Re: sci.crypt replacement?

[Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu]

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:48:18 EDT, Jeffrey Walton said:

> The *last* result was the group sci.crypt.
>
> Why in the world would anyone want to use a 12-member "suitable
> replacement" named "Science and Cryptography" when a group with deep
> usenet tradition exists? Is this more SEO bullshit? Or just search
> provider bullshit?

There's a lot of Google Groups with delusions of grandeur.  For instance, one
famous troll claims to have the biggest most influential security group around.

It's possible that the search engine is merely heavily biased towards http://
resources as opposed to news:// references, and if sci.crypt is archived in a
lot of places, no single reference was heavily referenced enough to pop to the
top of the list.  I know that when I post to the linux-kernel list, Google is
*not* able to intuit that it's the same posting in the various archive sites
due to the vast difference in layout code (there's the same 1.5K of actual
e-mail, but the surrounding 20K of css and javascript and what-not obfuscates
the essential sameness).

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.