- cypherpunks-legacy@lists.ogf.org

Unacceptable slander by dclunie
by mbrennan＠netcom.com 12 Mar '93

12 Mar '93

>Date: Fri, 12 Mar 93 17:41:03 CST >From: dclunie(a)pax.tpa.com.au (David Clunie) >To: Postmaster(a)ultrix.ramapo.edu >Subject: Unacceptable behaviour by ghabrech >Cc: root(a)ultrix.ramapo.edu, ghabrech(a)ultrix.ramapo.edu, cypherpunks(a)toad.com > >>From one of the very popular mailing lists I received the following posting >by one of your users. While I can understand his frustration at having >difficulties unsubscribing from a relatively high volume list, or his >ignorance at not being aware that such requests should be directed to the >"x-request" alias not the "x" list, this is no excuse for such a long and >unpleasant post that has consumed considerable expensive bandwidth for no >good reason ... I am surprised you tolerate students with such a childish >attitude on your system and they do no credit to your institution's >reputation. [ abridged quote from metioned user's posting deleted...] Think about this scenario for a moment: dclunie sends mail to the system adiministrator of an institution complaining of the mail sent by a particular user. The system administrator confronts the user, who then explains the situation. He explains that he has sent numerous requests to be unsubscribed from the list, but they continue to send large volumes of mail. Out of frustration, he sends an 80K file to the list hoping it will get someone's attention. The mail continues, and several members of the list makes threats of "dirty tricks" and "mail bombs" against him. Now one of the "cypherpunks" is sending libelous mail to the system administrator. The system administrator now understands the situation; an educational institution on the net is made aware of a rapidly developing campaign of harrassment and vandalism by the cypherpunks. So what happens now? Are the cypherpunks winning? Are you people blind to what you are doing? What fools!!! What upsets me the most about all of this is that I am truly an advocate of net freedom, privacy, and anonymity. But the cypherpunks is setting itself up for a big fall and they threaten to tarnish the whole movement toward net freedom and privacy with their petty, puerile, and vandalous behavior! ----- Michael Brennan - mbrennan(a)netcom.com

2 2

Cypherpricks think they're cool
by mbrennan＠netcom.com 12 Mar '93

12 Mar '93

>Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 01:01-EST >From: Marc.Ringuette(a)GS80.SP.CS.CMU.EDU >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Subject: Cypherpunks know they're cool > >Hey, man, we're the cypherpunks. We're too hip to worry about a >trivial little mail bomb. But if we did get upset...well, who >do you think has the bigger arsenal of dirty tricks, him or us? >Date: Thu, 11 Mar 93 21:41:04 -0800 >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >From: tcmay(a)netcom.com (Timothy C. May) >Subject: HABRECHT=EMAIL HARASSEMENT > >P.S. What I did was to _reply_ to Mr. Habrecht, explaining the situation. I >attached my reply to a *quoted copy* of his message AND MAILED IT BACK TO >HIM! (Actually, my mailer splits incoming messages into 24 KB pieces, so I >only mailed one of these back to him....he got off lucky. If several more >people do this, he'll think twice about mail-bambing a list again.) What arrogant little pricks you are, Mr. Ringuette and Mr. May! So is this what cypherpunks is really all about: "dirty tricks", "mail bombs", endless harassment of people on the net who simply wish to be left alone? I had originally thought that cypherpunks had higher objectives in mind than that, but evidently at least some of you simply fancy yourselves as some sort of cyber-terrorists (although you're really no better than petty vandals). I've seen many of you raise issues about responsibility on the net. Is proving that you have a "bigger arsenal of dirty tricks" you're idea of responsibility? And do you really think that cypherpunks could survive such a war? You yourselves have admitted that you have many enemies in your quest for net privacy and anonymity. Do you foolishly believe that they won't seize upon this irresponsible behavior on your part and use it to prove their point? You will only succeed in bringing about precisely what you claim to oppose: oppressive controls on the internet to stop petty vandals like yourself. I would hope that there are some among you that have some scrap of sanity left, and realize that there is nothing to be gained from bringing a needless war down upon yourselves. Wise up! >From tcmay: >I don't know what the delay has been in unsubscribing people. As always, >send requests to the list maintenance address, >"cypherpunks-request(a)toad.com". The list manager, Eric Hughes >(hughes(a)soda.berkelely.edu) has been away at the CFP conference this >week...perhaps this is part of the delay. I sent one request to cypherpunks-request about three weeks ago, and a second about a week ago. Was Eric Hughes at the CFP conference then? And you may have noticed that a third person has now stepped forward and expressed frustration over being in the same predicament. Do you still want to pretend there is no problem? What will it take for you to realize there is: the third person, the fourth, fixth, sixth? I'll say it again: Wise up! I've been very patient over this, but I'm disgusted at your arrogant promises of "dirty tricks" and "mail bombs" against those who simply want to unsubscribe from the list! What phenomenal assholes you are!!! ----- Michael Brennan - mbrennan(a)netcom.com

