Re: caesar(6) documents incorrect frequencies

> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 08:41:32AM -0500, Matthew Martin wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 07:38:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 07:28:39AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > > > I've known about ETAONRISHetc basically forever. Where is this new > > > > > order

Re: caesar(6) documents incorrect frequencies

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 08:41:32AM -0500, Matthew Martin wrote: > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 07:38:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 07:28:39AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > > I've known about ETAONRISHetc basically forever. Where is this new > > > > order

Re: caesar(6) documents incorrect frequencies

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:20:15AM +0200, Daniel Hartmeier wrote: > Maybe you mean Etaoin Shrdlu, it has a fascinating story > > https://archive.org/details/FarewellEtaoinShrdlu Wow, just wow. Thanks for this piece of history :)

Re: caesar(6) documents incorrect frequencies

Maybe you mean Etaoin Shrdlu, it has a fascinating story https://archive.org/details/FarewellEtaoinShrdlu

Re: caesar(6) documents incorrect frequencies

> No ones agree, I think you are mistaken. This is not an exact science, it is an approximation. However one of there is well-known, and the others are calculation-de-jour.

Re: caesar(6) documents incorrect frequencies

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote: >> > Is it possible you've got the fix backwards? I think ETAONRISHetc is >> > from some well-known research, but ETSAOR* is brand new and even google >> > cannot find a reference to that ordering. It seems there is a bug

Re: caesar(6) documents incorrect frequencies

> > Is it possible you've got the fix backwards? I think ETAONRISHetc is > > from some well-known research, but ETSAOR* is brand new and even google > > cannot find a reference to that ordering. It seems there is a bug here, > > but is it perhaps the other frequency table? > > I certainly don't

Re: caesar(6) documents incorrect frequencies

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 07:38:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 07:28:39AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > I've known about ETAONRISHetc basically forever. Where is this new > > > order (ETSAORINDHLCPMUYFWGBVKXQZJ) coming from. > > > > > > Citation please? > > > >

Re: caesar(6) documents incorrect frequencies

> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 07:28:39AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > I've known about ETAONRISHetc basically forever. Where is this new > > order (ETSAORINDHLCPMUYFWGBVKXQZJ) coming from. > > > > Citation please? > > I'm just updating the man page to reflect the percentages in caesar.c > which

Re: caesar(6) documents incorrect frequencies

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 07:28:39AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > I've known about ETAONRISHetc basically forever. Where is this new > order (ETSAORINDHLCPMUYFWGBVKXQZJ) coming from. > > Citation please? I'm just updating the man page to reflect the percentages in caesar.c which claims to get

Re: caesar(6) documents incorrect frequencies

I've known about ETAONRISHetc basically forever. Where is this new order (ETSAORINDHLCPMUYFWGBVKXQZJ) coming from. Citation please? > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 09:36:13AM +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 01:36:15AM -0500, Matthew Martin wrote: > > > The man page documents

Re: caesar(6) documents incorrect frequencies

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 09:36:13AM +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote: > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 01:36:15AM -0500, Matthew Martin wrote: > > The man page documents frequencies that are different than the code > > uses e.g. C (3.61 vs 2.7) and D (4.78 vs 3.8). This seems a bit much for > > a man page. If

Re: caesar(6) documents incorrect frequencies

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 01:36:15AM -0500, Matthew Martin wrote: > The man page documents frequencies that are different than the code > uses e.g. C (3.61 vs 2.7) and D (4.78 vs 3.8). This seems a bit much for > a man page. If anyone prefers the letter ordering be kept, the correct > order is