Re: E-mail Redirect (for protecting addresses from E-mail-Address-Collecting Bots)


P is for Practical
	PerlMonks

Re: E-mail Redirect (for protecting addresses from E-mail-Address-Collecting Bots)

by bikeNomad (Priest)

on Jun 25, 2001 at 22:15 UTC ( [id://91373]=note: print w/replies, xml )

Need Help??

in reply to E-mail Redirect (for protecting addresses from E-mail-Address-Collecting Bots)

Why would you possibly want all those funny characters in email addresses? I'm assuming that there is no encoding of the query string going on in the web server; if there is, you may have to deal with un-encoding the passed in text. And doesn't CGI have built-in routines that decode the passed parameters? Perhaps you should be using them instead. update: as tye points out, interpolating won't execute. Removed that part so as not to give bad advice.

Comment on Re: E-mail Redirect (for protecting addresses from E-mail-Address-Collecting Bots)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

(tye)Re: Danger? (Re: E-mail Redirect (for protecting addresses from E-mail-Address-Collecting Bots))
by tye (Sage) on Jun 25, 2001 at 22:42 UTC

"mailto:$user\@$domain" gets parsed by Perl into 'mailto:'.$user.'@'.$domain so there isn't any difference between the two. Perl doesn't execute code in the case of "this `date` string", and even it did, $date='`date`'; "this $date string" still wouldn't execute code.

My question on the original code is "What good does it do?" If a robot is prowling the web for e-mail addresses, why wouldn't it follow the link and get the e-mail address in this case? Do most of these robots skip links with "?" in the URL? Or do they not harvest e-mail addresses when given in redirects? Just curious...

tye

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

In Section Craft