Re: srand(0)

From	Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: srand(0)
Date	2026-01-08 01:06 +0200
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<20260108010601.00002085@yahoo.com> (permalink)
References	(4 earlier) <10ibvrm$25ihh$2@dont-email.me> <20251222204538.00003fc2@yahoo.com> <10iekvr$pa8n$1@paganini.bofh.team> <20251224000824.00005ce7@yahoo.com> <86tswxnznu.fsf@linuxsc.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 08:41:25 -0800
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:

> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, 23 Dec 2025 17:54:05 -0000 (UTC)
> > antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) wrote:  
> [...]
> >> There is a paper "PCG:  A Family of Simple Fast Space-Efficient
> >> Statistically Good Algorithms for Random Number Generation"
> >> by M. O?Neill where she gives a family of algorithms and runs
> >> several statistical tests against known algorithms.  Mersenne
> >> Twister does not look good in tests.  If you have enough (128) bits
> >> LCGs do pass tests.  A bunch of generators with 64-bit state also
> >> passes tests.  So the only reason to prefer Mersenne Twister is
> >> that it is implemented in available libraries.  Otherwise it is
> >> not so good, have large state and needs more execution time
> >> than alternatives.  
> >
> > I don't know.  Testing randomness is complicated matter.
> > How can I be sure that L'Ecuyer and Simard's TestU01 suite tests
> > things that I personally care about and that it does not test
> > things that are of no interest for me?  Especially, the latter.  
> 
> Do you think any of the tests in the TestU01 suite are actually
> counter-indicated?  As long as you don't think any TestU01 test
> makes things worse, there is no reason not to use all of them.
> You are always free to disregard tests you don't care about.
> 

Except that it's difficult psychologically.
The batteries of test gains position of of authority in your mind.
Well, may be, you specifically are resistant, but I am not. Nor is
Melissa O'Nail, it seems.

To illustrate my point, I will tell you the story about myself.
Sort of confession.
If you had read the rest of this thread (or paid attention to
finer details in the article of O'Nail) then you already know that
mt19937 consistently fails in scomp_LinearComp() subtest of Crush and
BigCrush batteries of Test01. As reported, I "fixed" it by skipping
every 19936th word of mt19937 output. This particular "fix" is benign.
I am sure that it does not make output of generator less random. The
only impact is a bit of slowness, because of the need to manage yet
another modulo counter.
What I did not tell so far is that I tried another "fix". I added
leakage during mt state update. It means that periodically I
forced two LS bits of newly generated state word to be '01', without
affecting the word that goes to tampering and then to output.
And according to Test01 it worked! Flew through all batteries!
Luckily, I was sufficiently self-conscious to understand that I don't
understand nearly enough about algebra of Galois fields to predict all
consequences of my modification. But that's me. I know few people that
are less aware of their limitations.

> > Also, the TestU01 suit is made for generators with 32-bit output.
> > M. O'Neill used ad hoc technique to make it applicable to
> > generators with 64-bit output.  Is this technique right?  Or may
> > be it put 64-bit PRNG at unfair disadvantage?  
> 
> As long as the same mapping is applied to all 64-bit PRNGs under
> consideration I don't see a problem.  The point of the test is to
> compare PRNGs, not to compare test methods.  If someone thinks a
> different set of tests is called for they are free to run them.
>

But Melissa, following advice of L'Ecuyer, and me, following advice of
Melissa, tested 64-bit generators three times - LSW then MSW, only LSW
and only MSW, thus putting them under trice more serious scrutiny than
32-bit counterparts.

