Incidentally, I'm familiar with getting 2 copies of various emails when people reply to both me and the list... but *3*? That's just confusing. On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 03:08:32PM +0100, Thorben Thuermer wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 00:04:06 +0000 Tom Barnes-Lawrence <tomble@usermail.com> wrote:
-I understand you not wanting the referer info being sent, even if it does make the logs from my hit-counter a bit less useful, *but*, some sites do seem to use the referer tags to work out if you're accessing their images, etc deep-linked from some other page. I'm afraid I can sort of sympathise with this, as the idea of "stealing bandwidth" does have quite a lot of truth in it (it does cost them money).
there is one important detail there that i think is very important: even if you want to avoid image linking by checking referers, you should allow EMPTY referers...
Are we considering empty referers to be the same as no referers?
that way: a) linking the images will still fail with the majority of browsers b) browsers that don't send referers will still work. Probably. I have a strange image of *all* browsers ending up sending no referers in order to be able to see remotely hosted images, but I rather doubt that would happen, so you're probably right here.
c) users can for example post a link to a image on irc or whereever and the link will work (this is something that makes users like me really hate your site)
You hate my site? Wah! But seriously (*unless* you're meaning "your" as in "anybody's"), I know Angelfire *used* to block images on no referers, but I noticed recently that Dillo *was* showing the few images I had on my pages, and after reading your comment today, I copy-pasted the URL of my site's logo into Dillo. Showed up fine. I don't know if you just assumed that Angelfire was still doing that but you hadn't notice since you'd patched your copy of Dillo, or if you'd just thought that my site wasn't downloading all the graphics (there are only about 3 on the whole site, 5 if you count thumbnails as different to their full-size images).
d) users can use download programs to download files off the site without having to send fake referers (wget --referer, anybody?) Yeah, I'm familiar with *that*...
(and to control those, there's robots.txt) I know what robots.txt is for, how does it apply here? Are you talking about a download program that gets the *whole* site?
imho not allowing the referer to be empty is just stupidity on the side of the people setting up the filtering, and it just
Perhaps it just didn't occur to them? They want to keep their bandwidth costs down, so they'd be worrying more about that issue than supporting an obscure little niche browser like ours (even if it is lovely).
makes their own problems worse, by forcing people to send fake referer headers (like my dillo does for QUITE some time now).
(the patch is trivial, just add pairs of + "Referer: http://%s%s/\r\n" + URL_HOST(url), s_port->str, into src/IO/http.c (and don't get the order wrong))
Hey, that's neat, thanks! I was considering doing something like this myself (but wouldn't know where to start).
So, I'd love it if the bookmarks code stuck each section in its own page, and let me nest one section in another. isn't this is kind of the point of seperating stuff into dpis?: if you don't like the default one, you can relatively easily change it without having to deal with the browser code or even recompile it.
Uh, yes, I know. Apart from the fact I got the impression the DPI interface was unstable (as in changing, not crashing) at the moment, I pointed out that I was quite busy right now, and wasn't sure of some of the details, either. I find working with other peoples' code fairly daunting, personally. Perhaps that's lack of experience. Tom Barnes-Lawrence