Re: BIG IMAGE

[David E. Ross]

On 1/26/2017 9:11 PM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
> David E. Ross wrote:
> 
>> I tried to recreate your problem.  However, a very sharp JPEG file
>> that is 1852x1852 px is only 750 KB on my PC.
> 
> Image file size depends both on the number of pixels and on the color 
> depth. 1852×1852×2/8=857,476 bytes = 837.38 kB (black and white) is much 
> less than 1852×1852×1,048,576/8=449,564,377,088 bytes = 439,027,712 kB = 
> 428,738 MB (true color).
> 
> I haven't bothered to account for check bits and the efficiency achieved 
> by the lossy JPEG format, but the principle holds: color depth affects 
> file size.
> 
I took a color photograph 2615 x 1656 px with 24-bit true color and a
resolution of 350 px/in.  The file size was 1.18 MB (European 1,18 MB).

I went and repeated my analysis but with different steps.  This time, I
resized it to 1852 x 1852 px, which distorted it.  The resulting file
was 2.12 MB (European 2,12 MB).  I then reduced it to 500 x 500 px,
which still looked quite sharp.  That resulted in a 90 KB file.

Previously, I cropped the photo to get a square 1656 x 1656 px image and
then resized it to 1852 x 1852 px.  Obviously, cropping caused a loss of
pixels and thus a reduced file size.  Ooops!

-- 
David E. Ross


When the President of the United States makes a statement of
national importance, I want to see his face as he is talking.
At the least, I want to hear his voice.

Donald:  Stop tweeting.  Otherwise, how do we know the message
really comes from you?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: BIG IMAGE

[Paul B. Gallagher]

David E. Ross wrote:


I tried to recreate your problem.  However, a very sharp JPEG file
that is 1852x1852 px is only 750 KB on my PC.


Image file size depends both on the number of pixels and on the color 
depth. 1852×1852×2/8=857,476 bytes = 837.38 kB (black and white) is much 
less than 1852×1852×1,048,576/8=449,564,377,088 bytes = 439,027,712 kB = 
428,738 MB (true color).


I haven't bothered to account for check bits and the efficiency achieved 
by the lossy JPEG format, but the principle holds: color depth affects 
file size.


--
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: BIG IMAGE

[David E. Ross]

On 1/26/2017 4:51 PM, Ray_Net wrote:
> I have a big image 1852 pixels x 1852 pixels
> 
> When I use in html  border="0"/>
> 
> The rendering by SM is superb
> 
> BUT using this have a side effect that when the end-user have this 
> picture on the web-page ... He downloaded the original picture 1852x1852 
> which is 2.042 KB
> 
> 
> To avoid this, I use Irfanview to shrink the picture to a 79 pixels x 79 
> pixels so the end-user download this modified picture which is 14 KB
> 
> And the rendering of this picture  height="79" width="79" border="0"/> by SM is poor.
> 
> 
> Is it possible that SM download the logo.jpg picture - then applied the 
> reduction to 79x79 - then save this new file somewhere - before showing 
> it in the final page ?
> 
> Can I retrieve this picture.file ? Or have you another bright idea ?
> 

I tried to recreate your problem.  However, a very sharp JPEG file that
is 1852x1852 px is only 750 KB on my PC.

Since your image is square, try resizing it to 600x600 px.  That would
be a file slightly smaller than 1/9 of the original.  Viewed at 79x79
px, it should still be sharp and significantly smaller.

If it is not sharp enough after resizing, some image-editing
applications allow you to increase the pixel density.  Do that BEFORE
resizing.  Just be careful not to undo the benefit of resizing.

-- 
David E. Ross


When the President of the United States makes a statement of
national importance, I want to see his face as he is talking.
At the least, I want to hear his voice.

Donald:  Stop tweeting.  Otherwise, how do we know the message
really comes from you?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: BIG IMAGE

[Jonathan N. Little]

Richard Alan wrote:
> Ray_Net wrote:
> 
>> I have a big image 1852 pixels x 1852 pixels
>> When I use in html > border="0"/>  The rendering by SM is superb
> 
> Stands to reason...
> 
>> BUT using this have a side effect that when the end-user have this
>> picture on the web-page ... He downloaded the original picture 1852x1852
>> which is 2.042 KB
> 
> KB? Not likely. You meant MB - megabytes - right?
> 
>> To avoid this, I use Irfanview to shrink the picture to a 79 pixels x 79
>> pixels so the end-user download this modified picture which is 14 KB
> 
> That's more reasonable.
>> And the rendering of this picture > height="79" width="79" border="0"/> by SM is poor.
> 
> Well, of course. You've reduced the quality by orders of magnitude.
> 

When reducing choose resampling over resize and pick filter for better
quality. After resampling, especially so severely, try sharping the
results, SHIFT+S


-- 
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: BIG IMAGE

[Pete]

Well, of course. You've reduced the quality by orders of magnitude.


I think that what the OP is saying is that SM does a much better job of 
resizing the image than IrfanView, and he wants to know how (or what 
software to use) to get a better quality smaller image.


Peter

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: BIG IMAGE

[Paul B. Gallagher]

Richard Alan wrote:


Ray_Net wrote:


I have a big image 1852 pixels x 1852 pixels When I use in html

The rendering by SM is superb


Stands to reason...


BUT using this have a side effect that when the end-user have this
picture on the web-page ... He downloaded the original picture
1852x1852 which is 2.042 KB


KB? Not likely. You meant MB - megabytes - right?


He's probably using the European delimiter system, where commas and 
periods are transposed. So his "2.042" is the American "2,042."


--
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: BIG IMAGE

[Richard Alan]

Ray_Net wrote:

> I have a big image 1852 pixels x 1852 pixels
> When I use in html  border="0"/>  The rendering by SM is superb

Stands to reason...

> BUT using this have a side effect that when the end-user have this
> picture on the web-page ... He downloaded the original picture 1852x1852
> which is 2.042 KB

KB? Not likely. You meant MB - megabytes - right?

> To avoid this, I use Irfanview to shrink the picture to a 79 pixels x 79
> pixels so the end-user download this modified picture which is 14 KB

That's more reasonable.
> And the rendering of this picture  height="79" width="79" border="0"/> by SM is poor.

Well, of course. You've reduced the quality by orders of magnitude.

> Is it possible that SM download the logo.jpg picture - then applied the
> reduction to 79x79

The height and width numbers in the HTML is what reduced the visual size 
of the image. SeaMonkey was instructed to do that by the web page.

> - then save this new file somewhere - before showing
> it in the final page ?

Not if you re-save it and call it a different file name.

> Can I retrieve this picture.file ? 

http://unknownwebsite.com/images/

> Or have you another bright idea ?

Are YOU authoring this page? Give the URL.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

BIG IMAGE

[Ray_Net]

I have a big image 1852 pixels x 1852 pixels

When I use in html border="0"/>


The rendering by SM is superb

BUT using this have a side effect that when the end-user have this 
picture on the web-page ... He downloaded the original picture 1852x1852 
which is 2.042 KB



To avoid this, I use Irfanview to shrink the picture to a 79 pixels x 79 
pixels so the end-user download this modified picture which is 14 KB


And the rendering of this picture height="79" width="79" border="0"/> by SM is poor.



Is it possible that SM download the logo.jpg picture - then applied the 
reduction to 79x79 - then save this new file somewhere - before showing 
it in the final page ?


Can I retrieve this picture.file ? Or have you another bright idea ?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Plain-text formatting

[Felix Miata]

Ray_Net composed on 2017-01-27 01:07 (UTC+0100):


Sometimes I used email to show an existing web page and the expected web
page it should be with my modifications - in that case HTML mail is
essential !


That's hardly a "most users" use case, or even essential. When I want to do 
that, I email only a URI, and put the content on my "web site", which is 
actually the same local location in which I construct the modified page. That 
way the content only needs to be read if and when the recipient wishes it seen 
rather than accounting for its space consumed overhead every time an email app 
opens the folder containing that message. I commit only my own storage space. 
Recipient commits space only if and when he chooses. When the email destination 
is a mailing list, your technique takes a many magnitudes bigger total storage 
and bandwidth consumption toll.

