Thanks for the link!
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 <colin@easydns.com> 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
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:37:39 EDT