Re: Paid performance-tor option? [2]
> Do you see the implications [cherries-like: Madrid, 7/7, ..., Georgia right > now] of that? Apropos "to see" and "deja-vu"s ... Georgia (and George [on 9/11]): ... The Georgian air force and artillery struck the sleeping town at midnight. More than 1,500 civilians perished in the very first hours of the shelling. At the same time, Georgian special forces shot 10 Russian peacekeepers who didn't expect such a betrayal from their Georgian colleagues. The Kremlin attempted to reach Saakashvili, WHO WAS HIDING, by phone. All this time the Russian Joint Staff forbid the surviving peacekeepers to open return fire. Finally our patience was exhausted. The Russian forces came to help Tskhinvali and its civilian population. ... [emphasis mine] Reference is: Washington's Hypocrisy by Dmitry Rogozin Global Research, August 18, 2008 International Herald Tribune http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9869 /Roy Lanek -- S tak bisa menari dikatakan lantai yang S . s l a c k w a r e SS berjungkit--cannot dance but blame the S + linux SS floor as uneven [blaming the wrong reason] S
Re: Paid performance-tor option?
> Management. > > When I ... [Roy: more garbage deleted] ... with it. > > Michael Holstein Cleveland State University Okay, thank you for the live *demo* [keep reading], and for having volunteered. Please put your regard here: Faulty Towers of Belief: Part II. Rebuilding the Road to Freedom of Reason Laurie A. Manwell, M.Sc. http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/ManwellFaultyTowersofBeliefPartII.pdf [Roy: HIGHLY RECOMMENDED READING ... the entire site, journalof911studies.com, contains highly recommended readings only] It begins like this: Anyone who has common-sense will remember that the bewilderments of the eyes are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye; and he who remembers this when he sees anyone whose vision is perplexed and weak, will not be too ready to laugh; he will first ask whether that soul of man has come out of the brighter life, and is unable to see because unaccustomed to the dark, or having turned from darkness to the day is dazzled by excess of light. And he will count the one happy in his condition and state of being, and he will pity the other; or, if he have a mind to laugh at the soul which comes from below into the light, there will be more reason in this than in the laugh which greets him who returns from above out of the light into the den. - Plato, The Republic1 It continues like that: Imagine for a moment that it is you who has just been asked to re-evaluate some of the most basic beliefs that you hold about the world around you. Again, if you are reading this, it is likely that you have already been asked to reconsider your beliefs about the events of 9/11 and your perception of the world thereafter. How did you respond? How did those around you interpret your responses? And most importantly, how can you use the insights yo've gained in order to pass along to others the same opportunity to re-examine some of the core beliefs about the events of 9/11? Similar questions have been asked long before September 11th 2001, by minds of greater depth and insight, yet we continue to be reminded of the necessity to ask them again and again -- to be vigilant and always question our beliefs - lest our beliefs enslave us to a reality that does not exist. Before we can ask others to re-examine their beliefs about the events of 9/11, we must do so first, we must lead the way by example. And we must do so through reason and with authenticity. ... It introduces Plato's Allegory of the Cave ... Timeless Lessons from Plato's Allegory of the Cave: The War Between Faulty Belief and Reality Briefly reviewing the research on attitudes presented in Part I, we see that the attitudes people already have can be automatically activated by mere reminders of the events of 9/11, and the longer and stronger these attitudes are held, the more resistant they are to change. One mechanism of attitude change is through the experience of cognitive dissonance, wherein tension arising from conflicting beliefs, feelings, and actions compels one to resolve the inconsistency. However, when people feel that they are under some form of attack, including strong challenges to their existing beliefs and worldview, they may also engage in various defensive mechanisms, often in an effort to reassert a perceived loss of control. ... It tells A brief synopsis shows Socrates giving Glaucon a description of human prisoners in a cave, who have been shackled since childhood and permitted only a very limited view of their surroundings, including various shadows cast on a wall, but never the men that cast them. Socrates then poses a series of questions to Glaucon regarding the nature of the prisoners'view of the world that is presented to them by their captors. Socrates points out that, for the prisoners, "the truth would literally be nothing but the shadows of the images." However, if the prisoners were to be released from the cave, this truth would be challenged, and this challenge could be observed in the various responses of the newly liberated men. Socrates continues with the following pivotal question: "Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?" However, liberation is much more a state of mind than body. Thus, as the former prisoners appear to be free to accept or reject it, their freedom is largely based upon their ability to integrate the new worldview with the old. Whereas some struggle to comprehend the meaning of two opposing worldviews, some simply cannot. And only a few can transcend both and truly be free in body and mind ... Etc. Read the 6
Re: Paid performance-tor option?
