- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Coda for E=mc(2)
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The technical manuscript on which part of "Beyond E=mc(2)" is based was published in Physical Review A [no date given] only after five peer reviews, says the editor of The Sciences.

1 0

Re: Announcing - The DigitaLiberty Forum
by acspring＠knoware.nl 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I am certain that the nattering nabobs of negativism would take issue >with the mainstream miasma of majoritarianism. Sigh. Sometimes I miss Spiro Agnew. ObCryptoContent. SPIRO AGNEW is an anagram of GROW A PENIS -- Man! Woman! Child! All! are up against the WALL of SCIENCE! <acspring(a)knoware.nl> PGP Key print:4C 17 EC 47 A1 6D AF 67 F3 B4 26 24 FE B2 0F 5E

1 0

Re: Clarification of my remarks about Netscape
by Amanda Walker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> All you need to do is get your server certificate from one of > several places, including: > > RSA (commercial CA or server CA) Do you need a server certificate issued directly by one of these PCAs, or does it just need to be rooted there (i.e., can I use my [hypothetical] corporate PCA, which itself has a certificate from the RSA commercial PCA)? If it's the former, I would strongly urge you to extend your clients to include the latter. I don't want to have to go to RSA for every server certificate--that's in part what the PCA hierarchy exists for. Similarly, if I set up a personal server (with my home page, for example), can I'd like to be able to use a certificate issued by the RSA Unaffiliated User CA, which is itself a PCA certified by the Commercial CA. Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation

2 1

Re: THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, Bob Snyder's recent post suggested that my argument in favor of wiring the cops could be use to support wiring of civilians or employees. Not so. Police are public officials. As such, they have no right to privacy *with respect to their public acts*. When off duty, cops have the same right as other citizens to privacy in their private lives. I said my proposal was "anti- *bad* cop" and that it would benefit good cops. Do I need to say that it would only benefit good cops in the line of duty? It would be bad for anyone--cops or civilians--in their private lives. Employees represent an intermediate position. If an employer is foolish enough to require that employees be wired, 'sokay with me. For most employees in most jobs, it would not be acceptable. I think they would get jobs with less intrusive employers. Some employers will wire some employees, whether or not the police are wired. Wiring the cops is a good idea; arguments about wiring employees and citizens are nothing more than red herrings used to avoid addressing the real issue of police accountability. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: the netscape/ssl controversy
by marca＠mcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <199412131448.JAA07613(a)cutter.clas.ufl.edu>, avi(a)clas.ufl.edu (Avi Harris Baumstein) wrote: > so while ssl may well be a wonderful protocol, it does not address the > problems that many cypherpunks see as being real. i think it would do > netscape good to listen to and consider the views of many on this > list, as they have many genuinely good ideas Yup, we are absolutely doing so. We do not and have not assumed that SSL is *the* answer to everything, and we will be doing a lot more work over the next year and beyond to tackle many of these other problems. We're listening to everyone, and we love constructive suggestions and feedback. Cheers, Marc -- Marc Andreessen Netscape Communications Corp. Mountain View, CA marca(a)mcom.com

1 0

Enough, already
by merriman＠metronet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I don't mean to be a wet blanket (well, actually, I do :-), but could folks maybe drop the Netscape stuff - along with the tangential threads it has spawned? I kinda suspect that by now, the subject has been thoroughly flogged to death, and it's cluttering the hell out of the list - without the benefit of actually _resolving_ anything. Netscape is gonna do whatever the hell Netscape is gonna do. "We" can encourage, cajole, reprimand, sneer, laugh, applaud, or whatever; but the bottom line is that clarifying the clarifications of the clarified previous comments isn't accomplishing anything other than making those among us who have to pay for email work overtime to compensate for the subject. It's the holiday season. How about if everyone wishes everyone else a Merry Christmas (or Chappy Chanukka, or whatever else spins your propeller), kisses, and makes up? Dave "I'm just checking how to make Chameleon killfile the subjects 'clarif', 'Netscape', and 'BofA'" Merriman PS - for point of reference, my mailbox has 41 messages in it since I last checked mail (less than 6 hours ago). Only 3 are non-CP; of the 38 that are, only a very, VERY few don't have "netscape" or "clarification" in the subject line. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Finger merriman(a)fohnix.metronet.com for PGP public key and fingerprint. PGP encrypted Email welcome, encouraged, and preferred. "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." John F. Kennedy

1 0

HyperAccess for Windows 2.0 advertises RSA encryption
by xpat＠vm1.spcs.umn.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Recently received an offer from Hilgraeve, producer of HyperAccess for Windows 2.0. (800) 826-2760 I quote the brochure "Enjoy easier, safer, more secure file transfers with amazing Hyperprotocol enhancements: Autostart, Smart Crash Recovery, and RSA Encryption" "Exchange files containing sensitive data through public data channels (local phone lines, long distance carriers, cellular, or wireless) with complete confidence, using state-of-the-art RSA encryption." Any comments on what they are up to? This is the same company who sent my friend the previous version of the package and told her fer sure fer sure it had full 3270 emulation, but turned out to be a VT100 session with some keyboard remapping to simulate PFkeys. She had to call them twice for her 60 day guaranteed refund. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- P M Dierking xpat(a)vm1.spcs.umn.edu | finger for endless frustration W.A.S.T.E

1 0

Re: calling all cpunks on netcom
by Rick H. Wesson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Tue Dec 13 13:04 PST 1994 > Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 11:46:14 -0800 > From: srikar(a)netcom.com (Shrieks) > Message-Id: <199412131946.LAA26053(a)netcom20.netcom.com> > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: calling all cpunks on netcom > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > > > Hi all, > > Just floating a trial balloon. Are you tired of the high traffic on > the cypherpunks list and having to wade through a ton of mail every > day? Any of you folks approaching your 5M limit from archiving too > many messages? Well, I am and I don't really want to start paying > for the extra memory. ever tried to get netcom to do anything for you? > I was wondering if it might be worth petitioning the netcom sysadmins > to start up a local newsgroup (eg. netcom.cpunks) that serves as an > archive for the mailing list. That way one gets to use the abilities > of <insert favourite threaded news browser here> to keep threads together > and so forth. I'm sure there are enough netcom subscribers to warrant this. I'm working on a system that indexes,marks up, and serves up html versions of E-Mail lists. It's still very alpha stuff. cypherpunks is in the tryal part of system I call the Biblotech. All URL's that come through the system are also indexed... It's not tiny stuff Sybase, Verity search engine etc are all involved. Would anyone be against me doing such a thing? alowing anyone to view the c-punks list via html etc... -Rick

1 0

bashing mcom
by jrochkin＠cs.oberlin.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Can we maybe discuss other things then how Mcom fucked up? They've said specifically that they plan to support IPSP as soon as it is viable to do so. They've said they plan to support whatever MIME encryption thingamajigs exist, as soon as they are standardized. [And don't get mad at them for waiting for it to become standardized when their own protocol isn't. I have talked with someone developing commercial software who spent some serious time writing stuff to handle MIME encryption, only to have the specs change on him significantly.] Now, maybe they are lying about this. But you aren't going to get anything else out of them on this list. They've come as close as they are going to to admitting they made a mistake with SSL. I believe a good paraphrase of what wa said (I didnt' keep a copy of the message) was that "however it looks now, SSL made sense at the time, and it's a done thing now." Maybe they are only saying this much to appease the list, but again, that's all you are going to get out of them. It seems like it would be an impossibility economically and public-relations-ly for them to just abandom SSL, and they probably dont' want to either. But they've said that they plan on supporting IPSP, MIME encryption stuff, and anything else out there that will do the job. I'm not sure what else you want to drag out of them. Can we maybe stop this flame fest and let the list return to it's normal traffic levels?

1 0

Re: archiving cpunks
by L. McCarthy 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > I'm working on a system that indexes,marks up, and serves up html versions > of E-Mail lists. It's still very alpha stuff. cypherpunks is in the > tryal part of system I call the Biblotech. All URL's that come through > the system are also indexed... [...] > Would anyone be against me doing such a thing? alowing anyone to > view the c-punks list via html etc... The list is public and has been archived before (and maybe still is, I'm not clear on the point). Hence I don't see any grounds for objecting to your project. - - -L. Futplex McCarthy - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.1 iQCVAwUBLu4dtmf7YYibNzjpAQFkNwP/XCHjzLX8Y5VCPTsDRMnP+sc41Koe7acQ RDfT6Ojgb/Fb6rtYiBjn9aSIu57kza5rSYjVmaKljM06p2QptZ2M1Jz9jxU7rfNk BHVJSAc2Y+kbu0KqVzAVgx4o5GC41BnCoJiB9/l8iWvIgkO5pvSHTO3LlrgD15+6 kjlS5fq664Y= =nr2r - -----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 iQBFAwUBLu4gTCoZzwIn1bdtAQHk1wF/XY0PbJjkuOia/lUi+11GsSFVODQLM6b1 lPEF38ufdFM157KPVWX4HI0ry7Wxr+Sm =W21x -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0