[nfb-talk] Captcha, (I've had enough!)

Steve Jacobson steve.jacobson at visi.com
Sun Apr 17 18:29:25 UTC 2011


John,

I think that certificates have some value as an alternative to CAPTCHAs.  What I am less certain of is what would be 
gained by trying to have a certificate party.  Let's say a thousand of us were to get certificates, then what.  Perhaps 
we have something to bargain with when working with a particular web site, but how much do we really have, there 
would be a substantial number of people who would still be excluded.  It seems to me that what we need is to find 
someone like Google or Microsoft, for example, who would be willing to work with us as an organization or even 
individuals to offer a certificate approach to circumvent their CAPTCHAs.  For example, LIVE.COM requires re-entering 
of CAPTCHAs from time to time to send mail, and it comes out of the blue and can be inconvenient.  If we had a 
specific benefit to offer as a result, I think we might be more successful.  Still, I don't mean to sound negative, I think 
there is possibilities to this approach.  I just don't know if I see that we should try to launch a big campaign without 
having anything solid to offer as a result.  One of our difficulties is that there isn't much reason for developers to do 
anything at all.

Best regards,

Steve Jacobson

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 12:26:32 -0500, John Heim wrote:

>Well, I am willing to work on or even manage a project to try to popularize 
>client certificate sign-ons through the NFB. but I can't attend the 
>convention. I have too many other claims on my volunteer resources. For one 
>thing, I'm President of the International Association of Visually Impaired 
>Technologists and whenever I have extra time and money it goes to IAVIT. And 
>that's not even my only commitment.

>Plus, we may be stepping on toes here. The NFB has a computer committee.  I 
>didn't bring up client certificate sign-ons with the idea of telling the NFB 
>what to do. But I am willing to be part of the team if there is one.

>In fact, if someone is willing to handle the NFB side of things, I'll start 
>looking into the technical aspects. First thing we would need to do is to 
>make sure we're not proposing something crazy. I'm about as sure as I can be 
>that it can work but its not really my area of expertise. The NFB can't go 
>to google or yahoo with some half-baked idea on implementing client 
>certificate sign-on. That would never fly.

>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Peter Donahue" <pdonahue2 at satx.rr.com>
>To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 4:04 PM
>Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Captcha, (I've had enough!)


