At 03:15 PM 6/9/97 -0700, you wrote:
>On Mon, 9 Jun 1997, andrew meggs wrote:
>> have truly phenomenal power by then, we could think about 64-bit rc5.
>> Unlike DES, rc5 is designed to be efficient on today's CPU's, so while
>> 64-bit rc5 would take 256 times longer than 56-bit rc5, it probably would
>> only take 50-100 times longer than 56-bit DES. :)
>
>I thought rc5 was slower than DES. At least the clients are slower than the
>deschall client. But as we all know, all clients aren't created equal.