At 10:54 09/19/2000 +0200, harald@f00.nu wrote:

At 17:08 2000-09-18 -0400, you wrote:

...

That the list be changed so that unregistered email addresses cannot send messages to it? This spam is getting ridiculous.

I suppose you know why we don´t have that (the remailing issue). But I kinda have another idea. Just start every subject line with eg -C-P- like I did now, then it would be really easy to filter all the mail.

Last I checked the remailers allowed return mail to be sent through them, to the owner of the anonymous account.. isn't that the point? It's easy enough to forge the email header that I can't believe they exist just to totally isolate anyone from the responses.. how would someone using a remailer even join the list (to receive messages) if that was the point? The only part where I see this being useful is if somebody has some kind of anonymous announcement to make, where they don't intend to join the list. I can't see the -C-P- subject as really being functional for sorting out spam mail because anyone new to the list won't know to put them in, nor the people I mentioned who might wish to make anonymous announcements. The benefits of having the list open to unsubscribed postings seem far outweighed by the cost in time spent by everyone filtering messages and server resources that could be better spent running dnetc if nothing else ;). It's just auxiliary that I've never seen an anonymous post to the list in the past when I subscribed, nor more recently since I resubscribed. Undoubtedly some smartass will send an anonymous message to the list now just to say "see!" :P There has to be some way around this that will still preserve anonymity, although one doesn't seem readily apparent unless the anonymous party subscribes under their pseudonym. What about just creating another list (closed-posting) and then just allowing people to choose which to subscribe to? Obviously, the open-posting list would be subscribed to the closed posting list, but not the other way around.. so at the risk of missing the massively important anonymous message that has yet to be sent, I could eliminate some of this spam? -------signature file------- PGP Key Fingerprint: 446B 7718 B219 9F1E 43DD 8E4A 6BE9 D739 CCC5 7FD7 "I don't think [Linux] will be very successful in the long run." "My experience and some of my friends' experience is that Linux is quite unreliable. Microsoft is really unreliable but Linux is worse." -Ken Thompson, Interview May 1999. http://www.freebsd.org FreeBSD - The Power to Serve http://www.rfnj.org Radio Free New Jersey - 395 streams - 96kbps @ 44.1khz

At 5:38 PM +0200 9/19/00, harald@f00.nu wrote:

At 08:04 2000-09-19 -0400, you wrote:

...

I can't see the -C-P- subject as really being functional for sorting out spam mail because anyone new to the list won't know to put them in, nor the people I mentioned who might wish to make anonymous announcements.

The "-C-P-" think should of course be found in some kind of faq and/or in the subscribtion welcome message.

...

What about just creating another list (closed-posting) and then just allowing people to choose which to subscribe to? Obviously, the open-posting list would be subscribed to the closed posting list, but not the other way around.. so at the risk of missing the massively important anonymous message that has yet to be sent, I could eliminate some of this spam?

That might be a better idea yes. :) Some nice person might even forward "serious" remailed e-mails to the closed list (since they don´t seem to be too frequent).

You fucking idiots who want "closed" lists have several choices: 1. Those who came before you _already_ created closed lists. "Cryptography" and "Coderpunks," for example. Join _those_ lists. 2. Subscribe to one of the filtered lists, e.g., Ray Arachelian's list. 3. Create your own lists. BTW, if you are posting to the "toad.com" address, as you are, you are too ignorant to be giving us advice on how the list ought to be structured. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.

At 12:42 AM -0400 9/20/00, Asymmetric wrote:

First off, let me point THIS out to you...

A search on excite for +cypherpunks +list turns up a great deal of sites...

The first site, "VERONA cypherpunks archives" has a link called "List Information", which goes nowhere. The second site, obscura.com has several links but no mention of the list itself. The third, fourth, fifth, sixth and ninth sites, the cypherpunks hyperarchive at inet-one.com, has a copy of an email message DIRECTED AT THE TOAD.COM ADDRESS that comes up first in the search, followed by some others. The SEVENTH site is homeport.org, and the first link on the site is to "The Cypherpunks Homepage" pointing to an FTP archive at berkeley, and has a link to the mailing list. This link specifically tells you TO use the toad.com address.

So who is being ignorant exactly? You go to a page claiming to be the "Cypherpunks Homepage" and it says the mailing list is @toad.com??

The past is its own problem. We in the present are not responsible for the accumulated detritus from dead and defunct sites. Wake up and get a clue.

Why don't you blame the asshole responsible for that site before blaming people who did their due diligence and turned up toad.com again and again? As it happens, this "homepage" makes no mention whatsoever about the other filtered lists.. not that I didn't know about Coderpunks or the others, but if you don't know, they aren't easy to just "bump into." This berkeley.edu site is the only site I've run across ever claiming to be "The Homepage" and I believe it to be the closest thing there is to one. So, kindly, shove it.

Are you dumb, or just ignorant? That someone set up a "Cypherpunks home page" several years ago means nothing. That no one has done it since means much more...it means those since who read the list understand the churlishness of presuming to set up a "home page. A point lost on you, "Asymmetric," the same "Asymmetric" who says that anyone wishing to read the list should do so under his or her true name.

But, on a related note...

...

X-Sender: tcmay@mail.got.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.2.20000919172915.02c51e90@f00.nu> References: <5.0.0.25.2.20000919104602.00b34c00@f00.nu> <4.3.2.7.2.20000918170717.00b339e8@mail.megapathdsl.net> <5.0.0.25.2.20000919172915.02c51e90@f00.nu> Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 13:36:52 -0700 To: harald@f00.nu, cypherpunks@toad.com

Hey kettle, this is the pot. Did you happen to notice you're black?

...

From: Tim May Subject: Re: -C-P- Re: would it be so much to ask.. Cc: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net

Did you notice the _real_ list I copied? Check the above block. I copied the list the untermenschen hang out on just to make sure you'd see it. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.

At 12:13 PM 19/09/00 -0400, Harmon Seaver wrote:

This guy apparantly can't read. He certainly didn't read Choate's reply that there were moderated cp lists, and gave him the url to access them. Nor did he read the other replies telling him to check the archives. And he is totally, absolutely clueless about remailers, confusing them with nym servers. Must be a troll.

