jim evans wrote:

Prospective users should note that it's JS, so everyone's not going to
be able to use it (without going into the source, and digging out the
email address by hand).

--
Blinky Linux RU 297263
Spam: The Boulder Pledge http://snurl.com/bpledge
Digest: Best of Internet Oracularities http://snurl.com/dig_oracle

jim evans wrote:

I didn't say the user *had* to know anything about JS or HTML.

And if the person browsing the site doesn't have JS enabled?

They were browsing with JS enabled, right?

How it works" is with JS, right?

I didn't say it was a piece of shit. I just said, after looking at it,
and for those who might not think of it, that it won't work unless the
site visitor is running JS.

--
Blinky Linux RU 297263
Spam: The Boulder Pledge http://snurl.com/bpledge
Digest: Best of Internet Oracularities http://snurl.com/dig_oracle

Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote in
<news:slrnbk2spr.b15.no.spam@adam.blinkynet.net> :

Right. Imo, it's better to just use html but encode the ASCII
characters as hex and/or decimal. Reports indicate that just
encoding the @ symbol will foil the harvestbots, but I feel better
about a more extreme version of this method, using a mix of hex and
dec encodings for the whole mailto link. (I guess oct or bin could
be used also.)

<http://www.healyourchurchwebsite.com/obfuscator/> has an online
converter that does this well, outputting html that can be cut and
pasted.

--
»Q«

»Q« wrote:

That's what I do at blinkynet. But I *have* seen apparently
knowledgeable posters in the HTML and/or webmaster groups talking
about some harvesters that can interpret that.

I haven't yet graduated to the mixed approach.[1]

I used some such site, but I see I didn't bookmark it. Bad shark!
Thanks for the link. <bookmarking!>

Did you notice that in the page title, "obfuscator" is misspelled?
Dunno if it's intentional or not. I suspect not, though -- this *is*
the 'Net.

[1] <clickety click-click> I have now.

--
Blinky Linux RU 297263
Spam: The Boulder Pledge http://snurl.com/bpledge
Digest: Best of Internet Oracularities http://snurl.com/dig_oracle

Of course, this means that anyone who is security conscious won't be
contacting you. Only someone who doesn't care what gets harvested from
their machine browses the web with javascript enabled.
--
Brian Tillman Internet: Brian.Tillman at smiths-aerospace dot com
Smiths Aerospace Addresses modified to prevent SPAM.
3290 Patterson Ave. SE, MS 1B3 Replace "at" with "@", "dot" with "."
Grand Rapids, MI 49512-1991
This opinion doesn't represent that of my company

John Corliss wrote:

Sure, but the mousemonkeys would have to actually enter it with their
keyboards. Might be daunting.

--
Blinky Linux RU 297263
Spam: The Boulder Pledge http://snurl.com/bpledge
Digest: Best of Internet Oracularities http://snurl.com/dig_oracle

jim evans wrote:

Just out of idle curiosity: you haven't tested and tweaked your site for
text browsers, either, have you?

--
Blinky Linux RU 297263
Spam: The Boulder Pledge http://snurl.com/bpledge
Digest: Best of Internet Oracularities http://snurl.com/dig_oracle

In message <vk4chak7c2kc92@corp.supernews.com>, John Corliss
<jcorliss@Ihatespam.net> writes
Providing, of course, that one doesn't want one's page to be accessed by
blind people using screen readers, or anyone with a text- only browser,
or images switched off (because they have a slow connection, such as via
a mobile phone), or by a search engine, or...
--
Andy Mabbett
USA imprisons children without trial, at Guantanamo Bay:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2970279.stm>
<http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510582003?open&of=ENG-USA>

Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote in
news:slrnbk36uj.e85.no.spam@adam.blinkynet.net:

I think it's fair to say that using Ascii characters or url encoding
(which appears less common then ASCII) is not absolutely safe. Javascript
protected email still appears to be safe altough i have read posts at
www.webmastworld.com where one member relates his email on a chinese site
getting spammed.



right, I'm doing a test right now using a brand new email (specially
chosen username to reduce the possibility of a dictionary attack) on one
of my websites, to see whether ASCII encoded email will be protected from
harvesters. I'm also comparing it against a simple javascript function
protected email (splitting the parts then putting them together) and
lastly a complicated javascript function (using some form of security
encoding, to encrypt) to see if any would get spammed.

So far, all 3 emails are clear, though the experiment is still young...



I




Aaron
--
Want to learn how to use Winboard and the 150+ free Winboard
Chess engines?Visit http://www.aarontay.per.sg/Winboard/

Antoine <noemail@noemail.com> wrote in
news:Xns93DCDA1757968AntoineNews@193.252.19.141:


http://www.metaprog.com/samples/encoder.htm
http://rumkin.com/tools/mailto_encoder/
http://philringnalda.com/blog/2002/0...amproofing.php
http://www.hiveware.com/enkoder_form.php
http://www.bestprac.org/articles/spam_bots.htm
http://www.jracademy.com/~jtucek/email/index.html


Aaron
--
Want to learn how to use Winboard and the 150+ free Winboard
Chess engines?Visit http://www.aarontay.per.sg/Winboard/

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 07:20:08 -0700, John Corliss
<jcorliss@Ihatespam.net> took a very strange color crayon and
scribbled:


People, you're all forgetting that blind people need text. The
javascript might work if it works with screenreaders, but the .jpg
wouldn't because making it accessible by using alt text with the real
address might destroy the purpose for which the .jpg was created. (If
spammers troll source code.) There are limits to this method, which is
why most reputable sites now use forms to receive messages instead of
posting their e-mail addresses.


--
Therese Shellabarger / The Roving Reporter - Civis Mundi
tlshell@concentric.net / http://www.concentric.net/~tlshell

On 20 Aug 2003 12:01:02 GMT, tlshell@concentric.net wrote:

< snip >

Cannot think of a "forms" site off hand. Can you point us to one ? I
was wondering what the code looked like. Doesn't an email link still
show in the "source" ?

Regards, John.