Even in your rebuttal you use 'crypto-weak' implying they are crpypto related. I would appreciate a clarification on exactly what c-punks means by 'crypto related'....
"Crypto-weak" as opposed to "crypto-strong", cryptographically strong. The guy was testing BSD random(), which I think is Yet Another Linear Congruential Generator. If you think an LC PRNG has cryptographic relevance, you are gravely mistaken. What's so hard about "crypto-related"? If you can't think of any relationship between the articles and cryptography (technical, social, political, whatever), don't forward them. If they had been about cryptoanalysis of random(), that might be relevant, though hardly ground-breaking.
you could post a pointer to sci.math, with the comment that you would be happy to mail a copy to anyone who can't get the articles by other means.
Yes, I could do that if I were so inclined. I am not.
So I see. You're not willing to take it upon youself to mail copies to people who can't otherwise get them, but you're happy to inflict irrelevant material straight out of Knuth on people who could easily get it themselves. What *is* your rationale here?
The bottem line is it was crypto related, was in reference to source code, and therefore fit the charter of this group.
Source code, yes. Would you like to explain its relationship to crypto? Eli ebrandt@hmc.edu