If all goes according to plan, this should be the last post you receive
on the mailing list version of this group.
All subscribers to the mailing list should shortly receive a
subscription notice for [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you are reading this via the netscape.public.mozilla.security
newsgroup,
It should be no secret these days that the Mozilla Foundation and its related
projects are no longer a pet project of Netscape, yet the newsgroups we are
using for public discussions still bear the Netscape name. We've been planning
for years to move from netscape.public.mozilla.* to just
Hi all,
I'm trying to write a Firefox extension that adds an extra property to
the window object that Web pages' scripts have access to. As you know,
currently, scripts in Web pages can access such objects as
window
window.document
window.navigator
SonoBoulevard.com vous souhaite une bonne AnnÊe 2006 !
DÊcouvrez sans plus attendre notre sÊlection de produits pour fËter la nouvelle
annÊe...
www.SonoBoulevard.com : MatÊriel de Sonorisation, Êclairage, musique...
- BOOST DANCER LIGHT : Projecteur de lumiÉre demi sphÉre, effet couleur,
SonoBoulevard.com vous souhaite une bonne AnnÊe 2006 !
DÊcouvrez sans plus attendre notre sÊlection de produits pour fËter la nouvelle
annÊe...
www.SonoBoulevard.com : MatÊriel de Sonorisation, Êclairage, musique...
- BOOST DANCER LIGHT : Projecteur de lumiÉre demi sphÉre, effet couleur,
SonoBoulevard.com vous souhaite une bonne AnnÊe 2006 !
DÊcouvrez sans plus attendre notre sÊlection de produits pour fËter la nouvelle
annÊe...
www.SonoBoulevard.com : MatÊriel de Sonorisation, Êclairage, musique...
- BOOST DANCER LIGHT : Projecteur de lumiÉre demi sphÉre, effet couleur,
SonoBoulevard.com vous souhaite une bonne AnnÊe 2006 !
DÊcouvrez sans plus attendre notre sÊlection de produits pour fËter la nouvelle
annÊe...
www.SonoBoulevard.com : MatÊriel de Sonorisation, Êclairage, musique...
- BOOST DANCER LIGHT : Projecteur de lumiÉre demi sphÉre, effet couleur,
It was actually the windows machine that I was using at work. I will try to
update the information when I get a chance.
Nelson B wrote:
Jack wrote:
When I got the popup window due to 401 in 1.0.x, it used to indicate
whether it was http versus https. 1.5 does not seem to indicate this
as
I was reading about thunderbird 1.5 RC2 at:
http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/releases/1.5.html
It says Many security enhancements. How does one find out the specifics? I
do not want everybody to upgrade needlessly when it is working fine as that is
a waste of time and money. I
Jack wrote:
When I got the popup window due to 401 in 1.0.x, it used to indicate
whether it was http versus https. 1.5 does not seem to indicate this
as 1.0.x did. Is this intentional?
This is a problem because one can't tell whether redirection occured or
not and so one can't be sure that
* Heikki Toivonen:
Florian Weimer wrote:
where can I find an updated security bug policy? It seems that it's
been decided that crash bugs are not worth releasing advisories for,
but I couldn't find any confirmation.
The policy hasn't changed AFAIK, and it's still here:
This is a problem because one can't tell whether redirection occured or not
and so one can't be sure that one is sending the user name and password over a
secure channel.
Is there a settings to enable display of the protocol (http v. https) as well?
Jack wrote:
Include general news group as
Hi,
where can I find an updated security bug policy? It seems that it's
been decided that crash bugs are not worth releasing advisories for,
but I couldn't find any confirmation.
Florian
___
Mozilla-security mailing list
Mozilla-security@mozilla.org
Include general news group as well.
Jack wrote:
When I got the popup window due to 401 in 1.0.x, it used to indicate
whether it was http versus https. 1.5 does not seem to indicate this as
1.0.x did. Is this intentional?
___
Mozilla-security
FACE wrote:
On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 16:59:39 -0300, Alejandro Fuentes [EMAIL PROTECTED] in
netscape.public.mozilla.browser wrote:
_at@ wrote:
Remline wrote:
http://www.newzbot.com/
Dobi Yonkoff wrote:
Can anyone help me find other news servers?
I'm a beginner with newsgroups.
Once upon a time *Elric* wrote:
FACE wrote:
On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 16:59:39 -0300, Alejandro Fuentes [EMAIL PROTECTED] in
netscape.public.mozilla.browser wrote:
_at@ wrote:
Remline wrote:
http://www.newzbot.com/
Dobi Yonkoff wrote:
Can anyone help me find other news servers?
I'm a
My virus program keeps detecting the following infections, but does not
clean them. I hate to delete myu mail folders and loose several years
of saved messages, so is there a way to clean the infections without
deleting the folder? If not, is there a way to export the messages into
annother
* Jack:
That just sends terms typed in the browser to your URL specific by
config property keyword.URL. It has some sort of logic to see
whether or not it is a host name. If it is not a hostname (or URL
form), then it make the query to keyword.URL. I do not understand
how this would
I was a little slow there. You just want a way for the third action to be
disabled. I find it annoying more than anything because I use browsers on
many different systems and I some times get surprised by this action. Yes,
you are correct that it can violation a users privacy if one has
Remove the keyword field (or leave it blank) for all your bookmarks.
Florian Weimer wrote:
Is there an easy way to disable Internet Keywords on Firefox 1.0.x?
I'm asking here because this feature might violate user privacy,
especially if you don't trust Google.
* Jack:
Remove the keyword field (or leave it blank) for all your bookmarks.
I haven't set any keywords on bookmarks.
But I recalled the term Internet Keywords only when writing my
question. Going back to the browser configuration, I see that there
is a keyword.enabled property, which
That just sends terms typed in the browser to your URL specific by config
property keyword.URL. It has some sort of logic to see whether or not it is a
host name. If it is not a hostname (or URL form), then it make the query to
keyword.URL. I do not understand how this would violate a user's
Elimina el elemento seleccionado de los procedimientos de plataformas.
Dear all,
I have built mozilla 1.7.12 on Digital UNIX 4.0F. Running mozilla from
the local build directory fails to load libpipnss.so.
However, when I use make DESTDIR=/tmp install, package the tree,
install it as root, run regxpcom and regchrome as root, but then run
mozilla as normal user,
I don't know where to put this, but this call:
permissionManager.add(URI, document, permission);
no longer works. Is this a bug or a feature (I sure hope not)?
Thank you,
Michael
___
Mozilla-security mailing list
Mozilla-security@mozilla.org
I just received an obvious fishing message that was directing me to
https://signin.ebay.com.
It looked really interesting, fishing using an https site rings a bell,
but this was the real ebay login site (I had a doubt at first, was that
the comeback of some i18n trick ?), so I really wondered
Hire a few hackers, in order to determine the persons skills just setup up a
server and let everyone go at it.
Seems logical...of course the question remains, can you trust them?
___
Mozilla-security mailing list
Mozilla-security@mozilla.org
Thanks for the info!
Frank
--
Frank Hecker
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Mozilla-security mailing list
Mozilla-security@mozilla.org
http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-security
Frank Hecker wrote:
First, I won't be allowing HTML tags in submitted comments. My plan was
to simply use the Perl CGI::EscapeHTML function (Blosxom is written in
Perl) to convert '', '', double quote, and 0x8b and 0x9b to the
corresponding HTML character entities prior to the submitted
!:?) wrote:
Hello,
I have Netscape for my ISP and they use AOL Servers.
(They are owned by AOL)
Using Netscape 7.2 Browser Email Client, Netscape ISP Dial-up.
I switched ISP's several Months ago.
I see a large number of Hits on Port 80, some are Web Sites, most are
users and never Seen so
I see mozilla browsers allow import of PKCS12 certs (I'm using mozilla
on linux). There's a lot of documentation on creating certs for apache,
but I'm looking for the command for creating a cert for mozilla that the
web site owner can sign and then use for access to the private web page.
I
Hello,
I have Netscape for my ISP and they use AOL Servers.
(They are owned by AOL)
Using Netscape 7.2 Browser Email Client, Netscape ISP Dial-up.
I switched ISP's several Months ago.
I see a large number of Hits on Port 80, some are Web Sites, most are
users and never Seen so many hits on
Using CTRL-N creates a new window with the same session-id, indeed. So my
question takes on an other course (knowing that all browser have this kind
of behaviour): If a user asks for his personals on tab A and tab B in FF
(for example), deletes his data on tab B and then tries to edit it on tab
Ok, this suggest a solution in the application and not in the environment it
runs in. Is that realy how it works? I would like to think this problem is
best dealt with on the level where you can control it all in one procedure
like in the webserver/webclient. But if this is how it works...
RML wrote:
Yes, IE gives me 2 session id's. That what I expected to get on a multi-tab
browser too.
Are you *sure* of that ?
If you click twice on the blue e, you'll get two instances of the
application, and then two different session id.
But if you get a new windows of the same instance
Planet Internet Nieuws wrote:
I'm currently writing a .NET application and I run into a problem using
multi-tab browsers (like FireFox). I'm using the unique ASP.NET session-id
to keep track of security issues with a logged-in user. The session id is
one-on-one with his/her security account.
Next question: differs a cookie with individual tab in FireFox?
Michael Vincent van Rantwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] schreef in bericht
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Store a session cookie with that session id and check if that cookie is
stored ;)
Michael
Planet Internet Nieuws wrote:
I'm currently writing a .NET application and I run into a problem using
multi-tab browsers (like FireFox). I'm using the unique ASP.NET session-id
to keep track of security issues with a logged-in user. The session id is
one-on-one with his/her security account.
Well, the problem is that I've divided my users into different groups. And
those groups have various levels of authorities. The problem that occurs is
that, not knowing which browser-tab is using my application, I can't be
sure what permissions to give to the application-user should users use
RML wrote:
Well, the problem is that I've divided my users into different groups. And
those groups have various levels of authorities. The problem that occurs is
that, not knowing which browser-tab is using my application, I can't be
sure what permissions to give to the application-user
Yes, IE gives me 2 session id's. That what I expected to get on a multi-tab
browser too.
Michael Vincent van Rantwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] schreef in bericht
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RML wrote:
Next question: differs a cookie with individual tab in FireFox?
No, because two tabs are just like
That'll get me somewhere. Thanks.
Michael Vincent van Rantwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] schreef in bericht
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RML wrote:
Well, the problem is that I've divided my users into different groups.
And those groups have various levels of authorities. The problem that
occurs is
RML wrote:
Yes, IE gives me 2 session id's. That what I expected to get on a multi-tab
browser too.
Hm, and what happens when you open two windows, not tabs, in Mozilla
Firefox?
Michael Vincent van Rantwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] schreef in bericht
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RML wrote:
Next
Just tested that and that worries me even more... Got the same session-id
too. Which means that an administrator uses the same session id as a regular
user does. Doesn't sound too good.
Michael Vincent van Rantwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] schreef in bericht
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RML wrote:
Yes,
Matt Nordhoff wrote:
On 08/11/05 10:00, Bob Chauvin ( Paix dehors ) wrote:
Yahoo! sets the form so the password manager will ignore it. There's a
Remember Password bookmarklet that should make the password manager
work, but I don't have the link to it.
Shouldn't it be up to the user
On 08/12/05 15:29, Ulrich Boche wrote:
Matt Nordhoff wrote:
On 08/11/05 10:00, Bob Chauvin ( Paix dehors ) wrote:
Yahoo! sets the form so the password manager will ignore it. There's a
Remember Password bookmarklet that should make the password manager
work, but I don't have the link to it.
Ulrich Boche wrote:
Matt Nordhoff wrote:
On 08/11/05 10:00, Bob Chauvin ( Paix dehors ) wrote:
Yahoo! sets the form so the password manager will ignore it. There's a
Remember Password bookmarklet that should make the password manager
work, but I don't have the link to it.
Shouldn't it be
Duane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nelson B wrote:
Two buttons: rip me off, protect me from the rip off
would undoubtedly change user responses.
