I'm sorry, but this is a pretty ridiculous argument: Company A releases a largely redundant service that does little more than expose its users to a potential attack vector. In return, Company A releases a second service to try improve the security of its first.
Why bother with either? My email client is pretty good; I'll continue not clicking on tinyurls links. Joseph On 04/06/2008, Stroller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 4 Jun 2008, at 18:12, Joseph Reeves wrote: > > > ... > > TinyURL on the other hand... Why would anyone ever use that? I never > > click on links unless I know where they link to. Here's a plan for > > abuse: > > > > 1: Discover browser 0-day exploit > > 2: Put up a gallery of FreeRunner pictures on a website > > 3: Point a tinyurl at the gallery > > 4: Wait until everyone's linked to it and is clicking it > > 5: Change gallery to 0-day exploit > > > > Or even easier: > > > > 1: Link to goatse. > > > > TinyURL takes all the best practice Internet guidlines you try and > > teach people and ruins them all. Can't stand it. > > > > TinyURL itself protects you from this. > > All you do is go to <http://tinyurl.com/preview.php>, click on the "enable > previews" link and it sets a cookie on your PC. Thereafter, everytime you > click on a TinyURL link it shows you first what website the link redirects > to, and you then have to click again to make a "manual redirection". > > Maybe your email client is perfect, and never has a problem with mangled > URLs, but for the rest of us TinyURL is very useful. > > Stroller. > > _______________________________________________ Openmoko community mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
