Need to add this code to my website to hide my email from spam bots

[fb3003]

how can i add this code:

<script language=javascript>
<!--
var username = "fb3003";
var hostname = "gmail.com";
var linktext = "Click Here To Send Me Email";
document.write("<a href=" + "mail" + "to:" + username +
"@" + hostname + ">" + linktext + "</a>")
//-->
</script>

to replace (e-mail address removed) in this line:


<td width="100%" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><font face="Arial"><small><p
align="right"></small></font><a href="index.htm"
onMouseOver="imgAct('img5')" onMouseOut="imgInact('img5')"><img
name="img5" src="home.gif" alt="Click for - Home" border="0" width="31"
height="30"></a><a onMouseOver="imgAct('img6')"
onMouseOut="imgInact('img6')" href="mailto:[email protected]"><img
name="img6" src="mail.gif" alt="Click to - Send us an Email" border="0"
width="40" height="30"></a><a href="http://www.yahoo.com"
onMouseOver="imgAct('img7')" onMouseOut="imgInact('img7')"><img
name="img7" src="search.gif" alt="Click to - Perform an Internet
Search" border="0" width="31" height="30"></a></td>

basically, I have an envelope picture and when the mouse goes over it,
it change color and you can click on it, and send an email. I am
getting tons of spam, so I got the javascript code from this website
http://www.virtuallyignorant.com/fightspam.htm , hoping that I can
use a version of it, so that I can still use the envelope and mouse
over option.

Any help is greatly appreciated.
Thanks

 

[Danny]

Instead of using ol' document.write(), try ->
<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
function STUFF() {
var username = "fb3003";
var hostname = "gmail.com";
var linktext = "Click Here To Send Me Email";
return "\m\a\i\l" + "\t\o:" + username +"@" + hostname +
">"+linktext;
}
//-->
</script>


<a .... href="javascript:STUFF()">

 

[jojo]

how can i add this code:

<script language=javascript>
<!--
var username = "fb3003";
var hostname = "gmail.com";
var linktext = "Click Here To Send Me Email";
document.write("<a href=" + "mail" + "to:" + username +
"@" + hostname + ">" + linktext + "</a>")
//-->
</script>

to replace (e-mail address removed) in this line:


<td width="100%" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><font face="Arial"><small><p
align="right"></small></font><a href="index.htm"
onMouseOver="imgAct('img5')" onMouseOut="imgInact('img5')"><img
name="img5" src="home.gif" alt="Click for - Home" border="0" width="31"
height="30"></a><a onMouseOver="imgAct('img6')"
onMouseOut="imgInact('img6')" href="mailto:[email protected]"><img
name="img6" src="mail.gif" alt="Click to - Send us an Email" border="0"
width="40" height="30"></a><a href="http://www.yahoo.com"
onMouseOver="imgAct('img7')" onMouseOut="imgInact('img7')"><img
name="img7" src="search.gif" alt="Click to - Perform an Internet
Search" border="0" width="31" height="30"></a></td>

basically, I have an envelope picture and when the mouse goes over it,
it change color and you can click on it, and send an email. I am
getting tons of spam, so I got the javascript code from this website
http://www.virtuallyignorant.com/fightspam.htm , hoping that I can
use a version of it, so that I can still use the envelope and mouse
over option.

Any help is greatly appreciated.
Thanks

You can leave out the JavaScript and crypt your E-Mail...

http://www.oraab.de/php4/crypt.php4

 

[Jeremy]

Any help is greatly appreciated.
Thanks

First, if you're already getting lots of spam, it's too late for you.
You're on their lists. Removing the e-mail address now is not going to
get you off the lists.

Second, doing this with javascript is a pretty bad idea. You might try
replacing some or all of the characters in the <mailto:> url with their
URL-encoded escape codes - i.e. replacing @ with %40. Not sure if this
will faze the bots, but it's worth a try.

In any case, javascript is probably not the answer, and document.write
*certainly* is not.

Jeremy

 

[Philip]

First, if you're already getting lots of spam, it's too late for you.
You're on their lists. Removing the e-mail address now is not going to
get you off the lists.

Second, doing this with javascript is a pretty bad idea. You might try
replacing some or all of the characters in the <mailto:> url with their
URL-encoded escape codes - i.e. replacing @ with %40. Not sure if this
will faze the bots, but it's worth a try.

I've been testing this with some spamtrap email addresses, and it
appears to work quite well (but not perfectly).

In any case, javascript is probably not the answer, and document.write
*certainly* is not.

IMO Javascript *can* be an answer as long as you provide an alternate
means of contact for non-JS browsers. I use it on my site (see my sig)
and it degrades gracefully for non-JS browsers. Yes, I know, it is kinda
stupid of me to go to the trouble of protecting my address that way and
then posting the same address on Usenet, but that's another issue...

 

[Richard Cornford]

Philip wrote:

I've been testing this with some spamtrap email addresses,
and it appears to work quite well (but not perfectly).

<snip>

So it doesn't occur to you that the software used by spammers will
evolve to be the most effective for the task? As soon as you admit that
what you are doing is not perfect you are admitting that their exist
e-mail address gathering techniques that are significantly superior to
those currently in common use. Give it time and those techniques will be
the ones in common use so all you may be doing by taking an approach
that 'mostly works' at present is guaranteeing yourself future
maintenance work to mitigate for the changing nature of the e-mail
address extracting software.

Richard.

 

[Philip]

Philip wrote:

<snip>

So it doesn't occur to you that the software used by spammers will
evolve to be the most effective for the task? As soon as you admit that
what you are doing is not perfect you are admitting that their exist
e-mail address gathering techniques that are significantly superior to
those currently in common use. Give it time and those techniques will be
the ones in common use so all you may be doing by taking an approach
that 'mostly works' at present is guaranteeing yourself future
maintenance work to mitigate for the changing nature of the e-mail
address extracting software.

