Re: [9fans] opposite of bloom filter

[Bruce Ellis <bruce.ellis@gmail.com>]

crap i was right the first time. suffixes from .com to .crazy-tool.com

On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Bruce Ellis <bruce.ellis@gmail.com> wrote:
> oops "prefixes are common". it's hot and i'm still wingless.
>
> brucee
>
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Bruce Ellis <bruce.ellis@gmail.com> wrote:
>> grep -f is very efficient. you can extract it to a lib if you like.
>> please think about this and peek at the code before replying. i
>> understand the code because i was lucky enough to be in the room when
>> it was written.
>>
>> a negatie bloom sounds good but your positives will (potentially) collide.
>>
>> so the data structures i would recommend are a suffix tree
>> [McCreight], but reversed as the suffixes are common, or if you are
>> thinking of hashing go for a scapegoat tree.
>>
>> brucee
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX)
>> <lyndon@orthanc.ca> wrote:
>>>> The purpose is allowing an spooling (store+forward) mail relay
>>>> to learn which addresses are not accepted by the actual maildrop
>>>> (which is connected by an uucp-link, so no direct smtp chat),
>>>> to get rid of the thousands silly error bounces from brute force
>>>> attacks on email addresses.
>>>
>>> Very(!) interesting approach to this.  I still transfer large chunks
>>> of my mail over UUCP, so this is a problem I face daily.  I'd appreciate
>>> being kept in the loop for anything you find out. (And collaborating on
>>> a solution.)
>>>
>>> --lyndon
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>