Hello, Security people

[Lobo]

Do we need to do this or is thre a way around it here (http://forums.speedguide.net/showthread.php?s=&postid=663846#post663846)

:) :)

[blebs]

I think it depends on what version of Internet Explorer is being used. With IE 6, You can over ride default cookie handling, therefor not necessary, but the earlier versions I believe your method would be appropriate.
The other option would be to use a host file.

Lobo, you might want to check the thread below, but again, it only applies to IE 6.
http://63.217.30.71/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72412

[Dakota]

Agreed. Either way will work, but a hosts file is MUCH easier to edit. Cut and paste where the other method is a tedious, one-by-one entry.

[TonyT]

Restricted Sites is way faster to implement than a HOSTS file if you have a good copy of the Restricted Sites reg file. There are plenty to be found on the web.

I have hundreds of sites in my Restricted Sites zone. I also have a .reg file called restricted sites that I use to merge with new installs of IE or installs of IE on other machines.

In Regedit, export this key to re-merge later:

HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\ZoneMap\Domains

[Dakota]

What I was suggesting, Tony, is that alot people don't even want to mess with the registry, etc. Scary. Difficult. All that stuff. Hosts file is just a simple text file. Pretty harmless.

Unless given specific instructions, alot people won't have the slightest idea what you're referring to.

[rmrucker]

A hosts file is definitely easier to 'install' -- and it provides more complete "blocking" capability. A Restricted site is still accessible, but a site on a Hosts list is not.