电子邮件地址混淆真的能防止垃圾邮件吗？

今天的问答环节是由SuperUser提供的，SuperUser是Stack Exchange的一个分支，它是一个由Q&a网站组成的社区驱动分组。...

电子邮件地址混淆真的能防止垃圾邮件吗？ Many people obfuscate their email addresses–typing out someguy (at) somedomain (dot) com, for example–to project themselves from SPAM bots. Do such obfuscation techniques actually work?

今天的问答环节是由SuperUser提供的，SuperUser是Stack Exchange的一个分支，它是一个由Q&a网站组成的社区驱动分组。

问题

超级用户读者Kyle Cronin想知道这样的邮件混淆技术是否值得这么麻烦：

Most of the time when I see someone post their email address online, especially if it’s a personal address, they use something like

me [at] example [dot] com

instead of the actual email address ([email protected]). Even top members of this community use similar styles in their profiles:

jt.superuser[AT]gmail[DOT]com

quixote dot su over yonder near that gmail place

The typical rationale is that this kind of obfuscation prevents the email address from being automatically recognized and harvested by spammers. In an age where spammers can beat all but the most diabolical captchas, is this really true? And given how effective modern spam filters are, does it really matter if your email address is harvested?

考虑到这对你试图与之交流的实际人类来说是一个麻烦（而对于你试图避免的收割机机器人来说可能没有太多麻烦），值得深入挖掘，以找出这些技术是否真的有效。

答案

超级用户贡献者Akira提供了一项关于这个问题的研究，以支持使用模糊处理：

Some time ago I stumbled upon the post of someone who created a honeypot and waited for differently obsfucated email-addresses coming back:

Nine ways to obfuscate e-mail addresses compare

CSS Codedirection 0 MB

<span style="unicode-bidi:bidi-override; direction: rtl;"> moc.elpmaxe@zyx </span>

CSS display:none 0 MB

xyz<span style="display:none">foo</span>@example.com

ROT13 Encryption 0 MB

[email protected]

Using ATs and DOTs 0.084 MB

xyz AT example DOT com

Building with Javascript 0.144 MB

var m = 'xyz'; // you can use any clever method of m += '@'; // creating the string containing the email m += 'example.com'; // and then add it to the DOM (eg, via $('.email).append(m); // jquery)

Replacing ‘@’ and ‘.’ with Entities 1.6 MB

xyz@example.com

Splitting E-Mail with comments 7.1 MB

xyz@examplecom

Urlencode 7.9 MB

xyz%40example.com

Plain Text 21 MB

[email protected]

This is the original statistical graph made by Silvan Mühlemann, all credit goes towards him:

007Ys3FFgy1gpgg5fkjh1j30e5093t8t

So, to answer the question: Yes, (in a way) email obsfucation works.

投稿人ak86对此很重视，他指出，无论你通过混淆获得什么，你都会因为给自己和同事带来不便而失去：

There was an interesting article by Cory Doctorow recently on this subject here which argued that email obfuscation doesn’t serve much purpose, and a more optimal approach is intelligently managing the spam you get. TL;DR version:

The objective of this entire exercise is not to reduce the amount of spam you get in your email, but the amount of spam you manually have to remove from your inbox.
Email obfuscation is a c***tant battle to come up with ever sophisticated bot-proof, human-readable encoding, and is a drain on the productivity of both the creator, and the correspondent.
“Almost any email address that you use for any length of time eventually becomes widely enough known that you should assume all the spammers have it.”
“The convenience of stable, easily copy-pastable email addresses” wins over trying to hide from the spambots.

有什么要补充的解释吗？在评论中发出声音。想从其他精通技术的Stack Exchange用户那里了解更多答案吗？在这里查看完整的讨论主题。