I don't know, Karl.
I usually agree with you but, on this one,
we will have to agree to disagree.
Whenever Norton, or any other company, starts telling me what
my privacy concerns are, or should be, it's time to find another
provider for the services the think they're providing, which could be,
more accurately, classified as *disservices*.
At the very least, Norton should provide an *option* to strip UrlReferer,
or not, depending on whatever the client wants his policy to be.
I hate *Big Brother* forcing me to accept *his* privacy parameters.
Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Espaņol
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================
"Karl Seguin" <karl REMOVE @ REMOVE openmymind REMOVEMETOO . ANDME net> wrote in message
news:u%23k4uT%23WFHA.3876@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>I see how it can, in some circumstances, be considered private information. Remember, for
>every one of us who'd use it legitimitally in our applications, there's a telemarketter
>who'd likely like to collect and sell the information.
>
> Whether you believe it's a privacy matter or not, it IS a user input and shouldn't be
> relied upon. As far as I know it isn't a required header off the http specifications and
> therefore good applications should be able to live without it. If you are tracking url
> referrer within your own site, you can mimic the behaviour with cookies/sessions. iT's
> when you want to track users from another site that your SOL..and though there are
> certainly legitimate cases of this, so to are there illegitimate ones...
>
> Karl
>
> --
> MY ASP.Net tutorials
>
http://www.openmymind.net/ - New and Improved (yes, the popup is
> annoying)
>
http://www.openmymind.net/faq.aspx - unofficial newsgroup FAQ (more to
> come!)
> "Juan T. Llibre" <nomailreplies@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:O2waJP%23WFHA.612@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> What you should do is get in touch with Norton and give them
>> hell for stripping UrlReferer, which is an innocuous string which
>> they shouldn't be blocking.
>>
>> Why simply sit and take it ?
>>
>> I'd like to know what their reason for blocking it is.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Juan T. Llibre
>> ASP.NET MVP
>>
http://asp.net.do/foros/
>> Foros de ASP.NET en Espaņol
>> Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
>> ======================
>>
>> "Aaron Prohaska" <mohaaron@gmail.com_No_Spam> wrote in message
>> news:eRviga9WFHA.1040@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>> Karl,
>>>
>>> I will try and re-write my code so that I don't have to use the referer. Its a shame
>>> because it really made solving a problem a lot easier. This means I have to start all
>>> over with code that was not easy to begin with. Thank you for the answer though its
>>> very helpful.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Aaron
>>>
>>> Karl Seguin wrote:
>>>> If I understand correctly, the page won't load on your client which is running Norton
>>>> AntiVirus (NAV)?
>>>>
>>>> When running NAV, it strips out the referer from your request..so it isn't sent to
>>>> the web server.
>>>>
>>>> If you are doing Request.UrlReferer.ToString() then you'll get a null reference error
>>>> because UrlReferer is null/nothing. You need to program more defensively. While
>>>> it's stupid that NAV blocks it, you should never expect user input (and this is a
>>>> user input, it's just automatically sent for the user) to exist. In other words, you
>>>> simply can't rely on UrlReferer to exist, and must check for null first.
>>>>
>>>> Karl
>>>>[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]