What is the recommended way of sending dynamic content depending on form contents?

The task of my client is this: He has a wordpress site and wants to offer a service where he can send custom legal texts per mail. Depending on which single-choice the users select at a form, it should send them slightly modified texts. And afterwards it should save the emails in some sort of newsletter/funnel system to contact them.

So my idea was to

  • User fills in form
  • Save form data in database
  • Send form data or only email to mailchimp
  • User confirms email subscription
  • User gets text depended on his selection

How would you approach this? I’ve never done an email subscription with goodie thing and maybe there are some good solutions or best practices for this?

Prevent WordPress from sending set-cookie http header

For some reason WordPress is setting "Set-Cookie" in the header of the entire site, this is telling my cache server not to cache the page, I tried to remove it via .htaccess, but it disabled the entire site and not I was able to log in more to the admin panel

How can I remove the "Set-cookie" from the http headers only on the frontend of my website? This is in the home, tags, search, blog, etc…

curl -I https://meusite.comHTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2021 22:19:41 GMT Set-Cookie: ppwp_wp_session=0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 expires=Sun, 12-Sep-2021 22:49:41 GMT; Max-Age=1800; path=/ cache-Control: public s-maxage=230 Link: <https://meusiet.com/wp-json/>; rel="https://api.w.org/" Link: <https://meusiet.com/wp-json/wp/v2/posts/1087>; rel="alternate"; type="application/json" Link: <https://meusiet.com/?p=1087>; rel=shortlink Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Transfer-Encoding: chunked X-CACHE: miss Alt-Svc: clear 

A nasty pandemic problem: More flushed wipes are clogging pipes, sending sewage into

Some wastewater utilities say they are facing a nasty pandemic problem: More disposable wipes being flushed down toilets are clogging pipes, jamming pumps and sending raw sewage into homes and waterways.
Utilities have urged customers for years to ignore “flushable” labels on increasingly popular, premoistened wipes used by nursing home staffs, potty-training toddlers and people who shun toilet paper. But some utilities say their wipe woes significantly worsened a year ago during a pandemic-induced toilet paper shortage, and have yet to let up.

They say some customers who resorted to baby wipes and “personal hygiene” wipes appear to have stuck with them long after toilet paper returned to store shelves. Another theory: People who wouldn’t take wipes to the office are using more while working from home.

More disinfectant wipes also are getting improperly flushed, utilities say, as people sanitize counters and doorknobs. Paper masks and latex gloves tossed into toilets and washed into storm drains also are jamming sewer equipment and littering rivers.
At WSSC Water, which serves 1.8 million residents in the Maryland suburbs, workers at its largest wastewater pumping station removed about 700 tons of wipes last year — a 100-ton jump over 2019.
“It started last March and really hasn’t eased up since,” said WSSC Water spokeswoman Lyn Riggins.
Utilities say the wipes twist into ropy wads, either in a home’s sewer pipe or miles down the line. They then congeal with grease and other cooking fats improperly sent down drains to form sometimes massive “fatbergs” that block pumps and pipes, sending sewage backing up into basements and overflowing into streams. On Wednesday, WSSC Water said 10,200 gallons of untreated sewage reached a creek in Silver Spring after an estimated 160 pounds of wipes plugged a pipe.
You’ve seen the gross sewer-blocking fatberg pics? Here’s how government, industry and shoppers can all help stop wet wipes clogging our drains and oceans.

Fatbergs – those revolting sewer mountains made of wet wipes, grease and other gunk – have been cropping up all over the place in the past year or so, from London and Cardiff to Staffordshire and Devon.
As well as causing trouble in wastewater systems, wipes can find their way into oceans. Along with other types of plastic pollution, they can cause long-term problems for sea creatures and the marine environment.
Wet wipes made up more than 90% of the material causing sewer blockages that Water UK investigated in 2017
Friends of the Earth commissioned a report from research group Eunomia, Reducing Household Contributions to Marine Plastic Pollution [PDF]. This reveals our everyday habits that result in all sorts of plastics getting into our seas. Sometimes from seemingly unlikely sources, such as medical wet wipes.

Used to be that only babies’ behinds were cleaned up with wet wipes. But in recent years, the popularity of similar products for adults has surged—they’re part of the $1.4 billion and growing “personal wipes” category of hygiene products, according to a market research report. You’ve seen them on drugstore shelves, and maybe you even use them. But while adult wipes are clearly good for business, we were curious: Are their any health benefits to using them instead of toilet paper?
Basically, no. “There is no medical advantage to cleaning up with baby wipes for adults as opposed to toilet paper,” says Holly Phillips, M.D., a women’s health specialist in New York City and a medical contributor to CBS News.  “It comes down to what makes you feel clean and fresh.” Still, keep in mind that some wipes might be pre-moistened with aloe, vitamin E, alcohol, and other gentle- or harmless-sounding additives that might actually irritate sensitive skin and leave your bum stinging and inflamed. “Play it safe by going for an unscented, unmedicated, chemical-free brand of wipe,” says Phillips.
More important than what you wipe with (remember, until toilet paper was invented in the 19th century, people used newspaper, clay, leaves, and even corncobs, which couldn’t have felt good) is how you wipe. You’ve heard a million times to do it from front to back to prevent the germs present in feces from getting near your urethra and causing a urinary tract infection—but it’s still smart advice, says Phillips. You also want to wipe firmly but not press or rub hard, which can lead to small abrasions in your anal area. And don’t leave the bathroom until you’re all cleaned off if you can help it. Leaving a little poop behind can lead to itching and irritation—not to mention a surprise on your thong.
Finally, even though adult wipes are supposed to be flushable, sewer and waste officials can tell you that it isn’t true, and wipes are clogging up pipes and sewers, causing major damage. “Just toss them in the trash or diaper disposal,” says Phillips.
Household wipes are hard to come by these days. As the number of cases of the novel coronavirus began to climb quickly in the U.S. in March, worried consumers began pantry-loading supplies like household cleaners and disinfectants, including wipes. For months, shelves have been emptied of these products, and when they are restocked, they’re gone within the hour. 
WASHINGTON — The coronavirus pandemic has led many people to buy whatever they can to protect themselves, such as, disinfectant dry wipes, masks and gloves.
However, the methods some people are using to get rid of the protective and cleaning tools are becoming a problem.
“Messy, gross,” is how Lyn Riggins, who is the spokesperson for WSSC Water, described what workers are pulling out of pumps at water treatment facilities.