>> Hello John and everyone,
>>
>>    We've managed many similar projects of this kind at national 
>> conventions
>> before so this wouldn't be a problem. Will you come and help?
>>
>> Peter Donahue
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "John Heim" <john at johnheim.net>
>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 12:58 PM
>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Captcha, (I've had enough!)
>>
>>
>> It occurs to me that the main problem of having the key signing at an NFB
>> convention is that you're supposed to verify the person's ID before 
>> signing
>> their forms. I don't know how a blind person does that. When I assure
>> people, I get sighted assistance. So if you're going to do this at an NFB
>> convention, you'd probably have to have sighted volunteers to help out.
>>
>> At least we can do one thing... If the NFB web site ever has a problem 
>> with
>> spammers, we can propose they allow certificate sign-ins.
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 12:44 PM
>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Captcha, (I've had enough!)
>>
>>
>>>I remember that when PGP encryption was introduced to the world (and these
>>>certificate schemes are not unlike PGP encryption), key-signing parties
>>>such as you describe below were envisioned.  I suspect that, like much 
>>>else
>>>involving human interaction these days, such get-togethers fell victim to
>>>the tendency of people to communicate via machine rather than 
>>>face-to-face.
>>>
>>> While I am sympathetic to your notion that conventions might be good
>>> places for such endeavors, I suspect that this would be at best chaotic 
>>> in
>>> practice, not unlike our long registration lines (although, in truth, we
>>> move them along quite quickly).  Also, I could envision howls of protest
>>> from blind persons who did not choose to join either NFB or ACB
>>> (presumably, ACB would conduct a similar session).
>>>
>>> But your suggestion is as good as, if not better than, those of the rest
>>> of us at this point. <smile>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike Freeman
>>> sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 15, 2011, at 10:34, "John Heim" <john at johnheim.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just in case its not clear, I didn't think up this validation scheme. I
>>>> found out about this years ago when I went to a seminar about on-line
>>>> security.  The speaker was talking about something called the "web of
>>>> trust". The idea is that real live human beings make sure you are who 
>>>> you
>>>> say you are in a face to face meeting. They sign documents for you which
>>>> you then submit to the certificate authority when creating your account.
>>>> Now that they know you, its called being "assured", you can in turn
>>>> assure other people.  Groups of nerds sometimes have "key signing
>>>> parties" where people get together over food & drinks and everyone who 
>>>> is
>>>> not already assured gets their forms signed. It seems to me that this
>>>> would be an ideal activity for an NFB convention.
>>>>
>>>> My first key signing party was years and years ago and the speaker
>>>> thought that by now, it would be a common authentication scheme on the
>>>> internet. But as far as I know, the only place that uses it is the
>>>> cacert.org web site itself.
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Jacobson"
>>>> <steve.jacobson at visi.com>
>>>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>>> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 9:54 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Captcha, (I've had enough!)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> John,
>>>>>
>>>>> Okay, this is clearer now.  Somehow I was thinking that the validation
>>>>> would have to work in reverse but that isn't the case.  This does seem
>>>>> like one more
>>>>> alternative to suggest.  I can't think of a case where my identity 
>>>>> won't
>>>>> be known anyway by sites presenting the CAPTCHA.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve Jacobson
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:08:09 -0500, John Heim wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, there are no logical flaws in the system.  You couldn't do your
>>>>>> banking on-line if there were. Essentially, this certificate 
>>>>>> validation
>>>>>> idea
>>>>>> is the same as what banks use. When you do your banking on line, your
>>>>>> PC
>>>>>> asks the bank computer to prove its who it says it is. That's done 
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> certificate. Essentially, I'm proposing that we all do the same thing
>>>>>> on our
>>>>>> computers that banks do on theirs.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Right off hand I don't remember the sequence of events in validating a
>>>>>> certificate. But a certificate is essentially just half of an
>>>>>> encryption
>>>>>> key. You have to have both halfes to make it work.  You would have a
>>>>>> private
>>>>>> key that you would need to keep private.  The private half of the key
>>>>>> could
>>>>>> be stolen by malware and web sites would have to have some way to
>>>>>> automatically revoke those. But I am sure most web sites already have 
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> way
>>>>>> to automatically detect when an account has been taken over by a
>>>>>> spammer and
>>>>>> automatically shutting it down. There is no perfect scheme but the
>>>>>> certificate validation is more secure than a captcha.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect that most web sites would prefer the certificate validation
>>>>>> scheme
>>>>>> over the captcha scheme and the reason personal certificates haven't
>>>>>> caught
>>>>>> on is that the web sites figure their customers will never go for 
>>>>>> them.
>>>>>> People don't understand certificates. While its not hard to install a
>>>>>> cert,
>>>>>> its harder than solving a captcha (for most people). Plus, people 
>>>>>> still
>>>>>> think they're anonymous on the internet.  I just wish more sites would
>>>>>> offer
>>>>>> it as an option. They could offer certificate validation as an
>>>>>> alternative
>>>>>> to captcha for those of us who understand it and can't do captchas.
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Steve Jacobson" <steve.jacobson at visi.com>
>>>>>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 2:59 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Captcha, (I've had enough!)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> John,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that we may need to develop an approach to offer to websites,
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> this may be one.  Another catch that I see is that it may never be 
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> case that
>>>>>>> one could expect to get by a CAPTCHA because of inconsistent
>>>>>>> downloading
>>>>>>> of root certificates.  Still, it might be a way to reach some sort of
>>>>>>> solution with
>>>>>>> large sites that require CAPTCHAs.  Could a certificate be "stolen" 
>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> disreputable web site?  I am guessing malware could do it, but could 
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> web
>>>>>>> site get
>>>>>>> enough information about your certificate when validating it against
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> root to use it somewhere else?  Thank you for the education.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Steve Jacobson
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:33:04 -0500, John Heim wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Answering your questions one at a time...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. wouldn't the site determine which type of certificate that would