A bit more sophisticated than the usual, if true. Hmmm,,, Reese

At 13:47 09/19/2000 -0700, Tim May wrote:

(P.S. Lose the toad.com address. Get a clue. Or, since you appear to be a luser, "loose the toad.com address.")

You keep sending to it yourself. Mind explaining what the problem is?

And how many anonymously-remailed messages to this list have ever, in all the years of this list, included reply blocks? No more than a small handful, as I recall seeing.

Exactly my point.

"the remailers allowed return mail" is terribly misleading, and probably arises out of ignorance of what reply blocks are and why they are so difficult to use, rather than imprecision in language.

I did rather mean pseudo-anonymous remailer, and the other response indicating I was talking about Julfs' remailer was correct. It's not as though his was the only one that existed either, just the most popular.. likely among the most popular BECAUSE it kept this database and allowed responses; If the database it was using had been encrypted with a key known only to the remailer software itself, then it would have been easier for him to refuse to give up the information that he was ordered to produce. As for my being naive as you claim in a second here, who is really being naive here? You think that just because the remailer doesn't maintain an active database of nym mappings that it's immdiately impossible for it to be reversed? You implicitly trust anyone who says "here, use my remailer, I guarantee it's anonymous?" Get with the program. One fucking line on a console, in a firewall rule, anywhere along the way could fuck you into losing your anonymity, unless the message was sent encrypted to the remailer, and that's just to start with.

As for "I can't believe they exist just to totally isolate...", with your claim that forging headers is apparently a good alternative, you are naive and ignorant.

Do you think that the anonymous poster who posted the RC4 code here several years ago should simply have done some kind of Port 25 hack instead of using a remailer?

Do you think that the folks who distributed the CoS NOTS files should have used header forgings instead of using Cypherpunks remailers? (As the educated amongst you know, the CoS efforts to force Julf to disclose the mapping ultimately failed to produce the source when Julf's mapping only pointed back to a Cypherpunks-type remailer being run at that time by C2Net.)

I think that using a forged header is just as reliable as using an anonymous remailer, and just as anonymous if done right. There is no "port 25" hack involved. It's as simple as setting whatever email software you use to use X as it's smtp server, and then entering a nonexistant return address somewhere else. At best, you'll be totally anonymous. At worst, as is the case with any remailer, some log somewhere could exist that a connection to the server took place from w.x.y.z and may even contain the to and from addresses used. In general though, sysadmins are very stupid, and seldom go to the trouble of logging this kind of information for successful email messages.. typically only failures are logged. So what is more naive? To assume the fact so plainly evident in everyones face that the vast majority of sysadmins out there are lazy and stupid and then just pick one at random and do as I suggested, or to pick one of the "anonymous remailers" that make an outright claim to be anonymous, but that you have no way of verifying? One sounds like a shot in the dark with a very good chance at hitting something, the other one sounds like an ideal trap. On another note, if you're clued in enough to even know what an anonymous remailer is, where they can be found, and how to use them, I'm sure that "A port 25 hack" as you oh-so inaccurately put it would be something easy for you to do as well.

If you don't get it, you have no business trying to architect the structure of our list.

I made a suggestion. You people that responded so caustically maybe are tired of hearing the same suggestion over and over again. I'm tired of getting spam that wastes my time, my bandwidth, space on my mail server, and any other number of various and sundry resources. If I "whine" about getting spam... well so be it. Just know that you all whine about my messages, with far more useless messages, and far less reason to be at all upset. Who are the real whiners here? -------signature file------- PGP Key Fingerprint: 446B 7718 B219 9F1E 43DD 8E4A 6BE9 D739 CCC5 7FD7 "I don't think [Linux] will be very successful in the long run." "My experience and some of my friends' experience is that Linux is quite unreliable. Microsoft is really unreliable but Linux is worse." -Ken Thompson, Interview May 1999. http://www.freebsd.org FreeBSD - The Power to Serve http://www.rfnj.org Radio Free New Jersey - 395 streams - 96kbps @ 44.1khz

At 22:24 09/19/2000 -0700, Tim May wrote:

At 1:03 AM -0400 9/20/00, Asymmetric wrote:

...

At 13:47 09/19/2000 -0700, Tim May wrote:

...

(P.S. Lose the toad.com address. Get a clue. Or, since you appear to be a luser, "loose the toad.com address.")

You keep sending to it yourself. Mind explaining what the problem is?

...

And how many anonymously-remailed messages to this list have ever, in all the years of this list, included reply blocks? No more than a small handful, as I recall seeing.

Exactly my point.

A weasler. You previously claimed that remailers routinely allowed this. Note that they usually don't, and certainly not without the remailer blocks present. Given that virtually no such messages made to the CP list have included such blocks, clearly what you claimed was not feasible.

My mistake, I misread. I thought you were asking how many anonymous-remailed messages I had seen to the list. I would still group that as "a small handful" which was my point; That these messages don't come all that often, and the benefits of allowing them when they do come seem outweighed by the sheer volume of spam. As for how many I have seen with reply blocks.. in the recent history (since I resubscribed to the list) I haven't seen any... nor any anonymous messages at all save the one smartass I predicted. In the old days when I was on the list, which was before Julfs' remailer disappeared, they came a bit more often.. but still their frequency was quite low.

This is a lie. Plain and simple. There was Kremvax, but this predated Julf's PENET service by a couple of years. At the time of Julf's service, roughly 1992 to its shutdown in 1996, there were no other such systems. Please name one if you can.

alpha.c2.org, which was shut down in '97.

Your language above shows that your are you just bullshitting. You can't name a viable competitor, because there weren't any.

See above. Wait, I have a better idea. Jump to conclusions and make inaccurate statements based on preconceptions. While you're at it, throw in a good dose of the holier-than-thou attitude because you're obviously so fucking special. Wait, you've already got this suggestion nailed. (To answer your rhetorical question before you ask it; "Do you know who I am?!" Yes. Do I give two shits? Not a fucking chance in hell. All the history in the world cannot excuse such utterly lame-dicked behavior.)

