Hi,

I actually started adding that feature a couple of years ago but didn't
end up activating it. I don't remember why.

It would be useful, but I am wary of it because it's hard to know when a
link looks like a URL and when it doesn't. Should "www.y.com" (without
the http:) be disallowed? And "y.com"? And "y. com"?

So I'm not sure.

--
- Josh Tauberer

http://razor.occams.info

"Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation! Yields
falsehood when preceded by its quotation!" Achilles to
Tortoise (in "Godel, Escher, Bach" by Douglas Hofstadter)


markem007 wrote:
>
>
> I did post in the Thunderbird area but saw that this group was here
> (and the message messed up after posting and I can't get the
> Thunderbird editor to allow me to make changes so....) :-)
>
> I thought that one addition that would be good would be to have the
> program check for <a href="X">Y</a> in the message's body.
> Checking only for the website and not anything that follows that.
> (Because sometimes they do say just "http://www.y.com
> <http://www.y.com>" in the body of
> a message. So:
>
> <a href="http://www.x.com/A/B?C
> <http://www.x.com/A/B?C>">http://www.x.com <http://www.x.com></a>
>
> would be ok but
>
> <a href="http://www.x.com/R/S/T/U/V
> <http://www.x.com/R/S/T/U/V>">http://www.y.com <http://www.y.com></a>
>
> would not be ok.
>
> I'm sure there are times when a company does "http://mysite.com
> <http://mysite.com>" or
> other different methods of saying their site name, but all this is -
> is a check and even a legitimate company who does the above should
> make someone suspicious of the intent of the company.
>
> And last, but not least, this is faster than having to poll an offsite
> location for information. So you would get immediate feedback about
> the message being suspicious and then, after that the regular poll for
> info could be done.
>
> Just a thought.
>
>