Kryptolus C.L. wrote:
> psmith wrote:
>
>> Your downloading and checking out Cookie Pal was most appreciated.
>> Thanks for helping to explain what you see as the problem that
>> Mozilla has in receiving information about cookies from Windows
>> messages. I guess at this point the main hope for my request is that
>> enough Mozilla writers have seen that the cookie management as it
>> stands will probably not satisfy enough of the people who are the
>> type to have some significant concern about exactly how and to what
>> extent cookies are used with various websites, and will probably be
>> pointless to have at all for most other people. My suggestion is
>> that Cookie Pal should be the model for what Mozilla should do, or
>> maybe someone can figure a workaround to have Windows notice the
>> cookies that Mozilla receives so that Cookie Pal can then work
>> directly with the cookie file.
>>
>
> You're joking right?
> You keep talking about how it could be better but you have not made a
> single DIRECT refrence to what is wrong with the current model. You
> keep comparing it to this and that and whatever.
>
> I said it before, and I will say it again, you need to be *SPECIFIC*
> as to what you expect. Maybe then we can comment on it?
>
>
The key things that *Cookie **Pal* does are:
1. You can choose to accept or reject each cookie but with always and never
as options and a choice to never accept from the general domain
*.apple.com or whatever.
2. Allows you to view a window that _dynamically_ shows cookies
being accepted or rejected, specifically telling you how many accepted
or rejected from each site and when.
3. From that dynamic view, you can select any cookies and (via
right-click menu) add them to the Accept or Reject lists.
4. Optionally you can have a sound associated with the actions
of accepting or rejecting a *cookie*.
This gives the following advantages, with *Cookie* Pal's global
default action set to reject unknown cookies:
1. I can surf without care. Unknown cookies will be rejected.
However, if I have the sound enabled, I am aware of cookies
being rejected. Thus if I reach a site that is not working
properly, and I think it's due to cookies, I can view the
dynamic list and quickly add the site to the Accept list and
try again.
Whereas, with Mozilla's present facilities, to get
control of cookies, I either have to reject cookies totally,
or have it prompt for cookies. The latter choice quickly
gets very irritating, and is prone to error due to the
"stickiness" of the "remember this choice" checkbox.
2. I don't have to accumulate and maintain a huge list of
"reject cookies" sites. Everything is rejected but what I
allow, so I mainly need only an Accept list.
3. I know when some allowed site is accessed because of the
different sound (optionally) played for an accepted *cookie*. I
have found this helpful several times when there is some
unexpected linkage between sites.