And Julf's system has been down for four years. A lifetime in Internet years. Certainly of no relevance whatsover to your plaintiff calls for people to use reply-enable remailers if they wish to post to the list.

I think it's a reasonable SUGGESTION. It was hardly a call to action. It was simply one suggestion, of several, to try and cut down on the spam. I suppose you're opposed to that though, and probably read each spam message you get with a keen eye because everybody deserves to be heard, even the spammers!

Duh. Are you just now figuring this stuff out?

As much as you'd like to believe that, no. I've been involved with cryptography for quite some time. Not being in your elitist inner-circle, as amazing as that may sound. Wow!

Duh. Get back to us when you figure out how chained remailers work, with PGP-nested messages. On second thought, _don't_ get back to us.

Who's us? You an the other loudmouth?

You have zero understanding of the issues involved.

I regret having wasted even ten minutes today responding to you.

Poor baby.

This is rich. See my 1992 presentation on Chaumian remailers, given at the first Cypherpunks meeting, in September. See the earlier cited memos from 1988-91. See the features I described in detail. Compare to the reality of extant remailers. Then repeat your above comment with a straight face.

I'd rather not. Plenty of work done since '92.

Fucking newbies.

Exactly. Sorry to have made the slightest suggestion that something be done about the spam, you obviously love reading it so much that you felt the need to attack me because maybe then you wouldn't be able to read it anymore! A friend of mine brings up a good point, and judging by your hostility, I find it entirely plausable. Maybe in your pathetic self-centered world you've found the list to be a perfect target for spam, and all this crap is generated by yourself.. would explain why you're so opposed to stopping it. Why don't you apply your time to something constructive? I haven't seen a single suggestion out of your mouth, ass, or any other orifice that in the slightest bit may have helped the situation. Welcome to the I'm sure I'm not the first nor last person to add you to it. -------signature file------- PGP Key Fingerprint: 446B 7718 B219 9F1E 43DD 8E4A 6BE9 D739 CCC5 7FD7 "I don't think [Linux] will be very successful in the long run." "My experience and some of my friends' experience is that Linux is quite unreliable. Microsoft is really unreliable but Linux is worse." -Ken Thompson, Interview May 1999. http://www.freebsd.org FreeBSD - The Power to Serve http://www.rfnj.org Radio Free New Jersey - 395 streams - 96kbps @ 44.1khz

Greetings, Your recent email message to QUALCOMM has not been delivered due to the attachment it included. QUALCOMM does not allow email with certain types of attachments due to the possible presence of a computer virus in these files. Please resend your message without any attachments or compress your attachment before sending it. We apologize for any inconvenience. The QUALCOMM Postmasters

--AhhlLboLdkugWU4S Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Asymmetric wrote:

...

As for my being naive as you claim in a second here, who is really being= =20 naive here? You think that just because the remailer doesn't maintain an= =20 active database of nym mappings that it's immdiately impossible for it to= =20 be reversed? You implicitly trust anyone who says "here, use my remailer= ,=20 I guarantee it's anonymous?" Get with the program. One fucking line on = a=20 console, in a firewall rule, anywhere along the way could fuck you into= =20 losing your anonymity, unless the message was sent encrypted to the=20 remailer, and that's just to start with.

You should read up on Type 1 and Type 2 remailers. Both involve encryption. In the case of Type 2 remailers, you only need to trust one in the chain that you use in order to be sure that your identity is securely hidden.

...

I think that using a forged header is just as reliable as using an=20 anonymous remailer, and just as anonymous if done right. There is no "po= rt=20 25" hack involved. It's as simple as setting whatever email software you= =20 use to use X as it's smtp server, and then entering a nonexistant return= =20 address somewhere else. At best, you'll be totally anonymous. At worst,= =20 as is the case with any remailer, some log somewhere could exist that a= =20 connection to the server took place from w.x.y.z and may even contain the= =20 to and from addresses used. In general though, sysadmins are very stupid= ,=20 and seldom go to the trouble of logging this kind of information for=20 successful email messages.. typically only failures are logged.

Wrong again. By default in versions of sendmail since 4.9, all sent mails are logged right along with the failures--and this includes the IP address from which the connection was made to the SMTP server. Simply setting your SMTP server is not nearly enough. If 'they' have the IP address from which the mail was sent, 'they' have you. As I said above, please read up on Type 1 and Type 2 remailers before making such outrageous claims.

...

So what is more naive? To assume the fact so plainly evident in everyone= s=20 face that the vast majority of sysadmins out there are lazy and stupid an= d=20 then just pick one at random and do as I suggested

Finding open relays that don't do logging is difficult at best.

...

"anonymous remailers" that make an outright claim to be anonymous, but th= at=20 you have no way of verifying?

As I said above, in the case of the Type 2 remailer, you only have to trust one server in the chain, and presumably you can find one that you're likely to trust not to disclose information to the people from whom you want to hide your identity. In the case of a US national, for example, post through a remailer in a country that the US doesn't like much--there are plenty of those--and you're fine. That, or trust that, for example, the MIT LCS remailer is reasonably secure (and it is--I know the person who runs it), and make sure it's in your chain.

...

very good chance at hitting something

Again, I ask you to produce an example of an open relay that you are reasonably sure does not do logging.

...

I made a suggestion. You people that responded so caustically maybe are= =20 tired of hearing the same suggestion over and over again. I'm tired of= =20 getting spam that wastes my time, my bandwidth, space on my mail server,= =20 and any other number of various and sundry resources.

So please filter, and don't complain. Or unsubscribe. It's the responsibility of new readers to peruse the archives. If you had done so, you would not have angered those who have heard this argument 10^9 times.

...

If I "whine" about getting spam... well so be it. Just know that you all= =20 whine about my messages, with far more useless messages, and far less=20 reason to be at all upset.

No. The people of the list expect that you have gone over the archives so that what you say is not repetitive and a waste of time and bandwidth. If a bit of time and bandwidth spent now can reinforce the practice of archive reading before you post, then it is well spent, and is, in the long run, a net savings of both bandwidth and time.

