Ernest Marsh wrote:
Not sure if it will help now, but I'm told a graphic of the address is better than the hyperlink.
Drawback is the contact has to type the address into the mail address window, but apparently it makes automated spamming harder.
Even better (if you can use JavaScript) is to build the address up in code for the user's browser to render as a mailto link, backed up with some human-readable text just in case scripting isn't available:
In the <head> section:
Code:
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript"><!--
var mydomain;
mydomain = window.location.hostname;
if (mydomain.indexOf("www.") > -1) {
mydomain = mydomain.substring(4, mydomain.length);
}
mydomain = "@" + mydomain;
//--></script>
and then where you want the address:
Code:
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript"><!--
var addy = "info";
document.write ("<a href="mailto:" + addy + mydomain + "">" + addy + mydomain + "<\/a>");
//--></script>
<noscript>
info AT safespeed DOT org DOT uk
</noscript>
This produces info@ whichver domain was used to access the content (so great where multiple domains point to the same website), and gives a human-readable variation (info AT safespeed DOT org DOT uk) that won't be easily interpreted by spam harvesters. The principle behind this technique is that nearly all spam harvesters read the raw page source and don't execute the script - so they don't detect the encoded address.
HTH,
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
