SSI and SEO

[Lois]

: > brucie wrote:
: >: then they should use an .invalid

Lois responded:
: > I've never seen that anywhere in a how-to article or FAQ;


: Then you've done no homework.
:
: .invalid is a special, legal, top level domain. In some of the articles I
have
: read (yes, they are out there) it's explained that mail to TLD .invalid
: won't even be sent (i.e., will be binned at either the client or the
: MTA), thus saving both the bandwidth of transmission and of bounce.
:
: .invalid is mentioned more than once in the "How should I mung my
: address?" section, here (good advice even if it is found at AOHell):
:
: http://members.aol.com/emailfaq/mungfaq.html

Thanks to you and Brucie for informing me about this. A few problems with
this method, though:

- It isn't common knowledge. I've been posting in various newsgroups for
years, including webmaster-type ones in the past year or so, and I'd never
heard of this before. Telling me to do my homework is fine for some things,
but most people aren't going to do a lot of reading to find out the pros and
cons of each email blocking method. They see what other people do, maybe ask
a few questions, and then choose one of the obvious methods.

- If this method of munging did become common, spambot software would
probably be programmed to delete "invalid" (or "NOSPAM," for that matter)
from the addresses. I had one munged address once that I used only for
usenet and such things, and it got a little spam, meaning that a spammer had
unmunged it. From the above page: "Be creative with your mung, and change it
often as well. These steps will prevent harvesters from picking up on
patterns, and possibly changing their software to defeat them."

- As I wrote in my response to Brucie, a lot of people don't look at the
address. If they do notice the "invalid," they might not know what to do
with it; they'll just think the address itself is invalid.

- If email with .invalid addresses doesn't go anywhere, the senders won't
receive a bounced message letting them know that the recipient didn't
receive it.

I see that you've chosen a method of blocking spam that doesn't follow the
instructions at that page. Most people in this NG and others either use
their real addresses (and risk losing legit email due to spam filters or
deleting it with real spam), or add "NOSPAM" or something like that in the
address.

All of the methods have their pros and cons. I got into this discussion
because I don't want to see one person's choice ruined just because another
person doesn't think it's the best way.

Lois

 

[Blinky the Shark]

: > brucie wrote:
: >: then they should use an .invalid

Lois responded:
: > I've never seen that anywhere in a how-to article or FAQ;

: Then you've done no homework.
:
: .invalid is a special, legal, top level domain. In some of the articles I
have
: read (yes, they are out there) it's explained that mail to TLD .invalid
: won't even be sent (i.e., will be binned at either the client or the
: MTA), thus saving both the bandwidth of transmission and of bounce.
:
: .invalid is mentioned more than once in the "How should I mung my
: address?" section, here (good advice even if it is found at AOHell):
:
: http://members.aol.com/emailfaq/mungfaq.html

Thanks to you and Brucie for informing me about this. A few problems with
this method, though:

You're welcome.

- It isn't common knowledge. I've been posting in various newsgroups for
years, including webmaster-type ones in the past year or so, and I'd never
heard of this before. Telling me to do my homework is fine for some things,
but most people aren't going to do a lot of reading to find out the pros and
cons of each email blocking method. They see what other people do, maybe ask
a few questions, and then choose one of the obvious methods.

I was only talking you you, who claimed brucie made it up, not everyone.

Observation is a good tool, too. I see others using .invalid every day - every
day - that I read groups.

- If this method of munging did become common, spambot software would
probably be programmed to delete "invalid" (or "NOSPAM," for that matter)
from the addresses. I had one munged address once that I used only for

Wouldn't bother me -- as I offered in the post you are replying to, go
ahead and .invalid TLD from my indicated address.

usenet and such things, and it got a little spam, meaning that a spammer had
unmunged it. From the above page: "Be creative with your mung, and change it
often as well. These steps will prevent harvesters from picking up on
patterns, and possibly changing their software to defeat them."

- As I wrote in my response to Brucie, a lot of people don't look at the
address. If they do notice the "invalid," they might not know what to do
with it; they'll just think the address itself is invalid.

If I wanted email from Usenet postings, I'd make that possible.

- If email with .invalid addresses doesn't go anywhere, the senders won't
receive a bounced message letting them know that the recipient didn't
receive it.

Righto. Fine by me.

I see that you've chosen a method of blocking spam that doesn't follow the
instructions at that page. Most people in this NG and others either use
their real addresses (and risk losing legit email due to spam filters or
deleting it with real spam), or add "NOSPAM" or something like that in the
address.

Yes, there are various conventions, and the regulars of different groups have
different norms adn expectations. In groups that seem to be highly
populated with real-name zealots, I post with what appears to be a real
name.

All of the methods have their pros and cons. I got into this discussion
because I don't want to see one person's choice ruined just because another
person doesn't think it's the best way.

I often get into these discussions because some ways are better than
others. I got into this one because you were totally unaware of one of
the better ways, to the extent of accusing someone of making it up
themselves, and because knowledge is a good thing.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Lois wrote:

Wouldn't bother me -- as I offered in the post you are replying to, go
ahead and .invalid TLD from my indicated address.

Insert "slice" between "and" and ".invalid". Damned fingers.

 

[Lois]

:
http://members.aol.com/emailfaq/mungfaq.html

Lois wrote:
: > - It isn't common knowledge. I've been posting in various newsgroups for
: > years, including webmaster-type ones in the past year or so, and I'd
never
: > heard of this before. Telling me to do my homework is fine for some
things,
: > but most people aren't going to do a lot of reading to find out the pros
and
: > cons of each email blocking method. They see what other people do, maybe
ask
: > a few questions, and then choose one of the obvious methods.
:
: I was only talking you you, who claimed brucie made it up, not everyone.

OK. I just meant that the above is one reason why it shouldn't be considered
*the* way to prevent receiving email.


: Observation is a good tool, too. I see others using .invalid every day -
every
: day - that I read groups.

I've seen it a few times, but "NOSPAM" is a lot more common in my
experience. Or something else added and then "Remove the X to reply" in the
sig line.


: Yes, there are various conventions, and the regulars of different groups
have
: different norms adn expectations. In groups that seem to be highly
: populated with real-name zealots, I post with what appears to be a real
: name.

I never thought of this as a norm for a particular NG. Some conventions are
particular to each group, but I hope that each group doesn't expect me to
change the way the "from" address is displayed. Telling people how to post
is one thing, but you don't even see the "from" address in the post except
when someone's replying to the post and doesn't snip the address.


: > All of the methods have their pros and cons. I got into this discussion
: > because I don't want to see one person's choice ruined just because
another
: > person doesn't think it's the best way.
:
: I often get into these discussions because some ways are better than
: others. I got into this one because you were totally unaware of one of
: the better ways,

Personally, I don't think it's one of the better ways, for the reasons I
listed in my last post. But I do appreciate your letting me know about it.

: to the extent of accusing someone of making it up
: themselves

Sorry if it came across that way. When I wrote to Brucie "it sounds like you
just decided that it should be "the" way to block spambots," I meant only
that (with the emphasis on "sounds"), but I can see how it sounded like an
accusation.

: and because knowledge is a good thing.

Yes. Thanks for sharing so politely.

Lois

 

[Lois]

: > Lois wrote:
: >> - If this method of munging did become common, spambot software would
: >> probably be programmed to delete "invalid" (or "NOSPAM," for that
matter)
: >> from the addresses.

: > Wouldn't bother me -- as I offered in the post you are replying to, go
: > ahead and .invalid TLD from my indicated address.
:
: Insert "slice" between "and" and ".invalid". Damned fingers.

I don't know what you're talking about, but thanks anyway.

Lois

 

[Blinky the Shark]

"Blinky the Shark" wrote: http://members.aol.com/emailfaq/mungfaq.html

: Observation is a good tool, too. I see others using .invalid every
day - every : day - that I read groups.

You may notice it now, too. Or not, depending on the groups you
frequent.

I've seen it a few times, but "NOSPAM" is a lot more common in my
experience. Or something else added and then "Remove the X to reply"
in the sig line.

Yes, NOSPAM is more common. And thus probably already typically removed
by spammerware. And most people use IE and OE, too. I shan't.

: Yes, there are various conventions, and the regulars of different
groups have : different norms adn expectations. In groups that seem to
be highly : populated with real-name zealots, I post with what appears
to be a real : name.

I never thought of this as a norm for a particular NG. Some
conventions are particular to each group, but I hope that each group
doesn't expect me to change the way the "from" address is displayed.
Telling people how to post is one thing, but you don't even see the
"from" address in the post except when someone's replying to the post
and doesn't snip the address.

I think the metric should be behavior. F'r'ex: I use proper sig
delimiters; I use reasonable line widths; I don't remove the ">" quote
indicators like I see occasional numbnutzes <g> doing; a attribute; I
don't use a client or server that butchers the References header,
breaking threading; and to move away from the purely techincal, I don't
morph to stay out of kill filters; I don't use the other identity in
groups where I'm Blinky (i.e., no sock puppetry); and while I don't
broadcast my email address willy nilly on Usenet, I'm here every day
(mostly a lurker and learner) with one identity and am in that manner
responsible *to* the group *in* the group. I think those are the kinds
of things that matter -- not the identity one chooses to use.

: and because knowledge is a good thing.

Yes. Thanks for sharing so politely.

I exist but to serve.

Okay, and eat food fish and the occasional swimmer.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Blinky wrote:

I don't know what you're talking about, but thanks anyway.

Correction: how to make parsable the sentence to which I posted it as a reply.

 

[Michael Fesser]

.oO(Lois)

brucie wrote:
: invalid means just that - invalid - so there no point in trying to send
: email to an .invalid address.

There's no point in trying to send email to an address with "NOSPAM" in it
either, but people do anyway. They often don't look at the address itself.

In contrast to .invalid addresses many "nospam" addresses _are_ valid.
I don't have the time nor the wish to figure it out. If the mail bounces
I simply take that as a "don't harass me". No personal offense, it's
just my opinion.

My point was that your unmunging other people's addresses serves no purpose
except to entertain those who like to laugh at other people's expense, it
takes longer than it would to unmung it to email the person, and it ruins
the address as a spam-free one.

A mail-address is ruined in the moment it is posted to usenet. The
format or "encryption" doesn't really matter, in most cases all you need
is a simple regex to get it, shouldn't be too difficult for harvester
developers. The same goes for "encoded" addresses on websites, it's the
same useless crap.

Micha

 

[Lois]

: > "Blinky the Shark" wrote:
: Yes, NOSPAM is more common. And thus probably already typically removed
: by spammerware.

Spammerware might remove .invalid too. That's one reason why nothing can be
specified as "the" way to mung an address. IMO, you should either mung it
creatively and clearly (e.g. with instructions on how to unmung it in the
sig line), or use a real address and deal with spam at the receiving end. Or
use an autoresponder that directs people to a contact form. (This method
works when you can't mung the address, don't trust spam blockers, and need
to be able to receive HTML email.)


: I think the metric should be behavior. F'r'ex: I use proper sig
: delimiters; I use reasonable line widths; I don't remove the ">" quote
: indicators like I see occasional numbnutzes <g> doing; a attribute; I
: don't use a client or server that butchers the References header,
: breaking threading; and to move away from the purely techincal, I don't
: morph to stay out of kill filters; I don't use the other identity in
: groups where I'm Blinky (i.e., no sock puppetry); and while I don't
: broadcast my email address willy nilly on Usenet, I'm here every day
: (mostly a lurker and learner) with one identity and am in that manner
: responsible *to* the group *in* the group. I think those are the kinds
: of things that matter -- not the identity one chooses to use.

That all sounds good to me. (":" works as a quote indicator too.) It's good
to keep in mind, though, that in most NGs, a lot of posters don't know more
than the basics of posting, and probably aren't interested as long as things
go smoothly in their groups. There's no need for them to delve into this
subject. Even if you or someone else could provide reasons why one method of
address munging is far superior to the others, that would be no reason to
try to force one method on other people. (You aren't doing this, I know.) It
was the attitude of "I'll wreck your method because I personally don't like
it" that got me into this discussion.

Brucie's probably too shy to talk about this any more, but I think he has a
good heart, and I hope he won't unmung addresses again. Maybe we can
encourage him to focus on his underwear collection instead. ;-)

Lois

 

[AyntRyte]

Thank you. I knew someone would get it.

A mail-address is ruined in the moment it is posted to usenet. The
format or "encryption" doesn't really matter, in most cases all you need
is a simple regex to get it, shouldn't be too difficult for harvester
developers. The same goes for "encoded" addresses on websites, it's the
same useless crap.

Micha

For the past three years or so, I've been encoding almost everything
including the mailto part.

Instead <a href="mailto:[email protected]">email</a> I would use:

<a href="mailto:wh
(e-mail address removed)">E
mail</a>

So far: zilch. (so far)

 

[Blinky the Shark]

: > "Blinky the Shark" wrote: : Yes, NOSPAM is more common. And thus
probably already typically removed : by spammerware.

