Live data from Hacker News

Email obfuscation: What works in 2026?

spencermortensen.com

31–40 of 124 posts

Re: Email obfuscation: What works in 2026?

#31
post #9

I use SVG where I created a text object in Affinity Designer and converted it to curves so the SVG doesn't have text any more, just vectors for the glyphs of it. Seems to work pretty well at keeping spammers at bay.

But now users cannot copy the email nor can they click it to email you?

Re: Email obfuscation: What works in 2026?

#34

When I wrote my own brainf*ck interpreter (in C) at the start of the year I was really struggling to find a use for the language. Eventually I had the idea to obfuscate emails on my websites with the language. Basically each email gets written as a brainf*ck program and stored in a "data-" attribute. The html only includes a more primitively obfuscated statement "Must enable Javascript to see e-mail." by default whic…

How does that work if the scraper takes a screenshot to feed to a LLM or OCR?

Re: Email obfuscation: What works in 2026?

#35

When I wrote my own brainf*ck interpreter (in C) at the start of the year I was really struggling to find a use for the language. Eventually I had the idea to obfuscate emails on my websites with the language. Basically each email gets written as a brainf*ck program and stored in a "data-" attribute. The html only includes a more primitively obfuscated statement "Must enable Javascript to see e-mail." by default whic…

How does that work if the scraper takes a screenshot to feed to a LLM or OCR?

That seems like a very expensive way to crawl the internet

Re: Email obfuscation: What works in 2026?

#36

Some time ago i was wondering if the common "me at foobar dot com" you still see a lot of people do actually helps at all, especially now with LLMs, so i searched for some common "obfuscation" techniques and found this site (not the 2026 update, but the previous - it was a few months ago). Then i wrote a simple LLM query with a bunch of examples from the site[0] (the tool is just a frontend for a commandline program…

IMO a better approach would be individualized addresses.

Imagine someone visiting your blog who wants to e-mail you can burn some CPU cycles to "earn" an address that hasn't been given out to anybody else, e.g. user+TOKEN@example.com, where it is algorithmically-unlikely for them to be able to guess a different TOKEN that will work. Then if abuse occurs, you can just retire that one address. (In a non-interactive context, like a paper ad, you could just generate one yourself.)

Naturally, this would be best with an e-mail client that is aware of the scheme, and with a mail-service that has some API for generating new addresses, such as if you want to cold e-mail somebody and use a new from/return address.

Some years ago I had the fanciful idea of doing it with a phone-app, where it manages creating new addresses as-needed, disabling them, and keeping notes about who you gave them to.

Re: Email obfuscation: What works in 2026?

#37

WTH, a 302 into a "mailto:" (search for "HTTP redirect" in the featured article) opens up my e-mail client without clicking a mailto link!? This seems wrong.

Some browsers ask whether to open the email client in that case. I don’t see it as significantly different from a redirected download link that would open a program based on the mime type or file ending. Or from a redirect to another URL pattern associated with an app, like for example how YouTube links may open in the YouTube app.

Re: Email obfuscation: What works in 2026?

#38

I stopped being concerned about email harvesting years ago, I just simply leave the email on my website. Spam handling is okay enough, I guess. But I like this review of techniques, even the simplest ones are very effective, that surprised me.

Same here, the address will eventually leak some way anyway.

I never got SpamAssassin working very well, but since moving my email hosting to Apple (from my own server), spam has not been a problem.

Re: Email obfuscation: What works in 2026?

#39

When I wrote my own brainf*ck interpreter (in C) at the start of the year I was really struggling to find a use for the language. Eventually I had the idea to obfuscate emails on my websites with the language. Basically each email gets written as a brainf*ck program and stored in a "data-" attribute. The html only includes a more primitively obfuscated statement "Must enable Javascript to see e-mail." by default whic…

How does this approach meaningfully differ from having javascript that XORs the email with a random sequence of bytes stored in that JS?

It's more fun? :)

/edit

And you can combine both approaches: XOR'ing the code first for good measurements. :)

Re: Email obfuscation: What works in 2026?

#40
post #3

Good stuff, but I think the title should be Email address obfuscation. Thank you for sharing I guess, but spammers can now learn from this too (:

Yes, people using “email” for “email address” in contexts where it could also mean “email message”, which “email” more frequently means, is really annoying.
Post reply on HN