Re: SHA-1 support

"Markus Fischer" <mfischer@guru.josefine.at> wrote in message news:20020217160442.GA11686@guru.josefine.at... > I can see a possible point with a dedicated sha1() function, > but I don't see one in saying that mhash() is badly > documented (even if it was, it's very easy to find the right > information within seconds). The later case would vindicate a > documentation report. Hm. My bad, I seem to have read only the entry on mhash() after ending up there through a search. A reference to Mhash from crc32() and md5() would be nice though, just to tell people about other hashing functions. Maybe there should also be a mention of the fact that MD5 is fairly easy to crack? Anyway, the reason why I want a dedicated SHA-1 function is that it's stronger than MD5, and that (as far as I can see) it is now the recommended hashing function, having to install some extra stuff for this purpose seems wrong to me. Regards André Næss