Jd1008 - java - life without it! Possible? Better. Remember - transactions only on the build.
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 9:17 PM, jd1008 <jd1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 08/31/2014 09:45 PM, Tim wrote: > >> Tim: >> >>> Be prepared for various things to fail, you cannot force HTTPS with >>>> sites that are HTTP-only. >>>> >>> jd1008: >> >>> Actually, the sites that do not support https, simply default to http. >>> So, such sites are still browsable even with this plugin. >>> >> That wouldn't work with various virtually hosted sites (such as mine), >> you'd end up making a to the hosting provider, rather than the >> particular site you wanted. The world is full of virtually hosted >> sites. >> >> I don't know of a site to test where the service makes no response to >> HTTPS requests, to see what your HTTP to HTTPS converter does to handle >> that. It's a different situation to my hosting provider, which does >> answer to HTTPS (albeit not in the way that you hoped). >> >> >> Tell me which of the Firefox settings options will prevent redirection? >>> I have not come across it. Sure would like to know that. >>> >> That one's easy, it's not even a hidden about:config flag... >> >> Advanced settings, general tab, accessibility options: >> Warn me when websites try to redirect or reload the page. >> >> >> Also, in Firefox Settings, be sure to NEVER allow 3rd party cookies. >>>>> >>>> This is one thing that often doesn't do what you think. >>>> >>> Prove it! I would really like to see a concrete proof of it, >>> in order for me to see that there are 3rd party cookies >>> being stored by my browser. >>> >> It's been a hell of a long time since I read about this, so I can't give >> you a reference off the top of my head to a ready-made answer. I seem >> to recall the discussion was regarding the Opera web browser. >> >> I did give a scenario about how it can happen - such as visiting an >> example.com website, which embedded some content from doubleclick.com >> (such as a graphic). >> >> As far as the user is concerned, they're visiting example.com, and they >> consider doubleclick.com to be a third party, and wouldn't expect it to >> be able to set cookies. >> >> But, as far as the browser *may* be concerned (depending on who >> programmed it, and what they think about it), the page has loaded an >> image from doubleclick.com, and that image can set a cookie for itself, >> because it is not a third party to itself. >> >> A browser programmer could see that as being first party (the image sets >> its own cookie), or as third party (its not the same domain as the >> page). There were plenty of arguments about which point of view was >> correct, it's a horrible mess where both sides can argue without their >> being a clear-cut answer. And thanks to that, you can't really expect a >> status quo. One browser may take a different approach from other >> browser, and a newer release of the same browser may also swap their >> approach to the situation. >> >> The other definition of third-party, which was clear cut, was if you had >> visiting example.com, and that *page* had tried to set a cookie for >> doubleclick.com. >> >> If you want to *prove* this, I doubt that it'll be hard to find a >> website with third-party content (almost any commercial site does), and >> see what different browsers actually do. >> >> Another discussion about third-party cookies was cookies set by things >> like Flash. Being a program, it's able to do much more than could be >> done just by loading an image. And your third-party cookie setting may >> not have any influence about how the flash plug-in works. Likewise with >> other multimedia plug-ins. >> >> It's well worth going through your browser settings, and setting them >>>> sensibly, rather than hoping some third-party add-on will sort things >>>> out for you. >>>> >>> Of course. But you do not define 'sensibly' in an objective way. >>> >> Sensible is what pertains to the user's needs. Not everybody has the >> same needs. I can't answer that query in the way that you want me to. >> >> Sensible to me is websites continue to work, with the minimal of >> tracking being possible. Sensible to others is no tracking, and some >> sites will fail to work. And to yet others, still, sites work without >> errors or users having to make decisions about using the sites. >> >> > Well Tim, > You run your browsing just to make it "work"!!! > Not me!!! > I at least do my due diligence to achieve some degree of thwarting > unwanted things coming from ads, cookies, javascripts and popups. > If a site does not work, then I simply dump it, and never visit it again. > > It is true (I already conceded) that a web site you trust is indeed > hosting third party cookies as if they came from the trusted web site. > This sort of hosting is also being done with java scripts, which are the > worst and most offensive weapon against all users. > > > -- > users mailing list > users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe or change subscription options: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct > Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org >
-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