Richard,
I disagree. I think spammers are after the low-hanging fruit that is
unobfuscated email addresses, and there doesn't seem to be a shortage of
that now or in the foreseeable future. You're right that spam harvesting
programs could conceivably evolve to handle obfuscated addresses, but I
see very little pressure for them to do so.

If you disagree, that's your opinion and I'm not going to try to tell
you it's wrong. But one thing is for sure: right now, obfuscating one's
email address will foil more email harvesters than not obfuscating. I
believe (and am trying to assemble real data to so I can rely on
something besides intuition here) that using a Javascript-based method
is more secure than simple obfuscation, even allowing for evolution of
email harvesting programs. I think it is unlikely that email harvesters
will ever develop the ability to interpret Javascript, not because it is
too difficult to do but because it would be resource-intensive, a little
dangerous, and would have a very low ROI.

Nevertheless, obfuscation has an advantage in that it doesn't rely on
Javascript or on the author having the ability to offer a contact form
in the event that Javascript isn't available on the client.

Cheers

 

[Richard Cornford]

Richard Cornford wrote:

I disagree. I think spammers are after the low-hanging
fruit that is unobfuscated email addresses, and there
doesn't seem to be a shortage of that now or in the
foreseeable future.

You don't see this thread as being an indication in itself that your
'low-hanging fruit' is already trying to move out of reach?

You're right that spam harvesting programs could
conceivably evolve to handle obfuscated addresses,
but I see very little pressure for them to do so.

They already exist, they just are not yet in common use. Your own
qualification of "but not perfectly" suggests that some are already
defeating your e-mail address obfuscation. So the 'evolution' does not
have to be in the software for the task, just in the choice of software
that people use for the task.

If you disagree, that's your opinion and I'm not going
to try to tell you it's wrong. But one thing is for sure:
right now, obfuscating one's email address will foil more
email harvesters than not obfuscating.

What I am saying is that what may be true "right now" may not be true
next year. So if you can address the problems you may have next year
with the same effort now as you are spending on implementing a technique
that can be defeated it makes more sense to do that now.

I believe (and am trying to assemble real data to so I
can rely on something besides intuition here) that using a
Javascript-based method is more secure than simple
obfuscation, even allowing for evolution of email
harvesting programs. I think it is unlikely that email
harvesters will ever develop the ability to interpret
Javascript,

The e-mail harvesters that are based upon automating the Microsoft web
browser COM object (Internet Explorer) can already interpret and execute
javascript (well, technically JScript).

not because it is too difficult to do but because it would
be resource-intensive, a little dangerous, and would
have a very low ROI.

<snip>

It has already been done, would not take more than a week's work to do
again, and once written could be employed by thousands of individuals
(if made available). That is not too much investment, so the return is
proportional to the number of people trying to use javascript to obscure
their e-mail addresses.

Richard.

 

[Philip]

You don't see this thread as being an indication in itself that your
'low-hanging fruit' is already trying to move out of reach?

Yes, and kudos to the OP for doing so. But there's always a fresh crop
of low-hanging fruit coming onto the Internet. I think that there will
always be some percentage of savvy Webmasters who will adapt the latest
techniques (whatever they may be) to protect their email addresses. I
also think that this percentage will be dwarfed by those who don't
protect their email addresses, hence the fresh crop. In a few years
time, maybe the situation will be the same or maybe it will be different
or maybe we won't even be using email anymore. But I think most people
would be happy with a method that would protect their email addresses
from harvesters for several years, and I think that simply not being
low-hanging fruit will do the job.

They already exist, they just are not yet in common use. Your own
qualification of "but not perfectly" suggests that some are already
defeating your e-mail address obfuscation. So the 'evolution' does not
have to be in the software for the task, just in the choice of software
that people use for the task.

That's true. But I still see very little pressure pushing programmers to
add this feature to harvesters and equally little pressure pushing
spammers to seek out software that reads obfuscated addresses. I just
don't think they care that much.

What I am saying is that what may be true "right now" may not be true
next year. So if you can address the problems you may have next year
with the same effort now as you are spending on implementing a technique
that can be defeated it makes more sense to do that now.

Of course.

The e-mail harvesters that are based upon automating the Microsoft web
browser COM object (Internet Explorer) can already interpret and execute
javascript (well, technically JScript).

<snip>

It has already been done, would not take more than a week's work to do
again, and once written could be employed by thousands of individuals
(if made available). That is not too much investment, so the return is
proportional to the number of people trying to use javascript to obscure
their e-mail addresses.

The investment in programming time is a one-time cost and is thus less
significant in the long run relative to the other costs that I cited:
resource usage and risk. A Javascript interpreter will consume resources
on the spam harvester's machine. I would guess that they're running
their harvesting operations at full speed (why wouldn't they?) and a
Javascript interpreter would eat CPU and memory that could be spent
parsing HTML. In addition, there's risk to running a Javascript
interpreter. The interpreter has to be correctly sandboxed (maybe the IE
COM object does this already, I am unfamiliar with it) and even if it
is, there are bugs in the interpreter that can expose the harvester to
virus payloads, etc. Carefully written Javascript could even harvest
from the harvesters.

So my argument, as I said before, is that the cost of adding a
Javascript interpreter to a harvester has little to do with difficulty
but much more to do with the long-term costs in resources and risk, and
that these costs promise little return because (IMO) very few sites
obscure their email addresses with Javascript.

Regards