- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > > My perfectly crypto-relevant article regarding possible attacks > > > on human relationships with the use of forged mail and anonymous > > > remailers, has been tossed out (sorted) into cypherpunks-flames > > > mailing list. > > > > I don`t think I read the article (even though I subscribe to the > > unmoderated list), can you forward me a copy. > > As I understand it though, from other comentaries, it was junked > > because it was in response to a message by Dimitri who, given that it > > is Sandy that is moderating the list, is no doubt filtered by > > different criteria than anyone else on the list, in my opinion a > > censorous and fascist restraint as Dimitri has recently been posting > > more crypto relevant material, besides which whatever the content of > > his posts they should be open to review before a decision is made on > > if they are to be junked or not. > > Has Paul reversed his previous pro-censorship stand and decided to > learn something about crypto from people who actually know some? There is no change of stance needed, I happen to believe you are knowledgable about cryptography and sometimes post worthwhile commentary and information, however, you also post a lot of dreck and flammable material which means I respond in kind. That does not mean I believe you, or anyone else, should be censored. > > > Sandy also states rather plainly that crypto-relevance is not the > > > criterion by which he moderates this list. I question this policy. > > > > Yes Sandy, please enlighten us, what is the criterion you use to > > moderate the list if not crypto-relevancy. I suspect an element of > > self preservation and protection of the list fuhrer and diktat maker > > John Gilmore (who, until the disgraceful incident with Dimitri > > commanded some respect on this list). > > I used to respect Gilmore until this series of incidents (unsubscribing > me, turning list moderated). Now I only have disdain for him. I agree entirely, Gilmore was a respected man (despite the EFF being a corporate whore) who threw any respect and admiration others had for him away. > > > I would like to hear your opinions as to whether such policies satisfy > > > the current readership. > > > > I don`t think this is the point, John Gilmore is free to appoint > > whoever he wants to moderate his list, he is free to censor all > > messages which criticise him and his censorship, however, subscribers > > to the list should be told they are being censored on these grounds > > and not on some facade of "crypto relevancy" or another thin veil > > drawn weakly over content based censorship to protect a certain class > > of list members. > > Quite a few people have expressed interest in re-creating an unmoderated > cypherpunks list at another site if Gilmore decided to stick to his > "moderation experiment". I notice and appreciate the quotes around "moderation experiment", this is, without doubt, a permenant measure to silence members of the list who dare to offer criticism of anyone an element of {x: x a friend or co-censor of John Gilmore} I do not have the resources to run such an unmoderated list but I hope someone on this list does and is good enough to start such a list, cypherpunks is a shell of what it once was. Also, please note this message will be junked onto cypherpunks-flames even though it contains no flames or flame bait because it dares to criticise the censorship of the list (once again Sandy, I give you an opportunity to prove me wrong). Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

1 0

No Subject
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy May the self-admitted child molester possesses a rudimentary dick less than one inch long, half the size of his mother's clitoris, that barely makes a fistful. Thereby hangs the root of this Jew-hating sissy's sick fixation on little boys and Usenet forgeries. /\ /\ + \______/ + / . . \ < / > \ \--/ / ------

1 0

Re: Get Set for War/ American Dissident Voices
by aga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, J Durbin wrote: > Aga <aga(a)dhp.com> wrote: > > >You keep ALL of your replies to usenet, or ELSE! > > Note recent, hypocritical, unsolicited email reply to a Usenet article > from aga(a)dhp.com: > That was not an adversarial reply. It is the *adversarial* e-mail and/or complaints which are the prohibited and deemed legal "harassment," since the party "KNOWS" that it is unwanted. It is the "intent" that counts > > Received: from proxy3.ba.best.com (root(a)proxy3.ba.best.com > [206.184.139.14]) by shellx.best.com (8.8.4/8.8.3) with ESMTP id > GAA25960 for <jed(a)shellx.best.com>; Sat, 18 Jan 1997 06:39:17 -0800 > (PST) > Received: from dhp.com (dhp.com [199.245.105.1]) by proxy3.ba.best.com > (8.8.4/8.8.3) with ESMTP id GAA04244 for <slothrop(a)poisson.com>; Sat, > 18 Jan 1997 06:38:53 -0800 (PST) > Received: from dhp.com (dhp.com [199.245.105.1]) by dhp.com > (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA05322; Sat, 18 Jan 1997 09:38:46 -0500 > Newsgroups: ne.internet.services,alt.fan.speedbump,alt.god.grubor > Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 09:38:43 -0500 (EST) > From: aga <aga(a)dhp.com> > To: freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org > cc: "Dr. Grubor" <drgrubor(a)aol.com>, J Durbin <slothrop(a)poisson.com> > Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Victory Party] > In-Reply-To: <32E0D65F.7442(a)earthlink.net> > Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970118093420.3890K-100000(a)dhp.com> > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > > Hey you fucker; you pay my expenses and I will come. > You get a one hour lecture and one hour of questions and > answers afterward. Everybody gets frisked for guns at the door, > since we do not trust some of those cypherpunks. > > -- > jason durbin > slothrop(a)poisson.com > stop reading here <--- > > So, that was not an "adversarial" response, and therefore it was permitted. aga administrator UseNet Freedom Council

