In article <[log in to unmask]>, dated Sun,
13 Dec 1998 at 21:08:15, Ahmad Risk <[log in to unmask]> writes
>AR says: they are mostly harmless. I allow cookies to be installed only to
>avoid all the
>nagging that results from setting cookies to never accept. From time to time, I
>delete
>the whole lot from the windows cookies directory (do not delete the index.dat
>file!).
>
Although some people would also find this option an irritation, I have
my browsers configured to warn me every time there is a 'cookie
request'. Based on whims at the time I sometimes refuse cookies from
banner ad sites and domains that do not appear to be local to the site I
am accessing. However, as Ahmad says below (presumably AR is not the
late Arthur Rank, Ambrosia Rice or anyone else!) they are there to do in
many cases useful tasks and you refuse or delete them at a price.
>They are time limited and essentially tell the originating server various
>things. For
>example, storing registration information so that you don't have to re-type it
>next time
>you visit that site. Or, they gather some kind of crude market research.
Chris
--
Chris Salter (Vice Chairman) Lincolnshire Post-Polio Network
Registered Charity No. 1064177
<URL:http://www.zynet.co.uk/ott/polio/lincolnshire/>
Web Site & Vice Chairman Email: [log in to unmask]
Honorary Secretary Email: [log in to unmask]
Member of the British Healthcare Internet Association
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|