At 7:29 PM -0600 3/12/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >At 9:49 AM -0700 3/12/04, Warren Michelsen wrote: ><snip> > >> >>The page in question is not visible to the casual web visitor so I tend to believe >>that most of the above are robots of some sort, regardless of the User-Agent >>specified. > >And it was your report that prompted me to do my own experiment. > >Mine is linked to by a single period tucked away on our default page, so the same >crawlers which would find the rest of the site will also find it (ie, real world >conditions). And they do. The page in question is not submitted to any search >engines, though of course our site is. > >So, YMMV.
Maybe. Tell me, Bill, do you use mailto links of the sort: <a href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">Bill Christensen</a> or <a href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">[EMAIL PROTECTED]</a> ? If the latter, do you encode BOTH the mailto address and the linked text version? Or do you only encode the mailto part? Some people assume that spammer 'bots look for "mailto" while I assume they look for "@". When I encode, I encode all forms of email addresses, including the linked-to text. That is, I use: <a href="mailto: encoded">encoded</a> Not: <a href="mailto: encoded">NOT-encoded</a> and, as I said, only the un-encoded version has received spam. Perhaps it's not a matter of YMMV, but of technique... ############################################################# This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Send administrative queries to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
