Posted by dorayme on 10/15/06 02:27

In article <MPG.1f9af5c7c90d744b9896fc@news.aardvark.net.au>,
Joe (GKF) <joedinmore@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> In article <doraymeRidThis-B1C306.10235414102006@news-
> vip.optusnet.com.au>, doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au says...
> >
>
> >
> > Have this idea that the source is searched for addresses but that
> > the expressed text could be too ...
> >
> > The simple fact is that I do not know how these bots work, do
> > they look in strings starting with "mailto:" or even simpler, any
> > "well-formed" ascii email string.
> >
> >
> I don't know the answer to that either, which is why I &# the "mailto:"
> stuff and the text that is to appear on the page as well.

Me too.

OK Joe, I will confess something to you... you know how you said
I might be feeling like a dill... well a couple of things about
this:

(1) That's the sweetest thing you have ever said to me... you
little cucumber yourself...

but

(2) I was imagining different types of spam robots:

a. The sort that live in a little robot-house somewhere. They
have a little sleep and get up and have a little oil and turn on
their html source only browsers. Their job is to get the email
addresses by looking at source only. Some use javascript and
entity type decoders, some don't.

b. The sort that don't have some of their members using little
monitors. Their job is to get the email addresses by looking at
what is on their little screens. They are made a bit different to
the other robots

Now, I reckon this is more than dillish, I boast that it is
outright idiocy. Never overestimate me. In my case, it is a
special martian trait, less is more.

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]