> It doesn't. I have *very*strict anti-virus/spam/spyware filters and they
> have found nothing in several years of using tinyurl. Believe me, if it
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> easier to use. If you want to be paranoid go right ahead but if your
> anti-spam/spyware filters aren't up to scratch that's your problem.
Before I click on a link I want to see exactly where that
link goes to.
> PS How would you suggest a url with several lines of gobbledygook is
> shown in a usenet message..?
I use the old fashioned method.....cut and paste into the browser.
Ivor Jones - 08 Mar 2005 23:08 GMT
[snip]
>> PS How would you suggest a url with several lines of gobbledygook is
>> shown in a usenet message..?
> I use the old fashioned method.....cut and paste into the browser.
Which is fine as long as the splitting of the url between several lines
doesn't break it. Then it becomes tiresome and is the reason for tinyurl
and other similar services' existence.
However, each to their own and I have no problem with you being paranoid
about tinyurl but please don't complain when others use it.
Ivor
Monique Y. Mudama - 08 Mar 2005 23:26 GMT
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.pets.cats.anecdotes.] On 2005-03-08, Ivor
Jones penned:
> [snip]
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> However, each to their own and I have no problem with you being paranoid
> about tinyurl but please don't complain when others use it.
When I have a long link, I include both the full link and the tinyurl version
in the message. That way people can choose whether to trust me/tinyurl or be
independent.
What's so difficult about this? (She asks, thereby continuing a rather silly
conversation)

Signature
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully
pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca