Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk> writes:
Unfortunately I wasn't on cypherpunks-unedited at the time, but I thought that it was immediate send out from toad.com without going via Sandy.
Going over my notes I see that at least one of my submissions - the one quoting the C2Net lawyer letter in its entirety - didn't appear even on cypherpunks-unedited.
I think I saw this claim made before around the time of the "moderation experiment".
The only ways I can see that this could have happened are either that:
i) John Gilmore started editing cypherpunks-unedited at Sandy/C2net's request
ii) cypherpunks-unedited was edited all along by someone (John or Sandy)
i) is sort of feasible, perhaps there are others who were on unedited and were counting who could confirm this. Toto I think was.
Apparently a 'bot was installed on toad.com to discard my submissions from the "unedited" list _after my article which prompted the C2net threatening lawyer letter did make it through the "unedited" list (but was censored from the "flames" list by C2Net).
ii) is hard to believe because the fact that something is edited shows -- when the editor is sleeping you get lag.
I'm fairly sure I didn't see the C2 legal letter you posted yesterday before.
I'm sorry to have to return to this topic that's been beaten to death and causes me intense nausea. I figured I'll comment on two more attempts to revise history by lying C2Net shills from Hewlett Packard and Oracle. Please recall that C2Net created 3 lists on toad.com: unedited flames C2Net-approved At one point, all my submissions to cypherpunks appeared on "unedited" and then on "flames" with about a 3-second delay, indicating a 'bot at work. The 'bot was scrubbed when C2net decided that my writings were not suitable for auto- forwarding to the "flames" list either. For about a week, numerous articles by myself, Tim May, et al appeared on "unedited" but not on "flames". Howver toward the end of the "moderation experiment" apparently a 'bot on toad.com was filtering my submissions from the 'unedited' list as well. My Jan 30th announcement that C2Net filtered out of the flames list _did show up on the unedited list. However my following articles, like the one quoting C2Net's threatening lawyer letter (which I cc'd to numerous people, including JYA, who, not surprisingly, declined to put it on his archive) did _not appear on the "unedited" list. Nevertheless at least one lying C2Net shill from Hewlett Packard claims that my articles appearing on the unedited list on January 30th prove that I wasn't being filtered from "unedited" one week later. Another lying C2net shill, Jason E. Durbin, a technical writer for Oracle, just wrote in news.admin.net-abuse.policy: }For those unfamiliar with the tactics Vulis uses when attempting to }destroy moderated fora, take a look at the current, ongoing thread }called "Stronghold" (and other variations on same) on the Cypherpunks }mailing list archived at: } }http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/current/date.html#start } }It summarizes (including Vulis' take on the situation) Vulis' attack }on the mailing list itself via a feigned attack on the Stronghold }security server. } }In summary, make such an annoyance of yourself by whatever means }necessary (posting binaries, running an insultbot, making false }accusations, etc.) to get yourself threatened with banishment, then }rally the free speech advocates by painting yourself as the innocent }harmed party even though no banishment occurred. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ } }Interesting insights into how Vulis attempts to manipulate his victims }into damning themselves while making him look like a victim. }Interesting reading. "No banishment occured" - more bizarre lies from C2Net and their supporters. Oh, and I don't recall sending binaries to this list either. This reminds me of the claim by Rich Graves, another C2Net/Cygnus shill, that I'm sending "hundreds" of articles a day to this mailing list. You may recall that the same C2net/Oracle shill Jason Durbin has been following up on my Usenet articles in sci.crypt, comp.unix.questions, etc with lies and libel: claiming, e.g., that I "lie about my credentials", that I don't even have a master's degree, etc. Is C2Net paying Jason Durbin to badmouth my academic credentials?
From Jason Durbin's Net.Scum page:
Jason E. Durbin, jdurbin@nl.oracle.com, jed@poisson.com, slothrop@poisson.com, jed@best.com, jed@netcom.com. Jason claims to work for Poisson Corporation, 8 Avocet Drive, #211, Redwood Shores, CA 94065, tel +1 415 637 0435, JD503. In real life, Jason is a lowly technical writer for Oracle Corporation, 500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood City, CA 94065, tel: +1 800 345 3267, +1 415 506 7000, (+1 605 506 7000), fax: +1 415 506 7200. Jason's manager in the technical writing department is: Sanford Dreskin Mail Stop: MS-40P12 Office tel: +1 415 506 2181 Office fax: +1 415 506 7228 Home tel: +1 510 376 9526 Home addr: 859 Augusta Drive, Moraga, CA 94556-1051 In what ways are Durbin and the Hewlett-Packard liar affiliated with C2Net? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
Dimitri Vulis <dlv@bwalk.dm.com> writes:
Apparently a 'bot was installed on toad.com to discard my submissions from the "unedited" list _after my article which prompted the C2net threatening lawyer letter did make it through the "unedited" list (but was censored from the "flames" list by C2Net).
