Sivakatirswami wrote:
>
> I changed the subject line to the real thread here.
>
> Andu wrote:
>
> > I see this is turning nasty and for no good reason.
>
> Well, I don't do "nasty" so don't worry. ...just trying to understand
> issues, that's all.
>
> > Simon's offering of free server space *and* Metacard engine for testing
> > cgi scripts should be appreciated.
>
> It is, very much so. And any restrictions or guidelines he requests will be
> gladly complied with. All on the same team etc...
>
> > Calling a cgi from a stack or a browser should make no difference to the
> > server,
>
> That gets back to the issue: if an html file on a server in Honolulu calls a
> CGI on a server in Canada, it appears as an "outside referrer" The question
> I have that still remains unanswered: if that same CGI is called by a
> Metacard stack from a CD that is put in a hard drive in UK, that I burned
> here in Hawaii. . .I presume it is also seen as an "outside call/referrer"
> correct?
Any cgi called from a web page on a different server should appear as
outside referrer. I strongly believe that calling a cgi from a stack
directly, without being "referred" to the cgi by a local web page will
have the same effect, but I have to check on that. You have to remember
that web servers assume a browser as a client and they behave as such.
>
> > what the cgi script does is a another matter and could become a
> > security concern.
>
> Yes, that is another matter altogether.
>
> > What I don't understand is why you don't do preliminary
> > testing/debugging on a local machine,
>
> How is that possible? "Local machine" means on our LAN and we only run MAC
> g4's...no UNIX boxes acting as web servers with Apache/MC installed... no
> http servers...
Just install LinuxPPC (YellowDogLinux I recommend) or Darwin on a
separate partition or hard drive and you have your server. Also buying a
second hand under $500 PC to put linux on it is worth the investment if
you plan to do a lot of cgi testing.
I tell you, if you plan to use cgi scripts it will make a big difference
for productivity.
>
> > which is much easier and if there
> > is a security issue you don't compromise a public server ...
> > I think your web host would feel much better about this if he was left
> > with the impression that you know what you're doing.
>
> Very true...and ... CGI wise, I am admittedly a newbie...no question about
> it. The "problem" is...MC is just "too easy." I wrote a small .mt script
> that processes a web form submission with about 1/3 the lines that are in a
> PERL script that does the same thing.
> And the xTalk version was just so much
> clearer!... and it made perfect sense to just "go for it." I think a lot of
> CGI/HTTP protocol newbies who know xTalk well...will probably feel the same
> way. And if Kevin's marketing goes well, there will be a LOT more of us on
> board real soonWe are under the impression that MC poses no more threat to a server
>than a
> PERL 4 interpreter, which most WEB hosts offer without any awareness of
> their client's ability to possibly "get dangerous" because they don't know
> what they are doing.
>
> So....
> a) trying to understand the outside referrer business for CGI's called from
> distributed stacks and
> b) still confused as to the extent that MC can be a threat to a mainstream
> WEB hosting service in the hands of a CGI novice who also has equal access
> to a PERL and PHP interpreters.
Metacard is no more a threat than any other interpreter, on the
contrary, but the ignorance of most web hosts can prevent you from using
it on their server. Combine that with less then 100% confidence in what
you want to do and you can forget about it. That's why I suggested doing
the homework at home and figuring out all the problems locally.
>
> Hinduism Today
>
> Sivakatirswami
> Editor's Assistant/Production Manager
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www.HinduismToday.com, www.HimalayanAcademy.com,
> www.Gurudeva.org, www.hindu.org
>
> Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
> Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
> Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.
