What is Digg?39 Comments
- andreizilla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If firefox's code can understand the email alteration, then the bot's code could Freely understand it too.
- BrettJB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@artnez
"I don't agree with anyone who does the "name[ at symbol ]email.com" thing. Apparently these type of people have been around computers too long and don't realize that non-computer-savvy people won't understand a damn thing."
Personally, if someone isn't bright enough to figure out the [at] convention, then I'd rather they not clog my inbox with virus-laden emails. I'm not saying that the n00bs shouldn't be allowed to play in the sandbox, just stay the hell out of my inbox... - jiminoc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2random is the way to go
create a randomize function that your email address passes through that is being displayed on the page and have it pick a random way of displaying email addresses so bots cannot keep up with your changing display schemes. - salweem, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And just signed up today and Dugg this story only.... suspicous!!
- patrickweber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You can always do it the way that Leo Laporte does it:
<script language=javascript><!--
var contact = "email me"
var email = "leo"
var emailHost = "leoville.com"
document.write("<a href=" + "mail" + "to:" + email + "@" + emailHost+ ">" + contact + "</a>")
//-->.</script>
Works with anyone who has javascript enabled (which bots don't have) - nedders, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I'm quite sure that bot's can tell the difference between [at] and @"
"Leo's method actually involves them executing the javascript to write the email address."
you can use whatever replacement for @ you want. email[FlamingSheepNuts]domain.com would work fine too. this method shows a link even if javascript is disabled, which pure JS methods do not. - rchtr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I'm not really concerned about IE"
Then you're not concerned about compatibility with MOST web surfers. I hate IE as much as the next guy, but you either code around it or lose.
Also, linking to your own blog is incredibly lame. - supercut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What's the point? If you're going to have to use JavaScript anyway, a much cleaner email masking script is: http://www.dynamicdrive.com/dynamicindex9/emailscrambler.htm
- ezkiel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0""Then you're not concerned about compatibility with MOST web surfers. I hate IE as much as the next guy, but you either code around it or lose."
So you're saying the downside is that IE users won't be able to get my email address? Sounds like one way to reduce the amount of mail I receive from retards... count me in!"
LMAO +1 comment points (About as useful as a gold star I know) - reets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0There is an easier way to do this but it doesn't work in IE.
- supercut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0""What's the point? If you're going to have to use JavaScript anyway, a much cleaner email masking script is: http://www.dynamicdrive.com/dynamicindex9/emailscrambler.htm
Because the bots would still see the [at]..."
Yeah, like nedders said, you can replace [at] with anything to fool the search engines- just use something that humans know that it should be replaced with @, and even non JavaScript browsers will be able to email you. That's why I think this JavaScript masking script is much better than the CSS one. "IE users won't be able to email you." I don't care how much you hate IE or care about standards, but that's just rediculous. I know everyone is CSS crazy these days, but come on, what happened to sensibility? - artnez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I don't agree with anyone who does the "name[ at symbol ]email.com" thing. Apparently these type of people have been around computers too long and don't realize that non-computer-savvy people won't understand a damn thing.
The only situations where emails need to be publicized are when members have profiles. In those cases, members need to register -- which is something you can work off of (ie: keep the bots out since they can't login).
If it's an email to contact your help or support for your website, such things can be done through form submissions.
Remember people, *do not* rely on the browsers to release new versions and fix your problems. The more you do this, the more trouble you will get into with user friendliness.. if you even care about it. - Indrek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0In IE7 Beta 1 it neither works nor degrades gracefully. You should at least display the span for all IE versions until it's confirmed that Beta 2 supports the pseudo-elements.
Otherwise a pretty neat trick. Digg+ - nedders, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"In IE7 Beta 1 it neither works nor degrades gracefully"
thanks for the heads up. i'm keeping my fingers crossed for version 8. only the final and complete example works in IE6. - wormeyman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'll just stick with a php mailer that hides my address in the php code which isn't displayed to the browser :D
- patrickweber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"What's the point? If you're going to have to use JavaScript anyway, a much cleaner email masking script is: http://www.dynamicdrive.com/dynamicindex9/emailscrambler.htm"
Because the bots would still see the [at]. I'm quite sure that bot's can tell the difference between [at] and @. All they would need to do is change [at] to @ and they would have the email address. Leo's method actually involves them executing the javascript to write the email address. Otherwise, they would not be able to get the full email address. With your method, they can easily do it with a simple replace. - JakeMcMahon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Cool. Dugg.
- mrapplegate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Interesting..
- chris098, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That's a pretty neat email hiding method. The fact that it doesn't work in IE (as others have pointed out) really do limit its effectiveness though. I've found spamgourmet (www.spamgourmet.com) and mailmask (www.mailmask.net) to be a fairly effective combination in preventing spam. ...although they take more effort and upkeep than this CSS solution, they are more "accessible"
- Indrek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"coding for IE7 assumes everyone will be downloading and upgrading to it - which will most definately NOT be the case. It will only be in Vista"
-eclectro
Wrong. It'll be available to WinXP (SP2, which any sane person should already have upgraded to) and Win2003 as well, meaning the rest of your comment is a moot point.
For hiding your email address, the picture method is spam-proof, but a no-go if you're at all concerned about accessibility. Screen readers will pretty much skip it, unless you provide your email as the alt text, which of course defeats the purpose of masking it.
Another very efficient way of stopping spam is to route all your email through a dummy Gmail account. - teleporter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0No digg. Seems like alot of work, especially with IE7 coming out sooner than later. Don't we alreasdy have enough CSS/Javascript browser hacks?
Why not just "encode" your e-maili address using HTML cahracter entities? All of my research indicates that spam-bots--for the time being--are unable to determine that it's an email address. Any browser worth a crap will display it as an e-mail address to the user.
A useful little tool:
http://www.wbwip.com/wbw/emailencoder.html - Coreguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0*joke*
Spammer don't only use Firefox *laf*
no digg - verucasalt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Does not work in IE.
NO DIGG - jdgiotta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Want to know what works and you don't need to establish a CSS style.
- cybernezumi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"I'm sure spammers probably have figured this trick out by now...."
I've been using this on my website for a few years and get little to no spam on that contact address (which I don't really use anywhere else), so apparently they haven't... - ericpp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Not working for me in firefox either....
It's trying to send to guy[at symbol]place.com
My old trick for obfuscating email addresses was to encode them into % values.
So guy@place.com would become %67%75%79%40%70%6c%61%63%65%2e%63%6f%6d
When linked, MSIE and Firefox will convert it back into the ascii email address.
I'm sure spammers probably have figured this trick out by now.... - eclectro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0coding for IE7 assumes everyone will be downloading and upgrading to it - which will most definately NOT be the case. It will only be in Vista, and many people won't want to pay for another round of microsoft tax. In fact, people are trying to get off the mill altogether. My family is going to get codeweavers office.
- edenlover, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0How complicated. Just put your email as a GIF or JPG...
- symmet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That would just confuse people when they click on the link to send you an email.
- PvUtrix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0too complicated...
- eclectro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I can not believe I spelled "definitely" the really crappy way I hate seeing it.
- nedders, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"Also, linking to your own blog is incredibly lame."
yes it is, but i figured it was more noble than creating a fake account. the technique degrades gracefully in IE and should work like a charm in the next version, so it's certainly not a total loss. - Zonkzor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0The most simple, %100 compatible way to do this is simply create a picture with your email address in it. People still email me. Plus it looks all neeto and purty. http://collegecheapskate.com/email.gif
- iaskedTGT, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Whatever you are trying to avoid won't
go away until you confront it. - Beanlover, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0lol @ "FlamingSheepNuts"
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 