On 06/14/2002 12:03 AM, Justin French wrote:
> on 14/06/02 12:45 PM, Manuel Lemos ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>>Javascript-less represent less then 0.5% of the users in the World.
> I'd be interested in seeing this data proven.  I'm not being sarcastic --
> I'm genuinely interested.


This is a site for geeks/hackers. In a normal site the Javascript less 
share is even smaller.

BTW, it is nothing related but watch how Mozilla/Netscape is discretely 
swalling back share from IE at a pace of more than 1% a week.

>>You are guessing. I am sure your address leaked from some other way.
> Well, we can debate this forever, but I'm certain.  The only other option is
> if a real person scanned the page and grabbed email address', in the same
> way a bot did.

That sounds more likely.

> It wouldn't take long to write a script that recognised emails in the
> following formats
> justin-at-indent.com.au
> justin_at_indent_dot_com_dot_au
> justin at indent dot com dot au
> etc etc...
> Therefor, it's conceivable that there are spam bots out there which pick up
> these new "tricks".  As soon as something becomes a standard work-around,
> they'll attempt to find a work-around of their own.

I am not saying it is impossible, I am saying that it is unlikely.

>>No, the only way to absolutely avoid the problem is to have your site
>>send the message without revealing the address even to the poster.
>>I don't want to do this because the poster may abuse from your site to
>>send hate mail or some other kind of inconvinient mail and your site
>>will be blamed for that.
>>I prefer to leave the less-than-0-dot-5-percent-non-Javascript-browser
>>users fixing the address that had @ replaced.
> I agree.  And in the case of a user site like yours, and email form isn't
> really an option.
> But on a site with 100,000 users, isn't that 500 pissed off users -- and
> worse still, users with javascript turned off, or archaic browsers, or text
> to speech user agents, or whatever non-JS reason, they may not be entirely
> clued-up as to what went wrong.

No, this is an old technique often used in Usenet newsgroups to hack the 
real address a little to avoid e-mail harvesting.

It is not that it will completely prevent Javascript-less browser users 
to send e-mail. A person that bothers to use Lynx will certainly be 
smart enough to figure that if the address shows as 
user-at-domain-dot-com, he needs to edit to turn into [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

> Then again, it would depend on the target market.
> I would expect the users of a web dev site would be clued up, but maybe not
> the visitors to a craft and sewing store.

Yes, those will not use Lynx either nor intentionally disable 
Javascript! :-)


Manuel Lemos

PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Reply via email to