- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: RC5-12/32/5 contest solved
by A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I received a nice flyer in the mail the other day from "Chip Express" >(www.chipexpress.com, 800-95-CHIPX). They are offering Laser >Programmed Gate Arrays. It appears to be a reasonable way to get some >Wiener chips built. As I recall, the Wiener design required about >23,000 gates. Their blurb had the following table in in: > FPGA Gates ASIC Gates 500 Units 1000 Units 5000 Units > 40,000 20,000 $77 $45 $10 > Not Avail 200,000 $176 $150 $82 First I can buy a 486DX-66 (with fan) for $37, but to make it into a PC takes just a wee bit more. Second, there is a world of difference in speed between a Field Programmable Gate Array and an Application Specific Integrated Circuit. The second is much faster (have heard of up to 200 Mhz) but doubt that you can get there with a laser (probably where the 50 Mhz figure comes from). I suspect you will need to have a mask made first - that is where the real money goes. However lets consider that you are really lucky and the first mask works and you get 100% yield (good chips). Next you need a backplane with an input mechanism to prime each of those chips with the text to break (will assume you have built in the initialization sequences for each chip). Then you need a path to provide the KPT to the XOR at the output, powersupply, RF shielding, and a few other minor items (can probably use a PC for a front end). Then, you need a way to report success but that is trivial. Finally, you need to hope that none of those 5000 chips experiences infant mortality or that you have some scheme to detect if that happens and to which chip (was there BITE in the design ?). Personally, would design the 5,000 to provide possible answers (say 2^32) as an initial step and then push that into a single MasPar or similar. Might find out some interesting things that way while reducing the overall complexity. Just some food for thought. Warmly, Padgett ps couple of people last year were working with FPGAs, I corresponded with them briefly. Why not ask them how my "guesstimates" correlated with their experiments...

1 0

Re: VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:25 PM 2/2/97 -0800, jim bell wrote: >Awhile back we were discussing voice-stress analysis; just got this item on >the subject; he said it's okay to post it. > > > >>From: Spectre334(a)aol.com >>Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 09:31:17 -0500 (EST) >>To: jimbell(a)pacifier.com >>cc: BLAMES2778(a)aol.com, AFSCA(a)aol.com, JLeek426(a)aol.com >>Subject: VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS >> >>MR. BELL: >> >>I FOUND YOUR QUERY ABOUT VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS ON THE INTERNET, AND I TOO, >>HAVE FOUND A DEARTH OF INFORMATION THERE - UNTIL NOW. >> >>I'M PLEASED TO REPORT THAT VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS (VSA) IS ALIVE AND WELL. IT >>HAS BEEN QUIETLY PERFORMING IN THE SHADOW OF THE POLYGRAPH FOR MANY YEARS. >> NOW, HOWEVER, IT IS COMING INTO ITS AND IS USED IN MANY STATES TO AID IN >>CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND OTHER APPLICATIONS. >> ... >>THE DIOGENES GROUP, INC., OF WHICH I AM PRESIDENT, HAS DEVELOPED A TOTALLY >>DIGITAL APPROACH TO VSA, AND BEGAN DELIVERING SYSTEMS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT >>AGENCIES IN DECEMBER, 1996. THE PREMIER DIOGENES VSA PRODUCT IS REDUCED TO >>THE SIZE OF A NOTEBOOK COMPUTER, BUT PRODUCES REALTIME PROCESSING FOR >>SOFTCOPY DISPLAY, AND HARDCOPY PRINTING WITHIN SECONDS. >> >>YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH THE PREVIOUS STATE-OF-THE-ART, WHICH WAS A >>RELATIVELY LARGE ANALOG MACHINE, USING A SINGLE CHANNEL AND PRINTING OUT THAT >>DATA ON A ROLL OF THERMAL PAPER. THOSE DAYS ARE GONE FOREVER. >> >>IF YOU WOULD LIKE MORE INFORMATION ON THE DIOGENES GROUP AND ITS PRODUCTS, >>PLEASE USE THIS CHANNEL TO SEND ME YOUR MAILING ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER, AND >>FAX NUMBER. >> >>THANKS FOR YOUR INTEREST IN VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS. ... Check the Readers Guide for the last couple of years. I don't have my Popular Electronics collection handy, but not too long ago they put out the plans to a smaller unit based around some Cell Phone part. It operated on a single frequency as opposed to a varient modulation of the voice. This allowed the unit to be much smaller and simpler, sacrificing some of the accuracy for a reasonable price (PC board, parts and case available for, I think, less than $100). The whole unit fit in a case about the size of a transistor radio and used a couple of bar graph displays (LED) for output. The whole operating theory is regulary printed with the schematics, and a parts list and foil diagrams are included for those who want to make the project from scratch. While your at it, look up the subliminal mixer from about 1992, I made one of these and only prevented from using it by the lack of a decent power supply. The single frequency mentioned above is further explained in the text. The local library can get a copy of either of these issues, or any others that catch your interest, for you if you ask really nicely.

