Re: [feature] anti Spambot solutions

>I'd like to point out that your 'completely spam
>proof' method is not as watertight as you might
think.

Not even gonna allow me my arrogant, false sense of
security huh?  

Spoilsport :-)


> Using images for email addresses is quite unfriendly
> for e.g. blind users.


FWIW, I frankly don't care about a blind user not
being able to read my site.  Much has been made lately
about creating websites that adhere to some usability
standard so that every person on the globe is able to
read your site.  However, when doing so becomes so
prohibitively expensive and time consuming that
content  never makes it to publishing, it is
wrong-headed and damaging.  What these folks are
saying is that if a blind person cannot read it then
nobody should be able to read it.

This may seem insensitive to some but I would prefer
to think that my publishing an email address that is
readable to 99.85% of people is better than not
publishing an address for anyone.  

I don't want to start a war but I refuse to allow the
needs of the small minority dictate design for the
many.  I will do what I can to accommodate everyone
but will not unnecessarily spend large amounts of my
(valuable) time doing so to the detriment of the
majority.




--- Steven Wittens <[email protected]> wrote:
> > This first is an example of decoding a mailto:
> link.
> > I use it and love it.  I use it in conjunction
> with an
> > image that looks like text.  You can see it here:
> > http://www.harvesterchurch.org/node/view/40 . 
> This is
> > completely spam-proof.
> 
> Using images for email addresses is quite unfriendly
> for e.g. blind users.
> Email harvesters are also getting smarter and might
> first execute the script
> on a page before scanning it: this is not such a
> crazy idea, because almost
> any email address collected in this fashion will be
> real.
> Even OCR techniques have been employed before; this
> is why the "please type
> the text from image"-tests (commonly referred to as
> CAPTCHA) are becoming
> more and more complicated, to the point where
> sometimes even people have
> trouble completing it.
> 
> I'm not saying I have a better solution, but I'd
> like to point out that your
> 'completely spam proof' method is not as watertight
> as you might think.
> Especially when people start using commonly
> available "plug-and-play"
> scripts, it's dead easy to extract email addresses
> that are hidden using a
> specific method.
> 
> 
> Steven Wittens
> 
> -- 
> [ Drupal user list | http://list.drupal.org/ ]
> [
>
http://lists.drupal.org/options/drupal-user/brother_of_karamazov%40yahoo.com
]


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
-- 
[ Drupal user list | http://list.drupal.org/ ]
[ http://lists.drupal.org/options/drupal-user/gcpdu-drupal-user%40gmane.org ]