Re: SeaMonkey Update Fails Because A 2nd Copy Is Running ???
On 15/07/2015 12:33 PM, HenriK wrote: Rick Merrill wrote: HenriK wrote on 07/12/2015 4:58 PM: Snip I am really confused. Win7 Home Task Manager consistently indicates no SM is running after a deinstall of v.2.30. Fortunately, my profile info was left untouched by the v.2.30 deinstall process. BUT, I still get the error message that the v.2.33.1, the newest version won't install because another copy of SM (version not stated) is running. After clicking past the error message window, however, I find that v.2.33.1 has, in fact, been installed. How do I get rid of this nuisance error message? Although I have been around since the MS-DOS days and don't really understand much about any Windows version after W98, I can't help but wonder if some odd bid of something has been left by the SM v.2.30 deinstall process in the registry or some other obscure place or that the v.2.33.1 install mechanism code fails to do something it was supposed to do. Again, any ideas on how to get rid of the nuisance error message and what is causing this problem? Thanks, in advance for pointers to tutorials, and any suggestions or advice. Knowing nothing about the issue, I am reminded of times when I had to reboot the whole computer because some program had left an in-use flag on a file that a program needed and only a reboot would clear it. You name what what I tried to describe: some program - in this case, the SM upgrade process - has left an 'in-use flag' alive. If that is the case, how does one get rid of the unwanted 'in-use flag'? Multiple reboots of the PC didn't solve the problem. Henrik, it might be a bit drastic but have you tried completely deleting SM (but leaving your profile in place), then used a registry cleaner to remove any bits left-over by the removal and then done a complete re-install of SM?? Of course, before trying this, download a complete new copy of whatever the latest version of SM that you like is and, better safe than sorry, copy or back-up your profile. -- Daniel User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:35.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.32 Build identifier: 20141218225909 or User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:36.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.33 Build identifier: 20150215202114 ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: IMAP Mail Question
On 16/07/2015 3:15 AM, hawker wrote: Snip I know no way to have IMAP remove the mail from the server for local storage so I have to do it this way. Note: I don't use (or know much about) IMAP, but I thought if you moved a message, on your computer, to another folder, rather than your inbox, that message was automatically deleted from the IMAP server's inbox! -- Daniel User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:35.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.32 Build identifier: 20141218225909 or User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:36.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.33 Build identifier: 20150215202114 ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: I can no longer see my photos inside my google albums
On 16/07/2015 7:06 AM, kris.buel...@gmail.com wrote: Since Sunday all of a sudden I can no longer see my photo's in my web albums. (I still see the albums themselves, but not a single photo). I'm using https://picasaweb.google.com and https://plus.google.com/photos/... I can see the names of all my albums, but also the cover photo is missing. When I use the Web Album, I see small rectangles where the photo's should be, when I click on one, I get an almost blank page (blank where my photo is supposed to be), and if I ask to see the photo details, all Exif data is correctly displayed. As suggested in a Picasa forum append, I cleared all cookies from all google. domains and I cleared the cache. It doesn't help. And when I say I cleared the cache, I mean really clear, all files were removed, I even told my browser to use a fresh subdirectory as cache. When I ask my browser (SeaMonkey, 2.33.1) to use another user profile, it all works again, so it surely isn't SeaMonkey itself that is causing the problem. When using Chrome, IE or FireFox it also works. With other words: only my current user profile causes the problem. I could start using another user profile, but then I'd have to copy all passwords, forms data, bookmarks, etc that are in my current user profile. I also thought about the certificates. From the servers I removed the *.google.com entries, but that didn't help either. Should I clear everything? I also have google spreadsheets in which I imbed thumbnails from one Picasa Web Albums: some of those thumbnails are still displayed, some others are no longer shown (so it surely is not a setting that tells never show images of domain google.xxx) Kris, one of the other threads in this group is suggesting problems with (Adobe Shockwave) Flash. Have you updated to the latest version?? Another thread was experiencing site blockage due to the ad blocker program they used. If so, have you checked your settings there?? -- Daniel User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:35.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.32 Build identifier: 20141218225909 or User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:36.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.33 Build identifier: 20150215202114 ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: I can no longer see my photos inside my google albums
