Re: Libertarian Party expresses "concern" over war -- but does not
On Friday, March 21, 2003, at 12:50 PM, Bill Stewart wrote:
While I wish Mike were correct that the party would get some spine
just because we tell them to, I'm not holding my breath.
I was expecting better from Geoff.
The LP's traditional heritage was pretty radical about issues
like the draft (we opposed it) and drugs (got any good pot?)
and about free markets, but too many people reacted to 9/11
by supporting intervention to not only kill Osama,
but anybody else that the Administration felt like blaming,
such as the Taliban, and there are some people in the California party
who think that invading Iraq will somehow help stop anti-US terrorism
or will kill people who supported Osama and is therefore justifiable.
Perhaps undertaking regime change in the LP is necessary? Practicing
"shock and awe," with their spouses liquidated and the children raped
and then beheaded, would be an appropriate response to their betrayal?
Having his daughter's head returned to him in a box may teach the LP
Chairman not to fuck with our liberty.
Or maybe we should avoid injuring the rank and file leadership and only
going for a decapitation of command?
As Cathy Young put it, "There are no supporters of liberty in foxholes."
(Or something like this...exact quote below.)
I expect "Reason" is celebrating the War on Some Dictators and Most
Liberties.
("Liberty" has been vocally opposed to Shrubya's crusade, though.)
--Tim May, Corralitos, California
Quote of the Month: "It is said that there are no atheists in foxholes;
perhaps there are no true libertarians in times of terrorist attacks."
--Cathy Young, "Reason Magazine," both enemies of liberty.
Re: Spammers Would Be Made To Pay Under IBM Research Proposal
Spammers Would Be Made To Pay Under IBM Research Proposal By Tony Kontzer, InformationWeek, InternetWeek Mar 20, 2003 (8:45 PM) URL: http://www.internetweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=7900141 Companies and consumers alike have been looking to two primary aids in the battle to stem the flood of spam. On the practical side, they're turning to a seemingly endless parade of filters and other software products designed to slow the tide of unwanted E-mail by doing things such as checking messages against known spam, using textual clues to glean whether a message is spam, or blocking the IP addresses of known spammers. On the more hopeful side, they're pressuring legislators for federal laws banning spam. IBM researchers say both approaches miss the target--that the software approach amounts to a constant game of trying to stay one step ahead of spammers, while legislation, if and when it comes, won't be able to address spam coming from outside U.S. borders. As a result, they've come up with another approach: Make spammers pay to send messages. It sounds absurdly simple, and Scott Fahlman, a research staff member at IBM's Watson Research Center, says it is. Fahlman is trying to build momentum behind a concept he's calling the "charity stamp" approach, which would force anyone sending unsolicited messages to pay to reach recipients participating in the program unless they had an authenticated code. Of course none of this is news to many readers on this list. A number of people in the crypto/cypherpunk community (e.g, Adam Back, Eric S. Johansson and Ben Laurie) have worked for some time to develop the mathematics and code to launch proof-of-concept e-stamp systems based on either Proof-of-Work algorithims or real value. Recently Microsoft also unveiled a similar project PennyBlack http://research.microsoft.com/research/sv/PennyBlack/ steve
Re: terror alert red
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 01:15:02PM -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: > But this wasn't a press announcement by the governor - > this was a press announcement by the state terrorism czar One response (took long enough): http://www.politechbot.com/p-04575.html -Declan
Re: CDR: Re: Spammers Would Be Made To Pay Under IBM Research Proposal
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Steve Schear wrote: > >Spammers Would Be Made To Pay Under IBM Research Proposal > > > >IBM researchers say both approaches miss the target--that the software [...] > >up with another approach: Make spammers pay to send messages. It sounds [...] > steve Steve, I've been watching your views on ASRG, and honestly, I have to say Sender Pays is top on my list for Bad Ideas for reforming email. We all want to get rid of spam. I think most folks on this list are in favor of using market dynamics to influence behaviour. I think adding an artificial fee to sending email is stupid. It is creating false scarcity to fix a broken system. Further, it will end up becoming a new profit center for ISPs - send an email, pay 5 (or whatever) cents. I I know this is being thought about, but what about ad-hoc lists like CP? Who will pay for AOL delivery for that? Who pays for ASRG? Sender pays is stupid. Don't support false scarcity. -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] It it ain't broke, let me have a shot at it.
Re: Spammers Would Be Made To Pay Under IBM Research Proposal
At 11:01 PM 3/21/2003 -0500, Jamie Lawrence wrote: On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Steve Schear wrote: Steve, I've been watching your views on ASRG, and honestly, I have to say Sender Pays is top on my list for Bad Ideas for reforming email. We all want to get rid of spam. I think most folks on this list are in favor of using market dynamics to influence behaviour. I think adding an artificial fee to sending email is stupid. It is creating false scarcity to fix a broken system. Further, it will end up becoming a new profit center for ISPs - send an email, pay 5 (or whatever) cents. I I know this is being thought about, but what about ad-hoc lists like CP? Who will pay for AOL delivery for that? Who pays for ASRG? Sender pays is stupid. Don't support false scarcity. I guess you have unlimited time and consider your time worthless. Its not the transport costs sender-pays is trying to price its our time. Sender-pays is trying to enable email recipients to establish a price for their eyeballs and attention. Advertisers do all the time. steve
Re: Brumley & Boneh timing attack on OpenSSL (fwd)
Some clarification by Peter Gutmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on why cryptlib doesn't do timing attack resistance default: Peter Gutmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: cryptlib was never intended to be a high-performance SSL server (the docs are fairly clear on this), and I don't think anyone is using it to replace Apache or IIS. OTOH it is used in a number of specialised environments such as closed environments, embedded systems and mainframes. For example two real-world uses of the cryptlib SSL server are in embedded environment A and mainframe environment B. In A, the processing is handled by a low-power embedded processor. It takes 10-15s to perform an SSL handshake, and that's after the code has been optimised to death to squeeze every possible bit of performance out of it. Performing the necessary 1.5M queries at 15s each would take approximately 8 1/2 months at 100% CPU load (meaning that the device is unable to perform any other operations in that entire time). This is unlikely to go unnoticed, given that it's polled from other devices for status updates. In B, CPU resources are so scarce that the implementation uses null cipher suites because it can't afford the overhead of even RC4 for encryption (admittedly this required a custom code hack, cryptlib doesn't normally support null encryption suites). After about 100 or so attempts at a full SSL handshake, klaxons would sound and blue-suited troops would deploy onto the raised flooring to determine where all the CPU time is going. In neither of these environments (and various similar ones) would a side- channel attack requiring 1M or so queries (e.g. this one, or the Bleichenbacher attack, or the Klima-Pokorny-Rosa attack, which cryptlib shouldn't be vulnerable to since I'm paranoid about error reporting) be terribly feasible. OTOH blinding does produce a noticeable slowdown for a process that's already regarded by its users as unacceptably slow and/or CPU-intensive (I have some users who've hacked the key-exchange process to use fixed shared keys because they just can't spare the CPU time to do a real handshake, e.g. by injecting the shared key into the SSL session cache so you just do a pseudo-resume for each new connection). For this reason, cryptlib makes the use of sidechannel- attack-protection an optional item, which must be selected by the user (via use of the blinding code, now admittedly I should probably make this a bit easier to do in future releases than having to hack the source :-). This is not to downplay the seriousness of the attack, merely to say that in some cases the slowdown/CPU consumption vs.attack risk doesn't make it worthwhile to defend against.
Re: CDR: Re: Spammers Would Be Made To Pay Under IBM Research Proposal
-- On 21 Mar 2003 at 23:01, Jamie Lawrence wrote: > We all want to get rid of spam. I think most folks on this > list are in favor of using market dynamics to influence > behaviour. I think adding an artificial fee to sending email > is stupid. It is creating false scarcity to fix a broken > system. Further, it will end up becoming a new profit center > for ISPs - send an email, pay 5 (or whatever) cents. I I know > this is being thought about, but what about ad-hoc lists like > CP? Who will pay for AOL delivery for that? Who pays for > ASRG? > > Sender pays is stupid. Don't support false scarcity. The intention is sender pays, recipient is paid, reflecting the real scarcity of readers time. Mailing lists would be sent out without postage, but with cryptographic signature, and subscribers would have to OK it. Letters to the list would be accompanied by payment, which would be something considerably less than a cent, which would yield a profit to the mailing list operators. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG Y6FMx3kifAEols9uNP5y5vg8sKYvXPMDutZc4nWU 4vxTg06gsQlG1PONar3AxatOVjnthx9NfjJGIDu6C
Re: [1st amend] cyber cafe law struck down
Not only does the LA Times web site want you to register, it doesn't like something about my brower's support of cookies or scripts or whatever so I can't even register there :-) Orange County Register (where Garden Grove is...) on the ruling http://www2.ocregister.com/ocrweb/ocr/article.do?id=31255§ion=LOCAL&subsection=LOCAL&year=2003&month=3&day=22 Article from before the ruling - the judge was skeptical of the law and its pushers. http://www2.ocregister.com/ocrweb/ocr/article.do?id=27598§ion=LOCAL&subsection=CRIME_COURTS&year=2003&month=2&day=28 Google News searching for "cybercafe" brought up similar stories from Thailand, where the judges don't appear to have similar clues or commitments to free speech, plus a bunch of discussion about the plans for a cybercafe at Everest Base Camp.
San Francisco Combatants
I find it interesting that "live" transmission of Enemy Combatant Radio at 93.7 FM lags about 2 minutes after mp3 broadcast at http://radio.us2.indymedia.org:8000/playlist.pls?mount=/ecr I cannot think of rational explanation why would the signal be delayed - maybe someone versed in FM broadcast technology can offer some ? 93.7 is San Francisco Liberation Radio (micropower license-free :-)
Re: What shall we do with a bad government...
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 10:57:12PM -0500, Tim Meehan wrote: | an okay economy but too many yuppies and climbers (and crappy pot). | Montreal is the best, but you're better off if you speak Freedom -- | and like hash. The local pharma retail business seems to be quite flexible in supplying regulars with whatever they demand. The trouble with being anonymous is that you're indistinguishable from a cop. Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume
Re: Brumley & Boneh timing attack on OpenSSL (fwd)
At 09:51 AM 03/22/2003 +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote: Some clarification by Peter Gutmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on why cryptlib doesn't do timing attack resistance default: Peter Gutmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: cryptlib was never intended to be a high-performance SSL server (the docs are fairly clear on this), and I don't think anyone is using it to replace Apache or IIS. OTOH it is used in a number of specialised environments such as closed ... For this reason, cryptlib makes the use of sidechannel- attack-protection an optional item, which must be selected by the user (via use of the blinding code, now admittedly I should probably make this a bit easier to do in future releases than having to hack the source :-). This is not to downplay the seriousness of the attack, merely to say that in some cases the slowdown/CPU consumption vs.attack risk doesn't make it worthwhile to defend against. If it's not meant to be a high-performance server, then slowing it down another 20% by doing RSA timing things is probably fine for most uses, and either using compiler flags or (better) friendlier options of some sort to turn off the timing resistance is probably the better choice. I'm not sure how flexible things need to be - real applications of the openssl code include non-server things like certificate generation, and probably some reasonable fraction of the RSA or DH calculations don't need to be timing-protected, but many of them are also things that aren't CPU-consumption-critical either.
Re: CDR: Re: Spammers Would Be Made To Pay Under IBM Research Proposal
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, James A. Donald wrote: > The intention is sender pays, recipient is paid, reflecting the > real scarcity of readers time. Mailing lists would be sent Which in the real world will never happen. Sender-pays, if deployed, will end up being something like MS's Penny Black, where a third party collects a tax to "allow" sending mail. Those of us who don't care for such things will continue running MTAs that ignore the sillyness, and drop "456 - send more postage" messages on the floor. > out without postage, but with cryptographic signature, and > subscribers would have to OK it. Letters to the list would be > accompanied by payment, which would be something considerably > less than a cent, which would yield a profit to the mailing > list operators. Using our pre-existing, wildly popular micropayment infrastructure, no doubt? Signing messages and skipping the cash redistribution solves the problem without presupposing nonexistent clearing mechanisms. (Demanding message signing creates a different class of problems, of course.) -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: San Francisco Combatants
At 02:34 AM 03/22/2003 -0800, A.Melon wrote: I find it interesting that "live" transmission of Enemy Combatant Radio at 93.7 FM lags about 2 minutes after mp3 broadcast at http://radio.us2.indymedia.org:8000/playlist.pls?mount=/ecr I cannot think of rational explanation why would the signal be delayed - maybe someone versed in FM broadcast technology can offer some ? 93.7 is San Francisco Liberation Radio (micropower license-free :-) I'd first assumed that "Enemy Combatant Radio" was yet another variant on National Public Communist Radio or Nationalized Propaganda Radio or whatever :-) If I were implementing something like non-commercial unlicensed radio, I'd probably expect that the broadcast studio and the antennas would not be colocated, and there'd be a need for cheap connections between the two of them, which suggests IP over modems. And avoiding dropouts on unidirectional connections suggests large jitter buffers. Two minutes seems a bit excessive, though - perhaps there's a bit of a speed mismatch between the studio and antenna ends of the connection that's accumulated delay, especially if you're transmitting over TCP instead of UDP. Speak Freely used to have this problem until some recent changes that let it clear out buffers when they get too large.
Re: Libertarian Party expresses "concern" over war -- but does not
hi, Terrorism only increases.Saying meet fire with fire is only an anology.The whole world is against the war but they are all oppurtunists-they will strike only when they can.The war may do more damage even than all the oil it can get. Regards Sarath. --- Mike Rosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Bill Stewart wrote: > > > While I wish Mike were correct that the party > would get some spine > > just because we tell them to, I'm not holding my > breath. > > I was expecting better from Geoff. > > > > The LP's traditional heritage was pretty radical > about issues > > like the draft (we opposed it) and drugs (got any > good pot?) > > and about free markets, but too many people > reacted to 9/11 > > by supporting intervention to not only kill Osama, > > but anybody else that the Administration felt like > blaming, > > such as the Taliban, and there are some people in > the California party > > who think that invading Iraq will somehow help > stop anti-US terrorism > > or will kill people who supported Osama and is > therefore justifiable. > > Uggh. So there are neanderthal Libertarians too. > Bummer, I was > expecting them all to have different opinions, but > it's pretty > obvious that we're creating more enemies and > increasing terrorism. > Oh well, I guess they all get to learn by > experience. > > Patience, persistence, truth, > Dr. mike > > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
Re: Libertarian Party expresses "concern" over war -- but does not
Eric Cordian wrote on March 20, 2003 at 14:35:45 -0800: > Libertarians are people who think the only legitimate use of state force > is to protect them from their slaves. No libertarian will ever express support for slavery or forced servitude, except for punishment after due process for a crime committed. But of course, you didn't mean 'slavery' as in the case of a man being lashed with the master's whip, you meant "slavery" as in the case of a man who isn't making at least $18 per hour, or whatever the communists call a "living wage" now. -- Tom Veil
Re: [1st amend] public school can't require permission for info distrib
This sounds a lot like the "Don't test for an error condition that you can't handle appropriately" principle in coding. It's also part of the usual separation-of-school-and-state discussion :-) At 10:04 AM 03/22/2003 -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-religbriefs22.6mar22,1,473799.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dcalifornia School Suspension Over Religious Slogans Voided SPRINGFIELD, Mass. -- A high school cannot suspend students for handing out candy canes with religious messages, a federal judge ruled. U.S. District Judge Frank Freedman said this week that a policy at Westfield High School prohibiting the distribution of printed material on school grounds without permission violated students' 1st Amendment rights. Members of the school's Bible club had asked the principal just before Christmas if they could hand out candy with religious messages. The principal said no, but they handed them out anyway.
IDEA
I compiling the Mixmaster remailer, I get an error the OpenSSL was not compiled with IDEA support. However, OpenSSL was supposed to have compiled with IDEA out of the box, with only an option to disable it. What am I missing?
