Tim's paranoid rant about Declan appearing on "Europe's Most Wanted"

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

OK, I didn't want to sow dissension in the ranks, but this is just too 
much, and Declan has not given a satisfactory response to direct email. 

On Thu, 1 Feb 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:

> At 7:27 AM 2/1/96, sameer wrote:
> >> I guess Declan M. won't be visting France or any of the other EU
> >> countries any time soon!
> >
> >        That reminds me of a question--
> >
> >        If, for example, Germany decides that my company is in
> >violation of their laws for mirroring the Zundelsite, will they send
> >us a letter saying that, so we know not to go to Germany?
> 
> The Nebraska-based neo-Nazi publisher who was picked up in Denmark and
> extradited to Germany pretty much knew his actions were illegal in Germany,
> but I doubt (sheer speculation on my part) he had ever been formally
> notified that an arrest warrant had been issued by Germany and could be
> exercised in Denmark.
> 
> The situation with Declan, Sameer, Duncan, and others, is even less clear.

I disagree. It is clear to me that there is absolutely no cloud hanging 
over us. If any German court tried to press charges against me for 
posting Zendel's materials, they'd be laughed across the Argonne. Most 
mainstream Jewish groups *love* me right now.

I find it curious, and I am beginning to get a little annoyed, that my
name is rarely mentioned, though I set up the first mirror, and Declan got
the files from me. 

I am very annoyed that Declan has not responded to repeated requests to
remove the cleartext "Stanford University" from the parts of his Web site
that mention me. Of course the stanford.edu, or at least net 36.190, will
remain in the URL, but there is no reason that the link text could not say
"Rich Graves' mirror." First Declan sent me mail saying he would respect
my wishes, but he didn't. Then a friend of mine reminded Declan of my
request, and Declan responded with abuse. 

I do not object to the cleartext "Stanford University" because anyone is
pressuring me to remove the page. Far from it; almost every personal
response has been positive, and the student newspaper, at
www-daily.stanford.edu, is going to run a positive story tomorrow or the
next day. Rather, I object simply because I do not represent Stanford
University, and it is an intellectually dishonest abuse of power to
suggest in any way that I do. 

Declan wants me to believe that this disclaimer is enough:

       "Please note that the
       existence of a web site at any particular institution does not
       in any way imply endorsement. Universities and businesses
       do not take responsibility for what their community members
       or customers place online."

This is clearly untrue when the person in question is a staff member, as I
am. Were I still a student, then I could more legitimately say that I'm a
student at Stanford, and that I have the academic freedom to post whatever
I want; but as someone who now merely works for a living at Stanford, I do
whatever I want by the (very) good graces of my (very good) employer. 

Should we have forced Marianne to state her affiliation for the TV cameras
last Saturday? 

> Things are moving much faster now that the Net is the means of
> distribution.

Yes, far too fast. Otherwise good people aren't thinking about what
they're doing in their glee to "fight censorship." 

> I was of course half-joking about Declan visiting Europe, but
> surely France could decide to throw the book at him, and any EU country he
> entered (such as Ireland, judging from his name) could hold him at their
> entry point and ship him off to France to "set an example."

Bullshit.
 
> I suspect the U.S. never officially notified that Monterrey, Mexico alleged
> drug dealer that he was wanted in the U.S., and as other kidnappings of
> foreigners have shown, the U.S. feels it unnecessary to formally announce
> to foreigners that they may be arrested in the U.S. (or kidnapped into the
> U.S.). Thus, I strongly suspect that France will not bother to notify
> Declan or Sameer or any of us that they face arrest in France (or
> affiliated EU countries).
> 
> In Declan's case, I suspect France wants him for the Mitterand book and

France doesn't want anyone for the Mitterand book, which was not, in 
fact, criminally banned. It was censured, not censored, in a civil trial. 
Declan is distorting the facts to suit his ego as Mr. Anti-Censorship.

I find this breast-beating hype embarrassing and dishonest, and I am 
seriously beginning to regret giving the Zundel files to Declan. Had I 
known what he was going to do with them, and how he was going to behave, I 
would have retained closer control.

One mirror site was enough. The German providers would not have blocked
stanford.edu had it remained the only mirror site. The President of
Stanford, Gerhard Casper, is a recognized constitutional scholar from
Germany. The Stanford Provost, Condoleezza Rice, was one of the two or 
three people most responsible for the Bush Administration's policy 
towards German Unification. Dozens of Stanford students have studied in 
Berlin.

Had they blocked stanford.edu, or had they gotten through to Stanford and 
somehow gotten Stanford to force me to take down the pages, then we would 
have set up more mirrors. I would have started, and maybe stopped, 
by setting up mirrors on c2.org and netcom.com. Graduated response. 

Germany has in fact blocked no sites beyond webcom.com. I have the
patience to wait a week for the German political authorities to wake up
and smell the bratwurst. 

Declan is himself becoming a sort of revisionist, loose with the facts.

> Germany wants him for the Zundelsite mirrors. The lesser European countries
> will of course follow their leads.

This is ludicrous. I expect better from you.

> Seriously, Declan, I admire what you've done, but I hope you don't plan to
> leave the U.S. for Europe anytime soon.

This is paranoid bullshit.

Most of the Jewish organizations I have talked to grudgingly applaud the 
Zundelsite mirrors. Some actively applaud them. The Wiesenthal Center, of 
course, is "different." They haven't answered email, and I haven't had 
time to call them.

Censorship is dying, destroyed by truth.

Please don't spoil the party with this paranoid bullshit.

Ernst Zundel is a lying Nazi asshole who wants you to believe that there 
is a Global Jewish Conspiracy to censor him. Fuck him.

Declan, if you don't fix up your page the way I want it by morning (please
not that you have three more hours of morning than I do), I will post a
modified (spell-checked) version of this note on my Web page, to
alt.censorship, and to your "fight-censorship" mailing list.

- -rich

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

iQCVAwUBMRCMdY3DXUbM57SdAQGBVgP8DOOtrKoV5bBDEICmRSlokkn91KnKdXXS
231Qv5mEWrrin9Jf8Zj80Zl/gTX/8J08s40v0vQUHi9G8It1hpzAFKz5k8lFZdTW
dbcSyRMDwXz8pHvNxiGyQShZOIs1m/rnO7Z0iiuA0Y9r1+nBqeu1rQSeIyriBFUw
UfWqjk8iWdk=
=cODd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 1-Feb-96 Tim's paranoid rant about
D.. by Just Rich@c2.org 
> I disagree. It is clear to me that there is absolutely no cloud hanging 
> over us. If any German court tried to press charges against me for 
> posting Zendel's materials, they'd be laughed across the Argonne. Most 
> mainstream Jewish groups *love* me right now.
>  
> I find it curious, and I am beginning to get a little annoyed, that my
> name is rarely mentioned, though I set up the first mirror, and Declan got
> the files from me. 

So you're getting pissy that you're not The Only Zundel Mirror. Big
fucking deal. Get over it. The more the better.

I find it telling that you wrote me mail demanding that I alter my web
pages to your satisfaction or you'll smear me in the press, since your
web site (you informed me) is going to be featured in the next issue of
TIME, Internet World, and the San Francisco Chronicle.

Hey, guy, kudos to you. Glad to hear it. Smear the fuck away.

> I am very annoyed that Declan has not responded to repeated requests to
> remove the cleartext "Stanford University" from the parts of his Web site
> that mention me. Of course the stanford.edu, or at least net 36.190, will
> remain in the URL, but there is no reason that the link text could not say
> "Rich Graves' mirror." First Declan sent me mail saying he would respect
> my wishes, but he didn't.

Let's get the facts right and ignore Rich's distortions. I wrote:

    "I'll honor your wishes and take your full name off."

I did *not* write that I'd take Stanford's name off the pages. I did
take your full name off, as I said I would.

The point of mentioning universities by name is to point out that to
restrict web access to a university site, Germany will have to cut of
*all* web access to that university. (Or at least to that hostname.)

(BTW, I did give you credit for supplying much of the Zundelschtuff:
  http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~declan/Not_By_Me_Not_My_Views/censorship.html)

>  Then a friend of mine reminded Declan of my
> request, and Declan responded with abuse. 

Your friend, Haggai Kupermintz, sent me unsolicited email demanding to
know why I didn't act on a request that was sent earlier that day. I
have better things to do than leap on every demand I get, so I flamed
him. *shrug* Big deal. I didn't know a rather mild flame was "abuse." If
you don't want to be "abused," don't send me demands in unsolicited
email. (I'm glad for the sake of other "abusers" at Stanford that your
school's speech code was struck down by a California court last year.)

> Declan wants me to believe that this disclaimer is enough:
>  
>        "Please note that the
>        existence of a web site at any particular institution does not
>        in any way imply endorsement. Universities and businesses
>        do not take responsibility for what their community members
>        or customers place online."
>  
> This is clearly untrue when the person in question is a staff member, as I
> am. Were I still a student, then I could more legitimately say that I'm a
> student at Stanford, and that I have the academic freedom to post whatever
> I want; but as someone who now merely works for a living at Stanford, I do
> whatever I want by the (very) good graces of my (very good) employer. 

I don't follow. In what way is that disclaimer untrue? You *do*
represent Stanford? The concept of academic freedom doesn't apply to
staff members? If that's true, you do have a point.

> > In Declan's case, I suspect France wants him for the Mitterand book and
>  
> France doesn't want anyone for the Mitterand book, which was not, in 
> fact, criminally banned. It was censured, not censored, in a civil trial. 
> Declan is distorting the facts to suit his ego as Mr. Anti-Censorship.

I've never claimed to be Mr. Anti-Censorship. I've been trying my best
to resist certain specific censorship attempts for the last few years,
and I've even met with some limited success. Does the ego good and all.

> I find this breast-beating hype embarrassing and dishonest, and I am 
> seriously beginning to regret giving the Zundel files to Declan. Had I 
> known what he was going to do with them, and how he was going to behave, I 
> would have retained closer control.

Oh, spare me. You posted to cypherpunks that the files were available
via AFS, so I snagged them. You didn't "give" them to me any more than I
"gave" people the Zundelhausenfiles if they FTP 'em from my account.

How can you "retain closer control" over files that are publicly
available on the web? You can make them more difficult to get, I
suppose, but I think that defeats the purpose and is a simply fascist
thing to do -- if the purpose is to make them available anyway.

Hell, your files were out-of-date, so I had to go back to the Zundelsite
anyway.

> One mirror site was enough. The German providers would not have blocked
> stanford.edu had it remained the only mirror site. The President of
> Stanford, Gerhard Casper, is a recognized constitutional scholar from
> Germany. The Stanford Provost, Condoleezza Rice, was one of the two or 
> three people most responsible for the Bush Administration's policy 
> towards German Unification. Dozens of Stanford students have studied in 
> Berlin.

One mirror site may have had a limited effect, but more mirror sites
have a more significant effect.

The press likes a local angle, and local mirrors are giving them just
that. I put a reporter from the Boston Globe in touch with the UMass
mirror operator, and a reporter from the Philadelphia Inquirer in touch
with the University of Pennyslvania mirror operator. I'd love to see
mirrors in every major city for greater coverage in every major paper.

If you don't understand that concept, you don't understand the way the
media works.

> Had they blocked stanford.edu, or had they gotten through to Stanford and 
> somehow gotten Stanford to force me to take down the pages, then we would 
> have set up more mirrors. I would have started, and maybe stopped, 
> by setting up mirrors on c2.org and netcom.com. Graduated response. 

As I've told you in email, I disagree. This is the first time a Western
government has tried to do something like this, and a strong (not a mild
or "graduated") response is necessary.

If there were just one mirror, I can see the German prosecutors cutting
off access to that one too. Sure, we can put up more and more, but if
the German government starts along the path of blocking sites
one-by-one, it may be difficult for them to back down, and we're faced
with a pitched battle. That's why a strong initial showing is necessary,
to demonstrate to them the futility of censoring the Internet.

So Rich, answer me this: "What articulable and demonstrable harm have
additional mirror sites done, besides hurt your ego?"

> This is ludicrous. I expect better from you.

I'm a big fan of Tim's, and I think that while he may have been jesting,
his comments have a serious undertone.

