On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Theo de Raadt <dera...@openbsd.org> 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 here, >> > but is it perhaps the other frequency table? >> >> I certainly don't claim to know which frequencies are more accurate. >> Does anyone have a preferred source for which percentages to use? > > I suggest a google search for ETAONRISH, which leads to a handful of > references from 1960, 1963, etc. Of course it is only an estimate, and > will vary between regions and countries EH? > > I think that frequency order is still the most accepted. >
No ones agree, Wikipedia : compares to < eotha sinrd luymw fgcbp kvjqxz of modern English > ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_frequency ) from: http://www.math.ucsd.edu/~crypto/Projects/MarshaMoreno/TimeComparisonFrequency.pdf Note the paper from wikipedia reference talk <modern> english and use the bible ??? The tables can be sorted and gave : ETAOINSHR DLC ... <An analysis of entries in the Concise Oxford dictionary, ignoring frequency of word use, gives an order of "EARIOTNSLCUDPMHGBFYWKVXZJQ".> Meh -- -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do