> Ouch. Sorry to hear it. :-( > > > Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Scott Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Paid performance-tor option? > I really cannot parse the above bit of your writing. I may know better my 1st language, Italian, than you do English. Yet, the fact that I always have managed to read Italian written even by those who do no master it is hardly an explanation. [I also don't remember to have complained ever ... it doesn't take much more effort than some amount, figure.] Hence, I don't believe you. >From the psychoanalysis, you also would not have started *argumenting* [your logic is horrible] with such objections. > Try writing straightforward sentences without embedded asides. On the other hand, I can read English decently. Hence, I pretend to be able to recognize whether one writes ... bullshit--what you have done--or not. I invite you to stop your verbiage. Do you--rhetoric question [I am aware you don't]--know what you are implying when you utter "Chinese dissident" ... from a rogue, completely turned mad country such today's U.S. by surplus? From America #1 in the world for population living in the jail on its territory, and hundredth of thousands *outsourced*, jailed and tortured abroad on its behalf! Have you been *boiled* up like the classical bullfrog from the pan all these years for not having noticed it? It's grotesque. > Yes, the U.S. is thoroughly screwed up, but that wasn't what I was saying. > I was simply stating that what I was about to present was what a tor server > operator in the U.S. has to consider. So you suggest a *radfahrernatur*^1 as the model? > Oh? In August or September 2000? What event are you referring to? I am feeling embarrassed myself--for you; because this is really petty, in fact you have understood perfectly, of course. I have been tempted to add an erratum corrige. Then I have changed idea. (For the same reason I have added the *quasi-note* on my *English language* on the last post ... as a kind of a *probe*, because I wanted to see--and indeed I have: maybe I now have a better idea on who you are.) There are m banal explanations for the typo: done 2008 - 2001 mentally ... then just [mentally] picked the wrong digit, and typed ... eight instead seven. (Here, where I am replaying, there are *routine* blackouts daily since months: 4-6-10-12 hours a day; it makes one behave the *saccadic* and *incremental* way a bit.) I regard the readers as intelligent, and imagine that they can do by themselves the necessary corrections here and there. Good that you likely can't read French, or you would have *corrected* me when I have mistyped 'Reporters Sans Frontieres' in one of my recent replies. (I have written 'Reporter Sans Frontieres'--reporter without 's' for the plural--and, figure, I know French!) I make errors and type typos daily, I can live with that. The best professor I ever have had, on analysis, and a very good personal friend of Polya [it has always been highly interesting, and amusing, to listen some anecdotes on Polya once a while during the lessons], always warned us to please correct him as soon he wrote a *betise* [such, e.g., elementary arithmetic addition errors] at the blackboard. Mainly for not wasting too much time in hunting an error backwards, less for *proving* him that, say, 5 - 2 = 3 and not = 4. > If you would stop ranting and raving long enough to make clear what's > bothering you ... [etc.] Maybe verbiage is a reason why you are making it difficult to quote you. 9/11 has been planned much earlier than 2001. (If you can't understand, figure out why, then I can't help you much anyway.) One--one out of many--signs of it, is that the Internet--how it would have evolved--has FATALLY [read: LUCKILY for us ... 'us' the world] been under-evaluated, wrongly weighted and assessed in its development and potential by the 9/11 *architects*. 9/11 would possibly NOT have been unmasked as the inside job, the synthetic terrorism operation it has been, if there would not have been the Internet. Do you see the implications [cherries-like: Madrid, 7/7, ..., Georgia right now] of that? Moreover, similarly to the insane clique who sporadically came out from the bunkers of an encircled Berlin to still send the remaining boys from the Hitler-youth to their death, the deranged clique in Washington thinks to have a 2nd *chance*. (And a 3rd, after the 2nd.) With the difference that NOW the Internet has been BETTER assessed, and the expert [simulation] programs adapted accordingly. If you have managed to follow me till here [bizarre that I am somewhat thinking at *social engineering*!] then you can continue by yourself. I hope you understand better Tor's context now. Cheers, /Roy Lanek PS: as someone else from the mailing list has told to you already, please don't email me again privately--this is not a topic such firewalling, using a given editor o
Re: Hidden Service Performance GSoC Project Report
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:30:25 +0200 Christian Wilms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I've written a a short project report about my Summer of Code project to >improve the performance of hidden services. > >It can be found under http://www.ununoctium.de/gsoc08/gsoc_report.pdf > >The directory also includes related files. > This looks like very helpful work. Do you know when to expect it to be incorporated into a future distribution of tor? Thanks for the good work! Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG ** * Internet: bennett at cs.niu.edu * ** * "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good * * objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments * * -- a standing army." * *-- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790 * **
Re: Paid performance-tor option?
