 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneralPHPASPPerlColdFusionFlashHTML, CSS, ScriptsBrowsers |
Webmaster Forum / General / Web Design / July 2008Email Obfuscation
Interesting test: http://techblog.tilllate.com/2008/07/20/ten-methods-to-obfuscate-e-mail-addresse s-compared/  SignatureTina Peters AxisHOST.com Serving the web since 1997 > Interesting test: > > http://techblog.tilllate.com/2008/07/20/ten-methods-to-obfuscate-e-mail-addresse s-compared/ See my other response. SignatureBlinky Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html >> Interesting test: >> >> http://techblog.tilllate.com/2008/07/20/ten-methods-to-obfuscate-e-mail-addresse s-compared/ > > See my other response. Reminds me of the old joke: How to you keep a fool in suspense? > Reminds me of the old joke: How to you keep a fool in suspense? And that reminds me of the weirdest of facts: Did you know that the word 'gullible' does not appear in any 'official' online dictionary? (probably does in a few 'home made' ones, but not the big guys). Andrew Heenan scribed: >> Reminds me of the old joke: How to you keep a fool in suspense? > >And that reminds me of the weirdest of facts: >Did you know that the word 'gullible' does not appear in any 'official' >online dictionary? >(probably does in a few 'home made' ones, but not the big guys). I don't believe you, and I'm not going to look. SignatureEd Jay (remove 'M' to reply by email) Win the War Against Breast Cancer. Knowing the facts could save your life. http://www.breastthermography.info >Andrew Heenan scribed: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >I don't believe you, and I'm not going to look. I don't get it. What's gullible about looking to see if the word gullible is listed in an online dictionary? Not that I ever use online dictionaries, I only trust my OED (being English) Matt -- The Probert Encyclopaedia http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com >>Andrew Heenan scribed: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Not that I ever use online dictionaries, I only trust my OED (being > English) I'd heard that the word gullible was missing from the Oxford English Dictionary ... (grin) SignatureBrian Cryer www.cryer.co.uk/brian > "Matt Probert" wrote in message >> I don't get it. What's gullible about looking to see if the word >> gullible is listed in an online dictionary? Whoooooooooooooooosh! Mind you, I'm pretty gullible replying to a message that I got second hand, as my killfile did for the original! > Andrew Heenan scribed: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> > I don't believe you, and I'm not going to look. People say I'm ignorant and indifferent, but I don't know and I don't care. SignatureBlinky Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html > Interesting test: http://techblog.tilllate.com/2008/07/20/ten-methods-to-obfuscate-e-mail-addresse s-compared/ I've been using Sam Schinke's method for a long time: http://mypage.direct.ca/s/schinke/encode/ No Java Script needed to make it clickable. John > I've been using Sam Schinke's method for a long time: > http://mypage.direct.ca/s/schinke/encode/ Similar: http://www.addressmunger.com Andrew Signaturehttp://www.andrews-corner.org > Interesting test: > > http://techblog.tilllate.com/2008/07/20/ten-methods-to-obfuscate-e-mail-addresse s-compared/ Jeezuz...how many times did this get posted?! --Tina >Interesting test: > >http://techblog.tilllate.com/2008/07/20/ten-methods-to-obfuscate-e-mail-addresse s-compared/ Excelent info. Thanks! BTW, look at the email address link at <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Now cut and paste the email address into a text editor and then look carefuly at the six digit number in the email address on the website and in your text editor. The HTML source code looks like this... <a href='mailto:gu%79%384%3183%3 6@%67uy%6Daco%6E.net'> guy<span class="rtl">841<!-- spam@uce.gov -->836</span>@ gu<!-- submit@spamarchive.org -->ymacon.net</a> ...and the CSS that does the obfuscating looks like this: .rtl { unicode-bidi: bidi-override; direction: rtl; } Go ahead and send me an email by clicking the link. One word is fine. - Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> >> Interesting test: >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > direction: rtl; > } How will a screen reader handle that? Signaturex theSpaceGirl (miranda) http://www.northleithmill.com -.- Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com > http://techblog.tilllate.com/2008/07/20/ten-methods-to-obfuscate-e-mail-addres > ses-compared/ The problem with this is that it started in 2006. Things have changed a *lot* since then, and I don't see any reason to think spidering is a major source of new spam. I see more spam directed to my Usenet email than I've seen directed to a plain mailto: address I stuck on my web site in the last year. Obfuscation also doesn't actually address the problem of spam, either. Once a generic address gets out/decoded/whatever, you've lost all ability to determine how it leaked or control how it propagates. There are far better methods that a webmaster can use to stop spam. SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, easynews.com, googlegroups.com, greatnowhere.com, heapnode.com, individual.net, localhost, ntli.net, teranews.com, vif.com, x-privat.org |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.