Good points. I did inded already have the latest Flash plugin. And, for Ad Block: I disabled it for Picasa, what didn't help. So I decided to disable all my Add-Ons, restarted Seamonkey, but that doesn't help either. I now also asked Seamonkey to check all my plug-ins. Nothing special to mention (only Java was, again, backlevel) But, I used Switch Profile, and remarked that the same plug-ins ara active in my test profile, were I can correctly see my Picasa photo's. Conclusion: - Plug-ins don't play any role here - My Add-ons are not the cause either. I'll re-enable them all. What about purging all certificates? I guess they will be recreated when needed, without too much work for me (apart from some Yes I agree click). On Thursday, 16 July 2015 11:48:56 UTC+2, Daniel wrote: On 16/07/2015 7:06 AM, kris.buel...@gmail.com wrote: Since Sunday all of a sudden I can no longer see my photo's in my web albums. (I still see the albums themselves, but not a single photo). I'm using https://picasaweb.google.com and https://plus.google.com/photos/... I can see the names of all my albums, but also the cover photo is missing. When I use the Web Album, I see small rectangles where the photo's should be, when I click on one, I get an almost blank page (blank where my photo is supposed to be), and if I ask to see the photo details, all Exif data is correctly displayed. As suggested in a Picasa forum append, I cleared all cookies from all google. domains and I cleared the cache. It doesn't help. And when I say I cleared the cache, I mean really clear, all files were removed, I even told my browser to use a fresh subdirectory as cache. When I ask my browser (SeaMonkey, 2.33.1) to use another user profile, it all works again, so it surely isn't SeaMonkey itself that is causing the problem. When using Chrome, IE or FireFox it also works. With other words: only my current user profile causes the problem. I could start using another user profile, but then I'd have to copy all passwords, forms data, bookmarks, etc that are in my current user profile. I also thought about the certificates. From the servers I removed the *.google.com entries, but that didn't help either. Should I clear everything? I also have google spreadsheets in which I imbed thumbnails from one Picasa Web Albums: some of those thumbnails are still displayed, some others are no longer shown (so it surely is not a setting that tells never show images of domain google.xxx) Kris, one of the other threads in this group is suggesting problems with (Adobe Shockwave) Flash. Have you updated to the latest version?? Another thread was experiencing site blockage due to the ad blocker program they used. If so, have you checked your settings there?? -- Daniel User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:35.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.32 Build identifier: 20141218225909 or User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:36.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.33 Build identifier: 20150215202114 ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: IMAP Mail Question
On 7/16/2015 5:23 AM, Daniel wrote: On 16/07/2015 3:15 AM, hawker wrote: Snip I know no way to have IMAP remove the mail from the server for local storage so I have to do it this way. Note: I don't use (or know much about) IMAP, but I thought if you moved a message, on your computer, to another folder, rather than your inbox, that message was automatically deleted from the IMAP server's inbox! It is removed from the IMAP folders inbox, but still on the server in another IMAP folder. The OP has only so much space so he needs to get it off the server entirely. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: IMAP Mail Question
hawker wrote: On 7/16/2015 5:23 AM, Daniel wrote: On 16/07/2015 3:15 AM, hawker wrote: Snip I know no way to have IMAP remove the mail from the server for local storage so I have to do it this way. Note: I don't use (or know much about) IMAP, but I thought if you moved a message, on your computer, to another folder, rather than your inbox, that message was automatically deleted from the IMAP server's inbox! It is removed from the IMAP folders inbox, but still on the server in another IMAP folder. The OP has only so much space so he needs to get it off the server entirely. Couldn't OP just create a message filter on the account's Inbox that would place a copy in some folder under Local Folders upon arrival. That way all messages automatically get a local copy. Probably want to set filter to run *after* processing junk filter. Then all he has to do is every once and a while sort Inbox by date and delete old messages which would clear out the server but he should not lose them because they were already backed up locally in Local Folders. -- Take care, Jonathan --- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: help needed posting
chicagofan wrote: Earl Hicks wrote: Jon Ed were right on there was a slight difference in the smtp addressing Thanks for the help I missed your new thread, before I posted my useless response to your original message. Sorry about that. Glad you solved the problem. :) bj The best time for a useless response is after the original problem has been fixed and the original poster is happy. ;-) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Flash plug-in
