|
|
Posted by Harlan Messinger on 10/13/06 15:03
Nikita the Spider wrote:
> In article <452f3d17$0$53312$dbd4f001@news.euronet.nl>,
> "Nico Schuyt" <nschuyt@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> "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.
>
> A mail form != an email address hyperlink. The former is less convenient
> for the user.
Not necessarily, and altogether false for users not using an e-mail
client on their local machine, e.g., all users of web-based mail
services, many users of computers at their work place, and all users of
computers at libraries, Internet cafes, etc.
Further, if you are interested in, or think you may ever be interested
in, capturing information from the user besides the message itself (how
did you hear about us? is this a bug report, a help request, or a new
feature suggestion?), then the form is the way to go.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|