Re: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison
Eugene, I'd appreciate your not addressing mail to me concerning Jim Bell, though that may be due to the way your mailer is set up to respond to cpunk mail. I got subpoenaed to the grand jury and trial because Jim Bell's responses to my messages to cpunks were addressed to me and cc'ed to cpunks, just as yours was in this case. Robb London claimed that meant Jim and I were in direct communication when I was doing all I could to avoid private contact with Jim, then as now. He continues to be a witting or unwitting agent of the fuckers in ensnaring stand-off supporters in his comical stupidities which the fuckers take as high serious crimes. And I will ask again to all readers in the universe: do not send me private e-mail about Jim Bell, CJ, or anybody likely to be a target of the SOBs working cybercrime-rich territory. Post your stuff to a public forum, and do not cc me. Thank you very much.
On Saturday, August 25, 2001, at 12:56 PM, someone wrote:
I'd appreciate your not addressing mail to me concerning Jim Bell, though that may be due to the way your mailer is set up to respond to cpunk mail.
I got subpoenaed to the grand jury and trial because Jim Bell's responses to my messages to cpunks were addressed to me and cc'ed to cpunks, just as yours ..... And I will ask again to all readers in the universe: do not send me private e-mail about Jim Bell, CJ, or anybody likely to be a target of the SOBs working cybercrime-rich territory. Post your stuff to a public forum, and do not cc me.
And I urge people to spend the extra 10 seconds it takes to edit out all addresses except the CDR node they are sending their message to. (I have to do this with my mailer, and I nearly always manage to edit out all of the various cc: and extraneous To: entries. Sometimes in haste I just hit "Reply" and forget to edit the fields. Mostly I do.) The reasons for this are two-fold, not even counting "someone's" valid point about ignorami claiming "direct communication": 1) Everyone is getting the list, right? Except for rare cases when someone not subscribed to the list is copied as a courtesy, there is no need for them to receive a separate mailed copy and a mail-exploder copy. ("Robb, we may have another problem brewing on the Thought Criminal list...that smart-ass May just used the word "exploder" in a message.") 2) Editing out the extraneous cc:s helps to stop _others_ from further proliferating extra copies. (I've seen messages to Cypherpunks with half a dozen cc: entries, all to otherwise-subscribed members.) To paraphrase one of the Orwellian barnyard animals : "Two copies bad." My mailer allows me to just type "cy" in the To: field and it auto-fills with its best guess of what the address is. It also shows, after a delay, a pop-up of other possible addresses. Or cut-and-paste is easy. (I send traffic out to cypherpunks@lne.com, even if it arrives via another node. So I like the auto-fill more than cutting-and-pasting.) Others may have macros which auto-type an address easily. Or even macros and scripts which discard all non-cypherpunks addresses from a reply. In any case, it only takes about 10-20 seconds, tops. --Tim May
On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 12:56:23PM -0700, John Young wrote:
Eugene,
I'd appreciate your not addressing mail to me concerning Jim Bell, though that may be due to the way your mailer is set up to respond to cpunk mail.
I got subpoenaed to the grand jury and trial because Jim Bell's responses to my messages to cpunks were addressed to me and cc'ed to cpunks, just as yours was in this case. Robb London claimed that meant Jim and I were in direct communication when I was doing all I could to avoid private contact with Jim, then as now.
Too bad no technical people were called upon to explain how "group reply" works and why many people send copies to both the original poster and to the list without intending any direct communication with the poster that they're replying to. Of course that would not have served Robb's purposes... That said, I have set up lne's CDR to not include a Reply-to field. I beleive that setting Reply-to[1] on a mailing list is a Bad Thing since it means that mail that was intended to be private often accidentally is posted to the list. Besides the added junk that goes to the list as a result, I have seen people seriously damage their lives by accidentally posting very private email to a list when they intended to mail it to an individual. OTOH, the cpunks list has, one hopes, more technically sophisticated readers who would be less likely to make such a mistake. And this is one list where there is an advantage to routing posts through the list. So, lne CDR subscribers, should I set the Reply-to: in mail that originates at the lne CDR? Or should I set the Reply-to: in mail that goes to lne CDR subscribers? Or leave it out as I do now? Eric [1]: Reply-to: is a header field that most mail readers use to fill in the default address when generating a reply. So a Reply-to: cypherpunks@lne.com would mean that by default, someone replying to list mail would send their reply to cypherpunks@lne.com. If Reply-to: is not set, then the default is what's in the From: line which in the case of CDR mail is the original poster. To reply to the poster and to the list, one then needs to do a "group reply" which sends the reply to all the addresses in the header, which usually means the list and the original poster.
On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 10:51:28AM -0700, Eric Murray wrote:
Too bad no technical people were called upon to explain how "group reply" works and why many people send copies to both the original poster and to the list without intending any direct communication with the poster that they're replying to. Of course that would not have served Robb's purposes...
Right. Jim's only witness called in his defense was, well, Jim. Let me speak up in defense of replying to the poster and the list in at least some cases. Obviously replying to a long To: line of a dozen people is just poor manners. But there are at least three advantages that come to mind when copying the original poster: 1. Email sent individually to someone reaches them faster than when replying to the list. I've often had half-day lag times in the past with cypherpunks. 2. Email sent individually to someone will reach them when the list is offline. This happened to me earlier this month when my cpunx node was offline for three or so days. 3. In my case, I subscribe under a different (but obvious) address than my well.com one. If copied on a reply, I'll see it sooner than than if I open the cypherpunks folder on my *nix machine. Naturally some folks (John, Tim) have expressed a preference not to be copied on messages. -Declan
I don't always monitor folders, for me a CC is a courtesy. ~Aimee
1. Email sent individually to someone reaches them faster than when replying to the list. I've often had half-day lag times in the past with cypherpunks.
2. Email sent individually to someone will reach them when the list is offline. This happened to me earlier this month when my cpunx node was offline for three or so days.
3. In my case, I subscribe under a different (but obvious) address than my well.com one. If copied on a reply, I'll see it sooner than than if I open the cypherpunks folder on my *nix machine.
Naturally some folks (John, Tim) have expressed a preference not to be copied on messages.
-Declan
I've been typing in the cpunks address in reply for months, and don't mind, after reading about a host of problems associated with automatic replies and cc's and hidden header information that doesn't show up kiddie-script mailers. And nothing I've written about avoiding private contact with Jim Bell is meant to diminish support for the entrapped anti-hero who deserves widest possible attention and backing no matter your personal opinion of his seeming stupidities in taking the feds poisoned bait. This was a show trial which had little to do with Jim Bell's piddlings. These varmints are going after bigger game using Jim as a lure. Still it was a pleasure to meet Jim in Seattle surrounded by the mighty US pro-terrorist forces, him in his ruppled prison blues, the terrorists in camouflage suits and ties, going home at night, bragging about winning the endless war against perps, nervously double-checking their homeland defenses. The court's inhuman form-based judgment makes me want to puke at its futile avoidance of broad personal responsibility, London and Tanner signing for the undercover cowards up and down the nationwide war-chart.
participants (5)
-
Aimee Farr -
Declan McCullagh -
Eric Murray -
John Young -
Tim May