[Pan-users] Re: Re: Wrapping Long URLs in Messages

[Duncan]

Emily Jackson posted <address@hidden>, excerpted
below,  on Mon, 05 Apr 2004 04:25:13 -0500:

> At 2:45 AM -0500 on Monday, April 5, 2004, Mark Derricutt
> <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
>>Totally evil URL posting suggestion: parse the post for URLs, pass them
>>through tinyurl.com, and post the message using the tinyurl ;-)
> 
> And if tinyurl.com happens to be down...? I wouldn't want to rely on a
> certain site being up in order for a URL I'd posted to be accessible;
> that's why I've never used tinyurl.com.

I tend to do both.  That's a good idea anyway as many don't like clicking
on a URL that's going to redirect them who KNOWS where.  At least if they
have the long one also, they can make a judgment based on how much they
trust the poster, and decide whether to use the big one or the little one.

There IS another problem with places like tinyurl, also..  Some folks
don't like the idea of the redirector site potentially tracking users. 
There are enough around (I usually use shorterlink), that it isn't TOO
bad, but that'd change if a particular profile of users (such as PAN
users) had one or another of them hard-coded.

If I wanted to be tracked more than I already am, I'd still be on MSWormOS
eXPrivacy, using LookOut Express and Internet Exploder, running all those
spywares like timesync, AND using grocery store loyalty cards with my real
name and address!

That's another reason to include both a redirector of (user) choice, AND
the original URL.  Then, even if the original one is chopped up, the
person at the READING end gets to choose whether to use the short one, or
go to the trouble of reassembling the long one, if they don't like the
potential problems inherent in using the short one.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --
Benjamin Franklin