Hot to beat the link checker - without breaking rules

DJ_Izumi · Post by **DJ_Izumi** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 9:06 pm

Danielwang seems to be getting stupider by the minuite... Now he's having delusions of WMV conspiracies.

Pwolf · Post by **Pwolf** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 9:26 pm

Scintilla wrote:
Pwolf wrote:
AbsoluteDestiny wrote:
J-0080 wrote:I think whats even more ironic is that Phade posted in an OT thread. ¬_¬
Well, given that he owns the site I think he can probably post whatever the hell he wants.
yea it's like walking into my house and me saying you can't use my bathroom (ok maybe not "like" it, but same concept)... hey it's my house
Um, if I read that right, it would be like walking into your house and saying YOU can't use your own bathroom.

yea, i typed that out wrong

Pwolf

J-0080 · Post by **J-0080** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 9:36 pm

DJ_Izumi wrote:Danielwang seems to be getting stupider by the minuite... Now he's having delusions of WMV conspiracies.

SQ · Post by SQ » Tue Dec 16, 2003 3:15 pm

Phade wrote:Hey,

Ummmm, you are retarded. The link checker looks to see if the link you entered actually goes somewhere and not into a black hole (ie, 404). Windows Media has nothing to do with the checker. Heck, you could link to warez directly and the checker wouldn't care as long as the link is good. Of course, you will be banned if you link to stuff you shouldn't be linking to.

Phade.

Then why does it say any link ending with the extention of ".txt" is invalid even if it works?

You're not just checking if it's a valid link, you are checking the actual format.

(In order to fool some sites such as tripod, you can change the extention to .txt and it will allow direct linkage)

Org Profile · Post by **Phade** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 3:30 pm

Hey,

SQ wrote:Then why does it say any link ending with the extention of ".txt" is invalid even if it works?

You're not just checking if it's a valid link, you are checking the actual format.

(In order to fool some sites such as tripod, you can change the extention to .txt and it will allow direct linkage)

Nope. Here's how the link checker works:

1. Server establishes an HTTP request using the link provided.
2. The returned HTTP headers are read and analized.
3. If the header returns "200: ok", it means the link is good.
4. Any other return, such as "404: file not found" or a server timeout, is deemed as the link is "not ok".

That's all that the checker does.

Phade.

mckeed · Post by **mckeed** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 5:48 pm

J-0080 wrote:

Damn, that is the funniest thing i've seen in awhile. Where you find that?

)v(ajin Koji · Post by **)v(ajin Koji** » Fri Dec 19, 2003 10:38 am

google...it's amazing...