesn't buy much. But classified data isn't really interesting. Though by any measure there are huge amounts of it, it is dwarfed by the amount of government data that is not classified. To protect that data government agencies will use comercial crypto, and "key recovery" *will* be required in any commercial product purchased by a government agency. As use of crypto becomes commonplace business practice, the government market will be huge, and consequently, commercial products with key recovery *will* be prevelant. Any company that doesn't supply it will be relegated to niche markets, and, if legal winds blow the wrong way, eliminated. Crow This message was automatically remailed. The sender is unknown, unlogged, and nonreplyable. Send complaints and blocking requests to <goddesshera(a)juno.com>.

1 0