Michael Reid Posted June 11, 2005 Posted June 11, 2005 A couple of recent posts have included URLs that were edited like this: www(dot)209radio(dot)co(dot)uk and http://www(dot)rte(dot)ie/radio1/thelatesession/ I know why email addresses on web pages are disguised in this way -- to keep them from being collected by web-crawling robots that assemble mailing lists for spam -- but I can't think of any reason why public web page URLs should be given similar treatment. If I've missed this lesson in spam-proofing, could someone please enlighten me? Or, in the alternative, could we agree to post live URLs?
Stephen Chambers Posted June 11, 2005 Posted June 11, 2005 Or, in the alternative, could we agree to post live URLs?<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Michael, I couldn't agree more with you. I always post live URLs, and cannot understand why anybody else wouldn't, it is much more helpful. If I've missed this lesson in spam-proofing, could someone please enlighten me? Likewise.
JimLucas Posted June 11, 2005 Posted June 11, 2005 A couple of recent posts have included URLs that were edited like this:www(dot)209radio(dot)co(dot)uk and http://www(dot)rte(dot)ie/radio1/thelatesession/ I know why email addresses on web pages are disguised in this way -- to keep them from being collected by web-crawling robots that assemble mailing lists for spam -- but I can't think of any reason why public web page URLs should be given similar treatment.URLs? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The silly thing is that it's trivial to write a program that converts "(dot)" to "." -- a most obvious and common substitution -- as it does its search. That particular trick is about like locking your door to keep out burglars, then putting the spare key under the door mat. They know exactly what to look for.
Henk van Aalten Posted June 11, 2005 Posted June 11, 2005 If I've missed this lesson in spam-proofing, could someone please enlighten me? As far as I am informed, SPAM (unwanted mail) only applies to mail addresses and not to URL's. If we really should disguise URL's, it should be the end of internet, because direct linking from page to page via URL is the basis of the web(dot)(dot)(dot)
Daniel Bradbury Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 If I've missed this lesson in spam-proofing, could someone please enlighten me? As far as I am informed, SPAM (unwanted mail) only applies to mail addresses and not to URL's. If we really should disguise URL's, it should be the end of internet, because direct linking from page to page via URL is the basis of the web(dot)(dot)(dot) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thanks guys, I guess I just erred on the side of safety. It's not fun typing all those (dot)s
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now