Prevent Firefox from sending a user-agent string in HTTP requests [closed]

I was recently experimenting with HTTP requests and got curious about user agents. In particular, I’d like to know if it’s possible to prevent a browser (in my case Firefox) from including the user agent string in requests. Now, I know there are extensions that modify the string, but that’s not what I’m looking for. I would like to know if the string can be omitted completely.

Thanks

DNS Settings and the TXT record for authorizing email sending from the domain

Last night, I added a DNS record to my domain to allow Mailchimp to send emails as an official/authorized source.

enter image description here

It doesn’t seem to have totally worked, Mailchimp is sending emails but they are not being received – I believe this is because my SPF record is not properly authorizing Mailchimp’s servers to send on behalf of my domain.

I did a domain check at mxtoolbox and it’s showing "Multiple SPF Records Found":

enter image description here

Is it the ~all and -all that is causing an issue? It should be possible to have multiple TXT DNS records, right? Am I messing up the way I have added these TXT records?

I’d like to continue to be able to send email via Google/Gmail (this is working) but I also would like to authorize Mailchimp to send emails on behalf of my domain (hosted with GoDaddy)

Any suggestions for the setup I am trying to accomplish here? Thank you so much!

Mysql Router not sending Write request to R/W instance

I am doing InnoDB Cluster Group Replication for the first time. I stuck at the last step Mysql Router. Mysql Router is configured with bootstrapping, But the main issue is MySQL router does not send the write request to the Primary R/W instance after failover. After failover primary become node instance and the Error says The MySQL server is running with the –super-read-only option so it cannot execute this statement

I am following this tutorial https://severalnines.com/database-blog/mysql-innodb-cluster-80-complete-deployment-walk-through-part-one.

Thanks in advance

Does a person know who is on the other end of a sending stone?

At the end of the last session my players took out an enemy NPC who was using a sending stone while on the lookout for the rest of the gang they are sneaking up on.

I am fully expecting them to try and use the stone to pretend all is well, my gut feeling is to allow it, it is a clever use of a simple magical item to throw the enemy off track.

However I just wanted to make sure that mechanically this makes sense, I am pretty sure a sending stone is not like a radio, you don’t hear the other persons voice. But would a wielder know someone different is on the other end or is this a DM decision thing?

Can a known recipient of sending via sending stones conceal their identity?

A character has discovered one of a pair of sending stones in a D&D 5e game. They can use the stone to cast sending, with the target being the holder of the other stone. The person holding the other stone, who we’ll call the "recipient", is in fact someone that the character knows, but they are unaware that it is the recipient who holds the other stone, and the recipient does not want them to know. Can the recipient reply to the sending while concealing their identity from the character?

The question of the caster of sending concealing their identity has already been addressed in Is there any way to fake/conceal your identity when casting Sending?, and the caster cannot conceal their identity because sending says:

You send a short message of twenty-five words or less to a creature with which you are familiar. The creature hears the message in its mind, recognizes you as the sender if it knows you, and can answer in a like manner immediately.

This does not address whether the recipient can conceal their identity, but this is because the caster of sending must be familiar with the recipient in order to cast the spell. It’s therefore reasonable to assume that the recipient’s "reply", which is sent "in a like manner", will mean that the caster will recognise the identity of the recipient, because the caster knows the recipient, and because the caster knows who they targeted with the spell.

However, sending stones bypass this familiarity requirement:

While you touch one stone, you can use an action to cast the sending spell from it. The target is the bearer of the other stone.

There is no indication here that the user of a sending stone must be familiar with the recipient, who holds the matching stone. (And such a requirement would make sending stones considerably less useful! So I think it’s reasonable to assume that the user of a stone is not required to know the holder of the other stone.)

However, in the situation I’m describing, the "caster" is familiar with the recipient, but the recipient does not want them to know who the recipient is.

Obviously, the recipient can refuse to respond. However, it’s a lot more fun if the recipient can respond, while concealing their identity. So… is there a way for a known recipient of sending cast via sending stones to conceal their identity?

Use of additional magical items or spells by the recipient (such as the ring of mind shielding suggested in an answer to the linked question) is acceptable in an answer.

How quickly must a creature respond to the spell Sending?

Sending (PHB.274): (emphasis mine)

Casting Time: 1 action […]

Duration: 1 round […]

You send a short Message of twenty-five words or less to a creature with you are familiar. The creature hears the Message in its mind, recognizes you as the sender if it knows you, and can answer in a like manner immediately. The spell enables creatures with Intelligence scores of at least 1 to understand the meaning of your Message. […]

What constitutes immediately? The spell has a casting time of 1 action, and a duration of 1 round. Does the 1 round make up how long the caster has to send the message after the spell has been cast? Does that same time restriction apply to the receiver? Do both messages have to fit within the same round? Or does the 1 round represent the time it takes for the spell to arrive at the receiver?