Re: CFS and Linux

So the master is at last fallen.  Kudos to Mr. Jim Choate and Dr.
Dimitri Vulis for having the courage of their convictions to help
unmask AT&T's deceit in claiming to support Linux and free software
when, in truth, it is doing just the opposite.

Maybe, just maybe, we can seize this opportunity to advance the
cause of justice, if not justice itself (true justice would require
AT&T to recognize its obligation to our heros at Berkeley and pay
them their USD 25,000).  I call upon us all to expose AT&T for what
it is!  Had your software erased by the CFS install programme?
Return their own medicine!  Sue them!  Tired of Blaze's prattle
about how he is a Linux-lover even though he can't be bothered to
use Linux?  Challenge him!  Tired of AT&T and Netscape employees
stealing your resources?  Configure your servers to deny W3 access
to AT&T and Netscape computers!

Linux isn't perfect, but its open environment is a good start for
building REAL secure software.  Don't let AT&T's lies bully you
into abandoning it!  CFS will never run under Linux until it is
plucked from the monster's grasp.  We, too, are guilty when we
continue to invite the monster not only to walk in our midst
unchecked, but to sleep in our homes as an invited, nay, paid,
guest.


Alice de 'nonymous ...               <an455120@anon.penet.fi>


                                  ...just another one of those...


P.S.  This post is in the public domain.
                  C.  S.  U.  M.  O.  C.  L.  U.  N.  E.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


Sorry for being one of those who responds to Detweiler's troll...

> So the master is at last fallen.  Kudos to Mr. Jim Choate and Dr.
> Dimitri Vulis for having the courage of their convictions to help
> unmask AT&T's deceit in claiming to support Linux and free software
> when, in truth, it is doing just the opposite.

Patting yourself on the back again eh? I didn't know people as stupid
as you knew how to use email. CFS is Matt Blaze's toy. A toy. When ATT
starts charging money for CFS, then all your bitching and moaning
about ATT _might_ make sense.

Oh, by the way, since when did att "claim" to support linux?

> Linux isn't perfect, but its open environment is a good start for
> building REAL secure software.  Don't let AT&T's lies bully you
> into abandoning it!  CFS will never run under Linux until it is

Oh brother,  now I know for sure that this is a spoof. Nobody could
be this lame for reals...

Don

- -- 
<don@cs.byu.edu>           fRee cRyPTo!   jOin the hUnt or BE tHe PrEY
PGP key - http://students.cs.byu.edu/~don   or PubKey servers (0x994b8f39)
  June 7&14, 1995: 1st amendment repealed.  Junk mail to root@127.0.0.1
* This user insured by the Smith, Wesson, & Zimmermann insurance company *






-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQB1AwUBMN0F4cLa+QKZS485AQFjFwL+Pk6s59bAATKkSgoH4eGrdcDQ1gwA0Nog
Lih8rbkWD7RIf3g2g7xiaPnEI+HQBCWvSHkdeybZ8CPLC/E40ONHeA06+l+J6jDK
PpAskeZxu8aUKlyXDl3seIb3Xmguy+Mz
=3Kr4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Don M. Kitchen" <don@wero.cs.byu.edu> writes:
> Sorry for being one of those who responds to Detweiler's troll...

I wonder which of the participants are Lance...

> > So the master is at last fallen.  Kudos to Mr. Jim Choate and Dr.
> > Dimitri Vulis for having the courage of their convictions to help
> > unmask AT&T's deceit in claiming to support Linux and free software
> > when, in truth, it is doing just the opposite.

There's been a bit of confusion here. Perry Metzger stated that Matt Blaze
doesn't have Linux and shouldn't support it. Naturally, this got a few Linux
fans (like myself) overly emotional. Matt Blaze later said that he does have
Linux (contrary to what Perry said), that CFS installs fine, under his version,
and that he's been unable to duplicate the problem reported here (but will
include a fix in future distributions if someone supplies it). It's a perfectly
reasonable position. In particular, this is a much more reasonable position
than the anal-retentive one most MS Windows freeware authors take when you ask
them about running their programs under WinOS2. I told Matt what I thought of
this in private e-mail. _I_ don't have a problem with Matt Blaze.

My conjecture is that during this long holiday weekend certain contributors
are taking recreational drugs before posting to the mailing list.

> Patting yourself on the back again eh? I didn't know people as stupid
> as you knew how to use email.

That's what's wrong with the net in general. 10+ years ago, when I started
using it, it was hard to use e-mail and Usenet, so most of the people using it
had to be fairly intelligent. Today, no intelligence is required to use e-mail,
or even a cpunks anonymous remailer. I wish crypto software and mail filtering
software followed the suit and became as easy to use and transparent at the
rest of our comm software.

I've been communicating with one sci.crypt personality, who configured his
procmail to accept e-mail only from a list of people he knows. To be able to
send him e-mail, I had to contact him by other means and ask him to add my name
to the list of approved correspondents. :) He's not checking digital
signatures, just the from lines. (By the way, he's not on cypherpunks because
he considers the level of crypto expertise here to be too low.)

Is this where we're heading?

---

Dr. Dimitri Vulis
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

> That's what's wrong with the net in general. 10+ years ago, when I started
> using it, it was hard to use e-mail and Usenet, so most of the people using it
>had to be fairly intelligent. Today, no intelligence is required to use e-mail,
> or even a cpunks anonymous remailer. I wish crypto software and mail filtering
> software followed the suit and became as easy to use and transparent at the
> rest of our comm software.

