On Thu, 2002-04-04 at 03:06, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 06:35:22PM -0500, > Jeff S Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > a message of 39 lines which said: > > > would not go for that because apparently a disproportionate number of > > their end-users disable cookies in their web browser. Stupid media > > privacy paranoia. > > You are wrong. >
Well, we deal with a lot of adult webmasters, including a few large ones. I don't do a lot of CGI-ish stuff, or session tracking for those sites, however our in-house guy who does do that work claims nearly 30% of the visitors to one high-profile site we work on have a browser with cookies disabled. I haven't generated the data myself, so I don't know if I believe the 30% figure, but I believe "disproportionate" is pretty safe given the users. It's probably a stretch for you to state that I am wrong given who their userbase is, however if you have information on similar sites to back up your statement I certainly will be interested. I'll see if we can track that precisely on some of our customer sites. > So you reinvented LDAP :-) LDAP didn't ocurr to me at all, I'm glad you suggested it. We have no LDAP resources or experience in-house, but honestly would like to move to it for a more sane a/a system for our unix, ftp, and mail accounts as well. There seems to be a real lack of a good, thorough HOWTO though. Have I not looked in the right place? Is LDAP really the best tool here? Keep in mind hundreds of authen requests per second, although I don't doubt that large shops with a lot of users probably have that kind of volume in regular unixy stuff. -- Jeff S Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Software Development Five Elements, Inc http://www.five-elements.com/~jsw/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
