- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

NEW "Black Box" Technology!!
by omex＠cyberservices.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This message is being brought to you by EMAIL BLASTER 2.0 software. If you would like a FREE copy of this software or any of our other HOT programs ABSOLTELY FREE call our FAX ON DEMAND number at 213-960-7822. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I am sending this to you because I feel that you are an honest person, with a sincere desire to improve your station in life. If I am incorrect, please excuse my intrusion, and simply hit reply to be removed from my database. If you would like additional information, simply send me email with "info" in the subject area. Thanks!! NEW "Black Box" Technology !! GET IN ON THE TOP LEVEL of the Hottest New Program 1. GLOBAL COM TECHNOLOGY -GCT- is the name of the new company created to handle the basket of telecom- munications breakthrough technologies we're going to represent. It is based in Chesapeake, VA. GCT has been put together by a highly seasoned group including MAJOR individuals in the Telecom industry. They have selected Kerry J. Young, a skilled executive and administrator, to be President and CEO. They have also assembled a blue ribbon support team headed by a top level executive from one of the "big three" telephone companies. This combined powerhouse of high-level Telecom experience, management, administration, marketing and financial depth promises to make GCT one of the world's premier telecommunications companies. Their mission: To create the world's largest MLM network to deliver advanced Telecom technology at the most competitive price. In short, they plan on delivering products that will stand the industry on its ear! 2. GCT has set up a 24-hour information line: 415-273-6121. Call it NOW! It is powerful. It will introduce several of the key players and answer questions about the products, how they work and how our business will be structured. 3. The company has announced the official launch date: Monday, March 3, 1997. On Saturday, the 15th of March, GCT will be holding simultaneous training's/meetings in eight cities across the United States. The locations are: Atlanta + Chicago + Dallas + Honolulu + Los Angeles + Orlando + Seattle + Washington, DC. The company will add additional cities as you indicate your preference. Seating is extremely limited and must be reserved in advance by calling an 800# which will be made available within a few days on the GCT hotline. Price: $59 - includes Distributor Kit! 4. What will we be offering? We will have a FULL RANGE of products -- with far more advanced technology and far better pricing than is currently being offered by the several, hastily launched GCT wannabees. The first products announced include a prepaid calling card at 9.9 cents per minute, long distance service at 7.9 cents and WE HAVE the long awaited "black box" technology! It comes in three versions (from basic to advanced) and will wholesale: $39 - $69. In addition, there are several more advanced products which will be brought into our portfolio. As more information becomes available, it is increasingly clear: We are poised to bring the world what everyone has been promised -- but ONLY WE CAN DELIVER! 6. Beware of other companies who have attempted to preempt GCT by implying they can duplicate the various products that we already have on board. This program is not merely an application form and compensation plan offering a single, 7.9 cent product. GCT is a major new Telecom company assembling a full range of leading edge telecommunications technology. The success of this program requires the contacts and know-how of the Telecom industry that can only come from years of experience at the highest levels. Bringing these exceptional products to market is not a project for well-meaning amateurs. 7. The only way to participate in the program described above is to join GCT. They are the ONLY COMPANY with the contracts in hand, technical skill and telecommunications experience to deliver. Global Connections is a group of very experienced marketers and networkers who have an Independent Distributorship positioned directly at the top level of GCT. 8. We are signing up the frontline on Monday & Tuesday... I can place you on the top levels... Email me for registration form at: omex(a)cyberservices.com Put "BLACK BOX" in the subject box.

1 0

Re: DES and RSA crypto hardware from the free world
by bs-org＠c2.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 21:32 1997-02-15 -0200, John Ioannidis wrote: Sorry to correct you, but uti-maco is an old german company ... >I believe uti-Maco (a belgian company) has been using the Pijnenburg chips >for their boards. However, last I checked with them (about half a year ago) >the price of the boards was pretty steep -- of the order of $1K. > >Anyway, if the boards Peter is referring to are ready in the next couple >of months, I volunteer to write drivers for Linux and *BSD*. > >/ji >

1 0

Thanks to John Gilmore for running cypherpunks mailing list
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, cypherpunks(a)toad.com goes down in four days. I would like to thank John Gilmore for all his efforts that he spent to run the list. Administering a huge mailing list like cypherpunks is a tough job, requiring a lot of dedication, time and patience. John, along with other cypherpunks, created a unique online community that generated many valuable ideas. This community helped a great deal to increase crypto awareness of the masses. I personally joined cypherpunks for very arkane reasons, but later found out a lot of useful information. The moderation experiment failed by many reasons, but the last month should not distract us from what John did over last several years. Again, thanks to John for his work. - Igor.

1 0

Re: DFA
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Paul Bell wrote: >does anyone know what has happened to DFA, and the people who >just a few months ago were publishing such encouraging results? There seems be sustained investigation of DFA, offensive and defensive, by Biham and Shamir, by Anderson and Kuhn, by the Bellcore team, by Quisquater and others. However, the smartcard manufacturers appear to have a role in dampening publicity about the ongoing research, or at least diminishing the claims of effectiveness of DFA. Carol Francher, of Motorola, for example, writes in February IEEE Spectrum: Technology is a wonderful thing but criminals, too, can use it as new equipment and techniques become available or less expensive the barriers to cracking a system may weaken. Recently Bellcore announced a paper, "Cryptanalysis in the presence of hardware faults" (available at www.bellcore.com) that proposed a theoretical method for breaking an asymmetric encryption code once a computer (or a smartcard microcontroller) had been forced into faulty behavior. The Smart Card Forum, a multi-industry membership organization headquartered in Tampa, Fla., has stated that it does not regard this approach as a real-world risk, since in smartcard applications more than one technique is used to protect the security of the entire system. But the Bellcore methodology for breaking algorithms -- as well as similar theoretical approaches, such as the one taken by two Israeli researchers, Eli Biham and Adi Shamir -- highlights the need to analyze and evolve the security of any system continually. -- "In your pocket: smartcards." <http://jya.com/tee08.htm> Several of the DFA-type researchers have commented on the smartcard industry's reluctance to publicize security weaknesses when the push is on to increase consumer trust and use; see, for example, Anderson and Kuhn at: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/tamper.html Quisquater and the SG group also note the reluctance of smartcard mass-marketers to own up to security shortcomings of which their own engineers know and fret. Meanwhile, the DFA proponents and opponents are eagerly absorbing the continuing DFA-relatged reports, quietly watching one another, and both sides eying the booming smartcard market for lucrative rewards, as Ms. Francher suggests: licit and il.

2 1

Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Against Moderation writes: > I believe homophobia is a great way to bring out the censors in > people. However, inducing censorship is only part of fighting it. You assume that it is an enemy to be fought. While censorship is clearly undesireable, making it an enemy only strengthens it. > You also need respectable people to some in, argue cogently against > the dangers of censorship, perhaps even get some extremely reasonable > articles suppressed, and then spread the word about it. I find the > freedom-knights tactics' extremely lacking in this second, "clean up > and analyze the mess" phase. Part, if not all, of that lack is due to our knowledge of the subjective standard of "respectability" that human beings have. That's the same differentiation used in many censorship attempts, and if we made or supported such differentiations this would undermine any anti-censorship actions we could take. The meta-points are: - What is reasonable to you may or may not be reasonable to me. That is why we refrain from censoring others, since we have no absolute standard of reasonability. - You appear to be concerned with convincing others. We are not concerned with that, since we know that the default for most others is to be invincibly unconvincable. We are simply here to be living models for an arbitrary code of behavior...that behavior being outlined in the Freedom Knights FAQ. - Please remember that you have to judge who is and is not a Freedom Knight by their -actions- and not their claims. > censorship on cypherpunks. However, I think most peoples' opinions > didn't really turn, or at least people didn't realize how serious > things were and didn't really care, until Tim May [someone the many > freedom-knights hate] started criticizing this censorship in extremely > reasonable messages that were suppressed from both the -edited and > -flames mailing list. Assuming that is true, that people do not care about censorship until a person with an arbitrary reasonability says something, I would say that such a group cares not about free speech...even if they think they do. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Two men were fighting outside Nasrudin's window at dead of night. Nasrudin got up, wrapped his only blanket around himself, and ran outside. As he tried to reason with the drunks, one snatched his blanket and both ran away. "What were they arguing about?" asked his wife when he went in. "It must have been the blanket. When they got that, the fight broke up."

1 0

Moderation experiment and moderator liability
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There appears to be a bit of a hush up surrounding the circumstances of the pause in the moderation experiment and subsequent change of moderation policy. To clear the air, I think it would be kind of nice if the full story were told, so I'll gather here a history as I understand it. Information from my archives (those I have), and from asking around in email. I realise that some of the actions that I am claiming of participants in this sequence of events seem hard to believe given their high reputation capital. I was myself initially dubious on the strength of the reputation capital of those being critisized. However the below is the sequence of events as close as I can determine. I welcome being proven wrong on any points. Events: 1. Dimitri Vulis posted a lot of off topic posts over a period of time 2. Dimitri reposted a couple of 50k Serdar Argic revisionist articles 3. Dimitri challenged John Gilmore to shut him up 4. John unsubscribed Dimitri, and modified majordomo(a)toad.com to siltently ignore Dimitri's attempts to resubscribe. Dimitri could still post, and presumably read cypherpunks with a different email address or via an archive. It was a token unsubscription only. 5. When Dimitri figured out what John had done, he made many posts denigrating John as a censor 6. Much discussion ensued critisizing John for blocking Dimitri 7. Over Christmas some joker subscribed cypherpunks(a)toad.com to a load of sports mailing lists, Hugh Daniels and John cleaned up the mess 8. Followed a long thread on hardening lists against spam attacks 9. John made a post to the list announcing that the list would be moderated for one month from Jan 11 as an experiment, and included Sandy Sandfort's proposed moderatation policy and offer to act as moderator. It appeared that the moderation experiment was Sandy's suggestion, and that John had agreed to go along with it. 10. Some discussion both pro and con of moderation, and the technical , free speech, and legal aspects followed 11. Moderation started Jan 19, the main list became the moderated list 12. Lots of people complained about the moderation, some defended it Tim May quietly unsubscribed 13. Some people complained about inconsistency in moderation -- some articles which went to flames were not flamish, but made by posters with low reputation capital, or were following up to posts which were flamish. 14. After a while some people commented on Tim's absence, and sent him mail asking what happened. Tim posted an article explaining that he had left because of the imposed moderation without discussion. 15. John followed up with a post defending the moderation experiment, and arguing for it's popularity (he claimed as evidence the number of posters who had not taken the trouble to move to the unedited list). 16. Dimitri posted an article where he claimed that there was a security flaw in Stronghold. Stronghold is C2Nets commercial version of the freeware Apache SSL web server. Sandy is employed by C2Net. 17. Sandy dropped the posting entirely -- it went to neither cypherpunks (edited), nor cypherpunks-flames. He considered that forwarding the posting would have made him legally liable. Sandy is a lawyer by profession. He did not explain this situation on the list. 18. Tim May had by now subscribed to cypherpunks-flames, and posted several follow-ups to Dimitri's posting, discussing the issue of Dimitri's post being dropped, and stated that Dimitri's posting was not flamish, and should not have been dropped in his opinion. Tim's postings were also silently dropped, going to neither of cypherpunks (edited), and cypherpunks-flames. 19. Sandy made an announcement that he was ending his participation in the moderation experiment. Still no explanation of why posts were dropped, or even admission that they were. 20. The two moderated cypherpunks lists (cypherpunks and cypherpunks-flames) went dead for some time. 21. Tim received a warning from C2Net's lawyers that if he did not desist from mentioning that Dimitri had posted an article criticising a C2Net product that he would be sued! 22. John posted a statement where he explained Sandy's sudden announcement of ending his particpation. John explained that Sandy had "hit a pothole in the moderation experiment when Mr. Nemesis submitted a posting containing nothing but libelous statements about Sandy's employer". Sandy did not drop Johns posting even though it covered the same topics that had resulted in Tim's posts being dropped, and resulted in Tim receiving legal threats from C2Net. In the same post John said that he had come to the conclusion that he was no longer willing to host the cypherpunks list. In this post John announced that Sandy had been persuaded to continue to moderate for the remainder of the moderation period, and gave the new policy. The changes were that anything other than crypto discussion and discussion of forming a new cypherpunks list would go to flames, and anything that Sandy thought was libelous would be dropped silently. 23. Sandy posted a statement affirming that he would continue to moderate, and that if any cypherpunks wished to discuss his prior moderation policy and performance as a moderator that they do it on new lists which they create themselves. (If Sandy's current moderation criteria mean that he feels obliged to forward this post to cypherpunks-flames as off-topic, or even to silently drop it from both moderated lists, so be it. I will simply repost it later, when the moderation experiment is over on one of the new lists. In the event of myself receiving legal threats, I shall simply post it via a remailer, or rely on someone else to do so. C2 does not appear to be running any remailers at the moment, otherwise I would use a remailer hosted at c2.net as the exit node in the remailer chain.) The positive outcome of all this has been to make the cypherpunks list more resilient to legal attack. The new distributed list seems to be progressing well, and will be less liable to attack. Filtering services continue, as they should. And alt.cypherpunks has been created as a forum ultimately resistant to legal attack. Also I should say that I would hope that no one holds any long term animosity towards any of the players in this episode, many of the people have been very prolific in their work to further online privacy and freedom, and I hope that we can all put this chapter behind us. Now more fun things... Anyone checked out the DES breaking project? Over on http://fh28.fa.umist.ac.uk/des/ are details of mailing lists where people are organising breaking RSADSIs DES challenge. For the RC5/32/12/6 (48 bit RC5) break which took 13 days, it seems there were a peak of 5000 machines involved. At this rate it will take 8 months to break DES. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