Your claim has some plausibility, I'll grant. You were already singled out for special treatment, in that John Gilmore did unsubscribe you, and block you from re-subscribing. We know that much because he admitted it himself. Also Attila said something recently about some of his messages being excluded from the unedited list, and being able to repost them at night and have them go through. He said he thought Tim May experienced similar problems. This is a serious charge because we were lead to believe that unedited was completely unedited -- it was supposed to be straight through, and neither John or Sandy ever admitted to editing unedited, yet according to these claims it appears that it was being edited. There are sort of plausible reasons why mail can disappear -- freak delivery problem (happens now and then), or perhaps flakiness of toad's majordomo to many changes being made to it. It is sort of within the bounds of believeability that these posts could have disappeared by accident. Given that multiple people are saying things about unedited being edited (either by bots or by hand selection) it seems likley that there was something sneaking going on towards the end, even with the unedited list.
At one point, all my submissions to cypherpunks appeared on "unedited" and then on "flames" with about a 3-second delay, indicating a 'bot at work. The 'bot was scrubbed when C2net decided that my writings were not suitable for auto- forwarding to the "flames" list either.
Wow. That is a somewhat plausible claim also, one it might be possible to verify from article headers in list archives.
For about a week, numerous articles by myself, Tim May, et al appeared on "unedited" but not on "flames".
I can confirm my belief that this part is true. Numerous people have verified this, which ocurred after Sandy faced his engineered "dilemma" :-)
My Jan 30th announcement that C2Net filtered out of the flames list _did show up on the unedited list. However my following articles, like the one quoting C2Net's threatening lawyer letter (which I cc'd to numerous people, including JYA, who, not surprisingly, declined to put it on his archive)
I'd be interested to hear John Young confirm or deny this. He if I recall correctly was also critical of C2's handling of the affair, and I would have thought that with his normal 'tude to censorship of documents, he would've put it up. So what happened John?
did _not appear on the "unedited" list. Nevertheless at least one lying C2Net shill from Hewlett Packard claims that my articles appearing on the unedited list on January 30th prove that I wasn't being filtered from "unedited" one week later.
Some thing's just can't be proven. That logic clearly doesn't flow.
Another lying C2net shill, Jason E. Durbin, a technical writer for Oracle, just wrote in news.admin.net-abuse.policy:
[Dimitri bashing by Jason Durbin]
"No banishment occured" - more bizarre lies from C2Net and their supporters.
Yup, that one is incorrect -- we've established that because John Gilmore admitted to unsubscribing you, and blocking you from re-subscribing.
Oh, and I don't recall sending binaries to this list either.
No, can't say I recall you sending binaries either.
This reminds me of the claim by Rich Graves, another C2Net/Cygnus shill, that I'm sending "hundreds" of articles a day to this mailing list.
Not hundreds, I agree. However there were a few rather long ones about "dandruff covered Armenians" :-), something involving some claimed historic ethnic cleansing.
You may recall that the same C2net/Oracle shill Jason Durbin has been following up on my Usenet articles in sci.crypt, comp.unix.questions, etc with lies and libel: claiming, e.g., that I "lie about my credentials", that I don't even have a master's degree, etc. Is C2Net paying Jason Durbin to badmouth my academic credentials?
