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

Peter Donahue pdonahue2 at satx.rr.com
Fri Apr 15 21:04:58 UTC 2011


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 





More information about the nFB-Talk mailing list