GreenguyandJim Fighting Zango

darksoul · 2006-10-25, 08:43 AM

Jim,
I think the coincidence is a bit too big!
plus you modifyed that .htaccess so badly that you even broke it

Code:

RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^$

this means that users with no referrers won't be redirected
if they have ZangoToolbar. Why would you want that ?

Code:

RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http://(.*@)?([a-z0-9-]+\.)*yourdomain\.com(:[0-9]+)?(/.*)?$ [NC]

yourdomain.com\.com(:[0-9]+)? makes no sense either because in mod_rewrite language it means:
"the url might be of the form yourdomain.com:135" or any other group of digits
Is that a new tld extension ?

Using stuff like (.*@)?([a-z0-9-]+\.)* is overkill when you can simply use (.*)? which will match anything.

cd34 · 2006-10-25, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darksoul

Jim,
I think the coincidence is a bit too big!
plus you modifyed that .htaccess so badly that you even broke it

Code:

RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^$

this means that users with no referrers won't be redirected
if they have ZangoToolbar. Why would you want that ?

Code:

RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http://(.*@)?([a-z0-9-]+\.)*yourdomain\.com(:[0-9]+)?(/.*)?$ [NC]

yourdomain.com\.com(:[0-9]+)? makes no sense either because in mod_rewrite language it means:
"the url might be of the form yourdomain.com:135" or any other group of digits
Is that a new tld extension ?

Using stuff like (.*@)?([a-z0-9-]+\.)* is overkill when you can simply use (.*)? which will match anything.

First off, I don't surf gfy, I think I probably have one post there. I never saw your post, I didn't know about your solution, but, I don't see that there is any other way to do a webmaster friendly solution without doing it this way.

So, any similarity is just two people coming up with the same answer for the same problem. I got involved with this from a code perspective yesterday morning after seeing what Greenguy and Jim had done and came up with a solution that was a little more robust and flexible than their first version.

As for allowing the empty referrer, surfers use privacy software which blocks the referrer. Using your example .htaccess, if a surfer running privacy software hits your site, they get redirected to dark5.com, but, since they don't set a referrer, how do they get to click on the link back to your site? Try it in firefox, go into about:config and change network.http.sendRefererHeader to 0 and you should get stuck in the loop. (unless that should be a 3 to not send the referrer -- their config values are a bit cryptic and I didn't test firefox to verify)

It seemed to be a compromise that affected the fewest number of people.

As for properly supporting RFC3986 uri constructs, call me guilty. Ray Morris from StrongBox/bettercgi developed those when we were dealing with hotlinking with a bit of input from the board to make sure that any valid url construct would be covered, but, mangled urls would not be allowed access. I merely copied known tested, valid and working url constructs that absolutely supported every condition we threw at it ages ago.

Code:

RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http://www.yourdomain.com.*$ [NC]

Imagine someone bookmarking a members area as http://user:password@www.yourdomain.com/members or someone surfing from a subdomain of http://www4yourdomain8com.someother.info. The members area one would be redirected, whereas the person surfing from someother.info would be granted access.

If a surfer hits http://yourdomain.com/ -- they would be redirected for not having the www.

I still support the .htaccess the way that it was written in part to conversations held directly with Greenguy and Jim and in part due to conditions I thought of that would unnecessarily complicate issues for a surfer. As you have mentioned the javascript back button doesn't make sense, and that was addressed yesterday in private conversations with Greenguy and Jim as were a number of other issues that haven't been raised yet.

I'll state for the record right now that I didn't take your idea and today is the first that I even knew about it. I commend you for coming up with a solution prior to there being demand.

spookyx · 2006-10-25, 11:04 AM

I would like to follow up on what we chatted about last night in the channel about "anti zanga approved sponsors" we would be happy to make the banners that were mentioned. hit me up on icq or email me

we at lotzadollars are committed to supporting our honest affiliates and won't put up with these kinds of scams.

we also appreciate all the positive feedback lotza received for takng this stand

2006-10-25, 08:43 AM	#1
darksoul Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 13	Jim, I think the coincidence is a bit too big! plus you modifyed that .htaccess so badly that you even broke it Code: RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^$ this means that users with no referrers won't be redirected if they have ZangoToolbar. Why would you want that ? Code: RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http://(.@)?([a-z0-9-]+\.)yourdomain\.com(:[0-9]+)?(/.)?$ [NC] yourdomain.com\.com(:[0-9]+)? makes no sense either because in mod_rewrite language it means: "the url might be of the form yourdomain.com:135" or any other group of digits Is that a new tld extension ? Using stuff like (.@)?([a-z0-9-]+\.)* is overkill when you can simply use (.*)? which will match anything.

2006-10-25, 11:04 AM	#3
spookyx Kodak Ghosts Run Amok Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Hobbs End Posts: 1,718	I would like to follow up on what we chatted about last night in the channel about "anti zanga approved sponsors" we would be happy to make the banners that were mentioned. hit me up on icq or email me we at lotzadollars are committed to supporting our honest affiliates and won't put up with these kinds of scams. we also appreciate all the positive feedback lotza received for takng this stand Last edited by spookyx; 2006-10-25 at 11:07 AM..