Type III Anonymous message
=== TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE BEGINS === remember to email [EMAIL PROTECTED] a ssh2 key... below is gpg key -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (OpenBSD) mQGiBD4I1qARBADVJq/hf1mec9Ac+L/J1ZJcngJkw6REiOdLD5IOtO18SB2UxDMN Tait4AdhR7O1zHxmxUctNaiypdJwhEZhGDDBlY/k8h0tHNVoa7utUMOWgmtOe+gO hS4LjyfBGX4ExBw6ofdLTrkIkjVz+sDIlJFb4Y4IluDidfrDUPg1/qGkewCg/kK4 dq1W3ntl/PwsmOG1VztbTgUD/i0p95JMxfuAalS9VycYnXaGywFVEsDJDJdIOLYP kVzpimrh25mvf3h9BZpnb4+XFhlWr1NVEA30YWQQGkSYAoOzMfxzk8nXvxBExX+j b/6RZWqfW2/YEv5jUbu6Ud91KubMmfjTjnepuo+q1ZjKO4vZSJhUYs0cLx1lgyVZ lNgKBACYpp+cEsZMU/6JHGY/8Wbo9y+8MLrNkvno+d7QJ0i3u97k2mBe/9Ie9J+5 tiam9gx9CqhKfLM3ikFouJpNoW2mv+1FzSyXb7U4ijGcJx6dXN03wTAs+txVNbOx m/hvR+/UitIFLXSo37CDS9Ba6Pr/cPtgBMzPbg3NVmMtE/nk9rRgR3dlbiBIYXN0 aW5ncyAoUHJpdmF0ZSBkaXN0cmlidXRpb24gbG9uZyBrZXkgZG8gTk9UIHVwbG9h ZCB0byBrZXlzZXJ2ZXJzISkgPGd3ZW5AY3lwaGVycHVua3MudG8+iGAEExECACAF Aj4I1qAFCQeEzgAFCwcDAgEDFQIDAxYCAQIeAQIXgAAKCRBFSNreUZWDz/sBAKC1 jLhll2R4hJ2I7kDlDCzFH8WLGACgsVBDT/7kXP9Xw5xAwlFQgXCuJ3S5BA0EPgji uRAQAMTLx30NTz0ATg/83u1AKoYY3e/dVGcTn4+KTEJIws5d6j2UUR6zm0bT23jw N4lA2zRT5k988lwKtiSnFesV7Ezoe04pmQtD/k5vMaiEPgYoiUHZhCfySYt/dYf/ lvkbhpcLN8cEY38dGk1t2QcK5IeIsJSqOiKQY53932KRcU/xLlRZrjLrkM6Dg2D0 0C3484xMJYdXgaByg91DlJ6csY9w6FQnuxPM9e+pgLj7sv5mDESuUUAHPcwIZFQ3 sKAvSxwa0lc3E/MjeHld50NYB4Fn2cqMwi5Em2m4NqUrO0DgoOBlVJhtZGz5dgZ4 nqP1NpaVR1tc2GcHiTrj5Tr91Q0uOO8e6WpWdt2PjIUsC2OJLDaHgngPRKXKIH63 6V2qu5LPY/jnJABPWWlhU0ZDekbYF14H6buohiSXBHRYrflLwQlUpPA7wJlVlUig sAwiwugV6xrKa4gPEFB7sS7xhqhT8E0UC6I6s6LWoauCthCg4mjDcpEzupeW/vn9 VuUs5BEEokKm+lXg6n8UCFJa6Gtf5TGjpmTtVmRejVs3cft1QUxJ6kJjqlEm7iPU NmqEsGSbT6nkYQILWUrAabc4meQGJf3I/VZ5UUWtBeHA77IhOp56YogNYp0kl9SX mfVhRqsFhhiIpL+GYjTBuawjV/GB+kQQrTynm0Jq5ditErjPAAMHD/9a4mlrQqWR A6G5wgrfevg2axAhaJrl0CgnAT/ulUWF8iHNeq9LXkkNE0J1yQzWicOU4a+9TFat 8vo4MqFiUkyWfnI/683RUnUldGU9tZ9Skab6rBy9QWUqorqRfudiYKqZKhX44nmj vYb53DZg3VlfVN7X7kG2ZJkFNO9YeqB63Ah503LR7ArT2u8fwoXZ2gxYDFK+zd8o BgDW0hhHj6leV5pJeEYqd1uX7cN07gtmjGd3fPEzI7xSGqj5ottipSpyQlZZVcGH prSY1fuPh0KSrakvmEfK+I4dfe7Mb+rwu5rz6TYR5wpo56/F0Ikv5QjQX6k9J2YE 4K1+Uu1APg/LixJZVodTeV5CXZLwz+zwycP8hOw5mg0ngHCu8HimTIEI5/LxSWqD TlqfcKR72taJH9tiYByMA6uAV7XMrTmlE301LqoCYUc4EYKwWZZq+Xg0RTKIRasX adw1bBFkE1KrXKr78XbtLO8p2L28qMiyCfBy+N3V41iYcQStiJRG85gZD7KaHrUV UobSYWLbKr7KUue72fsdle8Ha6Ss5yOrD2AK5vWSLo+SbABY4Pjhw/GVWSJ3xihw ITAiSWRKqgWfPwwiOoIqrOi59wcPL+nCkNqLlVpHz2FCxkM1Ym5Cc8nSJSqR7vHy 4HXCwV6Vy/sAUU4y+NjucjdW+hmeqhUF+4hMBBgRAgAMBQI+COK5BQkHhM4AAAoJ EEVI2t5RlYPPbMwAoM7SrL6F1ql2M30o1p0noSbtAWniAKCcT5EBe3wTIjKaf3k0 RlQesjpsbg== =OFmm -END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE ENDS
RE: IDEA
Mindfuq wrote: > I compiling the Mixmaster remailer, I get an error the > OpenSSL was not compiled with IDEA support. However, OpenSSL > was supposed to have compiled with IDEA out of the box, with > only an option to disable it. What am I missing? You in all likelihood fell victim to some misguided nonsense that seems to spread through the Open Source community at present. Some distributions have disabled IDEA and other patented algorithms to cleanse the code from "non-free" math to maintain the patent-purity of the software. Cypherpunks of course reject such nonsense, just as they rejected RSA DSI's and David Sternlight's claims that PGP must not be used because it supposedly infringed on some patents. Do a Google search for IDEA and the name of your OS or distribution to find out how to recompile with IDEA support enabled. --Lucky
Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City
-- On 21 Mar 2003 at 12:55, Ken Brown wrote: > US originally helped the kind of people who later became the > "Northern Alliance" - a rather odd mixture of unreconstructed > Stalinists, "liberals" in the European sense of the word, > separationists, local bandit chiefs, drug growers, > pro-Iranian Shiite Islamists and who knows what else. The > Taliban formed later, in Pakistan, and was at least at first > indirectly funded by the US through Pakistan and through > material inherited from some other groups - and of course > later by various Arabs (who may or may not have thought of > themselves as "Al Qaida" before the US pinned the name on > them while looking for a New Enemy for the New World Order). > But there certainly was some assistance from the US to the > Taliban. US They didn't buy those 500 Stingers in Kmart Commie lies. My understanding is that the Taliban got twelve stingers, not five hundred, and they got them from Hekmatyar, who did get them from the US. Hekmatyar was certainly anti US, arguably a Stalinist and a supporter of terrorism, but he was not and is not an islamic fundamentalist -- his alliance with the taliban was rather like Saddam's alliance with Bin Laden. They temporarily agreed to hate someone else more than they hate each other. At the beginning of the recent Afghan war the US estimated the Taliban had at most fifty stingers. During the war it became apparent that they had far fewer, probably only the twelve that Hekmatyar gave them. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG pxk0mbAvt7SxFwMxwrkSN3mDpHDczpZ/IKSVwwwl 4cZ+JYzhHn8RflEW05yx4Hv0MWgjjo0Ywhp9imV1O
MAPS: Antispammers are worse than spammers
I've recently discovered MAPS when messages I send to friends started bouncing back. I'm finding that large ISP's are paying mailabuse.org for lists of IP's, and mailabuse.org isn't taking care to ensure the blacklisted IP's are from known spammers, they're targeting broad ranges of IP's, and rejecting legitimate email as part of the game. Has anyone here become a victim of this denial of service attack? Spam used to upset me. At most, there's the inconvenience of deleting the messages that don't get trapped by spamassassin. But spam never upset me as much as MAPS, these crooked anti-spammers. When my message bounces, I can't just hit resend, because it bounces again. When I ask to have my IP removed from their blacklist, they tell me to change my software! I've never spammed, and my machines are closed to the public, so no spam has come from my IP. While I hate spammers just like the next person, I'm totally willing to join forces with spammers just to remove these MAPS slimeballs from power. There needs to be a mailing list so victims can organize. I think the most effective approach is to create an ISP boycott list, which lists ISP's that participate. Any thoughts? If we put together such a list, I'll simply tell all my contacts who are on a listed ISP to switch ISP's if they want to receive email from me.