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:03:12 -0400 Michael Holstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> A lot easier to sell to WHOM? (Let's say you are Novartis ... who are those >> which you are--implicitly or not, and slip of the tongue or not--mentioning >> as >> a destination for selling attested, proven sneak-oil ... "a lot easier"?) >> > >Management. > >When I approached the higher-ups about doing a TOR node, I needed to >pick a repressive regime to use as the reason for doing it. I didn't >think using our own country (equally repressive, for mostly the same >reasons) would fly. That was the kind of thing I'd assumed would be obvious. Thank you. I think my error may have been in assuming that it would be obvious to anyone, without considering those who might never have a) worked in the U.S. or b) tried to provide a public service on someone else's money when the service isn't required by government. > >It worked, btw .. we ran one @10mbps for almost a year, until folks >started raping online academic journals with it. > Ouch. Sorry to hear it. :-( Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG ** * Internet: bennett at cs.niu.edu * ** * "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good * * objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments * * -- a standing army." * *-- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790 * **
Re: Update to default exit policy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 For what it's worth, I second Dawn's position on this issue - it could be very useful to allow 465 and 587 by default. Indeed, many users have stopped using Gmail because of the privacy policies; however depending on the purpose of a particular nym, it may not matter if such emails are retained. While Gmail's recent addition of a "Always use HTTPS" option (to fix the sidejack problem) is welcome, many folks would rather use a client. - -- F. Fox Owner of Tor node "kitsune" http://fenrisfox.livejournal.com Note 2008/08/19: I lost my old GPG keypair, and have generated a new one. Authenticity can be verified by checking the ContactInfo on kitsune. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJIq1XaAAoJECxKjnsrYHNH4eYP/R6o5Zlywglje/o+Wf4gOGGY gkynm09n/XdjG/iPMqIdCekIWFENbbW76ULJn5h+xhqbbXsyNa0ow+e72oOBN0Oc iHyA5sPekQEHByZPXWEdFOQpzQLqxCmYxu/5bJ2EhdW+G4VVgI+wJ0l2ERxVH6ah bJTy+qG7tlfjNlq7PEPQuhT2zaYcvM/R73wn7gls3px695gSeHdfrwjXD0hyASyb AJF29zRkoIjRw1xVBgOPDqiOKh6Hxn1ozkqx+q1aly2om3Figs1JutXQiV8s2Eu5 HvAHHeu1KbhvPX6TxhNMMvMSVarhfE3vkcZoBSp0Dn2eSKeLRYN5GVUrpLYlchFa phDk9tb1NsBmPWD89+Np2EkxsWta3SajnJuLUnWwVUnIM2MkXaMc8tjlOMQ/K/Qa UUZ/EM5aW37KJG1oUM0kYL4G5UAOme4unpdzSH7VgjEoq8W4qpP56GkCUJIXOIxp G/73OI4rx8T4tbuXdrhQcg1MlgmtJ0ftfREtbyPmDmQCeqPF+RBg3Yt7G0dbJsxc zL7zlxUNDom/KidiaxaCiok4gVrEIixs454inRe9SPI/PsJNOvJZxdMqPDji1h0G dkyfdW0GTldbR6nVlduG5e83hrmvMqCyIuReNgEYJCJS0lyvDRN8TSfRacXv+a81 pj+A4+I+uZbE2w+4e8go =7eVN -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Paid performance-tor option?
A lot easier to sell to WHOM? (Let's say you are Novartis ... who are those which you are--implicitly or not, and slip of the tongue or not--mentioning as a destination for selling attested, proven sneak-oil ... "a lot easier"?) Management. When I approached the higher-ups about doing a TOR node, I needed to pick a repressive regime to use as the reason for doing it. I didn't think using our own country (equally repressive, for mostly the same reasons) would fly. It worked, btw .. we ran one @10mbps for almost a year, until folks started raping online academic journals with it. Michael Holstein Cleveland State University
Re: Paid performance-tor option?