-- Riad Wahby rsw@mit.edu MIT VI-2/A 2002

5105

--AhhlLboLdkugWU4S Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

owGNWL+PJEcV9tlCSIMmMOKHLittskbsjPfWXHAH5/NhwFqEwWIXDhKkmu6amfJ2 VzVV1TvbJ3IsEYBEjOQEEP8EECEkcEJKQAQSggQHhBbf96p6pu8sSyR3Pd1Vr977 3ve+92p/Nn/h1vMvvvPk8/+8fecPv7r1p3+nT7d9SovOR5uCd4tXXrl3b3F2eu+P j3/0unfJuLS4HDpzXyVzk17uGm3dF1W11SGa9KCPCx0ra+ezce1XbBRT1rv7yrrG OnP4eBm0i2sTFl91la+t29xXP+x9MvWiC9YlvWqweD57FIe2NSnYSn1JN81rK+vj EJfOpFfVLmD9/fnsVfUoqrUPqh3UysCUctpeG6WjGnyvKvjZ4nylVTSVd7XammBO 1G7rlY0qGNgtGx/MZw/OTmkxW+DCh0p9H1bS1ror/KuTeruPCesr3UeDNwYmWm0b E1TtTXTHSeEnQuCR7mBSV4k2a43gNHb6tXJDi7Vdh6Njtm3TcVS2bWurk4FbtgWE 0QINidAmlfzB5IpnXxvgXxc3sb6xlU3YmgL91G7wzkiwUQ9RHeXg6TrgGj2HyZNi 81xteo3kJGOyN9p5+On7+PBIqTdMUjubthJ3F/wm6Hap1LdwxLqvrgg+86y8U7Cp i02gHn2DYyULaxvMDqCr0PMdPNzRKaUbj+00vNMD9vRNLUYliwB0EngDXmEtPoTi n00DonKNiVFMtHjQG5qKSLtLyrgqDB0IBgS5olgaEaAfteQAIUuGsSwmHXK8S5KR AMet+AXW1KrvGCdLQt2R7fJ4trcZgcyXPcCy7to31yB0cQIVgU/nTjytChme3Xwi cXuHVDpT3GZK5zMm1JbNWy1PoA5XM6347UMNNmIDCBL7YPYLwKAaYACs+cwSmApf ccDW1ngvQZIBE7L3ArQm+zaGpaNp2haMNOunsaxWPpfFbmT8yJxnUB63Hr7bNWoH UQW72SZAcymEwCnOq6OOiQ+pGD27e6S2GqwooNZEUniKeEh/8QSKlOjLDjGwQpQ4 oKJfp52GaWBxYJPUsZf/vsfNQvvYpg5mwvWBG8aBRcmEjAicNzcWFAG5gkl9mNZ6 XQcyMfrWZHKbJhp4+ojKEZPk9hglsOLJSRRoj0ZetvMB6yYmI/HYE0aKEKUzgZaH oTI2k1NzEYmbOZ36YBBF6UxFLpaKKNHil79SUPcKNR18q3bLm+WwfCIgtKhM4Om4 O2XqmYNJ2OEi2VUgMGRFTpJTG+NM0A02+X6zhcdD1HVrHZIHZ3H2gJLrO1tP9IgG o2lqmNz40VO0p56cQ9kg4I0V3QA8EKCaL60DX1stweGpmIp9VcGldd8UOhSRiMul SkNnK8mDVNwan1Ea2TEegRBYHY8DNUpvEDqLe1C1Weu+Saw6CjEOjHQAklNnxlkH HL+wvAcSId+UovmMX6amM++LAO7ldfRhscj0Q3ww1vS1ER7MZ+dv7YmWE7W1Vd46 yS0FsEXRjtBdvHn5Vsk0IrpgxQz7chGJmKzIJZggQDpgmXHMG3O5VscwNhyjFKlr NPzR3ggQoxCfTHfyQNI9qvP5LGpbK73y12gKKGOy/P+TWVQRkmyIq3Qg5HmrfJ8C ckt1kQkgFnW78CIKjKzFptzp0T0vwd0Y+9YU7KuEOlIy5DDyaxFOpplywp4KjsZC rDVrReqLe6915Ajwtg/QWSHDnuZwikvY7Jh8/WTI/BbS52mhHmuJciNKCWJeKaoj 7KMxsxK4qabDEOvYg0IRjY3xfQ0FQAh8h92QZrZ8cQzyesx/9/WC+Gu7XtuK7NVZ lgpERx8W7niUzQBh+OEEXeFsnq5yq9lvO1ErCZQjwKjbbE+Sckg6+ztwAZB2PcCZ h3nUYzATDtin+yOfn8n8pEWK6eRBRRl7CNdI4UmnzEregaR9i6Y15AER8axFOFzO 4nxGdWaC7BW749h5pRTwo7axwgRinpKZUl6d8WxBrID5DFNXK0fs2CSwAn3WPN2H PzwHaPWdC7CSRnVzMp9x7jM3mp0NdeFFyQPrECv3k6cMVlB7l6CheybCUBlJ5zPG olpUxmJxYCBsusxRSHI0WWlK8IDESCvWqFn4UIaPJL+fcopHvXl+qb7x+sXEIxmt I4JYicBw0lAv0b5NHD4Wi3N15fyuoBYitQpTaugdO/DnTkq/uSojTJ6MXUZPklnY Km1j433NtxRbBL+1Wc/YCTnMbIRgG2HAOcomz5RICEbYuq+E0iUcSYGbFNBhutLU mGlQ9IsACzEOtbWfo0R39ViheerjEFlIIobBxQ6XEjQByA3vFKn0IbTalWRp0l8x OUt/wxgWbBmWo27N5AjlSXpilx9Kqzo/bvfbDwY3Rfdjp9vsDmQ6ISDcDZJtkVve qWBsZ+vEht1R6XBIO2RVLwPSZExxtYwlniRTrm9X+I+1DocpKCJ3vasDJ5eIXKIj C14XfhT9tW3SOHRl2ap8K0LMm0bAlB/7VayCXZlx9pN2mJHEZck2RXid2UkLYY9g sk0Yr2w6VFvofsy9LGuTnAY70Wdd2cnwxNSKuGi3McRPKkWoKq+ZitKdddigf6DS 75z+4B4qBQCOXQeHnKsjtERnjqhvkMcp9ktMIDvD+UCE1HIG/joVp1TISMCmOSAt xootpqPMMid5gFjrkPsbIpZL0eG7jGj4zNf7WxBJ/ft/jUKeZFjpO8wFEsA3fR7K R+YWOW44V5qbDqPGwUlBZUMtFQJKaka4GV+m2bgal9JxyAimM5BEubqTRZmLchaQ hBG83HMxJ06rFa7EZYV6agFwZSqIHwU+GBHrqgwrXeB1vMrVnp0TpjAheZoQ7yi3 J7kVWxkZmCQwpJNBRsQs7huVTG+QrxNeDnBPjvpaLvY4YsVb4ME1PGR6CLiLxXz2 bQv6PdbbFS5mIe5ew312aep+PqOufvd8cfbyI3V2enrG9XfvnN6dz955+MLHbvFP M+MfcF58/v2fPveL26uf/PZm9p9ff+I3f3n34Ut//tTf/nr7d8+9+95nrtXfb73x y09+/IPPvn//5//98Qfv/eN/ =mmkC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--AhhlLboLdkugWU4S--