Re: Libertarian Party expresses "concern" over war -- but does not
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 01:42:30PM -0500, Sunder wrote: > On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Harmon Seaver wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 11:28:49AM -0500, John Kelsey wrote: > > > > > > I wouldn't bet too much on us not going after North Korea sometime in the > > > next year or two, if the invasion and takeover of Iraq goes well. > > > >Don't be ridiculous -- that would get South Korea and Japan instantly nuked. > > At which point Shurbbya will say "See, I told you they were evil." -- we > can only hope he doesn't go after North Korea before election day. > > Interesting stuff is brewing at the UN... I doubt much of anything will > come of it... > > http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/weekly/newsnat-21mar2003-138.htm > http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/nat/newsnat-22mar2003-13.htm > It would be great if the UN imposed sanctions on the US and UK and demanded they turn over their WOMD. And their leaders, including top generals, to the Hague. And given the very evident worldwide animosity toward the US today, I'd not be at all surprised to see a world trade boycott. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com We are now in America's Darkest Hour. http://www.oshkoshbygosh.org hoka hey!
Re: CDR: Re: Spammers Would Be Made To Pay Under IBM Research Proposal
> The intention is sender pays, recipient is paid, reflecting the > real scarcity of readers time. Mailing lists would be sent > out without postage, but with cryptographic signature, and > subscribers would have to OK it. Letters to the list would be > accompanied by payment, which would be something considerably > less than a cent, which would yield a profit to the mailing > list operators. However, it penalizes everyone without an infrastructure for electronic payment. I don't own a creditcard suitable for Internet money transfers. I don't need it (and the USD/CZK exchange rate makes everything quite expensive), so for security reasons the option is disabled. Until recently, I hadn't a creditcard at all. What would I be supposed to do in order to send mail, then? What about public terminals, libraries? What about anonymous mails? Wouldn't it add either a high burden to the remailer operators, or nullify the remailer purpose, adding a shining payment trail right to the sender? What about improvised ad-hoc systems? When I have nothing other, I am able to send a mail with just a telnet client. Would it be possible with the new system too? It is another complication. Now not only the email infrastructure will rely on the Net itself, on the DNS and on the SMTP servers, but payment-transfer systems will be added to the equation, greatly affecting reliability. The idea smells bad.
Re: Spammers Would Be Made To Pay Under IBM Research Proposal
At 01:24 PM 3/22/2003 +0100, Thomas Shaddack wrote: > The intention is sender pays, recipient is paid, reflecting the > real scarcity of readers time. Mailing lists would be sent > out without postage, but with cryptographic signature, and > subscribers would have to OK it. Letters to the list would be > accompanied by payment, which would be something considerably > less than a cent, which would yield a profit to the mailing > list operators. However, it penalizes everyone without an infrastructure for electronic payment. Well, clearly no spender-pays using real value will arrive before a suitable infrastructure is relatively widely available. As for being penalized, it seems those most put upon are those early adopters who will never receive an important email from someone who could or would find a way to buy or create a stamp. Its like moving out to a location with poor postal service. Both you and those who wish to contact you are disadvantaged. That's why I think PoW stamp systems will predominate at forst. I don't own a creditcard suitable for Internet money transfers. I don't need it (and the USD/CZK exchange rate makes everything quite expensive), so for security reasons the option is disabled. Until recently, I hadn't a creditcard at all. What would I be supposed to do in order to send mail, then? What about public terminals, libraries? What about anonymous mails? Wouldn't it add either a high burden to the remailer operators, or nullify the remailer purpose, adding a shining payment trail right to the sender? Unless something like ALTA/DMT, Yodel or Lucrative were used. What about improvised ad-hoc systems? When I have nothing other, I am able to send a mail with just a telnet client. Would it be possible with the new system too? I don't think so, not without either an ecash/estamp purse or a PoW app. It is another complication. Now not only the email infrastructure will rely on the Net itself, on the DNS and on the SMTP servers, but payment-transfer systems will be added to the equation, greatly affecting reliability. This only affects first-time correspondence. After a successful first te-t-te a white list function should allow subsequent email passage without stamps. steve
Re: CDR: Re: Spammers Would Be Made To Pay Under IBM Research Proposal
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Steve Schear wrote: > I guess you have unlimited time and consider your time worthless. Its not That doesn't follow at all. I consider my limited time very valuble. I simply believe creating an artificial scarcity at the infrastructure level a bad way to address spam. > the transport costs sender-pays is trying to price its our > time. Sender-pays is trying to enable email recipients to establish a > price for their eyeballs and attention. Advertisers do all the time. Cash exchange for mail transport will simply create a new profit center for ISPs. This is no different than the various request-permission-to-transmit proposals, aside from adding cost to the mix. Doing so will cut down on normal person to person discourse before it fixes spam. Presupposing micropayments for a new net.service has been a nonstarter for years, and I fully expect it to continue to be so. -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] Strangers have the best candy.
Re: Spammers Would Be Made To Pay Under IBM Research Proposal
At 02:18 PM 03/22/2003 -0500, Jamie Lawrence wrote: On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Steve Schear wrote: > I guess you have unlimited time and consider your time worthless. Its not That doesn't follow at all. I consider my limited time very valuble. I simply believe creating an artificial scarcity at the infrastructure level a bad way to address spam. Barry Shein disagrees with me, but you're correct, as far as you go. Trying to declare an artificial scarcity somewhere in the system, which almost all of the "sender pays sender's ISP" and some of the "sender pays recipient's ISP" systems do is doomed to failure, either because of evasion or bad social effects or whatever. Finding a way to collect payments for using the real scarce resource, which is the recipient's time, at prices set by the recipient, has some chance of succeeding. There are of course many ways to fail, but it's at least not doomed from the start. I'm mentioning Barry because he's done some recent and well-publicized speeches about the spam problem and sender-pays. While part of his problem may be that he's a liberal Democrat with the corresponding economic clues, he's also run an ISP business for a decade longer than most of the competition, so he's looking at it from an ISP perspective trying to find ISP-level solutions to _his_ problems, which are inbound bandwidth and storage and marginal cost, combined with the costs of managing user complaints about spam, and he's got a pre-internet-boom cynical perspective on dumb ASP models. But while Barry's an old ISP guy, I'm a old phone company guy. ISP-oriented systems, especially sender-pays-sender's-ISP systems, end up reinventing the settlements processes phone companies have used, and believe me, you don't want to go there again. They're bad enough when there's a monopoly that owns all the parts, or that owns the middle, but they're much worse in a competitive many-player system when people are trying to tweak them for social purposes rather than doing cost-driven economics, and they fail really badly at adapting to rapidly-changing technical environments and cost structures. If they start off knowing this, they can pick somewhat different failures than the ones the US phone system has, but that's still one of those "Knowing Murphy's Law doesn't help either" kinds of consolation. Doomed. Bill Stewart
Re: Spammers Would Be Made To Pay Under IBM Research Proposal