1 0

Re: Dissolving Choke Points
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Peter Hendrickson <pdh(a)best.com> writes: > There are lessons to be learned here. One is that censorship does > not promote a stimulating and creative dialogue. The cypherpunks list > right now is about as interesting as hanging out by the 7-11. Censorship adds a social hierarchy, and this is inevitably resented. A similar problem existed with ICS (Internet Chess Servers), they include a MUD like facility where users can discuss chess. For misc reasons certain behaviour was frowned on, and a system of control was added to the software where certain users where given moderator status, and could kick others off. The fact that some of the moderators were particularly poor players helped to annoy others who though outspoken, where good chess players, and led to the particularly long thread in alt.chess (or whatever group it was) titled `guppies rule the goldfish bowl' or something. (A `fish' is a newbie chess player, a guppie being a small fish,...) Interesting repetition of the social phenomena of resentment of power in electronic forums (however well intentioned, and for whatever perceived social good). > Another lesson is the danger of choke points. We can see how > tempting it is for people to exercise their control. Even John Gilmore > was unable to restrain himself from involuntary social engineering > experiments. Who would we have considered to be more trustworthy? Quite. For a pedigree of championing free speech, and unpaid efforts to further freedom, he was high up on the list. I'd feel happier if he was joining in with these discussions, rather than getting interested to the extent to set up moderation, even though not participating in the discussions. > [distributed list homing ideas] sounds good. But what about USENET groups? They're distributed, what feature of your proposed solution is superior to using USENET groups distribution mechanisms in your opinion? Several times in the past, a USENET newsgroup alt.cypherpunks was suggested. Some people were against it because they felt that it would attract more noisy posters. Perhaps it is time to reconsider the benefits of alt.cypherpunks. (As an aside, it is ironic that John Gilmore was the guy who started the alt.* USENET hierarchy, specifically to facilitate freedom of speech). > P.S. I like and respect John and Sandy and I've learned a lot from > both of them. While basically well-intentioned, they just made a > mistake in this instance. Agree. Also, the quicker they acknowledge their actions as mistakes, and correct the results, the less their reputations will suffer. Perhaps at the end of the trial moderation experiment would be a good time to change position without loosing face. (If acknowledging mistakes bothers them). 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: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by Scott V. McGuire 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I've been quiet about the moderation experiment (and I never posted frequently anyway) but something Sandy wrote requires comment. In responding to Tim, Sandy points to the number of people on the censored list as evidence of the acceptance of the filtering. I am included in that group and object to my silence being interpreted as support. As Tim has pointed out, the bulk of the 2000 or so people who have remained on the filtered list have never been active participants on the list. As we have never heard from them, we don't even know that they were bothered by the flames and noise of the pre-filtered list. And, even if we did know, I don't think that there opinions should count as much as those of the more active participants to the list. A subscription to the list does not make one a member of the Cypherpunks "community". It is the opinion of the members of the community and not the observers of it which should matter. (Even within the community, some people are more a part of it than others, and nobody is more a part of it then Tim.) As for the rest of us on the filtered list who are active (or occasionally active) participants, our remaining on the list still can not be taken as support for censorship. Moderation of the list was announced as a one month experiment. I didn't change my subscription from the filtered to the unfiltered list because I expected this to end in a month and I was willing to participate in the experiment. You can't ask someone to try something for a month to see if they like it and call there use of it in that month evidence that they like it. As long as I am writing, I may as well write the rest of my thoughts. While there was a period between the announcement of moderation and the start of it during which people could (and did) comment on the change, the announcement was clear that there would be moderation. It was indeed a fait accompli. The moderated list should have been offered but not imposed. Then the experiment would have determined how many people thought the list was so bad that they would seek moderation, rather than determining how many thought moderation was so bad that they would seek to avoid it. Sandy, you said that you thought the list had improved since you began moderating. How could you think otherwise? When you send an article to the flames list its because you think the list would have been worse otherwise. I don't think the moderators opinion should be considered in determining if moderation is a good thing. I think there is a conflict of interest there. - -------------------- Scott V. McGuire <svmcguir(a)syr.edu> PGP key available at http://web.syr.edu/~svmcguir Key fingerprint = 86 B1 10 3F 4E 48 75 0E 96 9B 1E 52 8B B1 26 05 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBMvZ3lN7xoXfnt4lpAQGjbgQAs9qqrOZCgHeT19yh6LOS8rsXVAglssVI 2VLCiKb/X0Ny1+p3kzTiit42uykv5IhoCn+GdJF0X08zW02ymRf6JIv2sLksW2ln E+SZuUoLFk18emLIJMEVGNPW7cJEl7/a75IdETrU14RcdBN8F86bm5VK36kyNMIY kPfB825uWxU= =N3va -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

