[co]

for variety's sake

[lucy24]

This seems to work as intended, but I'd like assurance that it works because it's correct as opposed to just working because, er, it happens to work:

RewriteCond %{HTTP_COOKIE} !cookiename=1
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} one-specific-page [OR]
RewriteCond %{REMOTE_ADDR} ^12\.34\. [OR]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_USER_AGENT} one-specific-UA
RewriteRule directory/page/(\w+\.html)?$ - [L,CO=cookiename:1:.example.com:43200]

RewriteCond %{HTTP_COOKIE} !cookiename=1
RewriteRule directory/page/(\w+\.html)?$ /boilerplate/sorry.html [L]

Intention: Low degree of privacy, not security. All pages in directory are flagged noindex. It would be very foolish to robot-out the directory, since bad robots would then know of its existence and make a beeline for it ;)

Accessible to people who:
have been there in the past month (60 x 24 x 30 = 43200)
OR arrive directly from one specific page
OR come from a particular IP range
OR, uhm, people who are me (UA exemption for one browser, UA spoofing isn't a concern).

Else:
rewrite (no 40x or 301) to error-type page which happens to be used only in this one situation, but I've worded it so it can be recycled for other analogous situations later

Have I got this right?

[phranque]

RewriteCond %{HTTP_COOKIE} !cookiename=1
...
RewriteRule directory/page/(\w+\.html)?$ - [L,CO=cookiename:1:.example.com:43200]

RewriteCond %{HTTP_COOKIE} !cookiename=1
RewriteRule directory/page/(\w+\.html)?$ /boilerplate/sorry.html [L] 

maybe i'm just confused - when would that 2nd rule ever fire?

[phranque]

have been there in the past month (60 x 24 x 30 = 43200)
OR arrive directly from one specific page

actually i misread the code and it depends on whether your code or your description is correct.
with the [OR] specified as described the 2nd rule could never fire.

with the default [AND] as implemented it is possible.

[lucy24]

condition1 = cookie is absent
!condition1 = cookie is present

So:

IF ((condition1) AND AT LEAST ONE OF (condition2 OR condition3 OR condition4)) THEN execute first rule, i.e. go to requested page and set cookie.

IF ((condition1) AND NONE OF (condition2 OR condition3 OR condition4)) THEN execute second rule, i.e. rewrite to apologetic page.

IF NOT (condition1) then neither rule applies; carry on to the requested page without changing cookie (though I should probably reset it to start the month running again)

The combination of ! with OR only works because each line is looking at a different factor: IP or referer or UA.

I've tested it on myself, and logs for "live" version confirm that it worked as intended. (Past tense because after a short time a spoilsport came along and deleted the link-- but it was interesting while it lasted, and the spoilsport's identity confirmed my underlying point.)