On Thu, 4 Dec 1997 20:18:52 +0000,
Lars Hecking <lhecking(_at_)nmrc(_dot_)ucc(_dot_)ie> wrote:
While we have your attention, can you comment on the requirement of
Spam Bouncer to use ksh? I don't see anything Bourne-unfriendly in
<...>
restriction to its usefulness -- ksh is by no means as widespread as
some people would like to make believe.
But there's always pdksh, available from ftp.cs.mun.ca/pub. Even though
it's not a 100% compatible Korn shell, it should be close enough.
Yeah, but I don't think Spam Bouncer really needs any ksh-specific
stuff -- all the shell code in it that I looked at seemed fairly
trivial and portable. And why should you make people try to persuade
their admin to install pdksh just in order to install Spam bouncer?
(If they can figure out how to install it themselves, they're probably
going to get by on their own anyway -- the problem is with the many
users who don't even know there are different shells.)
Ariel's statement that she has hitherto not had access to a /bin/sh to
test Spam Bouncer with seems rather baffling to me. Would this be on a
site where /bin/sh is actually an alias for ksh?
/* era */
--
Paparazzi of the Net: No matter what you do to protect your privacy,
they'll hunt you down and spam you. <http://www.iki.fi/~era/spam/>