On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 3:01 AM, Kirk Bailey <kbailey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote: > > > On 7/3/2011 4:53 PM, Stuart Dallas wrote: > >> Only allowing them to access the URL once is a bad idea. If their download >> fails, is corrupt, or any number of other things go wrong (think >> accelerators, browser accelerators, etc) then you end up with a lot of >> support mail. Better to give them access for a short period of time. >> >> Ok, so it just got more complex- if we let them do it twice, ior three > times, we have a more complex design specification; if we let them do it > unlimited times, we just defeated thepurpose of the exercise. How about > this: if it fails, the customer can email us, adn we can reply with a copy > as an attachment; a ripoff artist will not be in the log, and a complaint of > failure to download gets them nothing. I don't see how it got more complex. You need to verify that the user has paid for the file(s) they are trying to access, all this does is add an expiry timestamp to that access rather than a counter. I'm not sure what you're purpose is with this exercise, but usually this sort of thing aims to provide customers with the digital assets they've purchased in a way that's easy for them to understand and use, limits expensive support costs, and protects the assets from being downloaded without first being purchased. And for me, the priorities are in that order. What do you think you gain by limiting the link to a single use? If you think you're preventing them from passing it on to other people, then yes you are, but if you do that then they'll simply send the digital file instead so you're actually trading a poor user experience and increased support costs for practically no benefit. -Stuart -- Stuart Dallas 3ft9 Ltd http://3ft9.com/
