Cryptography-Digest Digest #565, Volume #13 Sat, 27 Jan 01 02:13:00 EST
Contents:
Re: Between Silk and Cyanide ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Dynamic Transposition Revisited (long) (John Savard)
Re: Dynamic Transposition Revisited (long) ("Matt Timmermans")
Re: Steak Stream Cipher ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
32768-bit cryptography, updated ("lemaymd")
Re: Dynamic Transposition Revisited (long) (Terry Ritter)
Re: Dynamic Transposition Revisited (long) (Terry Ritter)
Re: 32768-bit cryptography, updated ("Scott Fluhrer")
Re: Dynamic Transposition Revisited (long) (Terry Ritter)
Re: Dynamic Transposition Revisited (long) (John Savard)
Re: 32768-bit cryptography, updated ("Matt Timmermans")
no joke (adam)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Between Silk and Cyanide
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 02:11:56 GMT
In article <_Kic6.67331$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Roger Peniston-Bird" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<< For instance, what happened to Giskes, who captured so many agents
sent to the Netherlands? Did he survive the war? >>
Giskes not only survived the war, he wrote a book about the whole
affair. An English translation was published in 1953 by British Book
Centre, Inc. and by William Kimber and Co, in London. It was reprinted
in paperback by Bantam Books in 1982 under the title, London Calling
North Pole.
I found it odd that Marks never mentions Giskes' book. There was an
investigation in the Netherlands after the war, which seems to have
drawn considerable publicity in both the Netherlands and England, and I
suspect that the publication of Giskes' book was due entirely to the
controversy stirred up by this investigation, yet Marks takes no notice
of this in his book.
-- Jeff Hill
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard)
Subject: Re: Dynamic Transposition Revisited (long)
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 02:11:54 GMT
On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 01:20:23 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Ritter) wrote,
in part:
>There is simply no hope of being able to reach every possible
>conventional block cipher substitution "table" in the same way that
>Dynamic Transposition can reach every possible permutation.
Absolutely! I agree with that 100%.
But what I'm on about is that that's a comparison between apples and
oranges.
Two rounds of DES with independent subkeys can produce 2^32 different
substitutions which will take any plaintext block P to any ciphertext
block C.
Similarly, "every possible permutation" can produce, for every N-bit
balanced block P, every possible N-bit balanced block C, in
(N/2)!(N/2)! different ways.
However, DES cannot produce every possible overall substitution, every
possible table C(0),C(1),....C(2^64-1) of output ciphertext blocks
from input plaintext blocks.
And transposition, period, also cannot produce every possible overall
substitution, every possible table C(0000000011111111) ....
C(1111111100000000) where the 12870 possible balanced 16-bit blocks,
(for N=16) are assigned, as ciphertext outputs, to the 12870 possible
balanced 16-bit blocks as inputs.
Transposition of balanced blocks is "better than XOR", because there
is more than one way to get from a particular P to a particular C, but
it does not have the sort of exhaustiveness that you are demanding a
substitution-based polyalphabetic block cipher have in order to be
comparable to Dynamic Transposition. The exhaustiveness it does have,
"all possible transpositions", is not equivalent.
Maybe it seems so because 'transposition' is treated as a class of
encipherment in itself, comparable to 'substitution'; this isn't a
semantic problem, it's a conceptual problem; I think you may be a
victim of the Whorf hypothesis, that language limits how we can think.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
------------------------------
From: "Matt Timmermans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Dynamic Transposition Revisited (long)
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 02:28:25 GMT
"AllanW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94sl80$alu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I think I missed one of my classes when I learned programming.
> Could you please show me the code corresponding to "generate a
> photon?" Use any well-known computer language -- ADA, APL,
> BASIC, C, C++, COBOL, FORTRAN, PASCAL -- whatever you feel
> comfortable with. I just need to see the basic algorithm for
> "generate a photon."
It sounds more like you missed the drunken argument in the college bar about
the feasibility of strong AI, the limits of simulation, the possibility that
that nature can support useful modes of super-Turing computation, who that
girl in the corner is _really_ checking out, and whether or not Bob tries to
coerce his partners into cheating at Euchre.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Steak Stream Cipher
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 02:33:08 GMT
In article <94t6g3$qai$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bryan Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Henrick Hellstr�m wrote:
> It looks like the idea is to rely on error propagation for
> authentication. That's bad. Authentication mechanisms should
> detect attempted forgery, not just pass garbage as if it were
> plaintext.
Excellent point! But: Attempted forgery is indeed detected with a
proper setup. A forgery is very likely to induce an error (unless
practically all key data is in the hands of the attacker), and hence
result in garbage plain text.
The point is that the recipient is expected to check for garbage data,
and assumed to be able to detect it. One method is to frequently send
data which is easy to verify but hard to guess and unlikely to appear
as a random result, e.g. short strings of zeroes followed by an integer
indicating the offset to the next string of zeroes.
> For secure FTP, why would you not use TLS (updated SSL)?
I think there is demand for secure server solutions for non-commersial
use without the requirement of expensive ceritificates. But maybe you
know something about the full potential of TLS that I don't?
Steak is an experiment and the FTP-solution we plan to design would be
more like a demonstration of the results of this experiment. We're not
done yet, and we don't know if we will be able to offer something a TLS
solution would not. We'll see.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "lemaymd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: 32768-bit cryptography, updated
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 22:04:28 -0600
Don't leave yet, this post may not have such a high concentration of snake
oil as you may expect from the title! This post has been written to inform
you of the release of my latest version of Bermuda Triangle 2001, v.2.1.1.
I have integrated the comments, criticism and suggestions offerred to me in
the replies to my earlier posting on this newsgroup and altered my 8-bit
stream cipher algorithm enough that I believe it, without extensive testing,
to be secure and very difficult to crack. My website at
www.bermudatriangle.f2s.com has complete algorithm details and a software
product, Bermuda Triangle 2001 Gold Edition that I have released free for
the first time. It is written entirely in assembly language and is fast,
secure and very easy-to-use. Plus, it is a small download. From
RAM-to-RAM, it can encrypt a byte of data in 44 clock cycles on an 80486.
Please download and test it and give me feedback! Thanks for your help!
: - )
lemaymd
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Ritter)
Subject: Re: Dynamic Transposition Revisited (long)
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 04:34:08 GMT
On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 01:46:48 GMT, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in
sci.crypt "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Terry Ritter wrote:
>> SO, DES has a potential keyspace of about 10**21 bits, of which a
>> keyspace of 56 bits is actually implemented.
>
>That's an utterly pointless exercise, since it says nothing
>about the very real differences in cryptosystems. *DES* does
>*not* have a "potential keyspace" of yadayada; what has that
>space is the class of *all possible transformations* from 64
>bits to 64 bits. An actual cryptographic transformation is
>divided into two parts: a general system that constrains the
>class of transformations to just those having a certain
>structure, and a key that is used to select the particular
>member from that constrained class. There are obvious
>practical reasons for predividing the space in that way.
You know, it really would help if you would follow the thread and
address the point in proper context. Of course something will be
"pointless" -- if you don't get the point.
As far as I could tell, Savard was saying that DES was missing or
unable to select only "some" of all possible emulated substitution
tables of the 64-bit block size. I addressed that and showed it to be
nowhere near true. The real situation is that the DES keyspace is
just a virtually infinitesimal fraction of the true keying
possibilities. The values I used are correct, the computations are
correct, and the comparison is correct, as far as it goes. If you
have problems with the conclusion, you probably don't understand the
question.
Now, you can claim that DES doesn't need to cover the full keying
range for a 64-bit block cipher. Fine. Great. You won't shock
anybody with that. But that was not the comparison or the issue.
---
Terry Ritter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.io.com/~ritter/
Crypto Glossary http://www.io.com/~ritter/GLOSSARY.HTM
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Ritter)
Subject: Re: Dynamic Transposition Revisited (long)
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 04:51:04 GMT
On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 02:11:54 GMT, in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in sci.crypt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard) wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 01:20:23 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Ritter) wrote,
>in part:
>
>>There is simply no hope of being able to reach every possible
>>conventional block cipher substitution "table" in the same way that
>>Dynamic Transposition can reach every possible permutation.
