On Sun, 5 Nov 2000, Adam Back wrote:
>| Each node expects one packet from each link id in each time unit.
>| Extra packets are queued for processing in later time units.
>| However, if a node does not receive a packet for a link id in a
>| particular time unit, it stops normal processing of pac
> For those that don't know about PipeNet Wei has a description here
> [1]. PipeNet is a synchronous mix-net where users stay connected and
> consume bandwidth 24x365 to avoid revealing when they are using it.
My isp would start charging me extra if I surpassed my monthly ul/dl limit.
Is this re
At 11:14 PM -0500 11/5/00, An Metet wrote:
>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/World/Middle_East/2000-11/ruthless061100.shtml
>
>An influential think-tank advises Palestinian Authority to
>ruthlessly repress militant elements without regard for basic human
>rights
>
>By Robert Fisk in Gaza
>
>6 N
On Sun, 5 Nov 2000, An Metet wrote:
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/World/Middle_East/2000-11/ruthless061100.shtml
>
> An influential think-tank advises Palestinian Authority to ruthlessly repress
>militant elements without regard for basic human rights
>
> By Robert Fisk in Gaza
>
"If
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/World/Middle_East/2000-11/ruthless061100.shtml
An influential think-tank advises Palestinian Authority to ruthlessly repress militant
elements without regard for basic human rights
By Robert Fisk in Gaza
6 November 2000
Palestinian leaders have been shocke
Wei Dai wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:14:24AM -0500, Adam Shostack wrote:
> > Actually, I'm unconvinced that even pipenet style padding is
> > sufficient. Looking at the work on traffic analysis thats been done,
> > we're in about 1970. We have one time pads (dc-nets), and some other
- Original Message -
X-Loop: openpgp.net
From: Steven Furlong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2000 17:18 PM
Subject: Re: Here's an interesting twist on gun control ...
>
> > While I admit it seems like a foolish law
> Yes, while it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to
>pass this law, how could it be unconstitutional as a local or state
>statute?
I'm not sure it would be unconstitutional for the federal gov't to pass
such a law, unless you rely on the widely-ignored 10th Amendment. (The
Well, let's take this up one level of abstraction. We can stop spam
from flooding our inboxes (an economic bad) by:
1. law
2. AUPs with backbone providers/hosting services (industry self-regulation)
3. cypherpunkly end-user technology
I oppose the first. I think the second is what the market is m
We Find Missing People for YOU.OR it's FREE!!
As seen on OPRAH Satisfaction GUARANTEED!!
www America Find your LOST LOVE from HIGH SCHOOL
www America Find the Person who SKIPPED TOWN owing you MONEY
www America Find the FRIEND you served with in COMBAT
www America Find that DEADBEAT PARE
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 11/03/00
at 06:49 PM, Mac Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>right. And then W. comes along and wants to give the newly
>rich grasshopper a fat tax cut which the remaining ants
>don't get. Which is why grasshoppers usually vote
>Republican. Makes sense to me.
Con
In , on 11/03/00
at 05:20 PM, Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>At 11:36 AM -0800 11/3/00, Bill Stewart wrote:
>(about AT&T knowingly supporting Spam sites)
>>
>>Fortunately, somebody got this to the right people at AT&T;
>>otherwise I was going to have to contact the Sales VP (Hovancak)
>
12 matches
Mail list logo
