>> It doesn't look fine to me, since this is incompatible with the *BSD md5(1)
>> output format.
>
>So? They aren't MD5 hashes. :-)
>
>As I understand it, the *BSD md5(1) program set prior art for how md5
>hashes look. It's a shame that openssl didn't follow the same format. But
>then openssl went off and added sha1 and r{,ipe}md160 support. Why does it
>make sense to not follow their lead? At least in how we name the hashes..
>(RIPEMD160 vs RMD160).

something about this was bugging for some stupid reason, so i thought
about it and decided that the bsd md5 program does not establish prior
art.  the md{2,4,5} programs in rfc13{19,20,21}.txt established that,
in 1992 no less.

those rfcs, incidentally, violate the prior art from rfc1186, but
that's okay since that art was not as good, and rivest did it to
himself.

-- 
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org             * "ah!  i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown)                that goes *ping*!"
andrew@crossbar.com       * "information is power -- share the wealth."