Russell McMahon wrote:

>>> This has some advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The
>>> link itself doesn't say where you go when you go there, which is a
>>> trust issue. (Maybe not so important here.)
> 
>> Not quite sure why it's ever an issue?
> 
> That may depend on whether there are some sites a person doesn't want
> to look at - not that a url alone is a sure indication of content. 
> 
> Tinyurl does have a preview option where it presents you with the url
> before going there and asks if you want to continue. I tried this and
> found the extra step intrusive. So far I've never followed a tinyurl
> link that went anywhere exceptionally "bad" - whether wrt
> 'questionable'* content, malicious software or even ads.

Probably not so much a trust issue, as a "is it something that interests
me" issue. The real URL normally gives some more clues about the page
than the redirection URL. 

I think slowly fixing or replacing all the outdated email clients that
don't know how to handle URLs (or flow text, while we're at it :) is the
better way to go.

Gerhard
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist