0

I'm finding that some external links to external sites are being directed to an intermediate page ( http://www.example.com/?URL=http://www.link-destination.com ) with the "To proceed to the URL you have requested, click the link below:" line, followed by the destination URL as a link.

The links I am finding this with are being set inside a text_area field which is itself inside a Grid field. The text_area itself has formatting buttons shown (bold, italic and link only). The channel itself is set to 'Allow only safe HTML' and it has "Automatically turn URLs and email addresses into links?" set to 'No' (so links are explicitly made using the formatting button on the text_area field).

Other external links do not show this redirection behaviour, but they are created either using an Expresso field type or by simply being hardcoded into the template. Internal links of course use the {path=""} tag and so do not show this behaviour either.

I'm at a loss as to how to stop the text_area links from routing themselves through the intermediate page. It's not going to please the client if users have to click twice, once as normal then again on this transitional page.

What determines whether EE performs this redirection routine, and how can I prevent it (and have the external links go directly to their destination)?

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

I'm not sure of this behavior being applied to other fields than comments, but maybe it worth to try.

On Control Panel > Admin > Security and Privacy > Security and Sessions, look for Apply Rank Denial to User-submitted Links.

Improve this answer
2
  • That absolutely did it, Robson. As a setting, I'd have to say that it seems a bit too 'global'. It makes sense to have the option to apply such a redirection to links left in comments, but to apply it to links in regular channel entries created by (in my case) a superadmin seems a bit paranoid. Being able to apply the restriction just to comments seems like a logical feature, as does perhaps, being able to enable/disable it on a member group-by-group basis. All or nothing seems a bit silly, unless I'm missing the logic of it.
    – RickL
    Commented Feb 7, 2015 at 17:03
  • I agree. Maybe this should be enabled in a per channel basis, besides comments.
    – Sobral
    Commented Feb 7, 2015 at 21:04

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.