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 06:30:35AM -0500, Scott Bennett wrote: > OTOH, failure to edit responses properly simply makes comprehension > of the sequence of messages very difficult. Keeping track of who said > what when text from previous messages is quoted without attribution is > like trying to read a story with some or all of the characters' names > removed, especially when there are lengthy conversations in the story. What you do forget is, that it does not help to know who said something if you don't know when he said so. Therefore all your arguments above apply to failure in setting the right mail headers as well. Your mail attitude really prevents people from reading this list productively. You say we concern about content? Then please don't be an encumbrance to us to do so. regards -- Alexander Bernauer
Re: Update to default exit policy
Dawney Smith wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 krishna e bera wrote: I'm not clear on how authentication (on any port) stops spam, other than the ISP cutting off a given userid after complaints. A lot of spam already comes from malware infected computers via their legitimately configured email. Those computers are probably not using Tor, let alone transparent proxy, but malware could grab their credentials and then use Tor on another host to send out spam over port 587, if that port was allowed in exit policies. There is a clear misunderstanding of the issue at hand by many people here. The exit policy was put in place to prevent connections between Tor users and the last hop (the end MX server), *not* to prevent connections between Tor users and SMTP relays, which is what everybody keeps repeating. There is no problem with a Tor user connecting to an SMTP relay and sending email. If they can do it using Tor, they can do it without using Tor, faster. In those cases, it is the administrator of the SMTP relay that is responsible to stop spam. Just to repeat the problem. It is Tor users connecting to the destination MX server that is the problem. Mail relay, not mail submission. Ports 465 and 587 are mail submission ports. Port 25 is for both submission *and* relay. I have a *lot* of experience with email administration on a very large scale, I know what I'm talking about. Thanks for pursuing this! 1. Your arguments make good technical sense. 2. In fact, many endpoints have already enabled those ports without experiencing problems. 3. Many of us routinely handle our ssl email accounts via TOR, and your proposal (open them by default) would help spread the load, as well as reasonably expanding the default functionality of TOR. Thanks Again! (p.s. this post is being sent via ssl GMAIL, which will include the "posting host" when using smtps. My posting host will be a TOR exit node :-) )
Re: Update to default exit policy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 krishna e bera wrote: > I'm not clear on how authentication (on any port) stops spam, > other than the ISP cutting off a given userid after complaints. > A lot of spam already comes from malware infected computers > via their legitimately configured email. > Those computers are probably not using Tor, let alone transparent proxy, > but malware could grab their credentials and then > use Tor on another host to send out spam over port 587, > if that port was allowed in exit policies. There is a clear misunderstanding of the issue at hand by many people here. The exit policy was put in place to prevent connections between Tor users and the last hop (the end MX server), *not* to prevent connections between Tor users and SMTP relays, which is what everybody keeps repeating. There is no problem with a Tor user connecting to an SMTP relay and sending email. If they can do it using Tor, they can do it without using Tor, faster. In those cases, it is the administrator of the SMTP relay that is responsible to stop spam. Just to repeat the problem. It is Tor users connecting to the destination MX server that is the problem. Mail relay, not mail submission. Ports 465 and 587 are mail submission ports. Port 25 is for both submission *and* relay. I have a *lot* of experience with email administration on a very large scale, I know what I'm talking about. Dawn -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIqurucoR2aV1igfIRAkx0AJ9opGDSoyy3blMWvNzxx/IgzPFWhgCfd+Zy 858fyCn0IVyYtfYp/YPxtTA= =IJtA -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Update to default exit policy
I'm not clear on how authentication (on any port) stops spam, other than the ISP cutting off a given userid after complaints. A lot of spam already comes from malware infected computers via their legitimately configured email. Those computers are probably not using Tor, let alone transparent proxy, but malware could grab their credentials and then use Tor on another host to send out spam over port 587, if that port was allowed in exit policies.
Re: Paid performance-tor option?
You may care to take a look at this, specifically the 5th, 7th, 8th, and 9th columns. Not all countries are equal, especially when those countries to data interception and data retention themselves. http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-559597 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > macintoshzoom: > >> Sorry, just re-reading my post, I am partially wrong, JONDONYM >> (formerly JAP) is still running its main nodes from "compromised" >> countries. > > There are no "compromised" or "safe" countries as there is no hostile or > friendly network. Any concepts based on such assumptions are doomed. > >
Re: Paid performance-tor option?
macintoshzoom: Sorry, just re-reading my post, I am partially wrong, JONDONYM (formerly JAP) is still running its main nodes from "compromised" countries. There are no "compromised" or "safe" countries as there is no hostile or friendly network. Any concepts based on such assumptions are doomed.
