Hello, On 06/14/2002 12:03 AM, Justin French wrote: > on 14/06/02 12:45 PM, Manuel Lemos ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > >>Javascript-less represent less then 0.5% of the users in the World. > > > I'd be interested in seeing this data proven. I'm not being sarcastic -- > I'm genuinely interested.
http://www.phpclasses.org/browse.html/statistics/statistics.html#user-browsers This is a site for geeks/hackers. In a normal site the Javascript less share is even smaller. BTW, it is nothing related but watch how Mozilla/Netscape is discretely swalling back share from IE at a pace of more than 1% a week. >>You are guessing. I am sure your address leaked from some other way. > > > Well, we can debate this forever, but I'm certain. The only other option is > if a real person scanned the page and grabbed email address', in the same > way a bot did. That sounds more likely. > It wouldn't take long to write a script that recognised emails in the > following formats > > justin-at-indent.com.au > justin_at_indent_dot_com_dot_au > justin at indent dot com dot au > etc etc... > > Therefor, it's conceivable that there are spam bots out there which pick up > these new "tricks". As soon as something becomes a standard work-around, > they'll attempt to find a work-around of their own. I am not saying it is impossible, I am saying that it is unlikely. >>No, the only way to absolutely avoid the problem is to have your site >>send the message without revealing the address even to the poster. >> >>I don't want to do this because the poster may abuse from your site to >>send hate mail or some other kind of inconvinient mail and your site >>will be blamed for that. >> >>I prefer to leave the less-than-0-dot-5-percent-non-Javascript-browser >>users fixing the address that had @ replaced. > > > I agree. And in the case of a user site like yours, and email form isn't > really an option. > > But on a site with 100,000 users, isn't that 500 pissed off users -- and > worse still, users with javascript turned off, or archaic browsers, or text > to speech user agents, or whatever non-JS reason, they may not be entirely > clued-up as to what went wrong. No, this is an old technique often used in Usenet newsgroups to hack the real address a little to avoid e-mail harvesting. It is not that it will completely prevent Javascript-less browser users to send e-mail. A person that bothers to use Lynx will certainly be smart enough to figure that if the address shows as user-at-domain-dot-com, he needs to edit to turn into [EMAIL PROTECTED] . > Then again, it would depend on the target market. > > I would expect the users of a web dev site would be clued up, but maybe not > the visitors to a craft and sewing store. Yes, those will not use Lynx either nor intentionally disable Javascript! :-) -- Regards, Manuel Lemos -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
