Steve Freegard wrote: >Hopefully it will be useful to others; you can grab it from:
Thanks Steve! Suggestions (for future enhancements): 1. Consider splitting the list of shorteners between those that are well established and KNOWN to be reasonably diligent, and "all others" (e.g. the anti-pattern ably described last week in: http://www.xkcd.com/792/ ). Split them in such a way as to make it easy for users to test only ONE set (probably the better known ones), and (perhaps) add an option to score the rest without doing a DNS call. 2. Investigate BitLy's API. I've been experimenting with it for a few months, and am very pleased with the options and data it provides. I still need to add ham shortener links to my standard/automated testing (preliminary results are excellent). The only "issue" I had (at the very beginning) was signing up with a mixed case API key, then lower casing it when I used it. My BIM. 3. Please collect and share performance data. Thanks in advance! :) I still haven't deployed anything real-time (have had VERY limited quality-dev-time this year - Grrr!Argh!). Since these first became a problem, I've been auto-quarantining (except for a very short list of manually excluded newsletters and select validated Senders), then we handle the DNS tests as part of our desktop-based FP pipeline. The occurrence of shorteners in ham is low enough that that's been acceptable to our userbase, largely because they run the actual tests, so they have Complete Control. It's been my experience that not-stupid endusers who are given control are happy users. They're full participants in the process. :) - "Chip"
