Tom Hendrikx a écrit :
> 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.
>
even that is "risky":
- people don't always read what you think they should read.
- people may use robots.
- miscreants may "force" people to send mail to an address.
Spam traps are a hard thing. here, any /\...@$domain/ would be a trap,
because "nobody should send mail to such addresses". but heh, such
addresses did receive mail from "legitimate" places.
> Keep in mind: automated harvesters can impersonate regular people (or
> browsers), but they cannot think like one.
>