I don't really expect to be locked up for the rest of my life in a
German cellblock, but harassment at entry/exit points is possible.
Perhaps probable, given that other "distributors" of Neo-Nazi spew have
experienced just that.

> Ernst Zundel is a lying Nazi asshole who wants you to believe that there 
> is a Global Jewish Conspiracy to censor him. Fuck him.

Yep, exactly. The more you know about Mr. "UFOs in Antarctica," the
better you can do the job.

> Declan, if you don't fix up your page the way I want it by morning (please
> not that you have three more hours of morning than I do), I will post a
> modified (spell-checked) version of this note on my Web page, to
> alt.censorship, and to your "fight-censorship" mailing list.

Please send me in private email (or post it here if you really want)
exactly what you want me to change.

Rich, by now I suspect you've seen this joke, but what the hell:

   Q: What's a left-wing firing squad?

   A: Everyone stands in a circle and shoots at each other

-Declan

On Thu, 1 Feb 1996, Declan B. McCullagh wrote:

> Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 1-Feb-96 Tim's paranoid rant about
> D.. by Just Rich@c2.org 
> > I disagree. It is clear to me that there is absolutely no cloud hanging 
> > over us. If any German court tried to press charges against me for 
> > posting Zendel's materials, they'd be laughed across the Argonne. Most 
> > mainstream Jewish groups *love* me right now.
> >  
> > I find it curious, and I am beginning to get a little annoyed, that my
> > name is rarely mentioned, though I set up the first mirror, and Declan got
> > the files from me. 
> 
> So you're getting pissy that you're not The Only Zundel Mirror. Big
> fucking deal. Get over it. The more the better.
> 
> I find it telling that you wrote me mail demanding that I alter my web
> pages to your satisfaction or you'll smear me in the press, since your
> web site (you informed me) is going to be featured in the next issue of
> TIME, Internet World, and the San Francisco Chronicle.
> 
> Hey, guy, kudos to you. Glad to hear it. Smear the fuck away.

This does not accurately represent what I said, and it certainly does not 
represent what I have done. You are still identified as "My friend 
Declan," and I recommend that people visit your site.

I actually would have appreciated it if you had crowed, or at least 
shared, your media contacts. For example, I only just now found out about 
Steve Pizzo's poorly researched article in Web Review, where he presents 
as my views deliberate lies that I told Zundel in order to get his 
cooperation and trust.

> > I am very annoyed that Declan has not responded to repeated requests to
> > remove the cleartext "Stanford University" from the parts of his Web site
> > that mention me. Of course the stanford.edu, or at least net 36.190, will
> > remain in the URL, but there is no reason that the link text could not say
> > "Rich Graves' mirror." First Declan sent me mail saying he would respect
> > my wishes, but he didn't.
> 
> Let's get the facts right and ignore Rich's distortions. I wrote:
> 
>     "I'll honor your wishes and take your full name off."
> 
> I did *not* write that I'd take Stanford's name off the pages. I did
> take your full name off, as I said I would.

This does not accurately reflect your mail. At this time, you have not
removed my full name, either. 
 
> >  Then a friend of mine reminded Declan of my
> > request, and Declan responded with abuse. 
> 
> Your friend, Haggai Kupermintz, sent me unsolicited email demanding to
> know why I didn't act on a request that was sent earlier that day. I

You will find that Haggai had been Cc'd on several messages back and forth
on fight-censorship, and he was Bcc'd on my original request (at the
header of my message to you was a notice that it was being Bcc'd to other
people at Stanford).  While I don't appreciate his mommying me, I hardly
consider his mail unsolicited or unwarranted, since you have still failed
to honor my request. 

> have better things to do than leap on every demand I get, so I flamed
> him. *shrug* Big deal. I didn't know a rather mild flame was "abuse." If
> you don't want to be "abused," don't send me demands in unsolicited
> email. (I'm glad for the sake of other "abusers" at Stanford that your
> school's speech code was struck down by a California court last year.)

The "speech code" was never applied to anyone, and was widely regarded to 
be unenforceable. I opposed it. It was a joke, yes.

What were we talking about again?
 
> > Declan wants me to believe that this disclaimer is enough:
> >  
> >        "Please note that the
> >        existence of a web site at any particular institution does not
> >        in any way imply endorsement. Universities and businesses
> >        do not take responsibility for what their community members
> >        or customers place online."
> >  
> > This is clearly untrue when the person in question is a staff member, as I
> > am. Were I still a student, then I could more legitimately say that I'm a
> > student at Stanford, and that I have the academic freedom to post whatever
> > I want; but as someone who now merely works for a living at Stanford, I do
> > whatever I want by the (very) good graces of my (very good) employer. 
> 
> I don't follow. In what way is that disclaimer untrue? You *do*
> represent Stanford? The concept of academic freedom doesn't apply to
> staff members? If that's true, you do have a point.

Then you, kadie, and I agree. I have a point. Why do you persist in 
identifying, in two places, a Stanford University Mirror Site?
 
> > One mirror site was enough. The German providers would not have blocked
> > stanford.edu had it remained the only mirror site. The President of
> > Stanford, Gerhard Casper, is a recognized constitutional scholar from
> > Germany. The Stanford Provost, Condoleezza Rice, was one of the two or 
> > three people most responsible for the Bush Administration's policy 
> > towards German Unification. Dozens of Stanford students have studied in 
> > Berlin.
> 
> One mirror site may have had a limited effect, but more mirror sites
> have a more significant effect.

I strongly disagree.

Which has more symbolic power for good, a single man standing in front of
a tank in Tiananmen Square, or nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

It is not ethical to abuse this power we have. Especially because neither 
of us are students at the universities whose machines we are abusing.

> The press likes a local angle, and local mirrors are giving them just
> that. I put a reporter from the Boston Globe in touch with the UMass
> mirror operator, and a reporter from the Philadelphia Inquirer in touch
> with the University of Pennyslvania mirror operator. I'd love to see
> mirrors in every major city for greater coverage in every major paper.
> 
> If you don't understand that concept, you don't understand the way the
> media works.

I do understand the way the media works. They live on "press releases" 
from "recognized authorities." Most 
 
> So Rich, answer me this: "What articulable and demonstrable harm have
> additional mirror sites done, besides hurt your ego?"

Since my mirror site has been limited to .edu and selected other domains 
for a full day, this is an odd question. 