--
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: I THINK I FOUND THE WAY - Re: How to set DEFAULT zoom level

[Ray_Net]

Richard Owlett wrote on 26-01-17 11:28:

On 01/25/2017 03:22 PM, Ray_Net wrote:

Richard Owlett wrote on 25-01-17 15:21:

I've just changed laptops. The CRITICAL difference is the
change FROM a 4:3 aspect ratio TO 16:9.
I can properly display web sites if I *set ZOOM to 130%.
I can find settings for min and max zoom in about:config.

I wish to *FORCE DEFAULT ZOOM* to 133%.
How?


1. In about-config change the values of
toolkit.zoomManager.zoomValues
from "0.5,0.75,0.9,1,1.2,1.5,2"  (without the quotes)
to "0.5,0.75,0.9,1.33,1.4,1.5,2"
(without the quotes)
2. Stop SM

3. Start SM

4. Then click on "View" - "Zoom" then 133%

Sometimes I nned to perform steps 2 to 4 again, again, and
finally all is ok.
I had the same problem reverting my string to
"0.5,0.75,0.9,1,1.2,1.5,2" (without the quotes)


I tried that without success.
I'm using SM 2.40 { under Windows or Linux } and notice that my 
defaults for
toolkit.zoomManager.zoomValues are 
"0.5,0.67,0.8,0.9,1,1.1,1.2,1.33,1.5,1.7,2,2.4" .

What version of SM do you use?

I also experimented with setting it in user.js with no better success.
I'll not have opportunity to experiment more until the weekend.




I have SM 2.46 - but it should work with 2.40.
1. Your Values are too populated and the middle value IS NOT 1.33
2. Try this one:
"0.5,0.75,0.9,1.33,1.4,1.5,2"
and let (or put) :

Use Edit > Preferences > Appearance > Content.

Under *Zoom Options*, set "Range from" at 50 and "to" at 200.

Which is coherent with the toolkit.zoomManager.zoomValues I have

IF this doenot work, upgrade then first to 2.46.
(I did not have the possibility to test my solution with 2.40)
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Plain-text formatting

[Ray_Net]

Felix Miata wrote on 25-01-17 22:49:

Ray_Net composed on 2017-01-25 22:26 (UTC+0100):


Felix Miata wrote:



Ray_Net composed on 2017-01-25 22:00 (UTC+0100):



Why your newspaper is not in plain-text ?



What's a newspaper?



Use the first link found -> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Newspaper wikipedia


It was a joke. Emails aren't newspapers. Newspapers are comprised of 
many subjects and many pages. Rarely is an email or news post more 
than a paragraph or three or five. Those text size and font variations 
newspapers use rarely have applicability in the context of small text 
bodies. Individual articles in newspapers usually and for good reason 
use only one size and style. Most HTML email users don't use any rich 
text features even if and when appropriate, making the HTML markup and 
CSS styling pure useless bloat.
Sometimes I used email to show an existing web page and the expected web 
page it should be with my modifications - in that case HTML mail is 
essential !

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: I THINK I FOUND THE WAY - Re: How to set DEFAULT zoom level

[WaltS48]

On 01/26/2017 01:39 PM, Larry S. wrote:

me wrote:

Larry S. wrote:

me wrote:

WaltS48 wrote:

Once more with complete instructions.
Use Edit > Preferences > Appearance > Content.

Under *Zoom Options*, set "Range from" to 133 and "to" also at 133.

Enable the other options in that section as you prefer. The options
are:

"Zoom only text instead of full pages"
"Remember zoom levels on a per-site basis"
"Resize large images to fit in the browser window"

Click "Close".

Restart the browser.



Those options are not present in that place in 2.40.


Huh? What are you looking at? Or where?
Larry S.

I was looking at 2.40, on linux. There is no zoom range. However on 2.49
on linux there is. I haven't checked, I am assuming these options were
added after 2.40. What version are you using?


Sorry--using 2.46.


Everyone that thinks Richard should update raise their hand. 
--
Visit Pittsburgh 
Coexist 
National Popular Vote 
Ubuntu 16.04LTS
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: I THINK I FOUND THE WAY - Re: How to set DEFAULT zoom level

[Larry S.]

me wrote:

Larry S. wrote:

me wrote:

WaltS48 wrote:

Once more with complete instructions.
Use Edit > Preferences > Appearance > Content.

Under *Zoom Options*, set "Range from" to 133 and "to" also at 133.

Enable the other options in that section as you prefer. The options are:

"Zoom only text instead of full pages"
"Remember zoom levels on a per-site basis"
"Resize large images to fit in the browser window"

Click "Close".

Restart the browser.



Those options are not present in that place in 2.40.


Huh? What are you looking at? Or where?
Larry S.

I was looking at 2.40, on linux. There is no zoom range. However on 2.49
on linux there is. I haven't checked, I am assuming these options were
added after 2.40. What version are you using?


Sorry--using 2.46.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: How to set DEFAULT zoom level

[WaltS48]

On 01/25/2017 10:25 AM, Richard Owlett wrote:

On 01/25/2017 08:44 AM, me wrote:

Richard Owlett wrote:

I've just changed laptops. The CRITICAL difference is the change
FROM a 4:3 aspect ratio TO 16:9.
I can properly display web sites if I *set ZOOM to 130%.
I can find settings for min and max zoom in about:config.

I wish to *FORCE DEFAULT ZOOM* to 133%.
How?


Edit -> Preferences -> Appearance -> Zoom options -> Range From To.


There is NO "Zoom options" under "Edit -> Preferences -> Appearance" in
SeaMonkey 2.40 under either Windows or Linux.




I obviously missed this post. 

I recommend updating to the current release version 2.46, where you can 
set the default using the steps above.




--
Visit Pittsburgh 
Coexist 
National Popular Vote 
Ubuntu 16.04LTS
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: I THINK I FOUND THE WAY - Re: How to set DEFAULT zoom level

[WaltS48]

On 1/26/17 10:26 AM, me wrote:

WaltS48 wrote:

Once more with complete instructions.
Use Edit > Preferences > Appearance > Content.

Under *Zoom Options*, set "Range from" to 133 and "to" also at 133.

Enable the other options in that section as you prefer. The options are:

"Zoom only text instead of full pages"
"Remember zoom levels on a per-site basis"
"Resize large images to fit in the browser window"

Click "Close".

Restart the browser.



Those options are not present in that place in 2.40.



Oh sorry, I only tested the current 2.46, and future 2.49.

I don't provide support for outdated versions.

--
Visit Pittsburgh 
Coexist 
Windows 10
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: I THINK I FOUND THE WAY - Re: How to set DEFAULT zoom level

[me]

Larry S. wrote:
> me wrote:
>> WaltS48 wrote:
>>> Once more with complete instructions.
>>> Use Edit > Preferences > Appearance > Content.
>>>
>>> Under *Zoom Options*, set "Range from" to 133 and "to" also at 133.
>>>
>>> Enable the other options in that section as you prefer. The options are:
>>>
>>> "Zoom only text instead of full pages"
>>> "Remember zoom levels on a per-site basis"
>>> "Resize large images to fit in the browser window"
>>>
>>> Click "Close".
>>>
>>> Restart the browser.
>>>
>>>
>> Those options are not present in that place in 2.40.
>>
> Huh? What are you looking at? Or where?
> Larry S.
I was looking at 2.40, on linux. There is no zoom range. However on 2.49
on linux there is. I haven't checked, I am assuming these options were
added after 2.40. What version are you using?

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: I THINK I FOUND THE WAY - Re: How to set DEFAULT zoom level

[Larry S.]

me wrote:

WaltS48 wrote:

Once more with complete instructions.
Use Edit > Preferences > Appearance > Content.

Under *Zoom Options*, set "Range from" to 133 and "to" also at 133.

Enable the other options in that section as you prefer. The options are:

"Zoom only text instead of full pages"
"Remember zoom levels on a per-site basis"
"Resize large images to fit in the browser window"

Click "Close".

Restart the browser.



Those options are not present in that place in 2.40.


Huh? What are you looking at? Or where?
Larry S.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: I THINK I FOUND THE WAY - Re: How to set DEFAULT zoom level

[me]

WaltS48 wrote:
> Once more with complete instructions.
> Use Edit > Preferences > Appearance > Content.
>
> Under *Zoom Options*, set "Range from" to 133 and "to" also at 133.
>
> Enable the other options in that section as you prefer. The options are:
>
>   "Zoom only text instead of full pages"
>   "Remember zoom levels on a per-site basis"
>   "Resize large images to fit in the browser window"
>
> Click "Close".
>
> Restart the browser.
>
>
Those options are not present in that place in 2.40.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SSL_ERROR_NO_CYPHER_OVERLAP on videosift.com web site

[Steve Dunn]

On 2017-01-26 03:12, Ant wrote:

As you guys know, both Gecko based web browsers are the (lat/new)est
stable versions which I told them. "Can't they be made to also support
modern protocols?" is what they asked. So, I am asking you guys on how
to resolve/fix this security connection issue.


There are a lot of pieces to the puzzle here.  Each side supports 
various combinations of SSL/TLS versions, cipher suites, and so on - and 
in many cases the software allows the administrator/user to enable or 
disable parts of it.  I may speak ten languages and you may speak 
twenty, but if we have no languages in common, we can't have a 
conversation.  The same applies to SSL/TLS.


I'm glad to see that it got sorted out this time; it sounds like they 
made a configuration error when they were trying to improve security. 
If you run into this sort of thing in future and want some 
troubleshooting info, try these two steps:


1.  Go to https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/index.html and have it test 
the site that's giving you problems


2.  Go to https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/viewMyClient.html - this will 
tell you what parameters your browser supports


The first one includes simulation of various browsers to show whether 
that browser can connect to the site and, if so, what parameters would 
be used.  It doesn't include Seamonkey but it does include a few Firefox 
versions so you may find your answer in there without even resorting to 
step 2.  (I believe it simulates default settings only, so if you've 
fiddled with some of your settings, you may get a different result than 
the test does even if you're using exactly the same browser version.)


Failing that, comparing the list of what parameters the site supports 
from step 1 and what parameters your browser supports from step 2 will 
often show that there's a mismatch which prevents communications.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: I THINK I FOUND THE WAY - Re: How to set DEFAULT zoom level

[WaltS48]

On 01/26/2017 05:28 AM, Richard Owlett wrote:

On 01/25/2017 03:22 PM, Ray_Net wrote:

Richard Owlett wrote on 25-01-17 15:21:

I've just changed laptops. The CRITICAL difference is the
change FROM a 4:3 aspect ratio TO 16:9.
I can properly display web sites if I *set ZOOM to 130%.
I can find settings for min and max zoom in about:config.

I wish to *FORCE DEFAULT ZOOM* to 133%.
How?


1. In about-config change the values of
toolkit.zoomManager.zoomValues
from "0.5,0.75,0.9,1,1.2,1.5,2"  (without the quotes)
to "0.5,0.75,0.9,1.33,1.4,1.5,2"
(without the quotes)
2. Stop SM

3. Start SM

4. Then click on "View" - "Zoom" then 133%

Sometimes I nned to perform steps 2 to 4 again, again, and
finally all is ok.
I had the same problem reverting my string to
"0.5,0.75,0.9,1,1.2,1.5,2" (without the quotes)


I tried that without success.
I'm using SM 2.40 { under Windows or Linux } and notice that my defaults
for
toolkit.zoomManager.zoomValues are
"0.5,0.67,0.8,0.9,1,1.1,1.2,1.33,1.5,1.7,2,2.4" .
What version of SM do you use?

I also experimented with setting it in user.js with no better success.
I'll not have opportunity to experiment more until the weekend.






Once more with complete instructions.

Use Edit > Preferences > Appearance > Content.

Under *Zoom Options*, set "Range from" to 133 and "to" also at 133.

Enable the other options in that section as you prefer. The options are:

"Zoom only text instead of full pages"
"Remember zoom levels on a per-site basis"
"Resize large images to fit in the browser window"

Click "Close".

Restart the browser.


--
Visit Pittsburgh 
Coexist 
National Popular Vote 
Ubuntu 16.04LTS
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: I THINK I FOUND THE WAY - Re: How to set DEFAULT zoom level

[Richard Owlett]

On 01/25/2017 03:22 PM, Ray_Net wrote:

Richard Owlett wrote on 25-01-17 15:21:

I've just changed laptops. The CRITICAL difference is the
change FROM a 4:3 aspect ratio TO 16:9.
I can properly display web sites if I *set ZOOM to 130%.
I can find settings for min and max zoom in about:config.

I wish to *FORCE DEFAULT ZOOM* to 133%.
How?


1. In about-config change the values of
toolkit.zoomManager.zoomValues
from "0.5,0.75,0.9,1,1.2,1.5,2"  (without the quotes)
to "0.5,0.75,0.9,1.33,1.4,1.5,2"
(without the quotes)
2. Stop SM

3. Start SM

4. Then click on "View" - "Zoom" then 133%

Sometimes I nned to perform steps 2 to 4 again, again, and
finally all is ok.
I had the same problem reverting my string to
"0.5,0.75,0.9,1,1.2,1.5,2" (without the quotes)


I tried that without success.
I'm using SM 2.40 { under Windows or Linux } and notice that my 
defaults for
toolkit.zoomManager.zoomValues are 
"0.5,0.67,0.8,0.9,1,1.1,1.2,1.33,1.5,1.7,2,2.4" .

What version of SM do you use?

I also experimented with setting it in user.js with no better 
success.

I'll not have opportunity to experiment more until the weekend.



___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SSL_ERROR_NO_CYPHER_OVERLAP on videosift.com web site

[Frank-Rainer Grahl]

I can access the website via https in SeaMonkey 2.48 and 2.49. So it 
should sort itself out. FF 51 is 2.48 so I wonder why it does show an 
error? You sure you have tLS 1.1+ enabled?


FRG


Ant wrote:

Hi!

Recently, http://videosift.com added its secured connections but 
Mozilla's Gecko based web browsers (e.g., Firefox v51 and SeaMonkey 
v2.46) show errors like this in SeaMonkey web browser:


"Secure Connection Failed

An error occurred during a connection to videosift.com.

Cannot communicate securely with peer: no common encryption algorithm(s).

Error code: title="SSL_ERROR_NO_CYPHER_OVERLAP">SSL_ERROR_NO_CYPHER_OVERLAP


The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because the authenticity 
of the received data could not be verified.


 Please contact the website owners to inform them of this problem."


https://s28.postimg.org/9id7f2tjx/ssl.jpg for a screen shot/capture from 
SM's Page Info's Security tab.



I could reproduce this error in both of my computers (64-bit W7 HPE SP1 
OS & 64-bit Linux/Debian Jessie/stable)'s SeaMonkey v2.46 web browsers. 
Also, Firefox v51 in my Debian box. I could not reproduce it in W7's 
IE11 & Debian's Chrome v50 web browsers that aren't based on Mozilla's 
Gecko engine.


I e-mailed the web site owners and got this reply: "The problem seems to 
be that your browser doesn't support newer, securer

SSL protocols (TLS v1.1+), as I just disabled SSLv3 which is no longer
deemed secure, and that must be the only protocol your browser supports.

Can you look into updating your browser so it uses modern, secure SSL
protocols? That would be better to keep everyone secure (as opposed to
keeping our SSL insecure just so your browser can use it)."


As you guys know, both Gecko based web browsers are the (lat/new)est 
stable versions which I told them. "Can't they be made to also support 
modern protocols?" is what they asked. So, I am asking you guys on how 
to resolve/fix this security connection issue.


Thank you in advance. :)


___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SSL_ERROR_NO_CYPHER_OVERLAP on videosift.com web site

[Ant]

I was just told that the administrator fixed it after he investigated 
and tried different things. It now works. I hope it stays that way. :)



On 1/26/2017 12:12 AM, Ant wrote:

Hi!

