Re: checklink:

Lazar wrote:

> my question is if Link Checker is trying to follow javascript links?

Based on <> I'd bet on no,
I'm too lazy to check the sources.  javascript: (pseudo-) URLs used
to be a good way to get a fat red 500 error.  I can't test it today,
<> is down, and for
unknown reasons checklink doesn't give up to wait for an answer. :-( 

BTW, simply test it, checklink reports precisely what it does.  You
would see pagead2.googlesyndication or similar if it tries to check
a PPC link.  And it uses HTTP HEAD (not HTTP GET) to check links, no
chance to confuse it with a paid click.  It also respects robots.txt
exclusions for User-Agent: W3C-checklink.

> Aside from this I wonder why my post appeared as an attachment
> rather then a plain text?

No idea, here's what GMaNe (a mail2news gateway) sees:

A multipart/alternative, first part text/plain, second part
text/html, apparently sent from a Yahoo! Webmail interface.

Not really Content-Disposition: attachment.  User agents can
show inline what they like better (alternative), but likely
everybody including you hates unnecessary text/html in mail ;-)


Received on Friday, 22 February 2008 18:29:55 UTC