3 2

Re: HABRECHT=EMAIL HARASSEMENT
by lefty＠apple.com 12 Mar '93

12 Mar '93

George "I don't give a shit who I inconvenience" Habrecht writes: >If, in a while, things get straightened up I may resubscribe but for now, I >don't have the time. I would hope that, if you _do_ ask to be added to the list in the future, the list admin would put you on the "Periodic BSD UNIX Kernal Binaries" list instead. -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

REMAIL: help with utter.dis.org
by Karl Barrus 12 Mar '93

12 Mar '93

Cypherpunks, I'm having trouble using the new remailer at utter.dis.org. I've sent several test messages, but have received none back. Recently, I tried to email to the person running the remailer (shipley(a)merde.dis.org?) but my mail bounced: [stuff deleted here and there] >Return-Path: MAILER-DAEMON(a)soda.berkeley.edu >From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON(a)soda.berkeley.edu> >Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- >550 merde.dis.org.tcplocal... 550 Host unknown >550 <shipley(a)merde.dis.org>... Host unknown: Inappropriate ioctl for device >From: Karl Barrus <elee9sf(a)Menudo.UH.EDU> >To: shipley(a)merde.dis.org I'd like to include this new remailer in the scripts, but would first like to verify that it works... So Peter: I'd like to help work out any problems, but I can't reach you at shipley(a)merde.dis.org (unless this is related to soda's disk crash?) /-----------------------------------\ | Karl L. Barrus | | elee9sf(a)menudo.uh.edu | <- preferred address | barrus(a)tree.egr.uh.edu (NeXTMail) | \-----------------------------------/

2 1

FW: Hiding Encrypted Messages
by Stu Klingman 12 Mar '93

12 Mar '93

FWD'd from a secure redirector, Raf sez: Someone wrote: > b) If it's played and recognized - one can trace your source (a CD, a > tape of radio broadcast, whatever) and do a comparison. Then the > file containing of all the LSBs is cryptanalyzed... Actually, this is not really a problem. The odds of being able to resample, even using the same source and come up with the same byte string is infinitesmal. You've got chaos theory on your side here with massive "Sensitive Dependence on Initial Conditions." The exact byte string you got depends on: 1) volume 2) sampling device used 3) playback fidelity of your reproduction 4) the exact microsecond you clicked "record" (cause you'll be hitting different points in the same wave form) Just make sure to an application like Shredder or Flamefile to permanently erase your initial sample, and nobody should be able to tell. (unless they are aware of the trick beforehand) Rafial

2 1

Re: Unacceptable slander by dclunie
by mbrennan＠netcom.com 12 Mar '93

12 Mar '93

>Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 09:34:53 -0600 >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com, mbrennan(a)netcom.com (Michael Brennan) >From: matt(a)oc.com (Matthew Lyle) >X-Sender: matt(a)ra.oc.com >Subject: Re: Unacceptable slander by dclunie > >It is not appropriate for someone to post a 3600 line "junk" file to a >mailing list. UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES! (Think about those sites that are >paying hard cash for e-mail transfers!) It is reasonable for such actions >to be reported to the administrator of a system. I don't agree it was appropriate to notify the administrator. This could all have been handled far more elegantly considering the circumstances. >So far as getting off the cypherpunks list, there are a number of other things >to try if cypherpunks-request isn't working. Send mail to root(a)toad.com. >Send mail to the administrative contact listed in the WHOIS database for >toad.com (John Gilmore, in this case). Talk to your local systems >administrator and ask his assistance. What ghabrech did is something I >would expect from an immature freshman. (who knows... maybe he is one) Thank you for this information. I will attempt these courses of action. Perhaps if someone had attempted to offer helpful information from the outset, this problem never would have reached this level. Instead certain individuals chose to post arrogant promises of "retribution" against others, rather than trying to be constructive in this. >Retaliatory strikes aren't right either, of course. I agree wholeheartedly, and I am glad this discourse now finally seems to be moving onto a level-headed and constructive level. I appeal to all of the cypherpunks to keep it this way! Let's figure what's going wrong here and resolve the situation instead of playing one-upmanship with mail bombs and threats of "dirty tricks". ----- Michael Brennan - mbrennan(a)netcom.com

