From: Daryl Turner Area: Public Key Encryption To: Shawn McMahon 27 Aug 94 23:31:40 Subject: Re: Net 106 still at it? UpdReq In a message of <25-Aug-94 16:16:49> Shawn McMahon (1:19/34) wrote: SM> However, what we're trying to tell you is that Policy4 doesn't SM> supersede US law, which says that it is a felony for you to even READ SM> other people's mail, except where necessary for system maintenance. SM> It has been for 6 years now. Policy4 doesn't grant you any immunity SM> to federal law. Are you saying, Shawn, that if I want to run a completely free BBS in the USA (no fees or donations, no file ratios, etc) that I would be REQUIRED BY LAW to give all users access to netmail? Heck, are you saying that I would be REQUIRED BY LAW to provide an area that allows private messages between users solely on my BBS? If that's the case, then we have an easy way of pruning the nodelist down a far bit...just have the FBI call every BBS in the US part of the nodelist, and ask for netmail access...those that refuse are busted. Daryl Court Reporters DO IT on a trial basis. -*- ASTG 0.7 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Ryan Watson Area: Public Key Encryption To: Christopher Baker 28 Aug 94 01:43:58 Subject: Re: PGP for IBM. UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In a message of 25 Aug 94 Christopher Baker wrote to me: CB> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- CB> In a message dated: 24 Aug 94, Ryan Watson was quoted as saying: RW>> Can someone tell me where to obtain the newest PGP for the IBM? I have RW>> a point that needs a copy. CB> freq PGP for the MIT release 2.6 for DOS. CB> freq PGP26AB.ZIP for a recompile of MIT code that doesn't include the CB> various bugs of 2.6. CB> if you cannot file-request, call the BBS and download it at CB> 407-383-1372. Thanx, I'll hopefully freq it tonight. Yes, I can freq, I run a fidonet BBS. BTW, if you want I'd be glad to be a distribution point for anything dealing with PGP for atleast north-eastern Ohio. R. Matthew Watson (BVFD Unit #1821) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 Comment: PGP & Amiga, a forever winning combination! iQBVAgUBLmBADgmcRtNX1uOhAQGKWgH/d0A3IU6KjXtyAWGvHizGkyUMlexZPK3V IP4scMwjlRxScmjFFaIdh/IVVCzZBu+JoJXUTkPO/TxeoTzVedjcaw== =kbOU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Richard Walker Area: Public Key Encryption To: Scott Mills 28 Aug 94 09:56:42 Subject: Re: Net 106 still at it? UpdReq RW>> stop all PGP signed/encrypted netmail and bounce it back to the RW>> sender. SM> Then you are still reading the contents. Maybe not all but some of the SM> message. If I set up my system to bounce all messages with the string SM> "unprotect" in a message I would still be reading and censoring the SM> traffic. If you are going to check all traffic you also take SM> responsibility for everything going through your system. Sorry, but I disagree, the privacy act refers to people reading and disclosing private information. It does not address how system software functions to deliver mail from one system to another. As long as the contents of the message are not disclosed to a human being, then there is no violation. The simple fact of ftsc style message transmission is that the mailing software *has* to read the entire message into memory, as there is no guarantee that significant ^A control messages are not contained at the end of the message data, or in the middle for that matter. Given that the message software has to act on the entire data of the message, an action which causes an encrypted message/signature to be returned to the sender would not violate any privacy requirements, as no *one* will have read the message. If you disagree, I am willing to discuss this from the perspective of the actual text of the law; so if you think you have something that contradicts what I said, *NOT* from some twit bureacrat, but from the text of the law itself; then you might get my attention. Yours truly Richard Walker 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Carl Hudkins Area: Public Key Encryption To: All 28 Aug 94 16:18:48 Subject: Message mangling... UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hello... My SysOp here has switched to PCBoard/Intermail and incoming Fido echoes are being re-wrapped, pretty much shooting all to Hell any chance of getting good signature checks here. This is a test to see if outgoing stuff is also being munched. Thanks, and sorry. :) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 Comment: Would you send mail without an envelope? iQCVAgUBLmDn8r5BFpotHh45AQER5QP8D3jCwE/wUmP5a8CtZbWP/5Wnjlv7Wk0W bItyUv9BCVLCylM+dzm7QnAU4VuRWmpNSKcJHeisclJ0EjaxjDdzdxzQ7sIlpYGC bh6ykVlzrUFtnTrHWntKW88STQV55FkSI/VitWbjF2RItXbqDvNcuDfTVMTw4cnF SEYfeebuleQ= =bvxM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- * carl Boca Chica, Florida carl.hudkins@lunatic.com * * RIME ->1282 PGP: 2D1E1E39 Fido: 1:124/2113; 1:135/808 * === * RM 1.3 00377 * "All cats are gray in the dark." --Benjamin Franklin 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Carl Hudkins Area: Public Key Encryption To: Shawn Mcmahon 28 Aug 94 16:18:48 Subject: Question or two UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I demand that SHAWN MCMAHON may or may not have said SM> BTW, it's safer for the sysop if he doesn't read private mail, because SM> it's a FELONY to do so in the US. How somebody thinks multiple routine SM> felony counts protect their legal liability is beyond me. I find it interesting that some people think having a program read the mail for them, such as doing a keyword search to censor/bounce mail, does not violate privacy and/or laws. ("Hey, if my software =just happens= to screw up somehow when PGP messages are passing through it, it's not my fault!") The point is that the mail (I'm referring to Netmail here, FYI) has been examined, with intent to refuse or "lose" it based on its content, and that's just plain =wrong!= Whether you do it or your robot does it while you're asleep, it's the same, at least to me. (Any lawyers care to chime in? :) I (and probably you, too, since you read this echo) have seen people basically defy us to get them convicted. I don't know whether to be happy or sad that I don't live within their jurisdiction -- I might just try it. Somebody needs to! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 Comment: Would you send mail without an envelope? iQCVAgUBLmDn+b5BFpotHh45AQHzowQAkZdWh/YPHNOt+mDSLdya2j5dtmjCCh6T UswfsdVo5knElpHMn0WWdCkbFIypsuCAka1JOs7C/lYUvhg1hK4I8aadH0ZWLrnn 0mZ4/uKdk7QC58FXC0JvHGYwrol8x6DDmmk8Nysp2IZMMpt04Bo2sH5WK/GmXdEQ ykhXQ9GOEgQ= =/Gpb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- * carl Boca Chica, Florida carl.hudkins@lunatic.com * * RIME ->1282 PGP: 2D1E1E39 Fido: 1:124/2113; 1:135/808 * === * RM 1.3 00377 * "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." --Gandhi 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: gk pace Area: Public Key Encryption To: Scott Mills 28 Aug 94 06:40:12 Subject: Re: Double-Key ENCRYPTION UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In a message dated: 26 Aug 94, you were quoted as saying: SM> Wednesday August 24 1994, Jason Carr writes to Scott Mills: SM> JC> Ahh, I see. Do you know if 2.6a fixes the choking on large keys? SM> Nope, still doesn't like them. I'm keeping 2.6ui around just to process SM> keys SM> if nothing else. FREQ PGP or PGPOS2 from here for a more recent (yet to be hatched) copy of PGP26a which will not choke on keys larger than 1K. -gk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6a Comment: Privacy... One of the Basic Human Rights! iQCVAgUBLmBphY9JNB7uOPtBAQFfUgP9G4BHA/JRqJJDwz/BGyaqhljsdjLhexFP 2yIU7b5QrfV/C76roQf8TJK+FG3Xsii4MH0TGhSHx7bHR0AZ0qNjRequs1nh4JoC z+RNoupp8srE+iurrs8JrbyP46Zfsx33b5cFG2gMxK2twyr3DhBh865v3qkh0KAa pIBLdZl5mrM= =jd1n -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: gk pace Area: Public Key Encryption To: Jim Cannell 28 Aug 94 06:45:24 Subject: Re: Memory UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In a message dated: 26 Aug 94, you were quoted as saying: JC> My keyring has gotten too big. PGP is now complaining about adding more JC> keys. I get an out of memory message, and the keys do not get added. JC> This happens somewhere around 5000 keys. JC> The only way around this that I see is to modify PGP to use extended JC> memory. 640k is just not enough. Has anyone modified PGP to do so? JC> This doesn't look like a very tough problem. It's just that I would JC> rather put my time into something else. JC> Thanks for any help. Trim your keyring down some by creating two (or more) public keyrings. When looking for a keyring, if it isn't found in the default keyring, PGP will ask you for the name of another to search thru. I keep those I use most in my default keyring, others in one called PUBKEYS.PGP... works fine this way, as long as you can remember the name of your other rings when using PGP. -gk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6a Comment: Privacy... One of the Basic Human Rights! iQCVAgUBLmBqvY9JNB7uOPtBAQGaFQP+IPluXsAfphsGAczqzGgMvzZAF6HbeDNy Kfcc6ljOrSfLs7aRV92qjtzj6Hec/UPsjcVrpuk97BdMp32U6D/WzvylOwSH8ucl 2Ry6xb931hdu4nNngf8ru/kpNc90puLNCVmW/8mvuP6iCHwz9f9R9XABxJr27vRK +2C4ORmUTFI= =i8dq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: mark lewis Area: Public Key Encryption To: Tim Devore 28 Aug 94 20:43:52 Subject: Net 106 still at it? UpdReq firstly i want to say that i'm not "attacking" with this message. it is for informational purposes and (now that i've seen many more addressed to you about your message) directed not "at" you but to others who may be reading this area. MR> It might not be against policy, but in the U.S. you better check out MR> the ECPA, and