Your credentials are independently verifiable. I have seen claims by people who have said that they had satisfied themself of your credentials by calling the university you got your PhD from. I have not done this myself, but I take your word for it. However another aspect to this argument over credentials is a comment that arose when another person with a PhD who used the title "Dr" in his From line subscribed to the list. That person was Fred Cohen. His above average education in having his PhD didn't seem to reflect in his posts, and several people commented on this fact. It seems to be that listing qualifications in From fields is asking for rude comments, or it seems to attract criticism :-) I can say I like the practice. Was a time on this list when there were quite a number of people who had PhD's. Jim Gilogly does I think, Atilla T Hun, no doubt lots of others, several past or present list members are post grad students studying for PhD's (and no doubt being distracted from their PhD topics by reading cpunks). I won't bother discussing my academic qualifications; it doesn't really seem necessary to discuss them on list. People's comments have value independently of their qualifications. It can be largely orthogonal to their paper qualifications. A lot of people in the computer field got their qualifications in other fields. Paul Kocher for instance if you look at his resume seems to have a BSc in Biology or something, however this clearly doesn't get in his way, as he does pretty high level crypto consulting (RSADSI, Netscape, etc). Anyway, perhaps it's time for a repost of the potted sequence of events I constructed of the events as I was able to verify them at the time. Uh... dig dig, I'll find it in a bit. Adam -- Now officially an EAR violation... Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/ 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`
I wrote:
However another aspect to this argument over credentials is a comment that arose when another person with a PhD who used the title "Dr" in his From line subscribed to the list. That person was Fred Cohen. His above average education in having his PhD didn't seem to reflect in his posts, and several people commented on this fact. It seems to be that listing qualifications in From fields is asking for rude comments, or it seems to attract criticism :-)
I can say I like the practice. ^^^
typo, I meant to write "I _can't_ say I like the practice". And yes, Jim Choate, re moderation re-runs some of us do have too much time on our hands :-) We make this time by not sleeping much, jeeze it's 1:30am and I'm just starting to get going on the GAK compliancy argument in another thread again, and I've got an article submission deadline for tomorrow also, which I haven't even started yet! Adam -- Now officially an EAR violation... Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/ 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`
on or about 971013:0133 Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk> was purported to have expostulated to perpetuate an opinion: +I wrote: +> However another aspect to this argument over credentials is a comment +> that arose when another person with a PhD who used the title "Dr" in +> his From line subscribed to the list. That person was Fred Cohen. +> His above average education in having his PhD didn't seem to reflect +> in his posts, and several people commented on this fact. It seems to +> be that listing qualifications in From fields is asking for rude +> comments, or it seems to attract criticism :-) +> +> I can say I like the practice. + ^^^ +typo, I meant to write "I _can't_ say I like the practice". -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- as I always refer to my degree of {in}competence: PiledHigherDeeper in Zuerich is was Hr. Dr. Prof.... but then, the Swiss love 'em. as for Cohen, he was a fraud, and will always be a fraud. he was defrocked of his professors gown for some irregularity. he was fun to attack though <g> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBNEJxT704kQrCC2kFAQG93AQAsaqNFV30tbmOmanknXUwLXWTk8vN1Gpy QQVUq/+yNJHRvoIusYclewZVJc5/29VIrDTVs8NYAh9hjiwoaHpSW82SAaIsz2eX JS2Cr+8i4/QsV/lDWsykJT00QcP9lommpg4zJ3BNtwblKdfXAnQy9NDuxlCFGOtZ ZEM5m+nL2gs= =rNOp -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Adam Back writes:
Dimitri Vulis <dlv@bwalk.dm.com> writes:
did _not appear on the "unedited" list. Nevertheless at least one lying C2Net shill from Hewlett Packard claims that my articles appearing on the unedited list on January 30th prove that I wasn't being filtered from "unedited" one week later.
Some thing's just can't be proven. That logic clearly doesn't flow.
For the record, I made no such claim. In fact, my exact words were: [me:]
Since obviously none of us who were on the -unedited list can say for sure whether we received everything sent to it, I can't say with certainty this never happened. But.... This is the problem with being known as a liar. Nobody is inclined to believe what you say without substantitation. So I still don't see any reason to believe that anything was "censored" from the unedited list.
But Dimitri has claimed that there were "numerous people" who were CC'd to the message that is alleged to have disappeared from -unedited. I'm sure they'll all be chiming in to back him up just like John Young did. :-) -- Jeff (C2Net shill? now if I can only get Sameer to pay me for it)
Jeff Barber <jeffb@issl.atl.hp.com> writes:
Dimitri Vulis <dlv@bwalk.dm.com> writes:
did _not appear on the "unedited" list. Nevertheless at least one lying C2Net shill from Hewlett Packard claims that my articles appearing on the unedited list on January 30th prove that I wasn't being filtered from "unedited" one week later.
Some thing's just can't be proven. That logic clearly doesn't flow.
For the record, I made no such claim. In fact, my exact words were:
[me:]
Since obviously none of us who were on the -unedited list can say for sure whether we received everything sent to it, I can't say with certainty this never happened. But.... This is the problem with being known as a liar. Nobody is inclined to believe what you say without substantitation. So I still don't see any reason to believe that anything was "censored" from the unedited list.
One additional reason to believe that at least some things were disappearing from the unedited list was Attila's claim that some of his posts weren't getting through to the unedited list also. Notice that I don't say why they were disappearing because that is almost difficult to prove at this point. I detailed Attila's claims in the post you are replying to.