>
>Absolutely! I agree with that 100%.
Great, back on track!
>But what I'm on about is that that's a comparison between apples and
>oranges.
>
>Two rounds of DES with independent subkeys can produce 2^32 different
>substitutions which will take any plaintext block P to any ciphertext
>block C.
That would be 2**32 each round, right? So we have 2**64
possibilities.
One might well ask how that could possibly differ from a 64-bit XOR.
In what way has "substitution" had an impact?
>Similarly, "every possible permutation" can produce, for every N-bit
>balanced block P, every possible N-bit balanced block C, in
>(N/2)!(N/2)! different ways.
And I claim that as a basis for Dynamic Transposition strength which
has no analog in the modern block cipher.
>However, DES cannot produce every possible overall substitution, every
>possible table C(0),C(1),....C(2^64-1) of output ciphertext blocks
>from input plaintext blocks.
>
>And transposition, period, also cannot produce every possible overall
>substitution, every possible table C(0000000011111111) ....
>C(1111111100000000) where the 12870 possible balanced 16-bit blocks,
>(for N=16) are assigned, as ciphertext outputs, to the 12870 possible
>balanced 16-bit blocks as inputs.
I have no idea what this means.
The very reason we talk about transposition is that we are not talking
about substitution tables. One can't compare substitution counts from
a cipher which does in fact emulate substitution tables to a different
cipher which does not. Transposition does not try to create an
emulated table, and so can scarcely be faulted for not achieving that.
So what is your point?
>Transposition of balanced blocks is "better than XOR", because there
>is more than one way to get from a particular P to a particular C, but
>it does not have the sort of exhaustiveness that you are demanding a
>substitution-based polyalphabetic block cipher have in order to be
>comparable to Dynamic Transposition. The exhaustiveness it does have,
>"all possible transpositions", is not equivalent.
Of course not. Dynamic Transposition is a permutation cipher. It
does not emulate huge substitution tables.
That said, for the keyspace it uses -- permutations -- Dynamic
Transposition can traverse the full keyspace.
In contrast, for the keyspace the modern block cipher uses -- emulated
huge substitution tables -- no design can touch more than the tiniest
fraction of that keyspace.
>Maybe it seems so because 'transposition' is treated as a class of
>encipherment in itself, comparable to 'substitution'; this isn't a
>semantic problem, it's a conceptual problem; I think you may be a
>victim of the Whorf hypothesis, that language limits how we can think.
The problem is yours, not mine.
---
Terry Ritter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.io.com/~ritter/
Crypto Glossary http://www.io.com/~ritter/GLOSSARY.HTM
------------------------------
From: "Scott Fluhrer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 32768-bit cryptography, updated
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 21:03:39 -0800
lemaymd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94thhm$r58$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Don't leave yet, this post may not have such a high concentration of snake
> oil as you may expect from the title! This post has been written to
inform
> you of the release of my latest version of Bermuda Triangle 2001, v.2.1.1.
> I have integrated the comments, criticism and suggestions offerred to me
in
> the replies to my earlier posting on this newsgroup and altered my 8-bit
> stream cipher algorithm enough that I believe it, without extensive
testing,
> to be secure and very difficult to crack. My website at
> www.bermudatriangle.f2s.com has complete algorithm details and a software
> product, Bermuda Triangle 2001 Gold Edition that I have released free for
> the first time. It is written entirely in assembly language and is fast,
> secure and very easy-to-use. Plus, it is a small download. From
> RAM-to-RAM, it can encrypt a byte of data in 44 clock cycles on an 80486.
> Please download and test it and give me feedback! Thanks for your help!
Several comments:
- How is this revised algorithm any more resistant to the ciphertext-only
attack I outlined?
- 44 clocks/byte is awfully slow for an encryption algorithm
- BTW: don't bother with the executables -- I don't expect anyone here will
be willing to run a random executable...
--
poncho
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Ritter)
Subject: Re: Dynamic Transposition Revisited (long)
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 05:14:06 GMT
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 20:49:45 GMT, in <94snt5$da4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in
sci.crypt AllanW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[...]
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Ritter) wrote:
>> That does not seem to be the way I did it.
