On 2/14/2019 6:22 PM, Paul in Houston, TX wrote: > David E. Ross wrote: >> Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 (x64) >> ozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 >> SeaMonkey/2.49.4 >> >> I created a special profile just for handling online transactions >> through financial institutions where I have accounts. I found this to >> be necessary because they want my browser to have settings that are >> different from the settings I prefer for general browsing. >> >> One financial institution wants me to accept cookies from three >> third-party domains in order for me to access my monthly statements. >> Two of those domains are no problem; cookies from them already exist in >> the profile. >> >> The third domain, however, sets a session-only cookie. This means the >> preference that allows cookies from domains I directly visit plus >> existing third-party cookies does not work since such a cookie is >> deleted when I previously left that profile. In Data Manager, I set a >> preference to allow cookies from that domain; but it does not seem to >> work. >> >> If I set the preference to allow ALL cookies, I then get cookies from >> youtube.com and doubleclick.net, which I really do not want. I set >> preferences to block those cookies, but they still appear. Using the >> "Live HTTP headers" extension, I found that not only are cookies being >> set for those two domains but that cookie data are being sent back to >> those domains (which are owned by Google). >> >> What can I do to fix this? > > You can try setting those cookies to read only. > Don't know if that will work or not though. I never tried it. >
Apparently, session-only cookies exist only in memory. I thought I would use SQLite Manager to create a dummy persistent cookie with the same domain but a different name and data as the session-only cookie. However, I could not find the session-only cookie in the cookies.sqlite database even though I could see it in Cookies Manager. -- David E. Ross Trump again proves he is a major source of fake news. He wants to cut off disaster funds to repair the damage caused by the Woolsey Fire in southern California because he claims the state fails to manage its forests properly. The Woolsey Fire was NOT a forest fire. Starting in an industrial tract, it did not burn through any forests. See <http://www.rossde.com/fire.html>. _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