But Dimitri has claimed that there were "numerous people" who were CC'd to the message that is alleged to have disappeared from -unedited. I'm sure they'll all be chiming in to back him up just like John Young did. :-)
Mailing lists are pretty vulnerable to spoofing in various ways. At the time of the attack, an additional possible class of spoof which may or may not have been occuring would have been: For someone to use the list of subscribers available for the lists homed at majordomo @ toad.com to fuck with peoples minds. For example by sending messages with forged From & other headers making them appear as if they did come from toad.com to all subscribers, or some subset of them. That would allow one to construct some very interesting problems: for example Sandy apparently passing to the edited list something which seemed violently out of character, but sending it to everyone but him, so that he would deny seeing it even, and look like every one else as if he were blatantly lying. Or to generally mess with who you sent to for different lists and combinations of lists. This would allow you to construct all sorts of apparently independently confirmable conspiracy theories. I'm not sure some of these things weren't happening. There are a few current and former list members who delight in this kind of clever prank. Reckon you could do something about some of these attacks by adding signatures on outgoing mail from the mailing list, and by posting regular message digests of posts to the list to make it harder for people to deny service to one individual. Even unsubscribing and subscribing other people was not prevented originally with toad, but there are existing methods to solve this problem in that newer versions of majordomo allow nonces to be sent for confirmations of these things. Doesn't stop recursive list subscriptions, nor subscribing one list to another (because the attacker can see the nonce appear in the list). Adam -- Now officially an EAR violation... Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/ 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`
Adam Back wrote:
Mailing lists are pretty vulnerable to spoofing in various ways. At the time of the attack, an additional possible class of spoof which may or may not have been occuring would have been:
For someone to use the list of subscribers available for the lists homed at majordomo @ toad.com to fuck with peoples minds. For example by sending messages with forged From & other headers making them appear as if they did come from toad.com to all subscribers, or some subset of them.
That would allow one to construct some very interesting problems: for example Sandy apparently passing to the edited list something which seemed violently out of character, but sending it to everyone but him, so that he would deny seeing it even, and look like every one else as if he were blatantly lying.
Or to generally mess with who you sent to for different lists and combinations of lists. This would allow you to construct all sorts of apparently independently confirmable conspiracy theories.
I'm not sure some of these things weren't happening. There are a few current and former list members who delight in this kind of clever prank.
Many weird things happened during the course of the list censorship, not the least of which was that every time someone on the list pointed out apparent discrepancies between what was announced as being done and reality, the mechanizations behind the list would change to become more obscure. More than one list member called this bullshit when I pointed it out, then shit a brick when they researched the matter themselves, and found it to be true. I was subscribed to all three lists at one time or another, and was also subscribed from more than one account. I also had another list member forward me their archive of posts from the lists. There was a variety of interesting things which one could divine from the different 'versions' of the list that appeared from these three sources, one of which was that some controversial posts seemed to go out from toad.com to *only* the person who sent it (or to people who were cc:'d on the post), making it appear to the sender that their post had gone out to everyone on the list. I had already suspected this from the fact that some rather outrageous posts seemed to go unnoticed on the list, and I had confirmed it to a certain extent by cc:'ing and bcc:'in certain individuals, but an analysis of all the posts in my possession, from different sources, confirmed it beyond doubt. Although a variety of individuals could confirm various details of what I have described, the 'facts' are still pretty much meaningless to those who did not personally do the footwork themselves. Much the same applies to the Corporate Message Recovery of the new alien-PGP being discussed on the Cypherpunks list. Your best weapon is your nose. When something smells bad, it usually is. All of the analysis I did of list posts served mainly to convince myself that my original deductions, based on far less information, were correct. My main problem with the new product is that it trades on the name and reputation of PGP to promote a product which serves a totally different market and need. It is similar to my using the status of a long-established "TruthMonger's Crazy Ramblings" mailing list to promote "TruthMonger's Trustworthy Health Products Mailing List" to the three list subscribers. (Or the use of John Lennon's music to sell sneakers...<barf> <barf>) The *real* question is: "Does the packaging have a picture of an actor in a white smock, with a stethescope around his neck, a big-breasted nurse, licking her hot, wet lips, and a child, petting a dog?" If it does, then buy all of the company's stock that you can get your hands on. TruthMonger
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk> writes:
Unfortunately I wasn't on cypherpunks-unedited at the time, but I thought that it was immediate send out from toad.com without going via Sandy.
Going over my notes I see that at least one of my submissions - the one quoting the C2Net lawyer letter in its entirety - didn't appear even on cypherpunks-unedited.
Just where was the Lawyer's letter? Did it have any telephone number on it? I want to call that guy and make sure it was really from him.
