Tue, 28 Jan 2003 22:52:26 -0800 (PST)
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Nick Moffitt wrote:
> > I also would not mind an email link (firstname.lastname@example.org), as long
> > as it is obfuscated in some way.
> You must not be using bayesian filtering. I actually request
> that my e-mail address be added as a live mailto, since the more spam
> I get, the better my filters are. Thus, the less spam I have to read.
Actually, yes I do--in conjunction with Spamassassin, but I also run
my own mail/web/cvs/shell server and pay for the T1 bandwidth into the
house. Regardless of whether or not I see it, I still get several hundred
spams/virii a day, many with pretty hefty attachments. While it is not
the most cost effective setup around, I do try my best to minimize those
> The real test is if it works with gcj and kaffe. Not everyone
> has the proprietary Sun javur runtime libs.
As I recall, I stuck with either the Java 1.1 or 1.2 spec. I would
like to say because it was the lowest common denominator of Java supported
by browsers at the time I wrote it--but the real reason is because I was
developing with the Linux version of Netscape, which at that time only
supported the older version of Java. I am not sure it works with Kaffe,
(that is only an interpreter, not a compiler, correct?), but it should
compile with jikes and because it is an applet, not an application, it
should run on whatever Java is integrated with your browser of choice. I
do not really have enough recent experience with the state of gcj to know
whether or not that will work.
I am not sure I would get too hung up on the compiler licensing.
Compilation only needs to happen once, and running is handled by a browser
that supports Java--most of which are free--and have either licensed it
from Sun, written their own, or have been slapped with an injunction to
use Sun's Java in 120 days. ;)
----- Not PGP Signed (sent from a public machine w/o access to
----- Brian's key)