Re: [OT] mail interfaces
On 2008-08-19 Scott Bennett wrote: > On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:23:08 +0200 Ansgar Wiechers wrote: >> On 2008-08-19 Scott Bennett wrote: >>> This I've discussed here before. Demanding the use of threaded >>> mail readers is silly for a low-volume list and is not required in >>> any case. >> >> As usual you're completely missing the point. Nobody's demanding the >> use of threaded MUAs, but a lot of people do use them, and threading >> is convenient even for low low-volume lists. Your persistent refusal >> to use a reasonable mail setup, which in turn leads to broken >> threads, makes things unnecessarily hard for everyone else for no >> apparent reason other than your reluctance to fix your mail setup. >> >> Beam and splinter. Stop making things hard for others yourself, then >> you can come again and complain. > > One more time, repeat after me: Scott Bennett is *not* the > system administrator on this system and *cannot* install mail software > onto it. Other people manage to get working mail setups one way or another. Apparently you're the only person in the world who can't. > It is not a matter of my refusing to accede to your unreasonable > demands to do something I cannot do in order to pamper your lazy self. But of course it is a matter of your very own laziness. If you wanted, you could most easily find other (more compliant) ways to read/send mail. Of course that would require yourself to do something instead of someone else. Which obviously is the problem at hand. And while we're already at it: I do read this list, so there's no need for you to send me additional copies of your mails. The list address by all means does suffice. > I have no trouble following the traffic on this list. Maybe you > should try reading something easier if it gives you trouble. Maybe you should try realizing that some people read more than just this list. > Stop worrying about headers, and start worrying about content. The second you stop worrying about attributions when your own mails are still *way* sub-par. BTW, did I mention that with proper threading in place, lack of attribution magically ceases to be a problem? Regards Ansgar Wiechers -- "The Mac OS X kernel should never panic because, when it does, it seriously inconveniences the user." --http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn2004/tn2118.html
[OT] mail interfaces (was Re: Paid performance-tor option?)
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:23:08 +0200 Ansgar Wiechers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 2008-08-19 Scott Bennett wrote: >> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:17:58 +0200 Ansgar Wiechers wrote: >>> On 2008-08-19 Scott Bennett, persistently sending his mails without >>> In-Reply-To- or References-headers, thus continually breaking threads >>> for everyone else, complained: On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:49:50 +0700 Roy Lanek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> again quoted me without attribution: >>> >>> Remove the beam from your own eye before trying to remove the splinter >>> from someone else's. >> >> This I've discussed here before. Demanding the use of threaded >> mail readers is silly for a low-volume list and is not required in any >> case. > >As usual you're completely missing the point. Nobody's demanding the use >of threaded MUAs, but a lot of people do use them, and threading is >convenient even for low low-volume lists. Your persistent refusal to use >a reasonable mail setup, which in turn leads to broken threads, makes >things unnecessarily hard for everyone else for no apparent reason other >than your reluctance to fix your mail setup. > >Beam and splinter. Stop making things hard for others yourself, then you >can come again and complain. > Like I wrote before, check the archives if it really concerns you so much. One more time, repeat after me: Scott Bennett is *not* the system administrator on this system and *cannot* install mail software onto it. It is not a matter of my refusing to accede to your unreasonable demands to do something I cannot do in order to pamper your lazy self. I have no trouble following the traffic on this list. Maybe you should try reading something easier if it gives you trouble. Stop worrying about headers, and start worrying about content. Now give it a rest, would you? This list is supposed to be about tor, for goodness's sake. Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG ** * Internet: bennett at cs.niu.edu * ** * "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good * * objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments * * -- a standing army." * *-- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790 * **
Re: Paid performance-tor option?
On 2008-08-19 Scott Bennett wrote: > On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:17:58 +0200 Ansgar Wiechers wrote: >> On 2008-08-19 Scott Bennett, persistently sending his mails without >> In-Reply-To- or References-headers, thus continually breaking threads >> for everyone else, complained: >>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:49:50 +0700 Roy Lanek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> again quoted me without attribution: >> >> Remove the beam from your own eye before trying to remove the splinter >> from someone else's. > > This I've discussed here before. Demanding the use of threaded > mail readers is silly for a low-volume list and is not required in any > case. As usual you're completely missing the point. Nobody's demanding the use of threaded MUAs, but a lot of people do use them, and threading is convenient even for low low-volume lists. Your persistent refusal to use a reasonable mail setup, which in turn leads to broken threads, makes things unnecessarily hard for everyone else for no apparent reason other than your reluctance to fix your mail setup. Beam and splinter. Stop making things hard for others yourself, then you can come again and complain. Regards Ansgar Wiechers -- "The Mac OS X kernel should never panic because, when it does, it seriously inconveniences the user." --http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn2004/tn2118.html
Re: Paid performance-tor option?