>
>That's what I got out of it. Not word-for-word, of course.
As John Savard pointed out, my description was insufficient.
As it turns out, when I implemented this a decade ago, I included --
in addition to (hex) ff and 00 -- also a balanced padding value, which
could be 55. Something like that is needed to fill out the last block
which is generally only partly filled with data. The padding strictly
follows the ff or 00 balancing bytes. So for decoding, we strip off
the padding first, and then the ff's or 00's plus the flag byte.
Near the end of accumulating data, if we have a condition such that if
we don't put in a byte we have a short block, but if we do, we exceed
the block, we can just put in a pad byte instead.
---
Terry Ritter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.io.com/~ritter/
Crypto Glossary http://www.io.com/~ritter/GLOSSARY.HTM
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard)
Subject: Re: Dynamic Transposition Revisited (long)
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 05:46:44 GMT
On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 04:51:04 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Ritter) wrote,
in part:
>Of course not. Dynamic Transposition is a permutation cipher. It
>does not emulate huge substitution tables.
>That said, for the keyspace it uses -- permutations -- Dynamic
>Transposition can traverse the full keyspace.
>In contrast, for the keyspace the modern block cipher uses -- emulated
>huge substitution tables -- no design can touch more than the tiniest
>fraction of that keyspace.
At least I now know my point has been understood, and I don't need to
explain the mathematics of it again.
What remains in dispute, though, is my claim that what you have said
here, although true, is in no way a valid argument in favor of Dynamic
Transposition.
As you've noted, one small error causes people to neglect what is
valid, and this is why I'm pounding on this one point - I believe I'm
not the only one who would see this error, but most of the others have
already stopped paying attention to your work.
Essentially, my argument is that it doesn't matter to an Opponent what
you are "attempting" to emulate. All that matters is what your cipher
does or does not do.
Neither a block cipher nor transposition provides all possible
substitutions of input blocks to output blocks.
Both a block cipher and transposition provide several alternative
paths for any plaintext block to become any ciphertext block, unlike
simple XOR, which provides only one.
Transposition is 'exhaustive' in the sense that it provides every
transformation in a particular tidy closed set of transformations. But
that isn't even a strength: that is a weakness, just as it would have
been a weakness if DES was a group.
Suppose that, between the two transpositions, I inserted an S-box,
that changed under the control of a good PRNG with each round, of the
form:
0000 -> 0000 1111 -> 1111
0001 -> 0100 0111 -> 1011
0010 -> 0010 1011 -> 1110
0100 -> 1000 1101 -> 0111
1000 -> 0001 1110 -> 1101
0011 -> 1010
0101 -> 0110
0110 -> 1100
1001 -> 0011
1010 -> 0101
1100 -> 1001
In other words, I'm substituting small portions of the block with
other substitutes that have the same number of 1 bits.
Now I'm producing substitutions of input block to output block that
can't be reached by transposition alone. Have I _weakened_ the cipher?
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
------------------------------
From: "Matt Timmermans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 32768-bit cryptography, updated
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 06:13:19 GMT
I remember hearing a great story about this sort of thing. It ended with
something like "in these three envelopes, I have three attacks against your
cipher. Pick one, read it, and come back when you've found the other two."
Does anybody remember the source? It should certainly be added to the FAQ.
"lemaymd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94thhm$r58$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Don't leave yet, this post may not have such a high concentration of snake
> oil as you may expect from the title! This post has been written to
inform
> you of the release of my latest version of Bermuda Triangle 2001, v.2.1.1.
> I have integrated the comments, criticism and suggestions offerred to me
in
> the replies to my earlier posting on this newsgroup and altered my 8-bit
> stream cipher algorithm enough that I believe it, without extensive
testing,
> to be secure and very difficult to crack. My website at
> www.bermudatriangle.f2s.com has complete algorithm details and a software
> product, Bermuda Triangle 2001 Gold Edition that I have released free for
> the first time. It is written entirely in assembly language and is fast,
> secure and very easy-to-use. Plus, it is a small download. From
> RAM-to-RAM, it can encrypt a byte of data in 44 clock cycles on an 80486.
> Please download and test it and give me feedback! Thanks for your help!
