On 1/5/2010 6:43 PM, NoOp wrote: > On 01/05/2010 06:23 PM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote: >> NoOp wrote: >> >>> On 01/05/2010 03:27 AM, BeeNeR wrote: >>>> Are there any plans to update the security of cookies to the settings >>>> that were available in 1.x SM? i.e. Preferences/Privacy & >>>> Security/Cookies/Allow cookies based on privacy settings. >>>> >>>> Being able to have different levels of acceptance/denial of various >>>> cookies was, at least *I* though, a great idea. >>>> >>> >>> Perhaps you missed this thread? >>> "Disappointed in changes to cookie management SM 1.1.18 vs. 2.0RC1" >> >> The fact that something has been discussed a lot here does not mean the >> user community is satisfied with the outcome. Whether you're talking >> about the Form Manager or the Cookie Manager, there are a lot of people >> out here who miss the old functionality and want it back. You can say >> "no" until you're blue in the face, but that won't change what people >> want. If you recall the history of computer software, a lot of programs >> have lost market share or even failed entirely by telling the user he >> absolutely can't have what he wants and the programmers know better what >> he should have. Hell, this isn't even peculiar to software -- it's true >> for lots of products of all types. >> >> I keep meaning to upgrade to 1.1.18 for the security fixes, but I'm in >> no hurry to "upgrade" to a program that doesn't do important things that >> I've come to know and love in v. 1, and I certainly won't be out there >> promoting v. 2 to my friends by bragging about the lost features. >> >> You may not like it, but the truth is the truth, reality is what it is, >> and facts are stubborn things. These are features the users want. >> > > Cool your jets. That thread not only discusses the issue, but also > provides links to the bug report(s) regarding the issue. If you recall, > you actually commented on the thread - BeeNeR did not, and may have > actually found the information in the thread helpful. > > For those too lazy to look up & read the thread, here are the bug > reports referenced: > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=362908 > [Missing option to restrict third-party cookies] > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=349680#c13 > ["Allow sites to set cookies for the original site only" missing from > cookie preferences] > and that last is marked as a duplicate of: > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=421494 > [reimplement third party cookie blocking] > Status: RESOLVED FIXED > And no, I've no idea why it is marked as such. > > So rather than getting pissed off at me because I referred BeeNeR to the > thread, feel free to review the bug(s) and figure out a solution if you > are capable of doing so.
The first two bug reports were closed as duplicates, eventually pointing to #421494. There was actually a code-change for that one that supposedly fixed the problem. However, implementing the fix apparently depends on fixing three other bugs: 436471, 441166, and 450450. When I open the Preferences window in SeaMonkey 2.0.1 and select [Privacy & Security > Cookies], I see "Cookie Acceptance Policy" with a choice among three radio buttons. One of those radio buttons is "Allow cookies for the originating website only". To me, that means "Don't allow third party cookies". Does this not work in SeaMonkey 2? -- David E. Ross <http://www.rossde.com/> Go to Mozdev at <http://www.mozdev.org/> for quick access to extensions for Firefox, Thunderbird, SeaMonkey, and other Mozilla-related applications. You can access Mozdev much more quickly than you can Mozilla Add-Ons. _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