>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> be submitted?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, it would.  But a site could accept certificates from any number
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> different certificate authorities.  A place that issues digital
>>>>>>>> certificates
>>>>>>>> is known as a certificate authority. Its a fairly simple process to
>>>>>>>> add to
>>>>>>>> your list of recognized certificate authorities. Each certificate
>>>>>>>> authority
>>>>>>>> issues a special certificate known as a root cert. This root cert is
>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>> used to validate the authenticity of certs issued by that 
>>>>>>>> certificate
>>>>>>>> authority. The process of recognizing a new certificate authority is
>>>>>>>> simply
>>>>>>>> to download the root cert for that authority and add it to your list
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> known certificate authorities.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. aren't their sources that would permit spammers to get
>>>>>>>> certificates?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes. In fact, anyone can generate their own certificates.  But it
>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>> any good to generate a certificate if the person you're sending it 
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> doesn't have the root certificate.  If a certificate authority 
>>>>>>>> issued
>>>>>>>> certificates to spammers, you could stop accepting the certs they
>>>>>>>> issue by
>>>>>>>> just deleting their root certificate.  Obviously, certificate
>>>>>>>> authorities
>>>>>>>> are highly motivated to make sure people trust the certs they issue.
>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>> not,
>>>>>>>> they're out of business.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3.  Is this process expensive?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No. Its essentially free not counting set up time, etc. But the
>>>>>>>> software
>>>>>>>> itself and the root certs are free.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 4. What's the catch?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know you didn't ask this but its a good question.  The catch is
>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>> certificate would allow web sites to track you all over the 
>>>>>>>> internet.
>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> downloaded some porn, did some banking, updated your facebook page,
>>>>>>>> downloaded some more porn, and then edited your own entry on
>>>>>>>> wikipedia,
>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>> those sites could share information about you. They wouldn't
>>>>>>>> necessarily
>>>>>>>> learn much from the certificate itself. But since a certificate
>>>>>>>> positively
>>>>>>>> identifies you, they'd be able to share information with each other
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>> your web habits. Of course, anyone who still thinks they are
>>>>>>>> anonymous on
>>>>>>>> the internet is fooling themselves anyway.  But this is the main
>>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> authentication method hasn't caught on. People don't want the web
>>>>>>>> sites
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> visit to know who they are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: "Steve Jacobson" <steve.jacobson at visi.com>
>>>>>>>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 1:47 PM
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Captcha, (I've had enough!)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> John,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This seems like an interesting approach to the problem.  I have a
>>>>>>>>> couple
>>>>>>>>> of questions, though.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In this case, wouldn't it be the web site that would be requesting 
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> certificate, so wouldn't the site determine which type of
>>>>>>>>> certificate
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> would need to be
>>>>>>>>> submitted?  Also, while I understand the process for getting a
>>>>>>>>> certificate
>>>>>>>>> from the source you mentioned, aren't their other sources that 
>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> permit
>>>>>>>>> spammers to get certificates?  I will readily admit that this
>>>>>>>>> certificate
>>>>>>>>> process has always been a bit of a mystery to me.  Is this process
>>>>>>>>> expensive for a web
>>>>>>>>> site to implement, understanding that the generations of CAPTCHAs
>>>>>>>>> are ot
>>>>>>>>> free.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Steve Jacobson
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:06:28 -0500, John Heim wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well, the whole point of a captcha is that is supposed to be
>>>>>>>>>> something a
>>>>>>>>>> computer cannot recognize. If a computer recognizes it, then by
>>>>>>>>>> definition,
>>>>>>>>>> it is not a captcha.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I think it would be a very good idea for the NFB to work
>>>>>>>>>> toward
>>>>>>>>>> getting
>>>>>>>>>> web designers to enable different authorization protocols. For
>>>>>>>>>> example,
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> site could accept a digital certificate as authorization for a
>>>>>>>>>> download.
>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>> web site could automatically ask the browser for a certificate and
>>>>>>>>>> if it
>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>> one, the download could begin. This would all be transparent to 
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> user
>>>>>>>>>> once they installed a certificate on their PC.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And it doesn't have to cost the end user a penny. There is at 
>>>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>> place to get free digital certificates. Its called cacert.org (see
>>>>>>>>>> www.cacert.org). To get an account, you have to be "assured" by 2
>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>> members or you have to have 2 notarized statements verifying your
>>>>>>>>>> identity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If more places used this kind of authorization, we could create
>>>>>>>>>> accounts
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> people at NFB conventions and show them how to install their
>>>>>>>>>> certificates.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Donahue"
>>>>>>>>>> <pdonahue2 at satx.rr.com>
>>>>>>>>>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 11:04 AM
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Captcha, (I've had enough!)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>   Audio captchas are of no use to the deaf-blind . For God sakes
>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>> develop the technology that allowed us to put a blind guy behind
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> wheel
>>>>>>>>>>> of an automobile and drive it independently we should be able to
>>>>>>>>>>> find
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>> to allow captchas to be recognized by screen readers while
>>>>>>>>>>> protecting
>>>>>>>>>>> Web
>>>>>>>>>>> sites and such from the bad guys. The belief that the technology
>>>>>>>>>>> to do
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> is not there doesn't wash with me.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Peter Donahue
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joshua Lester"
>>>>>>>>>>> <jlester8462 at students.pccua.edu>
>>>>>>>>>>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 8:38 AM