> > Besides, I strongly disagree with at least one assertion made by
> > O'Neill:  "While security-related applications should use a secure
> > generator, because we cannot always know the future contexts in
> > which our code will be used, it seems wise for all applications to
> > avoid generators that make discovering their entire internal state
> > completely trivial."
> > No, I know exactly what I am doing/ I know exactly that for my
> > application easy discovery of complete state of PRNG is not a
> > defect.  
> 
> You and she are talking about different things.  You are talking
> about choosing a PRNG to be used only by yourself.  She is talking
> about choosing a PRNG to be made available to other people without
> knowing who they are or what their needs are.  In the second case
> it's reasonable to raise the bar for the set of criteria that need
> to be met.
>

No, this part of her article is a mistake, plain and simple.
He even sort of admitted it couple of years later in her blogg.
In reality, we either need secure PRNG or do not need secure PRNG.
There is no middle ground of "more or less secure insecure PRNGs".
PRNGs she advocates are insecure until proven otherwise by crypto
analysts.

> > Anyway, even if I am skeptical about her criticism of popular PRNGs,
> > intuitively I agree with the constructive part of the article -
> > medium-quality PRNG that feeds medium quality hash function can
> > potentially produce very good fast PRNG with rather small internal
> > state.  
> 
> After looking at one of the example PCG generators, I would
> describe it as a medium-quality PRNG that feeds a low-quality
> hash.  The particular combination I looked at produced good
> results, but it isn't clear which combinations of PRNG and
> hash would do likewise.
>

I tend to like CRC32C for hashing 64 bits into 32 bits; for no reason
apart from that this primitive is available and fast on modern Intel
and AMD CPUs. ARM64 CPUs as well, I think, although less than 100% sure.

> > On related note, I think that even simple counter fed into high
> > quality hash function (not cryptographically high quality, far
> > less than that) can produce excellent PRNG with even smaller
> > internal state.  But not very fast one.  Although the speed
> > depends on specifics of used computer.  I can imagine computer
> > that has low-latency Rijndael128 instruction.  On such computer,
> > running counter through 3-4 rounds of Rijndael ill produce very
> > good PRNG that is only 2-3 times slower than, for example, LCG
> > 128/64.  
> 
> I think the point of her paper where she talks about determining
> how much internal state is needed is to measure the efficacy of
> the PRNG, not to try to reduce the amount of state needed.  Based
> on my own experience with various PRNGs I think it's a mistake to
> try to minimize the amount of internal state needed.  My own rule
> of thumb is to allow at least a factor of four:  for example, a
> PRNG with a 32-bit output should have at least 128 bits of state.
> My latest favorite has 256 bits of state to produce 32-bit
> outputs (and so might also do well to produce 64-bit outputs, but
> I haven't tested that).

One important point that I seem to figure out recently is that the only
practical way to produce both solid and very fast PRNG that adheres to
standard language APIs with 32-bit and to somewhat smaller extent 64-bit
output, is to use buffering. I.e. most of the time generator simply
reads pre-calculated word from the buffer and only ones per N
iterations runs an actual PRNG algorithm, probably in a loop, often
in SIMD. In order for this approach to be effective, buffer can't be
particularly small. 32 bytes (256 bits) appear to be an absolute
minimum. The buffer and counter that manages buffering, are parts of the
generator state. That alone sets a practical minimal limit on the size
of generator and diminishes significance of the difference between
PRNGs with "algorithmic" state of 64 bits, 128 bits or even 256 bits.

The observation certainly applies to PCGs or to anything else that
utilizes LCG for its state update primitive.