At 08:16 PM 9/20/00 -0400, William H. Geiger III wrote:

It seems that Qualcomm is bouncing all multipart mime messages. I have bounces of PGP/MIME messages, multipart/alternative messages (text & html), > & a poorly formatted multipart/mixed that only had one part which was the text of the message.

Eudora has trouble with some of the MIME variants used by Mutt. I don't know if that's because Mutt's outputting wrong formats, or because Eudora's failing to interpret them correctly, but if they reuse the same code in their mail servers it wouldn't be surprising if their policy chokes on some of it. And there's *lots* of other badly formatted mail out there, though lots of that is spam.

This seems to be a rather anal approach to filtering out potential virus. Considering that Qualcomm is a member of the IMC (Internet Mail Consortium) it would be funny if not so sad.

If you do good bouncegrams when you reject incorrectly formatted mail, the sender will probably retry, so occasional false positives on mail from humans aren't a big problem, and of course bouncing mail from spambots isn't a problem. The worst case is when you reject mail that was generated by a bot you actually *wanted* to receive mail from, but hopefully most of those have administrators checking their rejects. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Riad S. Wahby wrote:

Wrong again. By default in versions of sendmail since 4.9, all sent mails are logged right along with the failures--and this includes the IP address from which the connection was made to the SMTP server.

Well that's ALMOST right. Sendmail (and most other programs for that matter) allow different levels of logging. Tell sendmail not to log and it won't.

Finding open relays that don't do logging is difficult at best.

Nah, there's all kinds of ways around that. If it was as simple as grabbing the source address in a sendmail log most of the spammers would have been put out of business a long! time ago. As to finding them, those socialist bastards at ORBS and the like keep handy lists available.

...

very good chance at hitting something

Again, I ask you to produce an example of an open relay that you are reasonably sure does not do logging.

Irrelevant. Forge your source IP headers. ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

Greetings, Your recent email message to QUALCOMM has not been delivered due to the attachment it included. QUALCOMM does not allow email with certain types of attachments due to the possible presence of a computer virus in these files. Please resend your message without any attachments or compress your attachment before sending it. We apologize for any inconvenience. The QUALCOMM Postmasters

--rwEMma7ioTxnRzrJ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline

Jim Choate wrote:

...

Nah, there's all kinds of ways around that. If it was as simple as grabbing the source address in a sendmail log most of the spammers would have been put out of business a long! time ago.

Well, we're assuming that one needs anonymity for something more than just posting spam. Presumably, if e.g. the US government wants you, they'll subpoena logs and find you.

...

As to finding them, those socialist bastards at ORBS and the like keep handy lists available.

True enough.

...

Irrelevant. Forge your source IP headers.

Right. Except that Asymmetric was claiming that one could simply set the SMTP server to one that you believe not to do logging (and implicitly, something that does open relaying) and then just change your "From" header. Forging the source IP address works, but it's outside the scope of Asymmetric's suggestion, which is what I was responding to.

-- Riad Wahby rsw@mit.edu MIT VI-2/A 2002

5105

--rwEMma7ioTxnRzrJ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

owFdVD1vFFcUxVgh0kRTuAgSabjQbBC7g22CI5vEwTZG2igYy16+yrczd2dePO+9 0fvY9bhIgwsrVZoUCEWhImXaVJSWJQokegqoSBQp/ATunfXKIs1q9s559557znnz Szw9dXrmYO/y3+fmDp9NvfjHf66C953KOOmt0Z2vFhYWO1e/Xjz6q7VmtEftO726 wiXwuOuvVKWQ+jqkhbAO/bfBdYRLpYyjCfamdE0rafQSSF1KjXEUR99LBWuFER7h GyuGIscb692N7R79JM7tJalRyzCyxuNSHC3Dhija4Au02HIgyhJ2pM4cmAGMRE0V a4LOCCB8At0BSE91KjtwUlUl0hN3ya3o96XOuRM4E2xKb7LMonNEDQQ41JkSsoTS 5KCM8zyhAVdCKbQORiaUGfcqxBChj6ihCgQLDbQfHO1H3QR10PkF8FLRiNwkvPN9 LMs2jLBlmZALakxF0FGNoBFpI6GNrpX0NQyMJY4KfcEwZegQYXUc/RiIF2nquc7E EoBN2iEo0S/rNsgBYJInDe+725CbIVqtyAvSRHsHtQntOKK3dYuEdKFfGdRMOOfx GQxIWgY1nJdhxYE3TfFYOcVOGMcKplKUktj0hfPCMn0Pd7ZWt5s+PL+UOwg7iNVY Mp3VwAcIOCSZiS82U3o2IKA2IS+Op3atxRKHRDiBW8bmyIzsxLTuJhQoMjKkgW/J vCAcrO+mWPmxpCuuJse8lWkThZRy+rHeKTs5zkdNxvtGEti+3dukf5Y047UZ2Jyg 6eR2KZFc18bzu8ywZjk3/ZI2iyNuJVPp2YQT55rjmUFKa0VpobVETfVLE400NIbS DdI5XY1mzYu3rFEXj3ekxViB/+WWJJhEd2TsjmtT+DwFv0VJpzQ6meEYntJYzuaJ IHSFXMhzdHwpKZCFTAuQ1IeZdjdYrziizpU59nwc306HlRYZ3BdFvyaEG92gpCaY hTi63e3BvW5n/soKzM/OzjP+2tzstTg6+G76kyn+eEw+MTOnd9+d+n3rv89eP/70 yauj/Tf2/PTqv388/GHv1NPDt7+d+fXP/UdnH8yfD+9//uLs85c/fQA= =3Oo7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--rwEMma7ioTxnRzrJ--

