On Sunday 30 April 2006 11:20, James Harper wrote:
> > No, that would not work very well. The solution, which you seem to
>
> imply
>
> > below is simply to send a different initial Hello "signon" that
>
> contains
>
> > all
> > the necessary information, plus the ability to extend it to different
> No, that would not work very well. The solution, which you seem to
imply
> below is simply to send a different initial Hello "signon" that
contains
> all
> the necessary information, plus the ability to extend it to different
> hashes
> in the future. The new handshake can be easily distinguish
On Sunday 30 April 2006 10:29, James Harper wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Sunday 30 April 2006 08:16, James Harper wrote:
> > > The bin_to_base64 routine appears to be pretty broken, or at least
> > > incompatible with the base64 specification.
> >
> > Yes, it is incompatible with the base64 RFC. I
> Hello,
>
> On Sunday 30 April 2006 08:16, James Harper wrote:
> > The bin_to_base64 routine appears to be pretty broken, or at least
> > incompatible with the base64 specification.
>
> Yes, it is incompatible with the base64 RFC. I wrote the code before I
was
> aware that there was a base64 bin
Hello,
On Sunday 30 April 2006 08:16, James Harper wrote:
> The bin_to_base64 routine appears to be pretty broken, or at least
> incompatible with the base64 specification.
Yes, it is incompatible with the base64 RFC. I wrote the code before I was
aware that there was a base64 binary specificati
