editor

I'm not sure if this concerns scripting or .htaccess, so I'll start here. Here's a scenario: I have a file in a sub-directory (mydomain/subdirectory/file.html). I have a page (mydomain/page.html) with a link to mydomain/subdirectory/file.html. I would like visitors to be able to access /file.html through my link, but not by entering the corresponding URL in their browser for direct access (from a bookmark at a later time, for example). In other words, I want access to everything in that particular subdirectory to be LOCAL ACCESS ONLY, disallowing links or direct access from outside my Web site. Is this possible?

Has anyone used the e-blah bulletin board on their site, and if so, are you satisfied with how it worked for you? It's a cgi-based forum that does not use mySQL.

I'm new to working with .htaccess and I was wondering if anyone knows how many usernames and passwords can be stored in a .htpasswd file before perfomance is affected (if at all). Would 1000 username/passwords be too many, for instance?

Thanks for your kind offer, Alan. I did some further Web searching after my initial post and found exactly what I was looking for. It's a perl script called CSVread and yes, it uses a pipe delimited database. It's very versatile and was fairly easy to set up. I've been using it for a few days now and am quite satisfied. Thanks to all who responded!

Yes, it will be plain text file.

I'm searching for a simple script (perl preferably, but JavaScript or PHP will do) that will accomplish this scenario: I have a Web page with Link One and Link Two. I also have a flat-file database with information like "link1,fruit,apple,green" and "link2,vegetable,carrot,orange" I would like a visitor to be able to click Link One and see a new page open containing a six-cell table that has "fruit" in cell two, "apple" in cell four, and "green" in cell six. Does anyone know where I could find such a script? I've searched HotScripts.com but to no avail. They have thousands of scripts but I don't even know under which classification I would find something like this, or what it would be called. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

I have no experience with Mailman, though it would appear that all mailing programs and scripts are subject to TCH's email sending limitations (no more than 50 messages every 5 minutes), and that presents real problems for those of us with large opt-in lists. I have tried a variety of mailing methods (Group Mail Pro software through TCH's and my ISP's SMTP servers, standalone SMTP servers like WorldCast as well as the script I mentioned at the beginning of this thread) and none of them have proven dependable or efficient. I keep returning to sending BCC: mail through MS Outlook Express. Yes, it's low-tech and outrageously slow-going because of the aforementioned limitations, but it's reliable and I know my subscribers are going to get whatever I send them. There has got to be a better -- and affordable -- way. My former Web host offered static IP's with each account and I was able to mail without restrictions. In those days my subscriber base was much smaller and I never even considered the ramifications of not having the unlimited capacity to send mail as my opt-in list grew. I have started a thread in the "Backend Services" forum (URL below) concerning Dedicated IP's (something apparently available from TCH under certain circumstances). I have no idea whether the circumstances we're talking about here qualify, but a Static IP seems like at least one reasonable and cost-effective solution to our unique problems. http://www.totalchoicehosting.com/forums/i...showtopic=10388

For the record, I have no interest in "circumventing," bending or otherwise breaking TCH's email limitations. I understand their purpose, I abide by the rules, and I will continue to do so. It is a fact that TCH has a number of clients like myself who responsibly operate large opt-in mailing lists. TCH's email limitations present a unique set of difficulties for us that are not shared by most other clients. I am simply making a reasonable inquiry regarding reasonable solutions that might make our life just a little easier without breaking the bank or TCH's rules. That's all.

When browsing Backend Services I noticed the topic entitled "How to get dedicated IP..." ( http://www.totalchoicehosting.com/forums/i...hp?showtopic=16 ). Briefly, someone asks Head Guru, "Please tell me how I can go about getting a dedicated IP address for my site." Head Guru replies, "Ok for dedicated IP's you need to email our sales gurus. In your email make sure you indicate the reason for needing a dedicated IP address. The cost is $16.00 per year, per IP address." Are dedicated IP addresses still available for that price?

If you're referring to Lyris Technologies software and services for email marketing and publishing, great stuff -- but far to pricey for my non-profit to afford (as would be a dedicated server, I suppose). I understand the dynamics of shared servers and blacklists. Not to put too fine a point on it, but couldn't someone report you as a spammer "for one reason or another" when theirs was the only email message you sent out that day? People sometimes do some very strange things that have nothing whatever to do with mail volume alone. I send mail only to those who ask for it (opt-in). Those who no longer wish to receive my mail are unsubscribed immediately. I suppose the thought behind my suggestion above was something like, "I'll pay you extra so that you can afford to monitor my actions to ensure that I'm the responsible mailer that I claim to be." Impractical? I really don't know. I'm just trying to field some suggestions with a view to finding a solution that benefits both sides.

For some, an important sales tool. For others like me, the sole reason for my presence on the Web! I've just started my second year with TCH and I would not hesitate to recommend it to others in need of a high quality Web host. The only complaint I have concerns the e-mail limitations. I understand the necessity to guard against spammers and their abuses, but it would certainly be helpful if some accommodation could be made for those of us who responsibly operate large double opt-in mailing lists. I, for one, would be willing to pay extra for the *unrestricted* ability to send mail to my 1100 subscribers. How 'bout it, Head Guru?

I publish a newsletter with 1100 subscribers and growing. Thus far I have handled the individual subscribes and unsubscribes manually, but I am looking to automate the process and improve my mailing procedures at the same time. I have been reviewing various mailing list systems and have found one (PHP-based txtList at http://txtbox.co.za/p_txtlist.php ) that seems to work well and is simple enough for me to understand (a novice with very basic understandings of perl and PHP). I would be using txtList to mail my newsletter. It can be configured to mail 50 messages and then pause 300 seconds before mailing 50 more, thus allowing me to adhere to TCH's e-mail sending limitations. While reviewing various CGI and PHP mailing systems I encountered this warning: "Sending email takes time and if you are sending to a large list it can take a while. Some hosting companies will limit the time a CGI script can execute. Since most CGI scripts only take a few seconds to execute, that is not usually a problem. With the mailing list, however, there may not be enough time to send out all your messages before your server returns a timeout error." By my calculations, this PHP script would need almost two hours to mail the newsletter to all subscribers. Do I need to be concerned about it timing out somewhere in the process, leaving me wondering who got their newsletters and who didn't? Does TCH enforce timeouts on running scripts?

Hi! I just discovered this topic. I was unaware of the e-mail limits mentioned here. As it happens, earlier this evening I used my TCH e-mail account to send a message with 109 addresses in the BCC: line (all subscribed -- nothing unsolicited) and there were only two bounces (mailboxes over quota -- nothing unusual). How is this possible if each person I send to is considered a separate message? Shouldn't 59 of these messages have bounced because I unknowingly exceeded the number of messages allowed? Has there been a change in policy since the last post to this thread?