New X-Ray Imager
by Steve Schear 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

New X-ray gun trades privacy for safety Reported by Andy C Seen in The Nando Times on 13 August 1996 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Passive Millimeter Wave Imager can X-ray through clothing to "see" a concealed weapon, plastic explosives or drugs. A police officer can surreptitiously aim it into a crowd from as far away as 90 feet. The new X-ray gun is becoming a symbol for an unlikely alliance of civil libertarians and gun owners who fear the fight against crime and terrorism may be waged at the expense of personal freedoms. "I'm incredibly concerned," said John Henry Hingson, a past president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, meeting here this past week. "The entire nation could become a victim of illegal searches and seizures and the law is powerless to protect them from these police abuses." But in these nervous times following the the crash of TWA Fight 800 and bombings at the Olympics, Oklahoma City and the World Trade Center, many Americans are now willing to trade some of their privacy and civil liberties for greater security. A poll last week by the Los Angeles Times found that a majority of people -- 58 percent -- said they would curtail some civil liberties if it would help thwart terrorism. Thirteen percent said it would depend on what rights were at stake. The poll didn't ask people to single out any rights. The Clinton administration has proposed increased wiretapping and other anti-terrorism steps, and is doling out research grants for cutting edge anti-crime technology that once may have been intended for only military use. Last year, the National Institute of Justice awarded $2.1 million to three companies to develop weapon detectors for airports, stores and public buildings. Two models are being developed of the Passive Millimeter Wave Imager, a creation of Hadley, Massachusetts-based Millimetrix Corp. The larger one, about the size of a shoebox, is mounted on a patrol car and pointed at the unsuspecting person. The gadget doesn't send out X-rays; instead, it picks up electromagnetic waves emitted by human flesh. Anything that stands in the way of those waves -- like a gun -- or anything that emits weaker waves -- like a bag of cocaine or a plastic explosive -- will show up on a little screen in the patrol car. Clothes emit no waves. Neither do walls, allowing the device to be used from even outside a room. A second model is a smaller, battery-operated version that an officer can operate by hand, like a radar gun. Millimetrix hopes to field test the larger model soon at a police agency. Hingson argues the device runs roughshod over bans against illegal searches and seizures. The law says police can stop and frisk a person only when an officer has a "reasonable suspicion" the person is armed or involved in a crime. Millimetrix points out that while the imager can see through clothing, it still leaves people some privacy. The device's display screen, the company says, "does not reveal intimate anatomical details of the person." Chip Walker, spokesman for the National Rifle Association, noted that devices like the imager threaten the legal rights of people in 31 states who are allowed to carry concealed weapons with proper licenses. "We certainly support efforts to disarm criminals, but we need to be careful that we're not painting with too broad a brush here," he said. Walker