|
|
Posted by dorayme on 10/13/06 04:00
In article <452f0584$0$50455$dbd45001@news.euronet.nl>,
"Nico Schuyt" <nschuyt@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Nikita the Spider wrote:
> > I've set up several spamtrap addresses to study this. Eventually I'll
> > write a short article about my findings, but in the meantime I'll
> > summarize here. I have three email addresses all on the same page. One
> > is naked (i.e. just foo@example.com), one is entity encoded (i.e.
> > foo etc.) and one is added to the page by Javascript.
> > The number of spams each has gotten to date is as follows:
> > naked - 715
> > entities - 2
> > javascript - 1
> > In short, the entities look pretty effective to me. They're nice
> > because they don't disturb one's visitors at all and you don't have
> > to mess around with any Javascript.
> > But another way of looking at it is to say that Javascript protection
> > is twice as effective as entity protection. =) (Thanks to Huff's "How
> > to Lie with Statistics")
>
> Both are unreliable. Even *I* can make script that extracts email addresses
> from JS or entity coded text :-)
> Use a mail form.
Would you, Mr Korpela and Jock - you see, Nico what good company
you are in... :) - please not ignore the fact that it works to
actually stop spam. If you don't think it actually does, say so
loud and clear. The issue of it "being easy" to overcome is quite
irrelevent in a world where almost no bots do this. This is the
world you earthlings and I live for the moment. What world are
you talking about? One in which Spider's stats are not true? In
this world it looks to me to be very reliable for now.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|