I believe this could affect BANS eventually. I think the actual rule is the SEO redirecting is okay. As for me, I’m in the process of converting back to rover. It seems like they’re pushing for tighter and tighter restrictions. After talking with a few EPN badasses, they pointed out that they do not do SEO redirects themselves, so I figured that would be the safe direction for me.

Thanks for commenting!

Your example might be a little ’shady’ there. My initial tests with header() shows proper referrer going to ebay. For example if site1.com points to itself to assemble the rover code then off to ebay. My example used URL Masking which you can learn more about it here:
http://www.money-code.com/2007/10/url-masking-cloaking/

If want to ensure that the referrer was included in the header, you could do something like this:
header(“Referer: http://”.$_SERVER['HTTP_HOST'].$_SERVER['REQUEST_URI']);
header(“Location: http://”.$site);

But, like I said, it already appears that referrer is being handled within the normal header location call.

You wanted to see the code I used to display the referrer. On the receiving page (ie: site2.com), add this:
< ?php
var_dump($_SERVER);
exit()
?>
Then change your link to point to site2.com. When you arrive, you’ll see the server variables associated with that request.. which includes referrer.

Hope this helps
hanji

["HTTP_REFERER"]=> string(59) “http://www.myepndomain.com/directory/subdirectory”

Note, that the domain and directory are ‘fake’ for this comment and not real. I’ll still send EPN a message just to be sure everything is fine with my account.