"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 10/11/2013 22:30, 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?

Hence my original comment - yes they were being a bit daft. However they
do make the webfusion brand fairly public - most 123-reg pages have
"Copyright © 2013 Webfusion Ltd." at the bottom of them for example.

but I repeat

how is that helpful if the recipient had never heard of webfusion and is
likely to have no confidence that they are legitimate. Just because they
have a "professional" looking web page adds absolutely nothing to the
equation here, because the staring point for a scammer is to have a
professional looking web page


tim