previously Jeff Wills may have written article
<[email hidden]> saying:
Quoted message said:rorschandt <[email hidden]> wrote in message
[snip]
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:cryptic for me to understand what it was I did that he didn't like. Thus, "????".
TinyURL.com is a dandy tool- what's so suspicious? There's a number
How about the lack of any context as to what was behind that TinyURL. I think the point being made
was posting a URL which tells you nothing at all about what it is with a message which basically
says click here is a tactic widely used by spammers to get click through payments. Also without
some context why bother cutting and pasting that URL into a browser window /* assuming you have
one open */.
If the origional poster had said soemthing along the lines of: "I just saw this wonderful $FOO on
$bar$barOpen ↗ that looks ideal for nightime flagpole visibility. The actual URL for $FOO is a bit
long so go to tinyurl.com$BAZOpen ↗ to take a look"
then they'd ahve been context to explain why anyone would want to visit the URL and we'd know it
wasn't just an attempt to get paid for click throughs.
Quoted message said:of sites that condense long URLs so they can be posted and/or emailed without the recipient
needing to reassemble them on the other end.
But without revealing anything at all about them, without context you can't tell if it's a link to:
Ultimate recumbent gadget site or Pervy hobbit fanciers go to donkey town
Whilst you might want to look at the former the latter could get you sacked.
Also I suspect the person complaining uses VPN software to access UseNET and would have to disable
that to check out the URL, but that's a guess.
--
Giolla Decair "Missed it the moment to join in the laugh" - George Marsh