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Captcha, (I've had enough!)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> John, what's really bad, is if there are multiple blind people in
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> church denomination, and their site's contact form, or church
>>>>>>>>>>> locater,
>>>>>>>>>>> are inaccessible.
>>>>>>>>>>> My organization's Website is like that.
>>>>>>>>>>> They have an audio file that's supposed to play the captcha, but
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> won't
>>>>>>>>>>> play.
>>>>>>>>>>> I'll post the Website here.
>>>>>>>>>>> www.upci.org
>>>>>>>>>>> I've contacted their IT department, but they have done nothing
>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>>> Blessings, Joshua
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/11, John Heim <john at johnheim.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> A few months ago, the Department of Justice said that the ADA
>>>>>>>>>>>> applies
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> web
>>>>>>>>>>>> sites. This is a big deal. Since the Department of Justice is
>>>>>>>>>>>> responsible
>>>>>>>>>>>> for enforcing laws like the ADA, if the Department of Justice
>>>>>>>>>>>> says
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> ADA
>>>>>>>>>>>> applies to web sites, then it does.  A business would have to go
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> court
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> show that the DOJ overstepped its bounds in making that
>>>>>>>>>>>> determination.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>> the burden of proof would be on them. Well, anyway, the point is
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> CAPTCHAs are now illegal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO, this is one of the toughest issues we face. My own boss 
>>>>>>>>>>>> came
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>> yesterday wanting to put a captcha on our web site. I had to 
>>>>>>>>>>>> talk
>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>> long to get her to not do it. It was a really tough sell and I
>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>> got
>>>>>>>>>>>> her
>>>>>>>>>>>> to agree on a provisional basis. If an alternate solution I came
>>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't work, she will probably insist on using the captcha. Her
>>>>>>>>>>>> point
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> that the page we want to protect simply isn't visited very often
>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>> blind
>>>>>>>>>>>> people. Its not worth the trouble to make it accessible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I've pointed out that its a matter of principle. I've even
>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> bitter thing it would be for me to install captcha software. 
>>>>>>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>>>>>>> pointed
>>>>>>>>>>>> out our legal responsibilities. All this makes little to no
>>>>>>>>>>>> difference.
>>>>>>>>>>>> All
>>>>>>>>>>>> that really matters is that captchas work. Honestly, I was
>>>>>>>>>>>> sitting
>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking of trying to write software to break captchas and
>>>>>>>>>>>> sending it
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> every spammer I can find.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> By the way, my boss is not a bad person by any means. She is 
>>>>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>>>> open
>>>>>>>>>>>> minded. I just think that if you're not blind, you don't see 
>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: "Joshua Lester" <jlester8462 at students.pccua.edu>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To: <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 10:25 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [nfb-talk] Captcha, (I've had enough!)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, it's Joshua Lester.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've posted this on the Faith Talk list, and the Music list, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not having any success.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've just thought of a question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like everyone's feedback.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can we better influence the Webmasters of their sites, to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>> more accessible contact forms?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can they make them, where they can differentiate, between
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaws,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Robot?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want them to make the captcha, where Jaws can catch it, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> read
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> us.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What can we do?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your ideas.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is for all Websites.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blessings, Joshua
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account
>>>>>>>>>>>>> info
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nfb-talk:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/john%40johnheim.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account 
>>>>>>>>>>>> info
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>> nfb-talk:
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/jlester8462%40students.pccua.edu
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> nfb-talk:
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/pdonahue2%40satx.rr.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> nfb-talk:
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/john%40johnheim.net
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> nfb-talk:
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/steve.jacobson%40visi.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>>>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> nfb-talk:
>>>>>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/john%40johnheim.net
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info 
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> nfb-talk:
>>>>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/steve.jacobson%40visi.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>>>>> nfb-talk:
>>>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/john%40johnheim.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>>>> nfb-talk:
>>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/steve.jacobson%40visi.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>>> nfb-talk:
>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/john%40johnheim.net
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>> nfb-talk:
>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/k7uij%40panix.com
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>> nfb-talk:
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/john%40johnheim.net
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfb-talk mailing list
>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> nfb-talk:
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/pdonahue2%40satx.rr.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfb-talk mailing list
>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
>> nfb-talk:
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/john%40johnheim.net
>> 


>_______________________________________________
>nfb-talk mailing list
>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfb-talk:
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/steve.jacobson%40visi.com








More information about the nFB-Talk mailing list