[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1140574553.25732.42.camel@Stargate.iatechconsulting.com>
Date: Wed Feb 22 02:12:29 2006
From: nodialtone at comcast.net (nodialtone)
Subject: Re: Re: Forum / Site redone
Lets all ensure that all the crumbs are vacuumed up as well.
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 14:14, Dave Korn wrote:
> Nigel Horne wrote:
> >> Nigel Horne wrote:
> >>>> Thanks for the comments. Site has been redone ( I re-didit ) Feel
> >>>> free to keep the comments coming.
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.iatechconsulting.com
> >>>
> >>> Why does it attempt to store 2 cookies on my machine when all I do
> >>> visit your front page?
> >>
> >> Because that's how PHP tracks your session ID.
> >>
> >>> Needless to say I said "no".
> >
> > Public access websites should not have session IDs just to visit their
> > frontpage.
>
> Like it matters the tiniest little bit at all.
>
> You can refuse the cookie if you want.
>
> You can accept it if you want the personalisation you'll get.
>
> You can set your browser to flush cookies at the end of the session if you
> don't want the same server to identify you next time.
>
> You can hang on to it indefinitely if you do.
>
> It takes next to no space on your hard drive, is entirely under your
> control, and it's not some kind of magical demon sent by the NSA to spy on
> you, so who cares?
>
> You're presenting this claim that "Public access websites" (you mean
> 'publicly accessible' websites, I take it) "should not have" session IDs.
> Well, /WHY/ should they not? This claim needs justifying. Ethical reasons?
> Financial reasons? Health and safety reasons? Aesthetic reasons? Or just
> because Nigel Horne says so, and whatever he says is so obviously patently
> right and true that all right-thinking people will just accept your word for
> it unquestioningly?
>
>
> cheers,
> DaveK
Powered by blists - more mailing lists