264297 - FURIOS over loss of cookie option!

Status: RESOLVED INVALID

(Firefox :: Settings UI, defect)

Description

[D.M. Razler]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041001 Firefox/0.10.1
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041001 Firefox/0.10.1

THIS MUST BE ADDRESSED IMMEDIATELY:
  Until the current build, one could allow cookies - but ask before ACCEPTING
each one. This is no longer the case - I discovered, after I began wondering why
Firefox had suddenly stopped asking about known cookie-rich sites - after I had
exposed myself to a myriad of loss-of-personal-data. I need cookies, sometimes,
when I read the NYT, etc. I don't want them when I go to report a spoof letter
(via web-e-mail) through a company I later discover has major automatic
connections with Doubleclick.
        I expect this to be corrected within 48 hourrs, meanwhile, I'm going
back to .91 for some security.

Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1.Run the program, attempt to set up v.91-style cookie security
2.
3.

Actual Results:  
I was raped <metaphorically>

Expected Results:  
When I upgraded and had my settings "transferred", Firefox Current should have
continued to allow me to allow all cookies, asking each time before placing them
on my machine. This is an obscenity, a complete reversal of all that is Mozilla.
Additionally, FIREFOX current has an optionb to "read new mail" under tools -
now how does a stripped-down browser get mail?

I know you guys work hard, but remember your mission. It's bad enough we've got
a thug in the WH and a "patriot"<spit> act, but the browser we trusted the most
is now giving Big Commerce our data too!

Comment 1

[Peter van der Woude [:Peter6]]

Tools->Options->Privacy->Cookies->
allow sites to set cookies[V]->
Keep cookies [Ask me every time] 

Comment 2

[Mike Connor [:mconnor]]

I thought I'd seen rude, arrogant bug reports before, but you are a particularly
ignorant and arrogant individual.  

Just because a feature exists at some point does not mean we are under any
obligation to you or anyone to continue to support that feature.  Demanding that
someone drop everything to fix your (bogus) issue in a free, open source
application is the pinnacle of arrogance.  TANSTAAFL is the name of the game,
and its pretty obvious that you have a fairly skewed vision of what Mozilla is
and is not.

Oh, and Firefox doesn't have a mail system.  We do have a hook to the system
registry mail settings to show unread messages/launch the mail app.  This is
something a lot of people wanted, so we added it.  Its probably less than 4k of
code, so don't make assumptions about what X means unless you click on it...

Comment 3

[D.M. Razler]

Hey there all Firefox users! if you keep up with the times, you now have a
gaping security hole in your system, why, don't know, but according to
[e-mail]:
"Just because a feature exists at some point does not mean we are under any
obligation to you or anyone to continue to support that feature."

    Firefox *used* (since as far back as I remember) have a provision to allow
you to allow all cookies/BUT ASK FIRST. For no sane reason, this was hacked out
of the code. Apoparently taking them to task for allowing al of us to be
cookie-raped is, m@sg.c says a "bogus issue"

     It is a security hole 10 feet wide and should be closed ASAP!

Comment 4

[Mike Connor [:mconnor]]

I was pointing out the fallacy of your arrogant bug report, not justifying the
removal of a feature that hasn't been removed.  Its a "bogus issue" because the
feature still exists.  See comment 1 for what the option is listed as.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

Comment 5

[Ben Fowler]

The form of words was so close the example of "how not to do it" given on the
website that I thought that this was a subtle troll.

It is isn't then can I suggest that this bug is used a living example of
how the experts in not doing it, do it?

Comment 6

[Mike Connor [:mconnor]]

sorry for bugspam, long-overdue mass reassign of ancient QA contact bugs,
filter on "beltznerLovesGoats" to get rid of this mass change