From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: erik quanstrom Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 18:20:56 -0500 To: 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: <74cc3473129cfdc4f37c2f0fc3df9772@plug.quanstro.net> In-Reply-To: References: <56c4420c09a80cff05fd90deaef6c2b7@gandalf.orthanc.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [9fans] opposite of bloom filter Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7cc2fabe-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > > 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