为什么简单的电子邮件混淆效果这么好？
例如，将 @ 替换为 at。至少一项研究证明了其有效性：
令我们惊讶的是，访问我们部门研究以及课程和研究网页的抓取工具都没有在包含
at的电子邮件地址上发送任何垃圾邮件。
另一个 实验展示了同样的事情，显示使用 at 和 dot 将垃圾邮件减少了两个数量级。
第一项研究推测，垃圾邮件发送者获得了足够的纯文本电子邮件地址，从而忽略了混淆的电子邮件地址。但是除了 @ 之外，解析 at 应该是微不足道的。为什么垃圾邮件发送者不考虑这种简单的混淆？
For example replacing @ with at. At least one study demonstrated its effectiveness:
To our surprise, none of the crawlers that visited our departmental research and course and research web pages led to any spam on email addresses containing the
at.
Another experiment demonstrated the same thing, showing that using at and dot reduced spam by two orders of magnitude.
The first study speculated that spammers obtain enough plain-text email addresses to ignore the obfuscated ones. But parsing at in addition to @ should be trivial. Why don't spammers account for such simple obfuscation?
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（2）
我不是专家……但直观上来说，@ 符号在非电子邮件相关的演讲中很少使用，这是有道理的。 @ 符号将电子邮件地址与所有其他文本区分开来。如果你简单地使用at，它就会与普通英语融为一体。
毕竟 At 是一个非常常见的词：P 我确信它仍然可以解析出电子邮件的“at”版本，但正则表达式要困难得多。
I am no expert...but it intuitively makes sense that the @ symbol is much less commonly used in non-email-related speech. The @ sign is what set an email address apart from all the other text. If you simply use at, it blends in with normal English.
At is a pretty common word after all :P I'm sure its still possible to parse out the "at" version of an email, but just much more difficult of a regex.
如果他们能找到数十万个明文，他们为什么还要费心呢？此外，如果电子邮件中包含“at”或“dot”一词怎么办？就像 [email protected] - 通过简单的查找和替换即可将其更改为[电子邮件受保护]
Why would they bother if they can find hundreds of thousands of plaintext ones? Additionally, what if a email had the word at or dot? like [email protected] - with a simple find and repalce would change it to [email protected]