Will <noscript> be an option in addtion to javascript solution, ofcourse when javascript turned off, no. of users get spammed will be very minimal may be 5-10 out of thousands.
Sundar On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Joseph Ortenzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Standards freaks are not against JavaScript, please pay attention there. > > But Standardistas DO want sites to have a useful option available for > people who have javascript turned off so THEY can contact you as well. > > So providing a server side form for people with Javascript turned off > would be a useful gracefully degraded JavaScript option. > > Why was this solution not an option? > > BTW: which javascript solution did you try that you can recommend? > > Joe > > > On Jun 16, 2008, at 11:58, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My 2 cents: I'm one of those "standards freaks". But when my clients became >> overwhelmed with SPAM from their contact forms I had to bend the rules. And >> when I say "overwhelmed" I'm talking about several hundred SPAM emails for >> every one or two legitimate inquiries. I tried many "standards compliant" >> anti-SPAM techniques but the SPAMmers always found a way around them. >> >> Then I used JavaScript. It worked. It's still working. Not one single SPAM >> has gotten through in over two years. >> >> One could argue that JavaScript renders the contact form unusable for five >> percent of the population. But without it, the SPAMmers would render it >> unusable for a hundred percent of the population. My clients aren't going to >> sift through hundreds of emails to find the needle in the haystack. I >> wouldn't either. >> >> It's not possible to make everyone happy. Use your best judgment. >> >> -- Marcello :-) >> >> >> -------Original Message------- >>> From: Chris Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Subject: RE: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)? >>> Sent: Jun 16 '08 10:18 >>> >>> Michael, >>> >>> What if JavaScript isn't enabled or available on my smartphone? I presume >>> your websites are not for people accessing the web while on the move, as >>> well as people whose preference or requirement is to use a web client >>> without JavaScript. >>> >>> These "standard[s] freaks" you seem to think so little of *are* trying to >>> make the web a better place for users - by levelling the playing field, >>> making things fairer and ensuring we all stick to the same high standards. >>> You can choose not to do that which is fine by me - my websites will gladly >>> accept the visitors (and customers) who can't use yours. >>> >>> Chris >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> On Behalf Of Michael Persson >>> Sent: 16 June 2008 10:53 >>> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org >>> Subject: Re: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)? >>> >>> >>> The best way is a form that also has a secure SPAM code or just make a >>> image >>> that search engines cannot read... >>> >>> I believe that people that does not have Javascript working are not >>> using internet >>> for the purpose i produce websites for, and im sorry we cant accept all >>> kind of users. >>> Also users has to follow the standard where website production also is >>> based in >>> the clients need and NOT on web standards. >>> >>> Standard freaks are trying to make things better for web standards and >>> not for the clients >>> or visitors in general... >>> >>> There is a war and it will always be there.... until understanding from >>> all parts are met. >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> >>> >>> James Leslie wrote: >>> >>>> Why is this the "best way"? It means that anyone without JavaScript >>>> enabled cannot contact you. Spam is a pain, but not giving a user the >>>> basic opportunity of contacting you is a bigger problem IMO. >>>> I think mailto's and spam filters are the "best way" to go, as they >>>> are accessible for everyone. >>>> >>>> J >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Fuji kusaka >>>> *Sent:* 13 June 2008 05:23 >>>> *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org >>>> *Subject:* Re: [WSG] a good practise for adding email link (mailto)? >>>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> The best way is to encrypt the email address and make use of a js. >>>> This will avoid loads of problems specially spamming. >>>> >>>> This is simple just follow the instructions here >>>> >>>> http://jumk.de/nospam/stopspam.html >>>> >>>> >>>> Fuji >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 6:22 AM, tee <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> This is one of the thing I can't decide. At time, it seemed >>>> nothing wrong to have an email link (js encrypted, not mailto that >>>> shows email address nakely to Mr. Spam King), but as many people >>>> are actually using webmail, or sometimes access websites via >>>> public computer (internet cafe or library for instance), I find >>>> that having email link actually is causing usability for users. >>>> >>>> When client insists on having direct email link. What do you do so >>>> that it won't cause problem for above users? >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> tee >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ******************************************************************* >>>> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm >>>> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm >>>> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> ******************************************************************* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Fuji kusaka >>>> ******************************************************************* >>>> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm >>>> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm >>>> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> ******************************************************************* >>>> ******************************************************************* >>>> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm >>>> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm >>>> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> ******************************************************************* >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ******************************************************************* >>> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm >>> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm >>> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> ******************************************************************* >>> >>> >>> >>> This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. >>> www.surfcontrol.com >>> >>> >>> ******************************************************************* >>> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm >>> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm >>> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> ******************************************************************* >>> >>> >>> >> >> ******************************************************************* >> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm >> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm >> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> ******************************************************************* >> >> > ========== > Joe Ortenzi > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > ******************************************************************* > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ******************************************************************* > > -- Sundar ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
