Demime & CDRs (was Re: Security Against Compelled Disclosure)

[Eric Murray]

On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 01:30:03AM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> You fool. One of the cypherpunks nodes removed the attachment.
> Sending attachments to the distributed cypherpunks list when at least
> one node remove them is about as useful as, well, arguing with Choate.
> 
> -Declan
> 
> 
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 12:20:01AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
> > On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> > 
> > > 1. Don't send attachments to cypherpunks
> > > 
> > > 2. See below for the reason why
> > > 
> > > 3. Reread rules 1 and 2
> > 
> > Actually there is no such policy on the CDR.


Jim's correct- there is no such "policy" on the overall
cypherpunks list.  It's just one CDR (lne) that's demiming posts.


Here's how demime works related to the lne CDR:

Posts that are received (enter the CDR system) at lne and are forwarded
to the other CDRs are demimed.

Posts originating from another CDR are demimed on the way
to lne CDR subscribers.

Posts originating from another CDR and being forwarded to
another CDR aren't demimed.



The lne CDR welcome message, and the message I posted to cypherpunks
when announcing the lne CDR, simply said:

"Lne.com runs the input to its CDR list through demime
(http://scifi.squawk.com/demime.html) which deletes MIME attachments
from mail.  Demime leaves a note in the attachments place, so that
recipients know that there was some cruft there."

I'll update the welcome message to reflect the details I posted above.
Demiming posts that originate at lne and go to other CDRs is
an artifact of how I set up the list.  Since lne CDR subscribers
see demimed posts, they're likely to be, um, trained to post
non-MIME, and thus shouldn't be affected much by this setup.

There's no CDR contract.  At least I didn't sign one.  There is
an informal agreement, or a set of same.  I've tried to announce
ahead of time what I'm doing, and to stick with what I've announced,
limited by the time I'm willing to put in to the project.  As
far as I'm concerned that's what's required.


Having one CDR demime posts does unfortunately create a discrepency
between what the lne CDR subscribers see vs. the other CDR subscribers...
but there's already a pretty big discrepancy there, as the lne CDR subscribers
aren't seeing the spam that's posted to cypherpunks.   It doesn't
seem to harm the discussion any.  But Declan (and everyone else) should
remember that not everyone sees the same list they do.


> > Declan doesn't even run a member node so his opinions of what should
> > happen with other peoples property is irrelevant.

His opinion is important since he's both an active list member and
a lne CDR subscriber. 

As always I'm open to reasoned non-inflamatory suggestions, especially
from lne CDR subscribers.


BTW, the other day I switched majordomo to delete the Received: lines
in posts to the lne CDR recipients-- posts that go through a number of CDRs
get a lot of Received lines added to them,  and some subscriber's MTAs
were rejecting mail because of too many Received lines.
If this bothers you and you're an lne CDR subscriber let me know
and when I get a chance I'll hack up something to nuke just some
of the Received lines.

I've also found the source of the wrapped Message-Ids and I'll
be fixing it soon.


Eric