any opinions of bogofilter-milter.pl

[Tom Anderson]

Actually, I feel some security from a language that does dynamic memory
allocation and garbage collection.  Lack of it in C causes the buffer
overrun to be the most widespread bug and security hole in existance. 
Since ultimately the Perl interpreter is written in highly-optimized C,
then any Perl program is a more efficient version of a sufficiently
complex C program.  Perl::C::Assembler.  Why not just demand that all
your programs be written in assembler?  Who do you trust more, the
well-tested compiler or the binary math of the random programmer?  Who
do you trust more, the well-tested interpreter or the memory management
of the random programmer?

What I see in your "opinion" is an unsubstantiated philosophy. 
Considering perl is a vital part of a *nix system, wanting to eliminate
it in any way sounds as absurd as wanting to eliminate C or assembler. 
What's the source of your hatred?

Tom


On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 12:34, Jef Poskanzer wrote:
> Yes, I have an opinion.  It's written in perl, therefore it's crap.
> 
> I mean, I assume I'm not the only one who switched from spamassassin to
> bogofilter at least in part to avoid running perl in my mail delivery chain.
> Can I get a show of hands?
> ---
> Jef
> 
>          Jef Poskanzer  jef at acme.com  http://www.acme.com/jef/
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> FAQ: http://bogofilter.sourceforge.net/bogofilter-faq.html
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: bogofilter-unsubscribe at aotto.com
> For summary digest subscription: bogofilter-digest-subscribe at aotto.com
> For more commands, e-mail: bogofilter-help at aotto.com
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://www.bogofilter.org/pipermail/bogofilter/attachments/20031105/f4b1f27d/attachment.sig>