[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

No Subject


Lately, anonymous messages sent to the list
with Replay's Web-based remailer have not
been getting through - anyone know if one or
more of these remailers (efga, replay, ml, 
obscura, cypherpunks.ca) are down?

In case my last message doesn't get through,
I'm looking for info on how one can create and
use a persistent Nym. I looked and can't find
info on how to do this anywhere (besides the
creation of a "free" email account somewhere).
Can any cypherpunks help?

Thank you.


From [email protected] Sun Feb 22 01:03 SGT 1998
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Received: from www.video-collage.com ([206.15.171.132])
          by segamat.nus.edu.sg (Netscape Messaging Server 3.0)  with ESMTP
          id AAA19829 for <[email protected]>;
          Sun, 22 Feb 1998 01:03:36 +0800
Received: (from ichudov@localhost)
	by www.video-collage.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA23950
	for cypherpunks-outgoing; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 11:55:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sirius.infonex.com (sirius.infonex.com [209.75.197.2])
	by www.video-collage.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA23938
	for <[email protected]>; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 11:55:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from cpunks@localhost) by sirius.infonex.com (8.8.8/8.7.3) id IAA15818; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 08:57:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rigel.cyberpass.net ([email protected] [209.75.197.3]) by sirius.infonex.com (8.8.8/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA15814 for <[email protected]>; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 08:57:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) by rigel.cyberpass.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA01552 for <[email protected]>; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 08:51:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id IAA08530 for cypherpunks-unedited-outgoing; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 08:53:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kali.brainlink.com (kali.brainlink.com [206.127.58.27]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA09177 for <[email protected]>; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 12:36:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from brainlink.com (sunder.pfmc.net [204.254.224.80])
          by kali.brainlink.com (Post.Office MTA v3.1.2
          release (PO203-101c) ID# 0-43838U2500L250S0) with ESMTP
          id AAA28642; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 15:41:28 -0500
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 15:40:06 -0500
From: sunder <[email protected]>
Organization: SunderNET.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Information Security <[email protected]>
CC: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Is spam really a problem?
References: <[email protected]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [email protected]
Precedence: bulk
X-Mailing-List: [email protected]
X-List-Admin: [email protected]
X-Loop: [email protected]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Length: 3007


Information Security wrote:

>    >   From [email protected] Wed Feb 18 15:58:46 1998
>    >
>    >   Anonymous wrote:
>    >   >
>    >   > I see discussion of spam here and everywhere on
>    >   > the net. But who finds it a *real* problem, and
>    >   > why?
> 
> Why are you asking the cypherpunks list?

I didn't. Anonymous did.  
 
>    >   There are nice technical solutions to this.  If sendmail didn't transport
>    >   things unauthenticated it could be done, but at a cost in CPU cycles on mail
>    >   servers:
>    >
>    >   Have every sendmail server use a PK scheme to talk to every other
>    >   server and authenticate the connection.  Have every sendmail server accept
>    >   mail only from those whose key is verified.
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> We (NANA) already know where spam comes from,
> and when we complain about it, they are terminated.

Until someone else gets a throw away $10 account and uses it to 
spam, right?  By the time you track'em down, they already gave up
that account.  All ISP's do is to delete the spamming account, which
the spammer doesn't care about anyway.  So you achive nothing.

Further one can generate fake headers and you would not know exactly where
it comes from, though you could have some idea since it would be one of
many sites it was relayed from.  One could send messages from an ISP
that doesn't mind spammers who won't help you track down the bitch that
just slimed your machine, etc.

 
> PK authentication would change nothing.
> 
> Show a single spam with a forged IP address.

IP addresses won't be forged, but one could send
a mail with extra Recieved-By: headers, etc.
 
> PK authentication would only lead us down the
> road of everyone being tattooed with barcodes
> of our own making - and incredibly dumb idea.
> 
> It would be like requiring a smart card for Internet access.

Bullshit.  PK auth with a central repository would be Big Brotherish.
Having each user gen their own PK pair is what I suggested. That
would allow anon users to have persistant (or even throw away)
identities, but prevent Joe Spambitch from telnetting to port 25
and spamming that way.

Even if Joe Spambitch does gen PK pairs and uses them, he can't
gen a pair for every message he sends, the recipient servers won't
recognize his PK pair and might have been instructed to block messages
from bad (and possibly unknown PK's), or at least refuse to relay
messages from unknown PK's.  Relaying is a big problem.

-- 

=====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos==============
.+.^.+.|  Ray Arachelian    |Prying open my 3rd eye.  So good to see |./|\.
..\|/..|[email protected]|you once again. I thought you were      |/\|/\
<--*-->| ------------------ |hiding, and you thought that I had run  |\/|\/
../|\..| "A toast to Odin,  |away chasing the tail of dogma. I opened|.\|/.
.+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"|my eye and there we were....            |.....
======================= http://www.sundernet.com ==========================