At 9:36 AM -0400 9/20/00, Asymmetric wrote:

I do understand how both types work, however, the opportunity for subterfuge is always present. I was making a point that the assumed security of a remailer should not factor in if you intend to put yourself at risk. Assumptions are dangerous all over the place, and if your assumption could get you into trouble, it's better to verify it or not instead of just proceeding blindly, if at all possible.

And yet you have repeatedly blathered on about how "forging headers" is a good alternative to anonymous remailers. Your explanations indicate you just haven't grokked the level of misdirection and untraceability behind the use of N nested remailers, encrypted at each stage.

What is the outrageous claim? That someone could purposely set up an insecure remailer, claim that it's secure, and that people could then unwittingly use it to incriminate themselves?

There has never been any doubt that some particular remailer may be logging and correlating: this is why N remailers are recommended, with the heuristics we've been discussing here since 1992. (For example: encrypt at every state, a la Mixmaster-type remailers, include one's _own_ remailer in the chain, loop multiple times, etc.) You keep tossing about the "insecure remailer" claim, seemingly not knowing the implications of N-chained remailing. Hint: there is essentially nothing a particular remailer can do to such a chained message except see where he's being asked to send it and correlate this with where it came from. He can't see inside the packet (for obvious reasons), he can't alter the packet (because then later decryptions fail and the packet gets dumped), and he can't even change the remailer he is supposed to deliver to. All he can do is correlate, which is, of course, bad. Hence the role of multiple hops. Still a far cry ahead of your oft-mentioned "mail header forgery" alleged solution.

It comes down to a simple bit of confusion on my part. I cannot understand the mentality of someone who has the time and resources to effectively combat the spam on this list, and yet who does not have the time or resource to either respond in a somewhat civil fashion, or to just delete the message along with the rest of the refuse.

You seemed to be a bit more level headed, so while I still totally disagree that it's a waste of time to try and figure a way around this problem, I haven't utterly lost respect for you as I have with Tim. "Pillar of the community" or not, the guy is an utter asshole.

"Somewhat civil fashion" and "a bit more level headed." You're also a pompous ass. At least you called me "Tim." Most pompous asses here fall into the pseudo-Brit mode of calling me "Mr. May" when they are being pompous. As for your comment that you have never used an anonymous remailer, I had already concluded as much. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.

On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Tim May wrote:

...

I suppose you know why we don�t have that (the remailing issue). But I kinda have another idea. Just start every subject line with eg -C-P- like I did now, then it would be really easy to filter all the mail.

Nitwit, this idea has been proposed many times. Choate even does this, unfortunately, to all traffic flowing through his node.

No, I don't do this. I do put a tag in the title for traffic analysis and easy visual identification. Despite your bitching about it, about 70% of the mailing lists I'm aware of do the same thing. The only distinction is they put []'s around it. I could put []'s if that'll make you happy. The 'CDR' itself stays. Very handy for quick visual scanning. ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

And this is why socialism in any form is a bad idea. It prevents evolution in action from culling the morons. In the olden days these guys would have been sabertoothed tiger fodder. Let's face it, shit like hotmail, AOL, MSN, and their cousins are really socialism in disguise. You have some strange ideas about what 'socialism' is. Used by you in sentences such as the above, it seems to be a catch-all for 'things-I-don't-like'. If by socialism you mean Stalinist state-capitalism, you might think about using 'Stalinist state-capitalism'. I know it doesn't have the wonderful generality of 'socialism', but accuracy is important too. Let's face it, shit like hotmail, AOL, MSN, and their cousins are really socialism in disguise. Hmm: all of the above are products of corporatism, which was a feature of Soviet-controlled socialist countries (everything was owned by the state) and USA-sponsered 'free countries' (everything was owned by the family or friends of the tinpot dictator). Ideological differences aside, the net result was the same. Socialism and statism are not homologous. Refer to Rosa Luxembourg. They allow the morons access to what they shouldn't have. Spoken like a true commissar. Tiarnan

On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Ken Brown wrote:

I think you hit the nail on the head here. For most USAns these days the word "socialism" doesn't really mean anything specific, it is just a generalised insult (much the same as the way people on the left sometimes use "Nazi" or "Fascist").

There were a few big rants on this topic a couple of years back... <pause for thought while Ken pays a visit to Alta Vista...>

Yep, http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/dir.98.10.12-98.10.18/msg00019.html has a rant about Rosa Luxemburg and various people redefining the word "socialism" so that it included only ideas they didn't like & excluded ones they did. It was a sort of reply to a thread started by Jim Choate:

Since I was mentioned in passing, socialism (at least the way I use it) is the central management of resources and people without private ownership. Facism is the central management of resources and people with private ownership (of course if you don't manage it the way they want they do take it away - so it does have a 're-definition' of ownership). When I call anarcho-capitalist, libertarians, and even Tim a socialist, I mean it in the context of they want to manage the resources to some model they feel is 'reasonable' and if you disagee too damn bad. The fact it isn't THEIR private property they want to manage doesn't seem to impinge into their reptillian psyche not at all. In effect they believe in angels among men, and as a consequence they must be the angels. The view in effect reduces my right to decide as an individual and that is realy what makes it 'socialist'. The REAL litmus test should be "Does that behaviour interfere with the expresson of my beliefs?". If the answer is no then it isn't any of the other parties business and the behavior should have no further regulation or limitation (unless at a later time it does cross the 3rd party expression test). Oh well, another of those COTUS half-baked rants... ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Tiarnan O Corrain wrote:

I wouldn't necessarily agree with the definition, but I acknowledge that it seems to fit with the Soviet Union/Eastern Bloc during the Cold War. However, the Solidarity movement, instrumental in bringing down the Polish tyranny, was also a form of socialism.

