[SpamCop-List] Re: Signatures in SC news and forum (was: Spamcop not reporting weblinks in spam)

[Mike Easter]

Jeff G. wrote:

> The following is the smallest I'm willing to make it (unless you
> think I should go with a tinyurl, shorturl, or similar, for which
> recommendations would be helpful).

I use snurls which are snipped urls pretty often, but whenever I do it I
also 'show' the original long url, because some people are 'averse' to
using tiny, snipped, short, or other urls because they are so variable
in their 'function'.  That is, they are complex in what the system is
programmed to 'feed back' to the person who provided the shortened link
about 'who' and whatall is clicking on it.

Some people don't want to click a shortened url because of privacy
reasons and they don't want to try to figure out or remember which tiny
short snipped do what snooping or not.  If I show both regular and
snurl, the person can choose to click what they want.

So, where your space is limited and is supposed to be efficient, you
can't be putting both a short and a normal url.  If an url isn't so long
that it is in danger of getting wrapped, it doesn't matter [IMO] if it
is 57 chars long or 17.

-- 
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin