Yet another email hiding technique?

While exploring browser-supported Unicode characters, I noticed that apart from the usual @ and . (dot), there was another character that resembled an @ sign (0xFF20 or @) and various characters that resembled a period (I think 0×2024 or ․ is closer, but feel free to argue).

I’m wondering, if one could use this as another way of email hiding. It’s almost as easy as the foo [at] bar [dot] com technique, with the advantage of being far less common (I’ve never seen it before, so there’s a high chance that spambot developers haven’t either) and I think that the end result is more easily understood by newbies. To encode foo@bar.com this way, we’d use (in an html page):

foo@bar․com

and the result is: foo@bar․com

I used that technique on the ligatweet page. Of course, if many people start using it, I guess spambot developers will notice, so it won’t be a good idea any more. However, for some reason I don’t think it will ever become that mainstream :P

By the way, if you’re interested in other ways of email hiding, here’s an extensive article on the subject that I came across after a quick googlesearch (to see if somebody else came up with this first — I didn’t find anything).

4 Responses to “Yet another email hiding technique?”

  1. kl says:

    very bad. People will copy&paste it and won’t know why it fails to work.

  2. Lea Verou says:

    Fair enough. However, I think it’s quite obvious that it’s not a normal @ symbol, although it resembles one. (Haven’t checked it with no anti-aliasing though). That could be resolved with a comment next to the email, as people frequently do with other email hiding techniques.
    Still, your point is valid, it’s something everyone should consider before using this.

  3. Billy F. says:

    I like Lea’s idea. If I implemented it on any site, I think it would be usefull to make the text act like a image by disabling text selection with CSS.

    Don’t know if this works though
    http://www.forums.hscripts.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3293#p6989

  4. Lea Verou says:

    Good point Billy!

    As long as they don’t use an inline event handler for the event ;)