Re: Statistics on remail message sizes

["L. Todd Masco" <cactus@bb.com>]

Timothy C. May writes:
 > Except that coding only the progression and not the actual values lessens
 > the usefulness of quantizing. We may have one group of remailers/users
 > which uses the Hughes sequence: 1, 4, 16, 64, and another group that uses
 > another sequence: 3, 9, 27, etc.
 > 
 > I'm not saying we'll ever get everybody to agree, but there are times when
 > it's better to converge on solid, actual numbers and not on the
 > more-elegant abstract progressions.
 > 
 > But maybe I'm misunderstanding the point here.

I think you are;  My point was much more trivial than that;  I'm just
 suggesting that the 1,4,16,64 be extended to 256, 1024, 4096,...
--
L. Todd Masco  | "Which part of 'shall not be infringed' didn't
cactus@bb.com  |   you understand?"