I doubt it, their ISP/tech support etc would tell them to ignore it as
an over reaction... Rather then trying
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Fabrizio Marana wrote:
Duane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nelson B wrote:
Two buttons: rip me off, protect me from the rip off
would undoubtedly change user responses.
I doubt it, their ISP/tech support etc would tell them to
On 08/11/05 10:00, Bob Chauvin ( Paix dehors ) wrote:
Can anyone verify that the Firefox pw maanger d/n work with Yahoo?
Specifically, I use the https site to log-in, but Firefox doesn't prompt.
Older versions of FF would prompt AFTER I had type my username/password and
clicked the submit
I've just placed new version of TrustBar including Hey! component for
testing usability and training users, please save to disk and then open
via FireFox, from:
http://www.cs.biu.ac.il/~herzbea//TrustBar/Latest%20TB.xpi
The Hey! component is designed to support testing for other bars so I'll
This really works. I have already received a free
psp
___
Mozilla-security mailing list
Mozilla-security@mozilla.org
http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-security
Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:
p.s. Why is no-one honoring the Followup-To of n.p.m.security?
Actually, you're the only one who's set any follow-up of the posts I
have, and I've not seen any replies to any of your messages. I'm not
even going to see *this* reply, so don't get too stuck-up about
On 08/07/05 23:43, Mats Palmgren wrote:
roc wrote:
Why can't you open the file browser and paste the URL in there?
The native file picker which we use in trunk GTK2 builds does not
have a text field.
The general UI design of that thing is just a disaster. It's also
painfully slow on
That's an argument for fixing bug 111821, not an argument against
making the textbox read-only.
___
Mozilla-security mailing list
Mozilla-security@mozilla.org
http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-security
Why can't you open the file browser and paste the URL in there?
Rob
___
Mozilla-security mailing list
Mozilla-security@mozilla.org
http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-security
roc wrote:
That's an argument for fixing bug 111821, not an argument against making the
textbox read-only.
Or at least an argument for fixing bug 111821 before making the textbox
read-only.
--
Warning: May contain traces of nuts.
___
roc schrieb:
Why can't you open the file browser and paste the URL in there?
Because it needs two clicks and several mouse movements more?
Robert Kaiser
___
Mozilla-security mailing list
Mozilla-security@mozilla.org
Robert Kaiser wrote:
roc schrieb:
Why can't you open the file browser and paste the URL in there?
Because it needs two clicks and several mouse movements more?
Robert Kaiser
Not to mention if for accessability reasons you use the mouse for
copy/paste. (a simple right-click in the
roc wrote:
Why can't you open the file browser and paste the URL in there?
The native file picker which we use in trunk GTK2 builds does not
have a text field.
The general UI design of that thing is just a disaster. It's also
painfully slow on directories with many files, I often see delays
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=258875 I propose making
the text control in a file input be readonly. This will prevent various
kinds of spoofing attacks, but it may affect usability. Any
objections/counterproposals?
I like jruderman's idea from bug
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
In https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=258875 I propose making
the text control in a file input be readonly. This will prevent various
kinds of spoofing attacks, but it may affect usability. Any
objections/counterproposals?
Actually, I also like being able
Robert Kaiser wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
In https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=258875 I propose making
the text control in a file input be readonly. This will prevent various
kinds of spoofing attacks, but it may affect usability. Any
objections/counterproposals?
Actually, I
James Ross wrote:
whether the code should be able to *read* the value is another
question, but I suspect there is some long and silly history about
allowing that
Maybe make it so that the page can only read the value if it was chosen
via the filepicker?
--
Warning: May contain traces of
Robert Kaiser wrote:
See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=17860 from bug
57770 (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57770). The
problem is that the *user* did all the interaction with the form, and
still managed to attempt an upload of a system file (whether the code
Neil wrote:
James Ross wrote:
whether the code should be able to *read* the value is another
question, but I suspect there is some long and silly history about
allowing that
Maybe make it so that the page can only read the value if it was chosen
via the filepicker?
