From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <770819de103cc9e0c7ed804325a2a006@gandalf.orthanc.ca> To: 9fans@9fans.net From: "Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX)" Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 15:28:13 -0800 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] opposite of bloom filter Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7cbd0064-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > Tell the accepting site to strip +* from all the email addresses > before checking. There aren't that many cases like that. There aren't many, but at least one that I care about exists. The case is one-off throw away addresses. When I send a message, I generate an address crypto-based on the recipient and the time-frame I expect a response. I don't want mail coming back outside the specified response period. A bloom filter can't do this=E2=80=A0. A sta= te machine driven trie can. The acceptance criteria are not relevant. If they can be expressed as part of the restriction list, they are valid. And there are several that I'm not going to get into arguments with people about over their validity. --lyndon