Now, if one does no look for ultimate speed then said above does not
apply.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-22 08:48 +0000
  Re: srand(0) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-12-22 06:44 -0500
    Re: srand(0) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-22 13:18 +0100
      Re: srand(0) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-12-22 12:13 -0500
        Re: srand(0) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-22 18:41 +0100
          Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-22 20:45 +0200
            Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-22 21:16 +0000
            Re: srand(0) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-22 22:19 +0100
            Re: srand(0) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-22 22:57 +0100
              Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-23 11:18 +0200
                Re: srand(0) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-23 10:54 +0100
                Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-23 13:50 +0200
                Re: srand(0) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-12-23 18:29 -0500
                Re: srand(0) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-23 16:30 -0800
            Re: srand(0) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-12-23 17:54 +0000
              Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-24 00:08 +0200
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-24 02:02 +0000
                Re: srand(0) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-12-23 23:43 -0500
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-24 05:34 +0000
                Re: srand(0) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-12-24 09:00 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-24 12:12 +0200
                Article of Melissa O'Nail (Was: srand(0)) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-28 02:44 +0200
                Re: Article of Melissa O'Nail antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-12-28 05:38 +0000
                Re: Article of Melissa O'Nail Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-28 12:35 +0200
                Re: Article of Melissa O'Nail Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-05 14:21 +0200
                Re: Article of Melissa O'Nail antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-01-07 10:51 +0000
                Re: Article of Melissa O'Nail Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-08 14:03 +0200
                Re: Article of Melissa O'Nail Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-08 09:40 -0800
                Re: srand(0) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-08 09:26 -0800
                Re: srand(0) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-24 13:48 -0800
                Re: srand(0) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-07 08:41 -0800
                Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-08 01:06 +0200
                Re: srand(0) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-02-03 05:26 -0800
                Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-02-03 16:37 +0200
                Re: srand(0) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-02-17 23:47 -0800
                Re: srand(0) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-02-18 11:21 +0000
                Re: srand(0) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-02-19 10:01 +0100
                Re: srand(0) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-02-19 14:33 -0500
                Re: srand(0) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-02-19 20:47 +0100
                Re: srand(0) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-02-20 16:01 -0500
                Re: srand(0) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-02-21 11:09 +0100
                Re: srand(0) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-02-19 14:39 -0800
                Re: srand(0) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-02-20 09:16 +0100
                Re: srand(0) Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-02-23 08:32 -0500
                Re: srand(0) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-02-23 16:05 +0100
                Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-02-23 19:59 +0200
                Re: srand(0) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-02-23 20:06 +0100
                Re: srand(0) Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-02-23 15:24 -0500
                Re: srand(0) Axel Reichert <mail@axel-reichert.de> - 2026-02-24 07:08 +0100
                Re: srand(0) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-02-24 10:24 +0100
                Re: srand(0) Axel Reichert <mail@axel-reichert.de> - 2026-02-26 19:13 +0100
              Re: srand(0) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-12-24 05:22 -0600
                Re: srand(0) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-12-24 23:09 -0600
                Re: srand(0) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-25 09:51 +0100
                Re: srand(0) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-12-25 04:24 -0600
              Re: srand(0) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-07 07:50 -0800
            Re: srand(0) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-07 07:46 -0800
              Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-07 18:14 +0200
          Re: srand(0) Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2025-12-22 19:16 +0000
            Re: srand(0) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-22 22:35 +0100
      Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-23 07:24 +0000
        Re: srand(0) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-23 09:59 +0100
          Re: srand(0) Michael Bäuerle <michael.baeuerle@stz-e.de> - 2025-12-23 11:09 +0100
            Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-23 14:49 +0000
          Re: srand(0) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-12-23 16:13 +0000
            Re: srand(0) richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2025-12-23 19:05 +0000
        Re: srand(0) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-23 02:16 -0800
          Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-23 14:47 +0000
        Re: srand(0) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-12-23 16:08 +0000
          Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-24 15:44 +0000
    Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-23 07:17 +0000
      Re: srand(0) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-12-23 08:25 +0100
        Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-23 14:45 +0000
          Re: srand(0) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-12-23 19:15 +0100
  Re: srand(0) John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> - 2025-12-23 00:39 +0000
    Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-23 02:17 +0000
      Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-23 14:55 +0000
        Re: srand(0) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-12-24 23:35 -0600
          Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-26 08:23 +0000
            Re: srand(0) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-12-26 14:48 -0600
              Re: srand(0) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-12-26 15:12 -0600
    Re: srand(0) Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> - 2025-12-23 06:49 +0000
      Re: srand(0) John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> - 2025-12-23 20:37 +0000
        Re: srand(0) Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> - 2025-12-24 15:22 +0000
    Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-23 07:25 +0000
      Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-24 06:16 +0000
        Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-24 15:21 +0000
          Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-24 19:00 +0000
            Re: srand(0) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-12-25 03:07 -0600
              Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-25 19:31 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-25 21:14 +0100
                Re: srand(0) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-12-25 15:29 -0600
                Re: srand(0) Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-12-25 23:25 -0500
                Re: srand(0) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-12-25 23:41 -0600
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-26 05:42 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-12-26 01:52 -0500
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-26 07:56 +0000
                Re: srand(0) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-12-26 04:48 -0600
      Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-24 10:51 +0200
        Re: srand(0) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-24 00:59 -0800
        Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-24 15:28 +0000
          Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-24 17:44 +0200
            Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-24 16:17 +0000
              Re: srand(0) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-24 17:53 +0100
                Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-24 17:27 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-24 17:33 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-24 20:16 +0200
                Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-25 02:01 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-25 03:17 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-26 08:13 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-25 04:30 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-25 09:10 +0100
                Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-26 08:08 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-30 06:07 +0000
                Re: srand(0) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-12-30 18:42 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-31 02:01 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-31 03:10 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-31 03:28 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-31 09:37 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2026-01-01 07:32 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-01 19:02 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2026-01-01 19:20 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-01 21:53 +0200
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-01 23:50 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-02 14:32 +0200
                Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-02 16:18 +0200
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-02 20:52 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-02 20:46 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2026-01-03 04:08 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-03 04:39 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2026-01-03 14:24 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-03 20:38 +0200
                Re: srand(0) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-30 19:37 -0800
                Re: srand(0) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-12-31 17:24 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-31 15:17 -0800
                Re: srand(0) Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-12-31 12:30 -0500
                Re: srand(0) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-12-31 18:42 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-12-31 15:07 -0500
                Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-31 22:18 +0200
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-31 20:55 +0000
                Re: srand(0) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-12-31 22:57 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-31 16:00 -0800
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-01 01:03 +0000
                Re: srand(0) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-01-01 14:05 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-01 19:03 +0000
                Re: srand(0) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-01-01 20:28 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-31 15:29 -0800
                Re: srand(0) highcrew <high.crew3868@fastmail.com> - 2026-01-01 00:31 +0100
                Re: srand(0) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-31 16:05 -0800
                Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-31 15:29 +0200
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-31 20:52 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-31 15:14 -0800
                Re: srand(0) Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-05 20:00 -0800
                Re: srand(0) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-31 15:03 -0800
                Re: srand(0) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-30 19:35 -0800
                Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-31 04:51 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-31 15:15 +0200
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-31 20:51 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-31 15:00 -0800
                Re: srand(0) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-01 01:45 +0200
                Re: srand(0) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-31 16:34 -0800
                Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2026-01-01 07:23 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2026-01-01 02:01 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-01 02:29 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-30 06:34 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-30 14:05 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-28 05:51 +0000
            Re: srand(0) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-12-24 17:08 +0000
    Re: srand(0) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-07 07:39 -0800
      Re: srand(0) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-07 13:54 -0800
        Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2026-01-08 15:34 +0000
          Re: srand(0) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-08 14:44 -0800
            Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2026-01-09 06:06 +0000
              Re: srand(0) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-08 22:46 -0800
                Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2026-01-09 22:38 +0000
                Re: srand(0) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-01-09 23:27 +0000
                Re: srand(0) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-09 17:09 -0800
                Re: srand(0) Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-01-10 19:44 +0000
        Re: srand(0) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-09 00:36 -0800
  Re: srand(0) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-12-23 11:04 +0100
  Re: srand(0) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-23 21:44 -0800
    Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-24 15:41 +0000
      Re: srand(0) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-24 18:04 +0100
        Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2025-12-25 05:41 +0000
  Re: srand(0) Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2026-01-08 02:57 +0000

csiph-web