On May 26, 2002 at 21:56, J C Lawrence wrote:
Earl Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The AddressModifyCode works on the raw data. As for using #046; is
address obfuscation, it is a very weak form since any decent address
harvester would expand entity references before doing detection.
On May 27, 2002 at 14:20, John Belmonte wrote:
The AddressModifyCode works on the raw data. As for using
#046; is address obfuscation, it is a very weak form since any
decent address harvester would expand entity references before
doing detection. Why not use something like:
Well, all obfuscations are really weak.
Not necessarily. But, any technique popular enough to be used in a
large percentage of places will all the more likely to be coded into
some of the better address harvesters.
I particularly like this one, as it's non-linear:
table cellpadding=0
On Mon, 27 May 2002 01:19:50 -0500
Earl Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 26, 2002 at 21:56, J C Lawrence wrote:
Earl Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is the address modification code smart enough to NOT munge
Message-IDs?
Making me look at the code again ...
Yes, it is smart enough.
John R. LoVerso wrote:
I particularly like this one, as it's non-linear:
table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0
trtduser/tdtd#64;/td
I can be reached at
tdexample.com/td/tr/table
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough; the above _visually_ renders into
I can be
On May 28, 2002 at 04:55, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
You can insert a line break in an address:
AddressModifyCode
s/\/ AT\n/;
/AddressModifyCode
Thanks for the tip. But isn't it as important to do anything with the
MAILTOURL resource? I did this:
MAILTOURL
http://www.mhonarc.org/
2002/05/28 (2.5.5)
* Bug Fixes: See
http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?group_id=1968
set=customadvsrch=0msort=0report_id=105go_report=Go
fix_release=2.5.5chunksz=50
*
