Re: Re: DBMail 2.3.0 released

James Cloos wrote:
>>>>>> "Jani" == Jani Partanen
<jiipeesotapeli.fi> writes:
> 
> Jani> Every time when you hash something what is
bigger than your
> Jani> returned hash, there can be collision.
> 
> You still talking about one chance in on the order of
100000000000000000000.
> 

Is this what you will tell to the CEO when his quarterly
report turns out to 
be a goatse pic? ) The
question is not about how small is the chance, but 
that there is in fact a chance of this happening. The
developers seem to be 
aware of this, and are indicating that it will be ironed out
before 2.4 is 
out, so things seem to be OK.

OTOH I will remain a loyal 2.2 user if 2.4 does not have a
bit-by-bit 
comparison of a just-received attachment and an entry in the
database with the 
same hash.
_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmaildbmail.org
htt
ps://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail

On Sat, Dec 29, 2007, Arnt Gulbrandsen <arntgulbrandsen.priv.no> said:

> Peter Rabbitson writes:
>> James Cloos wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Jani" == Jani
Partanen <jiipeesotapeli.fi> writes:
>>>
>>> Jani> Every time when you hash something
what is bigger than your
>>> Jani> returned hash, there can be
collision.
>>>
>>> You still talking about one chance in on the
order of 100000000000000000000.
>>
>> Is this what you will tell to the CEO when his
quarterly report turns 
>> out to be a goatse pic? )
> 
> Do you refuse installing new software because the
chance of severe data 
> corruption or bugs is worse than 1 in
100000000000000000000? I am 
> compelled to ask: Which storage medium do you prefer?

I do database backups using a laser chisel and thick blocks
of granite.

Aaron
_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmaildbmail.org
htt
ps://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail