4 ms·
HAHA so that was you. That was a good one! Yes and that title is definitely slightly misleading I kinda didn't want it to get so long and wanted that slight cli
by nelsontky 6y ago
HAHA so that was you. That was a good one! Yes and that title is definitely slightly misleading I kinda didn't want it to get so long and wanted that slight clickbait effect.
Yep I actually cannot control the status code at all. Part of what made this a fun and hacky project was the fact that I was actually redirecting to the actual URLs by catching the 404s. So, the only way i could think of catching the infinite loop was to supply the domain. That being said, I do appreciate the feedback and it's always great to learn more!
- diggan 6y agoIndeed :) I think you could catch the infinitive loop client-side as well by comparing what the URL to redirect to is, and comparing it with the current URL. If they are the same, prevent the redirect. Although you would still be able to create loops by using two issues instead. Maybe just comparing the full hostname? If it's nlsn.cf, don't redirect.
- a1369209993 6y ago> Maybe just comparing the full hostname? If it's nlsn.cf, don't redirect. Doesn't work; eg, make http://someothershorten.er/foo http://someothershorten.er/foo -> http://nlsn.cf/1234 http://nlsn.cf/1234 -> http://someothershorten.er/foo http://someothershorten.er/foo.
- alexvoda 6y agoHow about making it turing complete?