-C-P- Re: would it be so much to ask..
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 09/20/00 at 09:29 PM, Harmon Seaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >"William H. Geiger III" wrote: >> Subscibe to a list that filters out the CDR: from the subject as Jim has made it >clear that he is going to continue adding this to the subject line. On the >openpgp.net list the subject is: >> >> >The problem with that, or at least openpgp.net, is that the software >also strips the header, so that you have no way to filter the toad.com >crap, and thus, the spam. I could add an X-Toad: line to the header that you can filter on. The openpgp.net node is using listproc and the removal of the Received: lines is hard coded into the software (I have tried to override it in the config file but it just ignores that setting). Jim could modify his tagging method to add the CDR: tag between the Re: and the subject. This would prevent the Re: CDR: Re: CDR: Re: mess that shows up on to many subject lines. -- --- William H. Geiger III http://www.openpgp.net Geiger Consulting Data Security & Cryptology Consulting Programming, Networking, Analysis PGP for OS/2: http://www.openpgp.net/pgp.html E-Secure: http://www.openpgp.net/esecure.html ---
-C-P- Re: would it be so much to ask..
X-Loop: openpgp.net From: "Jim Choate" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Let's face it, shit like hotmail, AOL, MSN, and their cousins are really > > socialism in disguise. They allow the morons access to what they > > shouldn't have. > > Now THERE is socialism, deciding what others should have and want based > on your own personal convenience. Some people confuse "socialism" with anything that enables the "weak" to survive. They forget that if there's a profit in it, capitalists would do it. I agree with Jim once again; dang! [Fortunately, it didn't happen in a long time.] Mark
-C-P- Re: would it be so much to ask..
X-Loop: openpgp.net From: "Asymmetric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I do understand how both types work, however, the opportunity for > subterfuge is always present. I was making a point that the assumed > security of a remailer should not factor in if you intend to put yourself > at risk. Assumptions are dangerous all over the place, and if your > assumption could get you into trouble, it's better to verify it or not > instead of just proceeding blindly, if at all possible. Even if you trust each remailer to "do the right thing" only 10% of the time, by chaining 10 such remailers the probability of having your identity revealed is only 1 in 10^10 - assuming that the remailers are independent. [That secondary assumption can be improved by chosing remailers in different countries.] > What is the outrageous claim? That someone could purposely set up an > insecure remailer, claim that it's secure, and that people could then > unwittingly use it to incriminate themselves? No - that by using an open-relay mailer you get the same anonymity as using a Type 1 / Type 2 remailer. > and honestly my comment about faking > the return addresses was in no way to say that this method could replace > remailers Funny, that's how it looked for everyone. Admit it - you said something stupid. [Even I admit I'm wrong sometimes. ] > I'm going to stop myself here.. The original email I sent was simply a > question about what could be done to possibly quell the flow of spam > generated by this list, followed by a few suggestions. It's gotten utterly > out of hand because somebody apparently took it as a personal attack, and > responded with a series of attacks of his own. Most of the regular subscribers are tired of the complaints (which are usually worse - as in more and bigger - than the spam). > As I said before, if [you] (the reader on the list) don't want to hear > these questions, then what's good for the goose is good for the > gander. Filter my emails if you like; It'll be a lot easier for you to > filter them automatically than it will be to filter the spam messages in > any event. I don't use any (deleting) filters; I read about 500 messages each day, and it only takes me 2-3 hours. A friend of mine reads around 2,000 messages each day. It's not such a big deal. > Instead, I received another nasty letter, and then a few days later a call > from my upstream provider. They denied her request to deliver up my name > and address, but told me that if I didn't take the information down that it > would be a violation of the service agreement, and that they would > disconnect the frame relay. I explained to their (the ISPs) lawyer the > situation, and that they did not actually own the copyrights in > question. He responded with "I know, but considering their history, they > are very willing to take us to court over this, and honestly we don't want > to deal with that. Take it down or we shut you down, we don't care who's > right, we just don't want a lawsuit." Yep. Same thing - the fear of lawsuits - is why we were warned, when we came to the US, to not even look at our female colleagues: even a hint of a lawsuit would make our employer send us back to our country in a heartbeat - whether we're guilty or not. [They wouldn't care.] US sucks a lot. Too bad this is where the money is :) > Needless to say, faced with the entire site being removed, I removed the > materials. One word: Freenet. See http://freenet.sourceforge.net > I see. But trying to find a way to save even more time and bandwidth by > even attempting to figure out a solution to this problem is not as valuable? No. There already is a solution: the client filters everything. Wait, there's also a second one: build your own cypherpunks node. [The second one is even better.] > It comes down to a simple bit of confusion on my part. I cannot understand > the mentality of someone who has the time and resources to effectively > combat the spam on this list, and yet who does not have the time or > resource to either respond in a somewhat civil fashion, or to just delete > the message along with the rest of the refuse. Spam takes <1 second to identify and delete. > You seemed to be a bit more level headed, so while I still totally disagree > that it's a waste of time to try and figure a way around this problem, I > haven't utterly lost respect for you as I have with Tim. "Pillar of the > community" or not, the guy is an utter asshole. Here I agree with you :) Mark
-C-P- Re: would it be so much to ask.. CPUNK
At the last go-around of this topic (how to reduce the spam problem) I proposed appending CPUNK to messages. Appending a tag has much better properties than prepending. It doesn't break sorting by subject line, it is automatically in the correct position in replies, and is generally less intrusive. All tags are ugly, but some are worse than others. I still occasionally add CPUNK to my subject lines (as I did in this message) Have we finally beaten Mr. Assymetric into silence? Peter Trei > -- > From: Harmon Seaver[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Reply To: Harmon Seaver > Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 11:29 PM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: -C-P- Re: would it be so much to ask.. > > "William H. Geiger III" wrote: > > > Subscibe to a list that filters out the CDR: from the subject as Jim has > made it clear that he is going to continue adding this to the subject > line. On the openpgp.net list the subject is: > > > > > > The problem with that, or at least openpgp.net, is that the software > also strips the header, so that you have no way to filter the toad.com > crap, and thus, the spam. > > >
Re: CDR: Re: -C-P- Re: would it be so much to ask..
Tim May wrote: > > Nitwit, this idea has been proposed many times. Choate even does > this, unfortunately, to all traffic flowing through his node. > > I used to think that nitwits were their own punishment. I now have > come to the conclusion that it's long past due that we stoke the > furnaces And this is why socialism in any form is a bad idea. It prevents evolution in action from culling the morons. In the olden days these guys would have been sabertoothed tiger fodder. Let's face it, shit like hotmail, AOL, MSN, and their cousins are really socialism in disguise. They allow the morons access to what they shouldn't have. They don't need to be on the net, they should be watching TV getting brainwashed while they enjoy their favorite pisswater beer. -- --Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net
-C-P- Re: would it be so much to ask..
This guy apparantly can't read. He certainly didn't read Choate's reply that there were moderated cp lists, and gave him the url to access them. Nor did he read the other replies telling him to check the archives. And he is totally, absolutely clueless about remailers, confusing them with nym servers. Must be a troll. -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS Systems Librarian Arrowhead Library SystemVirginia, MN (218) 741-3840 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://harmon.arrowhead.lib.mn.us
