Lachlan Hunt wrote: > The response looks like the following: > (I changed the e-mail address and removed unnecessary headers) > > HTTP/1.x 302 Object moved > Location: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Content-Type: text/html > > <head><title>Object moved</title></head> > <body><h1>Object Moved</h1>This object may be found <a > HREF="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">here</a>.</body> > > (Note the incorrect status code, it should be "302 Found") > > It certainly doesn't hide the address in any way, though it may > require some spammers to modify their bots in order look in the right > place for it. If they look in the response body regardless of the > HTTP status code, they'll still get the address. Even if you write a > custom server-side script that doesn't send it in the response body, > it's still in the Location header for anything that cares to look > there.
But I noticed that IE doesn't get the "Object Moved" status; so in this browser (in Opera too I think) there is no response body, the "mailto:"; can only be found in the Location header. Tha'ts why I asked about spambots behavior... Because if they "work" like IE, parsing documents only won't make them reach the "mailto:";. But in any case, if the technique became popular I'm sure spambots would start looking in the Location header, "in the right place", as you said... --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
