firefox cookies

Discussion of general topics about Mozilla Firefox
Post Reply
freespeechforme
Posts: 17
Joined: October 14th, 2006, 2:13 pm

firefox cookies

Post by freespeechforme »

just did a scan with spybot and found a whole bunch of cookies from firefox, is this normal?
Also I added new info on yesterday's post 'cannot copy & paste' please read
User avatar
dickvl
Posts: 54139
Joined: July 18th, 2005, 3:25 am

Post by dickvl »

If you have set to keep cookies until they expire then yes.
Tools > Options > Privacy > Cookies: "Keep Cookies": "Until ..."
freespeechforme
Posts: 17
Joined: October 14th, 2006, 2:13 pm

Post by freespeechforme »

ok, thanks so those cookies are good?
Old Rick 752
Posts: 0
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 5:00 pm

Post by Old Rick 752 »

Most of the cookies you see are from advertisers on sites that you visit. Many 3rd party advertisers use scripting on regular websites to serve you a cookie to track your surfing in order to serve you ads targeted to what you have been looking at.

For the most part, many of these are harmless (there are exceptions), but some feel it to be a form of spyware (I do).

The easiest way to keep these to a minimum is to go to your cookie options and only allow cookies "for the originating site only".
User avatar
dickvl
Posts: 54139
Joined: July 18th, 2005, 3:25 am

Post by dickvl »

"The easiest way to keep these to a minimum is to go to your cookie options and only allow cookies "for the originating site only"."
Note: that option is removed from the UI in Fx 2.0 (RC). It is still accessible via about:config. It was removed because the code was not 100% reliable and might cause problems.
The same goes for images "for the originating site only" (removed in Fx 2.0).
Old Rick 752
Posts: 0
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 5:00 pm

Post by Old Rick 752 »

dickvl wrote:"that option is removed from the UI in Fx 2.0 (RC). It is still accessible via about:config. It was removed because the code was not 100% reliable and might cause problems.


Wow, I just checked that and didn't even realize it was gone in 2.0. I probably didn't notice because I block all cookies and only allow/session the ones I want (easy with Permit Cookies extension).

ps: I'm also ecstatic that they removed the "Show images for the originating site only" option. That thing was the cause of more topic problems than I can remember.
User avatar
dickvl
Posts: 54139
Joined: July 18th, 2005, 3:25 am

Post by dickvl »

Quote: I'm also ecstatic that they removed the "Show images for the originating site only" option. That thing was the cause of more topic problems than I can remember.[/quote]

Now you get the problem with users who changed that setting in Fx 1.5 and can't find it anymore and we need to point them to about:config.
As we have now to do for JavaScript: Change Images (dom.disable_image_src_set: removed in Fx 1.5)
User avatar
kgbme
Posts: 329
Joined: May 26th, 2005, 4:50 pm
Location: Belgrade

Post by kgbme »

dickvl wrote:"Show images for the originating site only"

Customizing Mozilla shows user.js edit:

Code: Select all

// Show pref UI to block images that don't come from the current server
// This is shown by default in Mozilla.
user_pref("imageblocker.enable", true);

which is (also) unavailable in Firefox 2.x

.. any way to get this back to the UI? :)

Image

ps. this can be set through about:config : permissions.default.image (usage).
User avatar
Scarlettrunner20
Posts: 1016
Joined: February 13th, 2003, 5:06 pm

Post by Scarlettrunner20 »

dickvl wrote:Quote: I'm also ecstatic that they removed the "Show images for the originating site only" option. That thing was the cause of more topic problems than I can remember.

[/quote]

I never had a single problem with it and have been using it from the moment it was introduced (long time) and, of course, I am still using it in 2.0 which I refuse to put on my main computer because of the gigantic amount of time it takes to get all the features back that have been deleted and get rid of junk that is added. 1.5 is so superior to 2.0 that 2.0 is just a joke. I thought Fx was the people's browser. So, why did MoFo not ask us what we want? I don't know anyone who prefers 2.0 over 1.5.
Old Rick 752
Posts: 0
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 5:00 pm

Post by Old Rick 752 »

@Scarlettrunner20
(actually, that was MY quote above)

The problem with "images from the originating site only" has become more apparent every day. There are more multiple domains for the same site that 'cross-reference' each other all the time.

'smith.com' may use graphic material from 'smithstuff.com'. Also, all 3rd-party info graphics will not display ... things like stock tickers and weather maps that are not at the parent site. Nor will any informative 3rd-party iframe graphics. You don't THINK that there is a problem simply because you are not seeing the material to begin with.

Anyone who posts a screenshot in a forum from a site like Imageshack (very common) would also be blocked to you.
The Ex Omega
Posts: 0
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 5:00 pm

Post by The Ex Omega »

Scarlettrunner20 wrote: I am still using it in 2.0 which I refuse to put on my main computer because of the gigantic amount of time it takes to get all the features back that have been deleted and get rid of junk that is added. 1.5 is so superior to 2.0 that 2.0 is just a joke. I thought Fx was the people's browser. So, why did MoFo not ask us what we want? I don't know anyone who prefers 2.0 over 1.5.


Gotta love when the buzz from the crack kicks in.
Post Reply