On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hash: SHA1
> Donald Allen wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> >
> > Donald Allen wrote:
> >>> I am doing the yahoo session login with firefox, not with wget,
> > so I'm
> >>> using the first and easier of your two suggested methods. I'm
> > guessing
> >>> you are thinking that I'm trying to login to the yahoo session with
> >>> wget, and thus --keep-session-cookies and
> > --save-cookies=<foo.txt> would
> >>> make perfect sense to me, but that's not what I'm doing (yet --
> > if I'm
> >>> right about what's happening here, I'm going to have to resort to
> > this).
> >>> But using firefox to initiate the session, it looks to me like wget
> >>> never gets to see the session cookies because I don't think firefox
> >>> writes them to its cookie file (which actually makes sense -- if they
> >>> only need to live as long as the session, why write them out?).
> >
> > Yes, and I understood this; the thing is, that if session cookies are
> > involved (i.e., cookies that are marked for immediate expiration and are
> > not meant to be saved to the cookies file), then I don't see how you
> > have much choice other than to use the "harder" method, or else to fake
> > the session cookies by manually inserting them to your cookies file or
> > whatnot (not sure how well that may be expected to work). Or, yeah, add
> > an explicit --header 'Cookie: ...'.
> >
> >
> >> Ah, the misunderstanding was that the stuff you thought I missed was
> >> intended to push me in the direction of Plan B -- log in to yahoo with
> >> wget.
> Yes; and that's entirely my fault, as I didn't explicitly say that.

No problem.

> > I understand now. I'll look at trying to make this work. Thanks
> >> for all the help, though I can't guarantee that you are done yet :-)
> >> But, hopefully, this exchange will benefit others.
> I was actually surprised you kept going after I pointed out that it
> required the Accept-Encoding header that results in gzipped content.

That didn't faze me because the pages I'm after will be processed by a
python program, so having to gunzip would not require a manual step.

> This behavior is a little surprising to me from Yahoo!. It's not
> surprising in _general_, but for a site that really wants to be as
> accessible as possible (I would think?), insisting on "the latest"
> browsers seems ill-advised.
> Ah, well. At least the days are _mostly_ gone when I'd fire up Netscape,
> visit a site, and get a server-generated page that's empty other than
> the phrase "You're not using Internet Explorer." :p

And taking it one step further, I'm greatly enjoying watching Microsoft
thrash around, trying to save themselves, which I don't think they will.
Perhaps they'll re-invent themselves, as IBM did, but their cash cow is not
going to produce milk too much longer. I've just installed the Chrome beta
on the Windows side of one of my machines (I grudgingly give it 10 Gb on
each machine; Linux gets the rest), and it looks very, very nice. They've
still got work to do, but they appear to be heading in a very good
direction. These are smart people at Google. All signs seem to be pointing
towards more and more computing happening on the server side in the coming


> - --
> Micah J. Cowan
> Programmer, musician, typesetting enthusiast, gamer.
> GNU Maintainer: wget, screen, teseq
> http://micah.cowan.name/
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> iD8DBQFIxreZ7M8hyUobTrERAslyAJwKfirhzth9ACgdunxp/rfQlR86mQCcClik
> 3HbbATyqnrm0hAJXqNTqpl4=
> =3XD/

Reply via email to