Spammerware might remove .invalid too. That's one reason why nothing
can be

Third time, now: that won't make my address work.

specified as "the" way to mung an address. IMO, you should either mung
it creatively and clearly (e.g. with instructions on how to unmung it
in the sig line), or use a real address and deal with spam at the
receiving end. Or use an autoresponder that directs people to a
contact form. (This method works when you can't mung the address,
don't trust spam blockers, and need to be able to receive HTML email.)

This all assumes one wants Usenet activity to generate email. I, like
many, don't.

: I think the metric should be behavior. F'r'ex: I use proper sig :
delimiters; I use reasonable line widths; I don't remove the ">" quote
: indicators like I see occasional numbnutzes <g> doing; a attribute; I
: don't use a client or server that butchers the References header, :
breaking threading; and to move away from the purely techincal, I don't
: morph to stay out of kill filters; I don't use the other identity in
: groups where I'm Blinky (i.e., no sock puppetry); and while I don't :
broadcast my email address willy nilly on Usenet, I'm here every day :
(mostly a lurker and learner) with one identity and am in that manner :
responsible *to* the group *in* the group. I think those are the kinds
: of things that matter -- not the identity one chooses to use.

That all sounds good to me. (":" works as a quote indicator too.) It's
good

It's nonstandard and some clients don't pick it up as a quote indicator,
so it breaks their different-colorization of the distinctive levels of
quoting. IOW, it's not a good idea in the context of the Usenet
community, the same way broken sig delimiters aren't community friendly.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

For the past three years or so, I've been encoding almost everything
including the mailto part.

Instead <a href="mailto:[email protected]">email</a> I would use:

<a href="mailto:wh
(e-mail address removed)">E
mail</a>

I did that until I read somewhere - possibly in here or in aww - that
some harvestors were decoding.

 

[Big Bill]

.oO(Lois)


In contrast to .invalid addresses many "nospam" addresses _are_ valid.
I don't have the time nor the wish to figure it out. If the mail bounces
I simply take that as a "don't harass me". No personal offense, it's
just my opinion.


A mail-address is ruined in the moment it is posted to usenet. The
format or "encryption" doesn't really matter, in most cases all you need
is a simple regex to get it, shouldn't be too difficult for harvester
developers. The same goes for "encoded" addresses on websites, it's the
same useless crap.

Micha

What's a regex please?

Even simpler BB

 

[brucie]

in post: <

What's a regex please?

regular expressions. some of the most common are "shit", "****" and the
one i hear most regularly "no fucking way you freak"

http://www.regular-expressions.info/

 

[Toby A Inkster]

[Colons as a quoting character are] nonstandard and some clients don't
pick it up as a quote indicator, so it breaks their
different-colorization of the distinctive levels of quoting.

Then those clients are dumb. Both colon and pipe are commonly used quoting
characters.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

I did that until I read somewhere - possibly in here or in aww - that
some harvestors were decoding.

Well, then double-encode.

A simple, one-character example:

<a href="x">

when using URL-style encoding is the same as:

<a href="%78">

and then using SGML entities (some in decimal, some in hex):

<a href="%78">

Besides which, in my experience single-encoding remains an effective
anti-spam tool.

 

[Spartanicus]

[Colons as a quoting character are] nonstandard and some clients don't
pick it up as a quote indicator, so it breaks their
different-colorization of the distinctive levels of quoting.

Then those clients are dumb. Both colon and pipe are commonly used quoting
characters.

But it makes sense not to use them, I removed them from my reader's
"quote char" config because it results in false quote marking for
example whenever there is a colon at the start of a line.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Blinky the Shark wrote:

Well, then double-encode.

I replaced that with a form.

A simple, one-character example:

<a href="x">

when using URL-style encoding is the same as:

<a href="%78">

and then using SGML entities (some in decimal, some in hex):

<a href="%78">

I may have done that, between single encoding and installing the form.

Don't remember for sure; I was aware of it, but may not have used it
between the other two methods.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Blinky the Shark wrote:

[Colons as a quoting character are] nonstandard and some clients don't
pick it up as a quote indicator, so it breaks their
different-colorization of the distinctive levels of quoting.

Then those clients are dumb. Both colon and pipe are commonly used quoting
characters.

Of the three discussed, I believe ">" is the RFC-compliant one.

 

[Webcastmaker]

regular expressions. some of the most common are "shit", "****" and the
one i hear most regularly "no fucking way you freak"

I usually hear "god it's huge", "I'm cumming", and "do me again with
that monster"

Then someone will wake me up...