|
|
Posted by Jonathan N. Little on 11/17/80 11:28
Jemdam.com wrote:
> "Greg N." <yodel_dodel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:di0pn1$i7c$1@online.de...
>
>>Jemdam.com wrote:
>>
>>>It does have uses contray to some of the negative people in this thread.
>>>I made a spam proof email link with it.
>>
>>I must admit I don't quite follow the logic behind your script.
>>
>>Do you assume that the spammers' email address harvesting bots don't
>>execute javascript? I don't know if this is the case, but let's assume
>>they DON't run JS.
>>
>>If the bot does not run JS, even the most basic obfuscation script will do
>>just fine, like, for instance, this one:
>>
>>document.write('yodel');
>>document.write('_');
>>document.write('dodel');
>>document.write('@');
>>document.write('yahoo');
>>document.write('.');
>>document.write('com');
>>
>>If, however, one of these bots now or in the future runs JS, neither your
>>big an complex script nor my simple one will do any good.
>
>
> True, the bottom line is the browser has to read it so it can always be
> hacked but the spam proof email system on http://spam.jemdam.com goes some
> way to helping. As the code is all messed up no @ signs are present to it
> just skips it. I can say it does make a great difference. If you own a
> domain and make 2 non standard address (i.e., not info@ webmaster@ etc) and
> protect 1 I would bet the un protected one gets an order of maginute more
> spam.
>
> Would anyone like to take me up on the bet? Let's say $100.
>
Again isn't issue hiding the page source from people not emails from bots?
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|