A Williams wrote: John Duncan wrote: rjkrjk wrote: follow the link to adobe, and d/l current version 1800 209 Paul in Houston, TX wrote on 7/14/2015 12:27 AM: Paul Bergsagel wrote: I got the message in SeaMonkey Shockwave Flash is venerable. Use with caution yesterday and updated to the latest up to date flash plug-in. Today I get the same warning about flash. I clicked on the add-ons manager under the Tools menu and clicked on Check to see if your plugins are up to date which takes me to https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/plugincheck/ only to inform me that all versions of Adobe's Flash Player are currently vulnerable. BTW I am using MacOS X. How safe is it to activate flash when it has been blocked by Seamonkey because it is outdated? Thanks, Paul. https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/flash-player/apsa15-04.html How safe? That's relative to YOUR browsing habits and computer knowledge. I am not the least bit concerned about my machines. The small kids next door probably already have their computers infected. A good point, but still, technically speaking, all versions of flash (and newer versions of the java plugin) have some nasty new 0-days because of that stupid italian ``hacking team'' that recently themselves got hacked. Still, with good browsing habits and a bit of common sense, most power users should be fine. In this context, the Italian Hacking Job was a good thing. The Italians were already using the exploit and now everybody is aware of it. I read just now that the count of flaws in Flash found so far this month is up to 38. Finally people are thinking of killing the beast. Was the message really Shockwave Flash is venerable. Use with caution? That would imply it was simply complaining about an older version. Has anyone ever called Flash venerable? I doubt that it is worthy of that much respect. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Flash plug-in
On 17/07/2015, EE nu...@bees.wax wrote: Has anyone ever called Flash venerable? I doubt that it is worthy of that much respect. I thought that it was only a bead that was venerable; the venerable bead. I thought that flash and its problems, were more venereal. -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .. So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means. - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of Book 1 of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts, written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992 ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: help needed posting
A Williams wrote: chicagofan wrote: Earl Hicks wrote: Jon Ed were right on there was a slight difference in the smtp addressing Thanks for the help I missed your new thread, before I posted my useless response to your original message. Sorry about that. Glad you solved the problem. :) bj The best time for a useless response is after the original problem has been fixed and the original poster is happy. ;-) LOL! I hope the other users of this newsgroup are as forgiving. ;) bj ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: SeaMonkey Update Fails Because A 2nd Copy Is Running ???
On 17.07.15 4:41, HenriK wrote: Daniel wrote: On 15/07/2015 12:33 PM, HenriK wrote: Rick Merrill wrote: HenriK wrote on 07/12/2015 4:58 PM: Snip I am really confused. Win7 Home Task Manager consistently indicates no SM is running after a deinstall of v.2.30. Fortunately, my profile info was left untouched by the v.2.30 deinstall process. BUT, I still get the error message that the v.2.33.1, the newest version won't install because another copy of SM (version not stated) is running. After clicking past the error message window, however, I find that v.2.33.1 has, in fact, been installed. How do I get rid of this nuisance error message? Although I have been around since the MS-DOS days and don't really understand much about any Windows version after W98, I can't help but wonder if some odd bid of something has been left by the SM v.2.30 deinstall process in the registry or some other obscure place or that the v.2.33.1 install mechanism code fails to do something it was supposed to do. Again, any ideas on how to get rid of the nuisance error message and what is causing this problem? Thanks, in advance for pointers to tutorials, and any suggestions or advice. Knowing nothing about the issue, I am reminded of times when I had to reboot the whole computer because some program had left an in-use flag on a file that a program needed and only a reboot would clear it. You name what what I tried to describe: some program - in this case, the SM upgrade process - has left an 'in-use flag' alive. If that is the case, how does one get rid of the unwanted 'in-use flag'? Multiple reboots of the PC didn't solve the problem. Henrik, it might be a bit drastic but have you tried completely deleting SM (but leaving your profile in place), then used a registry cleaner to remove any bits left-over by the removal and then done a complete re-install of SM?? Of course, before trying this, download a complete new copy of whatever the latest version of SM that you like is and, better safe than sorry, copy or back-up your profile. Thanks for the comment. I have, in fact, already deleted SM twice and reinstalled it and that didn't fix the problem. The problem with using a registry cleaner is that one needs to know what one is looking for. My past experience is that most registry cleaners aren't particularly discriminating and often delete things one doesn't want deleted (I have had bad experience in that regard). Accordingly, their use has to be handled in a very precise way to avoid problems. The problem remains, assuming I am looking for some odd bit of SM code remaining in the registry, what is it I need to look for? I would had hoped someone from the SM development team might chime in with some pointers on what I should be looking for. I use revo uninstall to really clean the system of trash, be it files, directories or registery items. Of course, save/backup your profile. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: SeaMonkey Update Fails Because A 2nd Copy Is Running ???
