John Hardin wrote: > What about an explicit "https://.."; URI?
I have no problem marking that as spam (you're thinking too hard). >> I should also have noted that while this works around the SA bug, it >> also ignores hidden dirs and files appearing early in relative paths, >> like <a href="a.bc/.secret"> > > That href would get "http://"; prepended, though, would it not? Ah. My turn for having through too hard. I knew there was a reason I deleted that paragraph before writing it a second time... >> and of course it will have to be undone when SA patches that bug. > > Yup. However, I think that a hostname _that_ short is extremely unlikely > in real world spams/phishes. Some of the URL shorteners let you tack on extra characters. Or at least, I'd like them to.