1 0

Re: More on digital postage
by Cynthia H. Brown 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sat, 15 Feb 1997 at 23:30:17 Timothy C. May wrote: > At 1:09 AM -0500 2/16/97, Cynthia H. Brown wrote: > > >Here in Canada, the CRTC (Canadian Radio & Telecomms Commission) put > >out rules limiting the time of day, etc. for phone spam (voice or > >fax). Does anyone out there have the specifics of the CRTC regs? > > "Spam" has rapidly become one of those overused, overloaded, meaningless > words. Everything bad on the Net these days is labelled "spam." > > For the phone example in Canada, just what is "spam"? > > -- Is it the semi-traditional definition of "spam," i.e., a phone call made > to thousands of sites? (At the same time? Sequentially? How?) > > -- Is it a robo-dialer, with no human at the other end? > > -- Or is it merely an "unwanted phone call"? I used "spam" to mean scripted commercial solicitations, by a human or robot, based on a list of names and numbers. I'm not sure whether this is the same definition as in the legislation. > As I see it, the danger of criminalizing "unwanted phone calls" is obvious. > (Though obviously the courts and prisons are not about to be filled up with > people who committed the heinous crime of making an unrequested phone call.) > > The danger of all "junk mail" and "junk phone call" laws is that they give > power to the government to decide on what is junk and what is not. My understanding is that the legislation restricts commercial solicitations by phone to: - certain times of day (not after 9 PM? unsure) - one initial call, and no follow-ups if the person explicitly asks the caller to never phone this number again (again, unsure of legal details) I don't consider this scenario overly restrictive, since it gives _them_ a chance to sell their product, and _me_ a chance to have them delete my name from their database. Unfortunately, without some formal means of redress, very few telemarketers seem to remember that they are unlikely to find new customers if they call at 7 AM Saturday for the third time this month. What means of redress would you suggest, in the absence of legislation / fines, to someone who has been called repeatedly by a telemarketer? This person is not a current customer and so cannot withdraw his/her business. Cynthia =============================================================== Cynthia H. Brown, P.Eng. E-mail: cynthb(a)iosphere.net | PGP Key: See Home Page Home Page: http://www.iosphere.net/~cynthb/ Junk mail will be ignored in the order in which it is received. Klein bottle for rent; enquire within.

