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 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 wrote:
>> grep -f is very efficient. you can extra
oops "prefixes are common". it's hot and i'm still wingless.
brucee
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Bruce Ellis 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 luck
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 t
> okay, there must be more to the story. why do you need crypto
> secure burner email addresses to avoid spam?
If I could tell you that, I wouldn't need them.
> 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
> > 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,
> 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
> One problem with this is handling wildcarded addresses. How do you indicate
> (say) lyndon+* is allowable in a bloom filter, where the '+' is an
> arbitrary (to the upstream) symbol.
Tell the accepting site to strip +* from all the email addresses
before checking. There aren't that many cases l
> i think the idea of spooling email is largely discredited.
It's not a spam avoidance trick. It's how I get around arbitrary
blockage of SMTP/submission port injection when I'm not sitting at
home. If you read your mail on a laptop, it's the easiest way around
all the ISP/Hotel/Public-WIFI filt
On Sat Nov 13 17:28:09 EST 2010, lyn...@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 e
> This requires the remote uucp site to give you a Bloom
> filter with all the valid addresses inserted, but that seems
> unavoidable. I don't know how the opposite-of-Bloom-filter
> approach would work anyway.
One problem with this is handling wildcarded addresses. How do you indicate
(say) lynd
> I'm currently looking for the opposite of an bloom filter, which
> may have false negatives but no false positives.
>
> 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 di
> 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(
Hi folks,
I'm currently looking for the opposite of an bloom filter, which
may have false negatives but no false positives.
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
