Bell Grand Jury

[Reese]

At 12:39 PM 1/27/01 -0500, John Young wrote:
 >Bear wrote:

 >>There's a Pattern Here.  And I even think the pattern is
 >>based on public communications.

I've been pondering that.  I wonder if Jeff's significant other might be 
willing to provide some critical dimensions, and if those dimensions
might be a, err, a public key of sorts, for decrypting the pattern,,,

 >One point: Robb London kept referring to posts to cypherpunks
 >as if they were between individuals, say me and Jim Bell.
 >I had to point out that the messages were to the cypherpunks
 >list not between individuals. And that I had not sent mail to
 >Jim directly and that Jim's messages were not to me but to
 >a public list. That distinction may not have been absorbed
 >by the jury, especically if they had already been briefed
 >about mail between Jim and me, despite there having been
 >none.
 >
 >This confusion is caused by the way return messages are
 >addressed. In my Eurora mailer, if you just hit return to a
 >cpunk message, the writer's address pops up, or it does
 >in my configuration. To avoid that I have to manually add
 >the cpunk address.

That's why I use Reply-All, to see who is in the To: and Cc: fields, and 
remove stuff I don't want there.

 >Moreover, responders often send two or more messages,
 >to the writer, to cpunks, and, in some cases, to previous
 >responders. I try to avoid that by sending only to the list.
 >
 >The thing is, an outsider who sees the messages, say in
 >the archives or as a subscriber, may interpret what you
 >think is public mail as private, especially when the To:
 >is to an individual not the list.

Anyone who thinks this is a private email just because I left John's addy
in the To: line needs to learn more about mailing lists, and how easy it
is to manipulate and forge electronic documents.

John, be sure to note this email, and if any part of it is used as evidence,
be sure it is complete.

 >Moreover, responders often send two or more messages,
 >to the writer, to cpunks, and, in some cases, to previous
 >responders. I try to avoid that by sending only to the list.
 >
 >The thing is, an outsider who sees the messages, say in
 >the archives or as a subscriber, may interpret what you
 >think is public mail as private, especially when the To:
 >is to an individual not the list.

If incomplete data is presented, yeah, that would be an easy conclusion.
Hence this post, to call attention to such things.

Reese