1 0

Moderation experiment and moderator liability
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There appears to be a bit of a hush up surrounding the circumstances of the pause in the moderation experiment and subsequent change of moderation policy. To clear the air, I think it would be kind of nice if the full story were told, so I'll gather here a history as I understand it. Information from my archives (those I have), and from asking around in email. I realise that some of the actions that I am claiming of participants in this sequence of events seem hard to believe given their high reputation capital. I was myself initially dubious on the strength of the reputation capital of those being critisized. However the below is the sequence of events as close as I can determine. I welcome being proven wrong on any points. Events: 1. Dimitri Vulis posted a lot of off topic posts over a period of time 2. Dimitri reposted a couple of 50k Serdar Argic revisionist articles 3. Dimitri challenged John Gilmore to shut him up 4. John unsubscribed Dimitri, and modified majordomo(a)toad.com to siltently ignore Dimitri's attempts to resubscribe. Dimitri could still post, and presumably read cypherpunks with a different email address or via an archive. It was a token unsubscription only. 5. When Dimitri figured out what John had done, he made many posts denigrating John as a censor 6. Much discussion ensued critisizing John for blocking Dimitri 7. Over Christmas some joker subscribed cypherpunks(a)toad.com to a load of sports mailing lists, Hugh Daniels and John cleaned up the mess 8. Followed a long thread on hardening lists against spam attacks 9. John made a post to the list announcing that the list would be moderated for one month from Jan 11 as an experiment, and included Sandy Sandfort's proposed moderatation policy and offer to act as moderator. It appeared that the moderation experiment was Sandy's suggestion, and that John had agreed to go along with it. 10. Some discussion both pro and con of moderation, and the technical , free speech, and legal aspects followed 11. Moderation started Jan 19, the main list became the moderated list 12. Lots of people complained about the moderation, some defended it Tim May quietly unsubscribed 13. Some people complained about inconsistency in moderation -- some articles which went to flames were not flamish, but made by posters with low reputation capital, or were following up to posts which were flamish. 14. After a while some people commented on Tim's absence, and sent him mail asking what happened. Tim posted an article explaining that he had left because of the imposed moderation without discussion. 15. John followed up with a post defending the moderation experiment, and arguing for it's popularity (he claimed as evidence the number of posters who had not taken the trouble to move to the unedited list). 16. Dimitri posted an article where he claimed that there was a security flaw in Stronghold. Stronghold is C2Nets commercial version of the freeware Apache SSL web server. Sandy is employed by C2Net. 17. Sandy dropped the posting entirely -- it went to neither cypherpunks (edited), nor cypherpunks-flames. He considered that forwarding the posting would have made him legally liable. Sandy is a lawyer by profession. He did not explain this situation on the list. 18. Tim May had by now subscribed to cypherpunks-flames, and posted several follow-ups to Dimitri's posting, discussing the issue of Dimitri's post being dropped, and stated that Dimitri's posting was not flamish, and should not have been dropped in his opinion. Tim's postings were also silently dropped, going to neither of cypherpunks (edited), and cypherpunks-flames. 19. Sandy made an announcement that he was ending his participation in the moderation experiment. Still no explanation of why posts were dropped, or even admission that they were. 20. The two moderated cypherpunks lists (cypherpunks and cypherpunks-flames) went dead for some time. 21. Tim received a warning from C2Net's lawyers that if he did not desist from mentioning that Dimitri had posted an article criticising a C2Net product that he would be sued! 22. John posted a statement where he explained Sandy's sudden announcement of ending his particpation. John explained that Sandy had "hit a pothole in the moderation experiment when Mr. Nemesis submitted a posting containing nothing but libelous statements about Sandy's employer". Sandy did not drop Johns posting even though it covered the same topics that had resulted in Tim's posts being dropped, and resulted in Tim receiving legal threats from C2Net. In the same post John said that he had come to the conclusion that he was no longer willing to host the cypherpunks list. In this post John announced that Sandy had been persuaded to continue to moderate for the remainder of the moderation period, and gave the new policy. The changes were that anything other than crypto discussion and discussion of forming a new cypherpunks list would go to flames, and anything that Sandy thought was libelous would be dropped silently. 23. Sandy posted a statement affirming that he would continue to moderate, and that if any cypherpunks wished to discuss his prior moderation policy and performance as a moderator that they do it on new lists which they create themselves. (If Sandy's current moderation criteria mean that he feels obliged to forward this post to cypherpunks-flames as off-topic, or even to silently drop it from both moderated lists, so be it. I will simply repost it later, when the moderation experiment is over on one of the new lists. In the event of myself receiving legal threats, I shall simply post it via a remailer, or rely on someone else to do so. C2 does not appear to be running any remailers at the moment, otherwise I would use a remailer hosted at c2.net as the exit node in the remailer chain.) The positive outcome of all this has been to make the cypherpunks list more resilient to legal attack. The new distributed list seems to be progressing well, and will be less liable to attack. Filtering services continue, as they should. And alt.cypherpunks has been created as a forum ultimately resistant to legal attack. Also I should say that I would hope that no one holds any long term animosity towards any of the players in this episode, many of the people have been very prolific in their work to further online privacy and freedom, and I hope that we can all put this chapter behind us. Now more fun things... Anyone checked out the DES breaking project? Over on http://fh28.fa.umist.ac.uk/des/ are details of mailing lists where people are organising breaking RSADSIs DES challenge. For the RC5/32/12/6 (48 bit RC5) break which took 13 days, it seems there were a peak of 5000 machines involved. At this rate it will take 8 months to break DES. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

