On 23/06/10 16:28, Phil Howard wrote: > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 16:46, Michael Orlitzky <mich...@orlitzky.com> wrote: > >> A word of caution: don't assume that everyone browses the web using a >> graphical web browser. People still browse from the command line, and more >> importantly, screen readers for the disabled. If you're going to hide an >> address, make sure that there is some indication (for humans) that the >> address should not be contacted under any circumstances. > > Good point. I was thinking that for these, the dummy addresses would > just not be sent out. No harm of spammers are doing scans using these > methods, too. So I'm thinking just output those addresses when the > conditions are such that it appears to be graphical browsing, under > the theory that spammers would likely be attempting to look like that, > too. >
Actually, when using a visual browser, people still can use their own
colouring (again, the visually impaired). What you are suggesting is
generating browser-specific output. This practise has been tried,
tested, and discarded in webdesign country for some years now (we're
getting OT here) as it does not work for all audiences, and in general
creates an unmaintainable mess.
If you want spam traps advertised, there are numerous better ways.
Adding a clear ("The following e-mail address is solely targetted at
catching mail abuse, do not use it for mail interaction:
foo...@example.com") or more cryptic message ("The trapper recommends
today: foo...@example.com") to the e-mail address will stop humans from
using it, but harvesters will still pick it up.
Keep in mind: automated harvesters can impersonate regular people (or
browsers), but they cannot think like one.
--
Regards,
Tom
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
