On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 22:30:40 +0000, Tim+
wrote:

John Rumm wrote:
On 10/11/2013 11:34, tim...... wrote:

"Mike Barnes" wrote in message
...
Tim+ :
I got the below email last week and although it did refer to a domain
that I
own, I didn't like the way that the links to 123reg didn't appear to
lead
to 123reg.

http://www.zen31010.zen.co.uk/Inaccu...%20details.eml


In case of doubt it's better to view the plain text version of the
message rather than the HTML. If you do that you'll find nothing more
suspicious than a missing apostrophe.

so the links to unknown third party sites go away in the plain text
version, do they?

Can't see any links to unknown third party sites... 8 or 9 go to
webfusion.com, and one to 123-reg.co.uk



The point is/was, webfusion was an unknown link to me. Given that the
standard way to check a link is to see if it links to where it says it
links to before you follow it, surely this is bad practice?

It is bad practice. The sender should not assume that the receipient
knows that webfusion is related to 123, nor should they expect you to
waste your time looking it up.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?