On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 20:04:21 +0100, J. Grant <jg(a)jguk.org> wrote:
In Mozilla 1.4 I have a huge list of thousands of
"blocked" sites, for
which I have to hunt for wikipedia to remove the domain which is there.
I'm not quite sure how you've got into that situation, but I guess I
haven't played with all the different configurations of Mozilla's
cookie system - I gather it's one of the things that's been rewritten
in FireFox, but whether a new system will ever "land on the trunk" I'm
not sure.
There is no way to remove all
".wikipedia.org" domains without
manually reading all domain names which are not sorted by their org,
domain, host order.
Yes, that's a pain.
If what ever the server wikipedia uses for storing
cookies could be
listed that would be helpful. I was browsing from
en.wikipedia.org but
the cookie server as not
en.wikipedia.org...
Well, I just checked, and it was 'en.wikipedia.org' that was storing
cookies for me (I turned on "ask me before storing a cookie" and it
came up with messages of the form "The site
en.wikipedia.org wants to
store another cookie..."; the details included
"Host:en.wikipedia.org"). I can only think that whatever
auto-blacklisting system you've got active made multiple blocks - one
for 'en.wikipedia.org' *and* one for '.wikipedia.org', perhaps - so
that removing one simply allowed the other to be triggered, and seemed
to have no effect. If so, us telling you what cookies were trying to
be set wouldn't have helped much anyway.
If you could specify the servers you use for
serving/reading cookies
that would just make things a lot simpler than placing the burden on
users to find whatever the present name of the cookie server happens to
be.. :)
I'm surprised that it can ever be as complicated as needing that - the
way I understood it, the cookie can only possibly be stored for
'en.wikipedia.org', '.wikipedia.org', or 'wikipedia.org'.
That's not
really many options to try, and, as I say, as far as I can make out
it's the very first one.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that *something* failed to give you the
information you needed, but in this case I think it was Mozilla's
cookie system doing too much automatically, and not giving you a
decent UI to undo it.
--
Rowan Collins, BSc
[IMSoP]