|
|
Posted by dorayme on 10/11/06 04:54
In article
<NikitaTheSpider-D7E84C.23275410102006@news-rdr-02-ge0-1.southeas
t.rr.com>,
Nikita the Spider <NikitaTheSpider@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <doraymeRidThis-BBFC72.08183911102006@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>,
> dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> 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'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.
>
Yes, excellent. My feelings too on this one.
> 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")
People can and do look at things as they like! But the truth is
another matter.
It would be nice to actually know how the 2 and 1 got through...
This brings up this issue: just this morning, there was some post
here at alt.html re a facility to somehow capture material on a
screen (it is gone from my newsreader now). Though the email is
veiled in the source, it is not in the browser as expressed. It
is commonly just printed as normal on the screen. Sure, this bit
can be avoided by simple techniques like making the visible link
something like ...>email us</a>? To avoid any "on screen
harvesting"?
But, this is not always acceptable. I have no idea how the robots
work, how clever they are, whether they in fact look at source or
output or both. Your stats would be more meaningful if you could
say more about the implementation. Interesting experiment though,
Spider. Look forward to your article.
--
dorayme
[Back to original message]
|