> From: Richard Gaskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 10:07:51 -0800
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Sockets vs. POST
>
> While working on some routines to send POST data to CGIs, I'm having some
> trouble getting the data in the right format and it's raise two questions:
>
> 1. Would it be any easier to take control over the whole transaction by
> using sockets instead of relying on MC's POST? My first hunch is that it
> would not, but it's been a bear dealing with some CGIs.
>
Can't see how. You have to do exactly the same formatting of the string to
post with Sockets as with "post" it's all down to the post protocol? using
sockets would only be useful if the MC post is having problems for one
reason or another, and you need to go down a level to see exactly how the
CGI you are looking at requires the information - pesky little blighters!
> 2. Is there any better tool for Mac OS which will let me review all outging
> and incoming data on port 80 than Interarchy? I find the format of
> Interarchy's stream dumps awfully noisy, with no evident options for
> reducing the displayed info to just the stream without all the commentary
> junk.
>
I know what you mean, but not that I know of what would be nice is if you
could pipe this stuff through Metacard, and get MC to do the filtering. Bet
you could do it on Linux though?
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/metacard@lists.runrev.com/
Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.
