A
Abby Hart
... is there any point in this method of attempting to hide email addresses
from potential spam merchants?
from potential spam merchants?
B
brucie
in post: <
its debatable. there is nothing stopping a harvester from reading the
address, it just depends if the harvester can be bothered doing it.
Abby Hart said:
its debatable. there is nothing stopping a harvester from reading the
address, it just depends if the harvester can be bothered doing it.
N
Neal
The procedures that have "any point" are, simply, those that the spam
merchants choose not to try to deal with. At present, evidence seems to
imply that &char; is not translated by the bots or their master script.
Tomorrow... who knows?
A
Abby Hart
Thanks (& Brucie too)
It's what I was thinking -- just needed a bit of push to force me off my fat
arse and make use of the cruddy mailform supplied via my ISP (I'm too mean
.... and have much too little traffic to warrant maintaining full cgi access)
Looks great after I souped up the thing with a bit of ... err ... borrowed
code
It's what I was thinking -- just needed a bit of push to force me off my fat
arse and make use of the cruddy mailform supplied via my ISP (I'm too mean
.... and have much too little traffic to warrant maintaining full cgi access)
Looks great after I souped up the thing with a bit of ... err ... borrowed
code
S
Spartanicus
M
Mark Parnell
That report was my first thought too, though it is getting rather old
now. Anyone know of any more recent research on the topic?
A
Abby Hart
"Mark Parnell" wrote in
That article refers to the amount of traffic (hitting the site where
addresses can be read) being a significant factor.
Apocryphal evidence relating to spam is mostly conflicting. For example I
have around 100 users subscribed to an egroup maintained by Mailman - there
was some argument recently about whether the html archives (which contain
the posters' email addresses.) have encouraged and increase in out spam
experience. I asserted (more in hope than in certainty) that the archive has
far too little traffic to attract spam harvesters ... In fact the list-admin
address catches huge amounts of spam that is sent to the (e-mail address removed)
addess (more than I receive in 3 different domains pop3's put together) 12
months ago I blamed that fact on a helper who had been merrily returning all
spam with a nice little message explaining that only memeber may post ...
now -- after 12 months of just dumping the stuff with no signs of a let-up
I'm not so sure ... but I'm very glad it's not me who has to 'clean out'
every day ...
That article refers to the amount of traffic (hitting the site where
addresses can be read) being a significant factor.
Apocryphal evidence relating to spam is mostly conflicting. For example I
have around 100 users subscribed to an egroup maintained by Mailman - there
was some argument recently about whether the html archives (which contain
the posters' email addresses.) have encouraged and increase in out spam
experience. I asserted (more in hope than in certainty) that the archive has
far too little traffic to attract spam harvesters ... In fact the list-admin
address catches huge amounts of spam that is sent to the (e-mail address removed)
addess (more than I receive in 3 different domains pop3's put together) 12
months ago I blamed that fact on a helper who had been merrily returning all
spam with a nice little message explaining that only memeber may post ...
now -- after 12 months of just dumping the stuff with no signs of a let-up
I'm not so sure ... but I'm very glad it's not me who has to 'clean out'
every day ...