On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 01:02:41AM -0700, Jason R. Mastaler wrote: > But this isn't as practical. With the address exposed, you get a > visual indication of who TMDA is responding to without having to > process logfiles.
What's wrong with simply truncating the address? It maintain's consistancy with the current mechanism, and avoids the expensive SHA-1 calculation. My first idea would be to split on the "@", and truncation at 100 chars on the recipient, and 254 on the domain, then piece them back together. It's unlikely that any such address is valid anyway, so it's probably a waste of time to even go this far. Cory -- Cory Wright Stand Blue Technology http://www.standblue.net/ _________________________________________________ tmda-workers mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-workers