I didn't invent the definition. The 'socialist' did. Not really. The Solidaros movement was a democratic movement where they wanted to impliment a government that had representation and guaranteed civil rights (I don't know exactly how far along they've come). But at no point was their goal the continued management of speech, work, income, etc. through a central government mechanism.

and control over resources were highly centralised (USSR: nomenklatura, US: Fortune 500, two-party system) used diametrically opposed political vocabularies to

BAD comparison. The Fortune 500's can't kill me and they can't throw me in jail for not buying their products or participating in their programs. I further have the right to tell them to fuck off (equivalent to secession). ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Tiarnan O Corrain wrote:

The Solidaros movement was a democratic movement where they wanted to impliment a government that had representation and guaranteed civil rights (I don't know exactly how far along they've come). But at no point was their goal the continued management of speech, work, income, etc. through a central government mechanism.

That was precisely my point: socialism doesn't necessarily mean centralised statism, wage controls or limited speech.

Socialism says that if we let the individual manage resources then some get right and come get poor. They claim that not only should people have the opportunity to improve, society has a responsibility to make it happen. And the mechanism is redistribution fo wealth through a centralised mechanism. That may be a state like a 'federal' system or it could be a distributed communal sort of thing. The point is that each individual works for the collective best interest. The consequence is they do not get representation (at least equal opportunity isn't guaranteed with respect to politics). So the statism certainly doesn't have to be 'central' with respect to a single party. They are 'central' in that they are the only parties (wether it's a central federal system or a distributed communal mechanism). Since all persons work when and where the state desires things like wage control are inherent and fundamental tools of economic management. Since there is not equal opportunity with respect to political potential it is also clear that 'free' speach in the Western sense doesn't exist. I'd say you're pretty much wrong on all counts.

Well, they might pollute you to death, but they haven't got firing squads. In the States. South Americans or Africans might have a different story to tell. Consider the depredations of Shell in Nigeria.

And I can sue them or sick the big G on 'em. The S. Americans are a perfect! example of why unregulated markets, such as those proposed by some here, don't work. Russia and N. Korea are the flip side of that extreme. ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

...

That was precisely my point: socialism doesn't necessarily mean centralised statism, wage controls or limited speech.

Yes it does. Socialists may not always intend that outcome, but that is the outcome they are necessarily going to get, want it or not.

Not entirely true. Many socialist pursue a socialist economical party while adhering to democratic elective notions, I.E. Democratic Socialist (used to be referred to as Troskietes)

And the reaction of Western socialists to real life repressive governments shows that most western socialists do indeed want exactly that. Their love of Castro turned to hate only when Castro liberalized Cuba. They blandly overlooked the crimes of Khmer Rouge until the Soviet Union and its sattelites quarreled with them.

Again not true. The capitalist countries blandly overlooked the crimes of the Khmer Rouge and would have continued to do so if not for education and protest by human rights activists (you would find a significant amount of socialist among activists).

They worshipped the Sandinistas, while fiercely condemning Latin American governments that were vastly less repressive.

Not true You sure use a sweeping amount of those socialist blah blah blah statements. You hang out with a lot of socialist? -Ian Drug War The root password to the Bill of Rights...

The Solidaros movement was a democratic movement where they wanted to impliment a government that had representation and guaranteed civil rights (I don't know exactly how far along they've come). But at no point was their goal the continued management of speech, work, income, etc. through a central government mechanism.

That was precisely my point: socialism doesn't necessarily mean centralised statism, wage controls or limited speech. Its roots are in democratic

Socialism *always* means that the same people in a society who control the use of force also have control over the economic structure.

BAD comparison. The Fortune 500's can't kill me and they can't throw me in jail for not buying their products or participating in their programs.

Well, they might pollute you to death, but they haven't got firing squads. In

They don't have firing squads *YET*. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural

Jim Choate wrote:

...

Yep, http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/dir.98.10.12-98.10.18/msg00019.html has a rant about Rosa Luxemburg and various people redefining the word "socialism" so that it included only ideas they didn't like & excluded ones they did. It was a sort of reply to a thread started by Jim Choate:

Since I was mentioned in passing, socialism (at least the way I use it) is the central management of resources and people without private ownership. Facism is the central management of resources and people with private ownership (of course if you don't manage it the way they want they do take it away - so it does have a 're-definition' of ownership).

The trouble with that use of the words (though it is the most common one on this list I guess) is that it defines just about every nation-state that ever existed as "fascist" including the so-called capitalist countries: "if you don't manage it the way they want they do take it away" is more or less the situation in western Europe and North America right now. (Can anyone say "consent order"?) So we end up with words that don't really distinguish between the very different situations of say, the USA, & the old USSR, & Spain under Franco. Also of course most people who call themselves "socialists" (at least in Western Europe) say they don't want centralised state control of everything. You might say that socialism inevitably leads to an authoritarian Russian-style state (though if you did you couldn't use Russia as an example because it already had one of those before the revolution) but that's a different argument - you would be saying that all socialists are either deluded or lying, not (as you seem to be saying at the moment) that all governments are socialists. Now lots of socialists claim you can have socialism without authoritarian state - though of course no-one has demonstrated that on a large scale yet & I don't have a road map to get us from here to there. But then, you can't have capitalism (on a large scale) without some form of state either, because it depends on ownership that is defined by laws backed up by the threat of force. It seems much easier to me to define socialism in opposition to capitalism. So capitalism is just an economic condition in which the suppliers of capital (banks, shareholders, landlords, governments, whatever) control productive enterprises. And socialism is the condition in which some other part of society controls enterprises - whether state governments or local governments or direct democracy or some non-state community or whatever. Using this sort of definition, on a small scale, socialism and capitalism are difficult to tell apart... a family-owned farm could fairly be described as either (private ownership equals worker's control if there are no landlords, shareholders, governments, or banks involved). And the word "fascism" is best used to describe the sort of nationalist authoritarian politics that went on in Italy and Spain in the 20th century. It could be compatible with either capitalism or (state) socialism.

