Re: CDT Policy Post 2.27 - No New News on Crypto: Gore Restates

At 06:05 PM 7/14/96 -0700, David Sternlight wrote:

>This post is a courtesy to others who may have been expecting more. 

It's not that we're expecting more...it's just that we're hoping for BETTER.

>It's a
>one-time statement to this list, which I've just joined, of my current
>practice: Silence does not constitute assent.
>David

Well, that's where you're confused.  Our positions are not morally 
equivalent.  Despite trying to hide behind the smokescreen of calling the 
government's GAK position "voluntary," we all know that they are trying to 
misuse their influence to gently force us to use GAK, if by no other means 
that forcing the taxpayer to pay for the system as they have done already.  

The opponents of GAK, on the other hand, are not denying to anyone the right 
to implement a truly voluntary "key-escrow" system, or more likely many 
privately operating ones.  However, such systems will be a service for the 
customer, not the government, and the key will almost certainly not be 
provided to the government on request, and in fact the key will likely be 
stored in an encrypted form that the government won't be able to use.

Quite simply, we do not require your "assent."  You should be trying to get 
OURS.

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

On Mon, 15 Jul 1996, jim bell wrote:

> >This post is a courtesy to others who may have been expecting more. 
> 
> It's not that we're expecting more...it's just that we're hoping for BETTER.
> 
> >It's a
> >one-time statement to this list, which I've just joined, of my current
> >practice: Silence does not constitute assent.
> >David
> 
> Well, that's where you're confused.  Our positions are not morally 
> equivalent.  Despite trying to hide behind the smokescreen of calling the 
> government's GAK position "voluntary," we all know that they are trying to 
> misuse their influence to gently force us to use GAK, if by no other means 
> that forcing the taxpayer to pay for the system as they have done already.  

Geezzzz, here we go....

One of the blessings of c'punks was that it was not 'worthy' of the time
of several professional flame-baiters who are fairly well-known on the
'Net, in particular, David Sternlight.  Now, however, that seems to have
changed.  If everyone thought things were weird around here with
Detweiler, just wait until you see DS's stuff....

Aside from the now-infamous "Who is David Sternlight, REALLY?" and "Who
does Sternlight REALLY work for" multi-generational, gigabyte-consuming,
bandwidth-devastating threads [search usenet archives for several YEARS
worth of traffic on these subjects] that have already graced the Internet
(note that Sternlight actually had his OWN usenet newsgroup), there's the
fear that DS will start a flame thrower exchange with anyone, regardless
of topic.  AND, he'll keep posting about it.  Relentlessly. 

After seeing what happened to sci.crypt (it was essentially wrecked for
anyone without killfile capability), I'd caution the c'punkers
(particularly the more vocal ones) to NOT TAKE THE BAIT.  It's only
natural that Perry, Jim, and the others be the first to take exception
to DS's stuff.  It's probably only going to get worse as DS is the
consummate flame king and he is at least as relentless as Detweiler.

God bless 'em, but it's time to add another line to the c'punks net.loon
warning file.

------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
|Just as the strength of the Internet is  |Mark Aldrich                 |
|chaos, so the strength of our liberty    |GRCI INFOSEC Engineering     |
|depends upon the chaos and cacophony of  |maldrich@grci.com            |
|the unfettered speech the First Amendment|MAldrich@dockmaster.ncsc.mil |
|protects - District Judge Stewart Dalzell|                             |
|_______________________________________________________________________|
|The author is PGP Empowered.  Public key at:  finger maldrich@grci.com |
|    The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author     |
|         and my employer gets no credit for them whatsoever.           |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Modems on stun...

"Mark O. Aldrich" <maldrich@grci.com> writes:
...
> After seeing what happened to sci.crypt (it was essentially wrecked for
> anyone without killfile capability), I'd caution the c'punkers
> (particularly the more vocal ones) to NOT TAKE THE BAIT.  It's only
> natural that Perry, Jim, and the others be the first to take exception
> to DS's stuff.  It's probably only going to get worse as DS is the
> consummate flame king and he is at least as relentless as Detweiler.

I already got some shit from DS.  I saw right away that he's an asshole,
so I won't be responding to anything {he|she|it} says.  What a maroon.

I think Lance Deitweller is much smarter and more coherent. I exchanged
some e-mails with and and he sounds like a very reasonable and nice guy.

