On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 6:04 AM, T Biehn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Heartily Disagree, > Standards are (usually) parse-friendly. I really don't feel like > inventing some new indicator for your scripts of dubious worth.
They aren't meant to be indicators. Any scripts (I imagine - I don't have any and don't plan on doing so) will work with unobfuscated URLS just as well. > Obfuscate the URLs with ROT13 so it's harder for humans and easier for > machines? I'm willing to be corrected on this, but I believe the main reasons for obfuscation are to do with 1) Stopping search engines like Google following such harmful links (and potentially caching them for the unwary) 2) Preventing accidental[1] or unknown[2] following of the links leading to potential local unwanted copies. > What's hard about matching against a URI then checking the link > yourself (wget/curl/* + TOR). Whats so hard about decrypting ROT13? > NOW, if you WOULDN'T want your post > automagically parsed then use whatever non-standard notation you feel > like. > I may be missing something but this seems like a highly irrational > request. What are the advantages of knowing if the machine-parsed link > was posted as a broken or live link? If you could parse the context of > the post itself you could determine the state of the link if it were > provided at all, knowing that your script doesn't address the context > of the post when are you in a situation where the link(s) and the > poster-provided stat(us/ii :]) thereof useful independent of the > context of the post? [1] I would hope that most of the people on this list wouldn't be doing this however. [2] See http://www.pcworld.com/article/148004/avg_fixes_antivirus_software_skewing_web_site_statistics.html > -Travis > On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Paul Herring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> For some reason, GMail decided to actually turn the www.example.com >> part of that string into a link (first one I've noticed it do,) which >> suggests that Google at least will recognise some of these URLs and >> possibly cache/scan them (prevention of which is what I thought at >> least one premise behind breaking them was for.) >> >> If it's munging that's easily reversible (especially for automated >> scripts) that's required, perhaps ROT13? Anyone using Firefox may find >> the LeetKey addon useful. >> >> uggc://jjj.rknzcyr.pbz >> >> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 8:12 PM, Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I concur. I'm trying to set up an automated URL retrieval script and >>> there are just too many formats. May I suggest that is be as simple >>> as just replacing http/https with hxxp/hxxps? >>> >>> ie. hxxp://www.example.com >>> >>> Tyler >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> I was wondering if it would be more helpful if we could propose a >>>> "standard" for posting broken URLs with some form of start/end indicator to >>>> allow easier automated processing from the listings? >>>> >>>> ChrisB. >> >> >> >> -- >> PJH >> >> http://shabbleland.myminicity.com/sec >> _______________________________________________ >> botnets@, the public's dumping ground for maliciousness >> All list and server information are public and available to law enforcement >> upon request. >> http://www.whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/botnets >> > _______________________________________________ > botnets@, the public's dumping ground for maliciousness > All list and server information are public and available to law enforcement > upon request. > http://www.whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/botnets > -- PJH http://shabbleland.myminicity.com/tra _______________________________________________ botnets@, the public's dumping ground for maliciousness All list and server information are public and available to law enforcement upon request. http://www.whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/botnets