1 0

Re: Unacceptable slander by dclunie
by matt＠oc.com 12 Mar '93

12 Mar '93

At 1:24 AM 3/12/93 -0800, Michael Brennan wrote: >> [ Mail from David Clunie to ramapo.edu systems admin deleted ] > > [ abridged quote from metioned user's posting deleted...] > >Think about this scenario for a moment: dclunie sends mail to the system >adiministrator of an institution complaining of the mail sent by a >particular user. The system administrator confronts the user, who then >explains the situation. He explains that he has sent numerous requests to >be unsubscribed from the list, but they continue to send large volumes of >mail. Out of frustration, he sends an 80K file to the list hoping it will >get someone's attention. The mail continues, and several members of the >list makes threats of "dirty tricks" and "mail bombs" against him. Now one >of the "cypherpunks" is sending libelous mail to the system administrator. >The system administrator now understands the situation; an educational >institution on the net is made aware of a rapidly developing campaign of >harrassment and vandalism by the cypherpunks. So what happens now? Are the >cypherpunks winning? Libelous mail?? Hardly. It is not appropriate for someone to post a 3600 line "junk" file to a mailing list. UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES! (Think about those sites that are paying hard cash for e-mail transfers!) It is reasonable for such actions to be reported to the administrator of a system. So far as getting off the cypherpunks list, there are a number of other things to try if cypherpunks-request isn't working. Send mail to root(a)toad.com. Send mail to the administrative contact listed in the WHOIS database for toad.com (John Gilmore, in this case). Talk to your local systems administrator and ask his assistance. What ghabrech did is something I would expect from an immature freshman. (who knows... maybe he is one) >Are you people blind to what you are doing? What fools!!! Retaliatory strikes aren't right either, of course. -- Matthew Lyle (214) 888-0474 OpenConnect Systems matt(a)oc.com Dallas, TX "...and once you have tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you long to return..."

1 0

Unacceptable slander by dclunie
by Stephen Dunne (+44) 71-538-5656 12 Mar '93

12 Mar '93

Forgive me if I appear slow over this but I don't see any problem with Davids response.. Mailbombing a mailing list like cypherpunks with 80K of dross is not acceptable behaviour (whether it was through ignorance or malice) and in those circumstances contacting the site postmaster seems a reasonable thing to do. I do agree with another post who suggested that the admin side of the list does need to be tightened up so that future incidents like this do not occur. However we are in danger of blowing this up out of all proportion. Stephen -- +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Stephen Dunne DoD#767 sdun(a)isma.demon.co.uk | |International Securities Market Association I speak for me,thats all| |Voice (+44) 71-538-5656 Fax (+44) 71-538-4902 PGP key available| |We are not affiliated to any other Demon.Co.Uk site. | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ----------------------------- Note follows ----------------------------- Message-Id: <9303120919.AA11896(a)netcom.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 01:24:48 -0800 To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com From: Michael Brennan <mbrennan(a)netcom.com> Subject: Unacceptable slander by dclunie >Date: Fri, 12 Mar 93 17:41:03 CST >From: dclunie(a)pax.tpa.com.au (David Clunie) >To: Postmaster(a)ultrix.ramapo.edu >Subject: Unacceptable behaviour by ghabrech >Cc: root(a)ultrix.ramapo.edu, ghabrech(a)ultrix.ramapo.edu, cypherpunks(a)toad.com > >>From one of the very popular mailing lists I received the following posting [shortened even more] Think about this scenario for a moment: dclunie sends mail to the system adiministrator of an institution complaining of the mail sent by a particular user. The system administrator confronts the user, who then explains the situation. He explains that he has sent numerous requests to be unsubscribed from the list, but they continue to send large volumes of mail. Out of frustration, he sends an 80K file to the list hoping it will get someone's attention. The mail continues, and several members of the list makes threats of "dirty tricks" and "mail bombs" against him. Now one of the "cypherpunks" is sending libelous mail to the system administrator. The system administrator now understands the situation; an educational institution on the net is made aware of a rapidly developing campaign of harrassment and vandalism by the cypherpunks. So what happens now? Are the cypherpunks winning? Are you people blind to what you are doing? What fools!!! ----- Michael Brennan - mbrennan(a)netcom.com

1 0

Secret messages in images...
by Peter Wayner 12 Mar '93

12 Mar '93

I wrote a quick little version to stick bits in the LSB of a file. It runs in the Macintosh as an added feature to a popular program, NIH Image. (The source code and frequent revision are published at the major ftp sites.) It is very easy to add a function to handle this process because all of the file i/o and format decoding are already present. If anyone would like a copy, they're welcome to write to me. I'll send them instructions and a short file. Alas, it only handles 8 bit images. Also, you can also request Mimic function code for hiding messages in text with a grammar. -Peter Wayner (pcw(a)access.digex.com)

1 0

Unacceptable behaviour by ghabrech
by dclunie＠pax.tpa.com.au 12 Mar '93

12 Mar '93

>From one of the very popular mailing lists I received the following posting by one of your users. While I can understand his frustration at having difficulties unsubscribing from a relatively high volume list, or his ignorance at not being aware that such requests should be directed to the "x-request" alias not the "x" list, this is no excuse for such a long and unpleasant post that has consumed considerable expensive bandwidth for no good reason ... I am surprised you tolerate students with such a childish attitude on your system and they do no credit to your institution's reputation. This is an abridged version of George A. Habrecht's 3264 line post ! > From cypherpunks-request(a)toad.com Fri Mar 12 16:48:53 1993 Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 14:59:21 -0500 From: ghabrech(a)ultrix.ramapo.edu (George A. Habrecht) To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Content-Length: 74877 Hello? I have asked several times and am starting to get pissed off!!!! So do as follows!!!!! Unsubscribe me!!!!!!!! Unsubscribe me!!!!!!!! ... ... Unsubscribe me!!!!!!!! Unsubscribe me!!!!!!!! Get the message?!? Thanx ghabrech(a)ultrix.ramapo.edu

1 0