Why, if I know the
See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=17860 from bug 57770
(https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57770). The problem is
that the *user* did all the interaction with the form, and still managed
to attempt an upload of a system file (whether the code should be able
to *read*
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=258875 I propose making
the text control in a file input be readonly. This will prevent various
kinds of spoofing attacks, but it may affect usability. Any
objections/counterproposals?
Please don't - or make it an option
In https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=258875 I propose making
the text control in a file input be readonly. This will prevent various
kinds of spoofing attacks, but it may affect usability. Any
objections/counterproposals?
Rob
___
Acuerdas de limpiar tu habitacion hoy.
Fabrizio Marana wrote:
As Ping points out in his blog, there are two steps in a typical phishing
attack: first the email message, then the website. So when the end-user
clicks on the link to the website, (s)he has already accepted an authority
twice. Unfortunately for us, the authority of
Nelson B wrote:
Two buttons: rip me off, protect me from the rip off
would undoubtedly change user responses.
I doubt it, their ISP/tech support etc would tell them to ignore it as
an over reaction... Rather then trying to explain the finer details of
what exactly is occurring, this isn't
Frank Hecker:
I thought this was an interesting blog post, with obvious implications
for the issue of warning dialogs in Firefox, Thunderbird, etc.
http://usablesecurity.com/2005/07/19/obedience-to-authority/
Florian Weimer wrote:
all-too-common security warnings are not effective at all
As Ping points out in his blog, there are two steps in a typical phishing
attack: first the email message, then the website. So when the end-user
clicks on the link to the website, (s)he has already accepted an authority
twice. Unfortunately for us, the authority of the phisher...
People
* Frank Hecker:
I thought this was an interesting blog post, with obvious implications
for the issue of warning dialogs in Firefox, Thunderbird, etc.
http://usablesecurity.com/2005/07/19/obedience-to-authority/
This is certainly a problem. The more significant issue (and I
believe it's
I thought this was an interesting blog post, with obvious implications
for the issue of warning dialogs in Firefox, Thunderbird, etc.
http://usablesecurity.com/2005/07/19/obedience-to-authority/
Frank
--
Frank Hecker
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
On 2005-07-18, Vrodok the Troll [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 18 Jul 2005 14:04:21 GMT, in netscape.public.mozilla.security, Michael
Lefevre [EMAIL PROTECTED], by way of Message-id
[EMAIL PROTECTED], wrote:
[snip]
There was a problem with the release, which was discovered with Firefox
first, so
CERT and others are recommending going to version 1.7.9 - there are some
references to it on Mozilla's site but I can't find the download. Any
ideas?
David Fosdike
dfosdike at nospam(leave this out and change 'dots' and 'at') dot elders dot
com dot au
Hi charlie,
have similiar problems ... have you made some progress in the
meanwhile?
viz
charlie schmitt wrote:
*If there's a better place to post this please let me know
I have a simple xul application which records a browser session. I
capture (at the moment) click and change
Amir Herzberg wrote:
I wonder: was the mere fact of you meeting with them a secret? If so,
did you get permission to disclose this secret (was it declassified)?
The existence of the meeting was not a secret.
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archives/008126.html
It must have been `top
Space Riqui wrote:
--- Heikki Toivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
after playing around for a while I managed to go to
a site I had set a petname for but the petname
field showed untrusted (I've been unable to
reproduce this, though)
This has happened to me a few times with the following web
Doug Ludy wrote:
I am a newcomer who knows a little bit about group process. It has been
fascinating to watch this newsgroup at work--brilliant minds and
powerful egos working toward similar goals. I am reminded of a debate
in the English parliament. Rather than viewing the current impasse
Gervase Markham wrote:
Amir Herzberg wrote:
It is not an issue of fairness, it is an issue of open process. I am
indeed disappointed to find that Mozilla is not acting openly. As a
believer in open process, I am concerned that the result may be
suboptimal.
I would like the process to be
There were several good threads we left in Mozilla.security, which I
think we may want to revisit and try to resolve in the new anti-fraud
list. For now, I'm cross-posting, although I suggest we continue only on
anti-fraud if nobody objects, simply since it is more focused.
Heikki Toivonen
Duane wrote:
But how can you trust a process going on behind closed door and
excluding everyone else?
