469,275 Members | 1,471 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,275 developers. It's quick & easy.

Check for Session Cookies?

Is there a way to check for to see if the user has session cookies
enabled?

I know how to check to see if they have cookies in general enabled,
but how do you test for just session cookies?

Thanks

Jen
Jul 23 '05 #1
11 5653
In article <ac**************************@posting.google.com >,
je*********@hotmail.com enlightened us with...
Is there a way to check for to see if the user has session cookies
enabled?

I know how to check to see if they have cookies in general enabled,
but how do you test for just session cookies?


A cookie is a cookie. A session cookie is just a cookie with no expires date
set so that it isn't stored.
You check by writing one and trying to get the value. If you can, you're good
to go.

Users might enable session cookies and disable saved cookies, but if you
write a session cookie and can retrieve the value, they've got session
cookies enabled.

--
--
~kaeli~
The Bermuda Triangle got tired of warm weather. It moved to
Finland. Now Santa Claus is missing.
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

Jul 23 '05 #2
kaeli wrote:
In article <ac**************************@posting.google.com >,
je*********@hotmail.com enlightened us with...
Is there a way to check for to see if the user has session cookies
enabled?

I know how to check to see if they have cookies in general enabled,
but how do you test for just session cookies?


A cookie is a cookie. A session cookie is just a cookie with no expires
date set so that it isn't stored.


Nonsense. A session cookie is *always* stored if the user allows it to be
set (otherwise it would be useless). What makes it special is that it
expires at the latest when the UA session ends ("the UA exits), often when
the last instance of a browser window or tab that belongs to the UA is
closed. To do so, its expiry must be the date of the moment when it is
set (which means a value of 0 for the Max-Age header, or the current local
date in the Expires/"expires" header/option), or a date in the past of the
current local date for the Expires/ "expires" header/option, or the
header/option must be omitted (because session cookies are the default).
UAs are allowed to discard a cookie prior to the expiry because of finite
storage space.

<http://wp.netscape.com/newsref/std/cookie_spec.html>
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2109.txt>
PointedEars
Jul 23 '05 #3
kaeli wrote:
In article <ac**************************@posting.google.com >,
je*********@hotmail.com enlightened us with...
Is there a way to check for to see if the user has session cookies
enabled?

I know how to check to see if they have cookies in general enabled,
but how do you test for just session cookies?
A cookie is a cookie. A session cookie is just a cookie with no expires
date set so that it isn't stored.


Nonsense. A session cookie is *always* stored if the user allows it to be
set (otherwise it would be useless). What makes it special is that it
expires at the latest when the UA session ends ("the UA exits), often when
the last instance of a browser window or tab that belongs to the UA is
closed. To do so, its expiry must be the date of the moment when it is
set (which means a value of 0 for the Max-Age header, or the current local
date in the Expires/"expires" header/option), or a date in the past of the
current local date for the Expires/ "expires" header/option, or the
header/option must be omitted (because session cookies are the default).
UAs are allowed to discard a cookie prior to the expiry because of finite
storage space.

<http://wp.netscape.com/newsref/std/cookie_spec.html>
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2109.txt>

And BTW:
From: kaeli <ti******@NOSPAM.comcast.net>

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| Verifying <ti******@NOSPAM.comcast.net> ...
| Mail exchanger(s) for NOSPAM.comcast.net:
| None. Trying A record ...
| None, thus <ti******@NOSPAM.comcast.net>
| is definitely not an e-mail address (no MX).

<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1036.txt>, sections 2.1.1 and 2.2.1
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2822.txt>, section 3.4
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt>, section 3.1.1
<http://www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp>, section "Prohibited Uses
and Activities", paragraph xviii.

You have been warned.
PointedEars
Jul 23 '05 #4
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 18:10:12 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<Po*********@web.de> wrote:
kaeli wrote:
[snip]
A cookie is a cookie. A session cookie is just a cookie with no expires
date set so that it isn't stored.


Nonsense.


You know very well that Kaeli was simply stating that there is no
permanent storage of session cookie data.

[snip]
And BTW:
From: kaeli <ti******@NOSPAM.comcast.net>

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| Verifying <ti******@NOSPAM.comcast.net> ...
| Mail exchanger(s) for NOSPAM.comcast.net:
| None. Trying A record ...
| None, thus <ti******@NOSPAM.comcast.net>
| is definitely not an e-mail address (no MX).

<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1036.txt>, sections 2.1.1 and 2.2.1
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2822.txt>, section 3.4
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt>, section 3.1.1
<http://www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp>, section "Prohibited Uses
and Activities", paragraph xviii.


If you think that Kaeli is violating her terms of service by adding,
NOSPAM., to the domain, you should stop taking whatever drugs you're on.
Comcast actually *suggest* address munging when posting to Usenet and
other public locations where address harvesting could occur. You're
delusional if you think that Comcast, or any ISP, will terminate a
member's account for protecting their inbox.

Post useful messages, not pedantic drivel that no-one, other than
yourself, could give a toss about.

