Hiding variables passed via URL

[chochote]

Hi,

I have a PHP script that does some processing, and stores an error
message as a variable. The script then redirects to another script
with the error string in the URL, with the second script displaying
the message and continues with the rest of the logic.

Now I want to hide the error message from the URL, but the second
script needs to continue working as is. How can I do this? I have
thought about md5'ing the message but the URLs still look messy. Any
other alternatives?

The script works like this;
$err = "";
$res = process();
if ($res == 0)
{
$err = "An error message";
}
header("Location: script2.php?err=".urlencode($err));

Script2.php would display this message and continue with the rest of
the logic. Now I want to hide the Error message $err from the URL
after a redirect. How do I do this?

Thanks in advance.

[Twayne]

....

>

>Every good ISP offers spam filters.

Not everyine who is on Usenet can afford a 'good' ISP. To pay extra
means the spamers have won..;-)
...

Not only that, but filters will not stop spammers from getting past the
filters, even the ones that use combinations of bayesian and blocklists.
Getting around filters is nowdays part of spamming 101.
And then there is the balancing act of filters not detecting "good
mail" as spam, which happens with the more successful filters. If you
are never notified of the spams, you'll never know about the good mail
you missed.
I use blocklists to keep known spammers out and that's pretty
effective. If I do get a spam I report it and when there are enough
reports submitted, he ends up on a blocklist too, so ... he disappears.

But that said, there are as many ways to fight spam as there are spams
out there. So far no system has been perfect and probably never will
be.

Twayne

[Dale]

"Twayne" <no****@devnull.spamcop.netwrote in message
news:GHnhk.276$X2.133@trnddc03...

...

>>

>>Every good ISP offers spam filters.

Not everyine who is on Usenet can afford a 'good' ISP. To pay extra
means the spamers have won..;-)
...

Not only that, but filters will not stop spammers from getting past the
filters, even the ones that use combinations of bayesian and blocklists.
Getting around filters is nowdays part of spamming 101.
And then there is the balancing act of filters not detecting "good
mail" as spam, which happens with the more successful filters. If you are
never notified of the spams, you'll never know about the good mail you
missed.
I use blocklists to keep known spammers out and that's pretty effective.
If I do get a spam I report it and when there are enough reports
submitted, he ends up on a blocklist too, so ... he disappears.

But that said, there are as many ways to fight spam as there are spams out
there. So far no system has been perfect and probably never will be.

all of that is very true! i'll try to get this point across one more time
though, for micha's (lol...i made a funny, 'formica' :) sake. even if there
are *perfect*, it is still expensive for the isp to 1) filter, and 2) just
to handle the traffic alone.

the only guarantee i have in preventing all of the commotion is by not using
a real email address in this forum. and again, i don't come here so people
can contact me. generally, when requested, i simply tell them to reply in
the group. it's a benefit for the group anyway to have knowledge
shared...not privatized.

micha has his opinion and reasons for, as do we. that's it. i just wish
micha didn't imply that i'm incompetent at filtering and that i look
amature-ish because i'm following my game plan.

[Jerry Stuckle]

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Michael Fesser wrote:

>.oO(Twayne)

>>Or, like anyone with a brain, he keeps spam at bay by not making the
foolish mistake of posting personal information on a newsgroup. If
you like spam, it's a great way to get it.

No. Faking names and email addresses is the wrong way to fight spam.
It just fights regular users who might want to contact you and makes
you look like an amateur who doesn't know how to use spam filters.

Micha

I disagree. Anyone who wants to contact me can ask here and elsewhere.
not using real e-mail addresses means a little extra work is
required..sufficient that a robot can't do it.

And unless your ISP supports spam filtering, you still have to download
all the spam to remove the unwanted crap.

I get virtually no spam. But people can contact me easily.

The address I give here is munged - but easily corrected. But in
addition, this is only a forward to my own server. Both of them have
spam filters on them. I get about 1-2 spams per day on the correct
email address. And no complaints about false positives.

It's all in having good span filters - either of your own or your ISP
(or both).

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

[Jerry Stuckle]

Twayne wrote:

...

>>Every good ISP offers spam filters.

Not everyine who is on Usenet can afford a 'good' ISP. To pay extra
means the spamers have won..;-)
...

Not only that, but filters will not stop spammers from getting past the
filters, even the ones that use combinations of bayesian and blocklists.
Getting around filters is nowdays part of spamming 101.
And then there is the balancing act of filters not detecting "good
mail" as spam, which happens with the more successful filters. If you
are never notified of the spams, you'll never know about the good mail
you missed.
I use blocklists to keep known spammers out and that's pretty
effective. If I do get a spam I report it and when there are enough
reports submitted, he ends up on a blocklist too, so ... he disappears.

But that said, there are as many ways to fight spam as there are spams
out there. So far no system has been perfect and probably never will
be.

Twayne

I have multiple levels of spam filtering. I won't go into what it all
entails - but from my logs I see an average of about 200-300 spams a day
rejected on all of my (not including this one - it's filtered by the ISP
before I get it, and I only filter out a few additional). And I average
less than 5 spams per day getting through.

I haven't recently had any reports of false positives - but that's
because I've tuned my filters over several years.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================