The demonstrable harm, as you now agree, is that the Ottawa Times, 
http://intranet.on.ca/ott_time.html, the Stormfront-L neo-nazi list, and 
so on are full of lies about how universities sympathetic to Zundel's 
fight against Zionist oppression and the Holocaust Lie have jumped to his 
defense.
 
> > This is ludicrous. I expect better from you.
> 
> I'm a big fan of Tim's, and I think that while he may have been jesting,
> his comments have a serious undertone.
> 
> I don't really expect to be locked up for the rest of my life in a
> German cellblock, but harassment at entry/exit points is possible.
> Perhaps probable, given that other "distributors" of Neo-Nazi spew have
> experienced just that.

No distributors. Only point sources. And as has been pointed out, they 
often get off with a slap on the wrist.

You have been duped by Zundel's false claims of persecution. I bet you 
even bought the "Dr. Axl Clocstein" story for a while.
 
> > Declan, if you don't fix up your page the way I want it by morning (please
> > not that you have three more hours of morning than I do), I will post a
> > modified (spell-checked) version of this note on my Web page, to
> > alt.censorship, and to your "fight-censorship" mailing list.
> 
> Please send me in private email (or post it here if you really want)
> exactly what you want me to change.

1. As I've been saying for the last day and a half, please remove all 
occurrences of the strings "Stanford" and "Graves." I hardly think that 
requesting not to be so identified is egotistical.

2. While you're at it, it would be good to remove the following as well, 
which does not accurately reflect the facts.

 In early January, Zundel contacted the Simon Wiesenthal Center and asked
 permission to reproduce some of their materials. He wanted to disprove
 some of their views as he had tried to rebut those of the Nizkor Project.
 (The Nizkor folks earlier had requested bidirectional linking. Zundel
 agreed to their request, heralding the experiment as "The Great Internet
 Holocaust Debate.")

Nizkor's response to this is rather prominent on their Web site.

3. Please fix this:
 
 January 29, 1996: This site goes online, with the help of files supplied
 by Rich (rich@c2.org), supplemented with more recent documents taken
 directly from the Zundelsite. Rich's site at Stanford University goes
 online. (Note that Rich and I mirrored the Zundelsite at our own
 initiative, not by request.)

To bolster Zundel's coyright claim against the National Alliance, please
clarify that "we" specifically requested the materials from Zundel, and
that his handler Marc uploaded them all to "one of our machines" (since we
could not have run a WebWacker on the highly overloaded webcom.com). Also 
remove the string "Stanford." In any case, the files are no longer 
available at Stanford.

4. February 1, 1996: Web Review Magazine reports on the mirror sites.

I have sent mail to Steve Pizzo and requested that he call me to correct 
some false statements attributed to me.

5. February 1, 1996, afternoon: UMass censors mirror. Simon Wiesenthal
   Center sends letters of protest to participating mirror universities.
   Sameer announces University of California at Berkeley mirror. 

Every one of these is false.

a. The operator of the UMass mirror objects to your characterization of 
   what happened as "censorship," and to your posting his private mail.

b. Where is your confirmation of Simon Wiesenthal's action?

c. Sameer has not announced a UC Berkeley mirror. He specifically asked 
   that it not be listed because like most of us, he is beginning to have
   ethical qualms. 

6. On index.html you have:

 There is an apparent campaign of email and web bombing being launched
 againt Zundel's site on Webcom, making it near-impossible to reach. 

Do you have a source for this besides me? Well, I retract the rumor. In
fact it seems that the problem is that Zundel foolishly put a bunch of
huge RealAudio files on his page that are overloading the server.

> Rich, by now I suspect you've seen this joke, but what the hell:
> 
>    Q: What's a left-wing firing squad?
> 
>    A: Everyone stands in a circle and shoots at each other

I guess this is supposed to be something clever about how the vanguard is
supposed to discard their personal interests for the common good. 

I am a member of no vanguard.

-rich

Rich:

	if you want to indulge in personal rants and vendettas, take it to
    personal mail.  secondly, you are slamming someone without the 
    decency or courtesy to even copy him.

	the whole Zundel thing is completely off the concept unless maybe
    a mention that Germany is trying to deny free speech rights to Zundel. 
    The man is entitled to his fifteen minutes in the sunlight, no matter
    how despicable he may be. everybody publicizing Zundel only extends 
    his fifteen minutes in thye sun.

	anyway, Rich, you are being childish.  I have two daughters who
    are always at each other's throats for something, but even a 10 year
    old is not as petty as you're pouting.  why in the world would you
    even want to claim Zundel's trash?  check the mirror for the fool. 

	[ BTW, if I were a sysadmin, I would not cut his service, but I 
    sure as hell would not encourage it. ]

	let's all have a nice day!

		attila [ the peacemaker ]

On Thu, 1 Feb 1996, Rich Graves wrote:

