On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Paul M. Moriarty <[email protected]> wrote: > Usenet? How quaint. I'm still resisting blogs, tweets, tiny urls, and cell phone text messages. There's just something about being able to find a usenet post after years.
Twits and the like are at the mercy of webmasters - here today, gone tomorrow (or maybe just moved but not re-indexed). > On Sep 6, 2010, at 8:48 AM, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> What's the deal with searching for sci.crypt usenet group? >> >> I used a popular text based search engine to locate the group using >> the search "sci.crypt". The results were: >> * sci.crypt.random-numbers >> * sci.crypt.research >> * 4 more >> >> Upon expanding "4 more", the next result was: >> Science and Cryptography [email protected] >> To be a suitable replacement for sci.crypt. >> 12 members >> >> 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? >> >> 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. > > _______________________________________________ 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.
