Massive Sorting

The Mage has asked for the wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Spammers Suck by chip (Curate) on Oct 15, 2002 at 23:00 UTC
I would help you, except you're obviously spamming. And spammers suck. -- Chip Salzenberg, Free-Floating Agent of Chaos	[reply]
Re: Spammers Suck by dug (Chaplain) on Oct 16, 2002 at 00:21 UTC
++chip. Damn, you have a keen eye. Called him out, and then he lets us know he's trying to spam some old dead bought list. Makes me wonder why he's even trying to "insert spammer word that tipped you off" the list. Why not spam folks multiple times. Anyway, It's not often I get to hunt people down and downvote them for fun. Thanks for pointing out this opportunity. -- dug	[reply]
Re(3): Spammers Suck by chip (Curate) on Oct 16, 2002 at 02:19 UTC
Thanks, dug; I'm just passing on a little of the folk wisdom from news.admin.net-abuse.email. Joe-Bob says: "Check it out!" -- Chip Salzenberg, Free-Floating Agent of Chaos	[reply]
Re: Spammers Suck by runrig (Abbot) on Oct 15, 2002 at 23:06 UTC
I would help you, except you're obviously spamming. Aww, come on...there are lots of reasons to de-dupe addresses besides wanting to spam. Like wanting to spy on you... ;-)	[reply]
Re: Re: Spammers Suck by chip (Curate) on Oct 15, 2002 at 23:08 UTC
Yeah, but the spammer ("The Mage"? pul-leeze) used a spammer term in his code and apparently didn't notice. He's a spammer, all right. -- Chip Salzenberg, Free-Floating Agent of Chaos	[reply]
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
Re: Massive Sorting by zigdon (Deacon) on Oct 15, 2002 at 22:57 UTC
Perhaps you should try tying your hash, so you won't have to keep it in memory? -- Dan	[reply]
Re: Massive Sorting by BUU (Prior) on Oct 15, 2002 at 22:53 UTC
(party line) Why don't you try adding use strict; and possibly use warnings. Using local variables might significantly decrease your ram usage (then again, it might not)	[reply]