1 0

Re: Public Key Partners
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:50 PM 1/25/97 -0500, DataETRsch(a)aol.com wrote: >Do you know of a way I can contact Public Key Partners by e-mail or phone? >Thanks. Time travel? (PKP dissolved when the partners sued each other. There's a Cylink ex-partner, and an RSA ex-partner, available at www.*.com ) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

Ultimate Flames List
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dale Thorn wrote: > My point about the antibiotics is that the male gays take a dis- > proportionate amount of them, which compounds their problems. It > suggests to me that the immune system is already seriously debilitated > or damaged before AIDS can take hold, rather than the notion that a > healthy person can get it from the virii alone. It has been suggested that disease is merely an attempt by Nature to 'moderate' the species. One could make a strong case for Nature merely 'sorting' individuals into physical lists, one of which is her own 'flames' list. It remains to be seen whether Nature also plans on dropping the 'flames' list after her moderation experiment is over. Toto

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Attila T. Hun wrote: > I question how Sandy can accept the job as moderator, passing > judgement on 100-300 messages per day. just trimming spam is > questionable: what is spam? flames: what draws the line at flames: It is whatever the moderator decides it is, depending upon h/is/er intelligence, understanding, mood, command of language, sobriety, etc., etc., etc. > and, I think cypherpunks is setting an atrocious example of our > own narrow mindedness (creditable or not) when we sanction any > filtering of what we see --is this not **exactly** what we accuse > the controlled media of determining what is "fit to print?" I am certain that there are members of the controlled media who are ROTL at the CypherPunks following in their footsteps, after having belittled the media for years for their sheep-mentality. > unfortunately, we are demonstrating to our critics that > a) net anarchy does not work > b) cyberlibertarianism breeds anarchy > c) we're loose cannons on the deck > d) we are not civilized enough to warrant respect We are also demonstrating that all of the CypherPunk rhetoric about cryptography and freedom and... was just a lot of 'smoke' being blown by a bunch of pretenders who folded like a busted flush when they were 'told' that the man who owns the Machine will now subject them to the whims of whatever moderation he sees fit to impose on the list. Cryptography is about privacy. Apparently, however, the New List Order is of the opinion the Privacy Without Freedom is an obtainable goal. > --catch22: just how do set the laws on limits, and how do you > enforce the limits if you have voted to dissolve all 'government' > and 'police?' It doesn't matter if the 'owner' of the list/Machine decides that s/he is now the government, with the power and/or right to make all decisions concerning the list. > good luck, Sandy; make sure you pull a sanity check everyday > when you start and finish the onerous task! I think that anyone who thinks that moderation is, or could ever be, anything other than a dance into the arms of the establishment, is already crazy. For the record, I don't think that either John or Sandy is crazy. I think that they have their own pre-established goals which others on the cypherpunks list are not privy to. Of course, this is my personal opinion, and I could be wrong. On the other hand, I could be 'right' like I am about everything else. Toto

1 0

Re: Encrypting ZIP disks
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lucky Green wrote: | At 11:40 AM 1/25/97 -0500, Adam Shostack wrote: | > | >Paul Kocher announced that he has cracked it, and can recover data | >quickly. He is not publishing details of the break. | | Why? Probably to make money. Paul does do this for a living. Even if he hasn't cracked it, the ZIP protection mechanism is propreitary and exportable. Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

