John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > Christopher Smith wrote: > >> John H. Robinson, IV wrote: >> >> >>> http://www.decenturl.com/132.239.180.101/tubgirl >>> >>> What do you know about that one? Then click. Were you right? >>> >> I know that it points to an IP address rather than a named host, which >> means I've got zero reason to trust it. The first part of the >> "decenturl" is the host you're being redirected to, so my first question >> is "do I trust that host?", the second part is the title from the page, >> which also comes back to "do I trust that host?" although it is more >> about trusting the authors of content for said host. Either way, I don't >> trust that link. >> > > You hould have clicked on it. I did. I just waited until an appropriate time (namely: I was home, and I had nothing better to do).
> Especially if you were familiar with the > ``real'' tubgirl. You would have found that it was far different than > you were expecting. > I had literally no expectations about the nature of the content, which is precisely why i didn't follow the link when it was first sent. > It is also safe for work, and I hope non-offensive to everyone. Feel > free to follow the link. > > There are ways to easily verify where a redirect goes, without venturing > to the target of the redirect, or to see who owns an IP address. > > % lynx -dump -head http://www.decenturl.com/132.239.180.101/tubgirl | grep > '^Location: ' > % whois -h whois.arin.net 132.239.180.101 | grep '^OrgName: ' > Yes. When you put it that way, there is really no point to decenturl.com at all. It is a wonder anyone uses their service. --Chris -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
