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?
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.