> On Thu, 1 Feb 1996, Declan B. McCullagh wrote:
> 
> > Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 1-Feb-96 Tim's paranoid rant about
> > D.. by Just Rich@c2.org 
> > > I disagree. It is clear to me that there is absolutely no cloud hanging 
> > > over us. If any German court tried to press charges against me for 
> > > posting Zendel's materials, they'd be laughed across the Argonne. Most 
> > > mainstream Jewish groups *love* me right now.
> > >  
> > > I find it curious, and I am beginning to get a little annoyed, that my
> > > name is rarely mentioned, though I set up the first mirror, and Declan got
> > > the files from me. 
> > 
> > So you're getting pissy that you're not The Only Zundel Mirror. Big
> > fucking deal. Get over it. The more the better.
> > 
> > I find it telling that you wrote me mail demanding that I alter my web
> > pages to your satisfaction or you'll smear me in the press, since your
> > web site (you informed me) is going to be featured in the next issue of
> > TIME, Internet World, and the San Francisco Chronicle.
> > 
> > Hey, guy, kudos to you. Glad to hear it. Smear the fuck away.
> 
> This does not accurately represent what I said, and it certainly does not 
> represent what I have done. You are still identified as "My friend 
> Declan," and I recommend that people visit your site.
> 
> I actually would have appreciated it if you had crowed, or at least 
> shared, your media contacts. For example, I only just now found out about 
> Steve Pizzo's poorly researched article in Web Review, where he presents 
> as my views deliberate lies that I told Zundel in order to get his 
> cooperation and trust.
> 
> > > I am very annoyed that Declan has not responded to repeated requests to
> > > remove the cleartext "Stanford University" from the parts of his Web site
> > > that mention me. Of course the stanford.edu, or at least net 36.190, will
> > > remain in the URL, but there is no reason that the link text could not say
> > > "Rich Graves' mirror." First Declan sent me mail saying he would respect
> > > my wishes, but he didn't.
> > 
> > Let's get the facts right and ignore Rich's distortions. I wrote:
> > 
> >     "I'll honor your wishes and take your full name off."
> > 
> > I did *not* write that I'd take Stanford's name off the pages. I did
> > take your full name off, as I said I would.
> 
> This does not accurately reflect your mail. At this time, you have not
> removed my full name, either. 
>  
> > >  Then a friend of mine reminded Declan of my
> > > request, and Declan responded with abuse. 
> > 
> > Your friend, Haggai Kupermintz, sent me unsolicited email demanding to
> > know why I didn't act on a request that was sent earlier that day. I
> 
> You will find that Haggai had been Cc'd on several messages back and forth
> on fight-censorship, and he was Bcc'd on my original request (at the
> header of my message to you was a notice that it was being Bcc'd to other
> people at Stanford).  While I don't appreciate his mommying me, I hardly
> consider his mail unsolicited or unwarranted, since you have still failed
> to honor my request. 
> 
> > have better things to do than leap on every demand I get, so I flamed
> > him. *shrug* Big deal. I didn't know a rather mild flame was "abuse." If
> > you don't want to be "abused," don't send me demands in unsolicited
> > email. (I'm glad for the sake of other "abusers" at Stanford that your
> > school's speech code was struck down by a California court last year.)
> 
> The "speech code" was never applied to anyone, and was widely regarded to 
> be unenforceable. I opposed it. It was a joke, yes.
> 
> What were we talking about again?
>  
> > > Declan wants me to believe that this disclaimer is enough:
> > >  
> > >        "Please note that the
> > >        existence of a web site at any particular institution does not
> > >        in any way imply endorsement. Universities and businesses
> > >        do not take responsibility for what their community members
> > >        or customers place online."
> > >  
> > > This is clearly untrue when the person in question is a staff member, as I
> > > am. Were I still a student, then I could more legitimately say that I'm a
> > > student at Stanford, and that I have the academic freedom to post whatever
> > > I want; but as someone who now merely works for a living at Stanford, I do
> > > whatever I want by the (very) good graces of my (very good) employer. 
> > 
> > I don't follow. In what way is that disclaimer untrue? You *do*
> > represent Stanford? The concept of academic freedom doesn't apply to
> > staff members? If that's true, you do have a point.
> 
> Then you, kadie, and I agree. I have a point. Why do you persist in 
> identifying, in two places, a Stanford University Mirror Site?
>  
> > > One mirror site was enough. The German providers would not have blocked
> > > stanford.edu had it remained the only mirror site. The President of
> > > Stanford, Gerhard Casper, is a recognized constitutional scholar from
> > > Germany. The Stanford Provost, Condoleezza Rice, was one of the two or 
> > > three people most responsible for the Bush Administration's policy 
> > > towards German Unification. Dozens of Stanford students have studied in 
> > > Berlin.
> > 
> > One mirror site may have had a limited effect, but more mirror sites
> > have a more significant effect.
> 
> I strongly disagree.
> 
> Which has more symbolic power for good, a single man standing in front of
> a tank in Tiananmen Square, or nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
> 
> It is not ethical to abuse this power we have. Especially because neither 
> of us are students at the universities whose machines we are abusing.
> 
> > The press likes a local angle, and local mirrors are giving them just
> > that. I put a reporter from the Boston Globe in touch with the UMass
> > mirror operator, and a reporter from the Philadelphia Inquirer in touch
> > with the University of Pennyslvania mirror operator. I'd love to see
> > mirrors in every major city for greater coverage in every major paper.
> > 
> > If you don't understand that concept, you don't understand the way the
> > media works.
> 
> I do understand the way the media works. They live on "press releases" 
> from "recognized authorities." Most 
>  
> > So Rich, answer me this: "What articulable and demonstrable harm have
> > additional mirror sites done, besides hurt your ego?"
> 
> Since my mirror site has been limited to .edu and selected other domains 
> for a full day, this is an odd question. 
> 
> The demonstrable harm, as you now agree, is that the Ottawa Times, 
> http://intranet.on.ca/ott_time.html, the Stormfront-L neo-nazi list, and 
> so on are full of lies about how universities sympathetic to Zundel's 
> fight against Zionist oppression and the Holocaust Lie have jumped to his 
> defense.
>  
> > > This is ludicrous. I expect better from you.
> > 
> > I'm a big fan of Tim's, and I think that while he may have been jesting,
> > his comments have a serious undertone.
> > 
> > I don't really expect to be locked up for the rest of my life in a
> > German cellblock, but harassment at entry/exit points is possible.
> > Perhaps probable, given that other "distributors" of Neo-Nazi spew have
> > experienced just that.
> 
> No distributors. Only point sources. And as has been pointed out, they 
> often get off with a slap on the wrist.
> 
> You have been duped by Zundel's false claims of persecution. I bet you 
> even bought the "Dr. Axl Clocstein" story for a while.
>  
> > > Declan, if you don't fix up your page the way I want it by morning (please
> > > not that you have three more hours of morning than I do), I will post a
> > > modified (spell-checked) version of this note on my Web page, to
> > > alt.censorship, and to your "fight-censorship" mailing list.
> > 
> > Please send me in private email (or post it here if you really want)
> > exactly what you want me to change.
> 
> 1. As I've been saying for the last day and a half, please remove all 
> occurrences of the strings "Stanford" and "Graves." I hardly think that 
> requesting not to be so identified is egotistical.
> 
> 2. While you're at it, it would be good to remove the following as well, 
> which does not accurately reflect the facts.
> 
>  In early January, Zundel contacted the Simon Wiesenthal Center and asked
>  permission to reproduce some of their materials. He wanted to disprove
>  some of their views as he had tried to rebut those of the Nizkor Project.
>  (The Nizkor folks earlier had requested bidirectional linking. Zundel
>  agreed to their request, heralding the experiment as "The Great Internet
>  Holocaust Debate.")
> 
> Nizkor's response to this is rather prominent on their Web site.
> 
> 3. Please fix this:
>  
>  January 29, 1996: This site goes online, with the help of files supplied
>  by Rich (rich@c2.org), supplemented with more recent documents taken
>  directly from the Zundelsite. Rich's site at Stanford University goes
>  online. (Note that Rich and I mirrored the Zundelsite at our own
>  initiative, not by request.)
> 
> To bolster Zundel's coyright claim against the National Alliance, please
> clarify that "we" specifically requested the materials from Zundel, and
> that his handler Marc uploaded them all to "one of our machines" (since we
> could not have run a WebWacker on the highly overloaded webcom.com). Also 
> remove the string "Stanford." In any case, the files are no longer 
> available at Stanford.
> 
> 4. February 1, 1996: Web Review Magazine reports on the mirror sites.
> 
> I have sent mail to Steve Pizzo and requested that he call me to correct 
> some false statements attributed to me.
> 
> 5. February 1, 1996, afternoon: UMass censors mirror. Simon Wiesenthal
>    Center sends letters of protest to participating mirror universities.
>    Sameer announces University of California at Berkeley mirror. 
> 
> Every one of these is false.
> 
> a. The operator of the UMass mirror objects to your characterization of 
>    what happened as "censorship," and to your posting his private mail.
> 
> b. Where is your confirmation of Simon Wiesenthal's action?
> 
> c. Sameer has not announced a UC Berkeley mirror. He specifically asked 
>    that it not be listed because like most of us, he is beginning to have
>    ethical qualms. 
> 
> 6. On index.html you have:
> 
>  There is an apparent campaign of email and web bombing being launched
>  againt Zundel's site on Webcom, making it near-impossible to reach. 
> 
> Do you have a source for this besides me? Well, I retract the rumor. In
> fact it seems that the problem is that Zundel foolishly put a bunch of
> huge RealAudio files on his page that are overloading the server.
> 
> > Rich, by now I suspect you've seen this joke, but what the hell:
> > 
> >    Q: What's a left-wing firing squad?
> > 
> >    A: Everyone stands in a circle and shoots at each other
> 
> I guess this is supposed to be something clever about how the vanguard is
> supposed to discard their personal interests for the common good. 
> 
> I am a member of no vanguard.
> 
> -rich
> 