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:17:58 +0200 Ansgar Wiechers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 2008-08-19 Scott Bennett, persistently sending his mails without >In-Reply-To- or References-headers, thus continually breaking threads >for everyone else, complained: >> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:49:50 +0700 Roy Lanek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> again quoted me without attribution: > >Remove the beam from your own eye before trying to remove the splinter >from someone else's. > This I've discussed here before. Demanding the use of threaded mail readers is silly for a low-volume list and is not required in any case. And I don't have one. There's really no point in rehashing the rest of the reasons. Check the archives if you really care. OTOH, failure to edit responses properly simply makes comprehension of the sequence of messages very difficult. Keeping track of who said what when text from previous messages is quoted without attribution is like trying to read a story with some or all of the characters' names removed, especially when there are lengthy conversations in the story. Quoting pieces of a message out of order should be done only with adequate notification that that is what is going on and should only be done for some good and specific reason. Otherwise the rearrangement, too, can lead to confusion. Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG ** * Internet: bennett at cs.niu.edu * ** * "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good * * objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments * * -- a standing army." * *-- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790 * **
Re: Paid performance-tor option?
On 2008-08-19 Scott Bennett, persistently sending his mails without In-Reply-To- or References-headers, thus continually breaking threads for everyone else, complained: > On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:49:50 +0700 Roy Lanek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > again quoted me without attribution: Remove the beam from your own eye before trying to remove the splinter from someone else's. Regards Ansgar Wiechers -- "The Mac OS X kernel should never panic because, when it does, it seriously inconveniences the user." --http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn2004/tn2118.html
Re: Paid performance-tor option?
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:49:50 +0700 Roy Lanek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> again quoted me without attribution: >> I have no idea what that is about, much less how it is supposed to be >> relevant to the discussion. > >Then "let me attempt to clarify." By your own words: > >> the server operator who wishes to continue to be allowed to run the server >> should avoid drawing unwanted management attention to the server > >Yet enunciating "...but we're helping Chinese dissidents..." is *jokingly* >[slap in the butt of the waitress among the mob: --hey, it's normal!--] >fine for you; doesn't let you raise even one eyebrow about its legal [apropos >the abc of the US administrator ... never mind of the other implications, I >suspect you know a shit on China and the Chinese] for you; nor does attract >unwanted "management" [nice pleonasm] " attention" ... yes? Is there some reason you don't write coherent paragraphs? I really cannot parse the above bit of your writing. Try writing straightforward sentences without embedded asides. Put the asides into separate, complete sentences instead. That usually helps readers to overcome language translation problems. N.B. that I am not objecting to or contradicting what you're saying above; rather I simply can't figure out what you are saying. I see words and punctuation, but they don't fit together into sentences. > >Dulcis in fundo, and by surplus, you ... how to say, *give away* your >*secrets*: now the "bosses" [or their *spies*] ... know. :) You're still not making sense. I can't respond to whatever arguments you may be making if I can't figure out what they are. My apologies, but I am definitely not telepathic. > >> let me say that I do not know which country's/countries' environment(s) >> inform(s) your perspective, so I will try to explain what a tor server >> operator here in the U.S. may well be up against. Why did you quote only snippets out of context from my earlier response and quote them out of sequence as well? > >Huh?! But what would it change by the way?! Are you so screwed up in the >U.S.?, I am sad for you. Well, then it's about time to change with your Yes, the U.S. is thoroughly screwed up, but that wasn't what I was saying. I was simply stating that what I was about to present was what a tor server operator in the U.S. has to consider. tor server operators in other countries may have different things to consider. Because I don't know your life history w.r.t. where you have lived and worked with computers and networking, I can't begin to relate the