Steven Horn informs us there is similar legislation in MR> Canda. TD> As it states in the FIDOPolicy4 the sysop can read all mail, FIDONet Policy (any of them) is not above the law in any country. if the law states that it is illegal to read mail not addressed to or from you, then it is illegal, period. TD> including net-mail but the contents of the net-mail are not TD> allowd to be disclosed without permission from the writter TD> or reciever of said net-mail. When the contents of any TD> net-mail message are disclosed without any permission then TD> that is where the law steps in. But I'm glad to hear that no, that is where FIDONet Policy steps in, too late... MR> The ECPA tells you when and how you may read netmail on your system and MR> under what limited circumstances and to whom you may disclose your MR> knowledge. TD> I can read any un-encrypted net-mail that passes through my TD> sysops BBS of which I'm a co-sysop and I can read it when yes, you can... you are also legally responsible for stuff that you may read in private mail. if you read about a murder and all the gory details about how and when it was done, then you are an acomplice after the fact unless you turn them in to the law. at least here in the US that's how it is being interpreted. it's best to not read any mail not addressed to or from you at all. TD> and how I want but I can't disclose any of that info without TD> permission from the writter or reciever of it. BTW, I don't taking my paragraph above into consideration, are you going to write the author or reciepient for permission before turning them in to the police?? i didn't think so... MR> "The contents of this message are intended as general legal information MR> and should not form the basis for legal advice of any kind". TD> No problem. I need to know what's going on with this kinda TD> stuff anyway. I'm all for Public Key Encryption and will TD> fight to the bitter end to keep it around. I don't feel that TD> Sysops should be held liable for the contents of any TD> net-mail/private message sent to or through his/her system. TD> But the software that deals with the tossing/scanning of TD> messages should be permantly set to have the net-mail TD> private flag ackowledged. exactly!! i agree completely and 100% TD> I'm not going to get into another debate on this subject. I TD> know that the privacy laws are being changed to cover TD> e-mail. don't take this as me trying to start a debate or a discussion. i'm a long time lurker in this and numerous other areas. i felt that i had to respond for the benefit of others, though... )\/(ark # Origin: (1:3634/12) * Origin: PODNet <-> FidoNet EchoGate! (93:9600/0.0) SEEN-BY: 107/946 147/1077 259/212 382/7 640/217 3611/19 9600/0 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: mark lewis Area: Public Key Encryption To: Rapier 28 Aug 94 20:48:12 Subject: Re: cypherpunks UpdReq R> Yes there is. Its available on the Internet, but with FIDO's R> gateways you shouldn't have a problem. To subscribe send a R> message to majordomo@toad.com with the following in the R> body: he will have a problem. mailing lists are highly frowned upon at the gateways. since fidonet.org only has one main entry point back into fidonet, mailing lists are stopped there and held for pickup bu the destination system. sending mailing lists via fidonet routed netmail has been deemed "annoying". if the list is being gated into (and thusly made available via) a FIDO Echo, there won't be any problems... unless you count locating it in FTN echo format a problem -=B-) )\/(ark a FTN<->UUCP Gateway Operator # Origin: (1:3634/12) * Origin: PODNet <-> FidoNet EchoGate! (93:9600/0.0) SEEN-BY: 107/946 147/1077 259/212 382/7 640/217 3611/19 9600/0 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: mark lewis Area: Public Key Encryption To: Rapier 28 Aug 94 18:43:34 Subject: Re: Pres/Vice Pres UpdReq SM> I would think that the President would probably use both SM> his middle initials, if he was going to use either. R> Aw come on guys! Read alt.security.pgp! There has been a Aw come on guy! not everyone has access to all the areas available. i know a lot of systems that don't even carry the alt.* groups... mine is one... )\/(ark # Origin: (1:3634/12) * Origin: PODNet <-> FidoNet EchoGate! (93:9600/0.0) SEEN-BY: 107/946 147/1077 259/212 382/7 640/217 3611/19 9600/0 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Matt Weese Area: Public Key Encryption To: All 28 Aug 94 12:35:00 Subject: Version UpdReq Please would someone tell me what the latest version of PGP is and where I can FREQ it? I've seen v2.6a and v2.7a and v2.6wjl and junk like that, so I'm a bit confused. Thanks. Matt Weese 1:170/459 PGP Key FREQ: "MWEESE" 1024/668D04E1 8D C8 B7 39 23 E0 C9 04 D3 CC 6B F5 5D F8 E1 BE ... QWK? I don't need no stinkin' QWK packet! 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718