Oh well, another of those COTUS half-baked rants...

A very interesting document, but not of any legal force in the 95% or the world outside the USA :-)

On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Duncan Frissell wrote:

So the US is not a [VERY] fascist economy (it usually scores in 5th place among the nations on the two Economic Freedom of lists produced by the WSJ and CATO).

And who gives them business licenses and audits their books? Who can shut down their bank accounts with a simple visit to a judge? Who can confiscate their property for 'drug related' charges for example? We're lightly regulated, therefore we're lightly fascist. It isn't black or white. ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim Choate wrote:

...

...

Yep, http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/dir.98.10.12-98.10.18/msg00019.html has a rant about Rosa Luxemburg and various people redefining the word "socialism" so that it included only ideas they didn't like & excluded ones they did. It was a sort of reply to a thread started by Jim Choate:

Since I was mentioned in passing, socialism (at least the way I use it) is the central management of resources and people without private ownership. Facism is the central management of resources and people with private ownership (of course if you don't manage it the way they want they do take it away - so it does have a 're-definition' of ownership).

The trouble with that use of the words (though it is the most common one on this list I guess) is that it defines just about every nation-state that ever existed as "fascist"

Yes, it rather does doesn't it.

including the so-called capitalist countries: "if you don't manage it the way they want they do take it away" is more or less the situation in western Europe and North America right now. (Can anyone say "consent order"?)

So we end up with words that don't really distinguish between the very different situations of say, the USA, & the old USSR, & Spain under Franco.

There are other words. The difference between the USA and the USSR was the difference between "socialism" and "fascism". The difference between Spain under Franco and the US is "Democracy" v.s. "Autocracy" (or Democratic Republic v.s. Autocratic Dictatorship).

Also of course most people who call themselves "socialists" (at least in Western Europe) say they don't want centralised state control of everything. You might say that socialism inevitably leads to an

No, just the most *important* things. Most people believe that the government should control <x>. You get enough people together you wind up with a whole lot of <x>s.

It seems much easier to me

Taking the easy way isn't always the most productive, the most interesting or the most accurate.

to define socialism in opposition to capitalism. So capitalism is just an economic condition in which the suppliers of capital (banks, shareholders, landlords, governments, whatever) control productive enterprises.

Capitalism is an economic system where the owners of the capital choose where and how to use their capital, and reap the results of those choices.

And socialism is the condition in which some other part of society controls enterprises - whether state governments or local governments or direct democracy or some non-state community or whatever.

Socialism is where the state--in whatever form that state is--owns and controls the capital in that society.

And the word "fascism" is best used to describe the sort of nationalist authoritarian politics that went on in Italy and Spain in the 20th century. It could be compatible with either capitalism or (state) socialism.

Fascism is where the state *controls* the capital, but allows the "owners" to reap the results of the states decisions of where and how to use that capitol. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural

On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Marcel Popescu wrote:

...

I think you hit the nail on the head here. For most USAns these days the word "socialism" doesn't really mean anything specific

Socialism: state intervention in private transactions. By extension, any state is socialist, or it's not really a state, but a company in the defense (and maybe law) business.

The problem here is there isn't any issue of 'private property' so there can't be any 'private transactions' in a socialism. This description is more applicable to fascism. It's important to note that 'regulation' is different than 'management'. The first is setting of operational boundaries while the second is active and immediate activity in the low-level decisions. They are not! the same thing. This distinction is what keeps all 'states' from being fascist. A state strictly speaking is a area and population that 'enjoy' the same basic rules and authorities. Whether it's fascist or not is another question entirely. ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Marcel Popescu wrote:

Private transaction = transaction between two individuals / companies who are both not employees / property of the state (not even partially).

But there is no distinction. There is no private property, therefore you don't own yourself. You are a state resource to be managed to the collectives best interest. By definition there can be no 'individual' transactions. To do so would be direct and intentional theft from the state. You're not a good socialist...;) ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

At 6:28 PM -0500 9/20/00, Jim Choate wrote: (doesn't matter) Note the thread name (as I write): Re: CDR: Re: -C-P- Re: would it be so much to ask.. This is where attaching no-content tags and junk gets us. Next iteration will be: Re: -C P- Re: Re: CDR: Re: -C-P- Re: would it be so much to ask.. Stop the madness. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.

In , on 09/20/00 at 05:54 PM, Tim May said:

Note the thread name (as I write):

Re: CDR: Re: -C-P- Re: would it be so much to ask..

This is where attaching no-content tags and junk gets us.

Next iteration will be:

Re: -C P- Re: Re: CDR: Re: -C-P- Re: would it be so much to ask..

Stop the madness.

Subscibe to a list that filters out the CDR: from the subject as Jim has made it clear that he is going to continue adding this to the subject line. On the openpgp.net list the subject is: -C-P- Re: would it be so much to ask.. The next iteration will be: Subject: -C-P- Re: would it be so much to ask.. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.openpgp.net Geiger Consulting Data Security & Cryptology Consulting Programming, Networking, Analysis PGP for OS/2: http://www.openpgp.net/pgp.html E-Secure: http://www.openpgp.net/esecure.html ---------------------------------------------------------------

"William H. Geiger III" wrote:

Subscibe to a list that filters out the CDR: from the subject as Jim has made it clear that he is going to continue adding this to the subject line. On the openpgp.net list the subject is:

The problem with that, or at least openpgp.net, is that the software also strips the header, so that you have no way to filter the toad.com crap, and thus, the spam.