On Oct 23, 14:35, John Foust wrote:
> At 12:22 PM 10/23/01 -0700, you wrote:
> >Is there an assumption that spam address harvesters would be incapable
of
> >replacing all occurences of 'DOT' with '.' and 'AT' with '_at_' ?
>
> If I were writing an e-mail harvester, I'm sure
> I'd have quite an extensive subroutine that looked
> for known patterns of spam-avoidance, and how to
> undo them. I can't fathom why otherwise smart people
> assume that other smart but nasty people won't think
> of the same things they did, and be able to undo them.
I'm sure you could/would -- but I'm also sure a lot don't. So trivial
obfuscations probbly work to some extent, more especially in the context of
trawling web pages, where there is no mandatory header labelled "From:" or
whatever.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
Received on Tue Oct 23 2001 - 15:59:31 BST