Cookie Control

I'd also like to note that Spider doesn't work for me any longer in WinMe.

It used to, but now when I re-run it, it finds the same stuff again that it supposedly 'bit' when I ran it. I have no idea why it doesn't work anymore - perhaps one of M$'s 'security' patches slid a little something in to negate its effectiveness.

Just wanted to give everyone a headsup on that so they could find an alternative such as the ones mentioned above. Pete

 

Pete

try this....instead of checking all the boxs in spider at the same time.......check only one box....then let spider do its thing.......than go to the next box.......do same again until you covered it all.......takes more time but should do the job..\

snowman

 

Might just try that, snowman! Thanks for the suggestion. Pete

 

REPORT:

have been using cookie muncher for several days without any problems...works great...until today when two cookies slid right pass it....cookies were from <msn>....during my use of cookie muncher I've been to the same site several times without any cookies bypassing...but for some reason I can't explain cookie muncher let these two pass.....I've returned again and again to the same site an it didn't occur again.....I'll keep an eye open for this now.....an mentioning it here for others who may also want to monitor

snowman

 

Hi snowman,

Thats a strange thing you noticed there, maybe they are putting something in there that fools the muncher.

I tried cookie muncher and it does work but I've found it a bit tricky to set up for allowing the cookies I want. I know I have to set the cookie to read only to be ignored but in practice this has proved to be a little bit more difficult due to the fact that some of the 'good' places I want seem to produce more than one cookie...some forums look as if they have a different cookie for different boards for example.

So what I need to do is find out exactly what cookies (and multiples of the same site) I need first. To do this I've installed cookie jar that is rated on the Wilders downloads section. It looks good and may be the answer to this problem in the learning curve...then when I've got a good idea of the ones I need to allow I can either do it in the jar or let the muncher loose again.

The good thing about all this is I'm learning so much in this period which I was unaware of before.

BTW...why do some cookies have a [1] and some a [2] after them...is it related to what I was saying above about some sites having more than one, if so then it could be useful in my investigations or is it for some other reason that I've missed.

 

ZAR

heyya buddy....just a couple of brief comments then its lights out for me....first: I've a feeling those cookies sliding by was just a strange quirk....it hasn't happen again....the post was just a pre-caution...not to worry.
at the moment I am extremely exhusted so can't stay long enough to fully comment......I am sure Spy 1 will notice your post......until then better not to struggle with any problems you may be having.....

until another time..regards
snowman

 

Hi Zarzenz,

I hope this example gives you an explanaition for that:

I have several programs in which I have to "set-up" the cookies that I want to save; for example: CookieWall, IEClean, WindowWasher, Ontrack Internet Cleanup.

Let's now take this example:
I have saved a cookie in all those app's but I forgot to do it in WindowWasher. Then I do a wash with WindowWasher. That cookie is then deleted, cause it wasn't saved there. But it is still mentioned in for example IEClean, but in fact the cookie is deleted. The next time I go to the site where I need that cookie, I have to make it new (remember: it was deleted from my system). So now I make that cookie anew. But the previous cookie from that site was already mentioned in the list of my other app's. The new cookie gets now that [2], and again in all my app's I have to save that cookie.

I hope this makes it a little bit more clear.

 

Hi FanJ,

Yep...I think I get it...so lets say one was to completely delete every cookie from the system including the index.dat file. This should mean that all traces of cookies are gone.

So in that case...every site visited from then on would make a cookie and it should only have a [1] after it. If any cookies then have a [2] after it then it must be existing in some other location on the system...is that it.

 

Yep, you got it !
There is only one subtle difference between a cookie existing on your system and a cookie somehow mentioned in a save-cookies-list of an application (for example WindowWasher or IEClean). The fact that a cookie is mentioned in such a list, doesn't have to mean that that cookie actually exists on your system (see my example in my previous posting).

 

Thanks FanJ...that clears it for me. So would the same thing apply with Cookie Jar in that case...just the mention of a cookie in the allow list (even though it had been completly wiped from the system) would still make it show up with a [2] when that site is next visited.

You have mentioned a few different programs that you use, so is there any particular one you like best. I've now tried the Cookie Muncher (which seems very powerful for completely stopping them dead) and the Cookie Jar which seems easy to put into allow/banned sections...so what are the others like in comparison or are they much the same.

 

Yes, that is right.

Sorry, I didn't tried Cookie Muncher or Cookie Jar.
Internet Cleanup: not so important program to me.
IEClean and WindowWasher: I like these programs very much ! They are both capable to do a lot more things than only cookie-management.

IEClean: www.nsclean.com
WindowWasher: www.webroot.com

You asked which program I like the most; well for me there is no doubt: IEClean. I love this program ! It can make IE a lot more safe. For Netscape there is his brother NSClean. They are made by the same company that sells the AT BOClean.
I can only advice: go to those sites and take some time to read there !!!

 

FanJ...thanks for confirming all those points and your recommendations and links etc. What I'm going to do now is go to those sites and take all the info available and then try out the programs. Then when I've tried them all and compared them, I'll be able to see which works best for me.

This has been a great exercise for me and I want to thank you and all the other contributors for all the great advice here. I guess thats what this forum is all about. People with a common interest helping each other out as we tread this important area of our computing experience existance at this point in time. Evolution will never be the same again.

 

Hi Zarzenz,

You're quite welcome!

Just a few other things:
WindowWasher and IEClean are not free.
If I remember me well for WindowWasher there is a trial time; but IEClean has no trial version. PSC (the company of IEClean) does not give trial-versions, but they have a money-back garantee.
You could also have a look at Internet Sweeper; there is a special forum-part here at the Wilders-forum for it.

 

Ok FanJ,

Well I've got the trial version for WindowWasher now and I like the look of it. I see it also has a index.dat clean facility so I will give that a try later and compare it with the spider.

I too, like spy1, seem to be having problems with the spider now, and I also have WinME. I find it won't do the full clean in one go...and the spiderbite says failed on all its cleaning routines...but if I first manually delete all the cookies and temp int files and history files it does seem to clean the index file ok. But it will be nice to give the index cleaner in WindowWasher a go and see if it works ok at the same time as the cookie cleaner. It says will work with WinME so may be a better option.

Ok on IEClean and Internet Sweeper...may also give them a try later, but I'll see how I get on with WindowWasher first so as not to get to confused with too many programs all trying to do the same thing etc.