weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (09/07/88)
>Decrypting the Posted Digest >Newsreader Command >Gnews 'x' (see the manual for other commands) "the other commands" refers to some e-mail between Dave and I: as I explained to him, in Gnews 2.0 there is support for hooks that can transparently dedigestify and rot13 the P&W Digest as it comes in. In other words, once the hooks are in, the other command is ' '. Why heck, even "Susan" would be able to read it then! ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 "Nil sounds like a lot of kopins! I never got paid nil before!" --Groo
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (09/09/88)
One should not ever allow automatic decryption of rotated articles. That defeats the whole point! The whole idea behind this scheme is that people must take a special, explicit action to see the article. Each and every article. If the action need only be taken once, you could claim "subscribing to alt.sex" was the action, but you would not get very far. If you don't have to take it at all, it's the same as calling the data compression done during the transmission "encryption." Somebody once told me that their newsreader did an automatic decrypt on any article with "rot13" in the title, and so would I please put that in the title of encrypted rec.humor.funny postings. My response was not what he wished. I now delete rot13 if it's in the title. If somebody starts putting in automatic rot13 detectors, I will have to switch away from rot13, no matter what the complaints. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (09/10/88)
Note: I am not sure if I read Brad's article correctly. If I seem to be overreacting, I apologize to Brad in advance. Consider what follows an argument with a strawman, who may or may not be Brad. In article <2015@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking (Brad Templeton) writes: >One should not ever allow automatic decryption of rotated articles. >That defeats the whole point! >The whole idea behind this scheme is that people must take a special, >explicit action to see the article. Each and every article. I disagree. I think this should be up to each and every reader to de- cide for him/herself. The default should of course require explicit action. > If the >action need only be taken once, you could claim "subscribing to alt.sex" >was the action, but you would not get very far. Subscribing to alt.sex will not automatically decrypt the P&W Digest in Gnews. The user must install the following hook-kills for alt.sex: (pre nil setq article-digest-maybe nil) (pre nil gnews-set 'article-header-hook '(lambda nil (if (string-match "pwdigest@alembic" (article-field-raw "From")) (progn (setq n-reply-digest-mail t) (article-digest 'article-digest-maybe nil t)) (mapcar 'hook-kill-do article-digest-maybe) (setq n-reply-digest-mail nil) (setq article-digest-maybe nil)))) (pre nil gnews-set 'group-last-hook '(lambda nil (mapcar 'hook-kill-do article-digest-maybe) (setq n-reply-digest-mail nil) (setq article-digest-maybe nil))) (post nil mapcar 'hook-kill-do article-digest-maybe) (post nil setq n-reply-digest-mail nil) This is highly non-trivial stuff! There is no Gnews command to in- sert the above set of commands automatically, nor will I write one. (This goes ditto for the TeXhax and Neuron digest. The number of subsidiary concerns needed to automate the above seems too large to plan for ahead. For one thing, I have no idea of how many digests are gatewayed into unmoderated newsgroups) Someone who does the above has clearly decided that he or she truly wishes to read the P&W Digest. Moreover, because of the complexities of dedigestification, it would require much extra effort on my part to make an explicit "x" rot13ing as opposed to the automatic rot13ing coded for in that last "t" argu- ment to the article-digest command above, work smoothly with my Gnews Digest mode. If I had to, I'd do the work, but since I don't, I won't, and I resent anyone suggesting that I "ought" to do this extra work. Indeed, there was one detail while I was debugging the code that was most simply solved by asking the moderator to include a trailing "End of P&W Digest" message at the end of his digest, like all the other digests use. I asked the moderator to make this change, and he did so. The one question was whether this should be rot13ed or not: I suggested yes, since this will work best for those without a dedi- gestifier. Gnews works with both (or any other message, if needed.) The Gnews manual gives the explicit code needed for the TeXhax digest. It mentions the small change that must be made for a rot13-ed digest. It is left to the individual user to take action. It is true that the Gnews user does not have to do a lot of typing. The extended help command, invoked while reading a digest, takes one to the Info node on digests. From there, one can quickly find the TeXhax code and yank it out. Then one quits out of Info, starts the Hook Kill Edit mode, in yank back in the TeXhax digest hooks. Then one makes a few quick changes, and one is all set up for next time. But the user still has to take this effort. And if the P&W Digest moderator wants to write an Emacs Lisp command to insert the correct code automatically, and include it with his monthly-or-so rot13 information, well, why not? The Gnews user will still have to move the cursor to the right spot in the article, eval the defun, and then run the command. (OK, if the moderator further puts a ^L right after the defun, then Gnews will only display up to the formfeed, sparing the user from having to do the first step above. Wow wow wow.) > If you don't have to take >it at all, it's the same as calling the data compression done during the >transmission "encryption." Huh? Please note the following points: (*) rot13ing is not *really* encryption in the first place. At least, not in any classical sense of the word. (*) Compression is compression. Calling it encryption won't make it so. (Ditto rot13.) (*) Compression/decompression of news batching serves an entirely diff- erent purpose: to save money and time. Rot13ing exists for one reason only: to reduce the chances of someone being accidently offended. >Somebody once told me that their newsreader did an automatic decrypt on >any article with "rot13" in the title, I agree with you that no newsreader should ever do this BY DEFAULT. If this is all you had argued against, I would have merely posted a brief article saying that you misunderstood my cryptic description of what Gnews provides. > and so would I please put that in >the title of encrypted rec.humor.funny postings. This somebody has crappy software, if they cannot specify the automatic decrypt on the "Keywords: rot13" field that you *do* include! In Gnews 2.0, hooks for autodecryption is fairly trivial to implement. The only question would be what would trigger it. I will leave that for the user to decide. >My response was not what he wished. I now delete rot13 if it's in the >title. If somebody starts putting in automatic rot13 detectors, I will >have to switch away from rot13, no matter what the complaints. [This is the part where I'm not sure where you stand: are you saying auto-rot13-ing should not become the default for a newsreader, or that it should not exist period? Everyone please remember that I am arguing with someone who believes the latter, and that this someone may or may not be Brad.] I was about to use your newsgroup an example of the new autodecryption software hooks! Oh well... Now I'll have to think about whether to put them in as what *ought* to be the canonical example, and then include a mini-editorial about certain moderators. I hope I'm misreading you! Anyway, you do know that it is fairly trivial to implement a chi-square test for English letter frequencies: if chi-square comes out abnormal, apply whatever brad13 technique is necessary. And if you use a permutation algorithm, even something as simple as printing reversed lines, that too, can be tested for rather rapidly and accurately. You aren't going to keep your method a secret, are you??? The main driving philosophy behind Gnews has always been that the user should be able to customize *extensively* and, whenever possible, *very simply*. As he/she *wishes* to read news. This is very easy to do in Emacs: all internal variables are accessible to the user, so by merely following good programming practice and not using embedded constants, feature after feature is trivially customizable. The current draft of the manual has about 35 pages devoted to examples and explanations of customization, and more are forthcoming. Moderators whose attitude is that his readers are not able to make such customization decisions for themselves about *HOW* they want to read his newsgroup make me sick. I didn't do all this customization effort be- cause I believe I know the holy truth about how people want to or ought to read news. Not even close. Perhaps it's time for rec.humor.funny.funnier, whereby weemba culls the best from rec.humor.funny and reposts them? I guarantee that I would repost every last brad13ed joke you post, in rot13ed format, with ROT13 in the "Subject:" line. Then the somebody who complained would be able to read through my group instead. I would also include an extra header that mentions the Message-ID of the articles I repost, and write extra software to set up a KILL for that Message-ID, so that if the user reads r.h.f.f well before reading r.h.f, then the user will not be bothered with your brad13ing efforts in the least. ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (09/11/88)
In article <2015@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking (Brad Templeton) writes: >Somebody once told me that their newsreader did an automatic decrypt on >any article with "rot13" in the title, and so would I please put that in >the title of encrypted rec.humor.funny postings. >My response was not what he wished. I now delete rot13 if it's in the >title. If somebody starts putting in automatic rot13 detectors, I will >have to switch away from rot13, no matter what the complaints. This is pretty damn funny, Brad. Have you thought of posting it to rec.humor.funny? But seriously, folks--how did an anxiety-ridden good little boy like this get to be moderator of a humor group?? -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 Imagine what the world would be like if football was a worthy ritual performed in stadiums but mathematics was a misunderstood activity ignored by almost all.