Daniel wrote: On 15/07/2015 12:33 PM, HenriK wrote: Rick Merrill wrote: HenriK wrote on 07/12/2015 4:58 PM: Snip I am really confused. Win7 Home Task Manager consistently indicates no SM is running after a deinstall of v.2.30. Fortunately, my profile info was left untouched by the v.2.30 deinstall process. BUT, I still get the error message that the v.2.33.1, the newest version won't install because another copy of SM (version not stated) is running. After clicking past the error message window, however, I find that v.2.33.1 has, in fact, been installed. How do I get rid of this nuisance error message? Although I have been around since the MS-DOS days and don't really understand much about any Windows version after W98, I can't help but wonder if some odd bid of something has been left by the SM v.2.30 deinstall process in the registry or some other obscure place or that the v.2.33.1 install mechanism code fails to do something it was supposed to do. Again, any ideas on how to get rid of the nuisance error message and what is causing this problem? Thanks, in advance for pointers to tutorials, and any suggestions or advice. Knowing nothing about the issue, I am reminded of times when I had to reboot the whole computer because some program had left an in-use flag on a file that a program needed and only a reboot would clear it. You name what what I tried to describe: some program - in this case, the SM upgrade process - has left an 'in-use flag' alive. If that is the case, how does one get rid of the unwanted 'in-use flag'? Multiple reboots of the PC didn't solve the problem. Henrik, it might be a bit drastic but have you tried completely deleting SM (but leaving your profile in place), then used a registry cleaner to remove any bits left-over by the removal and then done a complete re-install of SM?? Of course, before trying this, download a complete new copy of whatever the latest version of SM that you like is and, better safe than sorry, copy or back-up your profile. Thanks for the comment. I have, in fact, already deleted SM twice and reinstalled it and that didn't fix the problem. The problem with using a registry cleaner is that one needs to know what one is looking for. My past experience is that most registry cleaners aren't particularly discriminating and often delete things one doesn't want deleted (I have had bad experience in that regard). Accordingly, their use has to be handled in a very precise way to avoid problems. The problem remains, assuming I am looking for some odd bit of SM code remaining in the registry, what is it I need to look for? I would had hoped someone from the SM development team might chime in with some pointers on what I should be looking for. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Flash plug-in
Bret Busby wrote: On 17/07/2015, EE nu...@bees.wax wrote: Has anyone ever called Flash venerable? I doubt that it is worthy of that much respect. I thought that it was only a bead that was venerable; the venerable bead. If you are referring to the Anglo-Saxon Monk, Priest, and Scholar it is actually Bede. Keith I thought that flash and its problems, were more venereal. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Flash plug-in
On 17/07/2015, Keith N. McKenna keith.mcke...@comcast.net wrote: Bret Busby wrote: On 17/07/2015, EE nu...@bees.wax wrote: Has anyone ever called Flash venerable? I doubt that it is worthy of that much respect. I thought that it was only a bead that was venerable; the venerable bead. If you are referring to the Anglo-Saxon Monk, Priest, and Scholar it is actually Bede. Keith I was being facetious. From what I understand, that Bede was a creative historian, with recording as having existed, King Arthur and the Knights Of the Round Table, possibly dragons, and other fantasy things. Whether he also recorded Asterix and Obelix, as having saved Londinium from the Romans, I am not sure. -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .. So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means. - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of Book 1 of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts, written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992 ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
