Language = Clarion 5.5EE, platform is Win98 and Win2000 Server.
My Blowfish code passes all the test vectors provided by the original creator of Blowfish, located here,
http://www.counterpane.com/blowfish.html
But as I stated, it was through the help of others who have successfully authored their own client code that I found out that the de-facto blowfish standard does not work with Tucows. In fact one person told me that they had CounterPane help them with getting the Blowfish alogorithm working and CounterPane told them the library you refer to is slightly different than the Blowfish spec. Thus without Tucows documenting this descrepency I'm SOL.
We could easily digress into a spitting match about Blowfish and Tocows implementation, but my point is that the interface should not be so difficult to implement across different platforms as to allow such a spitting match to be a possibility .....
Again, I am stating my request for platform independent support. Something as simple as enom's interface would be nice but not necessary. A free well documented Windows OS DLL would be more than adiquit and would support virtually all languages. Even better would be incremental test vectors for each Tucows API layer, but last time I asked for that it was suggested that I was a hacker attempting to reverse engineer other resellers private keys ........... (sigh)
Thanks!
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:35:12 -0500 Roger Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can you be more specific? You vent and yet don't say what language you wrote
yours in.... if you've written it in C++/C/PHP/Perl, yet need a blowfish
implementation... USE libmcrypt! It works!
-Roger
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Fortunately many poeple came to my assistance in trying to write my own interface ..... Then I was told that even though my Blowfish algorithm satifies all the test vectors it will not work for API since the Perl implementation they use is slightly different than "the standard" ...... I gave up at that point ....
So I guess I have to continue to use enom's nice API for registration and then manually transfer to Tucows? Or is Tucows going to simplify their API? Why can't Tucows make my life so easy?
To be clear --
I really *DISLIKE* using enom and am in no why attempting to promote them. But I am attempting to shame Tucows into filling in the only hole I've found in their otherwise stellar service: an API that is *REASONABLE* to implement in the Resellers language of choice!
Thank you for this opertunity to vent. ;)
Joe Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Did you get any takers on this? I wrote a C++ client >back in late 2000,
>but it is far far out of date now.
>
>On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 01:33:25PM -0500, Frank Michlick >wrote:
>> Hi,
>> >> If anyone has implemented a client code to connect to >>our API in C++,
>> please email me ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), I'd be >>interested in talking
>> to you.
>> >> Thanks + best regards,
>> Frank Michlick
>
>-- >Joe Rhett > Chief >Geek
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ISite Services, Inc.
