Re: [CGUYS] TinyURLs [Was: Re: [CGUYS] FCC wants to measure]

[Rev. Stewart Marshall]

At one time they recommended this for AOL users.

My Eudora will usually follow a broken link.

What I also like is that with a false link, I can place my mouse over 
it, and see the true link in Eudora.  Tells me when I have a false link.


Stewart


At 02:33 PM 3/13/2010, you wrote:

While long naked URLs are broken in Thunderbird, the link will be
preserved if the URL is wrapped in < >, and this is the case for every
email program I've heard of.  Example:

with < >



without < >

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031203974.html?hpid=sec-tech

So, aside from cases where there are character limits like twitter,
it is actually easier to not use URL shorteners.



On Mar 12, 2010, at 11:24 PM, COMPUTERGUYS-L automatic digest system wrote:

> Date:Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:41:06 -0500
> From:Robert Carroll 
> Subject: Re: TinyURLs [Was: Re: [CGUYS] FCC wants to measure]
>
> John Emmerling wrote:
>> What real purpose does tinyurl really serve nowadays?  Don't
>> up-to-date mail readers handle URLs of any arbitrary length with no
>> problem?
>>
> I'm using Mozilla Thunderbird for email.  Very long web addresses are
> broken when they wrap around to the next line.
>


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] TinyURLs [Was: Re: [CGUYS] FCC wants to measure]

[David K Watson]

While long naked URLs are broken in Thunderbird, the link will be 
preserved if the URL is wrapped in < >, and this is the case for every 
email program I've heard of.  Example:  

with < > 



without < >  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031203974.html?hpid=sec-tech

So, aside from cases where there are character limits like twitter, 
it is actually easier to not use URL shorteners.  



On Mar 12, 2010, at 11:24 PM, COMPUTERGUYS-L automatic digest system wrote:

> Date:Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:41:06 -0500
> From:Robert Carroll 
> Subject: Re: TinyURLs [Was: Re: [CGUYS] FCC wants to measure]
> 
> John Emmerling wrote:
>> What real purpose does tinyurl really serve nowadays?  Don't
>> up-to-date mail readers handle URLs of any arbitrary length with no
>> problem?
>> 
> I'm using Mozilla Thunderbird for email.  Very long web addresses are 
> broken when they wrap around to the next line.
> 


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] TinyURLs [Was: Re: [CGUYS] FCC wants to measure]

[b_s-wilk]

Please define "burned". What happened? Did your hard drive melt?

How is this "burned" experience different from the supposedly innocent 
URL you sent this week, http://tinyurl.com/X ?




No, they don't, in fact many wrap at 72 characters. Actually tinyurls
and similar services can be safer with preview features than a supposed
safe looking URL with a hidden link.

Of course the safest approach is not to click on links from folks you do
not know.  I suggest that few have gotten burned either with a tinyurl
or the entire link on this list regardless of how adversarial things
become.  Besides once someone on this list does burn others, that
individual's reputation is shot, so if for example I use some browser
like "links" or turn off script running...



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] TinyURLs [Was: Re: [CGUYS] FCC wants to measure]

[Art Clemons]

On 03/12/2010 03:06 PM, John Emmerling wrote:
> What real purpose does tinyurl really serve nowadays?  Don't
> up-to-date mail readers handle URLs of any arbitrary length with no
> problem?


No, they don't, in fact many wrap at 72 characters. Actually tinyurls
and similar services can be safer with preview features than a supposed
safe looking URL with a hidden link.

Of course the safest approach is not to click on links from folks you do
not know.  I suggest that few have gotten burned either with a tinyurl
or the entire link on this list regardless of how adversarial things
become.  Besides once someone on this list does burn others, that
individual's reputation is shot, so if for example I use some browser
like "links" or turn off script running in browsers and only use
non-privileged accounts with browsers any threat is limited indeed.  My
habit of using Linux also makes things aimed at Windows weaknesses less
of a problem too.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] TinyURLs [Was: Re: [CGUYS] FCC wants to measure]

[Robert Carroll]

John Emmerling wrote:

What real purpose does tinyurl really serve nowadays?  Don't
up-to-date mail readers handle URLs of any arbitrary length with no
problem?
  
I'm using Mozilla Thunderbird for email.  Very long web addresses are 
broken when they wrap around to the next line.



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] TinyURLs [Was: Re: [CGUYS] FCC wants to measure]

[Stewart Marshall]

Yup it is a little older than Twitter.

It came about when url's tended to be a little wordy.

Stewart


At 04:11 PM 3/12/2010, you wrote:

Actually I think it came about to ease the problem of urls breaking in
emails.

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Roger D. Parish 
wrote:


> At 3:06 PM -0500 3/12/10, John Emmerling wrote:
>
>  Today, I think anybody can be excused for being paranoid.  _Esp._ with
>> respect to wide-open domains like .tv.
>>
>> What real purpose does tinyurl really serve nowadays?  Don't
>> up-to-date mail readers handle URLs of any arbitrary length with no
>> problem?
>>
>
> I think the URL-shortning service became popular when Twitter, with its
> 140-character limit on message size, took off in popularity.
> --
> Roger
> Lovettsville, VA
>
>
>
> *
> **  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
> **  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
> *
>


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] TinyURLs [Was: Re: [CGUYS] FCC wants to measure]

[mike]

Actually I think it came about to ease the problem of urls breaking in
emails.