said that as troubling as terrorism is, people may be playing into terrorists' hands by giving up their privacy. "One of the broader issues is that if we start giving up certain civil liberties, that essentially means that the terrorists are starting to accomplish one of their goals," he said. Contact email address: acobley(a)mic.dundee.ac.uk --------------------- (From a TRW development program description) The Passive Millimeter Wave sensor detects thermal energy, which is radiated from objects and reflected from other objects such as the sky in the 94 Giga Hertz frequency band. The advantage of this frequency is that there is little attenuation of the energy by water particles in the air (fog). The camera operates very much like a television camera except that it operates at mm-wave frequencies (near 90 GHz) instead of in the visible spectrum. It has components analogous to a television camera: optics to focus the image, a readout device to convert the electromagnetic energy into electrical signals, signal processing electronics to prepare the signals for display, and display unit to view the scene. The optical system images the blackbody radiation emanating from the scene on the Focal Plane Array (FPA), which consists of an array of small antennas, each coupled to a very small MMIC W-band (90 GHz) direct-detection receiver. ---------------- >From a description of the National Law Enforcement & Corrections Technology Center/Northeast (NLECTC) at Rome Laboratory (more on that later). The Millimeter Wave Imaging Radar Consortium seeks development of a suitable technology and effective, affordable products for concealed weapon detection (CWD) and through-the-wall surveillance (TWS) application --- well-established objectives for both military operations other than war and civilian law enforcement agencies. Consortium members include Millimetrix Corp., South Deerfield, Mass.; Technology Service Corp., Trumbull, Conn.; and Riverside Research Institute of Lexington, Mass. They will contribute $2,035,087 to the research program, while the government's share will be $2,018,491. Military applications of the envisioned technology, in addition to operations other than war, would include use by military police and special forces personnel, all weather aircraft operation, shipboard and airborne missile warning, helicopter obstacle avoidance, battlefield surveillance, fire control, and missile seekers. Civilian law enforcement agencies would be able to use the technology in curtailing terrorist acts and juvenile handgun crimes that frequently involve the use of concealed weapons, bombs and other contraband that cannot be detected using currently available technology see <http://www.nlectc.org/E144T127/june.htm> --Steve

2 1

Re: Moderation [Tim,Sandy]
by snow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I believe that Cypherpunks is beyond hope of recovery. In fact, each day > Cypherpunk (as in cypherpunks(a)toad.com) lives on, it does damage to the > cause. Let's kill the list. Once and for all. Let the hard core crypto go > to Coderpunks, the politics to Cryptography, and the garbage into the void. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't(wasn't) there an implied threat of moderation on the cryptography(a)c2.net list? Mr. M started it with the intent of getting away from much of the cruft (ADD, & etc.) that had accumlated here, and he was quite open about moderating it if he thought it needed it.

