"Johannes russek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > hi michael. maybe you're right about a pure perl implementation, but > for me it seems that writing a perl extension to libspamc is way less > time consuming, for example all that ssl stuff needs to be > reprogrammed. anyway, most systems should have a c compiler, and > looking over CPAN, this assumption is made very often :) are you > interested in my work anyway, when i'm finished? (will be this days)
It's more common for non-Unix installs (read: Windows) to have Perl, but no installed C compiler. It's okay for a pure Perl implementation to require modules like IO::Socket::SSL, of course. So, yes, we're interested in the work anyway, but I'd drool over a pure Perl implementation. Not only would it add something missing on some systems, but it would also make it easy to test and experiment with changes and it could be used as a cross-check of the C implementation in our "make test". Daniel -- Daniel Quinlan http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/
