Re: [9fans] opposite of bloom filter

[erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>]

> > ladd Nov 13 04:08:12 Disallowed gossinternational.com!ruiohfsd (gossinternational.com/124.172.212.142) to blocked name quanstro.net!b94cd358e11d3ffb43628c10bc786087
> >
> > i think the idea of spooling email is largely discredited.
> > it opens up the possiblity for backscatter spam, or the lack of
> > delivery rejection notification.  either one is not good.  i think the
> > acepting smtp server has to be in a position to make a definitive
> > decision on disposition.  (sorry.)
>
> The solution I described (a Bloom filter of all the valid addresses)
> would work fine for this.  An optimally sized Bloom filter requires
> about 4.8 bits per power of ten per address.  If you want a 1 in 1000
> chance of a spammy address getting through and have n valid addresses,
> you need to a Bloom filter of size 3 * 4.8 * n = 14.4n bits.

i don't doubt the efficiency of bloom filters, but since
these addresses are never repeated, i don't see how it
would help.  (i've gotten 1000s of these/day.)

- erik