NoOp wrote:
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

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?
where it was determined that the cookie settings weren't quite working
as advertised.

(crossposts removed)

So, was 1.1 broken, but 2.0 less broken?  Or what?

(The chat at the bugzilla link seems to indicate that blocking third-party cookies is an unsolvable problem, possibly differently unsolved in 2.0 than in 1.1. Perhaps it's good that Firefox leaves that imperfect setting initially hidden.)

support-seamonkey mailing list

Reply via email to