News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why Van Halen's tour contract had a "no brown M&M's" clause by Yuioup on Friday May 16, 2014 @04:56AM (#7754501)
The website is running on ASP Classic (.asp)
Re:Why Van Halen's tour contract had a "no brown M&M's" clause by stan_rogers on Friday May 16, 2014 @05:31AM (#7754602)
The .asp extension actually tells you nothing other than that the .asp extension was used. On the balance of probabilities, it's likely the case that the site runs on ASP classic on a Windows server, but it could as easily have been moved to, say, the LAMP stack configured (using httpd.conf or .htaccess) to invoke PHP when files bearing the .asp extension are requested. It's not a common thing to do, but it can be the easiest way to solve the link rot problem.
Re:Why Van Halen's tour contract had a "no brown M&M's" clause by brc on Friday May 16, 2014 @06:56AM (#7754838)
The snopes site is quite old. If they did move to a newer technology, it would be better for them to stick with their .asp extension so that they didn't have to change the URLs with redirects. They are well ranked across a lot of keywords - there is no upside for them to change their URL.
Re:Why Van Halen's tour contract had a "no brown M&M's" clause by arethuza on Friday May 16, 2014 @05:38AM (#7754610)
According to the headers it returns it seems to be IIS 5 - which is quite impressively old (Windows 2000 era).

Of course, they could be faking that - but not sure why anyone would try.

Re:Why Van Halen's tour contract had a "no brown M&M's" clause by icholboy on Friday May 16, 2014 @06:40AM (#7754793)
Security through obscurity?
Re:Why Van Halen's tour contract had a "no brown M&M's" clause by MichaelGG on Friday May 16, 2014 @05:40AM (#7754618)
A buddy once had a client that decided their site needed to be in a different technology, "for browser compatibility". A quick remap later and the client was satisfied.