situation here to whatever you may have encountered wherever you are. >situation of the gullible and the know-nothing of the planet: in less than >one month there will be the _eight_ *anniversary* of an event that has ruined >[ruined officially, as a date, I mean ... actually it has started long before >it] MUCH LIFE on the planet. Oh? In August or September 2000? What event are you referring to? > >(Just tell me that you, alas, know zero on 9/11 too, not only on the Chinese; Where did you get an idea like that? I don't recall anything about it one way or another appearing in this thread. >but understand elementary mathematics and physics; then I would post a list How advanced are you counting as elementary? I got as far as ODE, time series data analysis, and a M.S. in atmospheric sciences w/grad minor in physical oceanography. Is that enough? >of 3-4-5 basic URLs on where to get *convincing* information ... information >which you should have sought by yourself already in all those years, but never >mind.) If you would stop ranting and raving long enough to make clear what's bothering you, perhaps I could address it. At present, it's not clear what you're going on about, although I have some suspicions about the above. However, if it doesn't pertain to issues regarding tor or network anonymity in general, perhaps a continued discussion should happen off the list. > >Hence if you deny that 9/11 and that what Tor is trying to sustain, that is, >Tor directly [theoretically and not] too, are unrelated, then you would be >telling lies; you could look for more *enlightenment* on this topic "off topic" >[pun intended] by discovering who. e.g., Alfred Rosenberg has been, and what >he has made meanwhile (we are not going to believe that a man with clipped >mustache has made all by himself). > >Oh, and don't forget: world population is more than six billion, the planet's >navel is not situated in the U.S. Whatever it might mean for a planet to have a navel, I get the impression you're more interested in a forum in which to vent some unspecified ire, rather than to discuss tor. As noted earlier, further discussion needs to be removed from this list. Here's another point: entering into a comversation assuming that the other participants are opposed to your views, rather than finding out what they think or might know about something is not likely to b
Re: Paid performance-tor option?
> I have no idea what that is about, much less how it is supposed to be > relevant to the discussion. Then "let me attempt to clarify." By your own words: > the server operator who wishes to continue to be allowed to run the server > should avoid drawing unwanted management attention to the server Yet enunciating "...but we're helping Chinese dissidents..." is *jokingly* [slap in the butt of the waitress among the mob: --hey, it's normal!--] fine for you; doesn't let you raise even one eyebrow about its legal [apropos the abc of the US administrator ... never mind of the other implications, I suspect you know a shit on China and the Chinese] for you; nor does attract unwanted "management" [nice pleonasm] " attention" ... yes? Dulcis in fundo, and by surplus, you ... how to say, *give away* your *secrets*: now the "bosses" [or their *spies*] ... know. :) > let me say that I do not know which country's/countries' environment(s) > inform(s) your perspective, so I will try to explain what a tor server > operator here in the U.S. may well be up against. Huh?! But what would it change by the way?! Are you so screwed up in the U.S.?, I am sad for you. Well, then it's about time to change with your situation of the gullible and the know-nothing of the planet: in less than one month there will be the _eight_ *anniversary* of an event that has ruined [ruined officially, as a date, I mean ... actually it has started long before it] MUCH LIFE on the planet. (Just tell me that you, alas, know zero on 9/11 too, not only on the Chinese; but understand elementary mathematics and physics; then I would post a list of 3-4-5 basic URLs on where to get *convincing* information ... information which you should have sought by yourself already in all those years, but never mind.) Hence if you deny that 9/11 and that what Tor is trying to sustain, that is, Tor directly [theoretically and not] too, are unrelated, then you would be telling lies; you could look for more *enlightenment* on this topic "off topic" [pun intended] by discovering who. e.g., Alfred Rosenberg has been, and what he has made meanwhile (we are not going to believe that a man with clipped mustache has made all by himself). Oh, and don't forget: world population is more than six billion, the planet's navel is not situated in the U.S. Now reply that my English is unreadable. (Which it may be truly, unfortunately.) /Roy Lanek -- S anjing menggonggong, kafilah tetap berlalu S . s l a c k w a r e SS the dogs are barking, the caravan moves on S + linux SS [illustrates useless protest, critic, or S sarcasm]
Re: Paid performance-tor option?