1 0

Embarrass a Marylander, Go to Jail
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 19:25:51 -0500 (EST) To: Multiple Recipients of e$pam <e$pam(a)intertrader.com> From: e$pam(a)intertrader.com (e$pam) Reply-To: e$(a)thumper.vmeng.com X-Comment: To unsubscribe, send any email to e$pam-off(a)intertrader.com Precedence: Bulk Subject: Embarrass a Marylander, Go to Jail X-orig-from: Randy Cassingham <arcie(a)netcom.com> X-e$pam-source: Various Forwarded by Robert Hettinga ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 14:37:56 -0700 (MST) From: Randy Cassingham <arcie(a)netcom.com> Subject: Embarrass a Marylander, Go to Jail To: listmom-talk(a)skyweyr.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: Bulk Reply-To: listmom-talk(a)skyweyr.com Passed on without comment. / Randy Cassingham * Author, "This is True" * arcie(a)netcom.com \ | For info on What I Do, send a blank e-mail to TrueInfo(a)freecom.com | \ or check out <http://www.freecom.com/> * I promise you'll like it / + FIGHT SPAM! Send a blank e-mail to nospam(a)mailback.com for help! + ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Excerpted from... ============================================================= AOP Bulletin Friday, February 3, 1997 Volume 97:05 ============================================================= The following is information distributed to members of the Association of Online Professionals and others involved in the online communications industry. Contacts and other information about AOP may be found at http://www.aop.org. ***************************************************** Maryland Recycles Law On "Annoying" E-Mail ***************************************************** A Maryland bill that would make it illegal to send "annoying" or "embarrassing" e-mail was introduced this week by Democratic General Assembly member Samuel Rosenberg. The bill got little support when it was introduced last year, but Rosenberg hopes to play off of recent murders involving electronic mail to see the bill passed. Civil liberties groups argue that the law would be unconstitutional, and that the terms "annoy" and "embarrass" are too vague to be meaningful. If passed, House Bill 778 would amend the state's criminal harassment law to prohibit the use of email to annoy, abuse, torment, harass, or embarrass other people, with violators receiving a fine up to $500 and three years in jail. A similar bill introduced last year is quietly progressing through New York's state legislature. Senate Bill 1414, introduced by Democratic State Senator Ray Goodman, could be voted on in the House early this year. Full text of the Maryland bill can be found at http://mlis.state.md.us/1997rs/billfile/HB0778.htm. -------------------------------------------------- The e$ lists are brought to you by: Intertrader Ltd - Java e$ Software Developers in the UK Visit <http://www.intertrader.com/> for details ... Where people, networks and money come together: Consult Hyperion http://www.hyperion.co.uk info(a)hyperion.co.uk Like e$pam? Help pay for it! See <http://www.atanda.com/rah.html> Or, for e$pam sponsorship, see <http://thumper.vmeng.com/pub/rah/> Thanks to the e$ e$lves: Of Counsel: Vinnie Moscaritolo <mailto:vinnie@webstuff.apple.com> (Majordomo)^2: Rachel Willmer<mailto:rachel@intertrader.com> Commermeister: Anthony Templer <mailto:anthony@atanda.com> Interturge: Rodney Thayer <mailto:rodney@sabletech.com> HTMLurgist: Cynthia Zwerling <mailto:czrider@@webstuff.apple.com> --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/

1 0

Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adam Back wrote: > > Perhaps it is time to reconsider the benefits of alt.cypherpunks. (As > an aside, it is ironic that John Gilmore was the guy who started the > alt.* USENET hierarchy, specifically to facilitate freedom of speech). > An interesting idea. - Igor.

