|
|
Posted by dorayme on 10/13/06 02:17
In article
<1160702305.168773.37940@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Dan" <dan@tobias.name> wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
> > Anyone here using methods to make it more difficult for spammers
> > to garner email addresses from web pages. Mostly interested to
> > hear from anyone using specific methods (rather than anything
> > else like further reviews, analyses of the ultimate effectiveness
> > etc, having things like "removeThis" inside the email address
> > that is in the "mailto:").
>
> I personally find it aesthetically distasteful to do any sort of
> obfuscation of addresses; it just seems to go against the grain of
> Internet standards that have always been designed to keep things as
> open as possible, not intentionally obscure. Some of the
> character-encoding stuff I can more-or-less tolerate because you have
> to view the source code to see that it's whacked out, but other things
> like spelling out "address at something dot net", or putting in
> signature notes like "remove 'x' from my address", or embedding an
> address as a graphic, just rub my nose in the fact that it's being
> intentionally made more difficult to use. That's the sort of thing up
> with which I won't put.
That is a fine speech. See my reference to Burning Mississipi. :)
But I agree that the seen email address should be normal
looking. There is a way around this, to not put any at all, just
a link, the words being, "email us" or whatever.
I would be interested to hear from anyone who has an idea of the
chances of email harvesting happening from the expressed text on
the page as distinct from the source. Without some idea of this
knowledge, one is less equipped to inform the good-guy dirty
tricks department. (If Spider's impressive figures are anything
to go on, it looks like these evil bots garner from the source
mainly)
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|