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, Thomas Shaddack wrote: > > The intention is sender pays, recipient is paid, reflecting the > > real scarcity of readers time. Mailing lists would be sent > > out without postage, but with cryptographic signature, and > > subscribers would have to OK it. Letters to the list would be > > accompanied by payment, which would be something considerably > > less than a cent, which would yield a profit to the mailing > > list operators. > > However, it penalizes everyone without an infrastructure for electronic > payment. > > I don't own a creditcard suitable for Internet money transfers. I don't > need it (and the USD/CZK exchange rate makes everything quite expensive), > so for security reasons the option is disabled. Until recently, I hadn't a > creditcard at all. What would I be supposed to do in order to send mail, > then? What about public terminals, libraries? > > What about anonymous mails? Wouldn't it add either a high burden to the > remailer operators, or nullify the remailer purpose, adding a shining > payment trail right to the sender? > > What about improvised ad-hoc systems? When I have nothing other, I am able > to send a mail with just a telnet client. Would it be possible with the > new system too? > > It is another complication. Now not only the email infrastructure will > rely on the Net itself, on the DNS and on the SMTP servers, but > payment-transfer systems will be added to the equation, greatly affecting > reliability. > > The idea smells bad. Agreed, provided we are talking about "payment" in the traditional sense (as this thread has been so far). However, there are other forms of payment besides money. As you correctly observed, not everyone has the ability to make payment in money over the net, however, everyone who is capable of connecting has the ability to pay in cpu cycles. A robust system would allow for payment in any number of mediums, allowing for universal participation. To date, my personal pet has been payment in computationally intensive solutions to questions posed by the recipient. This forced expenditure of effort, even if minor, removes the spammer's incentive for sending of email: the nature of the beast requires that the spam run be high volume and fast in order to pay off - slow down the run with computationally difficult questions, and the spammer will make no money. This system is one that has exponential impact on high-volume mailers, and almost zero impact on the person sending out a few dozen emails a day (to their friends, cpunx, etc.). It does not substantially penalize the legitimate user, while at the same time crippling the mass mailer. I have not understood why this system has never been taken seriously in the anti-spam "community", while at the same time we have unscalable and unimplementable micropayment systems being seriously studied. Could it be that the real concern driving the antispammers is the aquisition of money, rather than the aquisition of email without spam? -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [1st amend] cyber cafe law struck down
At 01:30 PM 3/22/2003 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: Not only does the LA Times web site want you to register, it doesn't like something about my brower's support of cookies or scripts or whatever so I can't even register there :-) Try JAP in conjunction with CookieCooker. Between proxied IP addresses and constantly swapping cookies from unknown others it does some heavy damage to tracking. steve
re: Spending a billion dollars an hour produces a hell of a light show
>Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >As the Iraqis themselves said, and I paraphrase (because the quote is not handy): "If the U.S. says they know the locations of secret weapons projects, of underground bunkers, etc., why don't they simply give the locations to the U.N. weapons inspectors who can then go to those sites?" >The U.S. had no response. Once the war is over senior people in the U.S. administration better have proof acceptable to the international community in open forums if they do not wish to share a similar fate as their Iraqi counterparts. Barabbas Concerned about your privacy? Follow this link to get FREE encrypted email: https://www.hushmail.com/?l=2 Big $$$ to be made with the HushMail Affiliate Program: https://www.hushmail.com/about.php?subloc=affiliate&l=427
Re: Spammers Would Be Made To Pay Under IBM Research Proposal
At 01:22 PM 3/22/2003 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: At 02:18 PM 03/22/2003 -0500, Jamie Lawrence wrote: On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Steve Schear wrote: > I guess you have unlimited time and consider your time worthless. Its not That doesn't follow at all. I consider my limited time very valuble. I simply believe creating an artificial scarcity at the infrastructure level a bad way to address spam. Barry Shein disagrees with me, but you're correct, as far as you go. Trying to declare an artificial scarcity somewhere in the system, which almost all of the "sender pays sender's ISP" and some of the "sender pays recipient's ISP" systems do is doomed to failure, either because of evasion or bad social effects or whatever. Finding a way to collect payments for using the real scarce resource, which is the recipient's time, at prices set by the recipient, has some chance of succeeding. There are of course many ways to fail, but it's at least not doomed from the start. I concur. The question was never asked of me and I never said I supported having required ISP involvement in the pricing and settlement of send-pays. I think this should be end-user driven, perhaps supported by distributed servers akin to PGP key servers where senders can learn about their intended recipient's keys and cost to accept email. This cost can be in GHz-seconds for PoW or in some monetary unit once real values are practical. steve
Fwd: Re: CDR: Re: Spammers Would Be Made To Pay Under IBM Research Proposal
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 14:18:10 -0500 From: Jamie Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Steve Schear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: CDR: Re: Spammers Would Be Made To Pay Under IBM Research Proposal Mail-Followup-To: Steve Schear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: clue inc X-URL: http://www.clueinc.net/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Steve Schear wrote: > I guess you have unlimited time and consider your time worthless. Its not That doesn't follow at all. I consider my limited time very valuble. I simply believe creating an artificial scarcity at the infrastructure level a bad way to address spam. What part of the infrastructure is being made scarce? You and I aren't part of the infrastructure. The selection of a value for our time is just another market force at work. > the transport costs sender-pays is trying to price its our > time. Sender-pays is trying to enable email recipients to establish a > price for their eyeballs and attention. Advertisers do all the time. Cash exchange for mail transport will simply create a new profit center for ISPs. But its not cash for email transport. The transport cost is unaffected. Its cash for our eyeballs. I find this a distinction WITH a difference. Perhaps you do not. This is no different than the various request-permission-to-transmit proposals, aside from adding cost to the mix. Doing so will cut down on normal person to person discourse before it fixes spam. Yes, some Balkination may occur at the outset, but this is something that is recipient controlled not something mandated by ISPsm etc. Presupposing micropayments for a new net.service has been a nonstarter for years, and I fully expect it to continue to be so. The IETF anti-spam discussion seems to have broken down into a different "religious" camps, with many asserting that nothing that can't immediately be rolled out on a universal basis or isn't fully functional until universally accepted should even proposed. I disagree. Sender pays can be rolled out using PoW stamps almost immediately. Yes, some early adopters may find themselves "cut off" from senders who either can't or won't make the effort to create and attach computation stamps. For this reason sender-pays should be serious considered by most businesses until widely adopted. But for individuals inundated with spam it could be a quick and effective solution. Of course, the question they will ask when the spam stops is how many others aren't sending email cause they think I'm fringe. :) steve
Re: IDEA
* Lucky Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-03-22 09:13]: > > Do a Google search for IDEA and the name of your OS or distribution to > find out how to recompile with IDEA support enabled. I might need my hand held on this one. I did an exhausting search before posting. Part if the problem is that 'idea' is an english word, which makes it difficult to search. It's a shame there aren't any good web search engines that allow Lexis/Nexis type of expressions. Anyway- I'm using a 3-year-old version of Mandrake. The OpenSSL documentation claims IDEA is enabled by default, and there are only switches for disabling it. To verify that IDEA is enabled in OpenSSL, I ran 'openssl ciphers': DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA: DHE-DSS-AES256-SHA: AES256-SHA: EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA: EDH-DSS-DES-CBC3-SHA: DES-CBC3-SHA: DES-CBC3-MD5: DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA: DHE-DSS-AES128-SHA: AES128-SHA: IDEA-CBC-SHA: IDEA-CBC-MD5: RC2-CBC-MD5: DHE-DSS-RC4-SHA: RC4-SHA: RC4-MD5: RC4-MD5: RC4-64-MD5: EXP1024-DHE-DSS-DES-CBC-SHA: EXP1024-DES-CBC-SHA: EXP1024-RC2-CBC-MD5: EDH-RSA-DES-CBC-SHA: EDH-DSS-DES-CBC-SHA: DES-CBC-SHA: DES-CBC-MD5: EXP1024-DHE-DSS-RC4-SHA: EXP1024-RC4-SHA: EXP1024-RC4-MD5: EXP-EDH-RSA-DES-CBC-SHA: EXP-EDH-DSS-DES-CBC-SHA: EXP-DES-CBC-SHA: EXP-RC2-CBC-MD5: EXP-RC2-CBC-MD5: EXP-RC4-MD5: EXP-RC4-MD5 IDEA is listed on the fourth line, so it seems IDEA was installed with OpenSSL, but MixMaster's install may be improperly detecting that IDEA is absent. It's when I run the Mixmaster install that I get the error: ... Looking for libz.a... Found at /usr/lib/libz.so. Found source directory zlib-1.1.4. Use the source if the pre-installed library causes compilation problems. Use source? [n] Looking for libpcre.a... Found source directory pcre-2.08. Looking for libcrypto.a... Found at /usr/local/ssl/lib/libcrypto.a. ./Install: [: 90701f: integer expression expected ./Install: [: 90701f: integer expression expected ./Install: [: 90701f: integer expression expected Looking for libncurses.a... Found at /lib/libncurses.so. ./Install: tmptst.c: Permission denied gcc: tmptst.c: No such file or directory WARNING: Your version of OpenSSL has been configured without IDEA support. If you continue, Mixmaster will be installed with reduced functionality. This means (among other things) that Mixmaster will not creade an RSA OpenPGP key (to avoid mail loss in the Type I system). You may want to re-install OpenSSL before proceeding. This will not concern you if you only plan to run a type II remailer or simply want a type II client. If anyone has any clues for me, please post them. Thanks!
Re: Spending a billion dollars an hour produces a hell of a light show!
hi, Every one is a suspect-Let me check all your pockets.Stand in the line syria,egypt,iran,korea! Whats happening with this world. Sarath. --- Tyler Durden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "As the Iraqis themselves said, and I paraphrase > (because the quote is not > handy): "If the U.S. says they know the locations of > secret weapons > projects, of underground bunkers, etc., why don't > they simply give the > locations to the U.N. weapons inspectors who can > then go to those sites?" > > Come on now! The Iraqis should have proven that they > DON'T have any nukular > weapons. They were unable to prove that they don't > have any WMDs, so now > it's their fault they're getting invaded. > > -TD > > _ > STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months > FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
Re: IDEA
On Sat, Mar 22, 2003 at 09:40:50AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > IDEA is listed on the fourth line, so it seems IDEA was installed with > OpenSSL, but MixMaster's install may be improperly detecting that IDEA > is absent. It's when I run the Mixmaster install that I get the > error: > >... >Looking for libz.a... >Found at /usr/lib/libz.so. >Found source directory zlib-1.1.4. >Use the source if the pre-installed library causes compilation problems. >Use source? [n] >Looking for libpcre.a... >Found source directory pcre-2.08. >Looking for libcrypto.a... >Found at /usr/local/ssl/lib/libcrypto.a. >./Install: [: 90701f: integer expression expected I think that line means that mixmaster's install script isn't properly identifying the version of Openssl. If it were me, I'd fix the Mixmaster install script. >./Install: tmptst.c: Permission denied >gcc: tmptst.c: No such file or directory Yep, the install script needs help. BTW, if you will be posting Mixmaster messages to the cpunks list, could you fix it so it uses an informative Subject: line instead of "Mixmaster Type III Message"? Eric
Re: IDEA
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, Eric Murray wrote: > I think that line means that mixmaster's install script isn't > properly identifying the version of Openssl. If it were > me, I'd fix the Mixmaster install script. The install script needs to die. I think nobody argues that point. > BTW, if you will be posting Mixmaster messages to the cpunks > list, could you fix it so it uses an informative Subject: line > instead of "Mixmaster Type III Message"? That's mixminion, not mixmaster. And mixminion is not operational at the moment - this will take at least a few more months. Whoever relies on it for anonymity cannot be serious. Peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re:Liberation party express concern over war
hi, Starting a war with saudi is a simple thing.How ever unless they don't find enough oil in iraq,they will turn onto KSA. How ever Saudi with Mecca and Madina is a dangerous country to attack.Saudi will surely take it as a war on muslims and the impact of that is severe.Saudi is the holy country.Its not like attaking iraq. Regards Sarath. On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Bill Frantz wrote: > One view of the war in Iraq is that it is to assure an oil supply so we can > take on Saudi Arabia, home of three quarters of the 911 hijackers. Makes sense, use Saudia Arabia as a land base to take over Iraq, then use Iraq as a land base to take over Saudia Arabia. Then watch all US skyscrapers fall from angry Colombians. Makes a lot of sense to W I'm sure. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
Let the fragging begin!
Someone is in the 101st Airborne seems to have shown some unexpected individual initiative. Concerned about your privacy? Follow this link to get FREE encrypted email: https://www.hushmail.com/?l=2 Big $$$ to be made with the HushMail Affiliate Program: https://www.hushmail.com/about.php?subloc=affiliate&l=427
pgp in internet cafe (webpgp)
Assumptions: - I have https (SSL) access to a trusted unix box - I trust SSL - I'll take a risk of unknown machine running http client being subverted I want to use PGP while checking/sending e-mail via web interface on someone else's machine (say, internet cafe). So in one window I have webmail interface, and in the other window I have "webpgp" interface, and I paste ciphertext back and forth. The https-ed webpgp interface should authenticate me via some sort of passphrase and then I can submit ciphertext for decryption (encryption also requres authenticatin, in order to avoid browsing of my keyrings.) The question is - do I have to code this or has someone already done it ?
Re: Libertarian Party expresses "concern" over war -- but does not
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, Harmon Seaver wrote: > >It would be great if the UN imposed sanctions on the US and UK and demanded > they turn over their WOMD. And their leaders, including top generals, to the > Hague. >And given the very evident worldwide animosity toward the US today, I'd not > be at all surprised to see a world trade boycott. I'm kinda suprised a boycott of US and UK goods hasn't started already. Seems lots easier than getting shot at in a protest march. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Spending a billion dollars an hour produces a hell of a light show
On Saturday, March 22, 2003, barabbus came up with this... b> On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 18:05:05 -0800 stuart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Of course they'll find what they're looking for. Even if it's not >>there. >>Does anyone seriously believe that if the coalition of the coerced >>doesn't find anything, it won't put it there? >>Well, obviously it'll be the US putting it there, but the 'coalition' >>will bask in the profits -- er, i mean glory. b> France, Germany and Russia should inist that the U.N. Weapons Inspectors b> get to determine the accuracy of these claimed finds. I agree, and I have little doubt they will insist, but I have much doubt that it will make a difference, especially here in the US. Blix and El-Baradei both refuted Powell's bullshit 'evidence' at the UN. Yet I can still walk out of my house, close my eyes, and throw a rock in any random direction with a 98% chance of hitting some fucker who thinks Powell presented some kind of 'smoking gun'. If the inspectors call a US bluff, Americans won't care. The Bush administration will probably accuse the inspectors of just being pissed they didn't find it themselves and trying to cover their asses. -- stuart Anyone who tells you they want a utopia wants to put chains on the souls of your children. They want to deny history and strangle any unforeseen possibility. They should be resisted to the last breath. -Bruce Sterling-
Re: Spending a billion dollars an hour produces a hell of a light show
On Saturday, March 22, 2003, at 05:20 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: As the Iraqis themselves said, and I paraphrase (because the quote is not handy): "If the U.S. says they know the locations of secret weapons projects, of underground bunkers, etc., why don't they simply give the locations to the U.N. weapons inspectors who can then go to those sites?" The U.S. had no response. Once the war is over senior people in the U.S. administration better have proof acceptable to the international community in open forums if they do not wish to share a similar fate as their Iraqi counterparts. Unlike cops who have to act quickly to plant a "throwdown gun" when they need to backstop their story that the perp pulled a gun on them, the CIA has had months to prepare the necessary evidence. There is zero chance that "secret weapons" will _not_ be found. More detailed analysis may point to the DNA lineage of the weapons, for example. Of course, the fact that the U.S. government supplied Saddam with bio-agents when he was our Bought and Paid-For Dictator (for all of the 1980s) may confuse this forensic microbiology. I agree that if the U.S. does not find any evidence that Iraq was in violation of the WMD resolutions, then many top U.S. officials will face trials and hangings. (Or, since such trials will never be allowed to occur, independent actions by world citizens who realize that guys like Bush and Cheney and Powell CENSORED CENSORED CENSORED CENSORED 389vnpaoi8xzghyq3kojnqapu p09ui2;hnw REMOTE CONNECTION NOT AVAILABLE MODEM HANGUP CHECK YOUR CONNECTIONS AND TRY AGAIN
Re: CDR: Re: CDR: Re: Spammers Would Be Made To Pay Under IBM Research Proposal
On Saturday, March 22, 2003, at 03:49 PM, Steve Schear wrote: Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 14:18:10 -0500 From: Jamie Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Steve Schear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: CDR: Re: Spammers Would Be Made To Pay Under IBM Research Proposal Mail-Followup-To: Steve Schear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: clue inc X-URL: http://www.clueinc.net/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Steve Schear wrote: > I guess you have unlimited time and consider your time worthless. Its not That doesn't follow at all. I consider my limited time very valuble. I simply believe creating an artificial scarcity at the infrastructure level a bad way to address spam. What part of the infrastructure is being made scarce? You and I aren't part of the infrastructure. The selection of a value for our time is just another market force at work. I agree with Jamie's point, in that nearly _anytime_ some authority decides on pricing, this generated artificial scarcities. Examples abound: government places "luxury tax" on yachts or "gas guzzler taxes" on vehicles. The result is that artificial scarcities are created, and loopholes (such as grandfathered yachts or vehicles, or already-owned yachts or vehicles, become more valuable). Government taxes one channel of communication, and thus makes other channels more profitable. "Nailing jelly to a tree." Aka "the law of unintended consequences." The general name is "market distortions." Nearly all efforts to set prices produce market distortions and require the threat of force to