On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 12:12 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. "Internet Bridge Troll" comes to mind (http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1926079). "Steve Jobs owns a PC" is hilarious.
> 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 really miss a quality news feeds from a university. When I went looking for a replacement (for example, Forte's Agent Premium Newgroups), I was told the only guarantee was a 30 day retention. Jeff _______________________________________________ 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.