Thanks for the warning,

---

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

At 4:27 PM -0700 7/15/96, Mark O. Aldrich wrote:

>One of the blessings of c'punks was that it was not 'worthy' of the time
>of several professional flame-baiters who are fairly well-known on the
>'Net, in particular, David Sternlight.  Now, however, that seems to have
>changed.  If everyone thought things were weird around here with
>Detweiler, just wait until you see DS's stuff....

And another thing. The reason I've not joined this group earlier had
nothing to do with "worthy". It was because after discussion a year or so
ago, Tim May suggested to me via e-mail that it would just generate a lot
of controversy, at a time when people were so polarized that they couldn't
hear each other and thus my presence here would serve no useful purpose.  I
took Tim's advice and stayed out.

I thought that by now the more extreme dogmatists among you would have
matured, especially given the evidence generated by the real world about
how things are and are going if nothing rational and effective is done to
stop it. Some of you have met me at Crypto and found I'm not the devil
incarnate. Some of you know that we share many (but not all) policy views
in common.

The presenting symptom for my joining now was a copy of a post by an MIT
professor I respect to this group, which a colleague sent me. Perhaps I was
too hasty in my belief that we can begin to hear each other.

David

How does one set up a kill-file for a mailing list?  I run a Linux box
with sendmail and use the MH mail system.

My best guess is that I will have to install procmail, but would like
your advice before going to a lot of labor.

I supose that it would be easier just to unsubscribe from cypherpunks,
but that would be rather self-defeating.

--
Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH
Internet:  junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu    junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu

"Peter D. Junger" writes:
> How does one set up a kill-file for a mailing list?  I run a Linux box
> with sendmail and use the MH mail system.
> 
> My best guess is that I will have to install procmail, but would like
> your advice before going to a lot of labor.

You can use procmail. If you use MH, you can also use a combination of
"pick" and "rmm" to nuke a specified list of users before going
through your mail.

Perry

Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> 
> "Peter D. Junger" writes:
> > How does one set up a kill-file for a mailing list?  I run a Linux box
> > with sendmail and use the MH mail system.
> > 
> > My best guess is that I will have to install procmail, but would like
> > your advice before going to a lot of labor.
> 
> You can use procmail. If you use MH, you can also use a combination of
> "pick" and "rmm" to nuke a specified list of users before going
> through your mail.
> 

Here's the procmailrc recipe that I use for cypherpunks: 

:0
* ^(Sender|From): owner-cypherpunks@toad.com
{ 
  :0
  * ? fgrep -q -i -f $HOME/.procmail/killfile.cpunks
  /dev/null

  :0:
  $CRYPTO
}


All you have to do add a new entry to your killfile is to add a new
line to te file ~/.procmail/killfile.cpunks which is real easy.


	- Igor.

>How does one set up a kill-file for a mailing list?  I run a Linux box
>with sendmail and use the MH mail system.
>
>My best guess is that I will have to install procmail, but would like
>your advice before going to a lot of labor.
>


procmail is a very effective and good way, and it doesn't require
a lot of effort. Just download, configure, compile, and install. It's
fairly mindless. Just follow the install instructions.


--
____________________________________________________________________________
Doug Hughes					Engineering Network Services
System/Net Admin  				Auburn University
			doug@eng.auburn.edu

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

 "Peter D. Junger" <junger@pdj2-ra.F-REMOTE.CWRU.Edu> wrote 
 something like:
>
> How does one set up a kill-file for a mailing list?  I run a Linux box
> with sendmail and use the MH mail system.
> 
> My best guess is that I will have to install procmail, but would like
> your advice before going to a lot of labor.


No, mh is sufficient for all your mail handling needs.


"man slocal" for starters.  For advanced stuff you can always 
write a script that takes messages and chews on them and either 
sends them to rcvstore or to /dev/null.


I think I'll write a script that parses each letter looking for
text from D**** S********* and adds that text to my "D**** 
S********* Travesty Database".  Then it will select random 
sentences from that database and construct long cascade insult-
fests between D**** S********* and himself and mail them to 
cypherpunks via an anonymous remailer.


Just kidding.


I think I'll write a script which globally searches and replaces
"D**** S*********" with "Duncan Frissell" in my cpunks folder.



