Some bits of code in C using openSSL that seem to work with Crypt::CBC
Blowfish, should work in C++.

http://www.unixdaemons.com/~paul/crypto

Cheers
Paul

On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Jim Carey wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Here is some communications that I had on this topic with Alan - 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Jim
> 
> "Jim:  This is good feedback for us.  Thanks.
> 
> Again, we have not yet decided on the future of our sourceforge code.
> Whatever we decide, will definately be shared with resellers.
> 
> Please feel free to distribute this email to the rest of discuss-list.
> 
> Regards, Alan
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Carey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "'Alan Hutchison'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 6:09 PM
> Subject: RE: Client Code Releases
> 
> 
> > I found it to be substantially easier than the "legacy" code - it
> > allowed addition of credit cards, transaction logging, redirects etc
> etc
> > all without any - note - ANY - change to the distributed code - a
> major
> > improvement over the hassles of upgrading that I had to go through for
> > years under the old code whenever I had to upgrade.
> >
> > If you decide not to move forward with the code then, for goodness
> sake,
> > let people know - there are still mailing list archives that state
> > unequivocally that the SF code is the planned direction. Let people
> stop
> > developing for it and wasting their time. If you don't have commitment
> > to it then the reseller will continue to be behind the pack in
> > implementing new featues that come out - eg email.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alan Hutchison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 9:11 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: Client Code Releases
> >
> >
> > Jim:  We have received a lot of feedback that the Sourceforge version
> is
> > to
> > difficult for many people.  As such, it may not be the ideal solution
> > for
> > our standardized version.  However, the idea of modularity remains
> > important
> > to us.  The strengths/weaknesses of our sourceforge client will
> > definitely
> > be something that our new Technical Product Manager must assess.
> >
> > So, Sourceforge is not a dead issue - but at this point we have not
> > determined if it will be embraced as our standard code.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jim Carey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 5:22 PM
> > To: 'Alan Hutchison'
> > Subject: RE: Client Code Releases
> >
> >
> > I see no mention on the future of the SourceForge version that was
> > touted as being the future direction of the code - this caused a lot
> of
> > people to switch - to their detriment in recent times given the
> > tardiness in passing specs for new facilities to Paul Sisson.
> >
> > Is this a dead end or will it be the direction for the future - it
> > certainly addresses the issue of modularity and simplicity in carrying
> > forward local mods to new releases
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Jim Carey
> > www.ozbcoz.com"
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 5:54 AM
> To: 'Alan Hutchison'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Client Code Releases
> 
> 
> So what ever happened to the Grand Design to move to the SourceForge
> version of the client? That commitment is at least a year and a half old
> with no activity whatsoever.
> 
> -Tim
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Hutchison
> > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 5:25 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Client Code Releases
> > 
> > 
> > We have an outstanding commitment to provide all of you with 
> > visibility into our client code roadmap.  Currently we are in 
> > the process of hiring a Technical Product Manager that will 
> > be responsible for defining client code releases (dates and 
> > features) as well as other duties.  This position is 
> > currently posted on our web site at 
> > http://jobs.tucows.com/jobs3.cgi?LOCATION=1.  It is proving 
> > to be a very challenging position to fill, so we are later 
> > than anticipated in putting a formal client code roadmap together.
> > 
> > At a high level, I can tell you that our intent regarding 
> > client code is
> > twofold:
> > 1)  Make the client code more modular so that when updates 
> > are provided, it will be easier for you to re-integrate your 
> > customizations
> > 2)  Provide client code in additional languages besides Perl. 
> >  The first priority will be a PHP version.  A Java version is 
> > also being considered.
> > 
> > In the immediate future our client code release plans are as 
> > follows (note that the final feature set in each release is 
> > subject to change):
> > 
> > March 31
> > --------
> > DOMAINS
> >    - .uk renewals
> > EMAIL
> >    - Email catch all set at time of order
> > 
> > April 15
> > --------
> > DOMAINS
> >    - .de registration
> > CERTS
> >    - Ability to call expiring certs and place subsequent renewal order
> >    - Ability to query contacts for existing users
> >    - Bug fixes related to end user facing error messages
> >    - Reseller confirmation messages for orders placed through RCL
> > 
> > April 30
> > --------
> > DOMAINS
> >    - .uk transfers
> > 
> > May 16
> > ------
> > CERTS
> >    - Ability to flag certificates with auto-renew
> > 
> > May 19
> > ------
> > DOMAINS
> >    - .de renewals and transfers
> > 
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Alan Hutchison
> > Director, Product Management
> > Tucows Inc.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/2003
>  
> 

-- 
************************************************
Paul Khavkine
Network Administrator
TELOSysteme, Groupe Distributel Communications
740 Notre Dame West, Suite 1135
Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3C 3X6
1-514-877-0064
http://www.distributel.net
************************************************


Reply via email to