On 2012/08/30 11:32, Kevin Chadwick wrote: > On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:12:53 -0400 > Ted Unangst wrote: > > > >> Seconded. Was going to ask myself. > > >> > > >> > I would have thought AES-128 was more obsolete than blowfish? Speed? > > >> > > > >> > > >> ? How can the current standard be obsolete? > > > > > > Blowfish is strong. I'm sure I read advice to move to AES-256 where > > > possible. > > > > > > I don't disagree with using AES-128 as default on a possibly busy mail > > > server. I was just wondering why the word obsolete was used and if it > > > was simply because twofish and AES are faster. > > > > I don't think anyone recommends using a 64-bit block cipher anymore. > > That's just a bad idea, even if emails are probably small. > > Right is that the default for blowfish and why it's faster. Can't that > be upped towards a maximum of 448-bit? >
Then it would not be Blowfish.. I think you may be confusing block sizes with key lengths.