1 0

Re: Dissolving Choke Points (fwd)
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: ####### ### <###(a)###.com> > To: ichudov(a)algebra.com > Subject: Re: Dissolving Choke Points > > ichudov(a)algebra.com writes: > > i do have unix (linux) and stuff, but i can't take a lot of subscribers > > -- maybe 200-300 or so. > > > > i actually wrote a proposal for a mailing list without a central control > > point, with several advantages being impossibility of control, absense > > of a single point of failure, and cryptographic verification of honesty > > of moderators. > > > > if there is any interest, i will post it here. > > Please do. > > Regards, > > ####### ### Here, I propose a new scheme for the Cypherpunks mailing list that would 1) Ensure that no one person is able to take over the control over the list 2) Ensure that there will be no single point of failure, i.e., shutdown of any single computer will not kill the list 3) Ensure that even people with relatively small Net resources can help keep the list afloat. The idea is as follows: even though Cypherpunks is one group, the group will be based on multiple mailing lists with identical content. These lists may be named, for example, cypherpunks(a)algebra.com, cypherpunks(a)toad.com, and cypherpunks(a)netcom.com (obviously, these names are used as an example only). Any user is free to subscribe to any of these lists. All of these lists will interact with each other in the following way: 1) Each node would forward ALL incoming submissions to a) all other nodes and b) to all subscribers "attached" to the node 2) Each node will send information about all new subscriptions to each other node. The following procmail recipes for cypherpunks@ accounts may be used to ensure quick forwarding: # is it sent to cypherpunks (some spams will be trashed here) # and is it not a mail loop? :0 * ^TOcypherpunks * !^X-Loop: { # # This recipe removes duplicates! # :0 Wh: msgid.lock | formail -D 32768 msgid.cache # forward it to other cypherpunks lists :0 c !cypherpunks(a)netcom.com cypherpunks(a)toad.com # send it to all local subscribers :0 c !majordomo -some -arguments # store the checksum and message-id for honesty verification (see below) :0 |accounting } # suSCRibe/unsuSCRibe recipes go here This scheme ensures that the list is run in a cooperative fashion and can be maintained by a number of individuals without any one of them having an expensive internet connection or being "in charge". It also ensures that even if one node fails, traffic can be re-routed to other nodes. Just as well, it ensures that any attempts of cheating will be noticed: it is easy to write a bot that would subscribe to all of these lists and see if any messages get "lost". Users can send their articles to only one node, or, if they feel paranoid, to several nodes at once. All we need is to make sure that all Message-IDs of outgoing messages are unique at every node. Honesty verification: I suppose that there may be some more elaborate, crypto-based schemes to control and monitor article distribution. For example, there can be another list, cypherpunks-control, where each of the nodes posts a publicly available signed summary of checksums of articles that went through, and individual users would be able (with the help of s simple client program) to verify that 1) They received these articles 2) That summaries received from all nodes are identical 3) That all articles were received by all nodes They do not HAVE to do it, but they can if they want. If they do, there will be no way for list maintainers to censor anything. If a node goes down or if the users' verification scripts indicate a potential for cheating, they can resubscribe to some other node and let everyone else know what's going on. My proposal strikes me as fairly simple and potentially workable. Even though 90% of the users will never get to usnig the verification mechanism, it will ensure honesty. Note also that this mechanism is a gross simplification of the way USENET works, so some may vouch for a usenet group instead. Your opinions will be appreciated. - Igor.

1 0

Re: Dissolving Choke Points
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:55 AM 2/3/97 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: ... >Another lesson is the danger of choke points. We can see how >tempting it is for people to exercise their control. Even John Gilmore >was unable to restrain himself from involuntary social engineering >experiments. Who would we have considered to be more trustworthy? > >Toad.com is a choke point, not just in terms of moderation but in >terms of the rate at which it can distribute messages. Let's >replace it. > >What we want are many machines carrying the cypherpunks list. A >message posted to any machine goes to all of the others. Each >machine sends messages to its subscribers only once. Some of >these machines should be across borders. > >The mail loop and multiple posting problems are solved by observing >the message IDs. > >Fast implementation: use moderated mailing list software. Put a >filter in the .forward file of the "moderator" account which looks >at the message ID and forwards the message if it hasn't been seen >already. The mailing list machines all subscribe each other. ... What you are suggesting is reminiscent of IRC. Except, I think that each IRC network has a central computer which could be controlled. On your idea for fast implementation, this could be hacked by would-be censors. A message comes into the list, the censor sees that the post is from a regular enemy. The censor then copies the header information onto a new message, one containing garbage, or snippets from old posts, reads the new post to see if it is acceptable, and if it is, adds a new header, probably only the time would be changed, and transmits it out. If the would be censor was the sysop of a machine near the origin of the message, and if the censor operated the censorship either by bots, or monitored the feed 24 hours a day, (not likely), then the actual message would get to few.

1 0