Jan Brasna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Well, I'm turning e-mail addresses to things like this:
foo (at) example.com
and sometimes even mixing up with not only &#xxx entities but some %xx
URI-encoded chars, and the goddamn bots still get some of these :/"
---
Yep. I quit using that type of
So, the redeeming feature of your script might be your use of the @ :)
Well, I'm turning e-mail addresses to things like this:
foo (at) example.com
and sometimes even mixing up with not only &#xxx entities but some %xx
URI-encoded chars, and the goddamn bots still get some of these :/
Anti
Mike at Green-Beast.com wrote:
> The level of viablity is what I'm after at this point. Do all spam-bots
> disguise themselves as common UAs?
One fellow doing a fair bit of research in this area is incredibill -
http://incredibill.blogspot.com/ (umm, language warning...)
He might have informati
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
>
> Object moved
> Object MovedThis object may be found HREF="mailto:[EMAIL PRO
D]
On Behalf Of Hassan Schroeder
Sent: 09 June 2006 16:47
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] UPDATE TO: Using PHP to hide email, script made, testing
needed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think the most recent stats quote a figure of only 75% or so - 1 in
> 4 are not going to be
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
There are various techniques used, such as:
1. Writing the e-mail with JavaScript
2. Encoding characters using percent-encoding in mailto: URIs
3. Encoding characters as HTML character references.
4. Interspersing markup within the e-mail address.
e.g. user@example.com
5. Wr
Thierry Koblentz wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
The simple fact is that no solution will be completely foolproof.
It's like the problems with CAPTCHAs. Spammers continually work to
find workarounds for them and nothing you do will be 100% effective.
Mike's article gave me an idea; but I don't kno
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> The simple fact is that no solution will be completely foolproof.
> It's like the problems with CAPTCHAs. Spammers continually work to
> find workarounds for them and nothing you do will be 100% effective.
Mike's article gave me an idea; but I don't know much about spambots'
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think the most recent stats quote a figure of only 75% or so - 1 in 4
> are not going to be happy!
Do you have a citation for that figure? Because I've been working
with Web technology since before JavaScript existed, and I've never
seen so much as *one* non-technica
I think the most recent stats quote a figure of only 75% or so - 1 in 4
are not going to be happy!
Mike
> -Original Message-
> From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joshua Street
Lachlan's
> solution seems pretty effective for the 98% of us wit
Thierry Koblentz wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
The simple fact is that no solution will be completely foolproof.
It's like the problems with CAPTCHAs. Spammers continually work to
find workarounds for them and nothing you do will be 100% effective.
Mike's article gave me an idea; but I don't kno
Hello can somebody with a mac on ie check this site for me,
i got a complaint from a user with that browser. I had to basically through
this site up in an unfinished state because of a brutal deadline.
http://www.eaf.ie/
-kevin
**
The dis
On 6/9/06, Lachlan Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It should prevent the simple workarounds I outlined in my previous
e-mail for technique 1 because of the extra dependence upon user
interaction. But all it would take is for a spam bot to simulate either
a keypress or mouse movement to indicate
On 6/9/06, Lachlan Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The simple fact is that no solution will be completely foolproof. It's
like the problems with CAPTCHAs. Spammers continually work to find
workarounds for them and nothing you do will be 100% effective.
*Possible Techniques*
There are various
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> The simple fact is that no solution will be completely foolproof.
> It's like the problems with CAPTCHAs. Spammers continually work to
> find workarounds for them and nothing you do will be 100% effective.
Mike's article gave me an idea; but I don't know much about spambots'
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
There are various techniques used, such as:
1. Writing the e-mail with JavaScript
2. Encoding characters using percent-encoding in mailto: URIs
3. Encoding characters as HTML character references.
4. Interspersing markup within the e-mail address.
e.g. user@example.com
5. Wr
Mike at Green-Beast.com wrote:
Do all spam-bots disguise themselves as common UAs? Common or the exception
to the rule? Does anyone have a handle on numbers or some percentages?
That is impossible to determine because, by their very nature, there is
no apparent distinguishing feature between a
I've rarely seen weird user agents (suggesting spam bots) hitting any of my hosted sites, but definitely seen a lot of spam find it's way through them. So I dare-say yes, user agent spoofing is very common... I'd even say "the norm".
All the user agent information is simply sent in the header of th
18 matches
Mail list logo