We're not developing security protocols, we're developing best practices
and UI. And I am very strongly of the opinion that there needs to be a
public review process, and have made that
Gervase Markham wrote:
Ian Grigg wrote:
This is clearly not the case - in partnership with the other browser
vendors, we are together working out the most appropriate UI and then
all implementing it.
That's fine, but of course not currently an open process. Duane kindly
setup an open
Gervase Markham wrote:
Ian Grigg wrote:
This is clearly not the case - in partnership with the other browser
vendors, we are together working out the most appropriate UI and then
all implementing it.
That's fine, but of course not currently an open process.
Duane kindly setup an open
Gervase Markham wrote:
Amir Herzberg wrote:
It is not an issue of fairness, it is an issue of open process. I am
indeed disappointed to find that Mozilla is not acting openly. As a
believer in open process, I am concerned that the result may be
suboptimal.
I would like the process to be
Space Riqui wrote:
--- Heikki Toivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
after playing around for a while I managed to go to
a site I had set a petname for but the petname
field showed untrusted (I've been unable to
reproduce this, though)
This has happened to me a few times with the following web
Ian Grigg wrote:
2. This policy seems to have arisen alongside or
from a closed meeting of a month or so ago. Duane
(representing a CA of 2000 members) didn't get
invited to the closed meeting of CAs and browser
manufacturers. No minutes, no agenda, no published
results. There is only one
Customer demand. We have to support both browsers now.
Duane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mike Stokes wrote:
Thanks again for all of your help Duane. I'm going to go do some more
research on this. I can't use any of the technologies that you use due
to
our
Nelson,
Thanks for the info. I'm gonna go check out those Netscape reference docs
right away.
Nelson B [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mike Stokes wrote:
I'm new to the Netscape/Firefox/Mozilla platform and I've been tasked
with
providing a programmatic method for
Ian Grigg wrote:
On the notion of common and consistent security
UI policy - how is that any different to follow the
leader ? It's synonymous as far as I can see it.
sigh
The implication of the phrase follow the leader is that we are just
doing what others are doing simply because they are
Ian Grigg wrote:
This is
clearly not the case - in partnership with the other browser vendors, we
are together working out the most appropriate UI and then all
implementing it.
This is news. Are you intending to announce this or
does it remain embargoed ? What is clear about it?
Who's in
Ian Grigg responded to Gerv:
Amir Herzberg wrote:
So, Mozilla plays `follow the leader`? Nice to know. Not exactly the
original goal of the project, was it?
Up to this point, our discussions have been reasonably civil, but now
you are just throwing clearly ridiculous assertions around.
Guys,
this will be my last post, for reasons that I hope are
clear. If anyone wants to discuss phishing, let me
know. I'm hopeful a specialist list for cross-fertilisation
of phishing efforts will pop up soon.
On Saturday 25 June 2005 23:07, Gervase Markham wrote:
Ian Grigg wrote:
On the
On Saturday 25 June 2005 12:16, Jeroen van Iddekinge wrote:
Hi,
I got the following mail in mine Thunderbird (1.0 linux) email box.
what the hell is it? It doesn't event have a proper header (no
'receaved' etc.. header)
Is it a bug or a virus?
No, accidental usage?! Someone is
Hi,
Hmm yes , but wat about the missing headers?
There is no 'recieved' header etc... the recieving smtp server should
add it to the message isn't it?
regards
Jeroen.
On Saturday 25 June 2005 12:16, Jeroen van Iddekinge wrote:
Hi,
I got the following mail in mine Thunderbird (1.0 linux)
The behavior of scanning the system for all sorts of plugins and
enabling them by default needs to stop. Not only is the default
behavior to enable external plugins by default without prompting the
user, but there is no convenient way to disable them from the UI.
I've been setting the
Dave A. wrote:
The behavior of scanning the system for all sorts of plugins and
enabling them by default needs to stop. Not only is the default
behavior to enable external plugins by default without prompting the
user, but there is no convenient way to disable them from the UI.
I've been
1 - 100 of 2214 matches
Mail list logo
