RE: FN-FORUM: Paid for file downloads / streaming

date posted 1st December 2003 15:15

Does that not still mean that the user can actually see the file, the
response.redirect would cause the browser to re-request. I suppose using
server.transfer would be ok but again I want to make it so that it's not
possible to link to the file because one of the reasons we're having to
go down this route is people leaching the files.


Andy
IWD2 LLP
[EMAIL REMOVED]
=20
-----Original Message-----
From: David Eckersall [EMAIL REMOVED]
Sent: 01 December 2003 15:19
To: Andy Macnaughton-Jones
Subject: Re: FN-FORUM: Paid for file downloads / streaming


yup, you supply it a valid URL, however using the response.redirect in
the asp means its location is 'cloaked' and you can do any security
testing before passing it over.

its also something i use to replace frames where you need to keep doing
a check (say for new webmail) for something, have javascript refresh an
image tag with an asp URL, every time its called it checks for mail and
supplies the appropriate image...

Nick Grimshaw wrote:

>David Eckersall:
> =20
>
>>well you can do one of two things, have the download page be an asp or

>>aspx page with the content-type set as the video format and just=20
>>response.redirect to the video:
>> (snip code)
>> =20
>>
>
>Surely response.redirect would just send a 302 (or similar) to the=20
>client, which means that the video would still need a valid URL?
>
>- Nick Grimshaw
>{ if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate. }
>
>
> =20
>



--
* The Web Design Business Kit *
Find out how to price your work, market your business, make pitches that
get the client, write effective proposals and beat the competition into
the ground. Download 4 free sample chapters.
http://sitepoint.com/launch/b7c91e/

To advertise here: http://www.freelancers.net/advertising.html