[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <95b11e0f6e442e56c4ebd23d4b0ca751@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 22:11:45 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: formats that duplicate dynamics
On 22 Apr, 2013, at 5:27 , Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 07:24:05AM +0400, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
>> On 2013-01-27 06:35, Solar Designer wrote:
>>> The "postgre" format at the very least needs to be renamed from the
>>> ridiculous "postgre" to "postgres". This includes the filename,
>>> FORMAT_LABEL, and the "$postgre$" prefix string.
>>
>> BTW is postgres is even a good name for it? Isn't it better to leave it
>> for plain postgresql hashes and net-postgres (or something) for
>> PostgreSQL MD5 challenge-response. But maybe it's too late to change it...
>
> You may be right, or maybe we don't need a separate format for this
> since it's implementable as a dynamic format (and might match an already
> defined one, even).
A caveat is that postgres supports OMP while dynamic does not, in unstable.
Bleeding's dynamic does support OMP now though (thanks, Jim!), so this alternative will become increasingly attractive as this support matures. In bleeding I think we should start to get rid of thick formats that can be done with dynamic (and/or a thin format) unless they are significantly faster than dynamic.
magnum
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
