The author suggests that using a form makes the problem go away. My experience says that people who can't de-obfuscate an email address frequently can't type their return address correctly. The obfuscated address gives them feedback in the form of a bounced email, and thereby gives a recovery mode. The incorrect return address in the form gives no recovery mode at all.
To me, that's conclusive proof that the form is worse than the obfuscated address.
Further, there's a balance to be achieved. I've analysed the types of people I want to contact me, and of those who can't work out my address there are two types. One type is those that I really don't care about - nuisance, spam, content-free, or time-wasters. The others that I do care about usually have a different route to me, one that's specifically tailored to them and made as easy as possible. That one has a specially designed anti-spam measure built into it.
I have to agree with your disdain for forms. I hope that when given the choic ebetween obfuscating an email address and providing a form, our response will be to improve our spam filtering and offer a plaintext mailto: link.
Plaintext links have high usability. The mail is organized within the user's mail program where it can be retrieved, collated by subject, and so forth. It can be copied and pasted. It's the abslute best thing for them :-)
To me, that's conclusive proof that the form is worse than the obfuscated address.
Further, there's a balance to be achieved. I've analysed the types of people I want to contact me, and of those who can't work out my address there are two types. One type is those that I really don't care about - nuisance, spam, content-free, or time-wasters. The others that I do care about usually have a different route to me, one that's specifically tailored to them and made as easy as possible. That one has a specially designed anti-spam measure built into it.