I think I saw this claim made before around the time of the "moderation experiment".
The only ways I can see that this could have happened are either that:
i) John Gilmore started editing cypherpunks-unedited at Sandy/C2net's request
ii) cypherpunks-unedited was edited all along by someone (John or Sandy)
Are John and Sandy still sucking and fucking each other?
i) is sort of feasible, perhaps there are others who were on unedited and were counting who could confirm this. Toto I think was.
Apparently a 'bot was installed on toad.com to discard my submissions from the "unedited" list _after my article which prompted the C2net threatening lawyer letter did make it through the "unedited" list (but was censored from the "flames" list by C2Net).
ii) is hard to believe because the fact that something is edited shows -- when the editor is sleeping you get lag.
I'm fairly sure I didn't see the C2 legal letter you posted yesterday before.
I'm sorry to have to return to this topic that's been beaten to death and causes me intense nausea. I figured I'll comment on two more attempts to revise history by lying C2Net shills from Hewlett Packard and Oracle.
Please recall that C2Net created 3 lists on toad.com: unedited flames C2Net-approved
At one point, all my submissions to cypherpunks appeared on "unedited" and then on "flames" with about a 3-second delay, indicating a 'bot at work. The 'bot was scrubbed when C2net decided that my writings were not suitable for auto- forwarding to the "flames" list either. For about a week, numerous articles by myself, Tim May, et al appeared on "unedited" but not on "flames".
Howver toward the end of the "moderation experiment" apparently a 'bot on toad.com was filtering my submissions from the 'unedited' list as well. My Jan 30th announcement that C2Net filtered out of the flames list _did show up on the unedited list. However my following articles, like the one quoting C2Net's threatening lawyer letter (which I cc'd to numerous people, including JYA, who, not surprisingly, declined to put it on his archive) did _not appear on the "unedited" list. Nevertheless at least one lying C2Net shill from Hewlett Packard claims that my articles appearing on the unedited list on January 30th prove that I wasn't being filtered from "unedited" one week later.
Another lying C2net shill, Jason E. Durbin, a technical writer for Oracle, just wrote in news.admin.net-abuse.policy:
}For those unfamiliar with the tactics Vulis uses when attempting to }destroy moderated fora, take a look at the current, ongoing thread }called "Stronghold" (and other variations on same) on the Cypherpunks }mailing list archived at: } }http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/current/date.html#start } }It summarizes (including Vulis' take on the situation) Vulis' attack }on the mailing list itself via a feigned attack on the Stronghold }security server. } }In summary, make such an annoyance of yourself by whatever means }necessary (posting binaries, running an insultbot, making false }accusations, etc.) to get yourself threatened with banishment, then }rally the free speech advocates by painting yourself as the innocent }harmed party even though no banishment occurred. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ } }Interesting insights into how Vulis attempts to manipulate his victims }into damning themselves while making him look like a victim. }Interesting reading.
"No banishment occured" - more bizarre lies from C2Net and their supporters.
Oh, and I don't recall sending binaries to this list either.
This reminds me of the claim by Rich Graves, another C2Net/Cygnus shill, that I'm sending "hundreds" of articles a day to this mailing list.
You may recall that the same C2net/Oracle shill Jason Durbin has been following up on my Usenet articles in sci.crypt, comp.unix.questions, etc with lies and libel: claiming, e.g., that I "lie about my credentials", that I don't even have a master's degree, etc. Is C2Net paying Jason Durbin to badmouth my academic credentials?
From Jason Durbin's Net.Scum page:
Jason E. Durbin, jdurbin@nl.oracle.com, jed@poisson.com, slothrop@poisson.com, jed@best.com, jed@netcom.com.
Jason claims to work for Poisson Corporation, 8 Avocet Drive, #211, Redwood Shores, CA 94065, tel +1 415 637 0435, JD503.
In real life, Jason is a lowly technical writer for Oracle Corporation, 500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood City, CA 94065, tel: +1 800 345 3267, +1 415 506 7000, (+1 605 506 7000), fax: +1 415 506 7200.
Jason's manager in the technical writing department is: Sanford Dreskin Mail Stop: MS-40P12 Office tel: +1 415 506 2181 Office fax: +1 415 506 7228 Home tel: +1 510 376 9526 Home addr: 859 Augusta Drive, Moraga, CA 94556-1051
In what ways are Durbin and the Hewlett-Packard liar affiliated with C2Net?
Yes, this c2Net needs investigated as a troublemaker.
---
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
participants (6)
-
Adam Back -
Attila T. Hun -
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
Dr. Zeus -
Jeff Barber -
TruthMonger