In message , John
Rumm writes
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...egistration%20



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.

Its always wise to check where the links point - after all, if it looks
like a kebab shop in poland, then you would be right to smell a rat!
Doing as you did (going to the suggested page without using the
supplied link is also a sensible way forward.

What are you suggesting? That they use rats in kebab shops in Poland?
--
bert