enforce. (An example is the oft-cited postage stamp: the U.S.P.S. needs to have laws banning competition in letter delivery, else they'll be run out of business.) As I understand your proposal, Steve, you propose some authority setting some price to send something. Hey, if Alice wants to send something over my network, who are you or the government to tell me she must pay me, or I must pay the next link in the chain, etc.? But its not cash for email transport. The transport cost is unaffected. Its cash for our eyeballs. I find this a distinction WITH a difference. Perhaps you do not. If Alice wishes to post a sign saying "Pay me 25 cents or I won't see your message," this is her right, and her responsibility to figure out how to deploy technologically and sell to enough of her correspondents. Not a job for ISPs to do, except that they are also "Alices" and could presumably issue the same demand. In other words, there are many stages in the network, from ISPs to phone lines to fiber optics to customers, and so on, and none of them have any special status, only the ability to make contracts. So if a network hop, e.g., "Tim's Hundred Kilometers," wishes to charge for traffic on the line he owns, so be it. Ditto for "Steve's ISP." Ditto for "Alices Eyeballs." To be sure, an accounting mess. But no different from the fact that a head of lettuce goes from farmer to truck to refrigerated rail car to truck to distribution point to supermarket to buyer with dozens or even several dozens of money transfers along the way. (Prices propagate in various ways, just as they did in neolithic times, just as they did along the Silk Road, just as they did a century ago.) It is not the job of any agency of men with guns to set prices at some particular point in this process. The fact that we don't yet know what, if any, market solution for unwanted e-mail will be is not grounds for jumping in with a market-distorting, statist solution. --Tim May
Re: Spammers Would Be Made To Pay Under IBM Research Proposal
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, J.A. Terranson wrote: > To date, my personal pet has been payment in computationally intensive > solutions to questions posed by the recipient. This forced expenditure of > effort, even if minor, removes the spammer's incentive for sending of > email: the nature of the beast requires that the spam run be high volume and > fast in order to pay off - slow down the run with computationally difficult > questions, and the spammer will make no money. There is a problem here. There are different machines connected to the Net, their CPU power often differing in orders of magnitude. Either you will completely bog down the 486s still used as low-volume SMTP servers, or you will use a 486-friendly formula that will get barely noticed by a P4 machine, or you will have some CPU speed negotiating protocol, which will rely on the other side not lying about who they are. We have to consider the very-low-end systems, eg. Nokia Communicators or various PDAs, which can send mail too. Either we rule them out, or we open a loophole, or we will implement a complicated classification system for the devices that will end up as awfully hairy and still half-working after unsuccessful attempts to iron out all its kinks and holes. And you most likely lose the ability to send mails using raw telnet. Besides, can't you achieve something vaguely similar with simple tarpitting?
TGS: Commerce, Colonialism, and Empire
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The Geodesic Society Robert Hettinga Commerce, Colonialism, and Empire Boston, March 21, 2003 - -- "Camels, fleas, and princes exist everywhere." -- Persian proverb "Some people say that money can't buy happiness. I've found that it usually does, and, when it doesn't, it buys the most interesting substitutes." -- Rhett Butler, in Margaret Mitchell's 'Gone with the Wind' "...our claim to be left in the unmolested enjoyment of vast and splendid possessions, mainly acquired by violence, largely maintained by force, often seems less reasonable to others than to us." -- Winston Churchill, January 1914 "Every election is a sort of advance auction of stolen goods." -- H.L. Mencken "War is God's way of teaching Americans about geography" -- Ambrose Bierce "The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and great nations." -- David Friedman, 'The Machinery of Freedom' - -- At 8:31 PM -0800 on 3/21/03, Hokkun Pang wrote on FoRK: > I think British rule was basically bad because Britain didn't go to > India with the *intent* to bring democracy there. No, they actually had much more noble intent. To trade. Something humans have done since before we were even officially human. One could say, the thing that, along with war, and art, actually *makes* us human. And those British traders in India did trade, just fine, for quite a while. It wasn't until they started to be murdered in copious numbers by various political opportunists that they were forced to hire their own army take the place by force. Then, of course, because they had earned more than enough money to do so, they won handily. All that duplicitous mumbo jumbo about "white man's burden", much less "democracy", came after various -- politically "liberal", I might add -- apologists got into the act. The East India Company didn't even hand over their colony to the Crown until sometime in Victoria's reign, after the traders had been on the ground for more than a century, and they probably, um, forked it over, :-) to Vicky because all the political nonsense that comes with "marketing" of a force monopoly on its subject population drove them to it. The same thing happened in China a little later. Like it or not, there was a *market* for opium, remember, and it was the Chinese *government* that restricted free trade in every thing else to such an extent that opium was the only thing western merchants could sell in China. When the Chinese *government* and their various political proxies started attacking western traders, they "hired" various troops from their own nation-states and fought back. We won't even go into the pure stupidity of the Ming blue-button mandarins who, one fine day in the early 1400's, recalled *all* their merchants and burned their own *navy* to the waterline in the first place. Of course, they didn't have the Athenian experience in the Peloponnesian war to guide them, right? (Or, speak of the devil, the French at the outset of World War II. :-).) "Democracy", as the old libertarian saw goes, "is three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch." To expand on Mencken a bit, any election is a mostly non-violent war fought over future stolen property. Personally, I can't wait until technology and markets liberate us from "democracy", and other government tyranny, once and for all. I personally hold out hope that the transaction costs of various financial cryptography protocols will be so cheap that we'll be able to do business for digitable goods (information, opinion, or financial -- increasingly the only three goods that matter in a geodesic society) without the implied force, much less the imprimatur, of any nation-state whatsoever. Until then, though, I "vote" for the government that maximizes *my* private property and trade opportunities, and, oddly enough, so too does every single person who has a chance to "vote" with their feet - - -- or with their own personal force of arms. So, since we can't -- yet -- hire private armies when someone threatens us with such gross acts of violence, modern Americans use the one that was "bought" for us, using our own confiscated property. Fine. As Wyatt Earp said, we "skin that smokewagon", and hope it works. It seems to be working just fine at the moment. Anyone who bullshits me about how we "deserved" what we got since September 11th 2001 -- or since people started doing trade, and other things, with and to the middle east since the advent of Islam there, I don't care which -- deserves, himself, to go stick his finger down his throat and puke in the San Francisco streets with all his other coupon-clipping hash-brownie-muching trust-funder buddies. And, I mean that to the libertarians as well out there as well, who, while probably having the the right end of the moral stick
Re:Liberation party express concern over war
-- On 22 Mar 2003 at 2:00, Sarad AV wrote: > Starting a war with saudi is a simple thing.How ever unless > they don't find enough oil in iraq,they will turn onto KSA. > How ever Saudi with Mecca and Madina is a dangerous country > to attack.Saudi will surely take it as a war on muslims and > the impact of that is severe.Saudi is the holy country.Its > not like attaking iraq. Saudi arabia has vastly less power, than Iraq, and there is real evidence implicating it in terrorism, unlike Iraq. The reason the US does not attack it despite its subsidies to terrorists is because they have been kissing US ass while simultaneously kissing terrorist ass. It is embarrassing to attack someone who loudly proclaims "I am on your side", even if one is inclined to doubt the sincerity of these loud proclamations. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG i69sCTK4xl9bzZuwXZNoM7SqxuK3sIovKZBGTCpg 4nm9I8mKvQEzSj94Huk5OMSVE7LSIZiBJSfR0QW5L
Re: IDEA
* Len Sassaman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-03-22 18:52]: > On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, Eric Murray wrote: > > It's been a while since I really worked on the Install script -- Mixmaster > 3.0 doesn't use it -- but this looks to be to be a bug that existed and > was fixed sometime around a year ago. What version of Mixmaster are you > using? > > Please use the release version -- 2.9.0. I'm using version 2.9.0. I intentionally dodged the betas to get something stable going, but it seems there is still some bleeding edgeness to it. Maybe I'll troubleshoot the problem more, now that we've narrowed it down a bit. I certainly was to a point where I was going to give up, because I had no idea (get it? No "IDEA") whether the problem was in OpenSSL or MixMaster. It seems people are sure this is the MixMaster Install script. Maybe I'll grab the absolute latest Install script, and compare it.
Re: MAPS: Antispammers are worse than spammers
This is not a new thing. See, for example: http://news.com.com/2100-1023-975473.html And: http://news.com.com/2100-1023-943337.html Also, I've documented some of SpamCop's tricks, which fall into the same category as what you've described: http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=spamcop I suggest you grab a domain name, set up a site, and compile info on overbroad blacklisting. Would be an interesting read if everything's documented. -Declan On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 11:35:02PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I've recently discovered MAPS when messages I send to friends started > bouncing back. I'm finding that large ISP's are paying mailabuse.org > for lists of IP's, and mailabuse.org isn't taking care to ensure the > blacklisted IP's are from known spammers, they're targeting broad > ranges of IP's, and rejecting legitimate email as part of the game. > > Has anyone here become a victim of this denial of service attack? > Spam used to upset me. At most, there's the inconvenience of deleting > the messages that don't get trapped by spamassassin. But spam never > upset me as much as MAPS, these crooked anti-spammers. When my > message bounces, I can't just hit resend, because it bounces again. > When I ask to have my IP removed from their blacklist, they tell me to > change my software! > > I've never spammed, and my machines are closed to the public, so no > spam has come from my IP. While I hate spammers just like the next > person, I'm totally willing to join forces with spammers just to > remove these MAPS slimeballs from power. There needs to be a mailing > list so victims can organize. > > I think the most effective approach is to create an ISP boycott list, > which lists ISP's that participate. Any thoughts? If we put together > such a list, I'll simply tell all my contacts who are on a listed ISP > to switch ISP's if they want to receive email from me.
Re: IDEA
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > IDEA is listed on the fourth line, so it seems IDEA was installed with > OpenSSL, but MixMaster's install may be improperly detecting that IDEA > is absent. It's when I run the Mixmaster install that I get the > error: > >... >Looking for libz.a... >Found at /usr/lib/libz.so. >Found source directory zlib-1.1.4. >Use the source if the pre-installed library causes compilation problems. >Use source? [n] >Looking for libpcre.a... >Found source directory pcre-2.08. >Looking for libcrypto.a... >Found at /usr/local/ssl/lib/libcrypto.a. >./Install: [: 90701f: integer expression expected >./Install: [: 90701f: integer expression expected >./Install: [: 90701f: integer expression expected >Looking for libncurses.a... >Found at /lib/libncurses.so. >./Install: tmptst.c: Permission denied ^^^ >gcc: tmptst.c: No such file or directory Do you have write permissions do the directory? Peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City
James D wrote... -- On 21 Mar 2003 at 12:55, Ken Brown wrote: > US originally helped the kind of people who later became the > "Northern Alliance" - a rather odd mixture of unreconstructed > Stalinists, "liberals" in the European sense of the word, > separationists, local bandit chiefs, drug growers, > pro-Iranian Shiite Islamists and who knows what else. The > Taliban formed later, in Pakistan, and was at least at first > indirectly funded by the US through Pakistan and through > material inherited from some other groups - and of course > later by various Arabs (who may or may not have thought of > themselves as "Al Qaida" before the US pinned the name on > them while looking for a New Enemy for the New World Order). > But there certainly was some assistance from the US to the > Taliban. US They didn't buy those 500 Stingers in Kmart Commie lies. My understanding is that the Taliban got twelve stingers, not five hundred, and they got them from Hekmatyar, who did get them from the US. Hekmatyar was certainly anti US, arguably a Stalinist and a supporter of terrorism, but he was not and is not an islamic fundamentalist -- his alliance with the taliban was rather like Saddam's alliance with Bin Laden. They temporarily agreed to hate someone else more than they hate each other. At the beginning of the recent Afghan war the US estimated the Taliban had at most fifty stingers. During the war it became apparent that they had far fewer, probably only the twelve that Hekmatyar gave them. 1. What makes these "lies" as you claim "commie"? Do you think that by impugning US policy in the region we are by implication stating that the forced exit of the Soviets was bad? Quite saying "commie" all the time. All the commies are dead, except for 1 in Cuba and a couple of really old guys in rural China. 2. You knowledge of history is as shoddy as your ability to spot communists and their "lies". The CIA actively recruited and trained Isalmic religious students and helped build and arm the Taliban. And frankly, despite the fact I've never been a supporter of US foreign policy, I was all for it. The Taliban SEEMED at the time to represent a clear "moral" force that alone had the power to unify Afghanistan and bring an end to the Chaos. WHat exactly went wrong I have never fully understood, though I DO know that had I been Afghani, and had I seen a foreign Talib slapping around an Afghan woman, I would have done my best to off the punk. ANd Mullah Omar doesn't seem to have been all there on some levels... _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: IDEA
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, Eric Murray wrote: > >Looking for libcrypto.a... > >Found at /usr/local/ssl/lib/libcrypto.a. > >./Install: [: 90701f: integer expression expected > > I think that line means that mixmaster's install script isn't > properly identifying the version of Openssl. If it were > me, I'd fix the Mixmaster install script. It's been a while since I really worked on the Install script -- Mixmaster 3.0 doesn't use it -- but this looks to be to be a bug that existed and was fixed sometime around a year ago. What version of Mixmaster are you using? Please use the release version -- 2.9.0. > BTW, if you will be posting Mixmaster messages to the cpunks > list, could you fix it so it uses an informative Subject: line > instead of "Mixmaster Type III Message"? Those messages are from people testing the Mixminion software. Mixminion isn't ready for actual use yet. It is my understanding that the user has no control over the subject line in the current Mixminion system though -- the servers remove it. I think this will be changed before the final release. Mixmaster 4.0 (which will interoperate with Mixminion) will place no restrictions on user's Subject lines. --Len.
Re: Libertarian Party expresses "concern" over war -- but does not
From: Tom Veil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Libertarians are people who think the only legitimate use of state force > is to protect them from their slaves. Or, Libertarians are people who think that the only legitimate use of state force is to protect factories from the angry populace that no longer wants chemical pollutants dumped in their drinking water. "Let the market sort it out!" But of course, you didn't mean 'slavery' as in the case of a man being lashed with the master's whip, you meant "slavery" as in the case of a man who isn't making at least $18 per hour, or whatever the communists call a "living wage" now. Holy crap. Go check out Haitian factory workers making Disney crapola. They'll work 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, and still suffer from malnutrition, because they can't afford the necessary food, and live in a corrugated shack. (That's the definition of a living wage, BTW.) If they strike (a commie uprising, I guess you'd say), the goon squads are sent in to beat up even women and children factory workers. Nice life they got there. Nice free market. Nice standard of living. Yeah, I'm a "commie" for wanting them to receive a living wage. _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: Spending a billion dollars an hour produces a hell of a light show!
"That aside, riddle me this: If Iraq does indeed have WMDs, where are they? Why aren't they using them? They're about to be slaughtered by the beloved U.S., so why aren't they defending themselves? What do they gain by not using the weapons they're supposedly hiding?" I would have thought "nukular" would have given me away here. Hey--I'm starting to grow really tired of the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction"...what this really is code for is, "Iraq is not allowed to use the kinds of weapons that nullify the US's trillion dollar investment into overwhelming military superiority". As I have said in the past, Saddam Hussein is not some crazed terrorist...he's a powermad dictator (that's why we helped install him...such guys are easy to please and control). If he was developing nukes, it was precisely to get some leverage at the bargaining table. I doubt he'd be willing to part with the personal fortune that would be required to develop ICBM-type capabilities. And if he did start such a program, there's no way he could hide it. -TD From: Damian Gerow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Spending a billion dollars an hour produces a hell of a light show! Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:22:02 -0500 Tyler Durden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "As the Iraqis themselves said, and I paraphrase (because the quote is not > handy): "If the U.S. says they know the locations of secret weapons > projects, of underground bunkers, etc., why don't they simply give the > locations to the U.N. weapons inspectors who can then go to those sites?" > > Come on now! The Iraqis should have proven that they DON'T have any nukular > weapons. They were unable to prove that they don't have any WMDs, so now > it's their fault they're getting invaded. Prove to me that you don't have a pet alligator. Come on, I want you to prove it. No, I don't think the abscence of food, a tank, dirt, and other alligator-related paraphenalia is good enough. You can't just say that you don't have one, and let me in to your home. You have /another/ home, where you're keeping the alligator. Actually, the very fact that your apartment is clean means absolutely nothing. Where is your alligator? (Yes, I'm taking this overboard. But it's a very similar argument to what the U.S. pulled.) That aside, riddle me this: If Iraq does indeed have WMDs, where are they? Why aren't they using them? They're about to be slaughtered by the beloved U.S., so why aren't they defending themselves? What do they gain by not using the weapons they're supposedly hiding? _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
