Hi Chuck Esterbrook,
on 11-Oct-2001 you wrote:
> At 12:09 AM 10/12/2001 +0200, Fionn Behrens wrote:
>>The site looks nice indeed. But I find it hardly acceptable that it is not
>>viewable without cookies.
>>
>>Just my 0.00,
>> Fionn
>
> Fionn, I also noticed that you don't accept e-mails from @yahoo.com. I
> tried to tell you this:
>
> "You should announce this on the Python db-sig list if you haven't already.
> You can find more info on the sig at python.org."
Thanks. I didnt know about that.
> But was rejected with this message: (reason: 550 {mx002-rz3} The recipient
> does not accept mails from 'yahoo.com' over foreign mailservers)
I am sorry that you stumbled across this. Please bear with me, just because
99.99% (and thats hardly over-estimated) of the mail that gets stuck at this
barrier is plain spam.
> I personally don't have a problem with cookies. I have never been abused by
> them. None of my friends or acquaintances have.
>
> I just never really understood the anti-cookie movement. I investigated it
> at one point by reading through archives and visiting anti-cookie sites but
> never found a compelling, *concrete* example of why cookies were evil.
All I can say about that is that I have a disabled brother. There are two
special web browsers he can operate and one of them can do cookies but no
frames, the other one can do frames but no cookies.
Sometimes some web designers literally ruin his day when he is gettin yet
another "your browser stinks, go away" message instead of what he is
interested in. Just because he cant do a thing about it.
Personally, I find just this single example concrete enough. YMMV.
I have nothing against cookies, especially the non-persistent flavour. But any
public site should at least be viewable without them, imho.
With kind regards,
Fionn
_______________________________________________
Webware-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-devel