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Roger D. Parish wrote:

> At 3:06 PM -0500 3/12/10, John Emmerling wrote:
>
>  Today, I think anybody can be excused for being paranoid.  _Esp._ with
>> respect to wide-open domains like .tv.
>>
>> What real purpose does tinyurl really serve nowadays?  Don't
>> up-to-date mail readers handle URLs of any arbitrary length with no
>> problem?
>>
>
> I think the URL-shortning service became popular when Twitter, with its
> 140-character limit on message size, took off in popularity.
> --
> Roger
> Lovettsville, VA
>
>
>
> *
> **  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
> **  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
> *
>


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] TinyURLs [Was: Re: [CGUYS] FCC wants to measure]

[Roger D. Parish]

At 3:06 PM -0500 3/12/10, John Emmerling wrote:


Today, I think anybody can be excused for being paranoid.  _Esp._ with
respect to wide-open domains like .tv.

What real purpose does tinyurl really serve nowadays?  Don't
up-to-date mail readers handle URLs of any arbitrary length with no
problem?


I think the URL-shortning service became popular when Twitter, with 
its 140-character limit on message size, took off in popularity.

--
Roger
Lovettsville, VA


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] TinyURLs [Was: Re: [CGUYS] FCC wants to measure]

[mike]

Twitter and rick-rolls!

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 1:06 PM, John Emmerling wrote:

> Today, I think anybody can be excused for being paranoid.  _Esp._ with
> respect to wide-open domains like .tv.
>
> What real purpose does tinyurl really serve nowadays?  Don't
> up-to-date mail readers handle URLs of any arbitrary length with no
> problem?
>
> On 3/12/10, b_s-wilk  wrote:
> >> With all the protections I have these days (UAC, Spybot immunize, safe
> 
> > Are shortened URLs really that scary??? BOOO! What's the real risk
> > that Something Wonderful turns out to be not so wonderful? Close the
> window.
> >
>
>
> *
> **  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
> **  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
> *
>


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] TinyURLs [Was: Re: [CGUYS] FCC wants to measure]

[John Emmerling]

Today, I think anybody can be excused for being paranoid.  _Esp._ with
respect to wide-open domains like .tv.

What real purpose does tinyurl really serve nowadays?  Don't
up-to-date mail readers handle URLs of any arbitrary length with no
problem?

On 3/12/10, b_s-wilk  wrote:
>> With all the protections I have these days (UAC, Spybot immunize, safe

> Are shortened URLs really that scary??? BOOO! What's the real risk
> that Something Wonderful turns out to be not so wonderful? Close the window.
>


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] TinyURLs [Was: Re: [CGUYS] FCC wants to measure]

[b_s-wilk]

With all the protections I have these days (UAC, Spybot immunize, safe
browsing warnings, etc), I don't feel the need for this, but if you must you
can see where these shortened links go before you click on them.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/8636 . Equivalents available
in other browsers too.

TinyURLs always give me the heebies. You can *claim* it's for Something

> Wonderful when the TinyURL actually points to something nefarious.
>



You need an add-on for this? As Art said, for tinyurl.com, you add 
"preview" for preview.tinyurl.com. Or go to http://untiny.me/ and insert 
the shortened URL.


I use http://is.gd which needs only an ending hypen to get a preview, as 
in http://is.gd/amyeC- . Is.gd is easy to remember and easy to type too 
Thank goodness for tiny countries like Grenada and Tuvalu to give us 
these domains--can they profit from this?. BTW, Art's URL example, 
http://tinyurl.com/X gets you to a real site for unicycling.


Are shortened URLs really that scary??? BOOO! What's the real risk 
that Something Wonderful turns out to be not so wonderful? Close the window.



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] TinyURLs [Was: Re: [CGUYS] FCC wants to measure]

[Art Clemons]

On 03/11/2010 10:59 PM, Reid Katan wrote:
> In this case though, I gave Steve the benefit of the doubt and followed
> his TinyURL. Nothing spammy about it. In fact, go straight to the FCC
> site: 

if folks are really paranaoid, every tinyurl created can have the phrase
"preview" inserted in the URL like for example:

http://tinyurl.com/X
http://preview.tinyurl.com/

Please note the URLs above are nulls as far as I can determine.  If you
click on them, I accept no responsibility, I wouldn't, they're examples

Depending upon your browser settings with tinyurl, it will either
display what the tinyurl URL resolves to or a preview of the page in
your browser and please note it's definitely your choice on how you
configure your browser to react to tinyurl.com.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] TinyURLs [Was: Re: [CGUYS] FCC wants to measure]

[Tony B]

With all the protections I have these days (UAC, Spybot immunize, safe
browsing warnings, etc), I don't feel the need for this, but if you must you
can see where these shortened links go before you click on them.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/8636 . Equivalents available
in other browsers too.


TinyURLs always give me the heebies. You can *claim* it's for Something
> Wonderful when the TinyURL actually points to something nefarious.
>


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

[CGUYS] TinyURLs [Was: Re: [CGUYS] FCC wants to measure]

[Reid Katan]

Quoting John DeCarlo :


Sounds like a spam email to me.

Especially with the tinyurl.

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 8:33 PM, phartz...@gmail.com   
wrote:



http://tinyurl.com/yet2zns


TinyURLs always give me the heebies. You can *claim* it's for  
Something Wonderful when the TinyURL actually points to something  
nefarious.


Perhaps if one wishes to point to something on this list with a  
TinyURL, they ought to also add the not-so-tiny-URL also.


In this case though, I gave Steve the benefit of the doubt and  
followed his TinyURL. Nothing spammy about it. In fact, go straight to  
the FCC site: 



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*