>>>>>testing : http://stackoverflow.com/questions/161738.com returns .t. even if this page dont exists.funny!
>>>>>getting 404 error page (invalid Url inside a valid domain) this function returns .t. as valid url.
>>>>>The API InternetGetConnectedState provides same behaviour.
>>>>>maybe the DOS command "PING " can resolve this ? to test.
>>>>
>>>>Hi Yousfi,
>>>>
>>>>I think this test (even if not 100% reliable) is OK for me now. I already posted the User Story completed with that code. We'll see what the testers tell me. The validation of URL was not actually required at all, but I thought it would be nice to have.
>>>
>>>True validation is done by checking if it works.
>>>If someone wants to enter a future URL then things get complicated.
>>
>>I think that test checks if the domain is OK. So, it may allow URLs that return 404 errors, but I don't think it should be a major concern for me. It will filter bad inputs such as 1243fdkjfkdjfkd.
>>
>>If there is no internet connection to test, then it also will be a problem. I'll let our testers to come back to me, though, in case this validation I introduced is not a good one.
>
>
>1243fdkjfkdjfkd? Why not good? I saw url of all kinds.
>
>Everything has conditions, and here the condition is that the link works.
>How do you distinguish the lack of link from a site off?
>If the link is interrupted to 1000 km from where you are?
>The fact that it works now, does not make the fact that it works from 1 minute
>If the URL respects the characters and grammar, the rest is only likely

Perfectly formed domain. No doubt.
Only that I assume some malware behind such domains. :) IOW if I found a mail from blabla@1243fdkjfkdjfkd.com or a linke inside a mail that point to such a domain I delete it without further inspection.
:)