From: Marc Lehmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Apr 25, 1999 at 10:58:51PM +, Jason wrote:
[Announcement omitted.]
The question that's on my mind is: what does this mean for pgcc in terms of
its relationship to egcs/gcc?
Oh, the faq entry on this is still quite correct. In the old gcc
From: Marc Lehmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ok. It was a busy time with both pgcc and egcs, but, finally, the official
egcs - gcc merge was announced. Here's a copy:
- Forwarded message from Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Subject: New maintenance team for GCC
We are pleased to
Ken Dunn writes:
GCC, for most there is not a lot of choice. Comerical
compilers cost a lot, and GCC is a high quality compiler
in any case.
Don't forget egcs, particularly on the Alpha.
'gene
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What should I read or where should I look to find out about this ?
That's a classical case for Perl or Python. I suggest you consult the
Llama book ( http://www.ora.com ). This is not cost-effective to do in
C.
ciao,
'gene
James writes:
wow, you send 10,000 mails and get 185 orders, so many.
I think that's too many. In any case does spam pay: you're hijacking
resources of others when spamming: both the misconfigured hosts for
relays and your bandwidth when getting mail.
'gene
Herry Budiutama writes:
On Sat, 27 Jun 1998, Eugene Leitl wrote:
Smart ones use real domains, albeit they don't belong to it. You have to
do a bit of research to find out whether they actually have a legitimate
account there, which I'm sure most of us aren't willing to do (i.e.
wasting
CyberPeasant writes:
It works best with large ISPs that are against spam. Even though it
sucks in general, AOL has been fairly good about whacking spammers lately.
But, alas, as soon as such a spammer is canceled, he just starts again
on a free account. (Or a stolen one... spammers
Generally, I do the following:
- if the headers are not forged, I complain to the ISP. This often
works, and the spammer's account is canceled.
- say to the relay admins in rich headers to turn relaying off (I'm a
bad admin, I haven't yet)
- many of the spammers are secondary
CyberPeasant writes:
I think that the desired place to implement security is in the
kernel and/or fs.
Yes. And video, and speech input, and mouse drivers, and stuff. This
would seem to run against the trend towards micro and nanokernels. If
we ever are to progress to systems-on-a-wafer, we
