My "beef" is with Tucows in that such descrenancies are not documented. Again, effectively, Tucows only supports a single configuration in a specific environment.
Why does enom provide such a "lite" and simple API? Answer: API is OS and Language Agnostic / enom is trying to avoid the limitations of complex API's like Tucows ......
Bottom line is that, according the the most recent State Of The Domain report (http://www.SOTD.info) enom gained 230,000 registrations (+0.6 market share) in Q4 2002 and GoDaddy gained 290,000 (+0.8 market share), while Tucows only gained 87,000 (-0.01 market share - a *LOSS*) ..... Sooner or later Tucows *WILL* provide an API that directly supports Windows Developement environment (I just wish it was sooner). Sooner or later Tucows will start catering to people like myself who personally own and administrate large blocks of domain names.
I willingly pay $2 to $3 extra for my registrations, and without receiving DNS / E-Mail / etc. (!), because of Tucows otherwise *AWESOME* and *PROFESSIONAL* customer support, and what I feel to be the best Web admin system I've ever seen (I have accounts with about 30 other registrars). But I am currently performing my new registrations with enom's far simpler API ..... Thus I am a contributor to the SOTD stats I've quoted.
Yes, I am trying to put a fire under Tucows Butt. I'm moving my enom regs over to Tucows because enom's support, simply put, sucks. I'm trying to motivate Tucows because I do not want to lose Tucows and want to see Tucows continue it's success and leadership in the domain industry!
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:26:19 -0500 Colin Viebrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
If I understand correctly, then your beef isn't really with Tucows.
It's with the people who wrote the Crypt::CBC Perl class.
I ran into the same problem with the PHP client. I couldn't simply use
the PHP commands to encode something with Blowfish (or DES) in CBC mode.
I had to write a class to emulate the way Crypt:CBC works.
If you want to take a look at the PHP code, and try and implement it in
C++, it's here:
http://cvs.php.net/co.php/pear/Crypt_CBC/CBC.php?r=1.4
- Colin