Recently, http://videosift.com added its secured connections but
Mozilla's Gecko based web browsers (e.g., Firefox v51 and SeaMonkey
v2.46) show errors like this in SeaMonkey web browser:

"Secure Connection Failed

An error occurred during a connection to videosift.com.

Cannot communicate securely with peer: no common encryption algorithm(s).

Error code: SSL_ERROR_NO_CYPHER_OVERLAP

The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because the authenticity
of the received data could not be verified.

Please contact the website owners to inform them of this problem."


https://s28.postimg.org/9id7f2tjx/ssl.jpg for a screen shot/capture from
SM's Page Info's Security tab.


I could reproduce this error in both of my computers (64-bit W7 HPE SP1
OS & 64-bit Linux/Debian Jessie/stable)'s SeaMonkey v2.46 web browsers.
Also, Firefox v51 in my Debian box. I could not reproduce it in W7's
IE11 & Debian's Chrome v50 web browsers that aren't based on Mozilla's
Gecko engine.

I e-mailed the web site owners and got this reply: "The problem seems to
be that your browser doesn't support newer, securer
SSL protocols (TLS v1.1+), as I just disabled SSLv3 which is no longer
deemed secure, and that must be the only protocol your browser supports.

Can you look into updating your browser so it uses modern, secure SSL
protocols? That would be better to keep everyone secure (as opposed to
keeping our SSL insecure just so your browser can use it)."


As you guys know, both Gecko based web browsers are the (lat/new)est
stable versions which I told them. "Can't they be made to also support
modern protocols?" is what they asked. So, I am asking you guys on how
to resolve/fix this security connection issue.

Thank you in advance. :)

--
"The greatest enemies of ants are other ants, just as the greatest 
enemies of men are other men." --Auguste Forel
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see 
this signature correctly.

   /\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
  / /\ /\ \Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
 | |o   o| |
\ _ /If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
 ( )   Axe ANT from its address if e-mailing privately.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

SSL_ERROR_NO_CYPHER_OVERLAP on videosift.com web site

[Ant]

Hi!

Recently, http://videosift.com added its secured connections but 
Mozilla's Gecko based web browsers (e.g., Firefox v51 and SeaMonkey 
v2.46) show errors like this in SeaMonkey web browser:


"Secure Connection Failed

An error occurred during a connection to videosift.com.

Cannot communicate securely with peer: no common encryption algorithm(s).

Error code: title="SSL_ERROR_NO_CYPHER_OVERLAP">SSL_ERROR_NO_CYPHER_OVERLAP


The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because the authenticity 
of the received data could not be verified.


Please contact the website owners to inform them of this problem."


https://s28.postimg.org/9id7f2tjx/ssl.jpg for a screen shot/capture from 
SM's Page Info's Security tab.



I could reproduce this error in both of my computers (64-bit W7 HPE SP1 
OS & 64-bit Linux/Debian Jessie/stable)'s SeaMonkey v2.46 web browsers. 
Also, Firefox v51 in my Debian box. I could not reproduce it in W7's 
IE11 & Debian's Chrome v50 web browsers that aren't based on Mozilla's 
Gecko engine.


I e-mailed the web site owners and got this reply: "The problem seems to 
be that your browser doesn't support newer, securer

SSL protocols (TLS v1.1+), as I just disabled SSLv3 which is no longer
deemed secure, and that must be the only protocol your browser supports.

Can you look into updating your browser so it uses modern, secure SSL
protocols? That would be better to keep everyone secure (as opposed to
keeping our SSL insecure just so your browser can use it)."


As you guys know, both Gecko based web browsers are the (lat/new)est 
stable versions which I told them. "Can't they be made to also support 
modern protocols?" is what they asked. So, I am asking you guys on how 
to resolve/fix this security connection issue.


Thank you in advance. :)
--
"If I find one beer can in that car, it's over!" --Red; "And no donuts 
either! Ants!" --Kitty from That '70s Show pilot
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see 
this signature correctly.

   /\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
  / /\ /\ \Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
 | |o   o| |
\ _ /If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
 ( )   Axe ANT from its address if e-mailing privately.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey