電子郵件地址混淆是否真的可以防止垃圾郵件?

Geoffrey Carr

目錄:

電子郵件地址混淆是否真的可以防止垃圾郵件?
電子郵件地址混淆是否真的可以防止垃圾郵件?
Anonim
許多人混淆了他們的電子郵件地址 - 例如輸入someguy(at)somedomain(dot)com來從垃圾郵件機器人中自我投射。這種混淆技術真的有效嗎?
許多人混淆了他們的電子郵件地址 - 例如輸入someguy(at)somedomain(dot)com來從垃圾郵件機器人中自我投射。這種混淆技術真的有效嗎?

今天的問答環節由SuperUser提供,這是Stack Exchange的一個細分,Stack Exchange是一個由Q&A網站組成的社區驅動組合。

問題

超級用戶讀者Kyle Cronin想知道這種電子郵件混淆技術是否值得麻煩:

Most of the time when I see someone post their email address online, especially if it’s a personal address, they use something like

me [at] example [dot] com

instead of the actual email address ([email protected]). Even top members of this community use similar styles in their profiles:

jt.superuser[AT]gmail[DOT]com

quixote dot su over yonder near that gmail place

The typical rationale is that this kind of obfuscation prevents the email address from being automatically recognized and harvested by spammers. In an age where spammers can beat all but the most diabolical captchas, is this really true? And given how effective modern spam filters are, does it really matter if your email address is harvested?

鑑於對於你正在嘗試與之交流的實際人類而言,這是一個麻煩(並且對於你試圖避免的收割機機器人來說可能沒什麼麻煩),值得深入挖掘以確定這些技術是否真的有效。

答案

SuperUser的貢獻者Akira提供了一個關於此事的研究,以支持使用混淆:

Some time ago I stumbled upon the post of someone who created a honeypot and waited for differently obsfucated email-addresses coming back:

Nine ways to obfuscate e-mail addresses compare

CSS Codedirection 0 MB

[email protected]

CSS顯示:無 0 MB

xyzfoo@example.com

ROT13加密 0 MB

[email protected]

使用AT和DOT 0.084 MB

xyz AT example DOT com

用Javascript構建 0.144 MB

var m = 'xyz'; // you can use any clever method of m += '@';

// creating the string containing the email m += 'example.com';

// and then add it to the DOM (eg, via $('.email).append(m); // jquery)

用實體替換'@'和'。' 1.6 MB

[email protected]

拆分帶有評論的電子郵件 7.1 MB

xyz@COM ?> var13 - >

進行urlencode 7.9 MB

xyz%40example.com

純文本 21 MB

[email protected]

這是SilvanMühlemann製作的原始統計圖表,所有信用都歸於他:

所以,回答這個問題:是的,(在某種程度上)電子郵件封閉有效。
所以,回答這個問題:是的,(在某種程度上)電子郵件封閉有效。

貢獻者ak86稱重,注意到無論你通過混淆得到什麼,你都會因為給自己和你的電子郵件發送者帶來的不便而失敗:

There was an interesting article by Cory Doctorow recently on this subject here which argued that email obfuscation doesn’t serve much purpose, and a more optimal approach is intelligently managing the spam you get. TL;DR version:

  • The objective of this entire exercise is not to reduce the amount of spam you get in your email, but the amount of spam you manually have to remove from your inbox.
  • Email obfuscation is a constant battle to come up with ever sophisticated bot-proof, human-readable encoding, and is a drain on the productivity of both the creator, and the correspondent.
  • “Almost any email address that you use for any length of time eventually becomes widely enough known that you should assume all the spammers have it.”
  • “The convenience of stable, easily copy-pastable email addresses” wins over trying to hide from the spambots.

有什麼要補充說明嗎?在評論中發聲。想要從其他精通技術的Stack Exchange用戶那裡閱讀更多答案嗎?在這裡查看完整的討論主題。

熱門話題