denny: (Loser)
[personal profile] denny
At work we have clients. It's a shame, because things would be much quieter without them. However, I'm given to understand that they pay our wages or something, so I suppose it's for the best really...

Said clients tend to be running Windows (XP mostly) and IE (6 or 7). They have a section of our site where they can log in and access restricted documents and so on. Or at least, where they should be able to log in. A number of them have complained that they can't log in - the system 'just takes me back to the login page over and over again'. At least one of them can log in to sitename.com but not www.sitename.com, which is particularly irritating.

My first guess was that they'd blocked cookies somehow, but getting them to set all the cookie options I can find in Internet Options to 'allow, yes please, woohoo, go go go' doesn't seem to have made any difference. Does IE have per-site cookie-blocking, or are there just the global settings? I couldn't find any per-site stuff, which confused me a bit.

Any suggestions on other things I could/should check?

Naturally, logging in to the site works perfectly from every PC we have in the office, which is Linux/Firefox1.5, Linux/Firefox2, Linux/IE6, Windows/Firefox1.5, Windows/IE5.5, Windows/IE6, Windows/IE7, MacOSX/Firefox2 and MacOSX/Safari. It also works from [livejournal.com profile] libellum's Windows machine at her place. I can't think of anything that would explain the problems our users are having other than PEBCAK, but I need to figure out which Problem Exists and how to fix it, so that I can explain it to the bit BCAK over the phone.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-05-23 04:40 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] naranek.livejournal.com
Is there a (caching) proxy in the way? What's the domain and path on your cookies and do you have reverse DNS set up correctly? (No. No, it shouldn't, but that doesn't mean it isn't ..) You're not by any chance using POSTs for your login page, throwing out no cache control headers and expecting caches to categorise POST as uncacheable or something? Or issuing a different 302 and hoping the cache will notice the different target?

I vaguely remember we used to have problems with some copies of IE not loving the idea of having anything smaller than a domain name as a cookie path (and in fact being quite picky about whether you said foo.example.com or foo.example.com/). Oh, and occasionally deciding that they didn't love https redirects for no apparent reason.

May 2020

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728 2930
31      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags