From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi  Sat Dec 10 17:38:50 2005
X-Original-To: fnaumann@mail.boerde.de
Delivered-To: fnaumann@mail.boerde.de
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=O/DcbDyrI94L8jr3PqhdLGuirq/xtATVCWsyQcGxorgkI2Gq3u7N2DGESs/079SM3Ab3/oQvrPSStv9Tm5xetfiNk5h4I7QiiKzHy9kCb3r5pcv/MRVsd1x9VJTeE9Sn+lAMKaUX+0+AJAP3sKKULw5oz1elrpQ5/X3vIFCcv04=
Message-ID: <489fbc9a0512100835ic3e2019u@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:35:34 +0100
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Joakim_H=F6gberg?= <gokmase@gmail.com>
To: Lonny Pursell <atari@bright.net>
Subject: Re: [MiNT] implementation
Cc: "[MiNT] Mailing-List" <mint@fishpool.com>
In-Reply-To: <BFC0691F.20B9B%atari@bright.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <1134229662.439af89e6cb19@webmail1.utbm.fr>
	 <BFC0691F.20B9B%atari@bright.net>
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi
Errors-To: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi
X-original-sender: gokmase@gmail.com
Precedence: bulk
List-help: <mailto:ecartis@lists.fishpool.fi?Subject=help>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:mint-request@lists.fishpool.fi?Subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <mint.lists.fishpool.fi>
X-List-ID: <mint.lists.fishpool.fi>
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at relay.boerde.de
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on relay.boerde.de
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.9 tagged_above=-50.5 required=7.0 tests=AWL,
 BAYES_00
X-Spam-Level: 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by wh58-508.st.uni-magdeburg.de id jBAGco5P013907

Hi all,

On 10/12/05, Lonny Pursell <atari@bright.net> wrote:
> I have just looked these up in my Atari devkit and it states:

(Removed devkit snippet)

> Copied from GEM Programmer's Guide Volume 2: AES
> Third Edition: January 1989
>
> In defense of Ozk, he is not making up any new rules here regarding the old
> messages, they are in fact clearly documented as he stated.

I think this settles the whole thing really - a new call should better
be introduced, in order to handle a situation that clearly was not
anticipated when the original specs were written.

Regards,

/Joakim