|
|
Posted by Nico Schuyt on 10/13/06 07:16
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.
> 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.
Working *now* is no guarantee what so ever for being effective in the near
future.
> 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?
Stats are never true :-)
> In this world it looks to me to be very reliable for now.
The place is right; it's the time that might be a problem.
Tomorrow I'll launch my new evil bot.
--
Nico Schuyt
http://www.nicoschuyt.nl/
[Back to original message]
|