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (09/12/88)
Keep the history of the rot13 concept in mind. (And it is encryption, or enciphering if you prefer.) Rot13 is only partially there to protect the reader. It is largely there to protect the poster, and the net. It originated when a secretary, so the story goes, started reading net.jokes.q (questionable) and got offended, and things hit the fan. Newsfeeds were pulled. I want rot13 to be explicit, because if you took an explicit extra step to read the article, I feel you have no right (certainly less right) to complain about the nature of the joke. Of course, I still get complaints, and they all get my form reply, but I hope they are reduced. If auto-decrypt is the default, then the whole point is defeated, as Mr. Smith agrees. But what if the user has to deliberately configure auto-decrypt? This is still not acceptable. Consider rec.humor where rot13 means nothing, because the rot13 decision is taken by hundreds of different posters, with no standards. We get people who rot13 jokes because they contain the word "damn" or because they're "offensive to Republicans." You can't tell these from the ones that are racist or entries in the "most disgusting joke" contest. I believe for rot13 to be useful that it has to be consistent. Because I'm the only one who makes the rotation decision in my group, it's more consistent than rec.humor, but not consistent enough. It depends of the submissions I am getting. Say I get several weeks of relatively tame submissions. This will lead a newcomer to try auto-decrypt, if it's easy to do. And again the purpose is defeated. And sure, perhaps at first it's 30 lines of emacs-lisp. But soon it's an example in the manual, and later it's just source including a file. Sorry. Flame away. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (09/12/88)
In article <2021@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking (Brad Templeton) writes: >Keep the history of the rot13 concept in mind. (And it is encryption, >or enciphering if you prefer.) I dislike calling it encryption since it has only the most formal of features in common with classical encryption. A 0-bit key does not impress me. It strikes me as being closer teleological-category-wise to plastic wrapping for porno rags. >Rot13 is only partially there to protect the reader. It is largely there >to protect the poster, and the net. If so, auto-rot13-ing can really make no difference. > It originated when a secretary, so >the story goes, started reading net.jokes.q (questionable) and got offended, >and things hit the fan. Newsfeeds were pulled. Yes. Back when Usenet was young and people didn't know any better. Now that Usenet is aging, people still don't seem to know any better: I fail to see how the existence of auto-rot13-ing is going to change matters. I also find this concern inconsistent with your recently posted support for (factual only) commericial advertizing. What's to equally prevent manager at site X from freaking out when his first experience with the net is an ad from his main competitor site Y? "We're paying $$$ for Y to advertize? Hell no!" Will the ICC take an interest in Usenet soon? (You're up in the Great White North. The ICC regulates interstate commerce.) Much much much more serious than either of these two issues is the question of copyright violation. People post song lyrics and newspaper columns and more with absolutely zero respect for copyright. There have been problems in the past with proprietary code. What would have happened if the ARC or the SAFELOCK lawsuits had involved code distributed over Usenet? Thinking of the above means that worry about people who set themselves up to get offended thanks to an auto-rot13-er is way way too hypothetical. I would be worried about real questions that questionable material can lead to: Portal's permitting >14-year olds< to read alt.sex, encryption or no encryption. I'm of course in favor of such read permission, but I can see the potential stink: spartan's mother and father see what their "innocent little boy" has been reading, and start suing left and right. >I want rot13 to be explicit, because if you took an explicit extra step >to read the article, I feel you have no right (certainly less right) to >complain about the nature of the joke. Agreed. Why does an auto-decrypter have such "rights"? > Of course, I still get >complaints, and they all get my form reply, but I hope they are >reduced. The P&W Digest begins with 32 lines of cleartext material, the first two lines of which are: WARNING: This digest may contain sexually explicit material. Do not decrypt it if you find this type of material offensive. My auto-decrypt auto-dedigestifier will show the first 32 lines, and nothing after that. ` ' takes the reader on to the next digest article, decrypted. `N' goes to the next Usenet article. Perhaps Dave Mack's warning should be in all caps, and include the comment that the reader is urged to otherwise go on to the next article. >But what if the user has to deliberately configure auto-decrypt? >This is still not acceptable. Consider rec.humor where rot13 means nothing, >because the rot13 decision is taken by hundreds of different posters, with >no standards. Agreed. >I believe for rot13 to be useful that it has to be consistent. Because >I'm the only one who makes the rotation decision in my group, it's more >consistent than rec.humor, but not consistent enough. Then if rot13 isn't useful, perhaps it should be eliminated? > It depends of >the submissions I am getting. Say I get several weeks of relatively >tame submissions. This will lead a newcomer to try auto-decrypt, if >it's easy to do. And again the purpose is defeated. And just how does this differ if a newcomer learns that rot13ed jokes are harmless, and gets offended after reading his first truly gross rot13ed joke, which he instinctively rot13ed? I see no difference between the `x' subinstinct misleading the reader and the more basic ` ' instinct misleading the reader. I am going full steam forward with the Gnews philosophy of letting the reader customize and configure as much as possible philosophy. Gnews is, from what I've heard and seen, the best newsreader available for handling large volumes of news. I've had users thank me for the ease and speed with which they can now get to the relevant articles within some massive group like comp.sys.amiga. You and I agree that reader time is the most critical expense on Usenet: I extend that to letting people decide for themselves that they do not want to take an extra second to think about rot13ing whenever it comes by if possible. All Gnews features have one thing in common: to make somebody's newsreading go by faster and easier. You've convinced me, however, to give a warning in the manual about the possible dangers of automatic rot13ing. Beyond that, I don't see the difference between user-configured automatic and default non-automatic rot13ing. >And sure, perhaps at first it's 30 lines of emacs-lisp. But soon it's an >example in the manual, and later it's just source including a file. I got off my butt and whittled it down to four lines: (pre nil gnews-set 'article-header-hook '(lambda nil (article-digest-maybe "pwdigest@alembic" t t))) (pre nil gnews-set 'group-last-hook 'article-digest-maybe) (post nil article-digest-maybe) Thinking about it just now, I may even get it down to one line, with a different command here: (pre nil article-digest-if "pwdigest@alembic" t t) I don't know if it's worth the extra work at this point, nor whether this is one of those things that should be left a bit awkward. Either way, this will never be an example in my manual: I want to keep it as G-rated as possible. I do not mention the P&W Digest by name, nor even the newsgroup alt.sex. I think this will be true of all manuals. By a curious coincidence, someone recently posted an offensive-word filter to comp.emacs. I shall modify it for full Gnews generality. I'm now wondering: should this be the *default*??? ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) (09/12/88)
In article <2015@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >One should not ever allow automatic decryption of rotated articles. >That defeats the whole point! Agreed, but that's not what weemba was talking about. He has simply (?) added hooks to permit Gnews users to do automatic derotation. This certainly qualifies as an explicit action, particularly since it is newsgroup specific. (My apologies to Matthew for oversimplifying this.) >The whole idea behind this scheme is that people must take a special, >explicit action to see the article. Correct. There are undoubtedly people, including some who subscribe to alt.sex, who would be offended by the contents of the P&W Digest. That's why it is published with an unrotated warning followed by a rotated collection of articles. >Somebody once told me that their newsreader did an automatic decrypt on >any article with "rot13" in the title, and so would I please put that in >the title of encrypted rec.humor.funny postings. > >My response was not what he wished. I now delete rot13 if it's in the >title. If somebody starts putting in automatic rot13 detectors, I will >have to switch away from rot13, no matter what the complaints. Almost ditto. From now on, I will not put "rot13" in the header, although it will remain in the body of the Digest. I'm not likely to switch away from rot13 encryption unless someone starts distributing a newsreader with this "feature" built in. Dave Mack net.porno.king
weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (09/13/88)
I'd like to add one clarification about Gnews rot13, namely that it is treated as an Emacs minor mode. This means that whenever rot13ing has been done, either directly or via user-defined hooks, a "rot13" appears in the mode line. My Emacs-trained peripheral vision is such that I can't help but notice the "rot13" when it appears, or when I check the article number, or the percentage so far, or the last line of the window display, etc. In other words, the user does get to know if he is looking at a rot13ed article. He does not have to wonder whether someone sent something of- fensive through in the clear, or if his own folly is responsible. And I'm glad that we all agree that a newsreader defaulting to autorot13 is illegitimate under any circumstances: what newsreader does this, btw? ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720