On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 09:00:02PM -0700, Vipul Ved Prakash wrote:
> I'd like to upload the following modules to CPAN over the next few days.
> There are some changes in the names of modules I have already registered.
> 
> 1 Tie::SecretHash - Serializable tied hashes (and objects based on hashes)
>   with transparently encrypted fields.

    Tie::EncryptedHash, perhaps?  There's nothing secret about the hash,
is there?

> 2 Crypt::Key - A generic cryptographic key. (Crypt::Keys is registered under
>   my name, but the module has a singular Key.  Sorry.)

    Could you say more about this?  What is a `generic' cryptographic key?

> 3 Crypt::Primes - Implements Ueli Maurer's prime generation algorithm.

    While the algorithm is particularly useful for PKC applications, it's
not exclusively applicable to cryptography.  I suggest Math::PrimeGenerator,
perhaps.

> 4 Crypt::Elgamal - Implementation of Elgamal public-key encryption algorithm.
>   Again, Crypt::ElGamal is registered under my name but it has incorrect
>   capitalization.  This one is not my fault though since all instances of his
>   name I have seen were spelled "ElGamal".  I got a mail from someone who
>   works with him pointing out the incorrect capitalization.

    This sounds right on to me.

> 5 Math::Fibonacci - A fast algorithm for computing the Fibonacci sequence.
>   Contains other related functions.

    Cool.

> 6 Mail::Internet::Extensions - Some extensions to Mail::Internet. I sent
>   you a mail regarding this a few weeks back but DUL refused to accept it.
>   I'd CCed Graham Barr (author of Mail::Internet) who said it was fine
>   with him if I uploaded this module.

    It sounds specific to the current implementation of Mail::Internet, and
it doesn't explain itself.  Could you say more about what it does, and
perhaps why it shouldn't be folded into Mail::Internet?

    Peace,
* Kurt Starsinic ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ---------- Senior Network Engineer *
|           "Instead of trying to build newer and bigger weapons            |
|            of destruction, we should be thinking about getting            |
|            more use out of the ones we already have." - Jack Handey       |

Reply via email to