Just kidding again.


Okay bye.

Bryce




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2

iQB1AwUBMevpSEjbHy8sKZitAQHR1gL/Ye/o58xe7DiApoS2WzPwnHpnj4JfV0Fb
FYxeaFcRaZy98ub3tt6bqrf5dM8Q6G4/sFnofUhdJqe7G1N4awuI7Lab/fIRPmDV
lEMQ2S/ze1tM9Sg0KhjZpezgxfZsN/pX
=KdY+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

At 10:54 AM -0700 7/16/96, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:

>a suggestion: get a pseudonym!

In my opinion (it's not "the truth") using a pseudonym except in force
majeure circumstances such as a rape counseling group is cowardly. I think
people should stand behind what they say, and the notion of Detweiler's
having arguments with himself pseudonymously would be hilarious if it were
not pathetic.

In any case it wouldn't work for me since I suspect my literary style is
sufficiently distinctive (at least for this sort of group) that I'd be
spotted in a short time and then be the victim of a bunch of nasty "what
have you got to hide" posts.

And I'm not going to twist myself into a pretzel, stylistically speaking,
just so some thug's nastiness can be avoided. I trust the good sense of
wiser readers, and as Harry Truman said...

David

>And another thing. The reason I've not joined this group earlier had
>nothing to do with "worthy". It was because after discussion a year or so
>ago, Tim May suggested to me via e-mail that it would just generate a lot
>of controversy, at a time when people were so polarized that they couldn't
>hear each other and thus my presence here would serve no useful purpose.  I
>took Tim's advice and stayed out.
>

frankly I think a mailing list that can't tolerate informed
but  dissenting views such as your own without self-destructing has
an inherent problem that exists independent of your participation.
perhaps it is a valuable public service to expose such a flaw. at
least, that's the hacker spirit. as for TCM recommending you not
join, I'm disappointed to hear anyone so ostensibly and vocally
committed to free speech would tell anyone that their presence
would be "disruptive" or "controversial" and recommend against it.

>I thought that by now the more extreme dogmatists among you would have
>matured, especially given the evidence generated by the real world about
>how things are and are going if nothing rational and effective is done to
>stop it. Some of you have met me at Crypto and found I'm not the devil
>incarnate. Some of you know that we share many (but not all) policy views
>in common.

well, I find you to have mellowed yourself after a legendary amount
of back and forth in cyberspace, although I would still consider
some of your own views "dogmatic" as you term it.

>
>The presenting symptom for my joining now was a copy of a post by an MIT
>professor I respect to this group, which a colleague sent me. Perhaps I was
>too hasty in my belief that we can begin to hear each other.

I personally find your GAK positions superior to those of the
administration, at least, although that's almost the lowest-common
denominator litmus test for not starting massive flamewars on the 
list.

a suggestion: get a pseudonym! if you only care about debate, you
can debate to your heart's content through it. it's trivial in
cyberspace. if, however, you want your posts to accrue to your
"true name" because you are uptight about maximizing your "reputation",
then this won't work. imho, it does separate the men from the boys
in some ways, the way people use and deal with pseudonymity.
do they openly advocate it yet fall back on ideas of "true names"
randomly relative to it? do they play games like relentlessly try
to connect-the-dots of pseudonyms to "true names" via their speculation
or whatever? do they feel they have to defend their pseudonym's posts
as much as they would those under their so-called "real" name?
all signs of cyberspatial immaturity imho.  

in fact as I understand it, from the fragments of legends tossed around here,
this is all what caused Detweiler to self-destruct,
when his neurons melted down from contemplating the ramifications
of pseudonymity. yet you can see signs of "pseudoparanoia" 
even among the most "respectable" here.

"there is no limit to what a man can accomplish if he doesn't
insist on getting credit"...

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

On Tue, 16 Jul 1996, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:

> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 96 10:54:28 -0700
> From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
> To: David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com>
> Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com, vznuri@netcom.com
> Subject: Re: Sternlight on C'punks 
> 
> 
> >And another thing. The reason I've not joined this group earlier had
> >nothing to do with "worthy". It was because after discussion a year or so
> >ago, Tim May suggested to me via e-mail that it would just generate a lot
> >of controversy, at a time when people were so polarized that they couldn't
> >hear each other and thus my presence here would serve no useful purpose.  I
> >took Tim's advice and stayed out.
> >
> 
> frankly I think a mailing list that can't tolerate informed
> but  dissenting views such as your own without self-destructing has
> an inherent problem that exists independent of your participation.
> perhaps it is a valuable public service to expose such a flaw. at
> least, that's the hacker spirit. as for TCM recommending you not
> join, I'm disappointed to hear anyone so ostensibly and vocally
> committed to free speech would tell anyone that their presence
> would be "disruptive" or "controversial" and recommend against it.
> 

I'm enclined to agree with you.  It is a bit embarasing for people on one
of the newsgroups that encourages free speach like this one does to ask
someone, basicly, not to speak because they don't agree with our
oppinions.  Personally, I'd like to welcome David to the list.  I'm sure
we need some, well.. out of lack of a better word,  opposing, views. So
far I've seen more flaimbaiting _AT_ him on this list than _BY_ him.

>
> >I thought that by now the more extreme dogmatists among you would have
> >matured, especially given the evidence generated by the real world about
> >how things are and are going if nothing rational and effective is done to
> >stop it. Some of you have met me at Crypto and found I'm not the devil
> >incarnate. Some of you know that we share many (but not all) policy views
> >in common.
> 
> well, I find you to have mellowed yourself after a legendary amount
> of back and forth in cyberspace, although I would still consider
> some of your own views "dogmatic" as you term it.
> 
> >
> >The presenting symptom for my joining now was a copy of a post by an MIT
> >professor I respect to this group, which a colleague sent me. Perhaps I was
> >too hasty in my belief that we can begin to hear each other.
> 
> I personally find your GAK positions superior to those of the
> administration, at least, although that's almost the lowest-common
> denominator litmus test for not starting massive flamewars on the 
> list.
> 
> a suggestion: get a pseudonym! if you only care about debate, you
>

That is a little bit of the "I'm afraid of your oppinion" approach, isn't
it?  Then his pseudonym would probably just wind up with the same
reputation, and people would start comparing him to himself.  Thats more
likely to make a mess thant to solve anything.  He has his views, I have
mine, you have yours.  Learn to live with it.

 --Deviant


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

iQEVAwUBMe8cYTAJap8fyDMVAQHvrAf/R/YLvNiISulJ+VnNFxKdusmTnnTHMBG3
V5G4HBAZJ7CamOtfeHPmVZH+QtANZBt8//n4B1eW67sNLhoksQp4GRBUgVotBNsS
g3PRNhkG7cIYTN1GOki6hImjvix7NTWG3KpgU1cQXfIDjgFi/9bf/bYGchQLVKpP
4WgjvilI3kWPUcXxhqdponRB9ZBLy7XPTgok/HtENSby2h+oRKL9cUZOjFAuthu2
veYlZ2loju5ovojE0yecYUykCpPiTf6x9AXBBtN4wA2YVMV95s3mzZRbYEeRBkYn
WLcOQ1i1Ut0wM5/Bhge0NnjV9wZrykvr21EiGrh/X9wlzp9wrfxoAA==
=Ht1c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

Some live in the conversation in their head and require that everything be
spelled out. Very well, then:

At 10:58 AM -0700 7/15/96, jim bell wrote:
>At 06:05 PM 7/14/96 -0700, David Sternlight wrote:
>
>>This post is a courtesy to others who may have been expecting more.
>
>It's not that we're expecting more...it's just that we're hoping for
BETTER.

"More" in the sense of a response to your personal attacks.

>
>>It's a
>>one-time statement to this list, which I've just joined, of my current
>>practice: Silence does not constitute assent.
>>David
>

>Well, that's where you're confused.  Our positions are not morally
>equivalent.

Morality has nothing to do with it. The instant dispute is over facts. And
you have no idea what my position on GAK is, judging from your personal
attacks. I'll help you out. I do not object to it domestically as long as it
is voluntary, that restriction is hard-coded into the rules and laws, and
there are real choices at least initially. ("Trust everyone and always cut
the cards.") Whether I then use it or not is my business, though it's no
secret that I'd use a non-GAK system in preference were it available and an
Internet standard. I trust the market and my fellow citizens, and if they
rush to GAK because of superior features or some such and non-GAK dies on
the vine because it is poorly implemented or poorly marketed, that's the way
freedom works. You can't compel others to user YOUR favorite system just so
you can have the benefits from it you want, nor should others try to
suppress your favorites. That sword cuts both ways--vis a vis the
government's favorites. They shouldn't try to compel what thye like, nor
should they suppress what they don't unless the people's representatives
have legislated (as for example in the case of the authority for ITAR) and
the matter is Constitutional.