Long for the good old days of bang-paths, 300 baud acoustic couplers
and UUCP maps?  see http://www.lne.com/lemay/writings/curmudgeonnet.html

> I've been communicating with one sci.crypt personality, who configured his
> procmail to accept e-mail only from a list of people he knows. To be able to
>send him e-mail, I had to contact him by other means and ask him to add my name
> to the list of approved correspondents. :) He's not checking digital
> signatures, just the from lines. (By the way, he's not on cypherpunks because
> he considers the level of crypto expertise here to be too low.)
> 
> Is this where we're heading?

Close.

Where we're headed is mail filters with PGP imbedded (PGP 3 will
make this much easier) that check incoming mail for a valid signature
for certain PGP keyid/fingerprints and pass that mail along.
Other mail that doesn't match gets tossed into a 'junk' folder
or thrown away if you really don't want to talk to anyone that you
don't already know.


-- 
Eric Murray  ericm@lne.com  ericm@motorcycle.com  http://www.lne.com/ericm
PGP keyid:E03F65E5 fingerprint:50 B0 A2 4C 7D 86 FC 03  92 E8 AC E6 7E 27 29 AF

Eric Murray <ericm@lne.com> writes:
>
> > That's what's wrong with the net in general. 10+ years ago, when I started
> > using it, it was hard to use e-mail and Usenet, so most of the people using
> >had to be fairly intelligent. Today, no intelligence is required to use e-ma
> > or even a cpunks anonymous remailer. I wish crypto software and mail filter
> > software followed the suit and became as easy to use and transparent at the
> > rest of our comm software.
>
> Long for the good old days of bang-paths, 300 baud acoustic couplers
> and UUCP maps?  see http://www.lne.com/lemay/writings/curmudgeonnet.html

Not at all -- I welcome all progress. My first modem was 110 bps.  When we
got a 300 bps one, it seemed lightning fast (and really cut down the LD bill
for the data calls to Virginia). In fact, I'm very happy that easy-to-use
Internet software enables people to use the net who couldn't do it before.
I've been telling all my non-computer acquaintences to get onto the net
for 5--8 years, but most of them did only in the last year or two.
I wish there was real easy privacy-enhancement software that every
"clueless newbie" could use. Maybe in PGP 3...

> Where we're headed is mail filters with PGP imbedded (PGP 3 will
> make this much easier) that check incoming mail for a valid signature
> for certain PGP keyid/fingerprints and pass that mail along.
> Other mail that doesn't match gets tossed into a 'junk' folder
> or thrown away if you really don't want to talk to anyone that you
> don't already know.

Alas, this is what the future net will be like. Some out-of-band
communication will be necessary before e-mail can be exchanged;
or perhaps there will be a protocol to enable Alice to write Bob
(who doesn't know Alice) and say: "You don't know me, but Carol
vouches that it's worth your while for you to read my e-mail."

Or Alice can ask Carol to e-mail Bob directly.

Is something like this already available for FTP? :)

---

Dr. Dimitri Vulis
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

Eric Murray wrote:

| Where we're headed is mail filters with PGP imbedded (PGP 3 will
| make this much easier) that check incoming mail for a valid signature
| for certain PGP keyid/fingerprints and pass that mail along.
| Other mail that doesn't match gets tossed into a 'junk' folder
| or thrown away if you really don't want to talk to anyone that you
| don't already know.

I agree with the assesment of where we may be going, but the
technology is available now.  (Marshall Rose uses it; if you want to
get mail into his private mailbox, offer him some $ via imbedded FV
authorizations in the mail, and it goes into his inbox.  If he thinks
it was worth his time, he doesn't charge you.)

Anyway, the code is defeintely available now.  The back end is a
little kludgy, but it was needed for an auto ley retreival script.
This could easily be hacked to include a +pubring=$people line.  The
script gives you a keyid, which you can then use to filter on, ie:

:0BW
* -----BEGIN PGP
KEYID=|sender_unknown
# the sender unknown script is below

:0:
? [ $KEYID = (`cat .buddies`) ]
| /var/spool/mail/adam

:0e:
junk

#!/bin/sh
# unknown returns a keyid, exits 1 if the key is known
# $output is to get the exit status. Othierwise, this would be a one liner.
OUTPUT=`pgp -f +VERBOSE=0 +batchmode  -o /dev/null`
echo $OUTPUT | egrep -s 'not found in file'
EV=$? 
if [ $EV -eq 0 ]; then 
        echo $OUTPUT | awk '{print $6}' 
fi
exit $EV


-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
					               -Hume

Dr. Dimitri Vulis writes:
> There's been a bit of confusion here. Perry Metzger stated that Matt Blaze
> doesn't have Linux and shouldn't support it.

I was incorrect that he didn't have Linux, but I stand by my position
that Matt is under no obligation to support anything, or even maintain
CFS at all. Its free software. Saying that someone is obligated to do
anything for free is repugnant. If he wants to support Linux better,
thats nice of him, but no one should bitch at him if he chooses not to
work for nothing for them.

One should thank Matt for being nice enough to do any of this AT ALL.

Perry