> any country scoring above 40 on the Press Freedom Index. 8-) RWB [Reporters sans Frontieres], I was thinking that. Thank you. /Roy -- S buruk muka cermin dibelah S . s l a c k w a r e SS ugly face, the mirror is split [blaming S + linux SS the wrong cause or creating a scapegoat] S
Re: Update to default exit policy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dominik Schaefer wrote: >> Those are ports used for mail submission, not for mail relay. They wont >> be abused by spammers. ISPs often block their consumer broadband users >> from connecting to port 25 on servers outside of their network, to >> prevent spam. They don't block 465 and 587, because they're not problem >> ports and the point of them is, that you authenticate before sending >> mail, unlike port 25. You wouldn't block port 443 to prevent spammers >> submitting mail via https://mail.google.com/ so why block these ports? > Actually, it is a little more complicated. 465 is just plain > SMTP-over-SSL, so not much different to non-encrypted SMTP on port 25. > (BTW: AFAIR the recommened method for encrypting SMTP is to use port > 25 with STARTTLS and not to use a different port, so connections to > port 25 may be encrypted as well.) > > Concerning the submission port 587: Originally, the submission port > needed neither to be encrypted, nor did it enforce authentication (see > RfC 2476, http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2476.html). > Authentication MAY be done before submitting mails. > Only RfC 4409 (which obsoleted 2476) introduced a MUST for > authentication of the sender, but is still quite recent (2006). > AFAIR both RfC make no statement about the encryption of connections > to port 587 for mail submission, although 3207 (STARTTLS) states it > can be useful. 1.) Can anyone here show me a mail server that runs on port 587 or port 465 that doesn't require authentication to send email? 2.) Now can anyone here show me a mail server that runs on port 25 that doesn't require authentication to send email? I suspect the answer to 1 is either "no", or a list of a couple of servers. I suspect the answer to number 2 is, yes, here's a list of a few hundred thousand. Lets be a little pragmatic here. After all, the exit policy in question was done for purely pragmatic and not technical reasons. Opening ports 465 and 587 will *not* cause the spam problem that blocking them was intending to prevent. The number of mailboxes that would be able to be spammed through those two ports without authentication is insignificantly small (I can't demonstrate one, can you?) Blocking those two ports by default achieves nothing. Dawn -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIqpBbcoR2aV1igfIRAgWyAKCJ2cxNO2mO8PRvNMX7BKoyFnHClACeJtlp ZoylC/edpaBNmJ3ooOfRgUs= =QR4+ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: DEFCON Presentations
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 09:23:44PM -0700, Peter Thoenen wrote: > Was reading Roger's slides and anybody have a link with more info on >slide 41 ... "If you can see an SSL-encrypted link, you can guess what >web page is inside based on length" > > First I am hearing of this one and genuinely curious. http://freehaven.net/anonbib/#hintz02 http://freehaven.net/anonbib/#kesdogan:pet2002 http://freehaven.net/anonbib/#TrafHTTP http://freehaven.net/anonbib/#pet05-bissias http://freehaven.net/anonbib/#WrightMM06 http://freehaven.net/anonbib/#Liberatore:2006 among others --Roger
Re: Are different countries/areas entry+exit choseable?
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 10:53:51AM -0600, macintoshzoom wrote: > Summary: Is currently tor able to easily let users to chose a setup as > to always set different countries/areas combinations for entry/exit > chain, to lower the risk of unfair one-world-only profiling? This isn't currently built in to Tor, though some controllers people are working on can offer this approach. The real problem though is that it's not just the location of the relays. It's what ISPs your traffic goes through when travelling from you to the Tor network, or between Tor relays, or from the Tor network to your destination. See for example http://freehaven.net/anonbib/#feamster:wpes2004 and http://freehaven.net/anonbib/#murdoch-pet2007 This is a worrisome and ongoing concern, but as far as I can tell, just choosing your entry and exit relays by country doesn't solve it much. "More research remains", as they say. --Roger
Re: Paid performance-tor option?
Roy, Free, no strings attached. Naturally I cannot disclose what specific organizations we work with, as that would be counter-intuitive to privacy protection. Here is one offer, currently, just take a look for yourself: http://xerobank.com/olympics.php We'll consider others on a case basis, but some general countries of ill repute suffice. If you were to ask me a hard number, I would say any country scoring above 40 on the Press Freedom Index. Steve Roy Lanek wrote: >> We offer free service for journalists in areas where there are significant >> restrictions on free speech and free press. > > And why should you offer free [I am guessing: free as in free beer] service > for journalists--are you recruiting, looking for PR? Detail free speech and > free press [who knows, maybe these are--here--intended differently than with > free beer] please. In particular, make concrete examples of such areas. Better > still!, sketch your list [top-down relative to "restrictions on free speech > and free press," most restricted on top]: 10 entries, say [but if you give > more I would not say no]. > > /Roy Lanek
