[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
T1 is not completely specified? being intended as merely an intellectual
exercise for HDLC students, when trying to send 256 bytes down a 2" wire
in as complex a manner as possible? :-)
The people that designed both T=0 and T=1 need to be taken to the
woodshed and whup
T1 is not completely specified? being intended as merely an
intellectual exercise for HDLC students, when trying to send
256 bytes down a 2" wire in as complex a manner as possible?
:-)
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Bender" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "MUSCLE"
Sent: Wednesday, Janua
jackie wong wrote:
Any advantage of T=1 protocol compare to T=0 protocol [...]
It makes the Germans happy since they don't have to use
a "French protocol" :-)
mike
___
Muscle mailing list
Muscle@lists.musclecard.com
http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman
Does anyone know which cards specifically meet the requirements to be
able to use them for login on Mac OS X?
-Drew
___
Muscle mailing list
Muscle@lists.musclecard.com
http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/muscle
On 1/17/07, Ludovic Rousseau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Still, 2.20 is still fairly new, so not everyone will support that.
That may be a problem. PKCS#11 provider using the "old" API and/or
application using the "old" API.
Well... We need first to fix opensc... and Muscle?
Then start reques
On 17/01/07, Valerie Anne Bubb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> On 1/16/07, Ludovic Rousseau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > This causes problems with PKCS#11 providers that fix the reader list
>> > when C_Initialize is called.
>>
>> So it is a bug in the PKC
