On 2014-05-28, Dan Sommers wrote:
> On Tue, 27 May 2014 17:02:50 +0000, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> - rather than "zillions" of them, there are few enough of them that
>> the chances of an MD5 collision is insignificant;
>> (Any MD5 collision is going to play havoc with your strategy of
>> using hashes as a proxy for the real string.)
>> - and you can arrange matters so that you never need to MD5 hash a
>> string twice.
> Hmmm... I'll use the MD5 hashes of the strings as a key, and the
> strinsgs as the value (to detect MD5 collisions) ...
Hey, I'm not *that* stupid.
In the 1970s, people began receiving utility bills for
-£999,999,996.32 and it became harder to sustain the
myth of the infallible electronic brain. (Verity Stob)