01 Nov 2003, 20:16, Roy J. Tellason (1:270/615), wrote to Charles Angelich:

Hi Roy.

 CA>> Cookies are not always a bad thing and usually aren't destructive 
 CA>> in any way I can think of. They are similar to the old high 
 CA>> school dance where they stamped your hand so that you could go 
 CA>> out to your car and come back in without paying twice. They are 
 CA>> most often used to isolate 'unique' page hits from those who 
 CA>> reload a dozen times while at the page.

 RJT> Why do they need to do this?  What is it that they want to 
 RJT> "know" based on having sent me something of the sort?  Suppose I 
 RJT> didn't get a complete load the first time,  graphics didn't make 
 RJT> it,  etc. and want to try again?  That happens fairly often.  

I frequently visit a "Photo" web site and read camera reviews. 
The 'cookies' maintain my place in the reviews and forums as well, so that
each time I go back to read more, I don't have to start from scratch and
try to figure out where I left off last time.

 RJT> And why the hell do they need such an absurd expiration date?  
 RJT> (I suspect that some m$ product is behind _that_ one!)  I've 
 RJT> seen all sorts of dates,  from a day off,  a month off,  next 
 RJT> year (!),  but _thirty years plus_?!  That's absurd,  and I 
 RJT> refuse to clutter my machine with such nonsense.

I've got some with expiration dates marked as "none".  Guess they
think they will be on my system _forever_...


     Good luck...  M.

--- Msged/386 TE 06 (pre)