On 10/13/2009 01:08 PM, Robert Kaiser wrote: > Bob Fleischer wrote: >> Well, I found that the visible difference between my production profile >> and the virgin test profile is that I had "allow cookies for the >> originating website only" on the production system (the one that >> failed). I confirmed that setting this on the virgin system caused that >> site to fail, also. I confirmed that changing the setting to "allow all >> cookies" fixed my production seamonkey rc1 profile, too. So, is the case >> closed? > > Probably, though that site relying on what at least looks like > third-party cookies seems bad, it's completely their issue if they do so. > > >> However, just out of curiosity, I uninstalled Seamonkey 2 RC1 from the >> virgin test system and installed Seamonkey 1.1.18 and found that the >> banking web site works properly with either setting of "allow cookies..."! > > Not sure, but we had a number of changes to the cookie subsystem, > possibly also ones that make it more correct or whatever influences this. > >> Also, why does this setting make a difference between clicking a link to >> open in the same window vs. opening in a separate tab or window (which >> worked in SM 2 RC1 all along)? > > No idea, you probably need to ask the website designers. > > Robert Kaiser
I wonder if that was part of the 1.1.x cookies issue that Jens pointed out in the "Disappointed in changes to cookie management SM 1.1.18 vs. 2.0RC1" thread? https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=349680#c13 where it was determined that the cookie settings weren't quite working as advertised. (crossposts removed) _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
