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

[Asymmetric]

At 22:24 09/19/2000 -0700, Tim May wrote:
>At 1:03 AM -0400 9/20/00, Asymmetric wrote:
>>At 13:47 09/19/2000 -0700, Tim May wrote:
>>>(P.S. Lose the toad.com address. Get a clue. Or, since you appear to be 
>>>a luser, "loose the toad.com address.")
>>
>>You keep sending to it yourself.  Mind explaining what the problem is?
>>
>>>And how many anonymously-remailed messages to this list have ever, in 
>>>all the years of this list, included reply blocks? No more than a small 
>>>handful, as I recall seeing.
>>
>>Exactly my point.
>
>A weasler. You previously claimed that remailers routinely allowed this. 
>Note that they usually don't, and certainly not without the remailer 
>blocks present. Given that virtually no such messages made to the CP list 
>have included such blocks, clearly what you claimed was not feasible.

My mistake, I misread.  I thought you were asking how many 
anonymous-remailed messages I had seen to the list.  I would still group 
that as "a small handful" which was my point; That these messages don't 
come all that often, and the benefits of allowing them when they do come 
seem outweighed by the sheer volume of spam.

As for how many I have seen with reply blocks.. in the recent history 
(since I resubscribed to the list) I haven't seen any... nor any anonymous 
messages at all save the one smartass I predicted.  In the old days when I 
was on the list, which was before Julfs' remailer disappeared, they came a 
bit more often.. but still their frequency was quite low.



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

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


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

See above.

Wait, I have a better idea.  Jump to conclusions and make inaccurate 
statements based on preconceptions.  While you're at it, throw in a good 
dose of the holier-than-thou attitude because you're obviously so fucking 
special.  Wait, you've already got this suggestion nailed.

(To answer your rhetorical question before you ask it; "Do you know who I 
am?!" Yes.  Do I give two shits?  Not a fucking chance in hell.  All the 
history in the world cannot excuse such utterly lame-dicked behavior.)


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

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


>Duh. Are you just now figuring this stuff out?

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


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

Who's us?  You an the other loudmouth?


>You have zero understanding of the issues involved.
>
>I regret having wasted even ten minutes today responding to you.

Poor baby.


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

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


>Fucking newbies.

Exactly.

Sorry to have made the slightest suggestion that something be done about 
the spam, you obviously love reading it so much that you felt the need to 
attack me because maybe then you wouldn't be able to read it anymore!

A friend of mine brings up a good point, and judging by your hostility, I 
find it entirely plausable.  Maybe in your pathetic self-centered world 
you've found the list to be a perfect target for spam, and all this crap is 
generated by yourself.. would explain why you're so opposed to stopping it.

Why don't you apply your time to something constructive?  I haven't seen a 
single suggestion out of your mouth, ass, or any other orifice that in the 
slightest bit may have helped the situation.  Welcome to the I'm sure I'm 
not the first nor last person to add you to it.


-------signature file-------
PGP Key Fingerprint:
446B 7718 B219 9F1E 43DD  8E4A 6BE9 D739 CCC5 7FD7

"I don't think [Linux] will be very successful in the long run."
"My experience and some of my friends' experience is that Linux is quite 
unreliable. Microsoft is really unreliable but Linux is worse."
-Ken Thompson, Interview May 1999.

http://www.freebsd.org
FreeBSD - The Power to Serve

http://www.rfnj.org
Radio Free New Jersey - 395 streams - 96kbps @ 44.1khz