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.
Jul 23 '05 #5
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
<--snip-->

You have been warned.


Before I go to the trouble of changing my From to an invalid address,
what are the repercussions of "being warned", or, are you just spouting
babbling nonsense again?

I think you are full of it. So, what happens if I get warned and do not
change my behavior to fit your percieved pattern of reality?

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq
Jul 23 '05 #6
Randy Webb wrote:
<--snip-->
I think you are full of it. So, what happens if I get warned and do not
change my behavior to fit your percieved pattern of reality?

The Huns are known for their swift retaliations...
Mick
Jul 23 '05 #7
Mick White wrote:
Randy Webb wrote:
<--snip-->

I think you are full of it. So, what happens if I get warned and do
not change my behavior to fit your percieved pattern of reality?

The Huns are known for their swift retaliations...


Yeah, but that Hun has no retaliation to retaliate with. His biggest
threat is to "report violators to their ISP", in which case he can KMA.
--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq
Jul 23 '05 #8
In article <Se********************@comcast.com>, Hi************@aol.com
enlightened us with...
Mick White wrote:
Randy Webb wrote:
<--snip-->

I think you are full of it. So, what happens if I get warned and do
not change my behavior to fit your percieved pattern of reality?

The Huns are known for their swift retaliations...


Yeah, but that Hun has no retaliation to retaliate with. His biggest
threat is to "report violators to their ISP", in which case he can KMA.


He can mine, too, since I don't HAVE an ISP. ;)
I post from work. They WANT us to munge our addresses. *grins*

He's been in my killfile for awhile. Ignore his "warnings".

--
--
~kaeli~
If you don't pay your exorcist, you get repossessed.
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

Jul 23 '05 #9
kaeli wrote:
In article <Se********************@comcast.com>, Hi************@aol.com
enlightened us with...
Mick White wrote:
Randy Webb wrote:
<--snip-->

I think you are full of it. So, what happens if I get warned and do
not change my behavior to fit your percieved pattern of reality?
The Huns are known for their swift retaliations...
Yeah, but that Hun has no retaliation to retaliate with. His biggest
threat is to "report violators to their ISP", in which case he can KMA.

He can mine, too, since I don't HAVE an ISP. ;)


He's going to babble about it *is* an ISP since it provides service to
the internet. He's a moron sometimes :)
I post from work. They WANT us to munge our addresses. *grins*
That is the advice given by Comcast as well. My service is through
giganews via Comcast. Comcast is Giganews' customer, not me. So to try
to "report" me, he has to report Comcast, and then attempt (futiley) to
get them to cancel/action my account.
He's been in my killfile for awhile. Ignore his "warnings".

I had him in mine for a while, then removed him so I could
correct/countermand his garbage babbling.
--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq
Jul 23 '05 #10
Randy Webb wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
You have been warned.


Before I go to the trouble of changing my From to an invalid address,
what are the repercussions of "being warned", [...]


I have already explained it but, obviously, it was too difficult for you
to understand.
PointedEars
--
"WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT FOR THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN?",
said Death.
Jul 23 '05 #11
In a message read by Randy Webb <Hi************@aol.com> on or around
September 19, 2004 (19 September 2004 for those inclined to read Dates
that way) in the newsgroup comp.lang.javascript that is subsribed to by
said Randy Webb <Hi************@aol.com> via GigaNews via Comcast Cable,
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Po*********@web.de> wrote in response to a
message that can be found at the URL:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...UTF-8%26sa%3DN
and after 22 days decided to reply:
Randy Webb wrote:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
You have been warned.


Before I go to the trouble of changing my From to an invalid address,
what are the repercussions of "being warned", [...]

I have already explained it but, obviously, it was too difficult for you
to understand.


Nah, whats too difficult to understand is why you can't comprehend that
it doesn't matter, that its *highly* encouraged by my ISP (and many
others), yet you continue to complain about it.

The *true* repercussions if I decided to do it are *none*.

So, let me explain it again. You ready?

I subscribe to this group via Comcast Cable's Giganews account. It means
I have a sub-account of Comcast. So, if you *were* to report me (which I
don't care about), then you would have to get Giganews to action
Comcast, which isn't going to happen.

The only other possible repercussion would be you kill-filing me. But
thats not a bad thing, its a good thing. Because then, I could
correct/countermand your babbling without having to worry about you
responding with more babble about how it "destroys the internet". Geez.

GFY

P.S. Now you know what a semi-attribution novel looks like.

P.S.S GFY refers to inserting certain appendages into certain orifices
of your body.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq
Jul 23 '05 #12

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

27 posts views Thread by mrbog | last post: by
9 posts views Thread by RA | last post: by
7 posts views Thread by Marcus | last post: by
2 posts views Thread by StanB | last post: by
3 posts views Thread by =?Utf-8?B?Qkw=?= | last post: by
1 post views Thread by CARIGAR | last post: by
reply views Thread by suresh191 | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.