> : - )
>
> lemaymd
>
>
------------------------------
From: adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: no joke
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 06:20:06 GMT
I found this on a bulletin board and decided to try it. A little while
back, I was browsing through news groups, I just like you are now, and
came across an article
similar to this that said you could make thousands of dollars within
weeks with only an initial investment of $6.00! So I thought, "Yeah
right, this must be a scam", but
like most of us, I was curious, so I kept reading. Anyway, it said that
you send $1.00 to each of the 6 names and address stated in the article.
You then place your
own name and address in the bottom of the list at #6, and post the
article in at least 200 newsgroups. (There are thousands) No catch, that
was it. So after thinking it
over, and talking to a few people first, I thought about trying it. I
figured: "what have I got to lose except 6 stamps and $6.00, right?"
Then I invested the measly
$6.00. Well GUESS WHAT!!... within 7 days, I started getting money in
the mail! I was shocked! I figured it would end soon, but the money just
kept coming in. In
my first week, I made about $25.00. By the end of the second week I had
made a total of over $1,000.00! In the third week I had over $10,000.00
and it's still
growing. This is now my fourth week and I have made a total of just over
$42,000.00 and it's still coming in rapidly. It's certainly worth $6.00,
and 6 stamps, I have
spent more than that on the lottery!! Let me tell you how this works and
most importantly, why it works....Also, make sure you print a copy of
this article NOW, so
you can get the information off of it as you need it. I promise you that
if you follow the directions exactly, that you will start making more
money than you thought
possible by doing something so easy! Suggestion: Read this entire
message carefully! (print it out or download it.) Follow the simple
directions and watch the money
come in! It's easy. It's legal. And, your investment is only $6.00 (Plus
postage) IMPORTANT: This is not a rip-off; it is not indecent; it is not
illegal; and it is virtually
no risk - it really works!!!! If all of the following instructions are
adhered to, you will receive extraordinary dividends. PLEASE NOTE:
Please follow these directions
EXACTLY, and $50,000 or more can be yours in 20 to 60 days. This program
remains successful because of the honesty and integrity of the
participants. Please
continue its success by carefully adhering to the instructions. You will
now become part of the Mail Order business. In this business your
product is not solid and
tangible, it's a service. You are in the business of developing Mailing
Lists. Many large corporations are happy to pay big bucks for quality
lists. However, the money
made from the mailing lists is secondary to the income which is made
from people like you and me asking to be included in that list. Here are
the 4 easy steps to
success: STEP 1: Get 6 separate pieces of paper and write the following
on each piece of paper "PLEASE PUT ME ON YOUR MAILING LIST." Now get 6
US
$1.00 bills and place ONE inside EACH of the 6 pieces of paper so the
bill will not be seen through the envelope (to prevent thievery). Next,
place one paper in
each of the 6 envelopes and seal them. You should nowhave 6 sealed
envelopes, each with a piece of paper stating the above phrase, your
name and address, and a
$1.00 bill. What you are doing is creating a service. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY
LEGAL! You are requesting a legitimate service and you are paying for
it! Like most
of us I was a little skeptical and a little worried about the legal
aspects of it all. So I checked it out with the U.S. Post Office
(1-800-725-2161) and they confirmed
that it is indeed legal! Mail the 6 envelopes to the following
addresses: #1) S.Preston 1289 Huron St. London, ON,
Canada N5Y 4L6 #2) Beaner 12 Windsor Cres., North Bay, Ontario, Canada
poh 1p0 #3) Shane 82 Pawnee Rd. London, ON, Canada N5V 2S8 #4) Jason 123
Garvin Ave., Elyria, Ohio, 44035 #5) C. Atkinson 6 Richmond Drive,
Basking Ridge, NJ 07920 #6 Adam 5234 Huntington Ave. Richmond, CA
94804 STEP 2: Now take the #1 name off the list that you see above,
move the other names up (6 becomes 5, 5 becomes 4, etc...) and add YOUR
Name as number 6 on the list. STEP 3: Change anything you need to, but
try to keep
this article as close to original as possible. Now, post your amended
article to at least 200 newsgroups. (I think there are close to 24,000
groups) All you need is
200, but remember, the more you post, the more money you make! This is
perfectly legal! If you have any doubts, refer to Title 18 Sec. 1302 &
1341 of the Postal
lottery laws. Keep a copy of these steps for yourself and, whenever you
need money, you can use it again, and again. PLEASE REMEMBER that this
program
remains successful because of the honesty and integrity of the
participants and by their carefully adhering to the directions. Look at
it this way. If you are of integrity,
the program will continue and the money that so many others have
received will come your way. NOTE: You may want to retain every name and
address sent to
you, either on a computer or hard copy and keep the notes people send
you. This VERIFIES that you are truly providing a service. (Also, it
might be a good idea to
wrap the $1 bill in dark paper to reduce the risk of mail theft.) So, as
each post is downloaded and the directions carefully followed, six
members will be reimbursed
for their participation as a List Developer with one dollar each. Your
name will move up the list geometrically so that when your name reaches
the #1 position you
will be receiving thousands of dollars in CASH!!! What an opportunity
for only $6.00 ($1.00 for each of the first six people listed above)
Send it now, add your own
name to the list and you're in business! ---DIRECTIONS ----- FOR HOW TO
POST TO NEWSGROUPS------------ Step 1) You do not need to re-type this
entire letter to do your own posting. Simply put your cursor at the
beginning of this letter and drag your cursor to the bottom of this
document, and select 'copy' from
the edit menu. This will copy the entire letter into the computer's
memory. Step 2) Open a blank 'notepad' file and place your cursor at the
top of the blank page.
>From the 'edit' menu select ' paste '. This will paste a copy of the
letter into notepad so that you can add your name to the list. Step 3)
Save your new notepad file as
a .txt file. If you want to do your postings in different settings,
you'll always have this file to go back to. Step 4) Use Netscape or
Internet explorer and try searching
for various newsgroups (on-line forums, message boards, chat sites,
discussions.) Step 5) Visit these message boards and post this article
as a new message by
highlighting the text of this letter and selecting paste from the edit
menu. Fill in the Subject, this will be the header that everyone sees as
they scroll through the list of
postings in a particular group, click the post message button. You're
done with your first one! Congratulations...THAT'S IT! All you have to
do is jump to different
newsgroups and post away, after you get the hang of it, it will take
about 30 seconds for each newsgroup! **REMEMBER, THE MORE NEWSGROUPS YOU
POST IN, THE MORE MONEY YOU WILL MAKE!! BUT YOU HAVE TO POST A MINIMUM
OF 200** That's it! You will begin receiving money from
around the world within days! You may eventually want to rent a P.O.Box
due to the large amount of mail you will receive. If you wish to stay
anonymous, you can
invent a name to use, as long as the postman will deliver it. **JUST
MAKE SURE ALL THE ADDRESSES ARE CORRECT.** Now the why part: Assume for
example you get a 7.5% return, which is very conservative. 1) when you
mail out 200 letters, 15 people will send you $1.00 2) those 15 mail out
200 letters, 225
people will send you $1.00 3) those 225 mail out 200 letters, 3,375
people will send you $1.00 4) those 3,375 mail out 200 letters, 50,625
people will send you
$1.00 5) those 3,375 mail out 200 letters, 759,375 people will send you
$1.00 By now your name has dropped off the list, but so far you have
received at least
$759,375.00!! With an original investment of only $6.00! AMAZING! When
your name is no longer on the list, you just take the latest posting in
the newsgroups,
and send out another $6.00 to names on the list, putting your name at
number 6 again. And start posting again. The thing to remember is: do
you realize that
thousands of people allover the world are joining the internet and
reading these articles everyday?, JUST LIKE YOU are now!! So, can you
afford $6.00 and see if
it really works?? I think so... People have said, "what if the plan is
played out and no one sends you the money? So what! What are the chances
of that happening
when there are tons of new honest users and new honest people who are
joining the internet and newsgroups everyday and are willing to give it
a try? Estimates are
at 20,000 to 50,000 new users, every day, with thousands of those
joining the actual internet. Remember, play FAIRLY and HONESTLY and this
will really work.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to sci.crypt.
End of Cryptography-Digest Digest
******************************