__________________________________________________________________________
    go not unto usenet for advice, for the inhabitants thereof will say:
      yes, and no, and maybe, and I don't know, and fuck-off.
_________________________________________________________________ attila__

    To be a ruler of men, you need at least 12 inches....
    There is no safety this side of the grave.  Never was; never will be.

Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 2-Feb-96 Re: Tim's paranoid rant
abo.. by attila@primenet.com 
>         if you want to indulge in personal rants and vendettas, take it to
>     personal mail.  secondly, you are slamming someone without the 
>     decency or courtesy to even copy him.

Yeah, I don't particularly enjoy rants, but I engage in them myself
occasionally, so I'm willing to cut Rich some slack.

We've since mended fences and we're working in the same direction. I had
thought his initial actions were slightly irrational, but now I know him
a bit better, I think.

Both of us are working in good faith, and that's what's important here.
In particular, the NeoNazi slime are really starting to piss of both of
us. Can anyone say "defamation," on this fascist's darling little page
at Georgia State: [ http://www.gsu.edu/~hisjwbx/ZUNDEL ]

>     This is a mirror archive of most of Ernst Zundel's holocaust 
>revisionist site. I DO agree with his views. I ALSO
                     ^^                         ^^^^
>     agree with his right to express them. There is an apparent campaign 
>of email and web bombing being launched
>     againt Zundel's site on Webcom, making it near-impossible to reach. 
>Germany has forced Deutsche Telekom to
>     censor access to his site by URL. This mirror archive exists to 
>demonstrate the folly and the danger of Internet
>     censorship. 
>
>     Read more about these attempts at censorship. 
>
>     -Declan McCullagh, declan@well.com, 1/29/96
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Now, this guy copied that file from my web site. Fine -- it was up for
FTP. But editing my comments to *support* Neo-Nazis and leaving my name
is just fucking too much. I've sent him polite mail requesting a change.
We'll see what happens.

Cypherpunk relevance? Authentication for web pages. There's no reason
for a reasonable person to believe, at first glance, that I was *not*
the author.

Perhaps someone has suggested this before, but should a web browser's
functionality be extended to support authentication via an automated
PGP-type mechanism? Using comments, possibly. I guess I'm just pissed
over this attribution of Zundelscheistenviews to me, but has anyone else
run into such a problem?

(Legal threats and complaints to sysadmins are of course another
alternative...)

-Declan

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

 An entity calling itself "Declan B. McCullagh" <declan+@CMU.EDU>
 is alleged to have written:
> 
> Now, this guy copied that file from my web site. Fine -- it was up for
> FTP. But editing my comments to *support* Neo-Nazis and leaving my name
> is just fucking too much. I've sent him polite mail requesting a change.
> We'll see what happens.


Polite?  You show more restraint than most of us would 
I suspect.  Actually it is probably a good tactic for the
first encounter.


> Cypherpunk relevance? Authentication for web pages. There's no reason
> for a reasonable person to believe, at first glance, that I was *not*
> the author.


It is possible to PGP-clearsign web pages using comments.
PGP's insertion of "- " before any line beginning with "-"
might cause a problem, but you'll just have to be a little
more careful.  I'm considering hacking up a "PGP verification
service" web page which will accept a PGP-signed URL, 
retrieve it, verify it, and report the results.  Of course
I'll make it clear that this service is very susceptible to
active attacks.


On a related topic it would probably be wise for you to
clear-sign your mail, Declan.  Establish a public key with me,
and next time I see mail from you saying "I've been reading
about this 'the Holocaust was a hoax' stuff and it's actually
kind of convincing." I'll know where to lay the authorship of
the words...  :-)


Regards,

Bryce

                 "Toys, Tools and Technologies"
  the Niche 
        New Signal Consulting -- C++, Java, HTML, Ecash
            Bryce 
 
PGP sig follows



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.01

iQCVAwUBMRIWjPWZSllhfG25AQE4UwP/eFEXJ0qoocgRdcNFqf2jeW/XOe8UNA8k
cQkYRSuyTwODEbNtkoLWoAGh+ucttGToy13uvA2e4WO8PG3LD2BVQlHP5Xi/umip
XpUn+Ge7fbCm4O2dlogf6HNLmTNo5BrwX8ET46wn1K4hLf695cIyYoMToua+4xWr
azZPYCg+eYs=
=unP7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Fri, 2 Feb 1996, Bryce wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
>  An entity calling itself "Declan B. McCullagh" <declan+@CMU.EDU>
>  is alleged to have written:
> > 
> > Now, this guy copied that file from my web site. Fine -- it was up for
> > FTP. But editing my comments to *support* Neo-Nazis and leaving my name
> > is just fucking too much. I've sent him polite mail requesting a change.
> > We'll see what happens.
> 
> Polite?  You show more restraint than most of us would 
> I suspect.  Actually it is probably a good tactic for the
> first encounter.

Certainly a lot more polite than I am...
 
> > Cypherpunk relevance? Authentication for web pages. There's no reason
> > for a reasonable person to believe, at first glance, that I was *not*
> > the author.
> 
> It is possible to PGP-clearsign web pages using comments.
> PGP's insertion of "- " before any line beginning with "-"
> might cause a problem, but you'll just have to be a little
> more careful.

What's wrong with a prominent PGP-signed notice in <PRE>'s that "This
page, at URL [whatever], has a separate PGP signature at [other URL]." 
I've did that with the windows networking FAQ a few times until it just 
got to be too much trouble.

-rich

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

> What's wrong with a prominent PGP-signed notice in <PRE>'s that "This
> page, at URL [whatever], has a separate PGP signature at [other URL]." 
> I've did that with the windows networking FAQ a few times until it just 
> got to be too much trouble.


That's a good idea, but I don't see any reason to sign the 
notice.  Just put a "PGP signed" logo at the bottom of the
page.  If the user clicks on it then it hrefs to a .asc
file (or is it better to have a .html file is the
signature in <pre>...) which contains the detached sig for
the original page.


This would also have the bonus effect of making PGP more
visible to the web-browsing public.  I'll work on this
during my.. err.. "spare time".


Bryce

                 "Toys, Tools and Technologies"
  the Niche 
        New Signal Consulting -- C++, Java, HTML, Ecash
            Bryce 
 
PGP sig follows



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.01

iQCVAwUBMRJsP/WZSllhfG25AQEimAP+O1SJBflS+rOQZ5K9bNwJYxuzhBBgRjvR
qePJn1d+uQvBs1sHgoofu7R8DbcHX1BEyCc2YUBC0i+fSu0sR3+nYawdcj6Wem9L
WEDmspbp2TMj35v8AtUinKNqfZqfG6S9Hsb7DColCxpuvvkFTdFGNJBkqgEFHS46
gANShEspa/4=
=54jP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Fri, 2 Feb 1996, Bryce wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> > What's wrong with a prominent PGP-signed notice in <PRE>'s that "This
> > page, at URL [whatever], has a separate PGP signature at [other URL]." 
> > I've did that with the windows networking FAQ a few times until it just 
> > got to be too much trouble.
> 
> That's a good idea, but I don't see any reason to sign the 
> notice.

For the paranoid, it would be an added assurance that they are reading the
original file at the original location. Otherwise, anybody could copy the
Web page, modify it, and give it someone else's PGP signature. 

But yeah, it would look awfully silly, especially to the non-PGP-aware
public. An unobstrusive PGP logo (below) would be great, and might become
a status symbol, like those cheesy HTML validation service and Internet
Audit Bureau logos (which I have used on a few pages). 

> Just put a "PGP signed" logo at the bottom of the
> page.  If the user clicks on it then it hrefs to a .asc
> file (or is it better to have a .html file is the
> signature in <pre>...) which contains the detached sig for
> the original page.
> 
> This would also have the bonus effect of making PGP more
> visible to the web-browsing public.  I'll work on this
> during my.. err.. "spare time".

Yeah, I like the idea of a standardized logo. A lot.

-rich

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


 An entity calling itself "Rich Graves 
 <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>" is alleged to have
 written:
>
> On Fri, 2 Feb 1996, Bryce wrote:
> 
> > > What's wrong with a prominent PGP-signed notice in <PRE>'s that "This
> > > page, at URL [whatever], has a separate PGP signature at [other URL]." 
> > > I've did that with the windows networking FAQ a few times until it just 
> > > got to be too much trouble.
> > 
> > That's a good idea, but I don't see any reason to sign the 
> > notice.
> 
> For the paranoid, it would be an added assurance that they are reading the
> original file at the original location. Otherwise, anybody could copy the
> Web page, modify it, and give it someone else's PGP signature. 


Uhhh- wait a second.  Anybody can always copy the file *and*
the signature to a new site without changing the
authentication.  And anybody can always copy the cleartext
and then sign it with a different key.  Right?  What are you
getting at?


Now what you can do is put the site's URL in the signed 
text, forcing the copier to change the URL and re-sign it
with his own key.  And you could time-stamp your document, 
proving that you had possession of it before the copier did.
But that's the extent of what you can do, AFAIK.


> But yeah, it would look awfully silly, especially to the non-PGP-aware
> public. An unobstrusive PGP logo (below) would be great, and might become
> a status symbol, like those cheesy HTML validation service and Internet
> Audit Bureau logos (which I have used on a few pages). 


Yeah that was my idea.  A little "PGP signed" logo.  If the
user clicks on it it gives them the signature, and/or a href
to a PGP page.  (Probably one maintained by yours truly.)


> Yeah, I like the idea of a standardized logo. A lot.


I have a little logo which is (as I recall) 32x32 pixels
which is just "PGP" with a red check-mark superimposed.
I'll hack on this idea during what I jocularly refer to as
my spare time.


Regards,

Bryce

                 "Toys, Tools and Technologies"
  the Niche 
        New Signal Consulting -- C++, Java, HTML, Ecash
            Bryce 
 
PGP sig follows



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.01

iQCVAwUBMRK45PWZSllhfG25AQG9uQP/Ry8TJDwvBjgNLjqJ4O0kX5277Th9ERoD
/I90bq+EvdkVOIypr8DIagxGQDtY8GUDeIXzZvvoUSH/h/EioKP7P6J3El9liCmO
NEYcGhlYtnKMn2/iKeQiZfu68iVSCpUSm8Tvq42ecLKTpgcpx+6sQIhFs3e5oG0O
F2lc601FTL4=
=0qGM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

Hello Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
  and bryce@colorado.edu
  and "Declan B. McCullagh" <declan+@cmu.edu>, cypherpunks@toad.com
 
> On Fri, 2 Feb 1996, Bryce wrote:
...
> For the paranoid, it would be an added assurance that they are reading the
> original file at the original location. Otherwise, anybody could copy the
> Web page, modify it, and give it someone else's PGP signature. 
...

So? I guess it's plagiarism, but there's nothing you can do about it
anyway. If someone wants to claim your words, let them sign.

...
> But yeah, it would look awfully silly, especially to the non-PGP-aware
> public. An unobstrusive PGP logo (below) would be great, and might become
> a status symbol, like those cheesy HTML validation service and Internet
> Audit Bureau logos (which I have used on a few pages). 
> 
> > Just put a "PGP signed" logo at the bottom of the
> > page.  If the user clicks on it then it hrefs to a .asc
...
> Yeah, I like the idea of a standardized logo. A lot.

One other thing - what about inline images?

I guess you could put an MD5 hash of the image into the IMG tag,
as a new attribute (you don't necessarily want to sign each of the
images separately).

I'm not sure how to do links, but I guess for the time being you'd
leave them unsigned, with a disclaimer or something on the signature file.

Have a look at http://www.cs.monash.edu.au/~jirib (my home page).
Is that more-or-less what you have in mind?

(Sorry about the cruddy logo - anybody a better artist than I am?)


Hope that makes sense...

Jiri
- --
If you want an answer, please mail to <jirib@cs.monash.edu.au>.
On sweeney, I may delete without reading!
PGP 463A14D5 (but it's at home so it'll take a day or two)
PGP EF0607F9 (but it's at uni so don't rely on it too much)

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

iQCVAwUBMRbq+yxV6mvvBgf5AQHUCgQAscQZb0fq9X+quFmOGGa/7D75yzbYeVjr
IPYDkyHo51Sd+mUUyD8Wt7EtepcVgp5FNEgej0KjjA4gNMbTccZUdp+VoWm0mIDW
qhENaWHvyFZ75+LuyeGqjd3WpvaI2yLzY5+48U5/iBo7XYMNuecZu7cRk+NmhZfv
dEFT4eWUwy4=
=Z14V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

 An entity calling itself Jiri Baum 
 <jirib@sweeney.cs.monash.edu.au> probably wrote:

> Hello Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
>   and bryce@colorado.edu
>   and "Declan B. McCullagh" <declan+@cmu.edu>, cypherpunks@toad.com
>  
> > On Fri, 2 Feb 1996, Bryce wrote:
> ...
> > For the paranoid, it would be an added assurance that they are reading the
> > original file at the original location. Otherwise, anybody could copy the
> > Web page, modify it, and give it someone else's PGP signature. 
> ...


No I didn't.  That was Rich I think.


> So? I guess it's plagiarism, but there's nothing you can do about it
> anyway. If someone wants to claim your words, let them sign.


What *I* wrote was some ways that you *could* do something
about it, namely PGP clearsigs and and timestamps.  I have
the disheartening impression that my e-mail hasn't been
delivered properly for the last couple of weeks.  That, or
nobody is listening to me.


> One other thing - what about inline images?
> 
> I guess you could put an MD5 hash of the image into the IMG tag,
> as a new attribute (you don't necessarily want to sign each of the
> images separately).
 

That's a good idea.  Of course you already have signed the
URL, which is supposed to be universal.  However someone
*could* hijack the http requests and shove the wrong images
into your "PGP signed" document.  This could stand some more
thought.  I like your MD5 idea, but that isn't as easy to
implement and distribute.


Most graphic file formats can have inert embedded comments.
We could stick the URL at which the file should be found,
along with a whole PGP sig of that URL and the graphic
data.  Then, since we have that URL signed, and we have the
URL for the inline image in the html file signed, we can
match the two together and be safe except for some really
funky replay attacks.  (Which you can avoid by never storing
a file at an URL which once held a different file.)


Hm.  Your MD5 hashes sound like a better idea.  :-)


> I'm not sure how to do links, but I guess for the time being you'd
> leave them unsigned, with a disclaimer or something on the signature file.


Umm..  Hm.  What do you mean?  The text of the hrefs would
be signed since it is part of the html document.  Hopefully
it would be intuitively obvious to the most casual user that
if you are reading a file signed by X, and you click on an
URL and go to another file, that the new file is not
necessarily signed by X.  :-)


> Have a look at http://www.cs.monash.edu.au/~jirib (my home page).
> Is that more-or-less what you have in mind?


Nice!  If you want you can have copies of the graphics in
"http://www-ugrad.cs.colorado.edu/~wilcoxb/images/pgpcheck".


I think they should say "signed" rather than "verified"
since they haven't been verified until the user actually
runs PGP on them.  Let me know if you want variations on the
images there-- I'll cook them up and give them to you.


Sorry for snapping at you at the beginning of this message--
I'm was just in a bad mood and I hate having things
mis-attributed to me.


Regards,

Bryce

                 "Toys, Tools and Technologies"
  the Niche 
        New Signal Consulting -- C++, Java, HTML, Ecash
            Bryce 
 
PGP sig follows



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.01

iQCVAwUBMRgIZPWZSllhfG25AQHvBQP+LHZRIeNPujzmooJMOLHnmvnojtQNGzNe
ttYUykeS47wT/ack2TS0pD3oYrvu0vUsD7A2dMON0rgDlzsx/GMIcteqFxE0Hkg/
64SLl9JO+SI43/1MU0hBI3PJppOzIIzxtQaWvIQbBz5zajDf8I60Fe69KK91q5sj
Q6c871kjtV4=
=dDpO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----