From: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 21:29:28 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Timmy May's spam (Was: Re: CIA hacked)
In-Reply-To: <HsumuD8w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
Message-ID: <199609220707.IAA00335@server.test.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Dimitri Vulis <dlv@bwalk.dm.com> writes:
> You're right - the forwarding mechanism I've been using so far just yanks in
> the spam e-mail without any processing. I will henceforth
>  1) Put the words 'Tim', 'May', and 'spam' in the subject line

Guess that will help people kill file on that combination, rather than
on dlv@bwalk, which I suspect some may have done at this stage, and
hence not see the [NEWS] series, and any signal posts.

> > It would seem to me that the first insults were thrown by yourself,
> > and that your strange habit of bouncing all the fallout to the list is
> > perpetuating the problem.
> 
> No. Let me remind you the sequence of events, in chronological order:
> 
> 1. Timmy May (who picked up a few popular PKC buzzwords, doesn't know
> anything about crypto, and isn't interested in learning) started spamming
> this mailing list with political rants

I don't think this at all fair; if you've read his cyphernomicon, you
will see that he has a perfectly good understanding of crypto.  His
strong point as I see it however, is that he was one of the first to
think deeply about the implications of strong crypto, and document
this in a fairly comprehensive manner.  This is a central topic for
cypherpunks, after all: cypherpunks are trying to achieve poltical
ends via strong crypto, crypto isn't being discussed in isolation, as
a purely scientific endeavour.  sci.crypt with its charter is more
this.

Also, I would point out that you yourself don't restrict yourself to
purely crypto discussions (aside from this latest war), you for
instance recently discussed driving licenses in NY.  Not that I am
complaining, or think this is especially inappropriate, as the topic
of Chaumian credentials, and the current state of state mandated
credentials I consider on topic, but you are criticizing others for
analysing politics.  The [NEWS] series, also (I've already said I
consider these useful), are hardly pure discussion of crypto, if this
were your only concern.

> 2. Most people who used to discuss crypto work on this mailing list
> have unsubscribed.

True, and unfortunate.  coderpunks feels somewhat reminiscent of how
cypherpunks used to be in this regard, try subscribing to that, if you
are uninterested in political aspects, and have not already.  I
subscribe to both, because I think politics is also important, as well
as churning out code, and just read very selectively on cypherpunks.

> 3. I pointed out a few examples of Tim making factually bogus claims in
> his rants.
>
> 4. Tim got very angry at me and started flaming me. I ignored him.
> 
> 5. Tim posted a series of rants about me, attributing to me various
> nonsense I never said. I pointed out once that I never said it and
> then ignored him.

I wasn't paying attention when these alleged events took place, so I
can't really comment.  I was commenting more on the fallout.

> 6. Recently it came to my attention that Tim's been contacting off-list
> various people in the computer security field and "complaining" about
> the politically incorrect things that I supposedly say on the Internet
> - except that he made up most of the "things" he complained about.

I don't think it's near as serious as you are worrying about, all I
heard him say was something about not understanding the motive for the
(spit) stuff.  Hardly complaining, more a passing comment on your
posting style than a complaint of "political incorrectness".

> 7. At this point I pointed out quite publicly that he's a liar.
> 
> 8. Since that time, several friends of Tim May (or maybe Tim himself,
> using multiple accounts) have been sending me harrassing e-mail, often
> by quoting my own cypherpunks articles and adding an obscenity.

It appears that Chris Adams <adamsc@io-online.com> started this.  And
others confused by the quoting, presumed it was you.  (Especially
since the headers were yours, as you were forwarding them.)  Also the
fact that you were forwarding these emails probably would get you
complaints anyway, even if the quoting had made it clear what was
going on.

> 9. Tim himself continues flaming me and telling lies about me (see his
> recent rant with the subject "death threats").

I guess you mean the purely fictitious Valdimir G Nulis :-) A cross
between Vladimir Z Nuri (who many consider to be Detweiller) and
yourself.

I don't really see what you're complaining about: it's really oblique,
and tame compared to your recent perfectly direct, and somewhat crude
insults to Tim.

> And you see, Timmy May is an obsessive liar and a vindictive nutcase.

I don't see the liar, nor the nutcase. I haven't noticed him say
anything which I considered untrue, nor have any of his posts appeared
nutty.

> > If reporting to the list is accurate, I hear you have a PhD with a
> > subject related to crypto, so presumably you would have ample
> > knowledge to contribute technical crypto related thoughts.  I'm sure
> > people would be interested in anything along those lines you cared to
> > contribute, and your reputation would benefit,
> 
> I still hope to be able discuss crypto on this mailing list (yes, my Ph.D.
> thesis was about crypto), but I see two problems:
> 
> 1. A lot of people have already left this list, unwilling to be subjected
> to Tim May's rants, lies, and personal attacks. If I post something crypto-
> relevant to this mailing list, they won't see it.

The decision to keep the list open was made for reasons I agree with,
censoring people is not the way to promote open discussions.
Censoring people is something cypherpunks are strongly against in
other forums, so it would seem especially hypocritical for cypherpunks
to censor the list itself.

However the result isn't too pretty either.  But the only solution is
to just post signal.  Getting into what is turning into a spam bot war
doesn't solve a thing!

> 2. Here's an example of the net-abuse being perpetrated by Tim May and his
> merry gang of mailbombers. I posted some crypto-relevant wire clippings
> to this mailing list. Either Tim (using an alternate account) or some pal
> of his e-mailed it back to me with an obscenity appended.
> 
> ]From adamsc@io-online.com  Thu Sep 19 00:00:57 1996
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
why is this in part of your own headers?

> ]Received: by bwalk.dm.com (1.65/waf)
> ]	via UUCP; Thu, 19 Sep 96 00:49:21 EDT
> ]From: Troy Varange <varange@crl.com>

and this too?  Is this as a result of threading, or are you quoting
part of another message?  Or is it a forgery?

> ]Subject: Re: [NEWS] Crypto-relevant wire clippings
> ]> [...]
> ]> CIA-backed rebels in Nicaragua played in bringing crack cocaine and
> ]> weapons to Los Angeles and other cities.
> ]>
> ]> Bachus told Waters the hearing wasn't motivated by politics and that he
> ]>
> ]> ---
> ]>
> ]> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
> ]Fuckhead.

If it is more widespread than those two, perhaps you are being
Detweilled?  He seems to enjoy that sort of thing.

> Is this any more readable? See, I put a ']' in front of the quoted material.

Yeah, great!  Only one more thing, use ellipses [...] to show large
volumes of stuff which isn't relevant to your current point, and your
quoting style is A1.  (eg most of the body of your quoted [NEWS] item
for the purposes of this discussion could have been ellipsed out).

Some friendly advice for you if you care to take it: if you care about
your reputation, I'd recommend dropping the Tim May is a liar, and the
crude insults, that should halt the recent drop in your reputation.
If you feel you have a legitimate complaint, you make your case better
by avoiding insults.  Also once things die down, or sooner (I'd prefer
sooner for the sake of my per second BT phone line charges :-), stop
forwarding any email to cypherpunks, and you're ready for some serious
crypto discussion.  The email forwarding is what seems to have caused
most complaints.

People do pay attention when positive contributions are made, for
instance I think I remember that you posted some time ago a way to
have two plausible decryptions for one cyphertext, to enable things
like duress keys, in terms of RSA.  The problem with this, however is
that RSA is currently very slow to use in its pure form for messages.

Adam
--
#!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj
$/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)