电子邮件混淆是否真的会使自动收集变得更加困难? [英] Does e-mail obfuscation really make automatic harvesting harder?

问题描述

许多试图使自动电子邮件地址更难以收拾的用户和论坛程序通过混淆将其隐藏起来-@替换为"at"和.被替换为点"，所以

Many users and forum programs in attempt to make automatic e-mail address harversting harder conseal them via obfuscation - @ is replaced with "at" and . is replaced with "dot", so

 [e-mail]

现在成为

team at stackoverflow dot com

我不是正则表达式方面的专家，我很好奇-这样的混淆是否会使自动收录更加困难?自动识别这种混淆的地址真的困难得多吗?

I'm not an expert in regular expressions and I'm really curious - does such obfuscation really make automatic harvesting harder? Is it really much harder to automatically identify such obfuscated addresses?

推荐答案

绝对！

我阅读了此前段文章，其中显示了各种方法的有效性(以及相对程度). 反转已经反转的字符串目前似乎是相当不错的保护.

I read this article a while ago which shows how effective (as well as the relative degree) the various methods can be. Reversing an already reversed string seems to be fairly decent protection at the moment.

以下代码示例:

<style type="text/css">
   span.codedirection { unicode-bidi:bidi-override; direction: rtl; }
</style>

<p><span class="codedirection">moc.etalllit@7raboofnavlis</span></p>

将输出电子邮件，以便至少可读.

Will output the email so it's readable at least.

也就是说，这几乎是一场军备竞赛.但是，只要您处于领先地位，与普通的普通地址相比，获取地址的努力就更大了.

That said, it is almost an arms race. But as long at you're ahead of the curve, it'll be more effort to harvest your address rather than ordinary un-obfuscated ones.

这篇关于电子邮件混淆是否真的会使自动收集变得更加困难?的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！