J
D
David Dorward
Jan said:
Could be anything. Might not even be a file. Why would it matter to a
visitor anyway?
J
Jan Faerber
David Dorward ... output:
Yes, anything. Could be anything. But what is it?
Isn't it a file like that one:
janfaerber.com/archiv/spam/mortage_www.savedatcash.com/x/d37/index.lsd
I just want to save this file and I would like to use the same name as on
their server.
Yes, anything. Could be anything. But what is it?
Isn't it a file like that one:
janfaerber.com/archiv/spam/mortage_www.savedatcash.com/x/d37/index.lsd
I just want to save this file and I would like to use the same name as on
their server.
D
David Dorward
There is no way to tell.
It might be. It might not be.
Call it whatever you like and configure your system to recognise it. Call it
__index.html if you want to have a name that is easy to recognise but
unlikely to conflict with anything else you might see out there. Or store
it on a filesystem (or in a database) which can say "blah/" is an HTML
document.
J
Jan Faerber
David Dorward ... output:
http://www.savedatcash.com/x/
Here is the directory view where they have d37/ - it is not a html document.
Or do you think it could be one but they use a gif for a directory because
the name looks like one?
I think with IE I could get this name by selecting 'save as...'. But with
opera, mozilla & co. they don't get file names which fit with the real
name.
Or let me put the question in another way:
Why must the visitor not know the name of such a file?
For security reason?
http://www.savedatcash.com/x/
Here is the directory view where they have d37/ - it is not a html document.
Or do you think it could be one but they use a gif for a directory because
the name looks like one?
I think with IE I could get this name by selecting 'save as...'. But with
opera, mozilla & co. they don't get file names which fit with the real
name.
Or let me put the question in another way:
Why must the visitor not know the name of such a file?
For security reason?
J
JDS
In reality, you can never know for sure what the actual file name is on
the server. It has nothing to do with the browser (MSIE vs Firefox, for
example) and everything to do with how the web server is configured.
A question for you is, what are you trying to do? There is more than one
way to skin a cat, so to speak.
D
David Dorward
Jan said:
When a user makes a request for "http://www.savedatcash.com/x/d37/" the
server will return a document. That the server thinks "On my
filesystem /x/d37 is a directory, therefore I will look for a file called
index.html inside it" is irrelevant.
I've had systems set up where it would think "/x/d37? OK that means I have
to call My::Apache::Module->hander('x', 'd37')". No file involved.
I think you'll find that IE just guesses.
The filename isn't a secret, it is mearly so irrelevant so as to be not
worth mentioning.
J
Jan Faerber
David Dorward ... output:
I did that now: http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=19113
# telnet www.savedatcash.com 80
Trying 218.30.123.56...
Connected to www.savedatcash.com (218.30.123.56).
Escape character is '^]'.
CONNECT www.google.com:80 HTTP/1.0
Host: www.savedatcash.com
HTTP/1.0 403 Forbidden
Server: Apache 2.0.48/SSL
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Length: 289
<html><head>
<title>404 Not Found</title>
</head><body>
<h1>Not Found</h1>
<p>The requested URL was not found on this server.</p>
<hr />
<address>Apache/2.0.48 (Gentoo/Linux) mod_ssl/2.0.48 OpenSSL/0.9.6j
PHP/4.3.3 Server at localhost Port 80</address>
</body></html>
<BR>
</BODY></HTML>
Connection closed by foreign host.
.... So why do I get here '404 Not Found' instead of '405 Method Not
Allowed'? When I paste www.savedatcash.com into the browser I get a smilie.
I did that now: http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=19113
# telnet www.savedatcash.com 80
Trying 218.30.123.56...
Connected to www.savedatcash.com (218.30.123.56).
Escape character is '^]'.
CONNECT www.google.com:80 HTTP/1.0
Host: www.savedatcash.com
HTTP/1.0 403 Forbidden
Server: Apache 2.0.48/SSL
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Length: 289
<html><head>
<title>404 Not Found</title>
</head><body>
<h1>Not Found</h1>
<p>The requested URL was not found on this server.</p>
<hr />
<address>Apache/2.0.48 (Gentoo/Linux) mod_ssl/2.0.48 OpenSSL/0.9.6j
PHP/4.3.3 Server at localhost Port 80</address>
</body></html>
<BR>
</BODY></HTML>
Connection closed by foreign host.
.... So why do I get here '404 Not Found' instead of '405 Method Not
Allowed'? When I paste www.savedatcash.com into the browser I get a smilie.
J
Jan Faerber
Jan Faerber ... output:
I know why: Because they have index.htm as index file name:
www.savedatcash.com/index.htm
www.savedatcash.com/x/d37/index.htm
With the method above it has to be a index.php file.
But I found it by guess. Is there really no way to get it right?
I know why: Because they have index.htm as index file name:
www.savedatcash.com/index.htm
www.savedatcash.com/x/d37/index.htm
With the method above it has to be a index.php file.
But I found it by guess. Is there really no way to get it right?
J
Jan Faerber
JDS ... output:
So is THIS the difference between URI (= Uniform Ressource Identifier) and
URL (= Uniform Ressource Locator)? A link to a directory in contrast to a
link to a file in a directory?
So is THIS the difference between URI (= Uniform Ressource Identifier) and
URL (= Uniform Ressource Locator)? A link to a directory in contrast to a
link to a file in a directory?
D
Duende
While sitting in a puddle Jan Faerber scribbled in the mud:
It's a happy page.
It's a happy page.
S
Steve Pugh
Jan Faerber said:
No.
Steve
J
JDS
Agreed.
I don't know the technical difference between URI and URL. But that is not
what I was talking about. A webserver can be configured to obfuscate the
names of files and directories in ways which you cannot predict without
talkign to the webserver admin. *That's* waht I'm talking about.
J
Jan Faerber
JDS ... output:
You mean *security by obscurity*.
You mean *security by obscurity*.
D
David Dorward
JDS said:
And usually that obfuscation is done for reasons more sensible then wanting
to hide file names from users (i.e. the obfuscation is an irrelevant
side-effect).
J
JDS
Absolutely nothing to do with security.
J
Jan Faerber
J
Jan Faerber
S
Steve Pugh
Jan Faerber said:
If that's the only resource you've been using no wonder you're
confused about the difference between URL and URI.
The two cases discussed up thread:
http://www.example.com/foo/
and
http://www.example.com/foo/bar.html
are both URLs and hence are both URIs (as URIs are a superset of
URLs).
Steve
J
Jan Faerber
Steve Pugh ... output:
OK - you are right - they structure it like this:
.......URL
/
URI
\ .......URN
So is it then the difference between an URL and an URN?
I found aswell other UR[x]s:
PURLs, GURLs on:
http://www.ou.edu/cas/slis/courses/LIS5990A/slis5990/Characteristics/URX.htm
and then DOIS and ISP caching on:
http://www.ou.edu/cas/slis/courses/LIS5990A/slis5990/stability/Archives.htm
Maybe somewhere inside those definition lies the difference.
OK - you are right - they structure it like this:
.......URL
/
URI
\ .......URN
So is it then the difference between an URL and an URN?
I found aswell other UR[x]s:
PURLs, GURLs on:
http://www.ou.edu/cas/slis/courses/LIS5990A/slis5990/Characteristics/URX.htm
and then DOIS and ISP caching on:
http://www.ou.edu/cas/slis/courses/LIS5990A/slis5990/stability/Archives.htm
Maybe somewhere inside those definition lies the difference.