I think foreign governments' crypto policies to be none of my
business--though I know some other Americans love to wrap themselves in high
moral raiment and preach on the topic to such foreign governments, and many
foreigners with motes in their own eyes like to do that to us. I have a
personal opinion in the matter which is likely the same as yours, but do not
feel entitled to burden others with that since it's so much ineffectual chin
music.

>Despite trying to hide behind the smokescreen of calling the
>government's GAK position "voluntary," we all know that they are trying to
>misuse their influence to gently force us to use GAK, if by no other means
>that forcing the taxpayer to pay for the system as they have done already.

I agree, though I would not have phrased it in such an offensive way. This
isn't some conspiracy of evil but people with a legitimate policy
disagreement.

>
>The opponents of GAK, on the other hand, are not denying to anyone the
right
>to implement a truly voluntary "key-escrow" system, or more likely many
>privately operating ones.

I disagree again. It is evident from the effort to shoot down Clipper I,
which WAS voluntary, that this is another case of your version of
"voluntary". If an offeror, even the government, offers something voluntary
and you don't like it, you attempt to suppress it. It's kinda like "freedom
of speech only for those who agree with me".

> However, such systems will be a service for the
>customer, not the government, and the key will almost certainly not be
>provided to the government on request, and in fact the key will likely be
>stored in an encrypted form that the government won't be able to use.

To the contrary, business records are always available on legitimate
subpoena by the government, and this would include escrowed keys. YOU don't
have to like it, but it's the law.

>
>Quite simply, we do not require your "assent."  You should be trying to get

>OURS.

"Silence does not constitute assent" to your personal attacks, your policy
assertions, and what I think to be your misrepresentations of fact. I was
not speaking of assent to GAK in that sentence.

I think your attempt to pseudospeciate me and create an "us and him"
situation in this group is bound to fail with those who have paid attention
to what I think and say, particularly my most recent thinking. On many
matters we are agreed at bottom. However, I place high value on policy and
strategy advocacies that are content-robust and work, in preference to
ineffectual ones that merely make one feel good. Further, I do not believe
one should suppress criticism of one's allies when they are doing a sloppy
or wrong-headed job of things. That's just opening the door to a failure
instead of sharpening things up to improve the chances of a success. The
radical feminists' "Sisterhood, right or wrong" is not my motto. When you're
right, you're right and I support you, and when I think you're wrong I won't
hesitate to point it out.

David


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBMequPEwgH+NYrQ81AQG56AP/VPJC454h+OWdCZ0i8BajL+7YtZ3z3QkR
foCov4Fy4msK45uwaNCnHnIwqvwNksoZRVCDValY74r9GAB5f/Em5TFWVxe8WLz8
44hZ739RfPBKJH1F7M/JUY7RMwIwxsFtaYWt89pwc9mZyXwoHT5xXdbojXakf8HI
MRLTEaqbB8M=
=1WC/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

At 4:27 PM -0700 7/15/96, Mark O. Aldrich wrote:

>One of the blessings of c'punks was that it was not 'worthy' of the time
>of several professional flame-baiters who are fairly well-known on the
>'Net, in particular, David Sternlight.  Now, however, that seems to have
>changed.  If everyone thought things were weird around here with
>Detweiler, just wait until you see DS's stuff....

<worse stuff omitted>

Nothing like a good personal defamation before even reading my posts, eh?
As those who have paid attention know, I post my policy views, not
flame-bait. The idea that I am deliberately trying to start flame wars is
pure paranoia.

Of course a good attempt to attack personally is an attempt to avoid the
need to try to engage with the substance. It's not only underhanded, but
also sheer laziness, typical of small minds which cannot tolerate a
difference of view. Your position is as prejudiced as those we sometimes
call sexist or racist.

Having made my points on this matter, I have no plans to engage in a
flame-fest with those who love to provoke one and then blame the victim--to
be sure I don't give in to such further provocation from you, welcome to my
filter file.

David