1 0

No Subject
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy `C' May, a product of anal birth, appeared with a coathanger through his head. _______c___c / /_ _\ | ((6)(6)) ( )_ __\\ //__ o___n) (nn)\o/(nn)

1 0

Re: More on digital postage
by Cynthia H. Brown 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sat, 15 Feb 1997 at 23:30:17 Timothy C. May wrote: > At 1:09 AM -0500 2/16/97, Cynthia H. Brown wrote: > > >Here in Canada, the CRTC (Canadian Radio & Telecomms Commission) put > >out rules limiting the time of day, etc. for phone spam (voice or > >fax). Does anyone out there have the specifics of the CRTC regs? > > "Spam" has rapidly become one of those overused, overloaded, meaningless > words. Everything bad on the Net these days is labelled "spam." > > For the phone example in Canada, just what is "spam"? > > -- Is it the semi-traditional definition of "spam," i.e., a phone call made > to thousands of sites? (At the same time? Sequentially? How?) > > -- Is it a robo-dialer, with no human at the other end? > > -- Or is it merely an "unwanted phone call"? I used "spam" to mean scripted commercial solicitations, by a human or robot, based on a list of names and numbers. I'm not sure whether this is the same definition as in the legislation. > As I see it, the danger of criminalizing "unwanted phone calls" is obvious. > (Though obviously the courts and prisons are not about to be filled up with > people who committed the heinous crime of making an unrequested phone call.) > > The danger of all "junk mail" and "junk phone call" laws is that they give > power to the government to decide on what is junk and what is not. My understanding is that the legislation restricts commercial solicitations by phone to: - certain times of day (not after 9 PM? unsure) - one initial call, and no follow-ups if the person explicitly asks the caller to never phone this number again (again, unsure of legal details) I don't consider this scenario overly restrictive, since it gives _them_ a chance to sell their product, and _me_ a chance to have them delete my name from their database. Unfortunately, without some formal means of redress, very few telemarketers seem to remember that they are unlikely to find new customers if they call at 7 AM Saturday for the third time this month. What means of redress would you suggest, in the absence of legislation / fines, to someone who has been called repeatedly by a telemarketer? This person is not a current customer and so cannot withdraw his/her business. Cynthia =============================================================== Cynthia H. Brown, P.Eng. E-mail: cynthb(a)iosphere.net | PGP Key: See Home Page Home Page: http://www.iosphere.net/~cynthb/ Junk mail will be ignored in the order in which it is received. Klein bottle for rent; enquire within.

2 1