Cloaking using an asp script.

Info needed on how SE's translate .asp pages

[Pete_Nice]

Since my last thread I instructed our internal programmer to write a cloaking script which he has completed in VB. Normally I would have gone down the cgi running on a Unix server route but we have recently changed to an NT server for various reasons. I'm aware of the technique of puting a cgi script in a .htm page and getting it to execute as a script on Unix, put how does this translate to an NT server? If I register the index.asp page to a SE will it ignore it because it's looking for an index.htm page, or will it execute the script and be fed the optimised page as instructed? Any info on this matter would be really helpful !!!!!

[han solo]

It's been a while...I prefer the open source model, but in the dark, dark days of my past, I have been known to play with NT...

I believe this is how it goes: label the cloaked pages that are written in asp with the extension .htm...instead of .html. Then what you do is map the executable for .htm to the executable for .asp in the server directory.

Poof, you're set. Sure you don't want to run linux? I think it would be much better...especially for scalability. Just my thoughts, though. Hope things work out.

Cheers,

Han Solo

[Pete_Nice]

Cheers Han,
I found the same solution this morning in another thread. We have asp pages running on our server so thats the reason for NT, not my choice I may add. This solution seems, in effect, similar to the linux version ie .htaccess file telling the server to execute the .htm file as a cgi script. So why linux over NT? Maybe I'm just dumb (it has been known).

[BoneHeadicus]

Wasn't NT originally based on the Unix kernel? Then they just flipped everything around backwards and shebang...new OS :)

[Pete_Nice]

Hey Boys
I'm just a designer with a little bit of knowledge on this. Please forgive me for my ignorance :)

[han solo]

So why linux over NT? Maybe I'm just dumb (it has been known).

Couple of reasons, easier, learning curve smaller ( i feel), cheaper to run, (can't beat free), don't like the "evil empire" (read microsoft), and the stability...have you ever noticed microsoft compatible products which aren't? I have.

Please, though, use what you like. I just like to gripe about them...a little jealous of all that money. ;)

Cheers,

Han Solo

[Pete_Nice]

You took the words right out of my mouth, if it was personal not business I'd be fighting for the rebel alliance, needs must I'm affraid.

PS I'm a designer hence I'm using a Mac ! and I'm surfing with Netscape 4.7, its a shame about v6 :)

[Fusioneer]

You can also map the SSI dll to parse .htm files so you can use SSI withing your pages without the .shtml extension which SE's don't like either.

We also map .cfm (Cold Fusion) to .htm. Keep in mind your server will take a performance hit as it is parsing every .htm page for possible ASP code before sending it to the browser.

You can get around this by using .html pages for straight code and .htm for dynamic pages, ie. either ASP or Cold Fusion.

[VarkPan]

i have used a asp cloaking script before that does the job nicely and is very se friendly...the trick i believe is not to include '?' after your extension and most se will happily follow...'hiding' asp execution via isap filters (.htm) is very system intensive, particularly if your site receives alot of traffic....i.e. parsing files on non-cloaked site...just to check for asp inline code is very expensive and could potentially lead to memory leaks on the iis service (particularly when the asp script engines start to max out)...

[Fusioneer]

VarkPan - agreed it is performance-intensive to parse files for script.

However you can map .htm to Cold Fusion (or ASP) and use .html for normal pages. It is effectively the same as using the .asp or .cfm extension with the added benefit that search engines will not regard the page as dynamic.

[Xoc]

If you upgrade to IIS 5.0 on Windows 2000, they have done some significant optimization work to make the processing of ASP significantly faster than IIS 4.0, so there is less of a penalty.

And Boneheadicus, no NT wasn't based on the Unix kernel. Has its own kernel. Archtitect on it was David Cutler, the same guy who architected the VMS operating system for DEC.

[BoneHeadicus]

Drat, drat, double drat.....foiled again.

My plans to overthrow the empire and plant penquin seeds throughout the countryside have been uncovered yet again.

I quit I tell you, I quit.

Linus, you will have to find someone else to do your dirty work. I can't take it anymore.

Oh, the horror......the horror.