2 1

Toto's database
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Toto writes: >My database seems to indicate a direct co-relation between the >number of postings criticizing moderation and the number of >UCE/Spam postings showing up on the list. An interesting assertion. Is your database available for others to draw their own conclusions from? I'd appreciate seeing at least a first-level abstraction of the data, e.g., the number of messages posted in opposition to moderation and the number of "spam" messages posted, listed by date. The possibility that other factors caused the correlation you mention suggests that other categorizations (e.g., total # of messages, # of messages which are not spam nor related to moderation, and # of pro-moderation messages) would also be useful, although I notice you do not mention those statistics. Of course, correlation alone doesn't tell us much. If it really exists, it suggests that the two phenomena observed are related in some way, but it doesn't tell us the nature or the cause of the relationship. (All serial killers drink water; but are all water-drinkers serial killers? Does drinking water cause a person to become a serial killer?) One explanation would be the link you suggested, that a moderation proponent is sending (or causing to be sent) the spams as a way to make moderation seem more attractive, or to detract attention from the anti-moderation arguments. (If that really worked - e.g., if spam had the effect of reducing the effectiveness of certain arguments, or of being harmfully "diversionary" - wouldn't that suggest that moderation was, in fact, necessary or at least useful? Hmm.) Another explanation would be that a moderation opponent is sending the spams as a way to punish the proponents of moderation. It's further conceivable that you don't have a big enough data set to draw meaningful conclusions from. The moderation decision, implementation, and associated arguing have taken place within three weeks (John Gilmore's original announcement was sent Sunday 1/5/97); it's hard to see how you're going to be able to distinguish signal from noise in such a small data set. I think this is especially true given the relatively inexact nature of the "spam" weapon; as far as I can tell, apart from Dmitri's ASCII art/cocksucker messages, the spams we've received have been from real live spammers (not pissed-off listmembers) who harvested the "cypherpunks(a)toad.com" address from messages sent to Usenet as spam bait. Inherent in the "spam bait" attack is a lack of precise control over when messages will be sent, or how many will be sent; so I'm curious about the reliability of a correlation you've found between the actions of distributed third parties (who are pursuing their own, cypherpunk-ignorant, goals) and messages sent to the list. Yet another explanation might identify external factors (like the recent storms in the American midwest) which caused people to send more messages independent of their ideology or content. My ISP, io.com, recorded much heavier mail flow recently (to the point that it created problems for delivery) during the storm; speculation is that people were stuck at home for several days and turned to the Net to amuse themselves. Such an event might cause otherwise independent-minded groups (spammers and moderation opponents) to act in similar ways, like sending more messages than usual. Of course, one would expect to see a rise in all message traffic, were this the case. Perhaps you'll be good enough to make your database available so that we may each draw our own conclusions. I'm looking forward to hearing more about how you derived this correlation. (If you have trouble finding a server from which to make the data available, just say so; if nobody else has a handy server, I'll add it to my web page.) >Has anyone actually 'seen' John Gilmore, lately? He was at C2Net's party last Friday night (1/24), being interviewed by some folks from a Japanese TV program. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. |

3 2

DataETRsch
by Gemini Thunder 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Apparently intimidated by the response from the Cypherpunks list, DataETRsch has begun spamming mailing lists with ads for their UDCM/IMDMP Windows DLL. It reared its ugly head in linux-c-programming(a)vger.rutgers.edu today.

1 0

Re: DPT Win 3.xx, 95, NT ENCRYPTION program
by Igor Chudov ＠ home 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <5cd7ki$52b(a)news.xs4all.nl> bernard(a)xs4all.nl Crypto wrote: Newsgroups: comp.security.misc * DPT Win 3.xx, 95, NT ENCRYPTION program * * DPT16 or DPT32 total encryption Windows program. * * Encrypt fast, Files, Dir, Floppys, e-mail, text or Messages .... * * Key up to 30 Kb, Hide your encrypted data's in a picture file. * Direct mail encryption, Visit the Data Privacy Tools home page. * * at; http://www.xs4all.nl/~bernard Bernard, thanks for an interesting post. I am Cc-ing your message to Cypherpunks mailing list which is ostensibly dedicated to discussions of cryptography. As follows from info on your home page, you do use simple XOR to encrypt your data. It was not clear to me though, how do you generate the keys to encrypt the data. I am sure that many readers of cypherpunks mailing list will be interested, so please send a copy of your reply to cypherpunks(a)toad.com. igor

2 1