Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #151017

Re: Obfuscating first step of encryption

Show key headers only | View raw

Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> writes:

> On Thu, 2020-04-02, James Kuyper wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 4:20:27 PM UTC-4, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 2020-04-01, James Kuyper wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/31/20 2:51 PM, Frederick Gotham wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have triple-posted this to sci.crypt, comp.lang.c++,
>>>>> comp.lang.c.  (I would have taken more flack for cross-posting).
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> You've claimed that more people complain to you about cross-posting than
>>>> about multi-posting, so I want to add myself to your statistics:
>>>> cross-posting is far better (when the subject is on-topic in all of the
>>>> groups) so that everyone interested can see responses posted in any of
>>>> the newsgroups.
>>>
>>> This was discussed when he started doing it some time last year, and
>>> one or two regulars wrote at length about why multi-posting was much
>>> better.  (This surprised me at the time.)  Anyway, that's probably
>>> where he got that from.
>>
>> According to Google Groups, he started posting with his current e-mail
>> address sometime in November last year.  On 2020-12-01, he said "I have
>> found that people who are adverse to cross-posting greatly outnumber
>> those who are adverse to multi-posting."  That was before he'd had any
>> significant conversation about that subject in this newsgroup using that
>> e-mail address.
>
> This was where I asked him to stop multi-posting, and then some people
> (at least Tim R.) disagreed.

I feel a need to clarify here.  My earlier remarks (ie, from last
year) about cross-posting and multi-posting were made regarding
only the particular context of comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++.  Also
my position is not absolute.  Based on past experience I think it
is /generally/ true (for the particular case of {clc,clc++}) that
multi-posting gives a better result than cross-posting, but that
does not necessarily hold in all cases.  I don't mean to reactivate
the discussion;  I just wanted to clarify what it was that I said.

On the other topic, AFAIK my earlier comments played no part in
the forming of Mr. Gotham's views on the subject.

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

Thread

Obfuscating first step of encryption Frederick Gotham <cauldwell.thomas@gmail.com> - 2020-03-31 11:51 -0700
  Re: Obfuscating first step of encryption Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-03-31 23:55 +0100
    Re: Obfuscating first step of encryption Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-04-01 05:55 +0000
  Re: Obfuscating first step of encryption James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-04-01 09:51 -0400
    Re: Obfuscating first step of encryption Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-04-01 20:20 +0000
      Re: Obfuscating first step of encryption James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-04-01 17:51 -0700
        Re: Obfuscating first step of encryption Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-04-02 06:22 +0000
          Re: Obfuscating first step of encryption James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-04-02 09:55 -0400
          Re: Obfuscating first step of encryption Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-04-04 13:14 -0700
            Re: Obfuscating first step of encryption Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-04-05 17:14 +0000

csiph-web