Jason Louie Wed, 17 Nov 2004 15:46:31 -0800
Yes, have seen both Jarrod's and Pete's methods and here is my opinion.
I tend to lean towards Jarrod's method of submitting the form from the
site. This way the Email address is never sent to the browser. Though Pete's method would detour the major harvestors a less
technological or more thurough scan would allow the Email to be
captured, (Email harvestor are getting more and more advanced). However, Pete's method would work under any web server. Where
Jarrod's requires the functionality on the server side, (this might
not be available on all web servers.) However Pete's method would not
work if the browser had JavaScript disabled, (which some clients
have.)
Conclusion: If possible I would use the form submission method, (used by Jarrod,) in cases where the functionality is not available on the server, the JavaScript method.
As a user I have always disliked the form submission quite a bit, because it does not leave me with a record of my submission in my mail client's "Sent" folder; So when given the choice I avoid those forms.
In addition, I have lost some messages, due to accidentally closing the browser window or tab before having sent the message. This happens once in a while when one is multi-tasking or interrupted while composing a message. My email client tends to be much more forgiving that way - it asks, if I want to save the draft message before it quits the application. So personally, I just don't find a submission form particularly user friendly.
And the submission form is not a particularly high guarantee of anonymity for the user of the form. Unless the sender sits behind a gateway or proxy mechanism of some kind, which is shared by many people, in many cases the identity of the sender could be correlated via IP addresses rather easily, if a reasonably recent email from the sender is available. So while the website operator / recipient of the form based message may promise not to check IP addresses, this is of little consolation to anyone with a bit more technical savvy, who desires guaranteed anonymity. I bet most of us could figure out the identity of a high percentage of CLUG members by IP address. In some cases it may narrow it down to 2-3 people because they are sitting behind a common gateway or proxy-server, but even that is not particularly anonymous.
But since I can send regular emails to the CLUG folks, it doesn't bother me that the form is on the CLUG site for those people who feel differently than me :)
...Niels
_______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
